Report: Zimmerman Had Broken Nose, Two Black Eyes, and Lacerations to the Head
Paging Eric Boehlert!
Nothing says “aggressor” like getting the crap beaten out of you:
A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a “closed fracture” of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.
My bold prediction: this guy does not get convicted of murder.
UPDATE: It just gets better. Martin had injuries to his knuckles, according to autopsy results.
BUT THE VIDEO DIDN’T SHOW IT!!!!
/denialists
Patterico (feda6b) — 5/15/2012 @ 7:23 pmnow and then I think of when George and Trayvon were together
like when George said if his skull broke he could die
I guess T didn’t heed that though
now he’s just somebody that we used to know
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/15/2012 @ 7:33 pmLiar! I am The Real Patterico!
The Real Patterico in New Orleans (4dcda2) — 5/15/2012 @ 7:33 pmAnyway, why would Trayvon attack an innocent man?
Zimmerman was a stalker anyway. All white Hispanics are stalkers.
It’s all too depressing. The prosecutor already knew.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/15/2012 @ 7:36 pmAttorney General Barbie in Florida better not never need my vote
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/15/2012 @ 7:37 pmHas anybody posted the picture of Zimmerman’s black grandfather here yet? (It may have been on another thread and I missed it.)
It’s pretty interesting.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/11/65139/4544
elissa (825cc9) — 5/15/2012 @ 7:42 pmThanks for that link, Elissa.
I can’t wait for the day when racial appeals do not matter. But your link is an appropriate response to those who created/trafficked this “white hispanic” term in order to pull a race hustle.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/15/2012 @ 7:50 pmI remember once in my misspent “ute” some guy brutally attacked me with his face, so savagely I held my fists in front of me in instinctive self-defense. Seeing me cover-up in fear, and no opening, he did this spinning kung-fu type maneuver and tried to head butt me with the back of his skull, but with the reflexes of a cat I evaded, he missed, and accidentally head butted the brick wall of the building we were standing next to. Dazed and going down, he was still on the attack! So he went after my feet with his chest and abdomen, like a demon. But he didn’t know I was wearing steel-toed work boots and inadvertently ruptured his spleen and fractured five ribs. Then the cops showed up and me and my five friends explained how this one guy just went crazy on us. We were acquitted.
I’ll be appearing as an expert witness for the office of the D.A. to explain just how hate-monger acquired those offensive injuries, and how his poor victim Trayvon got those defensive injuries on his knuckles that the coroner noted.
Steve (773f84) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:02 pmThis reminds me of the Zimmerman family’s letter to the NAACP. In part,
“There has been an unprecedented rush to judge George regardless of the facts. The black community as a whole has turned their backs and blindly followed the furor stirred up by self-proclaimed leaders of your community. These leaders have rallies and chant horrible things of a person they know nothing about. If justice is what the community wants, don’t you think you should wait for the investigators to do their jobs first? Isn’t that justice?”
Unfortunately, justice has been defined by an angry mob of people so emotionally invested in this that they believe they are justified in their demand for blood. And another group, those in power – from President Obama down to the prosecutor, appear to be looking to pacify the outraged public at any cost…and win elections.
Evidence becomes superfluous.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:04 pmSpeaking of Rush’s to judgement.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/the-dsk-affair-one-year-later.php
narciso (1c125b) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:05 pmi don’t understand Mr. Dustin white hispanic is a perfectly ok term, it just sounds jarring cause usually the National Soros Radio media want to divorce hispanics from whiteness as much as possible
but sometimes you have to distinguish between native hispanics and black hispanics and white hispanics… usually cause you’re trying to get an ethnic pie chart to get to 100%, which is a damnably tricky thing to do
but hispanic is not a race it just means people come from a spanish-speaking background – they can be any color
latinos btw can be any race too, as long as they come from a Latin American country
I work with a white hispanic her name is New Girl she is very nice and she doesn’t even speak spanish, she’s just derived of that background, by way of Spain, and she has an hispanic surname
her husband is also hispanic but some people might would call him Mexican-American, cause of his people are from the land of Mexico, but his race you would record as white cause that’s how he identifies cause that’s what his race is… and he’s just like white people racially except he has an abuelita whereas a lot of white people just have a grandma… though there’s possibly some indigenous whatnot involved in his background as well, but you can say that about anybody
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:07 pmPikachu, I know ‘no one tells you anything,’
narciso (1c125b) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:12 pmbut that phrase was part of Julison’s template fed to the press, in order to create the climate for such an arrest.
I recall a black pastor leading a protest against a Korean or Chinese family that owned a dry cleaning shop because one of his parishioners told him they had tried to rip her off just because she was black. So they’re picketing the shop. Then the attorney for the family of the dry cleaner released the surveillance tape. It showed the parishioner tried to snatch the laundry from the cashier’s counter and run out without paying.
The pastor continued to lead the protest because he chose to believe his parishioner’s story.
I’ll see if I can search for the story; it was a fascinating display of organized depravity. Perhaps racism against what former DC Mayor Marion Barry called the owners of those “dirty shops.”
Anyway, good luck with that appeal to NAACP’s humanity, Zimmerman family!
Steve (773f84) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:14 pmyes Mr. narciso but there are reasons why the term white hispanic can and indeed should become a more widely-used term
Carlos Fuentes is dead btw, not unlike Dale Earnhardt and Jessica Savage
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:14 pm“New Girl”…. If someone called me “New Guy”, I wouldn’t tell him anything, either.
Just sayin’, for fun you know. 🙂
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:35 pmThis would never a law school exam question. It’s too easy.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:37 pmI couldn’t find the one particular news story I was thinking of. But this has the ring of the familiar:
Korean Shamrock Owner Accused of Racism Could Improve His Luck by Talking
It looks like the Marion “We’ve got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those dirty shops. They ought to go, I’ll just say that right now, you know. But we need African-American businesspeople to be able to take their places, too.” Barry campaign of peace, love, and business expropriation has gone nationwide. Actually, it looks like it isn’t really his idea at all.
Anyhoo, if these “self-proclaimed leaders” of the “community” are willing to accuse some Korean guy who barely speaks English of calling his own customers “broke a** n****rs” because, according to the story they’d have the press believe, he came across the Pacific and planted himself in some urban hellhole because he had learned in Seoul or Pusan or Chinhae that it’s stellar business model to set up in that little slice of heaven where you can rake in the money hand over fist and you get to insult your customers customers while laughing all the way to the bank, I doubt they’ll be interested in looking after the welfare of the Zimmermans’ kid. There’s too much money in it for the Wrights & Sharptons (and the John Wiley Price’s) of the world. What’s the life of one “white hispanic” against the greater good of the “community?”
Steve (773f84) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:40 pmDidn’t the FBI say they might charge Zimmerman with a hate crime yesterday or something? I’m almost sure I read that somewhere… Probably weasel zipper…
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:41 pmYes, Ghost,
The FBI is considering hate crime charges against George Zimmerman, the Florida neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin in February. If charged with a federal hate crime and convicted, Zimmerman could face the death penalty.
WFTV reports that Florida state prosecutors claim Zimmerman racially profiled and stalked 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in a gated community in Sanford on Feb. 26 before shooting him to death. Those allegations are the basis for the FBI’s hate crime probe.
It would seem they have a lot to prove.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:44 pmIf it’s federal, wouldn’t the local US attorney be involved, see why I’m skeptical.
narciso (1c125b) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:46 pmBut you didn’t have to break my nose,
Could’ve walked away without it coming to blows
And now the evidence will show
Why you’re just somebody that I used to know
Sorry, thats the best I could do on such short notice.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:48 pmThe FBI isn’t considering hate crimes charges. The FBI can’t charge anyone with a hate crime. They investigate hate crimes charges and report their findings back to the DoJ.
Fortunately, unlike Elizabeth Warren I have all the documentation proving that I’m 1/32 Cherokee. So I can’t commit a hate crime. And per elissa’s find we know that Zimmerman is of Peruvian-African descent. So once the FBI gets its paws on that photo, the investigation will be wrapped up and the FBI will report back to Eric “my people” Holder that the guy who shot the guy who looked like Barack Obama’s son-if-he-had-a-son is indeed one of the people who Eric “my people” Holder considers his people. Nothing more to see; move along folks.
I feel heap big sorry for you pale faces, though.
Steve (773f84) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:54 pmnicely done Mr. Ghost!
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/15/2012 @ 8:55 pmwe have a New Guy too Mr. MD but he’s… kinda lame
so I’m thinking we’ll have a New New Guy in relatively short order, but I hope to move on myself by then
then they’ll have a New New Guy and a New Me, and New Girl won’t be New Girl anymores she’ll have senioritah
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:02 pmThat examination was done when? The next day? Let’s get the forensics on the state of Trayvon’s hands, no?
“However, the prosecution contends that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation after profiling the teen, who was walking home after buying skittles and ice tea. They prosecution says Martin was breaking no laws and was not disturbing anyone as he walked back to his father’s girlfriend’s home.”
Not saying that your “bold prediction” won’t come true though…
tifosa (fdd875) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:04 pmMaybe they won’t tell the New You either, but since it will be the new you and not the you you, everyone will later ask who knew …
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:05 pm“This would never a law school exam question. It’s too easy.”
– DRJ
If it were a law school question, though, I think we’d be expected to address US v. Peterson. Provocation is a flexible thing.
The media (true to form) f*cked this whole sad situation up immensely. The truly scary thing about the utter subservience of the news outlets to the Narrative is the understanding that they’re only giving the people what they want.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:06 pm…. and of course when did they know it
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:07 pmAbout that funeral director, who gave a different account;
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1985-01-29/news/8501030832_1_naacp-branch-fort-lauderdale-economics
narciso (1c125b) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:11 pmSorry. US v. Peterson.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:12 pmLeviticus,
I’m not saying the outcome of this case is certain — nothing in a case like this is certain — but too many variables are pointing in one direction to make it an interesting law school exam question.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:14 pmHey, are your finals over? Congratulations on what I’m sure was a great year!
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:15 pmFinals are over. First year is in the bag. Had a very good time. Many thanks for all your good wishes.
I think this case is far from certain, particularly insofar as the hype surrounding the case is bound to influence the (eventual) jury to some degree regardless of the efforts of each side in jury selection. Beyond that, I think that there are going to be interesting factual questions about how provocative Zimmerman’s initial pursuit was.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:30 pmFrom the article:
I guess the guy is out of top post because he didn’t spend enough time trying to drive Asians and their “dirty shops” out of business?
Steve (773f84) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:32 pmI meant “was booted out.”
Steve (773f84) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:33 pmThe DoJ doesn’t care about the facts. Stacey Koon saved Rodney’s life. He still went to prison. Melanie Singer, a CHP female officer who was about to shoot King for wiggling his ass at her, testified against the LAPD, then retired on stress disability.
Justice prevailed. Not the principle, the department.
Mike K (326cba) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:41 pmUPDATE: It just gets better. Martin had injuries to his knuckles, according to autopsy results.
Patterico (feda6b) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:46 pmGeorge was obviously beating Trayvon’s knuckles with his face pretty damn mercilessly
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:48 pmStill an issue of what constitutes “provocation.”
(Following when told not to = Provocation) > Conviction
(Following when told not to = [~Provocation]) > ~Conviction
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:50 pmExcept, GZ was returning to his vehicle, and did not have TM “in sight” when he was jumped.
AD-RtR/OS! (fd8226) — 5/15/2012 @ 9:57 pmThat doesn’t quite sound like “following” unless he has ESP.
What is this “told not to” stuff?
Can we get a direct quote?
Patterico (feda6b) — 5/15/2012 @ 10:07 pmBeen down this road many times in another thread…
A what a 911 operator tells somebody on the phone is not legally enforceable (police chief said this too in response to a reporter’s question).
When dispatcher said that GZ did not need to follow TM, he stopped running, turned around, and after a minute or so, stopped panting (was in recorded 911 call).
So– =! provocation -> =! conviction
If I follow your logic train…
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/15/2012 @ 10:07 pm“What is this “told not to” stuff?
Can we get a direct quote?”
– Patterico
I’m going off of “OK. We don’t need you to do that.”
It’s not legally enforceable, and it’s certainly not unambiguous; but it seems like it’s something that will force a jury to grapple with the question of whether or not Zimmerman’s pursuit of Trayvon was necessary (re: preclusion of a self-defense claim).
What I’m saying is, it seems like the key question is going to be whether or not any of Zimmerman’s actions constituted any sort of provocation. Based on the facts that have been reported, it’s hard for me to see any provocation. But it’ll turn on facts more thoroughly vetted than anything we’ve been privy to thus far.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/15/2012 @ 10:17 pmWho instigated the altercation?
tifosa (fdd875) — 5/15/2012 @ 10:21 pmWho was crying for help?
Self-defense by the person who pursued?
“fing punks/coons/cold/whatevah”
“are you following him?”
“yeah”
ok we don’t need you to do that”
it’s obvious the whole concept behind “we don’t need you to do that” is that Mr. Z shouldn’t put himself at risk, being that the itinerant suspected miscreant might could prove to have tendencies towards Violence
the idea for sure wasn’t that the dispatcher didn’t think it a good thing that someone keep an eye on Mr. Tea n Skittles, just that the dispatcher didn’t want to be liable for any harm what might befall Mr. Z’s face should things go awry
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/15/2012 @ 10:23 pmZimmerman will be found not guilty sometime this summer, the whole country will see why, and Obama will be helpless to stop the sporadic but not insignificant rioting that occurs after the verdict.
And for every small business that gets torched, or every minute (frequent white house visitor) malik zulu shabazz is on live tv egging the rioters as Eric Holder and Janet Incomepetano shrug their shoulders and do nothing, thats another 3-5 points off Obamas approval rating.
Its probable the Zimmerman verdict will come around the same time SCOTUS rules on Obamacare.
Then it will be time for the national nomnomnomnominating conventions, where occudrones will be rioting at both the dnc and rnc conventions, something Obama will also be powerless to prevent.
Buckle up, kids it gets bumpy from here.
miked (04e8ba) — 5/15/2012 @ 10:29 pmI’m sorry about MCA Mr. d
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/15/2012 @ 10:35 pm“I’m sorry about MCA Mr. d.”
– happyfeet
well played, sir. Or, alternatively, “I offer my sincere condolences as well.”
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/15/2012 @ 10:41 pmI’m trying to unlearn the habit of discounting the possibility of actualized outliers.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/15/2012 @ 10:42 pm^ heh
Dustin (330eed) — 5/15/2012 @ 10:46 pm_____________________________________________
I recall a black pastor leading a protest against a Korean or Chinese family that owned a dry cleaning shop because one of his parishioners told him they had tried to rip her off just because she was black. So they’re picketing the shop. Then the attorney for the family of the dry cleaner released the surveillance tape. It showed the parishioner tried to snatch the laundry from the cashier’s counter and run out without paying.
I take my hat off to anyone who tries to survive in such neighborhoods. The socio-political dysfunction that roils most of those areas would be too much a test for my patience, sanity and sense of safety.
Also, forget the word “black” or “African-American” when characterizing such environments. Why? Because generally around 90-plus percent of the residents of such communities are foolishly, blindly liberal, unshakeable devotees of the Democrat Party. So “leftwingerville” is just as correct, if not far more of a telling, label to apply to the neighborhoods in question.
And if liberalism imbues people with great compassion, humanity, decency, intelligence, wisdom, tolerance and sophistication, then I guess the part of the populace often labeled “African American” is pretty much at the top of the pyramid in terms of compassion, humaneness, sophistication, intelligence and tolerance. But is it? Is it really?
Mark (3f126e) — 5/15/2012 @ 11:07 pmFrom https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html Contributed by: Sam Baldwin, Mother Jones
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: OK, we don’t need you to do that.
Zimmerman: OK
Followed by discussion about who Zimmerman is, his phone number, and where he would meet the police that had been dispatched. That exchange includes the following.
Dispatcher: What’s your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It’s a home it’s 1950, oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t know where this kid is.
There are other websites with transcripts, and they seem to have pretty close to the same information (with a few exceptions).
I haven’t figured out how Zimmerman continued to “follow” when he didn’t “know where this kid is”.
Sue (6623c5) — 5/15/2012 @ 11:21 pmI think there are several relevant things
GZ supposedly outweighed TM. I’ve seen some sites dispute this, but if not, it only softens the argument that TM started the fight, it doesn’t eliminate it.
But if GZ did outweigh TM AND started the fight, then it seems highly improbable that he’s going to wind up on the bottom getting his face beat off.
This suggests it was TM who went from any verbal “I see you” face down to a physical altercation.
The fact that TM was beating the crap out of GZ, and it apparently wasn’t a minor thing suggests that TM may even have jumped GZ unexpectedly.
The biggest question, I think, is how/why GZ was down that “alley” between the two rows of housing.
It may well be that TM saw him returning from the gate at the end of it and heading back to his car, and called out to him. Unless you assume GZ is totally lying on about every aspect of things, including his motivation, that would strike me as the likely cause.
Smock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master (8e2a3d) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:04 amHey Levitcus — don’t expect a Florida state court to give an instruction based on a federal case out of the DC Circuit.
That’s the difference between law school and the practice of law.
In practicing law we deal with real circumstances and real facts. Even if Peterson was controlling law in the state of Florida, the fact are so different as to make the holding useless as a basis to give an instruction.
shipwreckedcrew (4cabc6) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:55 amLeviticus — please give the law student exercises a rest. I applaud you for pursuing you education and an eventually rewarding career. Between the proprietor here and I we’ve tried well over 100 felony criminal trials, and this one is a TRAVESTY. No neutral evaluator of the evidence would believe for a second that a second degree murder charge is appropriate under the facts, and there will never be a conviction that will withstand appellate scrutiny.
This entire episode makes the Florida prosecutor a laughingstock in the eyes of her peers.
shipwreckedcrew (4cabc6) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:02 am“Zimmerman’s pursuit of Trayvon” and “necessary” — you need to read Peterson again. You clearly don’t understand the facts of that case and what the appellate court was referring to with respect to the “necessity” which must underpin the claim of self-defense.
shipwreckedcrew (4cabc6) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:04 amComment by tifosa — 5/15/2012 @ 10:21 pm
Who instigated the altercation?
— Does not matter, unless it can be proven that Z threatened T’s life.
Who was crying for help?
— Uh, the person that, as evidenced by the extent of his injuries, was losing the “altercation”?
Self-defense by the person who pursued?
— That’s right! You can’t just willy-nilly attack someone for following you.
“fing punks/coons/cold/whatevah”
— Uh, you’re a little bit behind the times, buddy. The “effing coons” meme was put to rest weeks ago. Regardless, words and deeds remain separate entities.
“are you following him?”
Icy (d05264) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:51 am“yeah”
ok we don’t need you to do that”
— Just a reminder: feets destroyed your only-one-possible-interpretation assertion.
http://recovering-liberal.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/hell-freezes-over-lib-journalist-i-was.html
narciso (1c125b) — 5/16/2012 @ 3:33 am46. “Obama will be helpless to stop the sporadic but not insignificant rioting that occurs after the verdict.”
Stop it, oh don’t act stupidly, he says into his pillow.
Out loud he will caution authorities not to exacerbate, profile or otherwise incite mayhem.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 5/16/2012 @ 5:21 am53. “GZ supposedly outweighed TM. I’ve seen some sites dispute this”
Evidently not ‘sights’ of current pictures. Get a life.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 5/16/2012 @ 5:26 amIf feets can talk as fast as he can write, stand up comedy my earn him some coin.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 5/16/2012 @ 5:28 amTiffy refuses to let go of that bone.
JD (faa1d8) — 5/16/2012 @ 6:31 amTiffy, you forgot “it looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:01 amI mean, if you’re gonna be wrong, ya might as well go balls to the wall all out completely 110% wrong.
So the bottom line is that all the objective facts match Zimmerman’s version and none of the objective facts match the fantasies conjured by his prosecutors.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:02 amI’m kinda surprised Alex/Ryan hasn’t had anything to say on this yet… /sarc
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:03 amThe “self-appointed leadership” of the black community is despicable. The Dallas Observer blogger in the post I linked to wrote about one such “leader,” Dallas County
Commissioner John Wiley Price:
Price knows this. He doesn’t believe that for a minute. That’s not the point. He wants his constituents to believe that. So does Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Marion Barry, et al.
They want their constituents to believe that no one makes it without their help. So if you have any success, you owe the leadership for your success.
I wrote earlier that the “self-appointed black leadership” would have the press believe that a Korean guy immigrated to this country just to pour his life savings into it, so he could run it into the ground and go bankrupt.
That’s what you’d have to believe if you’re going to believe Rev. Wright’s (why are so many of these ***h***s named Rev. Wright?!?!) story that he constantly calls his customers “broke a** n*****s,” and that’s why they’re picketing him. Not because, they claim, he’s a “rich” Korean business owner in a predominantly black area.
A lot of people don’t do a formal, written business plan. A lot of people scrape the cash together and buy a going concern without the slightest inkling of what a business plan is, and many do ok and learn as they go. But everyone really has at least part of a business plan in mind. And I’ve never met anyone who thought being rude and insulting to the one class of people they depended on to keep afloat, the customer, belonged in it in any way.
But that’s what Rev. Wright is telling the press. And the press isn’t buying it. In the case of the DO blogger, he notes dryly that for a Korean immigrant who barely speaks English he sure mastered that one part of the vernacular.
But Wright doesn’t expect the press to believe it.
He expects his followers to believe it. He wants them to believe this is what Asians, or whites, do when they come in “from outside” into “the community” (no one except black people have communities I guess).
“Be careful of those outsiders! You can’t trust them. You can only trust your friendly local black leadership. And other blacks.”
It’s not a good way for blacks to get ahead, but that isn’t the point. I work in Eddie Bernice Johnson’s district, and I’ve worked on some campaigns in her district to try to get the on-the-take old hag booted out. She’s the one who unethically diverted Congressional Black Caucus scholarship funds to her own grandkids and the children of cronies.
