Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

[Gypsy]

Danny, I'm sorry I talked down to you. I hate touchpads too. And my Google phone is the reason I don't own a tablet. Peace?

 

[gammygam]

I think the real question is the "stand your ground" law. My old law professor was quoted in Huffington as saying that this law isn't applicable to Zimmerman even under the broad terms of the law. If Zimmerman gave chase to Martin, it seems that the stand your ground defense wouldn't apply.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/21/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-_n_1371171.html

It seems so, but Florida precedent in Miami-Dade and Broward counties says otherwise. The Stand Your Ground law has turned Florida into the wild, wild (south) west (in the east). Check out these crazy cases that don't even get to the jury because the judges dismissed or acquitted:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/24/2710297/stand-your-ground-law-had-a-sad.html

Uhh...I'm pretty rusty on my legal education here so please correct me if I'm wrong. (I have a JD but I don't practice law) Shouldn't this (Stand Your Ground defense) be a finding of fact for the jury instead of a judge? If so, isn't this unconstitutional? (I guess that's why the state attorney is appealing this decision).

 

[gammygam]

Agreed Gammy! Oh, and I don't post much here anymore, but I still come around and see what's going on - and I peaked into this thread before going to bed last night and I couldn't not respond!

So sorry for the threadjack, you guys. LL, you helped me back in the day when I was designing my e-ring setting and fortunately, that relationship didn't work out. Anyway, we chatted way back in the day and our dogs were friends on a doggie social site haha. I hope you remember me and all is well with you and the doggies!

 

[Imdanny]

As for pleading for his life. Nope, wrong again. Witnesses said someone was asking for help-- not mercy, not for their lives. Help. The Shooter claims it was him who was asking for help. The boy is dead and NONE of the witnesses KNOW who it was that was asking for help. The media has decided it was the boy because it makes for a better story.

Also, there are reports that the child attacked the man. And the man had injuries that support this claim. The man also thought the boy had a gun.

Gypsy, are you making this up as you go along? Let's look at what THE WITNESSES say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cWwUAbbWnk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Exclusive interview with one of the witnesses here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Rf4G0JOOk

You have derailed this entire thread based on nothing, not facts, just your opinions, while getting your facts blatantly wrong, and chastising me, and others, in snarky posts about getting facts wrong. Your behavior is really surprising to me. Why don't you go actually research your facts before berating others about things you think you know, that any of us can easily check. Not impressive would be an understatement for your posts in this thread.

 

[Imdanny]

It was a sad day! I'm Danny, you said it well again,

Thank you, Annette.

 

[Gypsy]

As for pleading for his life. Nope, wrong again. Witnesses said someone was asking for help-- not mercy, not for their lives. Help. The Shooter claims it was him who was asking for help. The boy is dead and NONE of the witnesses KNOW who it was that was asking for help. The media has decided it was the boy because it makes for a better story.

Also, there are reports that the child attacked the man. And the man had injuries that support this claim. The man also thought the boy had a gun.

Gypsy, are you making this up as you go along? Let's look at what THE WITNESSES say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cWwUAbbWnk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Exclusive interview with one of the witnesses here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Rf4G0JOOk

You have derailed this entire thread based on nothing, not facts, just your opinions, while getting your facts blatantly wrong, and chastising me, and others, in snarky posts about getting facts wrong. Your behavior is really surprising to me. Why don't you go actually research your facts before berating others about things you think you know, that any of us can easily check. Not impressive would be an understatement for your posts in this thread.

None of the credible witness statements from the actual night of the shooting-- including the ones who called into 911-- knew who was saying help. The most accurate description is that the person saying help had a high pitched voice Danny. I have read the witness statements. I've seen the interviews.

And that is the unfortunate fact. Many of them say that they "believe" it is the boy because it stopped when he was shot. But that's not proof that it WAS the boy. The shooter, had he been the one asking for help would have stopped after shooting too. And George isn't exactly Barry White.

Danny, I actually listen to exactly what people say when they say it. I listen to the real words they use. When they say they THINK it was the boy. I take it as that. An opinion, a guess, their belief. Not as fact.

