Hello Brad,

The "CORPORATE OWNED MEDIA" is working in cahoots with the "MILITARIZED" Police Forces to cause problems. The goal is to trigger events and then be the "HERO" by eliminating the problem by 'FORCE". The reporters must make all others the "ENEMY". The people who lie will get promotions while those who will tell the truth will be punished. BIZARRO WORLD is here.

The military, police, and the mainstream media in bed doin' it to the people.

Who'd a thunk it 'cept Brad and we the people who read the Brad Blog.

Ah, that pest, Brad Friedman. Always letting the facts get in the way of a good yarn --- The MSM

In related matters, heard this on Lawrence O'Donnell last night. These are the kinds of instructions given to juries BEFORE the stand your ground law idiocy.

"The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force. The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force".

Between the media inflaming the situation with little accountability, the passage of insane laws like Stand Your Ground, the unequal application of the law--as demonstrated in both outrageous Trayvon Martin and Melissa Alexander verdicts, to proudly proclaim either that we are a nation of laws or that we have the best judicial system in the world is woefully far of the mark.

Brad,

"Getting it right matters."

Indeed it does. Thank you for doing that to the very best of your ability.

"Too often, nonetheless, it seems the media is rooting for trouble."

That certainly could be said about the entire Zimmerman-Martin case.

David @ 4,

With respect, David, I disagree with your assessment of the Zimmerman verdict as "outrageous." I've been following the case for awhile and feel quite convinced that there simply was no solid evidence that would indicate Zimmerman acted other than in self-defense, never mind Stand Your Ground.

In any case, whatever you believe about it, from the outset, the media ran with the most provocative and in some cases perhaps deliberately edited coverage to whip up as much emotional turmoil and increase ratings as far as they possibly could.

Stand your ground was not used as a defense and doesn't apply in this case at all. Self defense was used

Great report, Brad. Thank you. Commander Smith has a history of trumping up (read: outright lying) to media re: protest escalations and property damage. He did this all the time with OCCUPY.

Ho hum. Another day, another demon.

Appreciate you setting the record straight where these NBC bozos will not.

Lora,

For me characterizing what George Zimmerman did as "self-defense" is to stand reality and the meaning of words on their head.

George Zimmerman, despite recommendations from the police, went looking for trouble, created some, and then shot and killed an unarmed teen who may or may not have been attempting to defend HIMSELF against a man with a serious attitude problem and a loaded gun.

If that's self-defense I'm married to Mr. Clean.

Gotta have justification for when the AUTHORITY starts cracking heads (thus the term "crackers").

David,

I beg to differ with your assessment of what happened.

Some of the facts are as follows:

Zimmerman reported to the police on a non-emergency line that there was an individual he thought was acting suspiciously, perhaps on drugs, who appeared to be looking at the houses. There had been recent break-ins in the neighborhood.

There is no hard evidence that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin when he was told he "didn't need to do that."

Zimmerman sustained a broken nose and head injuries during their altercation. Martin's injuries besides the lethal shot were some abrasions on his knuckles.

At least one witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, making arm motions downward.

Screaming for help went on for at least a minute before the fatal shot was fired. There is no hard evidence as to whose voice it was.

You don't convict if there is reasonable doubt.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman was "looking for trouble" and "created some."

WingnutSteve regurgitated straight from Fox "News" world innacurately (again):

Stand your ground was not used as a defense and doesn't apply in this case at all. Self defense was used

Apparently you listened to wingnuts, rather than bothering to read the Judge's instructions to the jury, or the comments from the jurors.

Is there anything wingnut propagandists put out into the world that you don't fall for hook, line and sinker, Steve? Anything??

Lora,

I don't know what you're talking about. He was told to not pursue Martin. How did he end up out of his car confronting him if he didn't pursue him?

Trayvon Martin was doing nothing to anyone. He was walking home. He's dead. Shot by someone who knew about the stand your ground law and then lied about it.

