Zimmerman directed to stay in his car again!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 2013

The New York Times is astounding: Truly, the New York Times is astounding. The paper defies belief.

Its latest collection of howlers concern the Zimmerman trial. They appear in today's news report by Cara Buckley, who replaced Lizette Alvarez on the Zimmerman beat in yesterday’s paper.

We should have known it was curtains for Alvarez when we praised her fairness. Yesterday, Buckley flirted with error. Today, though, she goes whole hog.

First example:
BUCKLEY (7/3/13): Officer Serino’s testimony, in the second week of the trial in Seminole County Court, was the latest setback for prosecutors, whose witnesses have repeatedly helped bolster the defense’s case. Mr. Zimmerman has said he shot Mr. Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, in self-defense after he was attacked on a drizzly night in February 2012. Prosecutors say that Mr. Zimmerman, who identifies as Hispanic, racially profiled Mr. Martin, who was black, and followed the teenager through the town house complex where Mr. Zimmerman lived and Mr. Martin, of Miami, was visiting.
Are you kidding? In a pretrial ruling, Judge Debra Nelson specifically ruled that prosecutors wouldn’t be allowed to say that Zimmerman “racially profiled” Martin.

Prosecutors wanted to say that. The judge ruled that they could not.

Granted, they have said it elsewhere, but that was quite a blunder. Soon, though, it was followed by a blatant howler:
BUCKLEY: Other pieces of testimony may also have reflected poorly on Mr. Zimmerman. Officer Serino, who took the stand again on Tuesday, said the expletives that Mr. Zimmerman used as he was pursuing Mr. Martin connoted ill will—a necessary component in a second-degree murder conviction. The police officers were also clearly disturbed that Mr. Zimmerman, a community watch volunteer, got out of his car to pursue Mr. Martin on foot, especially after a police operator had told him he need not do so.
Good God.

On-line, the Times has fixed this groaner. We’re showing you the text as it appears in our hard-copy Times, which, not unlike Joe McCarthy, we hold right right here in our hands.

But good God! As everyone knows except MSNBC pundits, Zimmerman wasn’t told by the dispatcher that he should stay in his car. The exchange in question came later, after he was out of his truck, following Martin on foot.

The claim that Zimmerman was told to stay in his car is a highly visible part of this case’s propaganda. It’s a familiar, basic part of the misinformation cycle. It’s astounding that the New York Times could still be making such basic errors at such a very late date.

That particular error was so basic that someone at the Times even noticed. Quickly, though, Buckley generated further concern:
BUCKLEY (continuing directly): Last week, a young woman who had been on the phone with Mr. Martin that night testified that he told her he was being followed by a “creepy” man, and that she later heard her friend crying, “Get off, get off.”
Did the young woman in question really say that? For whatever reason, Buckley chose to clean up a rather colorful statement which has been widely discussed.

On Twitter, Buckley has already responded to a complaint about the cleaned-up quote. It isn’t that her text is “wrong.” It’s just that it’s weirdly selective.

But good grief! It’s astounding that the New York Times could still be advancing the claim that Zimmerman was told to stay in his car. The (uncorrected) statement about “racial profiling” isn’t a whole lot better.

Everybody makes mistakes, but the Times is truly astounding. Last week, the paper somehow managed to report that Paula Deen “admi[tted] in a court deposition that she has used...jokes that denigrate blacks.” In fact, Deen directly denied that claim in two separate colloquies in that deposition.

How do you make mistakes like that if you’re a nation’s paper of record? Today, the paper of record repeats a claim which has been debunked a million times. And the paper is making these groaning mistakes about the highest-profile cases in our pitiful discourse.

Presumably, Times reporters made these mistakes. The newspaper’s editors didn’t notice. Where on earth do they find these people?

Don’t tell us! Out in the Hamptons?

65 comments:

  1. The defense has been emphasizing what the non-emergency dispatcher actually said, which included urging Zimmerman TO follow.

    "Tell us if he does anything else" and "Let me know if he does anything" and "Which way is he running?" Finally they say they don't "need" him to follow and he says OK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the overt directives to monitor Martin's actions are irrelevant.

      What matters is that the dispatcher later on says "we don't need you to do that," a non-instruction that has been transformed by propaganda into a directive meaning "don't do that."