NO ONE SAW THE BOY ASK FOR HELP. They heard a voice and in retrospect-- with help from the media to 'jog' their memories for a nice sensational interview-- assume it was the boy. Well, I am not assuming that. Because there is no proof. Just conjecture. That's all I have been saying and all I will keep saying. And I derail nothing except the assumptions of a bunch of people who want to try this case in the media or on PS of all places, and think they are right to do so while demonstrating that they have no clue how our justice system really works.

 

[Imdanny]

Danny, I'm sorry I talked down to you. I hate touchpads too. And my Google phone is the reason I don't own a tablet. Peace?

Gypsy, I accept your apology. I didn't see this post before I wrote my post above. I just thought you were being mean to me and I couldn't figure out why. I really hate political threads. It's clear we see this situation entirely differently. Let's just leave it at that... so not fun to talk about this stuff as opposed to jewelry.

 

[Imdanny]

Well, Michael Siegel, the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Clinics at the University of FLORIDA Law School and former federal prosecutor agrees with the lawmakers so I have no idea why what you or the blogger say should carry any weight either.

I went there for a year. Not the law school. The undergraduate part. One of the worst years of my life. LOL.

 

[GlamMosher]

Wow. I am from Australia, and when I read things like this, i am so glad we are not allowed to carry guns.

To me (and I have never studied law, nor lived in the US) wouldn't the Stand Your Ground law be in the victim's favour rather than Zimmerman's? As in, if the victim did turn around and get into an altercation based on the fact that he was being followed and intimidated (and I can see my 16 year old son doing something similar), then i can understand that being his defence.

Zimmerman was the aggressor so he can hardly then turn around and say he feared for his life.

Wouldn't this self defence thing be something that is determined during a trial? I would have thought the evidence is there he did it, he is charged and then he attempts to prove self defence (or not).

The lad wasn't seen breaking into a house, he was seen walking down the street. I really can't see how this dude has any defence, other than the absurd.

 

[Imdanny]

Wow. I am from Australia, and when I read things like this, i am so glad we are not allowed to carry guns.

To me (and I have never studied law, nor lived in the US) wouldn't the Stand Your Ground law be in the victim's favour rather than Zimmerman's? As in, if the victim did turn around and get into an altercation based on the fact that he was being followed and intimidated (and I can see my 16 year old son doing something similar), then i can understand that being his defence.

Zimmerman was the aggressor so he can hardly then turn around and say he feared for his life.

Wouldn't this self defence thing be something that is determined during a trial? I would have thought the evidence is there he did it, he is charged and then he attempts to prove self defence (or not).

The lad wasn't seen breaking into a house, he was seen walking down the street. I really can't see how this dude has any defence, other than the absurd.

The whole world is watching.

Good.

 

[Imdanny]

Double post. See below.

 

[Imdanny]

And for the record, Hispanic is NOT a race. I won't even go into the tensions between African-American/Caribbean blacks and the Hispanic people (especially the White Hispanics) in Florida. To simply say he was Hispanic in an attempt to minimize the racial bias here is absurd.

I was born in Florida in spent half my life there. I hear you!

It seems that many in this thread are blissfully unaware of the history of race relations in Sanford.

Precisely. And, it's very easy to want to dismiss it, to ignore it, to excuse it, to find a 'rational'/'reasonable' alternative explanation.
But it must be faced, a dialogue must occur, progress must be made

TT, I just read today the Sanford police chief who stepped down had only been there for ten months. Guess why his predecessor had to leave. That's right. A incident related to race. None of this is news to anyone familiar with Sanford but I've read so many comments on the internet saying the Sanford police are to be trusted. I'll pass.

 

[GlamMosher]

The whole world is watching.

Good.

It most certainly is, it was on the TV news just now.

 

[Imdanny]

It's such a stretch to say that Zimmerman felt threatened by Trayvon yet continued to stalk him down. If he felt threatened he would've been running away/trying to hide. Trayvon is the one who likely would've felt threatened and could've reasonably lashed out in self-defense if he chose to.