What I’m saying is that the last thing the black leadership wants if for those they’ve designated their followers (and as Hemingway noted these followers once so-designated without their knowledge or even against their will now commit treason if they rebel; no where except “the community” do you find the concept of “race traitor” so alive and publicly traded in) is to succeed and become independent. They want them dependent and beholden.
That way the can keep getting elected for life. That way a slice of pizza and a coke is a huge vote buying incentive. That way when the Democratic party machine turns to the leadership like Sharpton to “deliver” the vote, Sharpton can promise to deliver in percentages you don’t see outside of pseudo-elections in middle-eastern or communist one-party dictatorships. And don’t think the comparison isn’t apt.
The black leadership maintains its grip on power by through fear; by keeping “its” people in a constant siege mentality. Watch & see as this election heats up.
Al Sharpton: GOP Declared ‘War On Black People’ Time To ‘Fire Back’
This is just the start. The CBC’s “the TEA party wants to bring back slavery, Jim Crow, and the lynching tree” nationwide tour earlier was just a warm-up. You’ll see campaign literature showing how the GOP wants to burn black churches and chain black people to the bumper of the party bus and drag them to death like you’ve never seen before (I’m talking from the old guard black Democratic leaders).
Why? Because Obama is such a screw-up they’re afraid the black vote will stay home. Maybe even wander off the reservation, and find out they GOP doesn’t really want to lynch them like their leaders have been trying to scare them into believing.
They’re afraid of losing the black vote and consequently their power, and scared & cornered animals are dangerous. Predictable and dangerous.
Steve (773f84) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:05 amComment by miked — 5/15/2012 @ 10:29 pm
Zimmerman will be found not guilty sometime this summer…
Its probable the Zimmerman verdict will come around the same time SCOTUS rules on Obamacare.
The next court date for Zimmerman is now Wednesday, August 8. The latest (and actually most likely) date for the announcement and release of the Supreme Court Obamacare is decision, is, I think, the last Monday in June – June 25, unless they decide to carry it over for reargument in the next term.
There wouldn’t be a jury verdict in the Zimmerman case. What could happen is the judge dismissing the charges. Under Florida law maybe part of the Stand Your Ground law, there is a hearing where Zimmerman will have a chance to prove himself innocent by a preponderance of the evidence.
I get the sense that his lawyer Mark O’Mara, isn’t anxious to win too quickly, and he’s also anxious (or George Zimmerman is) to limit his court appearances, probably because of security concerns. They avoided a court date last Tuesday (May 8) by having his not guilty plea submitted in writing.
Mark O’Mara, filed motions Tuesday requesting a continuance and waiving his client’s right to a speedy trial. George Zimmerman is not in jail, so there’s no exact hurry to end the case. He’s got to worry about being lynched almost. He needs to have his reputation back.
the whole country will see why
This is very important to George Zimmerman.
Now if the case gets dismissed to quickly, there won’t be riots, or even maybe big demonstrations, but what Obama might do is announce a federal investigation of George Zimmerman and the Sanford police department (not the prosecutor, since she did everything Benjamin Crump could reasonably have hoped for – she will only be accused of incompetence, and the local DA and police maybe of failing to get evidence)
I think Mark O’Meara is trying to avoid that outcome.
And the Democratic Party will campaign for changes in gun laws. They’ll try to attribute the judge’s ruling to a bad law – never mind that the stand your ground law had nothing to do with this.
Romney will probably be extremely, extremely cautious about saying anything, and if he does, he will make it apparent that he doesn’t understand anything about what’s happening. (If Zimmerman gets cleared this summer and Obama – not personally but through his Attorney General or even lower ranking people – lets people know the case is not over.)
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:20 am67.
* May 8th. Again by accident: 8 + ) not separated = smiley face.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:27 amComment by Steve — 5/16/2012 @ 7:05 am
That way the can keep getting elected for life.
That’s not the way. That they get by virtue of the (misnamed) Voting Rights Act – the provisions in it regarding reapportionment. I think some of this is actually judicial or DOJ.
They also of course need:
1) No non-blacks moving in. So make the area hostile to them.
2) Poor quality of life and high crime, so no budding politician moves there or stays there, or fewer of them, and voter turnout is low. It doesn’t matter if people vote with their feet because the Voting Rights Act will grab more people and bring them into the district.
There is still some political competition, but this does limit it. What there is, though is all the same. Except maybe some of it is worse.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:39 amAs I said, the Prosecution and the Cops baked it to try and get poor fat Georgie but the more you know the worse it looks.
Cops wanted charges b/c they did not like fat Georgie.
New Prosecutor wanted charges b/c they wanted votes.
Only decent human being here was the original prosecutor who likely knew all this and is why he said NO to arresting Georgie for anything.
Shame on the vindictive Police. Shame on the Prosecutor. Shame on Black “Leadership.” Shame on the President.
Bill (cd1593) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:44 amA lot of people don’t do a formal, written business plan.
Only if they want a bank loan.
A business plan does not prevent bankruptcy – maybe it even contributes to it. That’s because it demands knowledge a person cannot have.
A lot of people scrape the cash together and buy a going concern without the slightest inkling of what a business plan is,
It’s not necessary – It is important to find out if it truly is a going concern – and if it is making more or less money over time. A going concern – if it is going – you already know or can know if it works. And if you think they are making one mistake – you can estimate things.
But a “BUSINESS PLAN??”
You can’t just go ahead and assume – OK I need to sell things for such and such a price to make money so that is what I will sell things for. I need to do so much business so that is what I will do. Or “I will advertise and get so and so much business.” But that’s what a business plan gets people to do.
All the inputs need to be honest and realistic. A bank doesn’t know that. You can say OK this doesn’t work, maybe I will try things.
and many do ok and learn as they go.
That’s all anybody can do. The worst mistake is not have enough working capital. You’ve got to plan for your mistakes.
But a business plan that lays everything down in black and white? Maybe that’s possible, for the second third or fourth stores in a chain or for someone who did this all before.
But everyone really has at least part of a business plan in mind.
That’s right too. A general sketch or overview. Maybe a going concern or similiarity to something else.
And I’ve never met anyone who thought being rude and insulting to the one class of people they depended on to keep afloat, the customer, belonged in it in any way.
It’s not like this is an integrated or mostly white or foreign born neigborhood.
But that’s what Rev. Wright is telling the press. And the press isn’t buying it. In the case of the DO blogger, he notes dryly that for a Korean immigrant who barely speaks English he sure mastered that one part of the vernacular.
But Wright doesn’t expect the press to believe it.
He expects his followers to believe it.
Not that, either. He just expects nobody to call him a liar and just ignore what he says. He really wants to be bought off. It is enough for people to pretend that he believes it.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:57 am“My bold prediction: this guy does not get convicted of murder.”
You never know.
The guy is guilty as hell…but, a lot of guilty guys walk.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:22 am________________________________________________
The black leadership maintains its grip on power by through fear; by keeping “its” people in a constant siege mentality.
While that’s a big part of the political tactics evident in various communities — as exploited by so-called or self-appointed “leaders” — it’s incubated or enabled when an absurdly high percentage of people in such neighborhoods lean left. People who are blindly, foolishly, even maniacally liberal. A place or location where signs of common sense and basic logic are the exception to the rule. That’s why I focus so much on the prevailing ideology within a group of people (or society), instead of whether their race or ethnicity (etc) is A, B or C.
BTW, some observers (mostly of the left) have theorized that the politics in America are unique to or greatly influenced by its history, particularly as it involves the era before civil rights or when slavery was in effect. While applicable to a small degree, there nonetheless is not a great difference in the amount of mindless leftism (or flaky socialism) found in countries throughout the world — Africa included — whose history is greatly different from that of the US.
Mark (2d5b49) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:28 am“please give the law student exercises a rest. ”
– shipwreckedcrew
I was just responding to DRJ, is all. She said that this would never be a law school exam question because it would be too easy. I said (basically) that if it were a law school exam question we’d be expected to discuss the other side of the equation; the case we read to illustrate self-defense claims precluded by provocation was US v. Peterson. I know that a DC Circuit case isn’t going to be binding precedent in Florida. I still think it’s going to be important whether or not a jury views Zimmerman’s following as provocation. As I said before, based on the facts that I’ve seen, I don’t think they will. But there are other facts to be seen, no?
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:48 amLeviticus, the idea that “following” someone is provocation is just ludicrous.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:54 amSPQR: I tend to agree with L. Following a kid as a grown man is weird, it would provoke moi
[NOTE: This comment is not by the real JD — DRJ]
JD (e55ee0) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:59 amThat is not me. Someone is using my name, again.
JD (0d91a1) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:02 amSPQR,
Maybe. I feel like it would depend on the nature of the following. And, one way or another, all I’ve been saying is that it seems like Zimmerman’s self-defense claim will hinge on that point.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:02 amThe “nature” of the following? What? If he was doing a Marty Feldman/Igor limp it would be a provocation but not otherwise?
Following someone is simply not provocation. Zimmerman had a legal right to be in the neighborhood.
You brought up US v. Peterson but evidently you don’t understand what you read. The defendant’s provocation was the threat of force, not following someone.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:07 amSo to be a Trayvon supporter, you have to believe:
– Zimmerman’s injuries were faked by a conspiracy consisting of the responding police officers, paramedics, neighbors, a police special effects make-up artist, and Zimmerman’s physician.
CrustyB (69f730) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:09 am– Trayvon’s knuckle lacerations were inflicted postmortem by a coroner who was in on the above conspiracy.
– Bruising is now an instantaneous phenomenon which no longer requires hours to appear, unlike the old, pre-2012 days of human physiology.
– Viciously beating someone who followed you for 15 to 60 seconds from a block away is legally justifiable, even if the “perpetrator” is walking away from you.
– Zimmerman should have cooperated and let Trayvon bash his head open because seven years ago on MySpace he called a bunch of Mexicans walking in the street “a bunch of Mexicans walking in the street.”
Sammy, even if you don’t need a loan, going through the exercise of putting together a business plan is a worthy exercise. It helps you identify areas of weakness, makes you think of things you might not otherwise have thought of until it blows up in your face.
As far as a business plan contributing to bankruptcy because it demands knowledge you don’t have? Come on Sammy. Going into business on your own for the first time does exactly that, too.
If you don’t want to risk bankruptcy by getting into something where you might be in over your head, keep your day job. I’ve only started two businesses. I’ve never borrowed money to do it. Just by going through the exercise of putting together a business plan we’ve eliminated what in hindsight were foreseeable risks, but which weren’t so obvious at the time.
Sure, if you have the working capital you can deal with unanticipated problems. You have to, there always will be such problems. On the other hand, a little planning goes a long way toward reducing the number of unanticipated problems.
Moving from a military background into business wasn’t all that hard. In military operations failure can be assigned to three broad categories: failure to learn the lessons of the past, failure to adapt to changing conditions, failure to anticipate future events. One is manageable, when two types combine it’s serious, and if all three failures occur at once it’s usually unrecoverable. It’s not too different in business, and a plan helps with numbers one and two.
The good thing about doing a business plan when you don’t need to borrow money, when it’s just for you, is that all inputs can be brutally honest and realistic. After all, no one else needs to see it.
As far as going concerns go, many that appear to be aren’t. It isn’t always just looking at the financials. I know several businesses that went under after they tore down Cowboys stadium in Irving (actually after the Cowboys moved) which weren’t right by the place and their survival wasn’t blatantly tied to the place. But the traffic the Cowboys generated was the difference between making it or locking the doors, and had they sold to the unsuspecting (and it happens) the poor slob would have been left holding an empty sack.
Of course on the other hand, a good operator should have and would have seen that particular trainwreck coming and adapted; it wasn’t like the Cowboys moving to Arlington was some unpredictable act of God. Some people just cruise along being lucky instead of good, and thinking things are the other way around. I put our President in that category, but that’s a discussion for another day.
Dude, I’ve got a business less than 4 miles from that shamrock station. Eddie Bernice Johnson’s 30th Congressional District covers a lot of territory and my place is closer to where she has her office because she doesn’t want to live or work down where this Korean guy is trying to scratch a living. But I spent quite a bit of time working on the Broden campaign (lost cause, but what the hey) & I’m familiar with the politics and some of the players.
You can either believe me or not. But Wright and Price and the rest of the gang have the folks down there convinced that capitalism works like the old sharecropping system. And the guys running these convenience places view their customers, and treat their customers, like sharecroppers who have to buy everything from the plantation store.
This isn’t the first time, as you’d note from my original post about the dry cleaners, that I’ve heard of black preachers accusing store owners in South Dallas of being outright racists who berate and beat their customers. It never occurs to their flocks to ask why if that’s the case the customers keep going back for more, instead of just going someplace else and causing the “racist” to fail. Because they’ve been convinced by their leadership that that’s how capitalism works, and only their leaders can save them from it and the only way they’ll get businesses of their own is if their leaders “redistribute” the opportunities.
Like I said, you can choose not to believe me.
Steve (773f84) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:12 amNature of the following? I guess the 911 call recordings hide the true “nature of the following”?
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:13 amRush Limbaugh is mentioning this right now.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:14 amIt never occurs to their flocks to ask why if that’s the case the customers keep going back for more, instead of just going someplace else and causing the “racist” to fail.
You said some people have been convinced the stores have a monopoly. A monopoly that government is in some ways responsible for.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:17 amComment by elissa — 5/15/2012 @ 7:42 pm
Has anybody posted the picture of Zimmerman’s black grandfather here yet?
Great grandfather. His grandmother’s father. He may never have seen him, but I think I read he heard (stories?) about him. Rush Limbaugh just made the same mistake and called him his grandfather. Also said he didn’t know about this till now. I guess he’s not up to speed on this. He said if it is true, then George Zimmerman has a lot more black in him than Elizabeth Warren has Indian. That’s true even for a great grandfather (1/8 ) – I almost got that smiley face again. Bo Snerdly (real name James Goulden I think) made the observation first off the air.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:24 amI prevented a smiley face but not italics where they shouldn’t be.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:25 am“So to be a Trayvon supporter, you have to believe:”
That people have a right to walk down the street without being harrassed, stalked and then murdered by armed morons like George Zimmerman.
And, that happens to be exactly what I believe.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:27 am85 and others
What is this endless obsession with race? A man killed a kid. That’s the story
[NOTE: This comment is not by the real JD — DRJ]
JD (e55ee0) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:27 am87: exactly, let’s take race out of it folks!
[NOTE: This comment is not by the real JD — DRJ]
JD (e55ee0) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:28 amDave Surls, your comments continue to ignore objective facts so that you can make such over the top rhetoric. There is a word for “belief” contrary to fact.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:29 am“alex” is sockpuppetting me.
JD (0d91a1) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:31 amAnd not very well.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:34 am“Following someone is simply not provocation. Zimmerman had a legal right to be in the neighborhood.
You brought up US v. Peterson but evidently you don’t understand what you read. The defendant’s provocation was the threat of force, not following someone.”
– SPQR
Maybe you’re right. I took the provocation to be a broader, “but-for cause” type of thing – not limited to a threat of force. It’s an interesting question, whether the guy returning to his yard with a gun (without a verbal threat) would’ve been perceived the same way by the court.
“It has long been accepted that one cannot support a claim of self-defense by a self-generated necessity to kill. The right of homicidal self-defense is granted only to those free from fault in the difficulty; it is denied to slayers who incite the fatal attack, encourage the fatal quarrel or otherwise promote the necessitous occasion for taking life. The fact that the deceased struck the first blow, fired the first shot or made the first menacing gesture does not legalize the self-defense claim if in fact the claimant was the actual provoker.”
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:34 amSuch pathetic people who are so unable to argue that they just take your name and start pretending things you agree with aren’t true.
I think they call it ‘lulz’ because they giggle at this passive aggressive annoyance effort.
They lose, so they change the rules to where merely being annoying = victory for them. It’s no longer about the truth. Just being annoying. Well OK… you guys win that one. We win the truth one.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:36 amMe and Rev Al couldn’t agree more.
Tawana Brawley (721840) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:36 amL, agreed. Zimmerman started the fight and ended the fight. He’s most likely guilty.
[NOTE: This comment is not by the real JD — DRJ]
JD (e55ee0) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:36 amObviously I’m not talking about Leviticus. I enjoy reading his good faith and intelligent comments.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:37 amThis thread is being poisoned by sock puppeting trolls that I hope are swiftly banned as soon as DRJ or stashiu3 spot them.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:39 amSeconded.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:40 amThe guy is guilty as hell…but, a lot of guilty guys walk.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/16/2012 @ 8:22 am
— And sometimes innocent guys are locked up as the result of a rush to judgment.
You never pre-judge a situation where you do not know all of the facts, do you, Dave?
Icy (0b5229) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:43 am“A business plan does not prevent bankruptcy”
SAMMY THE STRAWMAN STRIKES AGAIN!
Knocks down an assertion not in evidence.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:45 am“Me and Rev Al couldn’t agree more.”
Even Al Sharpton can get one right once in awhile.
The idea that this case even remotely resembles the Tawana Brawley incident is the kind of puerile nonsense I expect from left wingers, not right wingers.
But, I’m often disappointed in my expectations.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:46 amWell we need to be honest. Zimmerman is guilty, but that does not mean he will be convicted.
[NOTE: This comment is not by the real JD — DRJ]
JD (e55ee0) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:47 amDave Surls, the fact that you can’t point to any evidence that Zimmerman started the fight seems not to dissuade you from the ridiculous rhetoric at all.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:48 amDave, I think the racial obsession blinds people
[NOTE: This comment is not by the real JD — DRJ]
JD (e55ee0) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:48 amWell we need to be honest. Zimmerman is guilty, but that does not mean he will be convicted.
Comment by JD — 5/16/2012 @ 9:47 am
“Alex” talking of honesty is the pinnacle of unintentional irony.
JD (0d91a1) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:50 am“The worst mistake is not have enough working capital. You’ve got to plan for your mistakes.”
Projecting that out sounds sort of like putting together a plan, I forget what they call it, it’s a technical term, oh yeah, a BUSINESS PLAN!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:50 amPlease define “harass” “stalk” and “murdered.” The rest of us base our opinions on the evidence. I don’t like being “that guy,” but the definition of harass is: to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.
I don’t see “kind of following from afar for under a minute.” I have a feeling that “stalking” requires something more as well. As for murder, there needs to be intent, not just “one person is dead, one is alive.”
I asked you in one of the other threads what it would take for you to admit you were snowed. I ask again, in light of the rampant media malpractice, the coroner’s report, Z’s hospital records, the photo of Z’s head… At what point do you finally say, “yeah, I may have been wrong on this”? There’s no shame in it. You were lied to. We all were.
Or are you still waiting for justice for Tawana?
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:51 am“And sometimes innocent guys are locked up as the result of a rush to judgment.”
Funny, your hero doesn’t seem to be locked up at the moment, so I guess that’s really not an issue, is it?
Btw, it’s too bad guys like your hero don’t apply the standard you mention before they start confronting, shooting and killing people.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:51 amOh, it’s intentional irony, JD.
They think it’s even more annoying when they project very specifically. It’s no accident. It’s meant to troll.
It’s like the kid who says ‘stop hitting yourself’ while thumping another kid with his own arm.
I think they are also trying to overcome the ‘ignore’ functionality. I never read the trolls after pretty much a single idiotic post. But I can’t block “JD”, can I?
Dustin (330eed) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:52 amWhy is zimmerman or Martin a hero or a side? Race Obsession
[NOTE: This comment is not by the real JD — DRJ]
JD (e55ee0) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:53 amDave Surls, your belief that people getting beat up cannot legally defend themselves is without foundation in law or morality. Following someone is not stalking. Defending oneself against physical assault is not murder.
Oddly, you seem uninterested in retaining any credibility as you continue to double down on the unsupported, fact-free, rhetoric.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:57 am‘Please define “harass” “stalk” and “murdered.”’
Invest in a dictionary and all your questions will be answered.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:58 amLeviticus at 74 — ok on that point. DRJ did invite the “exercise”, and law school questions normally ask to explore beyond the facts of a reported case to consider its implications in other contexts and circumstances.
I just hate seeing this case bastardized by grafting onto it facts and legal principles that will simply never apply, turning it into something its not, and then suggesting a basis for anything but the obvious outcome.
This case isn’t even close. I expect the judge to throw it out on the pre-trial procedure where Zimmerman gets to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence to the judge.
shipwreckedcrew (4cabc6) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:58 amBecause we defend a man’s actions, that man is our hero? Does that make Al Sharpton your hero? After all, you just said even he gets one right once in a while.
That’s the kind of logic I expect from people on the left, not people like you, Dave.
I guess we all get disappointed in our expectations.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:59 amIt’s free online. Dictionary dot com. I asked you, because as I described in the rest of that post, I already checked and there is no evidence for anything you claim. To harass, stalk and murder someone.
But you knew that. Otherwise, you would have answered honestly.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:01 amDave Surls, I don’t have questions. Because I already understand the terms as they are used in criminal law. Meanwhile, your investment in calling people names who do not agree with your inflated, fact-free rhetoric only reinforces the damage you’ve already done to your credibility.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:02 am“Dave Surls, your belief that people getting beat up cannot legally defend themselves is without foundation in law or morality.”
That would certainly be an odd thing to believe all right.
Luckily, for me, that isn’t what i believe.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:05 am________________________________________________
“alex” is sockpuppetting me.
I originally thought that fake post instead was an odd case of your inner-liberal side seeping out. As for Dave Surls, I don’t know what his excuse is, particularly if he’s the type who lives in a comfortable, protected, rather homogenous neighborhood that is free from the headaches and worries that folks like George Zimmerman have to contend with.
There are plenty of people out there who on the surface like to smile, sound idealistic, and even play the do-gooder and naif. But in private they’ll glance up and down and sideways, and then tell a real-estate agent: “Er, um, uh, I’d rather not look at listings for homes or apartments in THAT part of town. And I’d rather not send my kids to THAT public school. Thank you.”