      Delete
    2. Why don't you guys use your fucking brains?

      Number 1. The dispatcher was probably assuming that Zimmerman had a legitimate reason to be calling them in the first place. Like for instance if the "suspect" was doing something wrong or suspicious like trying to break into a home. The dispatcher didn't realize she was talking to a fucking idiot with less common sense than god gave a goose. (and who should never from here on out be allowed a license to carry a concealed deadly weapon)

      Number 2. The dispatcher obviously thought she was talking to a normal neighborhood watch person who ALREADY KNOWS not to follow a suspect and to let the police do their job. She didn't realize she was talking Charlie Bronson want to be. Obviously, from now on, when George Zimmerman calls, they're going to need to start asking him questions from the first second. Like, okay are you carrying a loaded weapon with the a bullet chambered? Well we don't need you to do that sir. Are you following the suspect? Well, remember all those classes you took when they told you not to do that? Well, DON'T DO THAT!

      Delete
    3. So it's not what *actually* happens that's important -- We can discount all of that, and all the misrepresentation of it that's occurred.

      It's mm's mindreading that counts.

      Got it!

      Delete
    4. "Let me know if he does anything, OK?"

      "Yeah we've got someone on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else."

      "He's running? Which way is he running?"

      "Which entrance is he running to?"

      Delete
    5. Because Zimmerman was just hatched out of an egg that day. Anything that occurred even one day before doesn't matter. If the dispatcher didn't specifically tell him not to do it, then it's not his fault if he's so stupid he ends up killing a teenager doing nothing wrong.

      Delete
    6. Let me know if he does anything, OK?"

      "Yeah we've got someone on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else."

      "He's running? Which way is he running?"

      "Which entrance is he running to?"

      Once again to the thick headed. The dispatcher didn't realize she was talking to a paranoid nut case Bronson-want-to-be.

      There's nothing in those questions to imply them telling Zimmerman the blockhead to follow the suspect. That's goes against all the fucking rules of neighborhood watch.

      Delete
    7. And yet that very dispatcher testified just the opposite...how he did everything correctly as trained.


      Quit making shit up. Read the testimony.

      This is why Bob think's the left has gone off the deep end.

      Delete
    8. The prosecution will not prove that he continue to "follow" (as he was legally permitted to do) rather than look for an address to give the dispatcher who was badgering him to provide more information on Martin's actions and whereabouts. In your fantasyland, it happened anyway.

      Delete
    9. I would love to read the testimony in its entirety. Could you direct me to a site where the transcripts are available?

      Delete
    10. The whole trial is on video.
      Won't be hard to find.

      Delete
    11. Why are you commenting if you don't know the testimony? Why make claims that you don't know to be true or false?
      That's pretty sad, don't you think?

      Did you even read what Bob wrote about people like you?

      Delete
    12. mm doesn't even know "She", is clearly a he. and yet, here he/she is spouting off about the phone call. Good call Bob. Idiots abound.

      Delete
    13. I made one point. It is a fact that Zimmerman didn't need to be told not to follow the "suspect". I note that you can't deny that so you lash out at me because you don't like what I said. I asked for a link to the transcripts. Nobody seems to have one, yet I don't see anyone else quoting transcripts. I'm particularly interested in the dispatcher's testimony where he says Zimmerman did everything correctly, except for the when he had to be told not to follow the suspect and ended up killing someone.

      Bob is exactly right about the reporter. Bob has always demonstrated the complete unprofessional incompetence of our media. They can't ever get simple facts right. But that's irrelevant to the main issue. Zimmerman took a series of stupid actions that night and wound up killing an innocent kid.

      It's amusing to me how all the conservatives who are always flapping their gums about people taking personal responsibility for their actions are now jumping at the chance to relieve Zimmerman of his responsibility for what happened that night. You start walking down a dark street following someone you don't like (f'king punks) with a loaded weapon and a bullet chambered, then you better know what the fuck you're doing. Zimmerman was a pussy and a coward. He gets in a fist fight and shoots a person in the heart because he needed a bandaid.

      Delete
    14. mm, There are two main issues. How much responsibility does Zimmerman bear for Martin's death and does any of that responsibility rise to the level of criminal liability?