I'm not in the U.S, but have been following the case. So very sad! Sounds like the Police Dept. made a lot of racial assumptions, i.e Zimmerman likely acted innocently, because he's 'white', and Trayvon was likely the attacker, because he's 'black'. No further questions asked. Definitely not the way proper investigation should be done. I really hope this case is seriously re-investigated because we can't set the precedent that you can just go around shooting people because you have a 'reason' to believe they're up to no good. (And if you listen to the tape, what reason exactly, did Zimmerman give for thinking that Trayvon was up to no good? That he was wearing a hoodie and walking around, looking at houses? Being suspicious/'alert' about a stranger in the area is one thing... but hunting that stranger down and killing him is quite another.

This what Zimmerman's father's says:

“At no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin. When the true details of the event became public, and I hope that will be soon,” the letter said, “everyone should be outraged by the treatment of George Zimmerman in the media.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-father-speaks-defense-son-article-1.1049933#

I read the 911 transcript. So my question for Zimmerman's father is, "Are you lying or delusional?"

I also read the Stand Your Ground law in Florida protects you if you perceive yourself to be in (mortal danger, or just suspicious of an African American boy with Skittles, I'm still trying to work this part out) in a place where you have a right to be.

Zimmerman had a right to follow this boy for no good reason and confront him down the street while the boy was trying to get away from him. Either that, or the guy was playing cop and, just like he said on the tape, was concerned about break-ins and that these "*******s always get away".

None of which was taken into account by the police even though Zimmerman had about ten years, 100 lbs, and a gun vs. a boy carrying Skittles and iced tea trying to walk to his family's home after going to a convenience store.

Theater of the absurd indeed.

 

[Imdanny]

The police have probable cause that the force used was unlawful. The kid was unarmed and had been chased down -- as heard in the 911 call.

I agree, Maria. And I don't have any legal training. I just have a BA and I don't even think the fact I have one has anything to do with my ability to use common sense in interpreting the world in which we live. I don't see where the law says if Zimmerman states he was acting in self-defense and nobody can prove otherwise because they were not standing there when he shot this kid that the Sanford police acted appropriately by not making an arrest, as many seem to think. I would also add that plenty of people, with plenty of credentials, agree with you and me. So, I also don't see where the media and public have acted inappropriately. Sensationalism in the media occurs everyday, about every subject, every time there is something, anything, to discuss. This isn't news, if you'll pardon the pun. As far as the public outcry, it is the right thing to do when an injustice occurs, i.e. the Sanford police, having probable cause, did not arrest Zimmerman. IMO, it is an outrage that the police have probable cause that the force used was unlawful, but have decided to take Zimmerman at his word. And this is all it really boils down to for me. The justice system I grew up with, or thought I did, protects individuals. It protects individuals who are doing nothing other than walking to a family member's house after going to a convenience store. It protects individuals from vigilante killers who stalk law abiding citizens. It protects individuals from crime. None of us is served by the Sanford police and their new BFF George Zimmerman hiding behind this law.

 

[Loves Vintage]

As for pleading for his life. Nope, wrong again. Witnesses said someone was asking for help-- not mercy, not for their lives. Help. The Shooter claims it was him who was asking for help. The boy is dead and NONE of the witnesses KNOW who it was that was asking for help. The media has decided it was the boy because it makes for a better story.

Also, there are reports that the child attacked the man. And the man had injuries that support this claim. The man also thought the boy had a gun.

Gypsy, are you making this up as you go along? Let's look at what THE WITNESSES say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cWwUAbbWnk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Exclusive interview with one of the witnesses here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Rf4G0JOOk

You have derailed this entire thread based on nothing, not facts, just your opinions, while getting your facts blatantly wrong, and chastising me, and others, in snarky posts about getting facts wrong. Your behavior is really surprising to me. Why don't you go actually research your facts before berating others about things you think you know, that any of us can easily check. Not impressive would be an understatement for your posts in this thread.

None of the credible witness statements from the actual night of the shooting-- including the ones who called into 911-- knew who was saying help. The most accurate description is that the person saying help had a high pitched voice Danny. I have read the witness statements. I've seen the interviews.