If you want to be charitable you convict Zimmerman of manslaughter. He's guilty of unnecessarily killing another human being. That's supposed to be a crime.

USA Today, CNN, Business Insiders Weekly, the Atlantic, etc. Put down the koolade and think for yourself for a change. His lawyers DID NOT invoke stand your ground as his defense. Perhaps you should read something other than the radical left wing garbage you read, maybe you'd learn something. Or, do some forensic (snark) investigating...

re: this most recent difference of opinion between Steve and Brad.

I admit I'm confused here. On Chris Hayes tonight they said the same thing Steve is saying--that the stand your ground defense was not used by the defense(though they quote one of the jurors referring to it).

But if Lawrence O'Donnell is correct(see comment#4), the jury instruction in this case, in a dramatic departure from jury instruction prior to the law being changed, sounds straight out of the new stand your ground law and seems fundamental to the decision reached.

Hence, it seems to me it was used.

Can someone explain this?

WingnutSteve -

Let me make this easy for you, like I'm talking to a 3rd grader.

You said @ 7 [emphasis added for 3rd graders]:

But the judge's instruction to the jury said [on page 12, emphasis added for 3rd graders]:

And then, one of the 6 jurors on the case said [emphasis again added for 3rd graders]:

In case you're wondering, as the article by the "left wing garbage" source Marc Caputo cited above notes, FL's Stand Your Ground law "changed standard jury instructions, which previously held that a person had a duty to retreat by using 'every reasonable means'".

But, yes, other than that, as you point out, "Stand Your Ground...doesn't apply in this case at all."

Seriously, aren't you ever even a little embarrassed?

David Lasagna said @ 15 -

re: this most recent difference of opinion between Steve and Brad

It's not a difference of opinion, it's a difference of facts. Real ones, versus made up ones. Steve is correct, barely, in that the defense didn't argue their client was innocent because of the Stand Your Ground law ("Castle Doctrine"). They simply argued that everything he did was out of self defense. Since FL's self defense law was changed, from the requirement to flee in such a case, to the "right" to stand your ground, and since the burden was on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was either murder or beyond a reasonable doubt not a case of self-defense, the defense had no reason to reference the controversial (and deadly stupid) nick-name for that law.

It's the law, nonetheless, however, as the judge's instructions to the jury show, and as the juror who explained how they wrestled with, as also described for 3rd graders above, demonstrates. Hope that helps!

Brad @17,

I apologize for my imprecise language, point taken, and thanks for the clarification on whether this new horrible law was used or not.

That's what I thought, but have been confused by the repetition of the words "the stand your ground law was not used.."on MSNBC. Chris Hayes is usually clearer than that and what he allowed to be said on his show with little clarification was misleading.

Pretty bleak if MSNBC is purveying elements of the nonsensical notion of that law not being used in concert with Faux News.

The Zimmerman legal team determined that stand your ground was not an applicable defense and they did not use it as a defense. I stand by what I said earlier. The question about comments by O'Donnell is easily answered: He, like Brad Friedman, is part of the left wing noise machine who thinks they can just say whatever they want and folks will accept it as being truth.

David @ 13,

Zimmerman was already out of his truck when he was asked on his phone call if he was following Martin. He replied that he was. He was then told, "OK, we don't need you to do that." He replied, "OK."

I don't think there is any way to confirm whether or not he was lying about knowing about "stand your ground" (I agree with Brad --- it is a hideous name for a law that allows for the killing of a human being).

Zimmerman's injuries vs Martin's injuries (other than the shot that killed him) combined with the witness who saw Martin on top, would suggest that Zimmerman was getting by far the worst of a physical fight and may well have feared that serious bodily injury or death might result if he didn't defend himself. The evidence available at least casts reasonable doubt on the charge of murder 2 or manslaughter, IMO.