      Bob wages a continuing rhetorical fight against narrative as a substitute for fact, and regardless of which of the above you think is "the main issue," you tend to have more of the former than the latter. A short list:

      1. "Zimmerman took a series of stupid actions that night." We're not even sure of all the actions Zimmerman took that night. In retrospect, his actions ended up with tragedy, but what made them "stupid"?

      2. Zimmerman "wound up killing an innocent kid." Martin wasn't a "kid"; he was a minor, 17 years old. Although we don't know exactly what happened in the last minutes of his life, from what we do know, death seems tragically excessive for the worst he could have done. But was he innocent of contributing to the circumstances? This is important for the legal half of the issues.

      3. "Zimmerman was a pussy and a coward." And you know this how?

      4. "He gets in a fist fight and shoots a person in the heart because he needed a bandaid." There's evidence that Zimmerman got hit, but is it really a "fist fight" if he didn't punch back? Did he? Martin was shot in the heart, but did Zimmerman shoot him in retaliation for minor wounds. Or was it fear or panic or a blunder?

      You're treated dismissively here because you don't check your words against what we know about the incident. Here's a test: "loaded weapon with a bullet chambered" is a phrase that satisfies a lot of narrative. The gun was certainly loaded. How do you know a bullet was chambered? That is not a rhetorical question.

      Delete
    15. You know, you can take your condescending lectures and stick them where the sun don't shine.

      I know a bullet was chambered from the testimony of

      "Amy Siewert, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement firearms analyst, was the last witness to testify before lunch. She exhibited the 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun that Zimmerman carried, and testified that Zimmerman had a full magazine and a bullet in the chamber when he fired the shot that killed Martin."

      Because dumb fuck still had a full magazine in his pistol after he killed Martin. This is not in dispute. You know, a handgun with a fully loaded magazine wasn't quite enough for dumb fuck while patrolling his neighborhood. He needed that extra bullet just in case.

      He's a pussy and a coward. That's my opinion. He didn't punch back?! Maybe that's because he's a pussy and a coward and has to settle the matter that he created with a shot to the heart.

      Delete
    16. Hello mm,
      Have you ever seen a police officer or any armed security officer get in a fistfight? Doesn't happen. When you are carrying deadly force and you are in a situation that may warrant its use, you do not fight that way. That would be stupid. Also, you seem to know Zimmerman was way overarmed but how do know what he was up against. You don't seem to know how much weaponry there really is in these Southern states, often indeed in the hands of real thugs and criminals no doubt.
      It is especially stupid to call someone horrible names when you yourself don't know what you are talking about. Because it reveals to the world that you are only projecting your own self-image. You can only be looking in your own mirror.
      You really should try to get over being a pussy and a coward. It's OK, Lots of us are also cowards and pussies. No shame. You will be OK. The old macho bullshit behaviour of being good at hitting people in the face is over. They invented guns for self-defense. It changed everything, for better and worse. But know this, mm, it is you who is the coward and the pussy. That's my opinion.

      Delete
    17. mm, Yours is a fair comment, although if you don't mind, I won't take your advice on what to do about it. Even if you do mind, come to think of it. But I am being condescending, because that's the way I am with people who can't distinguish their narrative from fact. Amy Siewert did testify that a bullet was chambered, but wasn't that after you wrote your "loaded with a bullet chambered" comment on Thursday morning? And, sadly no, Zimmerman didn't still have a full magazine after he shot Martin. Not that that makes any difference to Martin.

      But I think there's hope for you yet. You actually looked up evidence for an assertion. You recognize your statements are opinion. You use the word maybe.

      Is it clear that I'm still condescending to an addict of his own narrative?

      Good.

      Delete
  2. My wife has a concealed carry permit. I've always told her if she is knocked down and beaten, no matter what harm the next blow might cause, just wait and see what happens before using the gun. I trust others who hope to see Zimmerman convicted would advise their wives similarly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's applicable not just to women but also "punk" men, of course.

      A real man though must defeat their aggressor outright otherwise they are a "punk" and should "wait and see what happens" as they are beaten, just as you sagely advise.

      Any woman or punk who takes only a partial beating and then shoots an aggressor ought to feel the full force of the law, naturally.