And that is the unfortunate fact. Many of them say that they "believe" it is the boy because it stopped when he was shot. But that's not proof that it WAS the boy. The shooter, had he been the one asking for help would have stopped after shooting too. And George isn't exactly Barry White.

Danny, I actually listen to exactly what people say when they say it. I listen to the real words they use. When they say they THINK it was the boy. I take it as that. An opinion, a guess, their belief. Not as fact.

NO ONE SAW THE BOY ASK FOR HELP. They heard a voice and in retrospect-- with help from the media to 'jog' their memories for a nice sensational interview-- assume it was the boy. Well, I am not assuming that. Because there is no proof. Just conjecture. That's all I have been saying and all I will keep saying. And I derail nothing except the assumptions of a bunch of people who want to try this case in the media or on PS of all places, and think they are right to do so while demonstrating that they have no clue how our justice system really works.

Is it really the BIG BAD MEDIA or just common sense to conclude that between two people, one with a gun, and one without, that the one WITHOUT the GUN is the one most likely to call for help? Are you serious? One person is dead. The other held a gun to him. Do you really think the person WITH ALL OF THE POWER is going to yell for help? What would you do if someone pulled a gun on YOU? Think you might feel a little HELPLESS??? How would you feel if you were the one holding the gun? Maybe a little empowered? Do you think he was calling for back-up from his neighborhood watch buddies?

Haven't read about the case, don't watch the big bad media, haven't read the transcript, but I do have common sense. Oh, and just took one crim law class in law school, how about you? Certainly not enough to make me feel like an expert on the topic, or to call everyone who hasn't ignorant!

 

[Loves Vintage]

The police have probable cause that the force used was unlawful. The kid was unarmed and had been chased down -- as heard in the 911 call.

I agree, Maria. And I don't have any legal training. I just have a BA and I don't even think the fact I have one has anything to do with my ability to use common sense in interpreting the world in which we live. I don't see where the law says if Zimmerman states he was acting in self-defense and nobody can prove otherwise because they were not standing there when he shot this kid that the Sanford police acted appropriately by not making an arrest, as many seem to think. I would also add that plenty of people, with plenty of credentials, agree with you and me. So, I also don't see where the media and public have acted inappropriately. Sensationalism in the media occurs everyday, about every subject, every time there is something, anything, to discuss. This isn't news, if you'll pardon the pun. As far as the public outcry, it is the right thing to do when an injustice occurs, i.e. the Sanford police, having probable cause, did not arrest Zimmerman. IMO, it is an outrage that the police have probable cause that the force used was unlawful, but have decided to take Zimmerman at his word. And this is all it really boils down to for me. The justice system I grew up with, or thought I did, protects individuals. It protects individuals who are doing nothing other than walking to a family member's house after going to a convenience store. It protects individuals from vigilante killers who stalk law abiding citizens. It protects individuals from crime. None of us is served by the Sanford police and their new BFF George Zimmerman hiding behind this law.

To the first bold point -- EXACTLY!!

To the second bold point -- THANK GOODNESS for the public outcry in this case!! If the victim's parents hadn't pushed this, and the public hadn't gotten involved, then I don't know if other agencies would have gotten involved, and this law (versions of which exist apparently in some 20 other states) would not have been propelled into the spotlight. I'm glad people are talking about it. They should be.

 

[iheartscience]

As for pleading for his life. Nope, wrong again. Witnesses said someone was asking for help-- not mercy, not for their lives. Help. The Shooter claims it was him who was asking for help. The boy is dead and NONE of the witnesses KNOW who it was that was asking for help. The media has decided it was the boy because it makes for a better story.

Also, there are reports that the child attacked the man. And the man had injuries that support this claim. The man also thought the boy had a gun.

Gypsy, are you making this up as you go along? Let's look at what THE WITNESSES say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cWwUAbbWnk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Exclusive interview with one of the witnesses here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Rf4G0JOOk

You have derailed this entire thread based on nothing, not facts, just your opinions, while getting your facts blatantly wrong, and chastising me, and others, in snarky posts about getting facts wrong. Your behavior is really surprising to me. Why don't you go actually research your facts before berating others about things you think you know, that any of us can easily check. Not impressive would be an understatement for your posts in this thread.

