Are children being scared to death because of Trayvon Martin?


Anderson Cooper, Part Deux, and a devoted mother: Are children being scared to death because of the death of Trayvon Martin?

Last night, Anderson Cooper aired Part 2 of his attempt to discuss “Race and Justice in America.” Overall, we’d call his efforts weak. In a later post, we’ll discuss comments made last night by Sunny Hostin and Mark Geragos, who conducted a vaudeville act with Cooper each night during the Zimmerman trial.

We think topics like these deserve better. They won’t likely get it from Cooper.

Last night, Cooper spoke with a mother who is concerned for her 14-year-old son. Christy Oglesby works for CNN in Atlanta. It’s perfectly obvious that she is a good, decent, smart, caring person.

Oglesby is concerned for her son. At one point, she described her son’s reaction to the Zimmerman verdict:
OGLESBY (7/23/13): I've certainly done my best sacrificially to give him the education he needs, to give him the world exposure that he needs. And it is heartbreaking. And what you said—

On Saturday night, I made sure that I was at home when the verdict came in. I had been at work, and I made sure I was at home. And what he said to me, is "So for the rest of my life, mom, I'm a suspect?" And how does that make a mother feel?

And it's something that—you know, and what I have to explain to him is that, "Drew, it is not your burden. This is someone's perception of you. And what someone thinks of you is not what you have to think of yourself."


So it is a rough road, because I didn't want to fall out in tears when he says, "So for the rest of my life, I'm a suspect?" So I waited until he went to bed before I wept.
For the rest of his life, is this young man a suspect? We wondered why the verdict made him ask that question. More specifically, what has this young man been told about the events of that night in Sanford? What has his decent, devoted, caring mother been told about those events?

Many people have gone on TV and misled that young man. Cooper, a child of great wealth and best-dressed-list vacuity, has permitted various people to do this night after night.

Why did George Zimmerman describe Martin that night as “a real suspicious guy?” Was Martin actually doing something odd or inappropriate? Was he doing something that would have made him seem “suspicious” to a reasonable person?

Because we weren’t present that night, we can’t tell you. But how often have you seen any discussion of what Zimmerman said that Martin was doing, first during that 911 call and then to police investigators?

On cable, Zimmerman’s claims have been declared beyond the pale. Beyond that, there have been very few discussions about the claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman as he walked back to his truck.

Is that claim true? Again, we don’t know. But some of the evidence from the trial was directly relevant to this claim. But did you ever see a discussion of that evidence? For example, did you ever see a discussion of where the altercation occurred?

Cable has been dominated by Soviet-style story-telling. All suggestions that Martin may have done something tragically wrong have been declared beyond the pale. As a result, children all over the country have been handed a tremendously frightening story:

An innocent child who had done nothing wrong was shot dead, shot through the heart.

They’ve been told that this child was shot through the heart because he was back. That is the only story millions of kids have been told.

Parents have heard that story too. They too may not realize how much is being withheld.

Did Trayvon Martin do something suspicious? We don’t know, but obviously, it’s possible.

Did Trayvon Martin attack George Zimmerman? Same answer. But on cable, very bad people have issued a witch brew composed of two kinds of facts. Many of their facts have been false.

Others have been withheld.

Very bad people have crawled over cable to discuss the Zimmerman trial. It takes a special kind of cretin to want to scare millions of children (and parents) so much—to scare them by refusing to give them the full range of the known facts.


  1. News:

    If you think people who care about their children may have been misled by the media about what is known to have transpired that tragic evening in Sanford, and that this may impact what they tell their children, you are condescending to them!

    No one's misled by the press!

    Why they simply know what happened and what to say based on their own life experiences!

    So, you know, you can stop paying attention to the press, now, Bob: it's irrelevant and condescending!

  2. Where did they learn about what transpired except in the press?

    Granted, they (or some) may have watched the actual trial. But if they did why are some (many?) repeating falsehoods that were shown to be, if not wrong, debatable in that trial?

    Shorter: Where did they learn these falsehoods? If not the media, where?

    And how is this condescending? People, of all races, in America "know" all sorts of things that aren't true. In some case these non-truths are received from the media. Bob writes about the lies that Fox tells its viewers. And the lies that MSNBC tells about its viewers.

    Why is it all of a sudden condescending? Is it condescending to talk about those who think Obama was born in Kenya? Or other garbage?