Mark (2d5b49) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:08 amLeviticus — I think a key fact in Peterson was not only that the defendant went inside his house AFTER the confrontation had began, and then returned with a gun, but he then loaded it in front of the victim, pointed it at the victim who had retreated to his car, and commanded the victim to not leave. That entire sequence of events was provocative and precipitated the events that followed.
Pointing a gun at someone and then commanding them to not leave can be construed as an invitation to the victim to arm themselves and the “affray” (?) that followed from the mutual arming.
There is simply NO EVIDENCE of anything similar here, and the only person who might have been able to offer such evidence is dead. The prosecution doesn’t get to play “What if” before jury and offer up hypotheticals.
shipwreckedcrew (4cabc6) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:08 amshipwreckedcrew,
Given the facts that we have, in sum-total, I am very surprised that Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder. I have to assume that there’s evidence which hasn’t been presented yet, since the prosecutor is going to stake her career on the case. Why they didn’t run it past a grand-jury… I dunno. Perplexing. Are there legitimate concerns about polluting a jury pool (i.e. “if we present this key piece of evidence to a grand jury, it’s gonna hit the media and everyone and his cousin is going to have some preconceived notion about it by the time trial rolls around”)?
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:09 amIf you don’t believe that, how do you reconcile Z being beat to hell, and T only having torn skin on his knuckles and a bullet wound? T had no broken ribs from a sucker punch, bruised jaw from an uppercut or anything showing that Z threw the first punch.
All you’ve got is a guy following another for under a minute. And from that, you’ve decided guilt.
Justice for the duke rape victim!
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:10 amFunny, your hero doesn’t seem to be locked up at the moment, so I guess that’s really not an issue, is it?
— Who the f*** is my “hero”, Surls? Have I EVER stated that Zimmerman is my “hero”? Have I EVER stated that Zimmerman’s actions were those of a “hero”? And you know damn well that I was talking about someone being locked up post-conviction, and not his pre-indictment arrest & detainment.
Btw, it’s too bad guys like your hero don’t apply the standard you mention before they start confronting, shooting and killing people.
Icy (0b5229) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:11 am— It’s too bad for the prosecution that your psychic knowledge of what exactly happened on the night in question is inadmissible in court.
Sorry, that was for Dave.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:11 am_____________________________________________
Justice for the duke rape victim!
And the Jena 6!
Mark (2d5b49) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:13 amLeviticus — as I understand the charging process under Florida law, its simply the decision of the prosecutor to charge or not charge. She bypassed the grand jury, and filed the charging instrument with only her own signature. That is a process followed in many states, and is different than federal law where the constitution requires a GJ indictment, unless waived by the defendant.
So, a unethical prosecutor who is seeking public approbation — in the days before the filing deadline of opponents to run against her — can draft up whatever charge she wants and sign her name to it.
In this instance, I suspect the justification after-the-fact for her conduct will simply be that a prosecutor is not required to accept a claim of self-defense — she is perfectly entitled to not credit Zimmerman’s version of events. Instead, she can claim that her position was simply that the claim of self-defense made by him had to be validated by a neutral third party magistrate, and not charging him in the first instance would have short-circuited the “process” that was created by the Florida legislature.
Its craven, and a cynical ploy to attract votes from a significant African-American population in the counties where she is standing for reelection — mostly around Jacksonville. It’s “legitimate” in the abstract, but it ignores so much of the objective evidence here as to make her true purposes transparent.
shipwreckedcrew (4cabc6) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:19 amIt’s interesting how some people dismiss the apparent photographic evidence of the injuries to George Zimmerman as well as a couple alleged eyewitness accounts that support Zimmerman’s story.
Yet many of those people who dismiss such evidence, are at the same time 100% “certain” about what happened in the Romney haircut incident that allegedly took place almost 50 years ago. They even are certain about motive, and intent.
The people in Trayvon Martin’s corner try to minimize Martin’s accountability for his own actions, by merely characterizing him as, “a kid.”
On the other hand, Mitt Romney was the same as age as Martin, yet somehow we’re told that Romney’s alleged prank is an indictment of his character for the rest of his life.
To quote that Canadian-American sage of wisdom Alanis Morrissette, “Isn’t it ironic ?”
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:20 amshipwreckedcrew,
I think you’re right about the composition of the provocation in Peterson. It seems like the courts look very poorly on defendants who leave a scene and then come back to continue a confrontation, as Peterson and other cases like (Rowe?) illustrate. “Gun + Command not to leave” is WAY more provocative than “Following someone as a function of neighborhood watch duties.” So I mostly agree with you.
The only thing I would say is that the activity that Keitt (the victim in Peterson) was engaged in was a lot more “provocative” than anything that Trayvon Martin did (prior to, you know, the punchings). If assessing initial provocation is a balancing act (and I don’t know that it is), then the innocuous nature of Martin’s conduct prior to the confrontation might be what the prosecution hangs its hat on.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:20 am“Given the facts that we have, in sum-total, I am very surprised that Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder. I have to assume that there’s evidence which hasn’t been presented yet, since the prosecutor is going to stake her career on the case.”
The other likely assumption is that the current special prosecutor is acting politically and emotionally, not logically. Under that rubric, her actions make perfect sense.
I believe I have read that the existence of an indictment makes the civil case that Trayvon’s family is engaging in much much easier, pass or fail. It’s not like they can get money out of Zimmerman – but the condo? The city, the county, the state? The mere existence of same means that the lawyers for Trayvon’s family get more more more.
The special prosecutor isn’t going to be punished. Her bleeding heart was in the right place.
luagha (5cbe06) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:23 amFor the love of all that is holy, please never do that again. 🙂
Ghost (600350) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:25 amElephant Stone,
I’m not discounting Zimmerman’s injuries at all, not at all. They were serious, and are probably going to get him acquitted, as Patterico predicts. I’m not giving Martin a pass for whaling on a stranger as a 17 year old, either – in what universe is that the proper response to the situation in which he found himself?
And yeah – I’m not giving Mitt Romney a pass on gang-barbering a crying classmate as a teenager, either.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:26 am‘Who the f*** is my “hero”, Surls? Have I EVER stated that Zimmerman is my “hero”? Have I EVER stated that Zimmerman’s actions were those of a “hero”?’
I don’t know, you fellas seem pretty devoted to the idiot and you seem to have a lot of regard for what he did.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:33 amNo, Dave, we’re just giving him the the benefit of reasonable doubt and due process. Which a mob out there is not. We’re just talking, here.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:39 amLeviticus — comparing Keitt’s conduct to Martin’s is only really relevant when you are addressing the necessity of resorting to deadly force. But that wasn’t an issue in Peterson, because of the determination that Peterson provoked the armed response by Keitt which led Peterson to kill him.
Here, Zimmerman was in the process of being beaten — not being threatened. And there is no evidence to support a proposition that Martin was acting himself in response to a threat by Zimmerman, which would get him closer to the Peterson facts.
If, for example, Zimmerman had pulled his gun and ordered Martin to stop, and a fight followed that act, during which Martin was trying to incapacitate ZImmerman to prevent him from using the gun, then Zimmerman’s shooting of him could be called into question.
BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE here — as was the case in Peterson — to get you to that scenario. In Peterson there were 4 witnesses who established a competing narrative to the one offered by the defendant. Here there is not such narrative — there is only supposition.
That is not a prosecutable case.
shipwreckedcrew (4cabc6) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:40 amIn my world (which I like to be nice and peaceful), you want to go around shooting and killing people, you better have a damned good reason for doing so.
And: I saw aa unarmed black kid walking down the street, didn’t like the way he looked, decided to start to start fucking with him, and then killed him (with the hidden pistol I was carrying) when he punched me…ain’t a good way to convince me you had good reason.
If I’m the jury…Zimmerman is toast, unless I hear something a whole lot different from what I’ve heard so far.
Glad they charged the guy. He deserves it.
Why you guys are sticking up for this fucking idiot totally eludes me.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:40 amMy first wife threw away all my ammunition. Which is just as well, since I went half-blind in my right eye (dominant) four days ago. I guess I will need to deal with the rioters with a 2×4 when Zimmerman is acquitted.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:45 amDave, there are a lot of people I could criticize that I do not think are guilty of second degree murder.
As it happens, I have criticized George Zimmerman, but in my opinion what evidence I’m aware of suggests he was defending himself.
All I ask is that he get a fair day in court, and those charging him with crimes also show their good faith basis for that claim.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:46 amnk, I’m sorry to hear about your health problems. You’ve been in my prayers for some time.
There’s a recent story about a legally blind man who enjoys shooting for fun. You love guns and should continue enjoying them with appropriate safety precautions.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:48 am________________________________________________
you fellas seem pretty devoted to the idiot
And if you live in a place where there are plenty of neighbors like Trayvon Martin all around you — and hustlers like Al Sharpton, etc — then I’ll consider buying what you’re trying to sell.
BTW, I’ve personally experienced a community and schools that went through the process of becoming integrated, then eventually (and rather quickly) barely integrated, and then re-segregated all over again. So I don’t live in a world of two-faced, phony-baloney idealism.
Mark (2d5b49) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:54 amLeviticus,
I actually didn’t even read your posts in this thread. But interesting that you perceived my analysis of the media’s double-standard in reporting the two cases might actually apply to what you may have written.
The haircut was almost 50 years ago. It’s time to get over it. Lauber did—and so did his family.
None of us was there, Lauber is deceased, and there appears to be some “funny” recollections of the incident…people recounting it who may not have even been there to witness it, et al.
Plus, people’s memories fade after 50 years.
Perhaps you’ll join the chorus in calling for Obama to release his college records, so we’ll know exactly which classmates to interview regarding his behavior in college. Maybe he did something untoward at Columbia, that we all need to know about ?
If everyone who committed an over-the-top prank in high school had it held over their head (to use a bad pun) for the rest of their lives, then nobody would deserve to get elected dog
eatercatcher, much less President.Of course, during their youths, Robert Kennedy can smash a bottle over a guy’s head in college, and Ted Kennedy can leave a woman to drown, and Robert Byrd can recruit for the KKK, and so on and so on…but the lefties always continue to re-elect and re-elect and re-elect all these guys.
Gee, I wonder why that is…
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:55 amNK,
Blind N.J. Man Gets Guns Back Years After Police Took Them Away.
Prayers for your health and family.
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:57 amJD,
I found several fake JD comments and labeled them so readers will know they aren’t yours. I’ve also banned the IP associated with those comments. I have a good idea who left them and I will be watching.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 10:58 amshipwreckedcrew,
I guess what I’m asking is this: given that Keitt’s initial action – prying the windshield wipers from Peterson’s car in Peterson’s driveway (not grabbing the lug wrench) – was blatantly illegal and highly provocative and confrontational in its own right, it took an even more provocative and confrontational action on Peterson’s part – getting a gun and threatening to kill Keitt – for the court to find that Peterson (and not Keitt) had “provoked” the exchange that led to the shooting. I get the impression that the nature of Keitt’s action set the bar higher for Peterson.
Given that Martin’s initial action – walking down the street (not pummeling Zimmerman) – was not blatantly illegal or highly provocative or confrontational, would that set the bar lower for the sort of conduct that Zimmerman would have had to engage in to “provoke” the exchange that led to the shooting?
I’m not sure if I’m articulating myself very well, but does that make sense? Is it that sort of balancing act, where each stage of the build-up to the confrontation is assessed in a quasi-vacuum for conduct constituting “provocation”? Or are there certain actions which categorically constitute provocation, and certain actions (like “words alone”) which categorically do not? Or some middle ground?
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:00 amThank you, Dustin.
It does not bother me. So far, I have had a very full and very good life.
I have not killed a person, not written a book, not flown to the moon. I have loved a woman, made a daughter, reduced prisoners’ sentences and helped save some from execution.
We are all prisoners of life, in a way. My chains were made of gold.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:00 amThank you, BfC.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:04 amPermission to steal?
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:08 am“Perhaps you’ll join the chorus in calling for Obama to release his college records…”
– Elephant Stone
Funny. Thought I had done just that, today.
Guess I can take your assertion that you haven’t been reading my comments seriously…
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:11 amPermission to steal?
Comment by Ghost — 5/16/2012 @ 11:08 am
No! Make your own life and your own happiness.
Tell the Threy Grey Old Ladies to find boyfriends.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:22 am*three*
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:26 amnk,
I’m so sorry. Take care of yourself and you are in my prayers.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:28 amNk,
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:32 amI meant the quote, not the chains. 🙂
NK, What happened?! Is there some hope of restoration?
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:46 am“The worst mistake is not have enough working capital. You’ve got to plan for your mistakes.”
Comment by daleyrocks — 5/16/2012 @ 9:50 am
Projecting that out sounds sort of like putting together a plan, I forget what they call it, it’s a technical term, oh yeah, a BUSINESS PLAN!
The whole point of a “plan” is that you assume you are not going to make mistakes and that you know what you are doing. And here’s exactly how you are going to make money.
How can you say I know what I am doing, but in some unknown way I am going to lose money, and this is exactly how much?
What somebody can try to do is not make any decision too important, catch mistakes early, put aside money – and how you would decide how much to put aside r have a way of getting I am not sure, except the more it is the better it is. There is no limit, but too much is self-defeating.
Another mistake is not recognizing something is going to go broke. People fall in love with business plans.
I think with a business one idea is to plan for a considerable profit if all goes well, so here’s from for mistakes. Businesses do make budgets but nobody should expect the budget to actually work out as planned.
I suppose you could put a loss reserve.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:47 amyou come down here mr. nk I’ll juice you up some carrots!
no but for reals our friend L has had miraculous results from some treatments she’s gotten in houston for her macular degeneration – and she hadn’t had a lot of hope before –
i think it maybe involved laser beams!
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:51 amNo end to italics again, and also not punctuated.
How can you say (that is any person say) “I…”
Business plans for outsiders demand filling in details you don’t know.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:51 amOf course, Ghost, you can have the quote. The chains were metaphors.
A man’s problems are usually of his own making. It’s his business to take himself out of them.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:51 amNk – sorry if impertinent. I think about eyes a lot. Kid had sudden loss of central vision, some returned.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:52 amI’me fine, happyfeet. I don’t shoot but I still drive. And, well, you see how I type.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:55 amgood deal mister
but for reals if you’re losing visions it can’t hurt to start playing around with speech to text/text to speech software
and that is the sum total of my unasked for advice in this matter
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:56 amSarahW,
In my case, it’s age. Blood clots in the vitreous. Are you anywhere Chicago? Two very good eye doctors. Dimitrios Patrianakos and Thomas Patrianakos.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:00 pmanywhere *near* Chicago
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:01 pmElephant Stone–I appreciate your usually thoughtful comments– and also that you take the time and interest in this blog community to participate and post regularly.
I also appreciate Leviticus’ comments and always read them–and do so for the very same reasons I mentioned about you in the previous sentence.
elissa (d8e278) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:06 pmComment by AD-RtR/OS! — 5/15/2012 @ 9:57 pm
That doesn’t quite sound like “following” unless he has ESP.
This case has been covered so superficially by most media that most people who know something about this case don’t realize it. It s a triumph of Martin family lawyer propaganda.
Not only did George Zimmerman need ESP, he also needed Olympic level running speed.
Unless of course, Travon got lost, returned, stopped, was hiding in wait etc..but following him till he reached him this is not what happened.
It is impossible not to realize this once you have a map and the timing and the details of the story, which most people do not but the Special Prosecutor and her investigators surely do. He was not in his car at their second encounter.
The affidavit, is at a minimum, extremely misleading.
No way could GZ catch TM, especially since he didn’t know where he was (unless he was lying to the police dispatcher and planning to beat up TM before the police got there)
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:07 pmSarahW,
The vitreous is stagnant, so you wait until the clots float down. If not, now doctors can invade to remove it. I was told the vitreous was not necessary, kind of like the appendix?
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:07 pmI see Zimmerman getting convicted. He is after all an admitted killer, just was it murder…. I think clearly yes
[NOTE: This comment is not by the real JD — DRJ]
JD (499093) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:09 pm“Alex” is a cowardly sock puppet.
JD (266e42) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:12 pm==Two very good eye doctors. Dimitrios Patrianakos and Thomas Patrianakos==
You mostly are sticking with good Italian doctors, I see NK.
(Racist!)
elissa (d8e278) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:13 pmComment by Elephant Stone — 5/16/2012 @ 10:55 am
Of course, during their youths, Robert Kennedy can smash a bottle over a guy’s head in college, and Ted Kennedy can leave a woman to drown,
Ted Kennedy was 37 at the time. Leaving a woman to drown depends on whether he thought she could be saved and how much time he spent there. He claimed he dove into the water a couple of times but couldn’t get into the car. The problem is what he did afterward. He panicked – thought how it would affect his chances of becoming president possibly – and tried to hide the whole incident. Also maybe the fact he was legally drunk. He took a wrong turn and continued on the wrong road for a long distance like an idiot till he reached the bridge that changed direction in the middle and drove off the edge. He also probably had been up a long time.
What Ted Kennedy did in college was pay someone else to take a Spanish test for him and he had to leave college for a while..
and Robert Byrd can recruit for the KKK, and so on and so on…but the lefties always continue to re-elect and re-elect and re-elect all these guys.
Gee, I wonder why that is…
C
Of course, during their youths, Robert Kennedy can smash a bottle over a guy’s head in college, and Ted Kennedy can leave a woman to drown, and Robert Byrd can recruit for the KKK, and so on and so on…but the lefties always continue to re-elect and re-elect and re-elect all these guys.
Gee, I wonder why that is…
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:18 pmThese guys are Greeks. They really are good.
My dentist is Italian. He plays the clarinet. 😉
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:20 pmSurls, your rhetoric only becomes more irrational as you lash out. Makes me believe you know you are wrong.
SPQR (ca7f2c) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:23 pmSPQR, I think he makes a lot of sense. Don’t be so dismissive.
[NOTE: This comment is not by the real JD — DRJ]
JD (ebcb8d) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:26 pmSammy:
I agree. It’s probably because he wants to gather as much evidence as possible, but it could also be because of the possibility of federal hate crime or civil rights charges. Perhaps Zimmerman’s attorney hopes the Obama DOJ will hold off on charging Zimmerman as long as the Florida case is still pending. If so and the Florida case continues into early next year, it’s conceivable there will be a Republican DOJ in office and federal charges won’t be as likely.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:28 pmNK, that’s what they told me when my vitreous detached. I have crummy interfering floaters.
Kid probably had some transient occlusion of blood flow although Johns Hopkins doc preferred optic neuritis. The loss was overnight, in just the one eye. Kid was count fingers only, but got a sliver of 20/20 central vision in the affected eye.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:29 pmLeviticus,
I’m sorry if you were deflated to learn that I really hadn’t read your earlier posts in this thread. I wasn’t joking—I really hadn’t read them.
My particular post which you responded to in this thread was merely my general assessment of the media and the two standards they display regarding the behavior of a 17 year old in 1964 VS the behavior of a 17 year old “kid” in February 2012—in other words, it was not directed toward any one commenter.
It’s really so funny how lefties (particularly among the media) always look to give former criminals a second chance in life, or they ascribe “youthful indiscretions” to save face for their sacred cows’ past mis-deeds.
But Mitt Romney is not allowed that same standard apparently.
Hey, if indeed you have finally joined the chorus in calling for Obama to release his various college records, I applaud you.
It’s just so funny that Obama’s years at Columbia are so carefully guarded. How come people who majored in political science at the same time he did, don’t recall him being in class with them ? It’s strange.
Of course, the obvious punchline about his records is that it’s uncertain whether or not Bill Ayers has time before November to write them up for him.
But hey, in positive soccer news which may interest you, the pride of Nacogdoches, Texas, Clint “Deuce” Dempsey was just voted the 4th best player in the English Premiere League.
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:32 pmRock on, Clint !
DRJ, why would a Romney president be less likely to file hate crime charges? Are you asserting racism with Romney or GOP?
[NOTE: This comment is not by the real JD — DRJ]
JD (ebcb8d) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:32 pmfake JD still posting
SPQR (ca7f2c) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:34 pmnk–well you could have fooled me. Then, does that mean my neighbor, Spiro, is Greek?
elissa (d8e278) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:35 pmAlex has a crush on me.
JD (266e42) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:38 pm“Dave, there are a lot of people I could criticize that I do not think are guilty of second degree murder.”
Same here.
But, that’s because they didn’t commit second degree murder.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:38 pm# 27 –
The media biased coverage of Rodney king led to the LA riots. A few people got killed in LA. Same thing here – though we did not have the POTUS stirring up the anger in LA
Joe (835831) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:39 pmDave, exactly… Unlike Zimmerman
[NOTE: This comment is not by the real JD — DRJ]
JD (1ba8cc) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:47 pm“How can you say I know what I am doing, but in some unknown way I am going to lose money, and this is exactly how much?”
Sammy – I love your self refuting comments.
Can you point to any human that knows everything that will happen within the next year with certainty? If so, your premises that business plans and government are worthless are worth spending a fleeting thought on. Otherwise, they are just mental flatulence.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:48 pmIt cracks me up that Alex is pushing this race obsession meme, again, after having denied that very thing just a couple days ago. That, and his fundamental dishonesty.
JD (266e42) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:48 pm@ 12:35 pmnk–well you could have fooled me. Then, does that mean my neighbor, Spiro, is Greek?
Comment by elissa — 5/16/2012
The Sicilians and Corcicans are Greeks. Ronanized. Una faza, una raza. One face, one race. Don’t know about the others. Latins and Celts, I suppose
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:53 pmFake JD #175,
Because I think a Republican DOJ might base its decisions on the facts of the case, something the Obama Administration can’t seem to do.
