We have been following the investigation into the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. The shooter, George Zimmerman, 28, has not been charged and reported a suspicious character to 911. Martin was returning from a 7-11 after buying Skittles. He was carrying the candy, a small amount of cash, and an iced tea. The family and many others have called for the arrest of Zimmerman, though the accounts of the shooting have been murky. Previously, we discussed the need to hear the 911 tapes, which have now been released and are linked below.
Zimmerman is reportedly a habitual caller into the police and is heard on one of the tapes complaining that ““These a**holes always get away.” Zimmerman states on the call that Martin appeared “up to no good . . . It’s raining. He’s just walking around, looking about . . . He’s just staring looking at all the houses.” Zimmerman says on the call that it is Martin who confronts him: “Something’s wrong with him. He’s coming to check me out.” However, he later admits that he is following Martin, which the police dispatcher discourages.
Police Chief Bill Lee said the 911 calls show that the incident was not a case of racial profiling. He said Zimmerman could not say whether the suspect was black or white. However, on the tape you hear Zimmerman say “He looks black” and then a few moments later, “He’s a black male.” While he is at first equivocal, he does identify his race. That does not mean that this is a case of profiling, of course.
However, family member have been critical of the handling of the case by the police and what they view as the police bending over backward to defend Zimmerman. The family had to file a lawsuit to get these tapes. After a hearing, the police finally relented.
The tapes certainly contradict some statements by the police. However, I am not sure that they substantially alter the status in the case. The evidence still is largely based on Zimmerman’s account, though such contemporary records are generally admissible. The tapes both help and hurt Zimmerman.
The statement by Zimmerman that “these a**holes always get away” certainly shows animus and he clearly follows the youth. However, that does not translate into evidence of intent to kill. I am more interested in the level of force used by Zimmerman and the two gunshots heard on the tape. It is possible that audio creates a misleading impression of two shots but that would seem an important forensic question. It is hard to believe that Martin would allegedly continue any confrontation of Zimmerman after a warning shot unless the shot was fired in the midst of a struggle over the gun. Zimmerman can cite the tape for his statement that he believed that Martin had something in his waistband and appeared on drugs. He can also cite his contemporary description of Martin approaching him.
Putting aside the complaints regarding the handling of the case by the police and the conflicting statements given by officials, there remains the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to base a charge against Zimmerman. I would like to see the coroner’s report on the trajectory and distance of the gunshot wound as well as audio analysis of the gun shot or shots. I would also like to see evidence of the abrasions on both men. Zimmerman was reportedly bleeding from the struggle but we have not heard many details on Martin’s other injuries.
Zimmerman would be wise to secure criminal counsel. There is probably enough here for an indictment. The most salient facts against him are (1) the statement on the 911 tape showing animus, (2) the disregarded instructions not to follow Martin, (3) the advantage in weight and possession of a firearm in the struggle, and (4) the lack of any weapon or proof of criminal conduct by Martin.
What do you think about the state of the evidence?
Here is the Zimmerman tape: 911 Tape (Zimmerman)
Here is a witness tape: 911 Tape (1)
Here is a witness tape: 911 Tape (2)
Source: CNN
@Mike Spindell – I see you share the same disorder I and et al share: LOGGERIA (sorry) – Now I have not-skim but really read as I TOTALLY respect your opinion as you are on a shortlist (Yes Wootsey I do sound like Sheldon sometimes but I prefer the voice of reason of Leonard (LOL)). Your gonna’ make me cite Biblical scripture invoking the resident Turley Blog fact-Rancor (time-stamp 02:18)
Watch this 4 minute YouTube of Star Wars animation and the infamous Rancor at 02:18. While I dust off my Torah (uhhh I mean Bible)… 🙂
So then expelled from the Garden and having sex three sons are born, one killed. Who did Cain and Seth marry? Where did their wives come from?
——————————————————-
Seth and Cain are born with fewer ‘ribs’ than Adam (because it takes a rib to make a woman…thus proving that women are neither above or below man status wise), they in turn, each give up a rib to marry and they have male offspring who ALSO are born w/fewer ribs…and so on in the fashion of the ‘begats’ until much later it is realized that man is now being born sans ribs (which in a sidebar allegory is the birth of mans hankerin need to ‘fire up the barby’)….and so feeling rather vulnerable, he goes out and konks woman on the bean, steals her skull for a shield, and convinces her that Turtles make great pets.
Eventually the women get wise, attempt to take thier shell back by konking him on HIS bean, but he sticks his head in the shell and blames rabbits for everything….
Women take thier plea to G*d, who says something along the line of ‘Turtles are much like Serpents’ why not just stick w/the bunny?