    People - of all races - have been told things about this tragedy that are simply not true. And those inaccuracies are affecting how they view America and how they raise their children. That needs to be discussed.

    1. "That needs to be discussed."

      Although it has been discussed, your point is that it needs to be continually discussed, no?

    2. Anon 11:19 was sarcasm, and was based on a new type of tactic from the apologists for the race-baiters -- apologists exemplified by deadrat in an earlier thread, where he(?) specifically called this line of thinking "condescending" and implied that people's impressions on this case were not shaped by the media they'd consumed, but that they somehow just knew what was going on via their own "life experiences."

      Other commenters seem too to be taking the tack now.

      It's an embarrassment to reason.

    3. And just, in time, as I composed my reply, we have at 12:12 that other standard anti-TDH trope:

      Even though the problem continues, it's just too much that Somerby should also continue to address it.

    4. Sorry, I (I was the 11:59 post) missed the satire. I haven't followed/read all of the posts here.

      In any case, I'm not sure all of the people making this argument are race-baiters. Wrong, misguided, short-sighted but not race baiting.

      As to continually being discussed: Where? This is a relatively obscure blog (sorry Bob). I don't see this discussion going on elsewhere.

      And the overall discussion of political ignorance among the people and the media is one that's pretty much the purpose of this blog anyway? Isn't it?

    5. Anon@1218: then your answer to my question is "yes".

      Thank you.

    6. That person ("continually discussed") was a quite typical anti-TDH poster -- reason and facts are irrelevant to him/her. If you remain here long, you will become depressingly familiar with the type.

    7. Anon@1227: Well put, Carnac.

    8. As if mindreading were necessary to discern "Don Aragon's" M.O... Eyes alone will do.

  3. When the president comes out and essentially says that Martin is dead because Zimmerman is a racist (and honestly how can his most recent speech be interpreted any differently?) the blame for the presumptuous story-telling can be directed far beyond the characters in cable talk shows and at the NYT.

    The all-black Bill Cosby sees the facts of the case and can't allege racism, while the half-black Obama is more than happy to pin it on just that. Makes it kind of hard to deliver the message of personal responsibility as is Cosby's MO when the prez himself is cutting the legs out from under you.

    1. I am the same guy who has replies in this thread already at 11:19, and 12:15, and because it might seem at first that I'd agree with you 12:15 Anon, let me say: "No."

      The "message of personal responsibility" has ALWAYS been problematic in that it tends to ignore the problem of *actual* racism.

      Having said that, the bigger problem here, IMO, is the widespread abuse of the Martin/Zimmerman case as a basis for speaking about *actual* racism, given that there is so little evidence that such a thing was at work in the incident.

    2. Hey ya'll:

      If you scroll down under "select profile" you find and option for "Name/URL." That way you can avoid all the confusing myriad anonymouses.

    3. cacambo - they won't listen. I'm assuming the usual TDH readers are somewhere near Bob's age and it's all they can handle just to understand that pushing the tab button doesn't make a can of soda dispense from the dvd drive.

    4. Can you really be finding it "confusing?" If so, that says more about you than anything else.

    5. Yes, it's confusing. It's turning the comments stream into an unintelligible mess.

    6. Confusing? Hmmmm.

      One guy named Anon sez: Obama's wrong to call "race"; it makes it harder for the right guys like Cosby to say what needs to be said about "personal responsibility."

      Another guy named Anon sez: While he agrees Zimmerman/Martin's not about race, he disagrees with the "personal responsibility" schtick of Cosby, which doesn't admit that often things really are about race.

      That really wasn't very hard.

      None of the other voices in this part of the thread are saying much of anything except whining about Anonymous Anonymousness. Yawn to that.

    7. How do you know it's another guy? Perhaps it's the same guy having a conversation with himself? He's named the same thing anyway, so could be.

      I think these morons actually believe that the name/url option is only for people who host their own web site or something. Hilarious.

    8. Do you see how this works, at last, Marcus?

      I'm not you.

      3:06's explanation was spot on -- I know those are two different guys, because I AM (ONLY) ONE OF THEM.

      Meanwhile, here's a comment by "you" that's not by you.

    9. Oh yeah, I guess you're right. None of the comments that are arguing about Anonymous are adding anything at all.

      Sorry for being so stupid.

      The real Marcus

    10. Great. Another ignorant Anonymous weighs in at 12:15P. Apparently you had the capacity to remember my nym but not the intellectual integrity to report what I actually wrote. Oh, well. Serves me right for not posting as Anonymous.