The media circus did not help. In one instance, NBC left out a significant part of the transcript of the audio of the non-emergency call --- the part where the dispatcher asks if the guy Zimmerman is calling about is "white, black, or Hispanic." Zimmerman replied, "He looks black" in response to the question. His reply out of context (Thank you NBC--NOT!) made Zimmerman appear racist, contributing to the hugely negative perception the public was developing for him. (My link above is to a youtube of the audio of the non-emergency call Zimmerman made.) Zimmerman may have jumped to conclusions about Martin, but not necessarily because he was black or wearing a hoodie, as so many would like us to believe. Rather he spoke of his behavior, and only described his appearance when asked.

The media spoke and showed their edited versions and the people followed along, all too eager to demonize Zimmerman.

Lora @20,

Okay, having listened to a few youtube things now I realize that I am largely ignorant of the "facts" of the case. So I will back off accordingly. I should have studied more before I got into an argument with you. In the two little things I looked at Zimmerman's story is at least consistent. And absent more info and an in depth study of the other side, I'm too uninformed to have an intelligent discussion about this.

On the one point of whether Zimmerman knew about Stand Your Ground--there is a clip of Sean Hannity asking him if he knew about the law and him asserting he didn't. But have also seen a clip of testimony of the guy who says he taught Zimmerman about the law in a class and that Zimmerman was one of his better students.

David,

No worries, and no argument here --- just a friendly discussion

I'm aware of the law class and I admit it is quite possible/probable even? that Zimmerman knew about Stand Your Ground, but then again...unless there's a correct exam question or essay or paper he wrote, there really isn't proof. Students, even good students, don't learn it all and they forget a lot also. Just ask any of my "good students" what they remember about my class! (Of course, it's math, so I know that's different!)

But I guess the take home lesson I got from this case is how, once again, the media distorts and shapes public opinion --- something of interest to Brad and Brad Blog readers.

WingnutSteve said @ 19:

I stand by what I said earlier.

To be clear, what you "said earlier" that I took issue with, was this: "Stand Your Ground...doesn't apply in this case at all."

You were 100% wrong, as I politely demonstrated by quoting directly from the judge's instructions, the juror's lament and the trial record itself (see the above discussion about Zimmerman's interview with Hannity about SYG, his law instructor, etc.)

But I guess actual documentation, as cited above, from the judge, the juror and the trial record are all comprised of, as WingnutSteve charges, "the left wing noise machine who thinks they can just say whatever they want and folks will accept it as being truth."

Yes, that pesky actual documentation of facts is nothing more than people saying whatever they want and folks accepting it as being the truth, when we all know that stuff that hasn't been proven with any evidence whatsoever is the actual truth in Steve's Wingnut World.

Clearly you have answered the question I posed to you at the end of my last comment to you above. The answer: No, you are not even a little embarrassed about being a stooge who regurgitates whatever RW meme you are told, no matter how silly the actual facts end up making you look.

Coming tomorrow from WingnutSteve!: Up is actually Down! Because, as everyone from Fox "News" to Rush Limbaugh agree, only the propagandists from the "left wing noise machine" think Up is actually Up! But that's exactly what those liberals want you to think and you're way too smart to fall for that!

You prove yourself to be a bigger idiot with every one of your childish comments Brad. You're supposed to be some kind of "professional journalist", act like it. Wait a minute, idiocy is common trait for left wing "journalists".

Found out I was correct and you were wrong, stand your ground was not used, so ya just find something else on which to attack. DAMMIT I SAID "AT ALL"! Maybe it does have some application to the situation as the judge determined. That doesn't change the FACT that the Zimmerman defense team determined it was not applicable, and did not use it as a defense.

No, Steve.

Having a temper tantrum will not help you here.

Your initial comment is there for all the world to see(and for you apparently to deny.) Here it is in toto--

Stand your ground was not used as a defense AND DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CASE AT ALL. Self defense was used

I put the offending inaccuracy in capitals so you could find it. Did you see it?

AND DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CASE AT ALL

So what's the deal with the continued gratuitous attacks on Brad for getting it exactly right(he even acknowledged the tiny part were you were correct) and the stubborn denial of easily observable reality?

An interesting side note to the site of the trial and of the Trayvon Martin homicide.