So she hires a lawyer and the rest is HERSTORY…….
[SoTB]”Sorry… I just don’t think those were “inconsistencies”. More like reader misunderstandings based on an outdated Old English version of a 17th century Protestant translation from a politically corrupt British King (from the house of Stuart).
[Me]“It can only be seen as allegory, a form which our ancestor’s understood far better than we do. The imprimatur of making allegory into history was laid down to keep the masses in their places, by misinterpreting the message in the allegory.”
[SoTB]To the unenlightened reader I would agree it would appear that way. However, if it weren’t for a certain 17th century CE DETOUR (i.e. KJV) and Roman Catholic misdirections (i.e. Douay Version) I think readers would not see Moses divinely inspired work as simply an “allegory”. Organized religion has a lot to account for over 1,600 years of confusing the masses with their own hidden agenda versions of God’s word; twisting our true history of our origins into easily ridiculed quasi-fairy tales. Atheists invariably love pointing out the 6,000 year old Earth fairy-tale invented by their timeless misunderstanding of Moses’ words.”
SoTB,
One of the reasons that I waited to respond until home was so that I could do so with the “Pentateuch and Haftorahs” edited by Dr. J.H. Hertz and published by The Soncino Press. That way linguistically and translation wise I am dealing with the original version of the Torah.
The following are some of the “inconsistencies” I see that you ascribe to reader misunderstanding.
1. God rested o the 7th Day. Obviously an allegory since the eternal omniscient creator of the Universe does not need to rest. However, as an allegory explaining man’s need of a day of rest it makes sense.
2. God created Eve from Adam’s rib. Really SoTB? This is pure allegory in scope used to justify man’s position above women.
3. Genesis II, 18 “I will make him a help meet for him.” In the commentary of this we see that the Rabbinic interpretation of this is that celibacy is contrary to nature. This is inconsistent with the fact that later after eating from the “tree”
Adam hides his nakedness. Doesn’t make sense in context unless as an allegory regarding how to arrange society. What if Adam and Eve didn’t eat of the “Tree”? What was the society contemplated?
4. So then expelled from the Garden and having sex three sons are born, one killed. Who did Cain and Seth marry? Where did their wives come from?
I could go on with this for a long time, but to what point? To me these are inconsistencies that are easily resolved if you see the the Torah in allegorical rather than historic terms. This doesn’t mean that I don’t think there are nuggets of real history entwined in it, quite the contrary. I do believe that there is a good possibility that Jews were enslaved in Egypt and that both David and Salomon existed, despite slim archaeological evidence. However, as a Jew who has always loved Passover, perhaps I am exposing my own sentimentality.
On another point you refer to your belief that the writings of the Torah were perverted by Roman Catholicism. I don’t disagree, but you do seem to imply that prior to the Council of Nicaea, etc. there was a truer strain of Christian though regarding the Torah. I dispute that. To my way of thinking Christianity was a Pauline concoction that had little to do with Jesus, or his followers. Much of my belief of this is based on the writings of Hyam Maccoby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyam_Maccoby , all of whose books I’ve read. Beyond that at one point you allude that the Torah predicted Jesus and I dispute that as well.
The subject of Christianity, Judaism and Jesus has been a lifelong avocation of mine. I avoid going into it too deeply because it is neither my place, nor my desire to impact upon others religious viewpoints, as long as they don’t impact on mine. Suffice it to say that when you make a statement about the Sanhedrin condemning Jesus, I see that as incorrect. There was nothing of Jesus teachings in the Gospels that was offensive against Jewish belief and besides that the Sanhedrin did not have either the power of condemnation and/or execution. Jesus was executed by the Romans because he had declared himself of the Davidic line and thus “King of the Jews”. This was treason under Roman Law since only the Emperor could declare Kingship. Israel was in constant turmoil against Roman Occupation and Jesus was probably a revolutionary leader.
I write the above not to start a debate with you, since denying each others beliefs is a futile process and we each have to come to our own decisions on what we believe and how it informs our life. However, in your statements you seem to imply a lack of depth of understanding on my part and that is certainly not the case. My life has been a search for meaning and truth, not only personally, but also in the Gestalt of things. I write that with a smile, since I doubt that you also know that I am a Institute Trained Gestalt Psychotherapist and was licensed to practice Psychotherapy for 25 years until a retirement forced by disability.
On the larger point of this sub-argument, which devolves around evolution, I again state that the overall theory and its various proofs make sense to me, but like any piece of science all its inconsistencies have not been resolved. On the other hand ID is a fraud and plainly neither scientific, nor intelligent. That I believe in the possibility of a Creator, is merely a belief of mine, not science.