By the way, I know who you are.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 12:58 pmSurls, you throw around the comment “murder” but given that Zimmerman was being beaten at the time, you could not even do better than manslaughter if you could establish that Zimmerman actually started the physical confrontation. Which you can’t.
No one knows why you feel the need for offensive rhetoric other than the sense that you know you’re wrong.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:07 pm“The court documents also show that prior to the shooting, Zimmerman had received prescriptions for Adderall and Temazepam…”
Ain’t that special?
‘Cause there’s nothing I’d rather have then skinheads, with a past history of violence and confrontations, roaming around popping dexies and packing pistols, whilst enforcing their own private version of the law.
You know the law I mean, the one that says black kids shouldn’t be walking down Georgie Porgy’s street….on account of they’re probably on drugs.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:08 pm‘Surls, you throw around the comment “murder”…’
That’s probably because he’s been charged with murder.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:10 pmNow he is a skinhead?!
JD (266e42) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:10 pmSurls, funny that you will take things like a prescription to smear Zimmerman but ignore things like Martin’s possession of what looks like burglary swag to indicate his character.
The desperation as your “belief” falls apart is pretty apparent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:11 pm‘Surls, you throw around the comment “murder”…’
That’s probably because he’s been charged with murder.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/16/2012 @ 1:10 pm
So the word of a prosecutor, in a pathetic lame affidavit, is all you need to conclude that someone committed murder? Well, we see how fast all those American principles slough off you, don’t we?
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:13 pmFWIW, DRJ, I appreciate it that you did not delete it’s comments.
JD (266e42) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:18 pm“Surls, funny that you will take things like a prescription to smear Zimmerman…”
My bad. I wouldn’t want to go around saying anything bad about guys who shoot unarmed kids.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:36 pmSo Zimmerman was on drugs and the kid wasn’t. Ouch!
[Note: This is not the real JD — DRJ]
JD (ee3968) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:38 pmDave,
Prescription psychotropics are a defense, if you are the person prescribed.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:39 pmDave Surls, I’m happy to say things bad about people who have invented the bizarre idea that people don’t have a right to defend themselves from someone sitting atop them beating on them. That would be you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:40 pmSo Zimmerman was high on drugs and the kid wasn’t. Ouch!
[Note: This is not the real JD — DRJ]
JD (ee3968) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:42 pmDave Surls–Is there something in your own past or was somebody in your life who was dear to you hurt or killed that the Trayvon-Zimmerman case somehow reminds you of? If so, is it something you are willing to share? This is not meant to pry, nor will I be surprised if you don’t respond. But I suspect I am not the only one for whom your comments regarding this particular case appear to come from such a deep place–they seem so personal–so angry–and frankly so dis-proportional to the now known facts of the night in question, that one can’t help but wonder what is really going on. Many people in this blog community, including several criminal lawyers, have been following the case, opening their minds and amending their own assumptions as appropriate–especially as new facts are officially published and as faulty transcripts are corrected. Your views and talking points here seem not to evolved one iota since the story first broke. Is this the way you see it, too, and if so how is this possible?
elissa (d8e278) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:44 pmSo Zimmerman was high on drugs and the kid wasn’t. Ouch!
[Note: This is not the real JD — DRJ]
JD (ee3968) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:45 pmI gotta go for now, but from what I am reading JD is in an argument with someone and they are pretendign to be him or something…. that aint me. I dont know ur email for one thing JD, how would I? Anyway…. The Zimmerman stuff is interesting, but no time right now.
Alex (2125df) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:47 pmelissa, evidently Surls has invented some new law that says that unarmed black teens have a right to beat you up, break your nose and pound your head against the ground and you can’t stop them without being charged with a crime.
Amazingly, no one can actually find this new law but Surls … and maybe Eric Holder.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:54 pm“Prescription psychotropics are a defense, if you are the person prescribed.”
Yeah, having a brain disorder that interferes with cognitive function and decision making ability (like ADHD, perhaps?) and being on uppers and downers would make for a pretty good diminished capacity defense, I reckon.
If it’s true.
I bet his lawyers are looking at that as a fallback, if self-defense don’t cut it.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 1:59 pmNow he’s killed multiple children?
Ghost (4767b0) — 5/16/2012 @ 2:00 pm“elissa, evidently Surls has invented some new law…”
I think laws against murder have been on the books for quite some time, and that’s what he’s charged with.
Your claim that I’m inventing something is, as usual…patented SPQR nonsense.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 2:05 pmDo you just stop reading after the first few words? That’s all you quote or respond to. SPQR was referring to the law you invented denying people the right to self defense.
Ghost (4767b0) — 5/16/2012 @ 2:10 pmClearly Zimmerman tracked Martin down and beat his knuckles senseless.
With his face.
There is no other explanation.
Let’s investigate him for a hate crime.
Btw, keep an eye out on my blog. A big story is about to drop.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/16/2012 @ 2:12 pmSurls, you don’t even have the courage to fully quote me. Coward.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 2:21 pmSince Dave Surls has in the past falsely claimed that the 911 operator “ordered” Zimmerman not to follow Martin, here’s a story about 911 Operator “orders” that should put that in some kind of perspective.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 2:28 pmA business plan does not prevent bankruptcy – maybe it even contributes to it. That’s because it demands knowledge a person cannot have.
Sammy – This is performance art, correct? You seem to be a person who is very uncomfortable with uncertainty. Unfortunately, life is all about uncertainty.
I can visualize very few circumstances in which businesspeople can forecast their results with absolute certainty any distance into the future. Any investor or lender talking to a business owner claiming such certain knowledge embedded in a business plan would view that individual as a crackpot.
Making assumptions in business plans is normal and part of the process as is explaining the assumptions made. It is a thought discipline that helps managers understand and think through the uncertainties in their businesses and plan for contingencies. It shows lenders and investors you have a handle on what is going on.
The worst mistake is not have enough working capital. You’ve got to plan for your mistakes.
How do you calculate if you have enough working capital? There is that dreaded word “plan” that involves all those uncertainties again.
So do you plan or do you not plan? Which is it Sammy? You have now said both. Performance art?
Another mistake is not recognizing something is going to go broke. People fall in love with business plans.
That is a blinding statement of the obvious, but not a reason to avoid business plans. Just another straw man. It suggests poor management or tunnel vision instead. Tunnel vision in any endeavor is always dangerous.
“Businesses do make budgets but nobody should expect the budget to actually work out as planned.”
Many businesses do hold management accountable for performance against budgets, particularly for events over which they have some influence. Ratings agencies ask for budgets as do lenders. Budgets help tell companies whether they will have the cash flow to buy equipment, pay dividends, etc., etc., or whether they will need to raise external capital.
I have no idea who fills your head with these silly notions about how budgets are used.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/16/2012 @ 2:51 pm#43: the question of whether or not Zimmerman’s pursuit of Trayvon was necessary (re: preclusion of a self-defense claim).
It doesn’t have to be “necessary”. Assume that Zimmerman did ignore the dispatcher, and did continue to follow Martin. Assume, since I’m feeling generous, that he spoke to Martin, and expressed a suspicion that Martin was up to no good. Assume, for that matter, that this suspicion was based entirely on Martin’s race; while we’re at it, let’s assume he threw in some racial epithets as well. Forget about the lack of evidence for any of these assumptions; just go with them.
None of that matters; Zimmerman had every bit as much right to do so as Martin did to be walking there. If it’s significant that Martin was breaking no law, then it must be equally significant that neither was Zimmerman. Thus none of them make Zimmerman an aggressor. If Martin reacted to this by attacking Zimmerman, then he was the aggressor. And since there’s no basis on which a jury could doubt Zimmerman’s claim that it was so, I don’t see how any fair judge could do anything but dismiss the case.
The word “necessary” only applies if Zimmerman started the fight. You’re taking it from a part of the law that says even the aggressor in a fight can have the right to defend himself if the fight turns suddenly deadly; but that right is highly restricted, since the other fellow is just exercising his right of self-defense. If Martin threw the first punch then that whole section of the law is irrelevant.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/16/2012 @ 3:14 pmI’m glad to see that “shipwreckedcrew” and I are on the same page on the matter of FL v GZ – I think somewhere in the Patterico archives is a comment where I predicted that this will never see a jury.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/16/2012 @ 3:23 pmI still stand by that prediction.
If it was not for the media needing something, anything, to deflect attention away from the atrocious economic performance and record of the incumbent President, this matter would have died from disinterest.
Milhouse,
I’m talking about what constitutes provocation. The point that you’ve made (and that other people have made) is that legal conduct (e.g. following Trayvon Martin down the street) can’t constitute provocation. I’m not sure if that’s true.
The (limited) case law that I’m familiar with seems to say that if you do something to initiate a confrontation (and it doesn’t have be throwing the first punch, even if “words alone” are insufficient), then use deadly force, you can’t offer a self-defense justification. I don’t know if “initiate a confrontation” is a but-for causation thing or what; but either way, I’m not talking about “necessary” in the “four common law requirements for self-defense” sense.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 3:39 pmI’m also not sure how any of the provocation stuff is going to pan out in the case at hand. It just seems like that’s going to be a key question: did following Martin constitute provocation of a confrontation that might preclude valid self-defense?
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 3:45 pmI’ll admit that I’m way out of my depth in all this.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 3:46 pmLeviticus — 5/16/2012 @ 3:45 pm
It wouldn’t in any other case; and certainly not if Z was not in active pursuit when he was jumped.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/16/2012 @ 3:54 pmHow can legal conduct ever be “provocation”?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/16/2012 @ 3:56 pmIf that were the case, the jails and courts would be overflowing.
Leviticus – I was walking across a campus today. About 50 yards ahead of me, there was a mousy little accountant-type, who it turns out was headed to the same place as me. I followed him for over a mile. Had he become angry, or scared, or uncomfortable, and decided to smash his knuckles into my nose and then beat my head against the ground, did I forfeit my right to self defense because my following provoked him?
JD (266e42) — 5/16/2012 @ 3:56 pmSo it would have been perfectly OK for TM to kill GZ by sucker punching then beating GZ to death for the “provocation” of following TM–While on the phone with the police dispatcher reporting TM’s movements?
That would put about 1/2 the people who call 911 at risk for justifiable homicide.
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/16/2012 @ 3:57 pmThat seems true, SarahW – if he had ended his pursuit of Martin (which people have said was the case) then I can’t see how there could be any provocation of the ensuing confrontation.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 3:57 pmIf you are in the Target, and the secret shopper cop starts following you around the store, observing you, for no good reason except you look like one of a group of shoplifters in the store last week, punching is not an option.
If you see a girl walking in the community garden and like her shoes, and you trail her to see them better, she commits a crime if that’s all you do, and she comes up to you, asks “do you have a problem” and you say no, and she spikes you through the eyeball with one of the shoes she’s the criminal, not you.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/16/2012 @ 3:58 pmJD – were you deliberately following him?
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 3:58 pmDeliberate or not, it seems Leviticus, that your “provocation” is in the eye of the beholder; which seems to be something that needs to be discussed with a psych.
“Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean that someone isn’t out to get you.”
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:01 pmLeviticus – why would that matter?
JD (266e42) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:01 pmJD – because it would factor in to whether or not you had some hand in provoking an eventually deadly confrontation that would not have occurred if you hadn’t done what you did.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:04 pmPlease explain how legal permitted conduct can be “provocative”.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:06 pmAre there now “fighting gestures”, “fighting strolls”?
Let’s assume Accountant had the same knowledge that Martin did about someone else’s intentions – none.
JD (266e42) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:07 pmJD – I don’t think that it’s about what Martin knows; Martin’s response was wrong either way. But I get the impression that the courts look at whether or not the whole confrontation could’ve been avoided if the (eventual shooter) hadn’t done whatever he did (such as deliberately following someone he didn’t need to follow).
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:14 pmMy point is that Accountant or Martin have no knowledge of whether it was deliberate, and thinking upon it further, have no idea why it would matter even one iota. Does deliberate following look different than not-deliberate following? If the response was wrong regardless of intention, wouldn’t that make your point moot? Can you provide me with a list of other deliberate and not-deliberate actions that might effect my right to self defense?
JD (266e42) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:21 pmIt’s pretty well set, Leviticus. The jury instructions are standard. The initial aggressor must have clearly withdrawn from the confrontation in order to claim self-defense.
So, here’s where it comes down to. Who was the initial aggressor? And initial aggressor means battery or threat of battery. And battery means unpermitted touch. And on the public way, or if there is bodily harm, it is felony aggravated battery. And if there is danger of death or great bodily harm, force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is permitted.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:30 pmExcuse me for the OT—but I wanted to express my best wishes to nk. Sir, I have always enjoyed and learned from your comments. Plus, your knife-making artistry impresses me! Hope things are better soon.
Again, apologies.
Simon Jester (a51dc4) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:33 pmforce likely to cause death or great bodily harm *in defense* is permitted.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:33 pmThank you, Simon. I’m fine. I always shot with both eyes open, I might be able to make my left eye the dominant one.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:35 pmnk – if initial aggressor is as simple as battery or threat of battery, that answers my question; it would appear I’ve been spinning my wheels wondering about the more ethereal notion of “provocation.”
Out of curiousity, how does something like Goetz factor into that notion of “initial aggressor”? Goetz reasonably believed that he was about to be mugged, and that served as the basis for a valid (deadly) self-defense justification. What if Martin believed that Zimmerman was following him with ill-motive?
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:42 pmThe (limited) case law that I’m familiar with seems to say that if you do something to initiate a confrontation (and it doesn’t have be throwing the first punch, even if “words alone” are insufficient), then use deadly force, you can’t offer a self-defense justification.
That’s ridiculous. What case law are you talking about? The only case you cited was one where the defendant pointed a gun at the fleeing thief, and threatened to kill him if he left. That was not lawful (though it would be in Texas). What case law have you got that says perfectly legal conduct can negate a self-defense justification? If Zimmerman can be considered to have “provoked” Martin by following him or insulting him, then Martin can equally be considered to have “provoked” Zimmerman by his (perfectly legal) wandering around looking like a burglar casing the joint.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:42 pmMilhouse,
I think nk’s cleared up my question. If “provocation”/”initial aggression” turns on “battery or threat of battery,” then the point people have been making (that legal conduct can never constitute provocation) is absolutely correct, and Zimmerman’s use of deadly force seems justified.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:47 pmThe actions of the defendant in Peterson constituted a threat of battery. The court speaks in broad language of provocation. I thought the court’s understanding of provocation might have been broader than the threat of battery present in that case. It looks like I was wrong to think that.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:49 pmGoetz was a political case, a different place, a different time. He was wrong to shoot those boys in the back, when they were running away from his S&W 36. They had clearly disengaged from the fight, even though they were the initial aggressors. But New York was a scared place, back then. Goetz basically got jury nullifications.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:50 pmBTW, I have neighbors I like, and I would shoot somebody I thought might hurt them, in the back, even though he poses no harm to me. But that’s the knife-edge of self-defense or defense of an innocent third person.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 4:55 pmLeviticus, think of it in terms of proximate cause. I might not have had an accident if I hadn’t driven through the intersection, but that isn’t necessarily going to be the cause of me getting t- boned.
The other driver has duties, too, and he might be the one at fault.
Getting followed is not, by itself, justification to knock the follower down, especially if he was retreating, and you doubled back because you were annoyed, an confronted him, and sucker punched him.
The violent attack would only be justified in limited circumstances and ther is no evidence of cornering, fighting words, or physical aggression.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/16/2012 @ 5:34 pmLeviticus,
Even if nk has cleared up this issue, I wonder if you are putting too much emphasis on the parties’ subjective intent? Let’s take JD’s example with two different intents:
You end up with the exact same conduct but two different intents. Do you really want subjective intent to determine the validity of a self-defense claim?
Another approach is how a reasonable man would view the danger presented. I think that’s how many state laws approach the self-defense analysis. For instance, Texas law provides:
Interestingly, British law has apparently modified this principle to mean a reasonable man (or woman, or boy, or girl) of the same age as the defendant. Meanwhile, some American legal scholars have argued it should be eliminated altogether. And in some circumstances, the law focuses on the actual danger presented and ignores the reasonable man standard and the intent of the parties.
I guess you could say this is a loaded topic. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 6:09 pmHmm. Provocation. Slapping me across the face, insulting my mother, I drew first. Not self-defense. Not even mitigation.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 6:41 pmAutopsy report: a tiny abrasion less than a quarter-inch long on his left ring finger AND it says: TM died from a gunshot at “intermediate range.”
tifosa (dfa802) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:12 pmIt will be interesting if they find that it’s NOT GZ crying just before the shot.
Just a guess, but did TM see the gun, crying/whine in fear, and then was shot by “these a–holes, they always get away?”
yep, murder two. Will he be convicted ??
DRJ,
The only reason I was talking about intent is that I always thought of the provocation exception to the self-defense justification to be rooted in deterrence theory. We don’t want people to provoke confrontations, so we’re not going to let people invoke the self-defense justification when they do. Viewed from that angle, it would make sense to inquire as to subjective intent, because you can’t deter unintentional conduct (e.g. you can’t deter JD from unintentionally walking to the same place as another person, but you can deter him from deliberately following the guy).
Our Criminal Law professor taught us that when you stumble across close questions, you should see whether one outcome or another is well-justified by theories of 1) deterrence, or 2) retribution. You can’t deter unintentional conduct, and unintentional actions aren’t morally blameworthy (unless they’re negligent). So I distinguish between JD’s first example and his second, because you can deter intentional actions, and [wrong] intentional actions are morally blameworthy.
Either way, I’m not particularly wed to the idea of assessing situations like the one JD postulated by inquiry as to subjective intent. In the context of a second-degree murder charge, you’re already making an inquiry into subjective intent, though, so it’s seems consistent. I understand and appreciate how much the Reasonable Man standard can simplify that process, though.
Also, upon a second reading of your question: it seems like the Texas law that you’ve excerpted is really a subjective intent law with an additional objective hurdle. It’s not a straight-up objective standard (i.e. “a person is justified in using force when it’s reasonable to do so”) but a twin requirement (i.e. “a person is justified in using force when they believe that it’s immediately necessary AND that belief is reasonable”). You still have to make the subjective inquiry as to the actor’s belief in the necessity of his actions under the Texas statute.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:13 pmOnce again, tiffy tries to clear the issue by throwing a heaping pile of dung on it.
AD-RtR/OS! (41cb4e) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:27 pmThat people have a right to walk down the street without being harrassed, stalked
Nobody has the right to walk down the street without being followed or spoken to by anyone. Nor does anyone have the right to walk down the street without arousing anyone’s suspicions. Your right to walk down the street is no greater than my right to follow you or to say to you whatever I like. That is neither “stalking” nor “harassment”. And while in a city you have a reasonable expectation that nobody will do these things to you, in a small community where you are not known you have no such reasonable expectation, and in fact you should expect to be challenged and be prepared to explain yourself politely. Especially if you are wandering there at night, in the rain, apparently with no particular destination, and your appearance significantly raises the likelihood that you’re a criminal.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:39 pmI may be missing something, but if one discounts the false report that Z said overtly racist things and the unsubstantiated characterization that Z was “stalking” M, what do we have other than concurrence with the original DA opinion to not prosecute?
I would rather live in a neighborhood where people are “followed” (at a reasonable and non-threatening distance, presumably) when there has been a recent outbreak of crime than one where everybody has been trained to keep their eyes pointing at the ground in front of their feet.
You know how this could have been prevented? the jurisdiction could have had a mandatory gun ownership law with official encouragement for concealed carry permits. That way, when you go around struttin’ with your gold teeth and tweeting what a bad-a** you are, you’ll realize that maybe that person you see is not someone you should pick on to “teach a lesson”.
Now, I’ve said before that I think this is a tragedy and M was probably not planning on seriously injuring Z, but he picked the wrong place and the wrong time to act tough. His family should have been allowed to grieve their tragedy, not get used as pawns in the middle of some made-up dispute.
What are the odds that doc is hoping no one finds out his name, lest his picture and address be put out by the NBPP and Spike Leee and Co.?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:45 pm245: indeed I do have the right to walk down the street and not be harassed or questioned. And if my kid told be a weird old dude was talking to him at night, a weird old dude would be getting a visit from me and/or the cops fast.
What this is going to come down to is: was Martin attacking Zimmerman and kicking his butt at the time of shooting? If yes, then was this something Zimmerman started, or not? If the first is no Zim is in trouble. If its yes, but the next is also yes, Zim is still in trouble, though maybe not 2nd degree trouble. If it is yes followed by no, Zim walks.
So we’ll see what the jury thinks….
Alex (ebcb8d) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:49 pmDon’t worry about blowing your deep cover, MD in Philly. Those of who’ve known for a while that you’re really a bouncer in a Vegas strip club won’t tell a soul.
elissa (8973bf) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:50 pm#93: “It has long been accepted that one cannot support a claim of self-defense by a self-generated necessity to kill. The right of homicidal self-defense is granted only to those free from fault in the difficulty; it is denied to slayers who incite the fatal attack, encourage the fatal quarrel or otherwise promote the necessitous occasion for taking life. The fact that the deceased struck the first blow, fired the first shot or made the first menacing gesture does not legalize the self-defense claim if in fact the claimant was the actual provoker.”
I hadn’t noticed this language when I skimmed the case you linked to earlier. If this is what the DC court said, then the DC court is wrong. I don’t care who the judges were, they’re wrong and perverted. It would be meaningless to say that one has the right to do something, if it turns one into a sort of outlaw, whom anyone can attack with impunity. It makes a mockery of all civil rights. I have the right to burn a flag, but if someone tries to kill me for it I have to let them?! I have the right to walk down the street while black or Jewish, but if someone tries to kill me for it I must stand still and die?!