In the movie, 42, which is based on the true story of how Jackie Robinson broke the race barrier in baseball, Jackie and his wife travel to Florida, where they stay with another African American couple as Jackie is about to attend Spring training with the Dodgers and their Montreal minor league affiliate.

An angry, older white man approaches the house and tells the guy who is acting as Jackie's handler to promptly leave, lest he face violence at the hands of a white mob.

At the suggestion of Dodger owner Branch Ricky, Jackie is spirited away.

The year was 1946. The place was Sanford, FL.

I'd like to say I am surprised that Steve Snyder would continue to say that "stand your ground" had nothing to do with the acquittal even after Brad pointed to a jury instruction that specifically recited that Zimmerman had "the right to stand his ground."

But the truth is that Steve has proven, time and again, (with one rare exception) that as a right wing propagandist, he can never admit error.

Lora, another thing,

Yes, it sounds like he may have already been out of his truck when the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow Martin and he said okay, but then, according to his own account, he didn't get back in his truck. He kept walking around the neighborhood.

And this from a Marjorie Cohn piece today--

Two days after the shooting, Zimmerman's cousin, known as Witness No. 9, told a Sanford police officer in a telephone call, "I know George. And I know that he does not like black people." She added, "He would start something. He's a very confrontational person. It's in his blood. Let's just say that. I don't want this poor kid and his family to just be overlooked."

David,

Here's a link to witness statements. I didn't see the one you mentioned but I scanned them over quickly. I noted a number of witnesses stating Zimmerman was not prejudiced and very accepting of diversity.

Zimmerman has a black great-grandmother, BTW.

Yes, I'm aware that Zimmerman did not get back into his truck. He says, and I think the non-emergency call backs him up to some extent, that he was looking for a house number/street sign so as to give better directions to the police who were on their way. I also accept he could still have been looking for Martin.

However, his actions of phoning the "suspicious person" in to the police does not sound like the action of a vigilante to me.

David,

Zimmerman may be confrontational, although his tone on the non-emergency call does not sound like it to my ear. But if Martin was confrontational, and there is some evidence indicating it --- according to Zimmerman on the phone with the police department, Martin came up to the car and was checking him out --- anyway, if you have two confrontational people having a confrontation, the chances of someone getting hurt or killed would go up.

I seem to be missing something with some of these pro-Zimmerman arguments such as he was "defending himself".

I think of "defending himself", meaning Martin initiated everything and Zimmerman had to "defend himself". Zimmerman initiated the entire thing, and anything that happened afterwards would not have happened, if not for Z initiating the entire confrontation.

I think "defending himself" phrase is out the door, if Z initiated the confrontation. How can you "defend yourself" when you started the whole thing?

Maybe Martin was "defending himself", ever think of that? If you're stronger/bigger than the guy following you, what, you can't use the phrase "defending yourself"?

Big Dan,

First off, to be clear, I am not "pro-Zimmerman," but rather "anti-demonization of Zimmerman." I believe he did not get a fair shake in the media and certainly is not getting one now.

I agree with the verdict, not because I'm sure he's innocent, but because I believe there wasn't enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

We don't know for sure which man started the physical fight. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding from reading the blogs is that it probably didn't matter even if Zimmerman started it.

It's a confusing point, and I am going to quote from defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt in a comment on her blog, talkleft.com on which she has been blogging from the defense point of view (defense site) from the get-go.

I had a few arguments with her on this very subject and I don't feel confident that I fully understand it even now, but here is a part of one of her explanations (see comment 201) on self-defense (NOT stand your ground):

Emphasis added.

If Zimmerman is found to be the aggressor, the requirement that he exhaust (or not have available) a reasonable lesser means of response short of lethal force applies to the time period between when he was attacked by his assailant, the now-dead victim Trayvon, and before he responded to that attack using lethal force. That's the applicable time window. It does not apply and has no relevance to the time before Trayvon used force against him.