      Here: let me lay it out for you. I'll type slowly so you can follow. Sound out the words if you have to.

      Everybody's impressions are shaped by their sources of information. Nobody knows external events solely through the interiority of the mind. These propositions are so obvious that that a reasonable person would take pause before deciding that's what I must have meant.

      I find it condescending to conclude that the experiences of black people make them particularly prone to follow demagogues. I find it condescending to decide that anger and distrust, however ill-informed, are largely "ginned up," and don't resonate from people's experiences. I call it callous to dismiss black people's expressions of dismay as inappropriate for public discussion until the next MLK holiday rolls around. I think it's insultingly ignorant to call Zimmerman's treatment a "lynch trial" just like the ones that supposedly happened in the bad old days.

      Clear now?

      And, by the way, how would you spot an embarrassment to reason, apparently not being acquainted with either one?

    11. Anonymous at 1:22 PM

      I was referring to the comments threads on this site in general as cacambo was pointing out. Especially the immediately preceding thread.

    12. "Everybody's impressions are shaped by their sources of information."

      The sources of information have been woefully biased, lazy and ignorant (as you acknowledge below at 3:34).

      To be straight-up truthful about it, those sources have spread a narrative about the case that has been grounded in the supposed racist actions of Zimmerman and police.

      And yet, and yet, and yet.

      One must never supposed that the animosity that has been generated over the case is largely due to that lazy, ignorant, biased narrative.

      NONONO! That's condescending!

    13. "When the president comes out and essentially says that Martin is dead because Zimmerman is a racist (and honestly how can his most recent speech be interpreted any differently?)...."

      I guess since no one is going to call this out, I will. I listened to the speech carefully, and you are lying. And I love "honestly"...oh, the irony...the irony...

  4. Trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong when Zimmerman targeted him. You don't have to know what happened to know that if Zimmerman had kept his pudgy keister in his vehicle, no one would've died. No assumptions about who started what are necessary.

    1. It's easier to live under that simplistic delusion, isn't it?

    2. Zimmerman doesn't have to stay in his car in his own community. Sorry.

    3. If Zimmerman hadn't got out of bed that morning, none of this would've happened.

    4. Not only that, what if Zimmerman had never been born! You really have to blame his parents for conceiving him, if you ask me. Anything that happened after that is beside the point.

    5. Oh, I see. So every event that has ever occurred in the universe that culminated in Zimmerman's killing of Martin is on equal footing in terms of its moral relevance. So Martin's alleged first punch is the moral equivalent of, say, Zimmerman's deciding to go to Target that night. That's good to know. So Zimmerman is just as much at fault after all. You guys are geniuses.

    6. If the universe had never been created, none of this would've happened.

  5. Oh, Bob.

    At times you can hit the nail on the head.
    The Holstin-Geragos routine on CNN was a vaudeville show.

    At times you can ask a critical question, sometimes without knowing, I assume, it has already been asked and answered.

    "Why did George Zimmerman describe Martin that night as “a real suspicious guy?” Was Martin actually doing something odd or inappropriate? Was he doing something that would have made him seem “suspicious” to a reasonable person?

    Because we weren’t present that night, we can’t tell you. But how often have you seen any discussion of what Zimmerman said that Martin was doing, first during that 911 call and then to police investigators?"

    Apparently you don't know the answer because you get your news from cable TV and nexis searches of newspaper articles disseced to support your narrative.

    You want to know what Martin was doing to act suspicious?

    As best I can tell he was simply walking along in the rain, "looking about." Period. How do I know this? Because that was how Zimmerman described him in the 911 call. Want a better explanation? So did Detective Serino. So he asked him that very question.

    "Serino: here we go. And like I know how to do this part. OK, this is your 911 call.
    (plays tape 0:00 to 0:08)
    Serino: OK, real suspicious guy.
    Zimmerman: Mm hum
    Serino: OK, one more time, why suspicious?
    Zimmerman: Ah, it was raining and he was looking into the houses, looking behind, looking at me. He wasn’t walking quickly to get out of the rain. Didn’t look like he was, like, trying to head home. He didn’t look like a hard-core athlete that wanted to, like, train in the rain or anything. And he just looked out of place.
    Serino: OK.
    (plays tape 0:07 to 0:21)
    Serino: On drugs why?
    Zimmerman: Oh, cause he just kept looking around, looking behind him, looking, just kept shifting where he was looking.