Furthermore, the Florida “stand your ground law” which was quoted on a thread a long time ago not only rejects this, but actually authorises deadly force in self-defense even if you did start the fight. The only difference between one who started the fight and one who didn’t is that the one who started the fight has a duty to retreat if he can. If he can’t, for instance because he’s pinned down and having his head smashed against the paving, then he may use deadly force to save his life, even if he swung the first punch, let alone if he didn’t. And I’m pretty sure that’s the law everywhere; I can’t imagine a law that requires a person to let himself be killed under any circumstance, and I suspect such a law would be unconstitutional.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:53 pmSay you are walking through the lobby of a hotel, Leviticus. If the clerk or another staff member stops you and asks if they can help you, should you be offended and punch them in the nose, or just be nice? Where is this idea that people have some sort of random freedom to not have anyone follow them while they are out in public coming from? Sure, it might be annoying, nk once postulated that if you didn’t get out of his way on the sidewalk that he had a right to punch you in the face.
JD (318f81) — 5/16/2012 @ 7:55 pmI’ve learned a few things from some of the best- people who were recruited to be bodyguards in Iraq/Afghanistan and head of security team of people who have need of security teams.
That said, having learned and having done are very different. But I do know that if an assailant knows what they are doing, there is no reason the victim getting pummeled should assume he will survive to brawl another day.
As far as the other discussion- I’ve known a few people whose families made a go of it being immigrants running a little store in an urban neighborhood. They succeeded by working their tails off and living within their meager means; extended families crammed into little apartments like in Hong Kong or Seoul, I imagine, pooling resources.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:03 pm“I have the right to burn a flag, but if someone tries to kill me for it I have to let them?! I have the right to walk down the street while black or Jewish, but if someone tries to kill me for it I must stand still and die?!”
– Milhouse
nk has pointed out that the language in that excerpt is referring to an “initial aggressor” status which depends on a battery or a threat of a battery. By that standard, you couldn’t forgo your right to self-defense by doing anything but attacking someone or threatening to attack someone, so you wouldn’t have to worry about forgoing your right to self-defense by, say, burning a flag.
The language excerpted was also giving me trouble, because (as your comment points out) it would seem to include as “provocative” a broad but ill-defined array of activities. I was trying to figure out what sorts of activities might fall into that category. nk pointed out that it’s basically a bright-line rule – battery or threat of battery.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:06 pm“Where is this idea that people have some sort of random freedom to not have anyone follow them while they are out in public coming from?”
– JD
JD,
Or course there’s no right to not be followed in public; but at the same time, certain sorts of following might instill fear of (say) imminent assault. If a person is walking past a dark alley and sees three people emerge from it and start following that person down the street, that person might fear an imminent mugging. The question will turn on whether or not that fear is reasonable.
I’ve been making distinctions based on intent because (after the fearful person fires off a pistol at the three pursuers) it seems like it ought to make a difference whether or not those three people actually intended to mug the fearful fellow or were just headed in the same direction by happenstance.
It’s not a matter of having a right not to be followed. It’s a recognition of the fact that some sorts of following will instill reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm, which may prompt violent preemptive reactions. If it turns out that the follower did in fact intend some illegal purpose, then it seems right to prevent him using deadly force in response to the preemptive reaction where it would be wrong to prevent the use of deadly force by a victim of happenstance.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:15 pmtifosa, all made up by you – no actual evidence.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:17 pmSorry, Levi. I was really directing that question in general, not suggesting you were postulating that. Others have suggested exactly that.
JD (318f81) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:19 pmOh. No worries. Valid question.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:21 pmI don’t have the ability anymore, JD, but if somebody does intentionally impede you on the public way, it is assault and unlawful restraint. Should you go looking for a fight? Changed my mind, lately.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:22 pmI shall agree to disagree with that assessment, nk. Unlawful restraint, because I don’t get out of your way?
JD (318f81) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:26 pmYes, you have no right to block the public way. “Hey, watcha doin walkin on my street, boy?”
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:32 pmAnd I will go as far as to say that you and your best one cannot cuddle, blocking the sidewalk, while a mother with a baby carriage has to walk out into traffic to get around you.
nk (875f57) — 5/16/2012 @ 8:37 pmYes, Sammy. The people who don’t patronize that store are convinced by their self-appointed leaders that the store they personally don’t patronize treats other people of their own race badly.
Thus:
A. The fact that they get riled when they hear second-hand about how this store owner berates his customers while they themselves haven’t experienced it as there are plenty of other convenience stores around there doesn’t make them wonder why other people likewise just don’t go to a different store.
B. While the fact that they themselves don’t go there because there is in fact a choice of convenience stores doesn’t somehow shake there belief that this store has some sort of monopolistic hold over the people who do keep going back.
The mind boggles that people will choose to believe their self-appointed leaders when what they’re choosing to believe is completely at odds with the events of their own lives.
Also, speaking of the events of their own lives, had these incidents taken place as described they’d be suing, not protesting. There’s a track record here. If they’re protesting, it means there’s nothing to it.
Steve (773f84) — 5/16/2012 @ 9:23 pm“Since Dave Surls has in the past falsely claimed that the 911 operator “ordered” Zimmerman not to follow Martin”
If they’d been doing their job they would have told Zimmerman to leave Martin alone or they’d arrest HIM for stalking and harrassing Martin, and they should have done so immediately.
Unfortunately…they didn’t.
And, now Martin is dead.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:19 pmThe dispatcher kept asking for more information–So he was “watching” at their request prior to saying they did not need GZ to follow:
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/16/2012 @ 11:34 pmOut of curiousity, how does something like Goetz factor into that notion of “initial aggressor”? Goetz reasonably believed that he was about to be mugged, and that served as the basis for a valid (deadly) self-defense justification. What if Martin believed that Zimmerman was following him with ill-motive?
What Martin did or didn’t believe, and how reasonable his beliefs might have been, would only be relevant if he were alive and on trial. It is entirely possible for both parties in a fight to be acting in legitimate self defense.
In Goetz’s case, not only did he believe he was being mugged, but that belief was entirely reasonable, because he was being mugged. No reasonable person doubts it. But suppose the circumstances were different; suppose he had a reasonable but mistaken belief that he was being mugged, and pulled his gun in legitimate but mistaken self-defense. And suppose that one or more of the young men responded by pulling their guns and shooting him. They would be acting in legitimate self-defense too; assuming all survived nobody should be charged.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/17/2012 @ 12:52 amif somebody does intentionally impede you on the public way, it is assault and unlawful restraint.
True. And if there’s no reasonable way around, I’d say you have the right, after giving reasonable warning, to drive straight through the picket line, and any injury or death resulting to a picketer should be regarded as self-inflicted.
And I feel the same way about people who invade firing or bombing ranges in order to disrupt military training, like they did about 10-15 years ago on Vieques. It would be wrong to use them for target practise, but the Navy should have ignored them and keep dropping its bombs, and if they happened to get hit then they happened to get hit.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/17/2012 @ 1:12 amThe same goes for St Rachel the Pancake. Even if the bulldozer driver had seen her (which he didn’t), I’d have told him to ignore her and keep working.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/17/2012 @ 1:14 am178. Alex has a crush on me.
Comment by JD — 5/16/2012 @ 12:38 pm
— First Dimwit, now this one. You are just too HOT, my friend!
Icy (2d8439) — 5/17/2012 @ 1:28 amTM died from a gunshot at “intermediate range.”
“Intermediate range” is anywhere from a few inches to a few feet. In this case it’s at the bottom of that range, because of the stippling around the wound and the burns on Martin’s clothing.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/17/2012 @ 1:47 amIf they’d been doing their job they would have told Zimmerman to leave Martin alone or they’d arrest HIM for stalking and harrassing Martin, and they should have done so immediately.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/16/2012 @ 11:19 pm
— So, now the 911 operator is also complicit in Trayvon’s death? And the reason why is because the operator, who more than likely is NOT a sworn officer of the law, did not threaten to arrest* Zimmerman for observing a suspicious person in his neighborhood? Following does NOT equate to stalking, and the operator had NO (none, nil, naught, nada, zilch!) indication whatsoever that Z was “harrassing” M. And yet, according to you the operator should’ve told Z “stop following the young man or else YOU are going to be arrested.”
[*Just think of the budget savings for the cops if they start doing more arrests-by-phone!]
Icy (2d8439) — 5/17/2012 @ 2:20 amRobert F. Kennedy Jr’s estranged wife just died under mysterious circumstances. No word yet on whether his last words to her were “Why don’t you go jump in the lake!”
Icy (2d8439) — 5/17/2012 @ 2:38 amShe was a mother of 4 children and raised money for the needy
EricPWJohnson (e83e82) — 5/17/2012 @ 6:27 amAll of our dispatchers should be replaced with Chris Cocker. “Leave Trayvon alone!” They told him not to follow, he said okay. Where is your evidence that Z was harassing or stalking Martin?
And can you please provide YOUR definitions for “harass” and “stalk” because the dictionary seems to disagree with you.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:09 amHarass – v. To notice from a distance and watch; to report suspicious behavior.
Stalk – v. To follow somebody for no more than a minute and to stop immediately when asked to do so.
According to Surls’ Dictionary
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:13 am_____________________________________________
If they’d been doing their job they would have told Zimmerman to leave Martin alone or they’d arrest HIM for stalking and harrassing Martin, and they should have done so immediately.
The way your mind works regarding this story is fascinating. I’d have to be nosy and pry into the history of your life to truly understand where you’re coming from and what makes you tick.
If you were a black guy living in a predominantly black neighborhood — and lived harsh reality on a daily basis — at least one would know you didn’t just talk the talk, but you also walked the walk. However, you’d still be foolish and naive — as too many folks tend to be in areas bogged down by lots of socio-economic dysfunction — but at least you wouldn’t be talking idealistically about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin the way a “limousine liberal” does.
Mark (2d5b49) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:32 amDave, you’ve expressed that sentiment all along, but it’s irrational. I know you believe even suspicious persons should be allowed to loiter around until they actually DO something illegal.
That’s not how it works.
In a neighborhood where people own property and look out for one another, in which there has been a series of break ins, burglaries, and terrifying home invasions by persons of similar description, you don’t ignore a kid who stands out as having no particular business or aim, who looks stoned, who appears to be loitering in the rain.
You call the cops to check him out.
Zimmerman would never have ventured out of his car if the kid had not moved towards him, then run like the devil when he saw Z was on the phone.
To me the appearance of that is not fear of Zimmerman, but fear he was about to be confronted by authorities, that someone was on to him – and he ran because he didn’t want to be caught.
But even putting a more amiable light on the kid – say he just thought Z was creepy – Z had every right to get out of the car and see which way he was going.
Z didn’t have the right to threaten (state he would hurt the kid, or move to hurt him), restrain, or punish the kid. But he had a right to see where he went.
That is rational, reasonable, and legal.
You think no one should ever suspect anyone, if they are not actively committing a crime.
That’s not how it works.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:50 amAutopsy says Martin was shot at “intermediate” range. What?
Also the scratch was on one knuckle. But if he was shot from a distance, Zim is in trouble.
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:57 am“suppose he had a reasonable but mistaken belief that he was being mugged, and pulled his gun in legitimate but mistaken self-defense. And suppose that one or more of the young men responded by pulling their guns and shooting him. They would be acting in legitimate self-defense too; assuming all survived nobody should be charged.”
– Milhouse
See, that’s where I think I agree with you and I think DRJ and JD might disagree with you. That seems to say that subjective intent of the parties should decide the outcome – that is, if Goetz pulls a gun on teenagers in reasonable fear of a mugging, and it turns out they did mean to mug him, and they pull out a screwdriver and stab him, they don’t get to claim self-defense; but if Goetz pulls a gun on teenagers in reasonable fear of a mugging, and it turns out they didn’t mean to mug him, and they pull out a screwdriver and stab him, they do get to claim self-defense.
I don’t want to speak for DRJ and JD, but the impression I got was that they don’t believe subjective intent should have such a decisive role in the process.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:01 amAlso Zims lawyer reports that the prosecution has turned over 67 cdroms of evidence, presumable against Martin, and listed 22 witnesses, again presumably against Martin.
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:01 am276: self defense at intermediate range?
I thought the narrative was Martin on top of sim beating him to death? Narrative fail?
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:03 amIntermediate range does not necessarily mean “a distance” but rather over 18-24 inches, roughly. 2 1/2 feet could be an intermediate range.
Patterico (87a461) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:04 amSo it is a distance of 18″ to 24″, or it’s not a distance at all? Just not clear (I’m not clear)
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:06 amPatterico – Alex should stick to sock puppeting people.
JD (266e42) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:08 amOk, it’s the third of four categories (contact, near contact, int, distance ) and if the Vic is wearing clothing could be as short as inches , or 3 plus feet.
Interesting!
JD- I’m sorry, I don’t love u and won’t marry. Now go away
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:13 amMilhouse has already answered that question. His description is spot on. I would repeat it, but I’ve learned not to keep feeding the deliberately obtuse the same information over and over and over and over…
So they can pretend they still have unanswered questions.
According to reputable sources such as “Final Call,” or Democratic Underground.
I’m still not getting why some people have a wet dream about Z being in trouble.
For those with a strong stomach and an interest in understanding the truth and not advancing an agenda, here’s a website that not only defines terms like “contact range” or “intermediate range” but provides autopsy photos to show what these wounds look like.
Enjoy while I go get another cup of coffee.
Steve (773f84) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:20 amThe SYG hearing requires that Zimmerman show only a preponderance of evidence that he was acting in self defense. “Preponderance of evidence” means a greater than a 50% likelihood of being true. These two reports plus all the other evidence so heavily tilt in favor of self-defense that I can’t see how this wouldn’t count as that. It’s liberal wishful thinking vs. cold hard reality. I say he walks on the SYG hearing, regardless of Corey’s appeals.
CrustyB (69f730) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:26 amIntermediate range is not directly adjacent the skin but close enough that it still leaves some powder tattooing. In terms of distance from muzzle to shot, that would be anywhere from a few inches to about an arms length or a little less.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:34 amI heart how “Alex/Ryan/JD” projects it’s fantasies onto me. You spent yesterday impersonating me on here. The issues all reside between your ears.
JD (266e42) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:39 amIf Alex was sockpuppeting JD yesterday, why is it not banned? Why is it still being allowed to comment?
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:48 amHonestly, even if Alex wasn’t sockpuppeting JD yesterday, why is it not banned?
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:49 amSarahW, there were exactly six posts between the one in which Milhouse provided the same definition in all essential details and the post in which Alex pretended not to know what “intermediate range” meant.
If four more people post, Alex will be back saying, “It’ll sure look bad for Z if it turns out he shot M at a distance.”
Luv ya, really I do. But you’re wasting your time. If you want to spend your time more constructively than repeatedly providing Alex with the same information until doomsday, try beating your head against a brick wall.
Steve (773f84) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:50 amNow one more person.
Steve (773f84) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:51 amAlex, why are you so hot to lynch a black man? Or a Hispanic man? Or a white man? Or a man?
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:54 am283: for the record I think Zim pursued Martin, lost him, Martin then confronted Zim (details unknown, Martin jumped Zim? Zim found Martin? Etc). Fight. Zim freaked (perhaps for good reason) and shot.
I’ve always thought it was manslaughter at best.
For the jury it will come down to:
1) did zim pursue Martin (answer Yes)
2) did Martin attack zim? (looks like yes, but who knows how it’ll look at trial)
3) assuming Martin attacked zim, was it in self defense and/or response to Zimmerman’s attack? (this will be subjective I think)
What I don’t get is the impassioned defense of Zim and the attacks on Martin. Zim messed up, witness where he is now, and note that right or wrong he started it, and that an innocent kid is dead. He’s not a cold blooded murderer, probably not even a hot blooded murder, but he ain’t a hero either, and at the end of the day Martin is dead for nothing.
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:58 am291 racist!!!!
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:59 amwas it in self defense and/or response to Zimmerman’s attack? (this will be subjective I think
There is zero evidence to date of Z attacking M. This is a fantasy.
JD (266e42) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:04 amNot true. And also, subjective to the jury. I can see a juror determine that Zimmerman accosted Martin, and Martin in reasonable fear punched Zimmerman.
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:06 amLet’s be honest. The only way a jury could determine Z “accosted” Martin is if you pack it with a bunch of black folk with a chip on their shoulder about being “disrespected” by whites.
“Reasonable fear” just never entered into it. There’s no way anyone can twist “Z looked the wrong way at Martin” into “Martin had a reasonable fear of Z.”
Steve (773f84) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:12 amSo now it has gone from an attack, to accosted, then to a jury could make a subjective determination.
JD (266e42) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:15 amSteve, really? So angry black folk would mess up the trial?
What about a bunch of scared white folk that think all black male teens are thugs?
I suggest to keep race out of it.
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:16 amAs for evidence, read the autopsy
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:16 am297: hasn’t gone any where. Stop. Read. Think.
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:19 amSteve, it wasn’t really for her benefit. I just knew so I thought I’d say. It’s not really a layman’s term is it?
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:21 amA s**c and and a n***** geting into it, alex? Could be. It’s 87% of the murders in Chicago. Half of them are solved. Why should we care? There was a reduction in both the crime rate and welfare rolls.
Your problem, alex, is that you are more incoherent than a camel on ebonics. What is your position? (And don’t say doggie-style).
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:25 amWhat is the evidence of the attack you claim?
JD (266e42) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:25 amI suggest to keep race out of it.
Like you did with Ms Hall?
JD (266e42) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:27 amWhat kind of alternate universe do you live in, Alex, where you imagine that race hasn’t been in this since well before this special prosecutor deliberately spiced up the charge sheet with inflammatory but unsupported and unsupportable words like “profiled” or ABC doctored the 911 tape to make it falsely appear that Z followed M because he was black or CNN conducted an audio witch-hunt to find the “smoking gun” that Z may have said “coon” or the Black Panthers offered a bounty or the FBI was sent down by Eric “my people” Holder to see if they could hang a hate crime charge on Z or Obama jumped in about what his son would LOOK LIKE if he had a son or …
Steve (773f84) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:29 am304:yes, exactly.
Stop trolling me tard! Jebus
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:29 am305: agreed race had been part of the politics, not the facts. So in discussing, I would keep race out of it. Unless discussing the politics. Just me though.,,.
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:32 amI’m out for the day. Work and diablo 3. Later
Alex (d6bb46) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:33 amSo we should do what Alex/Ryan/JD says, not what it does. It is fine for it to inject race into the discussion, but wrong to discuss race when it is one of the central points of the topic under discussion.
JD (266e42) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:33 amIt is undoubtedly one of those types that wonders, following a shower of missiles from Hamas-controlled Gaza into Sderot, if those Israeli a******s are going to break the “cease fire.”
Steve (773f84) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:36 amI suggest to keep race out of it.
Comment by Alex — 5/17/2012 @ 9:16 am
Had that been done originally, most of us would have never heard of Trayvon Martin, and his poor mom could have spent her time more productively grieving the loss of her son.
And Zimmerman could have said, “I’m sorry for your loss” earlier.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:41 amYes, now that the racist meme has been thoroughly debunked, let’s just leave race out of it.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:48 amFrom one of incoherent-it’s posts:
Yeah. He messed up. He was a man of mixed race who when he doesn’t have a tan could pass for white given his name. And he shot a black kid.
Sure. Let’s keep race out of the discussion of the facts. The facts have always solidly pointed toward the reality that Z shot M in an act of justified self defense. There was nothing in the charge sheet that indicated anything except self-defense along with an overzealous prosecutor eager to inject race into this case through the use of inflammatory language. The facts led Z to be out on bail because even the lead investigator couldn’t bring up a shadow of a fact that would lead any reasonable person to conclude this was anything but self-defense. They have no eye-witnesses, they don’t know who was screaming on the audio tape, and they don’t know (despite incoherent-it’s allegations otherwise) who started the altercation. The facts show that M’s only injuries were (other than the gunshot wound that killed him) to his knuckles while Z had extensive injuries to his head.
The facts show that there have been numerous mob attacks by blacks crying out for “justice for Trayvon” yet none of these crimes have been categorized as racially motivated which had the races been reversed would have been seen as mob violence facilitated by law enforcement organizations eager to look the other way. As in the Jim Crow south. Yet Eric “my people” Holder can find the time to send people to investigate a possible hate crime if it’s a non-black who’ll take the hit.
The facts all point toward the reality is that what’s being done to Z is a racially motivated travesty. Yet incoherent-it would prefer WE keep race out of it. Not that it keep race out of it when it advances his agenda.
Perfect. It sort of highlights the double standard not only in the essential elements of this abuse of authority in the service of racial animosity but all the various penumbras emanatin’ from it, to use some high-falutin’ SCOTUS-type verbage.
Steve (773f84) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:53 amAlso Zims lawyer reports that the prosecution has turned over 67 cdroms of evidence, presumable against Martin, and listed 22 witnesses, again presumably against Martin.
Comment by Alex — 5/17/2012 @ 8:01 am
— Ooo! 67 is a BIG number. And those 22 witnesses? They would be witnesses FOR the state. And the number that are eyewitnesses, that actually saw anything?
I thought the narrative was Martin on top of sim beating him to death? Narrative fail?
Comment by Alex — 5/17/2012 @ 8:03 am
— Cogitation fail on your part.
So it is a distance of 18″ to 24″, or it’s not a distance at all? Just not clear (I’m not clear)
Comment by Alex — 5/17/2012 @ 8:06 am
— You know what they say: “Whatever works for you, dude!” Dennis Prager prefers clarity over agreement; you prefer argument over clarity. There you go.
What I don’t get is the impassioned defense of Zim and the attacks on Martin.
— Modesty does not become you. Just admit that there is a lot more than just this that you “don’t get”.
Zim messed up, witness where he is now
— Does every person that stands trial and is subsequently acquitted deserve to go through the wringer like that? Don’t think so.
and note that right or wrong he started it
— What are you, five years old? “he started it.” Would T have attacked Z if Z had not been following T? Probably not. But that does not negate Z’s right to defend himself from the attack. What, have you and Surls gotten together? Is this today’s meme? Z goaded T into attacking him in order to justify shooting him?
and that an innocent kid is dead.