None of the credible witness statements from the actual night of the shooting-- including the ones who called into 911-- knew who was saying help. The most accurate description is that the person saying help had a high pitched voice Danny. I have read the witness statements. I've seen the interviews.

And that is the unfortunate fact. Many of them say that they "believe" it is the boy because it stopped when he was shot. But that's not proof that it WAS the boy. The shooter, had he been the one asking for help would have stopped after shooting too. And George isn't exactly Barry White.

Danny, I actually listen to exactly what people say when they say it. I listen to the real words they use. When they say they THINK it was the boy. I take it as that. An opinion, a guess, their belief. Not as fact.

NO ONE SAW THE BOY ASK FOR HELP. They heard a voice and in retrospect-- with help from the media to 'jog' their memories for a nice sensational interview-- assume it was the boy. Well, I am not assuming that. Because there is no proof. Just conjecture. That's all I have been saying and all I will keep saying. And I derail nothing except the assumptions of a bunch of people who want to try this case in the media or on PS of all places, and think they are right to do so while demonstrating that they have no clue how our justice system really works.

Is it really the BIG BAD MEDIA or just common sense to conclude that between two people, one with a gun, and one without, that the one WITHOUT the GUN is the one most likely to call for help? Are you serious? One person is dead. The other held a gun to him. Do you really think the person WITH ALL OF THE POWER is going to yell for help? What would you do if someone pulled a gun on YOU? Think you might feel a little HELPLESS??? How would you feel if you were the one holding the gun? Maybe a little empowered? Do you think he was calling for back-up from his neighborhood watch buddies?

Haven't read about the case, don't watch the big bad media, haven't read the transcript, but I do have common sense. Oh, and just took one crim law class in law school, how about you? Certainly not enough to make me feel like an expert on the topic, or to call everyone who hasn't ignorant!

You took the words right out of my mouth. Seriously, COMMON SENSE dictates that the GUNMAN didn't yell for help. "Help! I'm about to shoot an unarmed kid!"

Yes, we may never know for certain since we weren't there, but I'll let reason and logic fill in the blanks for me on this one. Something tells me a jury would, too.

 

[MishB]

I have also been following this case from Australia.

However, we're certainly not squeaky clean down here, how about this horrible story:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-21/brazil-condemns-student27s-sydney-taser-death/3902782

Basically, a 21 year old Brazilian student chased down by at least 5 police officers and tasered to death, they were investigating the theft of a packet of biscuits from a 7-11, and the boy ran from them for an unknown reason. He probably didn't speak very good English and panicked. Has been proven he had nothing to do with the theft.

What a world.

 

[AGBF]

The reason I'm not upset about this is because I think the public is hindering, not helping in this case. Too many people do not understand our justice system. All they want is revenge. They don't understand that our legal system isn't about revenge. It's about justice and there are laws in place to see that it is served.

Hi, Gypsy-

I want to address something that I don't really feel has been addressed sufficiently in this thread.

You are a lawyer and you think like a lawyer. For you the tragedy is a legal case about individuals, about whether one individual could be fairly and successfully prosecuted or not. President Obama (also a lawyer) prudently waited until the Justice Department had made a decision about whether to prosecute this case before he commented on it for similar reasons (not wanting to influence the outcome of the trial for an individual who might be tried).

In my opinion there are other issues besides the possible legal punishment of a guilty party for murder of an unarmed youth. There is the larger need of society to raise awareness about the perils of a diabolic law that affects everyone and its egregious abuses and the racism of our society.

I do not see people who want to change the Stand Your Ground Law as wanting revenge! I see them as reformers.

Deb/AGBF

 

[merrijoy]

The calling of people ignorant in this thread has really irked me. I guess 75% of the population is ignorant then and we should bow down to the other 25% non ignorant folks.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justice/florida-teen-shooting-poll/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

[mary poppins]

President Obama (also a lawyer) prudently waited until the Justice Department had made a decision about whether to prosecute this case before he commented on it for similar reasons (not wanting to influence the outcome of the trial for an individual who might be tried).