Malisha,
“IF Einstein were, or IF Einstein were not, a participant, to one degree or another, of the Manhattan Project (and my ignorance here is exceeded only by my lack of comprehension), how blameworthy was he and OF WHAT?”
Exactly my point. The original statement was concerning trying to falsely equate Darwin’s work to eugenics. Darwin was no more responsible for eugenics than Einstein was responsible for atomic weapons. Both men had an idea – an observation about reality that turned out to be true when tested. What other men did with those ideas is another matter altogether. Darwin is no more responsible for what the Nazis did under the banner of eugenics than Einstein is responsible for the nuclear arms. Both men realized the theoretical implications of their work. Neither put that knowledge into practical application let alone nefarious practical application. At the center, this is the difference between pure science and applied science (sometimes called engineering). A model of a process or a set of observations scientifically proven has the intrinsic value of being true knowledge. What men do with that knowledge is another question. That question is “because we can do a thing, should we do a thing?” It’s the same question that underlies almost every bad decision ever made by both individual humans and humanity as a whole.
“I could rob this bank, but should I?”
– Answering “yes” or not asking before doing is the start of every bank job ever pulled.
“I could murder millions of people and use eugenics as part of my reason, but should I?”
– Answering “yes” was exactly what the Nazis did and for a variety of reasons (stealing capital, resources, need of “other” to demonize politically, etc.), but Darwin didn’t answer that question for them or make the decisions on how and where to do it.
“I could build atomic weapons and use them, but should I?”
– Einstein knew the implications of his work, knew the Germans did too and warned FDR, but the decision to build atomic weapons was with FDR, the application of building them was with Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project and the decision to use them was with Truman.
The original attempt to tie Darwin to eugenics was an attempt to demonize Darwin by association using a word with loaded value. Guilty by false equivalence. A finder of knowledge is not responsible (unless evidence proves otherwise) for what others do with that knowledge. This original language of Sotb is not a linguistic tool of logic, but a linguistic tool of propaganda.
Bron,
I’ve read the letters in the National Archive. Have you? Apparently not. Einstien was working on triggers and guidance. You have proof he did? Present it. “The government knows how to hide money” may be a fact in operation but it is speculation as far as proof goes. Are you going to tell me there are alien spacecraft out at Area 51 next? Because “maybe” isn’t the same thing as “yes” or “no”. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but it is an absence of evidence and an absence of evidence is an absence of proof. All the evidence points to Einstien didn’t work on the Manhattan Project. Believe to the contrary if you wish. I’m not interesting in beliefs, just proof.
**************
AY,
The document you referenced is exactly what started this sidebar. Just because you like the brand name on k-12 study guide doesn’t mean it is accurate. Multiple credible sources that were not packaged for children have now been cited that hold Einstien did not work on the Manhattan Project.
“There is probably a big difference, of course, between accountability and responsibility, the problem being that those responsible are seldom held accountable. In our society, IMO, we discard both responsibiity and accountabiity and concentrate only on liability, thus making ourselves into a conglomerate psychopath…”~Malisha
—————————————
Wow, this is an excellent observation in general of the whole bloody current USA Zeitgeist (IMHO)….and which is held as appalling and disdainful by the rest of the civil world. It is a not so subtle distinction and a behavior that is incredibly damaging to a society….so it is unlikely to prevail forever…I’m thinking it is just a place in time on an evolutionary scale…(hoping so….) ….but I’m keeping things lite today so heres this instead…(also, I thought AE’s contribution to the AB was a frantic attempt to prevent the use of such a horror….)….
If the current topic has to do with responsibility and/or accountabiity for some really horrible stuff, then I am beginning to cotton onto what is being discussed. There is probably a big difference, of course, between accountability and responsibility, the problem being that those responsible are seldom held accountable. In our society, IMO, we discard both responsibiity and accountabiity and concentrate only on liability, thus making ourselves into a conglomerate psychopath (sorry for imprecise language and for grammar abuse). If, “Yeah, and whatchoo gunna do aboudit?” is our general response to every charge against us, then who did what to whom quickly becomes “fodder for the lawyers” rather than a significant area of concern to people of strong intellect and good conscience (however many of those there may be at any given time, ahem).
IF Einstein were, or IF Einstein were not, a participant, to one degree or another, of the Manhattan Project (and my ignorance here is exceeded only by my lack of comprehension), how blameworthy was he and OF WHAT?
Knowing that I might be able to form an opinion. I’m not saying it’s anybody’s goal to help me do that, of course, because once I do that I will undoubtedly be all over the blog expressing my opinion and writing those damned haikoth (Mike Spindell, that’s my guess on a plural form — editor, insert smiley face).
Air soaking in fog!
Walking around the campus
Einstein does not know.