Icy (97f32a) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:59 am— Not so innocent if he was physically attacking the man that shot him.
Does Alex have a special wardrobe when he conducts his lynchings?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:03 amAlso Zims lawyer reports that the prosecution has turned over 67 cdroms of evidence, presumable against Martin, and listed 22 witnesses, again presumably against Martin.
Comment by Alex — 5/17/2012 @ 8:01 am
— Ooo! 67 is a BIG number. And those 22 witnesses? They would be witnesses FOR the state. And the number that are eyewitnesses, that actually saw anything?
I thought the narrative was Martin on top of sim beating him to death? Narrative fail?
Comment by Alex — 5/17/2012 @ 8:03 am
— Cogitation fail on your part.
So it is a distance of 18″ to 24″, or it’s not a distance at all? Just not clear (I’m not clear)
Comment by Alex — 5/17/2012 @ 8:06 am
— You know what they say: “Whatever works for you, dude!” Dennis Prager prefers clarity over agreement; you prefer argument over clarity. There you go.
What I don’t get is the impassioned defense of Zim and the attacks on Martin.
— Modesty does not become you. Just admit that there is a lot more than just this that you “don’t get”.
Zim messed up, witness where he is now
— Does every person that stands trial and is subsequently acquitted deserve to go through the wringer like this? Don’t think so.
and note that right or wrong he started it
— What are you, five years old? “he started it.” Would T have attacked Z if Z had not been following T? Probably not. But that does not negate Z’s right to defend himself from the attack. What, have you and Surls gotten together? Is this today’s meme? Z goaded T into attacking him in order to justify shooting him?
and that an innocent kid is dead.
— Not so innocent if he was physically attacking the man that shot him. Or perhaps just being a “kid” makes him innocent by default, eh?
He’s not a cold blooded murderer, probably not even a hot blooded murder, but he ain’t a hero either
— So you and Dave ARE working together. Echoing him with the false “we consider him a hero” accusation. Barrel, meet your bottom scraper!
and at the end of the day Martin is dead for nothing.
— NO, he is dead over “tea & skittles”. Has Rev Sharpton not been updating you?
I can see a juror determine that Zimmerman accosted Martin, and Martin in reasonable fear punched Zimmerman
— And you can see this because . . . Why? Because if a prosecutor asserts it as fact the dumb jurors will get confused and will take the prosecutor’s claim to be the same as eyewitness testimony?
I suggest to keep race out of it.
— You first, buddy. You first.
As for evidence, read the autopsy
Icy (97f32a) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:22 am— The autopsy proves who initiated the confrontation? Wow! Those CSI guys is so filled with smarts and stuff.
Premature posting due to being a Conservative troglodyte without opposable thumbs
Icy (97f32a) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:24 amTamron Hall’s race is worth noting, the race of Zimmerman & Martin is not. Well, it’s not really a surprise that Alex has it ass-backwards again, is it folks?
Icy (97f32a) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:31 amPerhaps Surls will contact Alex later and remind him that Zimmerman is a skinhead.
Icy (97f32a) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:33 amLove the part about 67 CDs being turned over — might lead you to believe those were FULL information, and suggest the state has massive amounts of evidence.
I’ve seen many instances in 20+ years in this field where an investigator will create a CD or DVD that has a single picture on it, and then put in another DVD for the next picture. Or every disk will have an individual report, but nothing else. They do this simply because their computer illiterate, someone showed them where the “Copy To Disk” button is, and that’s all they know.
So, don’t jump to any conclusions about how much evidence the state really has.
And 22 witnesses are not necessarily witnesses to the event. That will include any person who had any contact with any evidence, or played any role in the follow-up investigation. Remember this case started with local cops and State Attorney investigators before it was shifted to the Special Prosecutor who brought in her own investigators. Everyone involved from the start is a potential “witness.”
shipwreckedcrew (4cabc6) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:42 amShipwrecked – Are you saying “Alex” has a Narrative FAIL?
JD (e4883a) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:45 am“Alex” = “Ignorant” — but not meant in a perjorative way (not completely). Just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
shipwreckedcrew (4cabc6) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:51 amAlex writes: 3) assuming Martin attacked zim, was it in self defense and/or response to Zimmerman’s attack? (this will be subjective I think)
What attack? There are no witnesses to any “attack” by Zimmerman. No evidence at all that Zimmerman initiated any physical attack at all. This is where you, Alex, and Surls are in agreement – that something happened that you have no evidence for at all.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:54 amOther than lying about the meaning of “is”, his narrative was completely accurate; and like Oakland, there’s no there there.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:55 am“Dave, you’ve expressed that sentiment all along, but it’s irrational. I know you believe even suspicious persons should be allowed to loiter around until they actually DO something illegal.”
Yeah, that’s pretty much the size of it all right.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/17/2012 @ 11:02 am“A leaked autopsy reportedly shows that the bullet that killed Florida teen Trayvon Martin was fired from “intermediate range,” which one forensics expert said means anywhere from one to 18 inches away.”
Read more here
So, not 2 feet away, 1-18″ away.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/17/2012 @ 11:04 amBasically not a contact wound.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 11:40 amIf you stare at a black youth for too long, it’s considered assault. You didn’t know?
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/17/2012 @ 11:48 amI’m waiting for the satellite view from Google earth to be enhanced before I make any more comments.
If Panetta had photos exonerating Z, would Holder use them/release them?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 12:04 pm“Intermediate range” means 200 to 300 meters, actually. Who writes this stuff?
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 12:08 pmTo go ahead and add 1+1 and get 2, the autopsy is consistent with, though certainly doesn’t prove, Z’s story, correct?
I guess a contact wound would also have been consistent. What would not have been consistent (hence would have been a problem for Z) was if the wound was a “distance wound”, in other words, far enough away as to suggest they were not already in physical contact.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 12:11 pmnk, maybe there are two different nomenclatures for differing issues. It sounds to me, novice that I am, that the autopsy forensics people determine whether the barrel of the weapon is against the body, away from the body but close enough to show powder residue, and far enough away that there is no powder residue; whereas you are using nomenclature of a marksman. I don’t know, “I’ll have to ask my son the detective”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 12:15 pmWrong NK.
Not a target range, a classification of a wound pattern that appears when someone is shot. Intermed. is close enough to leave gunpowder tatooting, and that pattern is seen when someone is shot from about 6 inches to a bit less than a typical arms length.
Shooting up from ones waist to a guy sitting on you, into his chest – GUESS WHAT – intermediate range.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/17/2012 @ 12:18 pmWho writes this stuff?
The same people who said Dewey defeated Truman, that Valerie Plame was covert while commuting to Langley, and that President Obama was the smartest President we’ve ever had.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 12:19 pmLeviticus:
Here’s the section at issue:
I read that section to mean “a person is justified in using force when they have a reasonable belief force is immediately necessary.”
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 12:31 pmI am astounded by the depth and breadth of latent racism (and in a few cases overt) exhibited by commenters in last few hours. The shrill, frothing anger and hate is almost incomprehensible. Further the wild, and false assumptions made by anyone who questions their fossilized narrative are simply ludicrous.
There can be nothing gained by lowering to the level of these comments by me or you. And more importantly, by me. With the release of Diablo 3 I leave you commenters to wallow in you filth like pigs you clearly are.
Notes: not all commenters of course, but anyone of conscious and intellect can see who I mean.
Sad to depart, cause the articles were quite good. Karl’s still quite entertaining and Patterico very informative and interesting. But I just can’t take the shrill, inane, insane, angry comments any more.
Alex (52b288) — 5/17/2012 @ 12:43 pm==I know you believe even suspicious persons should be allowed to loiter around until they actually DO something illegal.
Yeah, that’s pretty much the size of it all right–reply by Dave Surls==
Dave, I’ll bet you’d love it in downtown Chicago this weekend. All the cops and FBI will no doubt be waiting casually around the coffee pot for the NATO summit anarchists to do something violent or to start fires before they put on their riot gear and actually think about going out to protect property.
elissa (f72979) — 5/17/2012 @ 12:44 pm“Perhaps Surls will contact Alex later and remind him that Zimmerman is a skinhead.”
Anybody can tell that by just looking at a picture of the guy.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/17/2012 @ 12:48 pmReally? Skinhead?!
JD (266e42) — 5/17/2012 @ 12:52 pm“Dave, I’ll bet you’d love it in downtown Chicago this weekend.”
Doubt it.
I don’t think too much of cities. For one thing, they’re full of pistol packing whack jobs…like George Zimmerman.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/17/2012 @ 1:04 pmMe: “Perhaps Surls will contact Alex later and remind him that Zimmerman is a skinhead.”
Surls: Anybody can tell that by just looking at a picture of the guy.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/17/2012 @ 12:48 pm
— Well, the pattern of stitches used to close up his head wounds does resemble a Swastika, so there is that.
Icy (97f32a) — 5/17/2012 @ 1:25 pmFor the record, Surls was also the first person to clearly ID George Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic”.
Take that, New York Times!
Icy (97f32a) — 5/17/2012 @ 1:28 pm“Skinhead”- There was a time a few years ago that my boys were a bit into the scene. The typical outsider would not know that “skinhead” by itself is a bit like saying someoone has a “crewcut”- they may be in the military, retro 50’s, or who knows what else. There are pro-Nazi skinheads, anti-nazi skinheads, etc. etc. the story goes that the original skinheads were working class blokes who were protesting the long-haired-hippy-hang-around-and-do-nothing-except-smoke-dope types. So, yeah, maybe he was a “skinhead”, just like Michael Jordan.
I’d rather walk down a street where you assume people are packing legal pistols than walking down a street where you don’t know who has a knife or an illegal pistol.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 1:30 pmThank you, SarahW. I understand. Tattoo.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 1:33 pmMaybe hes a member of SHARP (skin heads against racial prejudice).
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/17/2012 @ 1:43 pm“I read that section to mean “a person is justified in using force when they have a reasonable belief force is immediately necessary.””
– DRJ
Me too. But they have to actually have the belief, in addition to it being a reasonable one. You have to make a subjective inquiry into state of mind (i.e. having a belief) in addition to an objective inquiry into reasonableness.
I’m not sure if adequately I’m addressing the point you’re making.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/17/2012 @ 1:54 pmComment by The Real Patterico in New Orleans
— 5/15/2012 @ 7:33 pm
Anyway, why would Trayvon attack an innocent man?
That’s the problem. If the media were to go into Trayvon’s background we might get the beginnings of an explanation. Otherwise, he comes out looking like he was a zombie – and zombie’s aren’t real.
Zimmerman was a stalker anyway. All white Hispanics are stalkers.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/17/2012 @ 2:07 pmThe stalker quote is somebody else’s satire. They do try to blame GZ in somne way.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/17/2012 @ 2:10 pmComment by daleyrocks — 5/16/2012 @ 9:45 am
“A business plan does not prevent bankruptcy”
SAMMY THE STRAWMAN STRIKES AGAIN!
Knocks down an assertion not in evidence.
I said it might even contribute to bankruptcy.
What I really think is that it gets in the way of analyzing things.
I’ve seen a perfectly put togetehr business plan. I guess. Maybe it dotted all the i’s and crosseed all the t’s.
It was nonsense, or highly questionable.
They were going to start a baked goods business.
But made all sorts of assumptions for no reason.
This was for a family. A 17 year old or maybe 20 year son drew up the business plan. They seemed (to me) to think that once you had a business plan, you had a workable business.
I don’t know if I quashed that or if it just died by itself. If I did that, I hope I was not wrong.
But all I did was ask questions.
In a small way maybe it is still going on.
It’s basically an extension of this, which has been around for several years and is also not going anywhere:
http://organickoshercatering.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-05-16T13:35:00-07:00&max-results=7&start=7&by-date=false
http://organickoshercatering.blogspot.com/
If anyone knows how to get something like this off the ground…
If somebody hadn’t felt compelled to draw a business plan maybe they wouldn’t have been so confident.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/17/2012 @ 3:17 pmI actually wrote all of these blog posts.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/17/2012 @ 3:18 pmThe New York Times has an interesting story today.
Among the bits of news in it:
1. Zimmerman was given Miranda rights but talked a lot after that. So he was arrested. Except I guess they retroactively unarrested him.
2. The picture of the back of Z’s head that night was the only one taken by the Sanford police. It was on a department owned cellphone camera. It was not uploaded for several days. Nobody understood its importance.
3. A supposed mistake is that they did not secure the car. They hadn’t realized Zimmerman had been in a car. By the time the police realized acar was involved, Zimmerman’s wife had driven off the car. I suppose maybe that also means the location of the car was not verified by the police..
4. Sanford has no detectives who specialize in homicide.
5. A tarpaulin or something could have been used to protect the crime scene from the rain. None was used so no one could look for blood stains the next day.
All this is coming out because there is soon going to be a massive release of evidence to the public.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/17/2012 @ 3:27 pm“Maybe hes a member of SHARP”
Maybe.
But, he’s definitely a member of SAOM (Skinheads Accused Of Murder).
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/17/2012 @ 3:27 pm“Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, had the drug THC in his system the night of this death, according to new information obtained by ABC News.”
This ought to get the Zimmerman lovers into a frenzy of joy.
Kid was not only walking down the street while black, but he’d been smoking dope in the bargain.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/17/2012 @ 3:42 pmFor anyone still reading – THC metabolites found in Trayvon’s blood and urine. Yep, he was a drug user. Breaking on CNN and various other places.
The measured quantity of THC 1.5 nanograms indicates, depending on the timing of the autopsy sample, that either he was a heavy continual user and used it within 8 hours or so of the sample, or he was a light, infrequent user and used it within 1-2 hours of the sample.
The secondary metabolite THC-COOH which he had at 7ng per ml is less studied, but often indicates oral use of marijuana instead of smoking. So it’s possible Trayvon ate (stereotypically) some pot brownies earlier in the day for a long-lasting low-level high.
(Numbers are from CNN, extrapolations are mine from quick internet research.)
luagha (5cbe06) — 5/17/2012 @ 3:46 pmLet me correct myself – THC-COOH at 7ng per ml is not indicative of oral use of marijuana. It’s a standard smoking metabolite.
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html
Figure 5 – Blood plasma levels of THC & Metabolite lower middle is what I’m looking at.
luagha (5cbe06) — 5/17/2012 @ 3:54 pm==But, he’s definitely a member of SAOM (Skinheads Accused Of Murder).==
OK Dave–you’ve jumped the shark as far as I’m concerned. There is no point in continuing to read either your inanity or your insanity. I’ve sincerely wanted to understand where you were coming from and possibly to find out why you appear (more-so than almost anyone else who posts here) to view the Trayvon-Zimmerman altercation with uncommon interest and such personal anger. You’ve accused others of treating Zimmerman like a hero which I don’t believe is true at all. Yet despite all the evidence to suggest otherwise you continue to paint Trayvon only as an innocent saint–a complete bystander to an event that ended in his unfortunate death. You really don’t want to know what happened that night do you? You’re on a mission of some sort.
elissa (f72979) — 5/17/2012 @ 3:54 pmPeruvian black skinheads are known to be a murdering lot.
JD (764530) — 5/17/2012 @ 4:05 pmone inarguable truth to this whole episode is that only a fool or someone bent on suicide should physically attack a stranger in a state with “shall issue” CCW laws.
which one the late Trayvon” was is a matter of conjecture, but the end result is that, had he had the sense to go one home after he broke contact with Zimmerman, he’s still likely be alive today.
stupidity is supposed to be painful, and occasionally fatal, if only to serve as an example to others and to keep the gene pool stable.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/17/2012 @ 4:09 pm“OK Dave–you’ve jumped the shark as far as I’m concerned.”
Well, he’s got short hair and he’s accused of murder, ain’t he?
What’s the problem?
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/17/2012 @ 4:10 pmFTFY!
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/17/2012 @ 4:16 pmWhat kind of alternate universe do you live in, Alex, where you imagine that race hasn’t been in this since…
Race has been in this since some race hustler saw Zimmerman’s name and jumped to the conclusion that he was white (and probably Jewish, though I never saw anyone actually say so), and therefore could be made the next scapegoat. If whoever that was had realised what Zimmerman looks like, and that there are no Jews in his family tree but plenty of Africans, none of us would ever have heard of the case, and the police decision not to charge him would have gone unchallenged. Only an idiot doesn’t realise this.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/17/2012 @ 5:21 pmfollowing a shower of missiles from Hamas-controlled Gaza into Sderot,
Sderot is so 2010. Ashkelon is the new Sderot.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/17/2012 @ 5:24 pmThe problem, Surls, is that you’ve abandoned any and all commentary on the evidence and decided that pure slander is all you have to offer. So even people who tried to engage you in good faith, despite your lack of it, have given up on you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 5:28 pmThis does not excuse, but it may explain the circumstances as they arose;
http://www.therightscoop.com/trayvon-martin-autopsy-reveals-marijuana-in-blood-and-urine/#disqus_thread
narciso (1c125b) — 5/17/2012 @ 5:40 pmSorry. I’ll try to keep up.
Steve (773f84) — 5/17/2012 @ 5:42 pm“But made all sorts of assumptions for no reason.”
Sammy – Why did it do that? Impressive circular reasoning! Question Nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/17/2012 @ 5:50 pmIt is undoubtedly one of those types that wonders, following a shower of missiles from Hamas-controlled Gaza into Ashkelon, if those Israeli a******s are going to break the “cease fire.”
Steve (773f84) — 5/17/2012 @ 5:54 pmSlander, eh?
Well that will be good news for my underemployed lawyers.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/17/2012 @ 6:12 pmhere is another article about Trayvon’s illicit drug abuse
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/17/2012 @ 6:13 pm“The neighborhood watch volunteer was under the care of a psychologist and taking Adderall and a sleep medication before the shooting”
Give that boy a pistol, and turn him loose!
What could possibly go wrong?
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/17/2012 @ 6:16 pmJust some random observations I as peruse the documents NBC has posted.
First, as I suspected, the number of CDs is misleading. There are separate CDs for each different recorded witness interview, as well as CDs for the 9-11 calls.
Officer Michael Wagner used his personal IPhone to take a picture of Zimmerman while he was seated in a patrol car. He wanted to document the blood on Zimmerman’s face, his apparent broken nose, and the bleeding on the back of his head. He then took a picture of Martin — noting there were no visible injuries on Martin’s face.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:01 pmSorry. I’ll try to keep up.
I know it’s hard. Pretty soon they’ll be hitting Netivot.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:03 pmPeople’s Republic
Colonel Haiku (1d11b8) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:04 pmof Teh Bay Area has
“influenced” dave surls
colonel smashed CD
Colonel Haiku (1d11b8) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:08 pm“ABBA’s Greatest Hits” and he
did it for Trayvon
Zimmerman’s prescription drug use is probably something the defense will have to address, but Martin’s marijuana use is also important:
The link also says marijuana use is likely to affect judgment by reducing inhibitions that leads to risky behaviors.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:12 pmThe lead investigator — Chris Serino — didn’t attempt to take any pictures of Zimmerman or his injuries for nearly 4.5 hours – at 11:21 — whereast he shooting had happened at just after 7:00.
In a report with a segment called “Victimology” — I’ve never seen that term used before — Martin’s father tells police his son was a “well-mannered, non-violent child”, with “no criminal background”, but then says his son was in Sanford because he had been suspended from school for 10 days for posession of cannibis.
Same report says that first officer to arrive at scene said Zimmerman’s face was bloody and his posterior clothing was soiled with wet grass, indicative of having been on his back on the grass.
Further says that Zimmerman’s statements to first officer on the scene were corroborated by witnesses and led to possibility that shooting may have been in self-defense.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:14 pmNot necessarily, DRJ. There’s HIPAA, and special laws protecting the records of psychological treatment, depending on the state. As a general rule, a defendant’s medical records do not come into evidence without his permission, not even if he voluntarily chooses to testify.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:21 pmMarijuana. My last death penalty case was a dissociative state, created by alcohol and marijuna. My client could not remember killing two teenagers.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:25 pmA male witness told the investigators at 9:05 pm, approximately 2 hours after the shooting, that he went to investigate the noises behind his house, he saw Martin mounted on top of Zimmerman throwing punches “MMA style”. Zimmerman — the guy on the bottom — was yelling for help, “guy getting hit on the ground was wearing red calling out help”). Witness yelled that he was going to call the police. Went back inside to use phone when he heard “pop”. When he looked out again, guy who had been on top was laying on the grass face down. The witness was at his sliding glass door, about 30 feet from the incident.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:25 pmnk,
You’re talking about Zimmerman’s medical records, right? I assume he will have to testify to assert self-defense. At that point, can’t the prosecutor ask if he was on any medication? Won’t he have to admit it if he was taking medication?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:26 pmThe marijuana results help Zimmerman in another way, too. This is from the 911 transcript:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:30 pmThere can be a motion in limine to preclude those questions. I know, for certain, that in Illinnois, there would be a ruling in favor of the
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:31 pmdefendantany witness. Florida …?I can’t believe I misspelled “Illinois”.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:33 pmMarijuana can give disinhibition, which is a big term for doing stupid stuff you would normally know better than not to do (like alcohol at the Holiday work party), but usually it is silly stuff; then again, most of my observational experience was with the milder stuff years ago. I don’t know what all was tested for, as sometimes marijuana is laced with PCP or other things.
As far as Adderall and a “sleeping medication”, I’ve known many people using Adderall, none of them shot people. As far as a “sleeping medication”, unless someone wants to argue he was in a fugue state with ambien or somesuch and didn’t know what he was doing (which I doubt), not sure what import that would have.
Interesting that suspended from school for cannibis is equated with being a good kid with no criminal background. Back in the day we were suspicious of the group that went outside under a tree to smoke cigarettes.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:35 pmIn Texas there would have to be a limine hearing and I think the defendant would have to prove to the judge that (1) he wasn’t taking medications, or (2) he was taking medications but any side effects were not material or probative on issues in the case. The latter is a pretty tough burden to meet. The judge might decide it’s so inflammatory it overshadows any probative value.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:37 pmWhat do moving limes have to do with anything???