    So now you have your answer, Bob. From Zimmerman himself.

    Still want to discuss it? Still want to tell parents they are wrong to suggest to their kids that even the innocent act or walking about in the rain and looking around could cause an armed man to tail them?

    1. We get that he was cutting through yards and looking into houses per Zimmerman's account. He spent something like 30 minutes doing this according to the timeline. If I as a white man had caught the attention of a neighborhood watch captain based on this I would probably attempt to defuse the situation or, you know, just continue home rather than leave my final destination to return to the last place I saw the guy and give him a beat down.

    2. If you get thirty minutes out of the seven and a half minutes between Zimmerman's initial call to the police and the time the gunshot if fired, then you are slower than Zimmerman walking back to his truck and Martin walking to the condo combined. Either that or your lizard brain is taking time to bask in the sun.

      It appears Martin was looking in all directions. No desciption of him being in somebody's yard at this point. Given the layout of the townhouse neighborhood, there aren't many directions you can look without appearing to be looking into houses. The asshole. Fucking punk.

    3. "he was looking into the houses, looking behind, looking at me. He wasn’t walking quickly to get out of the rain. Didn’t look like he was, like, trying to head home. He didn’t look like a hard-core athlete that wanted to, like, train in the rain or anything. And he just looked out of place."

      So now you have your answer. And, as Serino, said, "OK" that's why someone found him possibly suspicious.

      He'd have done you a favor if he'd said it was about Martin's complexion, but that didn't happen.

    4. Anon 1:26. Please post the exact quote where Serino supposedly said that. You want to know what Serino actually thought?

      Serino: OK, so you went through the…OK. But as far as identifying people and stuff like that as far as what to look for, what to make them really suspicious?

      Zimmerman: Um, just when we organized an annual, ah, Neighborhood Watch event. They told us…like a, I think, a PowerPoint presentation.

      Serino: OK, I wasn’t privy to that, but if you guys continue Neighborhood Watch, um, typically speaking at nighttime, um, the garb is black on black on black, with a black hoodie. Now this guy had a dark grey hoodie. It was dark, but his pants were beige. Not quite your, you know, your prime suspect type.

      Bob, you want to know why Zimmerman found him suspicious? Let Georgie explain.

      Zimmerman: Well, um, 2 or 3 weeks prior to that I’d seen somebody looking in the window of the house that he was in front of.
      Serino: Was he white or black?
      Zimmerman: Black.
      Serino: OK.
      Zimmerman: And the guy that lives there I know, he’s active in the neighborhood watch and he’s Caucasian.

      You see, 2 weeks ago a black guy was looking in a Caucasian's window.

    5. We heard what Serino thought when Serino testified in court that he thought Zimmmerman was truthful.

    6. Don't disturb mm.

      He prefers to mischaracterize a quite reasonably and properly adversarial questioning by police as proving that police don't believe Zimmerman.

      He doesn't care what happened at trial.

    7. Don't forget the black teens that invaded homes in Zimmerman's community.

      There was every reason not to rule out a suspiciously behaving black person as suspicious including out of some kind of warped social agenda.

    8. All I can add is that it is even beyond the laziness of repeating the narrative that Bob so often decries to fail, in this Information Age, to do a simple Google or Bing or whatever search to find out if Zimmerman actually was asked and answered questions about what made him feel suspicious about Trayvon Martin that night.

      Instead, we get out of Somerby, in his attempt to milk this story one more day, "Did Trayvon Martin do something suspicious? We don’t know, but obviously, it’s possible" when in fact we DO KNOW what Zimmerman told the cops that night.

      And it certainly wasn't much, was it?

      But ignore any fact when it doesn't fit Somerby's "We don't know" narrative, and let's continue to pretend that Somerby is the wise leader who truly has a handle on all this as he and his Zimmerman Defense Team tribe milk another day, another week, another month, rehashing the same things, post after post, day after day.

    9. Anonymous @ 3:17P

      Yeah, this rehashing it just getting old. How about we stop talking about it until say, next January. How about MLK day? Is MLK day good for you?

    10. Anon 1:26.

      You can't answer the fucking question can you? Where did Serino say what you said he said? Post it. jackass

      Please post the exact quote where Serino supposedly said "OK" that's why someone found him possibly suspicious.