      Delete
    2. If my wife were followed by a creepy cracker, I would advise her to shoot him before he shoots her.

      Delete
    3. Me too. But if she's on the ground being wailed on, I'd tell her to be reasonable and wait and see.

      Delete
    4. Is your wife (that you know of) in the habit of following strange men around in the dark? Assuming she isn't, the "my wife" analogy falls apart rather quickly. Normal people aren't in the habit of following strangers around in the dark. That's the realm of creeps -- and punks, especially when they lack the guts to do it without a gun. Armed punks following strangers around at night is going to end badly -- it's just a matter of time.

      Delete
    5. I could see her being a busy body and calling cops on someone hanging around outside a house, and if she knew the cops were almost there I could see her feeling strong enough to go find an address, with her gun and all. I've told her if that ever happens and she gets punched in the face, thrown on the ground, and her head beaten against the concrete, keep taking it because you never know, it could turn out OK.

      Delete
    6. If she is nosy enough to call the cops and risk offending or intimidating her "suspect" by going out to find an address, she should be forced to make the choice between taking her beating or serving 25 to life for not taking it.

      Delete
    7. First of all, the idea of somebody's wife walking out at night after a "suspicious person" is laughable. But we'll ignore that now as the product of feverish emotions, and focus on what this statement means in context. Because you see, what we're dealing with here is not a hypothetical: we have a real set of facts, and so don't need the nonsensical "busybody wife" stuff.

      In reality, Martin wasn't "hanging around" somebody's house. He was lawfully walking down the street on the way back to his dwelling. That's how stupid and dangerous Zimmerman's behavior was: in order to defend it, people have to make up a fantasy scenario about their "busybody wife," and start defending that, instead of defending what Zimmerman actually did. And what Zimmerman did was INEVITABLY going to lead to trouble. Only idiots do it. The one guy's wife's choice of a husband nominates her as an idiot already, so who knows, she might just be stupid enough to go chasing after strangers in the night, but most other people have sense enough not to do that sort of thing. It's really too bad Zimmerman didn't have the sense, either. It's why police departments tell people not to do it, it's why neighborhood watch groups tell their members not to do it. There's something wrong with anybody who drives around a neighborhood at night with a gun in their car reporting a lawfully behaving pedestrian as "suspicious" and then following them around. Whatever happens in this trial, that fact isn't going to change, and whatever someone says about how their "busybody wife" might have acted in an entirely different situation isn't going to change it, either. Martin is dead because Zimmerman was (still is, judging by his behavior during all this) a dangerous punk with poor judgment who behaved the way dangerous punks with poor judgment behave. But if Zimmerman kept it up (and he had repeatedly been reporting black males as "suspicious" for months prior to this) it was only a matter of time before somebody ended up dead or seriously injured.

      Delete
    8. Hang him for leaving his truck in the presence of black people.

      I'm glad you didn't let yourself be confused by the evidence. Totally ignoring it is a fine strategy.

      Delete
    9. Right on! We're in agreement that if my wife is nosy enough to call the cops on someone she finds suspicious, then, since she's packing and knows the cops are coming, decides to walk in the same direction he walked in order to find a house number, she should let him break her face and pound her skull into concrete. I'll tell her you agree she should just let it go on and on and hope for the best, but NOT use her gun, because that's only fair. He might have felt offended or scared too.

      Glad we agree on this. I knew I'd find some likeminded, sensible people among the champions for Trayvon.

      Delete
    10. Poor George, he just got out of his truck and look what happened to him.

      Then we've got the other guy's wife, who's getting dumber and crazier by the minute. Nobody said she couldn't (and shouldn't) call the cops on "suspicious looking people." But nothing Martin did was suspicious, and Zimmerman didn't stop at calling the cops on him, anyway: he pursued the kid, while armed.

      Delete
    11. I gave you the identical set of facts but substituted my wife as the one doing the suspecting and getting the beating, and you seem reluctant to say she should allow herself to continue to be beaten and not use her gun. Why?

      Do you find yourself suddenly understanding that the person in Zimmerman's position (a person other than the individual MSNBC has "profiled" and taught you to hate), was being victimized and was entitled to self defense?

      Or do you still think Zimmerman was not entitled to defend himself, and you just don't want to admit publicly you think a woman in the same situation should also keep taking the beating?