***

The aggressor statute states it applies to one who "initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself." It's not just any provocation and it's not about provoking fear in the victim. It's about provoking the force the victim used against him. The act of provocation has to be contemporaneous with the victim's use of force against the aggressor.

Even as an aggressor, one can respond with lethal force to the force the victim used against him if:

Such force [meaning the force used by the victim against the defendant-aggressor] is so great that the defendant-aggressor reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger[ meaning the danger that the aggressor-defendant believes he faces from the victim's use of force against him] other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the [victim-assailant.]

Lora,

You've studied this much more than I. You are more informed on many aspects of the case. Still I'd like to give a few general impressions here.

My sense is that in an effort to not give into what you see as yet another irresponsible media manipulation(of which there have no doubt been many) you've bent over so far backwards to give Zimmerman every possible benefit of the doubt and then some, that the rights of and benefits of doubt for Trayvon Martin no longer exist in any meaningful way. That's the part of your presentation here that I have the most trouble with.

Zimmerman says Martin looked "suspicious". You refer to him saying that as if to give it some value in his defense. But what does it mean? Martin was stopping and looking around? Really? Martin doesn't have the right to stop and look around? On his way to his father's girlfriend's house? When he's aware of some guy creepily following him for no apparent good reason?

There'd been break-ins in the neighborhood. Okay, but why wasn't Zimmerman just as likely a suspicious acting figure and candidate for malicious mischief as Martin? He was the one who was following a teenager who wasn't doing anything to anyone. Why does Zimmerman get the free pass?

Because the guy with the alternative narrative is dead.

I don't care how you parse it--Zimmerman was following a kid cuz he didn't like the look of him. He knew the kid was black. His derogatory remarks on the call sure sound like he's assuming Martin is already guilty of something. To me that makes it sound like he's got an attitude problem, beyond a reasonable doubt. He's told to stop following the young man. To me that means get back in your car and stop doing what you're doing. Not continuing on in the direction in which you last saw the "suspicious young black man in the hoody" heading.

From the little I have read it does not seem credible that Zimmerman didn't know of the Stand Your Ground law. To me it seems probable that's what emboldened him to pursue his paranoid suspicions.

In addition the law is an abomination foisted on the public by the NRA and Jeb Bush. Then later in a bunch of other states with help from ALEC.

Also, the defense lawyers seem like assholes.

Those are some of the reasons why I'm not at all sure Zimmerman(and by association, the team he's on here)are worthy of so much slack cutting.

Lora @31 wrote:

if you have two confrontational people having a confrontation, the chances of someone getting hurt or killed would go up.

Assuming that Trayvon was "confrontational" --- and I've seen no evidence of it, just as there was not one word admitted into evidence that Trayvon threw the first punch --- if one of those two people is armed with a gun and the other has only his fists, which one do you think is likely to be killed?

correction my own comment#4

Not Melissa but Marissa Alexander. Sorry.

David,

I have been following the case, although not nearly as carefully as many who read the blog I referenced, talkleft.com, an admittedly pro-defense site.

The reasons I appear to cut Zimmerman "slack" as you say are several and if you will bear with me I will try to explain.

At first when I heard about the shooting and killing of Trayvon Martin, I assumed, as so many people did, that Martin was the victim of racism, vigilantism, and horrible gun laws. I believed that a white cop-wannabe had jumped to a wrong, racist conclusion, and pursued, attacked, and gunned down a harmless black teenager who was simply heading back to his relatives' house.

When I began to examine the facts of the case, I discovered that the media was engaged in selective editing and interviewing (something Brad Blog readers are all too familiar with), quite possibly on purpose, that gave this impression to the world and ramped up unbelievable levels of hatred toward Zimmerman.

This is what I am attempting to counter.

I don't know if he was guilty or not, and neither do the multitudes of people and protesters who have assumed he was and that the jury was wrong.

It's not so much about cutting slack as giving him a fair shake, something I've convinced was not done.