    11. Serino said he believed Zimmerman. Zimmerman gave multiple accounts of his suspicions including while on the phone. Zimmerman's neighbors are likely all the less secure for not having him around now, since there is unlikely to be anyone as dedicated to watching out for and reporting suspicious activity.

    12. "Please post the exact quote where Serino supposedly said "OK" that's why someone found him possibly suspicious."

      Someone (you?) already posted it. Can you read?

      I merely quoted an already-posted quote of Serino, dummy.

      Look at what was posted, in bold (by you? -- certainly by someone who agrees with you wholeheartedly) at 12:53PM.

      Get a grip, M&M.

      Munch on some Skittles -- they'll fix your state of mind.

    13. You're making it sound like Serino was agreeing that these were good reasons to be suspicious, when in fact if you read the entire context of that part of the questioning Serino is clearly saying the exact opposite to the point where he is questioning Zimmerman's training in how to identify potential suspects. You quote Serino saying "OK". Big deal. That doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

      **Serino: OK, so you went through the…OK. But as far as identifying people and stuff like that as far as what to look for, what to make them really suspicious?**

      I really don't know what this argument is about anyway. The defense basically conceded that Martin being black added to Zimmerman's suspicions.

    14. I just want to be clear on the ground rules here.

      When Serino traps Zimmerman in lies and inconsitencies in his story, it's just "adverserial questioning" and we're not to make anything of it. If Serino appears to be agreeing with Zimmerman, even when you want to misinterpret the context, then that's important.

      Is that about it?

    15. Nope you dope.

      When Serino merely replies "OK" after Zimmerman describes what he claims made him suspicious of Martin, YOU don't get to decide what that means,, just so as to make your storytelling satisfying to YOU, to the exclusion of other reasonable interpretations, such as, for example, interpretations supported by the statements of police and witnesses on the stand in the trial, which sadly for you, undermine your preferred tale.

      And yes, again, sadly for you, the questions and statements of police questioning a subject in an investigation will ALWAYS be understood as being adversarial and that adversarial character of questioning is will NEVER in itself, be evidence of anything.

      If you could but understand that small fact, you'd help yourself greatly.

      I'm not hopeful, based on your track record thus far.

    16. Hey jackass. I didn't decide "OK" meant anything. Attaching significance to "OK" came from the mother hens explaining away Zimmerman's lies and inconsistencies. Which is by the way the very fucking reason police question suspects -to expose such lies and inconsistencies. And I don't know what the hell you're talking about but Serino was a witness and these lies and inconsistencies to Zimmerman's story were explored during the trial. The questions of the police aren't evidence, you ass. The obvious lies in the answers are.

    17. Except for one thing: they're "obvious lies" to no one but yourself.

    18. And feel free to (attempt to) provide the trial transcripts where "these lies" of Zimmerman's were noted to be "obvious lies."

      You'll need some sort of witness saying that.

      It won't be good enough to just provide assertions by a prosecuting attorney.

      Although it is by now perfectly clear that there IS a serial liar involved in the case: the Martin family's counsel.

  6. Marcus,
    That. Or maybe Anonymous decided not to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy with violence in his past. (As opposed to the kid who skipped school and smoked pot).

    1. Since you seem mentally incapable of scrolling down to name/url OR clicking the "reply" button instead of "add comment", I have no idea what you're referring to.

    2. Marcus,

      This one:
      Marcus July 24, 2013 at 12:49 PM

      It's easier to live under that simplistic delusion, isn't it?

  7. Right Bob, you were not there that night in Sanford, but you know enough to know that the single most important action; the one self consuming thing that Trayvon Martin was doing while Zimmerman followed and studied his every move, was concealed in every comment made by Zimmerman to police dispatchers and others.



    1. I am afraid it means that Mr. Somerby, like the multi-millionaire journalists he decries,
      has his own narrative too. He is capable of error and shortsightedness because he is human. His poo stinks too, but he won't admit it. But he is saving civilization from our inept intellectual elites. So it's OK. Got it?

    2. You forgot, he was also deciding to double back to break Zimmerman's nose.

    3. Gee, Anon. @ 1:17 I guess we all missed when Martin was deciding to do that nose breaking business. Was that before, after, or at the same time "Zimmerman was "deciding" to shoot the fucking punk so he wouldn't be another "asshole" who always got away.

      Knowing when another person makes a decision is a key reason why the lizard brain is superior to the human one.