      Delete
    12. Did your wife not give the dispatcher the address? Because Zimmerman didn't either.

      Delete
    13. Dispatcher

      What address are you parked in front of?

      Zimmerman

      I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address.

      Dispatcher

      Okay do you live in the area?

      Zimmerman

      Yeah, I...

      Dispatcher

      What's your apartment number?

      Zimmerman

      It's a home it's [house number removed], (knocking sound) oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.

      Dispatcher

      Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?

      Zimmerman

      Yeah that's fine.

      Dispatcher

      Alright George, I'll let them know to meet you around there, okay?

      Delete
  3. "Did the young woman in question really say that? For whatever reason, Buckley chose to clean up a rather colorful statement which has been widely discussed."

    All the news that's fit to print.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, she didn't reference GZ as "man" she only referenced his race, with a slur.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "a police operator had told him he need not do so" The operator told Zimmerman in effect that he should not pursue Martin. The Times account is not absolutely unambiguous - nor indeed was the operator's instruction - but Bob's hair-splitting on these things is ridiculous. People, including police operators and newspaper reporters, don't always express themselves with absolute precision.

    Most of these details will not be important in the ultimate verdict, which will most likely be determined by the prejudices of the jury members. Or perhaps they will seize on some particular detail which might seem irrelevant to everyone else. The world will not come to an end if the Times' reporting is not strictly accurate in every particular.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But it's consistently inaccurate in one specific respect. That's the problem. It goes out of its way to paraphrase in a way that is intentionally misleading.

      To call that hairsplitting is, at best, missing the point, and likely simply dishonest.

      Delete
    2. Following him? The confrontation happened very close to Zimmerman's vehicle. Which hadn't moved. The sworn testimony of the prosecution's star witness states Martin was at, or very close to the condo he was staying in. Zimmerman's vehicle was nowhere near that condo. Following him? You are not making sense.

      Delete
  6. Anyone who claims there is anything about the case against Zimmerman certain beyond a reasonable doubt is cuckoo.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Of course, it really is irrelevant whether the dispatcher told him not to follow the quote "suspect" - he had already been told multifple times by the neighborhood watch not to do it and for the love of god, this wasn't his first time doing this. He had to know what the proper procedure was. This wasn't his first time at this dance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sacred rules of the local neighborhood watch!

      Delete
    2. Isn't relevant to what It's definitely relevant to whether or not dispatchers told him that, which is the point of this post.

      Delete
    3. Excuse me. It isn't relevant whether the dispatcher told him before or after he started following Martin that they didn't want him following Martin. Zimmerman already knew he wasn't supposed to follow any suspect in his capacity of neighborhood watch. Of course that fact was a little inconvenient to Zimmerman, because as he so eloquently repeated multiple times, "these f____king punks always get away"

      Delete
    4. Yes, hit him wife the stiffest penalty Florida has. I hope it's the chair.
      That's what everybody should get for following a suspicious person from a distance.
      Let him fry.

      Delete
    5. "Not following" is for the NW person's own safety. Sometimes NWers DO observe criminal activity and decide that they don't need witnesses. We wouldn't want to have someone in the NW get ambushed and beaten simply for being a good neighbor.
      Would we?

      Delete
    6. ^^depends. What colors are the beater and beatee

      Delete
  8. Rant and a FrownJuly 3, 2013 at 1:22 PM

    Groundhog day.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There were only about 400 calls to police that year from Twin Lakes and about two dozen break ins. Good luck convincing anyone Zimmerman's calls were excessive.

    ReplyDelete



  10. AnonymousJuly 3, 2013 at 2:54 PM

    If my wife were followed by a creepy cracker, I would advise her to shoot him before he shoots her


    Good idea. Shooting someone for following will get you a long prison sentence, absent a real threat, of course.
    You've just discovered a new way to divorce someone, give them bad advice and wave goodbye as they are carted off to prison.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Poor George, he just got out of his truck and look what happened to him.

    Then we've got the other guy's wife, who's getting dumber and crazier by the minute. Nobody said she couldn't (and shouldn't) call the cops on "suspicious looking people." But nothing Martin did was suspicious, and Zimmerman didn't stop at calling the cops on him, anyway: he pursued the kid, while armed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The voices in your head should be listened to. They are your last grasp on sanity.