Given the evidence I have reviewed of the case, it is not at all clear that Zimmerman pursued and then attacked Martin. Whatever happened in the lead-up to the fight, the evidence, something that the Brad Blog readers and Brad himself, care deeply about, very strongly suggests that Martin was beating the crap out of Zimmerman, not the other way around.

The jury, rightly so in my opinion, and echoing what I personally have thought, decided that given the non-emergency call Zimmerman made and given Zimmerman's injuries, that there was reasonable doubt that he acted with malice toward Martin and killed him other than acting in self-defense.

This is what our juries are supposed to do. You don't convict someone of murder if there is reasonable doubt. IOW, self-defense was a distinct possibility, given the evidence. Not a slam-dunk. The verdict was correct, IMO.

This is not to say he was innocent of the charges, but reasonably, given the evidence, he certainly could have been.

No one is giving that any consideration. The protesters, peaceful, and their supporters seem to be saying Zimmerman was racist, he was guilty, and he shot Martin because he felt Martin was a threat based on his black, hoodied appearance. Even when the majority of the evidence around the case suggests otherwise! The media had their hand in shaping public opinion on this case, contrary to much of the evidence available to all but selectively edited and distributed.

Should Zimmerman have gotten out of his truck? Well, listening to the audio of his call, it seems like he was trying to be helpful and tell the police which way Martin was heading. Remember he wasn't directly told to return to his truck. "We don't need you to do that," was how the "request" to stop following Martin was put. It's a matter of interpretation whether he actively stopped following Martin or whether, as Zimmerman indicated, he went looking for landmarks to relay to the police. The point is, we don't know, and to say we know he was still following Martin is just made up out of our heads.

'... the "suspicious young black man in the hoody..."'

Again, let me remind you that while Zimmerman described Martin as "suspicious," contrary to the perception given by NBC and other media giants he only described him as "black" and "wearing a hoodie" when asked by the police dispatcher for a description.

Did he jump to conclusions that Martin was suspicious and up to no good? Yes! Was it because of race? We Don't Know, and the evidence of the witnesses interviewed by the police seems overwhelming that Zimmerman was not racist. The cousin you mentioned who called in later, was not at the scene, and We Don't Know what her motivations were, but her comments went contrary to most other witnesses as far as I know.

Did he know about Stand Your Ground? As I said before, he possibly/probably did, but there is no hard evidence. His professor apparently didn't produce a paper or a test or a quote from class to back up his contention. Even if Zimmerman lied about it, does that make him a racist killer? Sorry, it does not.

I apologize for the length. Thank you for considering what I have to say.

Ernie,

Clearly you're right --- in a confrontation the one who is unarmed is most likely to get killed and in fact did get killed.

The only evidence which suggests to me that Martin might have been confrontational was the audio of Zimmerman's non-emergency call, in which he says that Martin is coming up to the truck, "checking him out." If you are being observed from a distance by someone in a truck, and you then go toward that truck and go close to the observer, you might be considered confrontational. Just an opinion. For example if I saw a "crazy-ass cracker" (as Martin described Zimmerman to Jeantel on his phone) watching me, I would beat it the hell out of there (non-confrontational).

It seems no less reasonable than to think Zimmerman was confrontational based on his cousin's phone call. Just kind of making the point about the labeling based on flimsy evidence.

We don't know who threw the first punch. Could have been Martin, could have been Zimmerman. But if Zimmerman threw the first punch, it either didn't land or didn't do any observable damage.

Lora: If you were walking alone and noticed some guy in a truck stalking you, would you consider yourself as being "confrontational" if you got close enough so that you could provide a good description of the guy who was following you?

I have to wonder how much your perception of this insignificant fact is based on both gender (Trayvon was a male) and race (he was also black). Would you arrive at the same conclusion for someone in the same setting who was female and white?

Ernie,

Again, I was mainly trying to make the point that if you label Zimmerman "confrontational" based on a phone call from his cousin, you could also label Martin "confrontational" based on his coming up to the truck.

BTW, there's no way I would approach a truck of a guy I thought was stalking me! But I think I understand what you're getting at.