    4. I'll bite: what does it mean that Martin was on the phone?

    5. mm,

      According to Rachel Jeantel, and I didn't see it contradicted anywhere, Martin was using a hands free accessory while talking to her on his cell phone that night. So how would someone watching him be able to tell Martin was talking on a cell phone?

    6. Martin was meandering about talking on his cell phone and reached his father's girlfriend's house at one point before deciding to go back up to where George Zimmerman had a right to be in his own community, and attack George Zimmerman.

    7. Anon at 12:57,

      Yes, Martin was on a cell phone. With Jeantel. And for the umpteenth time Jeantel said, on the stand, that Martin had told her he reached his father's fiancee's place.

      Now why would she say that if that wasn't true and, if it was true, why didn't Martin just step inside?

      If Martin steps inside instead of doubling back to attack Zimmerman he doesn't get shot, no?

      I have a fantasy of Judge Judy handling this case.

    8. Both Martin and Jeantel were using bluetooth earpieces. There's no reason why Zimmerman should have even known Martin was on the phone.

    9. "Yes, Martin was on a cell phone. With Jeantel. And for the umpteenth time Jeantel said, on the stand, that Martin had told her he reached his father's fiancee's place."

      Show me, with her actual testimony where she said this. Look at the interactive map of the events of that night. Martin's trail never gets anywhere near the house he was staying at.

    10. If I recall correctly, Jeantel said she was using a Bluetooth device but that Martin was using something with a microphone on a cable, and, I got the impression, an earbud or earbuds.

    11. The house he was staying at was less than 80 yards from Zimmerman's truck. A 12 second jaunt for a healthy male.

    12. "Both Martin and Jeantel were using bluetooth earpieces."

      Please show me the evidence photo of the bluetooth earpiece found at the scene. Please post any link to any evidence at all that he was using an earpiece or bluetooth device. Because the only thing in evidence is his flip phone.

    13. mm,

      Discovering that Martin was likely using a hands free device and that that would explain why Zimmerman would not know he was on his cell phone and, given that you thought Zimmerman's failure to mention Martin's cell phone use during his non-emergency phone call and in his "entire interview with the detectives on February 29" was something that fundamentally undermined Zimmerman's credibility and made it unlikely Zimmerman had reason to think Martin was behaving suspiciously, are you now rethinking things? If not, why not?

    14. I stand corrected. It does appear that ear buds were found for the flip phone Martin was using. It does explain why he failed to notice that Martin was talking on a cell phone. It doesn't change the fact that Martin was not doing anything fundamentally suspicious.

    15. "mm, are you now rethinking things? If not, why not?"


      Because every super important, highly telling, critical piece of wrong information I have is only critically important until I discover that, being wrong, it's not at all important, but that my preconceived conclusion must be supported in any event regardless and therefore some other piece of wrong information is the next super important, highly telling, critical one that proves I'm still right no matter how wrong I always have been and continue to be.

    16. mm,

      "2:45 p.m. ET: Jeantel says she told Martin to start running but he said he was close to his dad's fiance's home. Then Martin told her he was going to start running 'from the back.'"

      Please keep in mind that on the PD recording after Zimmerman has described him as running away Martin had a 14-second head start before we hear any kind of moving sounds from George Zimmerman. Then after 21 seconds (17 after PD told him "we don't need you to do that") the sound stops and GZ spends the next minute and a half arranging to meet with the Sanford PD. By my count that gives TM a one minute and 44 second advantage over Zimmerman. In all there is about a two minute and five minute period between the time Zimmerman gets out of his vehicle and the end of the call during parts of which Trayvon was supposedly running.

      If you'll look at the map and the picture to its right, you'll see that the distance from where Zimmerman's truck was parked and the site of the fatal struggle is about a half-a-minute walk. The distance to Martin's father's fiancee's place is about a two-minute walk. This raises and interesting question: Where the hell was Martin all this time and why was he not considerably farther away? I mean, I could have made it to his Dad's fiancee's place in that amount of time just strolling.

      C'mon, mm. Isn't the best explanation that Martin either double-backed or was lurking waiting for Zim?

      I'm working a graveyard and have to hit the hay. Later, folks.

    17. Braintree;

      Am I missing something? Where does Rachel say that Martin told he reached the house where he was staying.

      "2:45 p.m. ET: Jeantel says she told Martin to start running but he said he was close to his dad's fiance's home. Then Martin told her he was going to start running 'from the back.'"