No decisions about whether to prosecute this case have been made yet. The Department of Justice and the FBI are conducting an investigation to determine whether the case can be prosecuted as a hate crime. The state is still making a determination regarding charges as well.

 

[littlelysser]

Hi, Gypsy-

I want to address something that I don't really feel has been addressed sufficiently in this thread.

You are a lawyer and you think like a lawyer. For you the tragedy is a legal case about individuals, about whether one individual could be fairly and successfully prosecuted or not. President Obama (also a lawyer) prudently waited until the Justice Department had made a decision about whether to prosecute this case before he commented on it for similar reasons (not wanting to influence the outcome of the trial for an individual who might be tried).

In my opinion there are other issues besides the possible legal punishment of a guilty party for murder of an unarmed youth. There is the larger need of society to raise awareness about the perils of a diabolic law that affects everyone and its egregious abuses and the racism of our society.

I do not see people who want to change the Stand Your Ground Law as wanting revenge! I see them as reformers.

Deb/AGBF

Just a quick point of clarification. I am a practicing attorney (who has actually been involved in a many many criminal cases as a judicial clerk and my pro-bono work in private practice) and I do not agree with Gypsy either in tone or content. I can further assure you that not all lawyers feel the way Gypsy does on this matter. Indeed, the vast majority of my friends are attorneys and they similarly outraged at what occurred and the slow response and investigation. One does not lose one's sense of compassion and justice when one becomes a member of the bar. Indeed, it should be quite the opposite.

Further, not all lawyers try to make their point by belittling those that have expressed an opinion and calling them ignorant.

And we wonder why people dislike lawyers.

 

[littlelysser]

Agreed Gammy! Oh, and I don't post much here anymore, but I still come around and see what's going on - and I peaked into this thread before going to bed last night and I couldn't not respond!

So sorry for the threadjack, you guys. LL, you helped me back in the day when I was designing my e-ring setting and fortunately, that relationship didn't work out. Anyway, we chatted way back in the day and our dogs were friends on a doggie social site haha. I hope you remember me and all is well with you and the doggies!

Hey there! I think I do remember you - different screen name back then - something with a princess and a v or something along those lines? My memory is horrid!

If you have my name, look me up on that the social site for people - honestly, if you are who I think you are, I was actually wondering about you a little ways back. Random!

 

[Imdanny]

It appears this law does not apply to the person [Zimmerman] who killed Martin after all:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/776.041

 

[Laila619]

Yes, we may never know for certain since we weren't there, but I'll let reason and logic fill in the blanks for me on this one. Something tells me a jury would, too.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, I don't have as much faith in the (future) jury.

 

[AGBF]

President Obama (also a lawyer) prudently waited until the Justice Department had made a decision about whether to prosecute this case before he commented on it for similar reasons (not wanting to influence the outcome of the trial for an individual who might be tried).

No decisions about whether to prosecute this case have been made yet. The Department of Justice and the FBI are conducting an investigation to determine whether the case can be prosecuted as a hate crime. The state is still making a determination regarding charges as well.

Thank you for the correction. I knew I would screw it up if I didn't look back at an article that told me exactly what had happened legally...and I did. And I realize that it matters. The legalities were not germane to my point (which was that the interests of prosecuting one individual were not the only issue at stake, that there was a larger issue: the effect of racism and a bad law). Since I couldn't keep the legal issues straight, I should have omitted mention of them from my posting or looked them up. It was kind of you to clarify for me.

Deb/AGBF

 

[MissStepcut]

It appears this law does not apply to the person [Zimmerman] who killed Martin after all:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/776.041

Someone posted the statute earlier, and I don't think anyone is saying it definitely applies to him based on the facts the media is putting out there. The question still remains though: what facts to the police have to prove to arrest him, in light of this law, and in light of Zimmerman claiming to be protected under it? By all accounts, it's a higher bar than arrests usually are, and I still am not sure why everyone else is so convinced that the authorities are wrong.

 

[Ella]

Please keep all posts civil, with no name calling or this thread will need to be closed.

Please respect this rule so those who wish to continue this conversation can do so.

 

[lulu]

Well, I signed the parents' petition online. But now I've read this story. If this is the way it went down I couldn't support a prosecution.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community