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:37 pmIn Texas they listen to limes?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:39 pmInterestingly this same investigator’s report says the voice yelling for “help” or “help me” heard on the 911 dispatch tapes was determined to be that of Zimmerman, “who was apparently yelling for help as he was being battered by Travon Martin.”
I’ll be curious to see how the writer of this report walks back from that one. These reports are all prime instruments for cross-examination.
More from report — on 2/28/12, Martin’s father comes to police station to ask about why no arrest made yet. Circumstances explained to him.
Later that day an anonymous call comes in from a female who refuses to be identified, claiming that Zimmerman has racist ideologies, and was “fully capable of instigating a confrontation.
Coincidence?
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:42 pmOnly the lawyers, MD.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:45 pmBreaking News Folks:
At page 56 of the 183 pages that NBC News has posted, the investigator says that when he played the 911 tapes for Martin’s father on 2/28, Martin’s father said the person yelling for help in the background of the recording was NOT his son.
Getting pretty close to dismissal time.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:45 pmIllinois has an absolute rule. No admission of any history of psychiatric treatment, without the patient’s consent. Not even in commitment proceedings. Honestly. We want people to seek psychiatric treatment.
I’m not sure HIPAA is so absolute.
There is, I believe, a rule that is absolute across all jurisdictions, “Sir, I will not discuss any medical advice I heard from my doctor”.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:46 pmI’ve seen a perfectly put togetehr business plan.
It was nonsense, or highly questionable.
But made all sorts of assumptions for no reason.
Sammy – Now take a breath. Why would you call a business plan which was nonsense and made assumptions for no reason perfectly put together? Did you mean it looked nice?
Are you suggesting that people should blindly follow business plans which are nonsense and make assumptions for no reason just because they have an impressive label which says “Business Plan?”
Do you think people who don’t have the ability to create a business plan, with or without help, that isn’t highly questionable or full of unreasonable assumptions should really be taking a chance on starting a business or should they be counseled to to something else.
Do you believe that businesses should engage in any planning at all.
What point are you really trying to make, if any.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:49 pmHmmm, I understand the principle in how it removes one roadblock to getting psych help, but not being able to confirm that a person with paranoid schizophrenia in crisis has a psych history seems a bit counterproductive to the patient as well.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:51 pmWhat do moving limes have to do with anything???
Not limes, lima beans. It’s because he’s Peruvian.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:54 pmnk,
Isn’t the ultimate issue whether the defendant’s prescription drug use (if any) is relevant? I assume the prosecutor will have the burden to provide scientific evidence showing how Zimmerman’s medications affected or could have affected his behavior that night. As you point out, that could be addressed by a motion in limine and any evidence excluded if the judge determines it’s not relevant or more inflammatory than probative. Otherwise, I think it’s in.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:55 pmWe figured doctors are better than judges treating the sick, I guess, MD.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 7:55 pmWell, no, DRJ. The defendant would have to open the door by, I suppose, in this case, bringing up intoxication, voluntary or involuntary as a defense. It is not material to the state’s case.
Did he knowingly or intentionally, without legal justification, cause the death of another person?
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:00 pmForgive me, MD,
In Illinois, you don’t get committed if you have not committed a crime. Sometimes not even that (to my sorrow one time). We don’t lock people up for how they think.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:05 pmNot sure I follow, nk. Docs can’t treat the sick very well when they are out wandering around in their psychosis on the street.
Thanks, milhouse, for that clarification. Did you know that black skinheads in Peru are known to be particularly dangerous? That’s what I’ve read, anyway.
Speaking of foreign countries and psychosis, ya gotta see this:
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:06 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii
Leviticus,
Prof. Jacobson addresses provocation here.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:08 pmAs long as they wonder around on the street, and do no harm, we have no right to put our hands on them.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:10 pmnk,
The State is going to show Zimmerman killed Martin. Isn’t it up to Zimmerman to assert and prove self-defense? If so, then doesn’t that open the door for the State to question him about his judgment, mental function, and actions that night — including any medications he was taking?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:11 pmAnd, please, this is not how I imagine Illinois law to be. It is Illinois law.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:12 pmnk, a patient of mine went into the criris unit because she was depressed and angry over finding out she had contracted an STD from a “trusted” partner, and she was planning on killing him then killing herself. They took away her gun and discharged her. She called me to ask what to do next. I did not tell her to buy another gun. but to go to another crisis center where she was admitted.
I guess some could call it locking a person up for how they think, I guess I would call it making sure somebody gets taken care of who can’t take care of themselves. We do it for dogs and cats, don’t see why we can’t do it for humans.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:12 pmBut the State also has to show the evidence is relevant, so that means it has to offer proof that the medications might impair his judgment or actions. Right?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:13 pmI expected more meat on the Serino report, for such a serious charge, in retrospect we can see why Wolfinger didn ‘t move on it
narciso (1c125b) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:14 pmMD,
I would try to help someone if I could, but in general I think the law and lawyers deal with problems after they’ve happened. We don’t usually get the chance to prevent things from happening.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:15 pmIn Illinois, that would be Zimmerman’s choice, DRJ. Not even his lawyer’s, kind of like jury waiver.
I would succeed with a motion in limine to keep out his medical history. It would be a strategic question.
But why would I want to in bring that nonsense when it’s self-defense, against aggravated battery, with bodily harm, on the public way?
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:20 pmIn one way that is right, DRJ, unless we want to end up with “Minority Report” scenarios.
Still, there is something to be said about common sense. A person of adult age stumbling around in the street mumbling about the voices in their head with open wounds and stinking of urine and feces deserves as much help as a stray dog, even if the dog is not mumbling about voices.
I think it has to do with how one and the state combine the issues of “rights” and “responsibilities”. A person has a right not to be incarcerated against their will for no reason, but where does that intersect with the responsibility that the state has to protect it’s dependent citizens from harm.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:23 pmBut if I’m going to go off-topic, I’ll stick with Obama’s publicist.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:25 pmNo,
The State’s case is: He killed a person, knowingly or intentionally, without legal justification. The state has no responsibility for the “why”. Motive is not an element of the state’s case.
The defendant’s character is not into play, unless he, himself, puts it there.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:27 pmTHey come to a similar conclusion here;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/17/prosecutors-release-new-evidence-in-george-zimmerman-shooting-case.html
narciso (1c125b) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:29 pmThanks for the heads up. Alex and David Surls will be watching those trigger-happy, out-of-control Israeli neighborhood watch volunteers like hawks to make sure they don’t launch an unprovoked attack and break the “cease fire” if the Palestinians level Netivot with rockets.
Steve (773f84) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:34 pmGood point, nk, but I don’t think the State has to offer proof of Zimmerman’s medications. I thought it might want to if (for instance) a side effect of a medication was aggressive or hostile behavior. That might be something the State would like to bring in.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:35 pm“Marijuana can give disinhibition, which is a big term for doing stupid stuff you would normally know better than not to do (like alcohol at the Holiday work party), but usually it is silly stuff;”
Like someone personally polishing off a 1/2 gallon of Butter Brickle ice cream?
Colonel Haiku (1d11b8) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:36 pmColonel, it depends on how much was left, the brand, and who else was around. If it was really good stuff and there were teenagers around, the case could be made it was a reasonable, and not silly, thing to do.
Breitbart wants to contract you on writing an “Ode to a Publicist”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:40 pmPlease forgive me if I have missed something. Is the state looking for an indefinite civil commitment for Zimmerman because he is a danger to himself or others?
I have discussed on my presumption that he was criminally charged with non-capital murder.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:47 pmGood point, nk, but I don’t think the State has to offer proof of Zimmerman’s medications. I thought it might want to if (for instance) a side effect of a medication was aggressive or hostile behavior. That might be something the State would like to bring in.
Comment by DRJ — 5/17/2012 @ 8:35 pm
The state always wants to paint the defendant as bad as it can.
But medical treatment is the hardest load to haul.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:52 pm“Treatment” is the operative word.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2012 @ 8:54 pmActually I was not keeping up myself. Or rather I’d forgotten. A rocket hit Netivot in March. I actually knew about this at the time, because one of my facebook friends lives there and posted about it. But I’d forgotten since then.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:43 pmThis ought to get the Zimmerman lovers into a frenzy of joy.
Kid was not only walking down the street while black, but he’d been smoking dope in the bargain.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/17/2012 @ 3:42 pm
— He DID say that he was going out for tea.
Well, he’s got short hair and he’s accused of murder, ain’t he? What’s the problem?
Icy (97f32a) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:50 pmComment by Dave Surls — 5/17/2012 @ 4:10 pm
— Genuine skinheads have some hair, don’t they? It’s kind of a misnomer then . . . just like “guilty before he’s been tried”; eh?
“Marijuana can give disinhibition, which is a big term for doing stupid stuff you would normally know better than not to do”
I don’t understand the legalize drug crowd. Tell me how this country would be better if more people were smoking crack, doing meth and heroin. I’m just not feelin’ it. Maybe it’s a generational thing.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:50 pmI can’t believe I misspelled “Illinois”.
Comment by nk — 5/17/2012 @ 7:33 pm
— Between the weather and the taxes I can’t believe you still live there!
Icy (97f32a) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:52 pmdon’t take Adderall and carry a gun*
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:56 pm* unless of course you have even the merest anticipation that someone might detour from their quest for tea n skittles to nonchalantly crush your skull against one of your neighborhood’s sidewalks
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/17/2012 @ 9:56 pmTell me how this country would be better if more people were smoking crack, doing meth and heroin.
The same way it’s better off with more people drinking alcohol than there were in the ’20s. Oh, wait, there aren’t. Alcohol consumption actually dropped after prohibition ended. But suppose it had increased instead; the country would still be far better off without the gang wars, bootleggers, rum runners, shootouts, corruption, petty crime by winos, people dying from bad bathtub gin, not to mention decent people who just want a drink or two having to frequent lowlife dealers, go to unsavoury places, and risk being arrested. Pretty much all of these reasons apply to prohibition today.
If legalisation would do nothing but bring down the Mexican and Colombian cartels, and it would not eliminate overdoses, it would be enough. If it would eliminate overdoses, and would not dramatically reduce the opportunities for police corruption, it would be enough. If it would do that and not release resources to fighting real crime, well, you get the idea.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:19 pm“But suppose it had increased instead; the country would still be far better off without the gang wars, bootleggers, rum runners, shootouts,”
Milhouse – I might be mistaken, but I believe violent crime stats have been trending down in this country. A good portion of that could be attributed to the war on drugs.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:40 pm“The same way it’s better off with more people drinking alcohol than there were in the ’20s. Oh, wait, there aren’t. Alcohol consumption actually dropped after prohibition ended.”
Milhouse – As always, it would be interesting to see your sources. Many people believe the exact opposite of your conclusions and hard data is obviously tough to come by during prohibition.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:47 pmDaley, I found this in about 10 seconds.
And no, the drop in crime is not due to the War on Some Drugs, any more than it’s due to the War on Scary Guns. These factors make crime worse than it would otherwise be.
Milhouse (312124) — 5/17/2012 @ 10:57 pm“Daley, I found this in about 10 seconds.”
Milhouse – I saw that too, plus plenty off stuff arguing the opposite, as I said.
Your argument makes certain nuanced sense, when something becomes more expensive and illegal people will certainly consume more of it. When it becomes legal, cheaper and more readily available, they will certainly shun it. That’s basic supply and demand, right?
You can see the parallels with tobacco usage in this country. As politicians have gradually placed restrictions on places where people can smoke and levied higher and higher taxes on tobacco, usage has skyrocketed, hasn’t it? Predicted tobacco tax windfalls have solved many a state budget crisis due to increased usage as a result of higher prices.
I think I’ll stick to my argument, thanks.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/17/2012 @ 11:15 pmKnock it off, daleyrocks. Please? I buy cigarettes in Chicago for $10.00 a pack and in Bensenville for $5.00 a pack. Don’t alert the a****s to county and city taxes, because they might just make it statewide. Please?
nk (875f57) — 5/18/2012 @ 12:56 amOn illegal drugs, I do share the libertarians’ view, that if illicit drugs were made licit, taxed or not, half the police forces would be let go, and the other half made to live on its salary.
nk (875f57) — 5/18/2012 @ 12:59 amBut that’s not the only consideration.
nk (875f57) — 5/18/2012 @ 1:00 amThere tends to be little incentive to hook kids on drugs when the government does not give pushers a monopoly on it. They don’t like operating on the retail drug store’s margins.
If I’m not mistaken, a 12 year old could walk into a drug store and buy heroin, morphine, cocaine, or opium until the early twentieth century. Was drug abuse greater then than now?
Machinist (b6f7da) — 5/18/2012 @ 3:25 amI don’t want more drug use and I don’t want planes blown up but I think the government in the guise of the TSA and the DEA has been more about power and theater than real safety. The WAR ON DRUGS has been the greatest threat to our rights and the Constitution in our history and I don’t think it has done any good for us.
If drugs are to be legalized though we need to stop funding and enabling peoples addictions and people should be held strictly accountable for what they do under the influence of the drugs. You can not claim freedom to use drugs and whine for society to support or excuse your actions or failings from doing so. Freedom and personal responsibility are inseparably linked. This is why the people who want to take your freedom try to eliminate personal responsibility first.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 5/18/2012 @ 3:33 amOnce again, the ‘State’ is Biggest Loser:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/trayvon-martin/martin-zimmerman-witness-758903
Run on Greek banks of $700 Million is screamed on financial headlines but Spains 4th largest bank lost $1 Billion in deposits and it’s buried in reports.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 5/18/2012 @ 3:51 amIf I’m not mistaken, a 12 year old could walk into a drug store and buy heroin, morphine, cocaine, or opium until the early twentieth century. Was drug abuse greater then than now?
Comment by Machinist — 5/18/2012 @ 3:25 am
1919, I believe also, Machinist. 1937 for marijuana.
nk (875f57) — 5/18/2012 @ 5:57 amAccording to Al Gore’s internets, The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 only required labelling of patent medicines containing those substances.
nk (875f57) — 5/18/2012 @ 6:01 am“They”, the “they”, were marketing paregoric, opium dissolved in alcohol, as a comforting syrup for babies’ teething pain.
nk (875f57) — 5/18/2012 @ 6:06 amLeviticus,
Jeralyn Merritt also has a good discussion of provocation (and other topics). My reading is that she thinks the State’s theory will be that Zimmerman wrongfully profiled Martin as a criminal and that is the basis for a claim of provocation. She doesn’t think it will succeed and neither do I.
In addition, it seems to me there is a basis for Zimmerman’s stated “profile” — that Martin might be on drugs and was walking around looking at homes.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 6:47 amPeople took those products in the early 1900’s, Machinist and nk, but there wasn’t a government safety net for people to fall back on if they decided to get high on a regular basis. As a result, getting high wasn’t as important as working and eating. Thus, people either didn’t get high, did it more responsibly, or died prematurely. I’d gladly agree to legalize drugs if we first eliminate welfare.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 6:53 amI agree, DRJ.
nk (875f57) — 5/18/2012 @ 6:56 amTo be clear, I want to keep drug laws and I don’t want to eliminate all welfare. But I do think the existence of welfare and a social safety net makes repealing drug laws even more dangerous.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 6:59 amI couldn’t tell you. But it could also be a partisan thing. I believe Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Barack/Michelle Obama have a theory about the country being better if more people were smoking crack, doing meth, heroin, dropping acid, because that’s what it’ll undoubtedly take to keep them in power.
Just for the record, I’m not in favor of legalizing drugs. However if Obama gets a second term I’ll not only come out in favor of legalizing drugs but making their use mandatory.
But I digress.
Steve (773f84) — 5/18/2012 @ 8:41 am“Knock it off, daleyrocks. Please? I buy cigarettes in Chicago for $10.00 a pack and in Bensenville for $5.00 a pack.”
nk – I go to Lake County, but I do go far enough to get ’em as cheap as you.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/18/2012 @ 8:42 amdon’t
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/18/2012 @ 8:43 amLocal L.A. radio this morning reporting on this matter noted that TM was shot at “point blank range” without qualifying it that he was on top of GZ, pinning him to the ground while pummeling him at that moment.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/18/2012 @ 8:48 amThe media can always be relied upon to tell just a partial story when it serves “their” interest of creating conflict.
Some of the reporting on what is in the medical records is astonishingly bad. Specifically the story at Daily Beast and at Talking Points Memo. I have been banging the TPM reporter Nick Martin on the head over just about every article he has written, and yesterday they deleted two of my comments which pointed out all the things in the records he failed to mention in his article.
shipwreckedcrew (4cabc6) — 5/18/2012 @ 8:59 amSwc – don’t mess with Nick’s Narrative.
JD (429c83) — 5/18/2012 @ 9:00 am“However if Obama gets a second term I’ll not only come out in favor of legalizing drugs but making their use mandatory.”
Steve – I’m not sure about a mandate, but it might be a personal option to help me make it through a second Obama term.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/18/2012 @ 9:09 amAD @ 8:48am–
In the same vein, a Chicago Trib article on the 14th of May did a mostly decent interview and profile of Zimm’s attorney–who he is, and several reasons why he took case knowing that funds are limited to pay his fees. Unfortunately, early into the piece the author managed to work in a sentence to the effect of, “there’s always an attorney willing to take on the case of a pariah….”
I was absolutely stunned. I’ve heard “pariah” used in the context of the Unibomber or Charlie Manson. But I did not know that an non-convicted person being charged with 2nd degree, who is out on bail, had already been elevated to uncontested “pariah” status such as to be written as fact in a major newspaper.
elissa (5acf19) — 5/18/2012 @ 9:13 amThe clarification appears to be “a maximum of 18 inches” between the end of the gun barrel and Martin’s chest.
Icy (e4590c) — 5/18/2012 @ 9:21 amI got a lecture from a libertarian I like yesterday about how irrelevant Trayvon’s mj use was and how very improper it was to discuss or give weight to evidence in favor or detracting from (but mostly in favor of) Zs case as it can only be tried in a court of law.
Ideally perhaps that would be so but there was a mob after a “pariah.” The only reason he was charged in the first place is the mob had convicted him.
It seems rather necessary to examine any evidence that goes in his favor – as it is very easy to fool people but nearly impossible to convince them that they HAVE been fooled.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/18/2012 @ 9:22 amYou almost got that perfect, SarahW. I would change it to – it is very easy to fool people, but nearly impossible to convince them to admit that they HAVE been fooled.
JD (429c83) — 5/18/2012 @ 9:27 am“I would change it to – it is very easy to fool people, but nearly impossible to convince them to admit that they HAVE been fooled.”
JD – See “Obama Voters”
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/18/2012 @ 9:30 amIf Obama wins in November I’ll take it as a sign the Mayans were right about the world ending. I’ll be looking forward to the winter solstice in hopeful anticipation and will need the drugs to get over my disappointment if we’re all still here on 12/22/2012.
I don’t think any of us will actually survive to see the end of a second Obama term.
Steve (773f84) — 5/18/2012 @ 9:31 am__________________________________________
I got a lecture from a libertarian I like yesterday about how irrelevant Trayvon’s mj use was and how very improper it was to discuss or give weight to evidence in favor or detracting from (but mostly in favor of) Zs case as it can only be tried in a court of law.
Any person whose heart goes pitter-patter more for a Trayvon than a Zimmerman sounds a lot closer to a typical liberal. A person who fancies him or herself as so compassionate and humane when in reality they’re no better, and perhaps are worse, than anyone else. Also, I have a hunch that various people who label themselves “libertarian” are analogous to people of the left who favor using the label of “progressive” over “liberal.”
Mark (e98e22) — 5/18/2012 @ 9:56 am_______________________________________________
Some of the reporting on what is in the medical records is astonishingly bad.
It’s interesting that as more details come out about Geroge Zimmerman compared with Trayvon Martin, the people who sympathized from the beginning with the former instead of the latter are seeing additional confirmation for their original gut reactions.
Similarly, even the tangential (or easily dismissed and derided) group of cynics about Obama known as “Birthers” are seeing some validation for their original suspicions. Certainly when the guy at the center of that controversy apparently was happy as recently as a few years ago in promoting the idea he was born in Africa instead of the US. IOW, Obama and a literary agent affiliated with him are the ones who incubated the whole matter.
America really jumped the shark back in November 2008, and it will never live that moment down.
Mark (e98e22) — 5/18/2012 @ 10:07 amOh, Mark, it’s not as bad as all that – if we survive.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/18/2012 @ 10:16 amIn retrospect, we’ve probably survived worse (ask the guys who were at Little Round Top).
If we could live down Dred Scott, and Plessy, we can probably survive most anything, even Barry Soetero.
Comment by DRJ — 5/16/2012 @ 12:28 pm
Perhaps Zimmerman’s attorney hopes the Obama DOJ will hold off on charging Zimmerman as long as the Florida case is still pending.
Oh, they definitely will. It’s general policy anyway. And how would it help Obama politically?
The thing is, though, this thing hanging over the head of Florida makes it very difficult to drop charges.
If so and the Florida case continues into early next year, it’s conceivable there will be a Republican DOJ in office and federal charges won’t be as likely.
I guess with Romney maybe it is still possible.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/18/2012 @ 10:30 amI would like someone to explain exactly what charge the feds could be contemplating. There are a couple civil rights statutes that could conceivably be invoked, but the evidence is so astonishingly bad with respect to the underlying conduct regardless of whether you can gin up a “bias” motivation that no self-respecting prosecutor would touch it.
shipwreckedcrew (4cabc6) — 5/18/2012 @ 10:39 amComment by tifosa — 5/16/2012 @ 7:12 pm
< Autopsy report: a tiny abrasion less than a quarter-inch long on his left ring finger AND it says: TM died from a gunshot at “intermediate range.”