      And then she said, after this, Martin said something like "Oh shit, he's back"

      Maybe he's waiting and waiting for Zimmerman to move on, but Zimmerman is blocking his path to get to his house,screwing around trying to get his flashlight to work. Until finally Martin realizes the dumbass isn't going to move so he steps out from wherever he was watching Zimmerman and says, "Why are you following me?"

      See, I can write a story too. And it fits with all the evidence because Zimmerman never returned to his vehicle and has never given a logical explanation for why.

    18. "mm" at 4:40pm,

      How about going with "shorter mm [would say]:" rather than commandeer someone else's pseudonym.

    19. more fun my way

    20. mm, a video of her testimony is here:

      At 2:04 she says: "I asked him where he at, and he told me he at the back of his daddy fiancee house."

  8. These people LOVE wallowing in drama even (especially?) when it damages their children.

  9. It appears it wasn't "iced tea" it was Arizona Watermelon Drink. O'Mara says it is one of the ingredients in Purple Drank or Lean, the other being hard candy.

    There is a discussion about Lean in Martin's cell phone texts.

    1. The skittles and iced tea never proved anything one way or another. However, it's ironic that items that ought to have fueled suspicion about Martin's possible illegal drug use were instead taken as proof of his angelic innocence. IMHO the media['s backwards interpretation illustrates their ignorance, bias, and laziness.

    2. DAinCA,

      "ignorance, bias, and laziness."

      If it were in my power to grant you the gift of self-awareness, I'd do it just to watch your head explode.

    3. That would be a good gift for DAinCA, granted.

      However, he's not exactly wrong about the overall tenor of media coverage, at least in this one case. Laziness, bias and ignorance have indeed tended to prevail.

      DAinCA's overall record though is piss poor, to be generous about it.

    4. Anonymous @ 3:13P,

      You're right that DAinCA isn't wrong. He's exactly right. The toilers in the media are ignorant, lazy, and biased. I'm sure DAinCA means liberal bias instead of the actual biases -- toward sensationalism, celebrity, and pleasing narrative.

      But the irony was too great to resist a comment

    5. "... just to watch your head explode."

      Can you do that with bots?

    6. Be that as it may, there is no more ponderous a wanker on here than deadrat.

    7. Hey, Anon @1:46,

      I've read the version of Trayvon's cell text
      posted by an Orlando TV station after Zimmerman's legal team released them to the media. I see no reference to Lean. Perhaps you can link to an authoratative source where such a reference can be found? And please, not a video of a TV talk show host of any ideology.

      I also followed Mr. O'Mara's suggestion and googled Lean, Purple Lean, Purple Drank and sampoled numberous recipes. Not one called for use of watemelon flavored AriZona products or Skittles, but Sprite and Jolly Ranchers. Neither, however are the key ingredient. Codeine/prometh is. And the effect is lethary and impaired motor skills, which nuts on the right can use to explain Martin's slow walking and nuts on the left can use to refute Zimmerman's claim that MArtin could be a skilled fighter.

      In any event, I found no link to liver damage, which O'Mara implied in the interview to which you link. Guess that puts him in the "two shots fired" category. Just another scumbag lawyer willing to trach an innocent victim.

    8. Anonymous @ 4:02P

      Now that would have hurt my feelings. If I had any.

      Is it my writing style that you find objectionable? Or the content of what I write? Or didja just feel the burning need to take the conversation to your level by calling someone a wanker?

      I'm guessing the last. In which case I'm happy to oblige.

      Feel better, now? Good.

      You can run along now.

    9. Anon, @4:04

      Yes, the distance from the truck to the hosue was 80 yards. Which begs the question why Trayvon didn't make it to the house AND
      why Zimmerman didn't make it back to his truck. We do know, from Zimmerman's own interviews, that despite saying he was looking for a street sign, he proceeded past the street in his three street neighborhood whose name he could not remember all the way to his own street. Why? Because he was still looking for Martin? After being told "We don't need you to do that?"

    10. Anon at 5:08 -- no lethargy & motor problems because he hadn't consumed the stuff yet. The skittles in his pocket were unopened. He had smoked grass however, which would not necessarily affect motor responses but would affect judgment (based on driving studies).

    11. "He had smoked grass however,..."

      You don't know that. He had trace amounts of THC in his system. No one can say how recent he may or may not have smoked pot.

      I'll bet half the people in that courtroom, including the lawyers, have at one point or another in their lives had trace amounts of THC in their blood system.