      Delete
  12. "nothing Martin did was suspicious"

    til knows this.

    Stop laughing at him, he just knows it. He just knows lots of things. He wasn't there, yeah. So?

    ReplyDelete
  13. From the reporting I've heard, Martin was behaving suspiciously. It was raining and he appeared to be going up onto people's porches to stay out of the rain. That could appear to be checking out homes for a break-in. It is not simply walking home with his skittles. He was also talking on his phone and thus not walking along purposefully in a straight line for home. That may have made him look suspicious and not like a pedestrian going somewhere. So, I disagree that Martin did nothing suspicious. There are enough African American people in that area that simply being black wouldn't be enough to be suspicious without some other behavior. You still have to ask why he focused on Martin and not someone else, if he is going to pick on innocent people not behaving suspiciously in any way. What caught his attention? People who suggest that Martin contributed nothing to the situation are not using their common sense either, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Martin was in the backyard of a house where GZ knew that no one was home and that had been broken into and robbed, recently.
    Even without the rain, that would be suspicious.
    Don't you agree?

    Martin ran between a couple houses, private property. That is suspicious.

    Martin circled GZ's truck, tugging, per testimony, at his wasteband and making eye contact. GZ also testified that he thought TM was going to confront him until he (TM) saw GZ on the phone.
    Suspicious.

    BTW, the SPD combed the area a couple of days later and found a burglary tool (Slim Jim prybar)I some bushes by Manolo's house. The exact place where TM allegedly attacked GZ.
    Nothing tied it to TM (or anybody else) but it is interesting nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank dog Zimmerman shot Martin. The 17-year old is some kind of super-human or something. First he broke Zimmerman's nose and bashed his head on solid concrete without getting a single speck of blood on his hands and shirtsleeves. Then he grabbed Zimmermsn's gun without leaving any DNA evidence on it.
    The kid would have turned science back hundreds of years if he had lived.

    Berto

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right, it's much more likely those were self inflicted injuries and Zimmerman knew at the time he was giving police his statement that his neighbor and state witness who saw the event would be telling the same story because they planned it all ahead of time.

      Delete
    2. Nah. Like I said, he was probably some kind of super-human alien shape-shifter of some sort. I guess we could ask Zimmerman if he takes the stand, since his word is considered gospel.

      Berto

      Delete
    3. And yet the prosecution, with all the info they had, never brought it up.

      You are the problem that Bob has been writing about.
      Just. Plain. Stupid.

      Delete
    4. Well there's the fucking problem. You're watching the wrong trial.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592246-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martins-dna-not-on-zimmermans-gun-dna-analyst-testifies/

      Delete
    5. Anonymous July 4, 2013 at 2:14 PM,

      I don't want to post my personal email here, so you can just reply with an apology for calling me stupid here along with your mea culpa for not knowing what you're talking about.
      Thanks in advance,
      Berto

      Delete
  16. The timing will be discussed at length next week and everyone will know Martin had more than enough time to get to his Father's house and every opportunity to avoid jumping Zimmerman and beating him up.

    At that point, we will be back to "All you need to remember is an innocent child was walking home from 7-11 armed with nothing but skittles." My guess is we will also hear some wondering aloud about the period of time between when Martin left 7-11 and when he was first seen by Zimmerman.

    A suspiciously behaving, probably high individual who did not live in the neighborhood but was there because of a school suspension. For those who need further evidence of whether it is likely he was behaving suspiciously, there is no shortage of reporting about backpacks containing stolen jewelry and 1,000 photos on his cell phone of guns, drugs, and other indicators of good citizenship (photos that were hidden from the defense until a conscientious bureaucrat blew the whistle). Also texts about his fighting hobby and getting kicked out by his mother.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous on 7/4/13 @ 1:29P,

    Too bad Florida can't dig up Martin and try him. For bad citizenship at least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trayvon's final act of good citizenship was a felony, possibly attempted murder.

      Delete
  18. Anonymous on 7/4/13 @ 11:27P

    Which felony was that?

    And have you informed the court of your evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Zimmerman is INNOCENT! Say it. You will feel much better!

    ReplyDelete