Why is the media portraying him as a boy?

[Fyyr]

He was 6'3" and 150 lbs. And 17 years old.

This is going to be an easy case.

[Tudamorf]

Because the guy who shot him has a really bad public relations team.

The family of the "victim", on the other hand, got the media's attention immediately, and posted old family pictures to pretend that their son was just a little kid.

The reality is, the guy probably didn't break the law, and the family are greedy bastards. The body was barely cold when they saw dollar signs, suing the homeowner's association and trademarking their son's name. That's America for you.

[AbyssalMage]

He was 6'3" and 150 lbs. And 17 years old.

This is going to be an easy case.

Because....

If a crime happens against you, you are a "kid" until your 18.

If you commit a crime, your an evil degenerate adult. You can thank Reagan and his cronies for the change in philosophy. Now its just the "norm."

[Fyyr]

I'm not asking about the law.

I am talking about the media. They still post up photos of when he was 12.

It's interesting watching the formation of opinions and public opinion, especially when it is inaccurate.

[Tudamorf]

Now that he got a real attorney and better PR people, he will get out on bond and probably win.

That means Oakland merchants need to dust off their Oscar Grant storefront barricades.

I wonder how the media will spin that.

[AbyssalMage]

Not sure if the riots will happen in Cali, but I wouldn't be shocked I guess. The state is a "powder keg" thanks to all the years of backwards policies.

[AbyssalMage]

I'm not asking about the law.

I am talking about the media. They still post up photos of when he was 12.

It's interesting watching the formation of opinions and public opinion, especially when it is inaccurate.

Yeah, the media got a few things wrong. Calling him "White" and he's "Hispanic" if that should mean anything to you (Although you could argue it was a way to bias you) if you were biased by race. They show his picture at a younger age. Not sure of the point of this one. Didn't affect me one way or the other personally. Mug shots are always "flattering", no matter who the suspect is. Again, no affect on me. The only thing that matters to me personally are the 911 calls and what happened after that. The the facts of the case, not the color of their skin, the pictures shown on the media, or some law that doesn't have any relevance to this incident. That's all anyone should care about, what you are talking about are ratings, and every station has been guilty of sensationalizing this case.

If you follow the case at all, all the facts have been put out there. I think its more about the media doing what the police should of been doing the whole time, which was collecting evidence.

Glad the SOB is in jail now and hopefully the prosecutor does their job and they convict him. FYI, still not sure he's guilty of Murder 2, but Manslaughter I am sure of. Hopefully the prosecutor, defense team, and Zimmerman are smart enough to plea deal this one out so no more tax dollars have to be spent on this case and the media can find their next "big thing" to sensationalize.

[Fyyr]

but Manslaughter I am sure of. Hopefully the prosecutor, defense team, and Zimmerman are smart enough to plea deal this one out so no more tax dollars have to be spent on this case and the media can find their next "big thing" to sensationalize.

Really?, is that what you predict.

And why would it be smart to plea out, it's his life.

I don't know much about Florida, but California law is specific regarding self defense and bodily harm to yourself or another is sufficient to resort to it. Belief that bodily harm is about to be committed is sufficient. All of which you must convince a jury of, of course.

A weapon by the attacker is CERTAINLY NOT required. A local businessman recently shot an unarmed man, accosting him, in the chest twice and was acquitted by reason of self defense. And this is gun hating California, not gun loving Florida.

I have heard nothing from the dead man's side to suggest that he did not assault Zimmerman, or could not have assaulted him.

Honestly, when I am out in public and am confronted by these types of hoodlums, I honestly wonder why they never think or assume that their opponents are armed. Maybe they are just dumb. And if that is that case they are best dealt with before they have had a chance to breed, I suppose.

[Tudamorf]

Glad the SOB is in jail now and hopefully the prosecutor does their job and they convict him.

Not unless the jury box is filled with only angry blacks and guilty white liberals.

[AbyssalMage]

but Manslaughter I am sure of. Hopefully the prosecutor, defense team, and Zimmerman are smart enough to plea deal this one out so no more tax dollars have to be spent on this case and the media can find their next "big thing" to sensationalize.

Really?, is that what you predict.

And why would it be smart to plea out, it's his life.

Because: (1) He will avoid all the drama his case will bring for something he is guilty of. (2) He will get less time (on avg.) than if he lets a jury/judge convict him. (3) having some control over your fate is better than letting X jurors decide your fate.

Now, if the prosecutor is inept, they have a favorable judge, and/or they hit the lotto during jury selection everything above doesn't matter. So him not making a plea deal ATM isn't surprising.

I don't know much about Florida, but California law is specific regarding self defense and bodily harm to yourself or another is sufficient to resort to it. Belief that bodily harm is about to be committed is sufficient. All of which you must convince a jury of, of course.

A weapon by the attacker is CERTAINLY NOT required. A local businessman recently shot an unarmed man, accosting him, in the chest twice and was acquitted by reason of self defense. And this is gun hating California, not gun loving Florida.

That is definitely interesting to hear a jury in California went that way. I would assume there was more to the case than just a finger in a chest, but I understand the premise you pointing out. But the thing that should sink Zimmerman's case is simple: the 911 call he made before and the 911 calls afterward by the neighbors. If a prosecutor can't prove that Zimmerman was the one who assaulted Martin by confronting him and Martin practicing his right to self-defense from a stranger, he shouldn't be a prosecutor. That's is all the State must show and they have 911 tapes proving that he left his car (and being told not to) to confront Martin. Once he left his car, all the prosecutor needs to do is prove that Martin felt endangered to prove Zimmerman has no grounds for self-defense and a guilty verdict against him.

I have heard nothing from the dead man's side to suggest that he did not assault Zimmerman, or could not have assaulted him.

He's dead, that may be the start of the problem.

Honestly, when I am out in public and am confronted by these types of hoodlums, I honestly wonder why they never think or assume that their opponents are armed. Maybe they are just dumb. And if that is that case they are best dealt with before they have had a chance to breed, I suppose.

Because by law, in most states, your only allowed to use equal force. That's why police can't simply shoot you for carrying a knife, you have to be wielding it. You can't shoot someone for simply impeding your path or shoving a finger in your chest/face.

Again, makes me wonder what other evidence was presented or if the prosecutor was inept. I guess Zimmerman could hope for an inept prosecutor or favorable jury also