    12. Based on the amount, experts said he either smoked with the past 2 hours or was a habitual user. It wasn't trace amounts -- if by trace you mean trivial or insubstantial.

    13. Really? What expert(s)? If it wasn't trivial, it was malpractice for the defense lawyers to not introduce it to the jury.

      I repeat, you don't know as a matter of fact that Martin smoked pot that night.

      As I understand it, Trayvon Martin had the following: 1.5 nanograms THC per milliliter of blood.

      As a neuropsychopharmacologist who has spent 15 years studying the neurophysiological, psychological and behavioral effects of marijuana, I find this line of reasoning laughable. The toxicology exam, which was conducted the morning after Mr. Martin was killed, found a mere 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of blood of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, in his body. This strongly suggests he had not ingested marijuana for at least 24 hours. This is also far below the THC levels that I have found necessary, in my experimental research on dozens of subjects, to induce intoxication: between 40 and 400 nanograms per milliliter. In fact, his THC levels were significantly lower than the sober, baseline levels of about 14 nanograms per milliliter of many of my patients, who are daily users. Mr. Martin could not have been intoxicated with marijuana at the time of the shooting; the amount of THC found in his system was too low for it to have had any meaningful effect on him.

  10. Nice article about black youngsters who are a heck of a lot better role models than Trayvon Martin.

    1. Great! Next, how about a link to Creepy Crackers We've Known and Loved?

    2. Why do some folks insist on only examining the character and behavior of Martin and not Zimmerman too?

      There were two parties involved here.

      Try looking at this incident through Martin's eyes. He didn't know who GZ was. Just as GS was suspicious of TM, TM had legitimate reasons to be suspicious of GZ.

      This tragedy was the result of misinterpretations and misunderstandings of two people (three if we include the dispatcher). Not just one person.

      Sure, there are folks on the other side who only consider GZ's behavior and exclude TM's.

    3. SMGalbraith, first of all Z knew that M didn't live in that development. M OTOH had no reason to expect to know who Z was.

      Anyhow if M was suspicious of Z, he could gone to his residence. He could have spoken civilly to him. He could have called the police. But, sucker-punching Z and pummeling his head against the sidewalk was not a appropriate way to deal with his suspicions.

    4. And if Z was suspicious of M he could have stayed in his damned truck.

      And how did Z know that Martin didn't live there? I've never heard that. Did Z know every person who lived in that complex?

      As to the sucker punching et cetera, that's alleged and not proven.

      Stop giving Zimmerman a damned pass on this. I agree with the jury's verdict but Zimmerman was reckless and irresponsible.

    5. Anon@510: Went yard on DinK!

    6. @lee tommy

      Off speed cheese over the middle from a righty. But I might as well come out of the dugout and tip my cap.

  11. tell it Bob. you have nailed this Zimmerman thing.

    they spent 10 minutes on Erin Burnett's clown hour asking "Can George Zimmerman be Redeemed?" from what? an act of self defense?

    my loathing for CNN is beyond the loathing i have for Fox. Fox, at least, believes in something - something wrong, but say what you will, it is a credo. CNN believes in following the crowd, pandering to whomever they think watches them in the hope of making ratings and $.

    is there any way the BBC could form a channel just to cover American news and broadcast it in america? that would be a decent source of news. we don't have a decent source of cable news in the US.

    1. Redeemed from being the violent, but fueled by paranoia, citizen his actions lo these many years show him to be.



  12. I have spent my professional life as a an indigent criminal defense attorney and though I was not shocked at the verdict I do see the ugly double standard at work, and fully understand what upsets people so deeply.

    I have watched juries turn a blind eye to the evidence brought forth by crying black children who faced real armed mortal threats.

    Because of this risk I have plead out children with bullet holes to prison time rather than run the risk white juries indifferent to black life. And this fool gets the a not guilty for shooting an unarmed child he accosted. Clearly you do seem to grasp that title to that book you love Savage Inequalities is equally apt to our criminal justice system.

    Since you certainly dont reserve your tongue for anyone Id say its a shame you weren't there to parse the mythology behind Emmitt Till and the sneer at the beliefs those mothers told their children Master Sommmersby

    1. "he accosted" -- Well, at least now we know that you're not a very *good* lawyer.

    2. It's disgusting to even compare this case to Emmett Till.

    3. No wonder you're an indigent attorney