Bron,
Is it your assertion that Albert Einstein worked on the Manhattan Project? If so, I believe you are correct……
http://gk12.rice.edu/trs/science/Atom/man.htm
Since this has rice in the address, and if it is rice University….. You can pretty well rely on it……
Gene H:
and that is about all you have as well. I know enough to know that when the government wants to hide money, they can do it. So even if you think you have the information you probably dont. I cannot imagine AE not working on the MP in some form. He was one of the towering minds of physics at that point in history. Dont you find it rather interesting that he is working on explosives for the USN? Come on, one of the main technical difficulties was to create simultaneous, controlled, directed explosions to densify the nuclear material to start the chain reaction.
AE, explosives, USN, MP, AB. I think they call that a clue.
Just because Hoover had something on AE, Roosevelt was calling the shots and could keep Hoover out of the loop. With government, the left hand usually doesnt know what the right hand is doing.
What was AE working on for the USN? Probably shaped charges to increase effectiveness of torpedoes? Possibly?
If that was it, I think you better re-evaluate your position.
You are very rigid and need to learn how to consider other possibilities. You really need to quit engaging in unitary thinking.
Sotb:
did you post more than 2 links? if so that may be why you were relegated to blog purgatory. Although you cannot buy your way out of that purgatory.
@Bron – Would you like to join us at http://www.hushmail.com ? We can go “private mode” when we need to (unlike here). There are some things I (et al) would like to share with you. It’s free and secure. No IP addresses exchanged and all email traffic is PGP encrypted. When you get there my addy is: sonofthunder@hush.com
testing, testing…
That’s strange I posted two postings since 9:30 PM est and nothing has showed up…
test
Bron,
Sotb’s reaction to my saying “is like blaming Einstein for the work of Oppenheimer” was to claim Einstein worked on the project. Einstein did not work on the MP. He wrote a letter to FDR. Any claims of consulting have no evidence to support them. His work at he USNBO was on torpedoes. Sotb also claimed “AE willingly worked on USN high explosive projects which had a direct relationship to the bomb.” I provided proof in the form of correspondence proving his job there was related to torpedoes, not the Manhattan Project. There are quite few letters in the National Archives on the matter. Did you read any of them? Probably not. Sotb hasn’t proven a thing by any objective standard on any of his assertions. Not Darwin’s methodology, not evolution, not natural selection, not eugenics, not his “Gestalt” theory of the universe having intelligent guidance. He’s got a lot of speculation, opinion and a dab of hearsay that covers one point that’s tangential to his being totally wrong about eugenics, but he hasn’t been able to substantively back up anything he’s said. Even if he had proof Einstein worked on the project? A case is a totality of evidence, not one point, let alone a minor point about an analogy as to why he was wrong about creating the false equivalence between Darwin’s work and eugenics in a blatant attempt to demonize in the most propagandist of ways.
In the end, no evidence is still . . . no evidence.
Transparent? That’s clear as crystal.
As to the rest of what you say?
Do you really think I care? I’ll even help with the answer. Any answer other than “no” is wrong.
@Otteray Scribe – Just to set the record straight: My whole Einstein response was in reaction to this one sentence: “…is like blaming Einstein for the work of Oppenheimer.” I think I have substantiated that AE did contribute to the project initially by typewritten letters and then consulting, albeit unofficially as an unpaid consultant for V. Bush. And yes he did consult for the USN on conventional non-nuclear explosives. If anyone would like to verify that they can just go out and buy the book by Fred Jerome at Amazon.com. It’s called: “The Einstein File”.
As usual, I am not trying to prove anything despite all the collateral chatter that I am. I was just info-sharing again. I just thought that info would be interesting to everyone. I apologize for any squabbles I may have contributed to.
Gene H:
so when someone is right they arent wrong? Right? Isnt that a 0 or a 1?
But anyway you dont know he wasnt on the payroll because he could have been under a different department. You know as much as Sotb knows which is what is available to the public. The rest is just your speculation.
So you have no idea if Sotb is wrong or right because you dont know if you are right.
Once a person has your number, you are pretty transparent. You are actually pretty boring once you sift through the lawyerese, you dont say much. But damn, it sure does sound good.
No, Bron. I’m engaged in accuracy. The statement made was that Einstien worked on the Manhattan Project. He didn’t. He was never at Los Alamos. He was never cleared. He wasn’t on the payroll . . . even as a consultant.
Gene H:
so AE consulted with but wasnt on the MP, OK but isnt that splitting hairs? His input helped accomplish the construction the AB.
Arent you engaging in binary thinking?
And what OS said. Even if you do produce the requested evidence, Einstein still wasn’t on the Manhattan Project.