You're actually making my point in another way. Trying to get a description to report to the police could be misinterpreted as "confrontational," just as Zimmerman trying to get a house number to tell the cops (if that's what he did) could have been misinterpreted as continuing to follow Martin.

Do I think Zimmerman would have called the cops on a white female behaving the same way? I don't know --- maybe think she was off her meds and lost, perhaps. Maybe call it in if her behavior seemed erratic.

Would the same behavior in the same circumstance be viewed by any of us exactly the same, if it was produced by a white female vs. a black male?

Lora -

It seems that you have taken every single conjectured theory from the Zimmerman defense and have forwarded it here as if it represented an accurate portrayal of what happened that night and of what Martin's character was like. Just about every single one, despite the lack of evidence to support it. Even while ignoring just about all the evidence that either suggests otherwise, or shows that Zimmerman lied about what happened that night, or that his character, not Martin's was of dubious nature.

I don't really care to get into a debate about the facts of the case itself, since my interest is in other aspects (the horrible law itself, misreporting on the reactions to the verdict, etc.) But, after having watched your notes here over the last several days, I wanted to just mention that point.

In other words, you have taken the defense case verbatim, as fact, unskeptically, no matter how speculative or unsupported, and turned it into "reality" as you have presented it in comments here. You seem to have shown zero skepticism for Zimmerman's point of view, and every skepticism about Martin's (and, worse, you seem to have accepted every negative, unsupported point about Martin and that night as fact, while all but ignoring the alternate and, to my mind, more likely, characterization of Zimmerman and the real facts of what happened that night.)

Brad,

I'm really hurt at the way you have mischaracterized my posts and attitude toward the case.

You, of all people, say you are grounded in fact, not opinion.

I know you have other things on your plate and agenda, and the ins and outs of the Zimmerman case probably are not high on your list.

However, at your leisure and as you wish, I totally challenge you to find where I have mis-stated the evidence of the case, or gone off on a totally unlikely interpretation of that evidence. Shoot me an email anytime you like (see the more frequently used email attached to this post), though again I know you are busy and I understand if you don't want to get involved in the minutia.

I fear you bought the popular, media-distorted version. I did, too, at first. I ENCOURAGE you to LOOK and LISTEN to the actual facts that are out there. Again, as you have time, I CHALLENGE you to find inaccuracies in what I have said (significant --- I don't mean saying "car" when it was a "truck," or mistakes like that, although I'd be glad to correct them if they are brought to my attention).

Also, if you read my posts carefully, you will see that I am NOT uncritical of Zimmerman's account. Reasonable doubt does not mean I buy everything the man said. It doesn't mean I think he is innocent. What I'm saying is, based on the evidence, WE DON'T KNOW that he's guilty! I am trying to counter the huge popular sentiment against the man, that he must be guilty, based largely, I believe, on assumptions unsupported by facts. The reason I didn't balance it out with how I felt about Martin was basically lack of space, and because his side is already extremely well-represented pretty much wherever you look, not counting the right wing noise machine.

I didn't comment on Martin's character --- are you referring to the "confrontational" post? That was in response to Zimmerman being labeled confrontational by a cousin and the label being uncritically accepted. I have no idea what Martin's character was like.

So... for the record:

1) Martin had every right to be where he was that night.

2) Martin had every right to approach Zimmerman in his truck.

3) Martin had every right to ask Zimmerman why he was following him.

4) Martin had every right to defend himself if Zimmerman threatened or attacked him.

5) Martin didn't deserve to die.

Just because I never stated these points doesn't mean I don't believe them; I do.

Also, "stand your ground" is a horrible name for a horrible law.

I think you have criticized me unfairly. If I have been mistaken in anything I have said here, I will gladly correct it.

{ed note --- unintentional "bold" fixed, hopefully in the proper location. --- Desi}

Sorry --- the bold type was a mistake.

Obama: Trayvon Martin could've been me

A good speech, so I thought. Well done.