Fired from between 1 and 18 inches away.
One inch is definitely self-defense. 18 inches would indicate there wss ome distance between them at that point.
It will be interesting if they find that it’s NOT GZ crying just before the shot.
They won’t.
Just a guess, but did TM see the gun,
There’s a version that he did see it, even commented on it (it’s all second or third hand) and that GZ was now afraid TM might grab it – he had been trying to hide it from TM before.
crying/whine in fear, and then was shot by “these a–holes, they always get away?”
That’s the way maybe Benjamin Crump, the family lawyer would attempt to portray it. In this version, GZ deliberately lets TM suffer a bit before he kills him.
yep, murder two.
The only way to get murder 2. GZ not in the slightest bit of danger. No crime about to be committed.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/18/2012 @ 10:44 amAD and Mark–
The general point (10:16am) about maintaining perspective is a very important one for us all to keep in mind I think. My great grandmother’s oldest brother defied the odds and made it out of Andersonville Prison alive. Then in the same month he barely survived the horrific Sultana steamboat explosion (most did not) while being sent back north. When I’m having an unusually bad day, or someone else close to me is, I try to think of him and what he was dealing with back in April of 1865 in comparison. We all need a touchstone like that I think.
elissa (5acf19) — 5/18/2012 @ 10:45 amSammy, 18 inches is just one and a half barbie dolls – seems self evident that distance is consistent with shooting a tall guy sitting on top of you.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/18/2012 @ 11:00 amComment by shipwreckedcrew — 5/18/2012 @ 10:39 am
I would like someone to explain exactly what charge the feds could be contemplating. There are a couple civil rights statutes that could conceivably be invoked, but the evidence is so astonishingly bad with respect to the underlying conduct regardless of whether you can gin up a “bias” motivation that no self-respecting prosecutor would touch it.
They might not actually be able to come up with something in the end, but they can always investigate it.
Also it might turn into a proposal to change the “Stand Your Ground” law which is where they are akready going. The problem only happens if you have to look at the detailed facts.
Right now most people, including Alan Dershhowitz…
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161#ixzz1vFGbSJsI
…are missing the fact that there is no way George Zimmerman could have caught up to Travon Martin.
He writes:
Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.
But there’s no way that George Zimmerman followed Travon Martin till he reached him!!
Travon Martin was running. Zimmerman couldn’t catch him. He gave up. He said he didn’t know where he was. There’s no reason he got back into his car to follow him and the car was not parked near where they had the encounter. So how could he follow him – and reach him???
No way. They may have stumbled into each other, if Travon Martin had gotten lost, taken the wrong turn, backtracked, had some other destination than where he was staying, stopped to wait for the end of the rain. Or Travon Martin laid in wait for Gerge Zimmerman. But George Zimmerman did not follow him till he reached him.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/18/2012 @ 11:02 amMartin was shot in the heart, his skin and two layers of clothing burned by the expelled gases.
Zimmerman reported a struggle for the gun.
A contact shot.
Like Nifong, Foley will be disbarred.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 5/18/2012 @ 11:05 amshipwreckedcrew — 5/18/2012 @ 10:39 am:
The only thing I can think of is using Jeralyn Merritt’s theory that the prosecutors will claim that Zimmerman wrongfully profiled Martin as a criminal. Perhaps the DOJ will use the nexus between race and crime to bootstrap into a hate crime or civil rights claim. Of course, Merritt thinks the facts don’t support the state charges (or, put another way, they don’t override Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense). But it didn’t stop a Republican State’s Attorney from filing these charges and I doubt it will stop Holder’s DOJ.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 11:08 amBenjamin Crump on the TODAy show:
Whatever happened was because George Zimmerman made his decision to profile and pursue Trayvon Martin
Pursue him? How did they wind up in the same spot for their second meeting??
Read more: http://globalgrind.com/news/mark-omara-and-benjamin-crump-speak-newly-released-evidence-trayvon-martin-video#ixzz1vFJldKxr
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/18/2012 @ 11:10 amSammy,
That’s Merritt’s theory of what the prosecutors are going to do. Read her link in my last comment.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 11:12 am464. Gotten lost? Look at the map. Tell us how one loses ones way on a straight line.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 5/18/2012 @ 11:13 amJeralyn Merritt’s theory in a nutshell:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 11:13 am“They might not actually be able to come up with something in the end, but they can always investigate it.”
Sammy – And everybody knows the important thing is to continue investigating through the election, regardless of the merits.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/18/2012 @ 11:32 amThe idea that Zimmerman’s “error” in identifying Martin as a criminal thereby made Martin’s assault not wrongful would be comedy were not a person’s liberty at stake.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 11:57 amI wonder if Trayvon Martin’s father’s girlfriend supported George Zimmerman being the neighborhood watch captain of the community she lived in?
∅ (721840) — 5/18/2012 @ 12:05 pmThe prime rationale for a federal case, as I see it:
“I am Barack Obama, the President, I can do whatever I want.”
“I am Eric Holder, I answer only to the President. I can do anything he lets me get away with.”
From my unlearned POV, i wonder of the possibility, like gary g, that this will eventually look so bad for the DA that there will be repercussions.
I have heard mixed views about whether alcohol use was significantly down during prohibition or not, and while big-time criminals and organized crime were a big deal, whether or not the typical neighborhood was better off or not after prohibition ended is up for question.
I would think there were a lot of people who would have drank alcohol had it been legally available who were otherwise just too timid or had enough common sense to stay away from the illegality. I would think there were more than a few families spared of the destruction of alcoholism in their midst. How those many quiet victories compare with the headlines of Al Capone and the rest are hard to say. I’m not trying to argue that Prohibition was a good thing and ending it was a mistake, but I bet if it was more fully analyzed it would be harder to dismiss it as “an obvious disaster”, as popularly understood.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/18/2012 @ 12:08 pmMD in Philly, I think its pretty well established that the per capita consumption of alcohol dropped during Prohibition and never rose to the same pre-Prohibition level even after Repeal.
People forget that “Temperance” was not a movement based on some sort of prudish hatred of alcohol. It was a movement based upon the manifest ills that alcohol and alcoholism had upon women and family life. It was truly a women’s movement and represented the first real massive women’s political victory in American politics, if not world politics.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 12:14 pmComment by SPQR — 5/18/2012 @ 11:57 am
The idea that Zimmerman’s “error” in identifying Martin as a criminal thereby made Martin’s assault not wrongful would be comedy were not a person’s liberty at stake.
They may try to evade teh whole question as to how the altercation started.
In the affifavit avoiding they blame GZ as follows:
Zimmerman disregard the police dispatcher and contionued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.
Zimmerman confronted Martin…
How? How did he reach him? How could he have reached him?
Zimmerman says it was the other way around: Martin confronted him. That’s possible. The other way is not really possible.
Zimmerman may have said (it’s all third hand) that after a short exchange of words in which Travon Martin challenged him – Martin confronmted Zimmerman – and Zimmerman denied any problems with him, he picked up his cell phone and…at that point Martin sucker punched him, presumably to prevent him from making a call. (Martin had earlier sized him up and began fleeing, possibly when he saw Zimmerman was on the phone. He was afraid of something.)
…and a struggle ensued. Witnesses heard people arguing and what sounded like a struggle.
Who started it? Who was winning? Except the affidavit hints it was mArtin who was losing:
During this time period witnesses heard numerous calls for help and some of these were recorded in 911 calls to police. Trayvon Martin’s mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice vcrying for help as Trayvon Martin’s voice.
They are going to rely on that. Witness identification testimony, although actually weak in fact, is very strongly valued in law. George Zimerman’s father by the way, identified the voice as George Zimmerman’s. I would think there
might be a difference in accent.
AND THEN:
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/18/2012 @ 12:24 pm
Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest.
And that’s their case.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/18/2012 @ 12:26 pm“Point blank range” is something in George Zimmerman’s favor unless you propose that the way it went down was that George Zimmerman was holding Trayvon Martin at gunpoint, but there was no physical struggle at that point, and Martin was begging for his life, and then Zimmerman, after taking a little time to think about it, went ahead and shot him dead in cold blood.
So much was circulated when there was partial information public or not widely known information that it hard for people to grasp how much some particular bits of information undermine the whole scenario.
Even people very skeptical about the whole thing do not realize that the image of George Zimmerman pursuing and then reaching Trayvon Martin is tiotally at odds with known facts. It is not even a question of who started the altercation.
Trayvon had to want to be there, or through some kind of combination of errors they ran into each other again.
Even people
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/18/2012 @ 12:36 pmEven people who are skeptical don’t realize this great flaw in the scenario of pursuit. That’s because they don’t have enough of a grasp of the details. Zimmerman couldn’t catch him on foot and didn’t pursue him in his car.
(Now you could say Trayvon Martin went the wrong way – you could say a lot of things, but it is no simple pursuit.)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/18/2012 @ 12:40 pm“MD in Philly, I think its pretty well established that the per capita consumption of alcohol dropped during Prohibition and never rose to the same pre-Prohibition level even after Repeal.”
SPQR – I agree and believe the idea that per capita consumption of alcohol increased during Prohibition is one of those persistent urban legends which defies logic and is used to justify all sorts of errant nonsense.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/18/2012 @ 12:45 pmComment by MD in Philly — 5/18/2012 @ 12:08 pm
I have heard mixed views about whether alcohol use was significantly down during prohibition or not, and while big-time criminals and organized crime were a big deal, whether or not the typical neighborhood was better off or not after prohibition ended is up for question.
I read that alcohol use did go down.
The article and chart shows Prohibition was effective while it was still being enacted state by state and then right after the Constitutyiuonal amendment was passed and tehn…
…That when some people began smuggling.
Actually the first thing they did was steal it out of bondeed government warehouses. Taht was actually the beginniing of what became the Teapot Dome scandal.
Then the smuggling began and we also had medical alcohol. I once got a pharmacy book from about 1925 – it listed all these things.
Last Call by Daniel Okrent is a 2010 book about it which I haven’t read but it sounds good. Here’s a discussion by the author:
http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Interview/Daniel-Okrent/ba-p/2564
Anyway a number of criminals exploited this.
And the end of Prohibition didn’t put the toothpaste back into the tube. They went on to heroin and other things, but not legal alcohol, which none of the people involved in this could make a go of and they went on to destroy the black family.
(except maybe for Joseph P. Kennedy who had other businesses anyway and was a big stock manipulator. He has also sold out before the crash.
http://joebrunoonthemob.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/joe-bruno-on-the-mob-joseph-p-kennedy/
I would think there were a lot of people who would have drank alcohol had it been legally available who were otherwise just too timid or had enough common sense to stay away from the illegality. I would think there were more than a few families spared of the destruction of alcoholism in their midst.
I once read that statistics show that.
How those many quiet victories compare with the headlines of Al Capone and the rest are hard to say. I’m not trying to argue that Prohibition was a good thing and ending it was a mistake, but I bet if it was more fully analyzed it would be harder to dismiss it as “an obvious disaster”, as popularly understood.
If Prohibition was a disaster, it could be argued that ending it was an even worse disaster. The Outfit had already come into existence.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/18/2012 @ 1:08 pmThank you, SPQR and daley. I know there are good reasons I come here.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/18/2012 @ 1:10 pmand sammy.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/18/2012 @ 1:12 pmNote that I don’t doubt that a lot of alcohol was illicitly made, imported and consumed in the US during Prohibition, but it simply was not the volume that was produced and consumed before Prohibition.
People today don’t have a sense of how much alcohol was a part of the daily life of people before Prohibition. While soft drinks predate Prohibition, it was Prohibition that allowed soft drinks to replace beer and wine as the constant drink of the everyday American.
The other, far less significant in social policy, ill of Prohibition was the destruction of the small town or regional brewery industry and its replacement by industrial combines. But that’s fare for another thread.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 1:20 pmComment by SarahW — 5/18/2012 @ 11:00 am
Sammy, 18 inches is just one and a half barbie dolls – seems self evident that distance is consistent with shooting a tall guy sitting on top of you.
It was propbably a lot less tahn 18 inches. 18 inches was the maximum in whatever test they used.
George Zimmerman it is reported cried for days after this. He felt as bad as many policemen do about killing someone. And let’s say he realized that if he had held out another 30 or 45 seconds, he would have been rescued without needing to fire his gun. But the law says that someone defending himself does nto need to place the safety of the attacker above his own safety.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/18/2012 @ 1:36 pmComment by daleyrocks — 5/17/2012 @ 7:49 pm
Sammy – Now take a breath. Why would you call a business plan which was nonsense and made assumptions for no reason perfectly put together? Did you mean it looked nice?
I think it was actually handwritten but the thing is it laid out how money was supposedly going to be made.
Are you suggesting that people should blindly follow business plans which are nonsense and make assumptions for no reason just because they have an impressive label which says “Business Plan?”
No. The thing is this. You should not start out by saying now what needs to happen if I am to make money and then put that down. There has to be an independent reason to believe everything in it.
Do you think people who don’t have the ability to create a business plan, with or without help, that isn’t highly questionable or full of unreasonable assumptions should really be taking a chance on starting a business or should they be counseled to to something else.
No, they just need to know how to think. I think people have to not rely on hope.
Do you believe that businesses should engage in any planning at all.
What point are you really trying to make, if any.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/18/2012 @ 1:56 pmComment by Sammy Finkelman — 5/18/2012 @ 1:56 pm
Do you believe that businesses should engage in any planning at all.
They shouldn’t attempt to plan what can’t be planned.
What point are you really trying to make, if any.
Be very wary about plans. Don’t try to answer questions you don’t know the answer to. That has to remain an unknown.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/18/2012 @ 2:02 pmEvidently the released evidence includes statements from a witness who saw Martin atop Zimmerman beating on him just before the gunshot was heard.
Its a statement that was available to the charging prosecutor – who is looking more and more like Nifong by the minute.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 2:15 pmNifong didn’t get communications from the U.S. Departmenmt of Justice encouraging a prosecution (or whatever happened)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/18/2012 @ 2:37 pmClearly Zimmerman is sexy, but Martin? Oh lala!
[This is not the real JD.]
JD (7cce87) — 5/18/2012 @ 2:51 pmComment by Sammy Finkelman — 5/18/2012 @ 2:37 pm
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/18/2012 @ 3:33 pmwell, not that we know about.
“What point are you really trying to make, if any.”
Sammy – I am trying to suggest that you approach of blaming the business plan for business failures is misguided. Was something unclear about that?
I have previously suggested that tunnel vision is dangerous in any endeavor, that assumptions need to be tested and that perhaps dumb people should not start businesses, given the high failure rate for new businesses.
Your approach is to blame the rape victim/business plan rather than the people who put it together or who followed it down the drain.
I call that performance art, but I’m repeating myself.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/18/2012 @ 3:38 pmHave you ever done a business plan? Because what you’re talking about is totally unlike anything I’ve ever been involved with. It isn’t like X + Y = $$$.
You ask and answer questions like, who is going to want your product or service? Why are they supposed to prefer yours over a competitor’s? Where are they? How do you plan on reaching them?
Even large companies like GM go through exercises like these. A hobby of mine is hotrodding. GM is a player in the aftermarket performance parts industry for Chevy engines. When they come out with a new set of cast iron cylinder heads they know exactly who within that niche would buy their product. Circle track racers who don’t want to put too much money in their engine because they race in claimer classes, hotrodders and bracket racers who want to keep their car all GM, etc. Not just “anyone with a Chevy.” There’s lots of competition, you need to identify your strengths and weaknesses.
You don’t know what can’t be planned until you try. You certainly don’t want to be in the position of finding out something could have been planned for, but you failed to do so, because you didn’t even bother to develop a plan. And what you don’t know now doesn’t have to remain an unknown. Four little words for you, Sammy. Try to find out.
Steve (773f84) — 5/18/2012 @ 4:00 pmI see Alex is sock puppeting me, again.
JD (605175) — 5/18/2012 @ 4:14 pmI’m not trying to be a jerk, Sammy, nor am I picking an argument. “Point blank range” is really a marksman’s term and doesn’t belong in the realm of the medical examiner.
“Point blank” is the range at which you can hit the vital zone of the target while aiming directly at it. A bullet describes a trajectory; it starts from the muzzle below the level of the sights, then arcs above the level of the sights before starting to drop back down.
If a human heart is four inches in diameter, “point blank range” is the range in which you can aim directly at the heart and the bullet won’t describe an arc in which it rises above two inches above the sights or fall two inches below the sights. That could be close to 300 yards, depending upon the rifle/cartridge combination.
Beyond that range, you’ll have to “hold over” the target to hit it. So you’re no longer aiming directly at it.
I’m talking strictly what the rifle/cartridge is capable of. Some people couldn’t hit their own house shooting from inside it, no matter sort of precision equipment you gave them to use.
Steve (773f84) — 5/18/2012 @ 4:16 pmHow about taking the business plan and alcohol comsumption during prohibition dialogues to another post that’s not really being commented on. I keep having to wade through dozens of off-topic comments looking for anyone interested in discussing Zimmermand and Martin.
shipwreckedcrew (96a8a6) — 5/18/2012 @ 4:19 pmswc, any prediction when the Judge will issue a Summary Judgement of Dismissal?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/18/2012 @ 4:24 pmAgreed. I do believe the digression into “point blank range” was appropriate, though, only in the sense that a lot of terms are being bandied about as if they applied to the situation. When in fact they aren’t technical terms, at least not as they’re popularly used.
I think when we discuss the range at which Z shot M, we should stick with what the ME used. “Intermediate range:” between 1″ and 18.”
A firearm can leave powder stippling around a wound beyond that distance. But not a firearm you’d be willing to walk around sharing your pants with.
Steve (773f84) — 5/18/2012 @ 4:27 pm#461. Sammy, what extraordinary contortions will have to be done to square the EMT report of the MINOR injuries after the incident with Zim’s dr report the next day?
tifosa (ec1b8c) — 5/18/2012 @ 4:55 pm“small laceration on the back of his head…all injuries have minor bleeding”
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/zimmerman.fdems.report.pdf
This morning, I saw Megyn Kelley’s interview with Alan Dershowitz and Bernie Goldberg on Fox News. Dershowitz and Goldberg agreed that the State Prosecutor was appointed to do whatever it took to stop a race riot, and that’s why she charged/overcharged this case. They also agreed that was wrong. Left unsaid was that the prosecutor’s decision may only delay race problems, not foreclose them — but that’s how politicians work, isn’t it?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 5:00 pmAD at 497:
I expect there will be a hearing on the peculiar Florida provision where a defendant is allowed to put on a showing of a claim of self-defense to the court, and if he can prevail by a preponderance of evidence then the case is dismissed. I think the most likely place for the case to be dismissed is at that hearing.
I expect that if that happens, in the aftermath the prosecution will simply claim that they, in good faith, followed the procedural framework established by the Florida legislature, and rather than render their own judgment on the question of self-defense — such as by not charging the case — they left it to a neutral magistrate to make that determination.
It is true that a prosecutor does not have to credit a claim of self-defense in making a decision whether to charge or not charge, because that is a fact-bound inquiry that can be the subject of conflicting evidence which is best left to the trier of fact.
But the evidence is so strong here, and the contervaling evidence is so weak, its clear the prosecutor — who is running for office in a judicial district with a significant African-American population — made a calculated and crass decision to not do the right thing and decline to charge.
shipwreckedcrew (96a8a6) — 5/18/2012 @ 5:00 pmhttp://www.alan.com/2012/05/18/former-co-worker-says-he-was-bullied-by-george-zimmerman-and-subject-to-racial-taunts/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+liberaland+%28Alan+Colmes+Liberaland%29
tifosa (ec1b8c) — 5/18/2012 @ 5:11 pmahh,sweet georgie…”f—ing morons” anybody consider that?
tifosa — so what?
shipwreckedcrew (96a8a6) — 5/18/2012 @ 5:23 pmTiffy is manic. Again.
JD (605175) — 5/18/2012 @ 5:24 pmshipwreckedcrew,
I think the hearing is available to defendants who assert immunity under the Stand Your Ground law. Ann Althouse discussed the danger of an immunity hearing several weeks ago:
Assuming the Seminole County trial court where this case is pending would even handle an immunity claim as a pretrial motion — and that’s not clear because this law is new and not every Florida jurisdiction has decided whether to handle it as a pretrial motion or wait until trial — then I wonder if Zimmerman takes a risk in filing a pretrial “Stand Your Ground” immunity motion? Not only would it reveal the defense’s testimony and evidence before trial, but it would run the risk that the public will believe his self defense claim “lost” before the judge.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 5:25 pmTifosa, we ain’t bright, but we are horny!
[This is not the real JD.]
JD (7cce87) — 5/18/2012 @ 5:36 pmI agree with DRJ. “Stand your ground”, or just traditional self-defense, should be instructed to the jury as part of the totality of the evidence. A pre-trial motion would, of necessity, be a trial without the benefit of the jury. Something like the asa tried to do at the bail hearing.
nk (875f57) — 5/18/2012 @ 5:41 pmWith the defendant having the burden of going forward with the evidence.
nk (875f57) — 5/18/2012 @ 5:44 pmZimmerman, but some accounts I’ve read, has given three statements to the police. So, having him testify at a pre-trial motion really doesn’t risk any further exposure of the defense evidence than has already taken place. He’s pretty well locked into whatever his story is going to be at trial.
And I don’t buy the idea that the public will think he lost his self-defense claim if the pretrial motion is denied.
Tactically, IMO, this is a great opportunity for the defense to put prosecution witnesses under oath and lock them in. Its almost a “grand jury” process in reverse. Zimmerman is going to testify and establish pretty forcefully that he acted in self-defense. The prosecution is then going to have to respond with everything they have — they can’t hold back because if they lose the hearing the case is over. So, everything the prosecution has is going to be put on the stand — and the defense is going to get to cross-examine everyone. Every favorable thing they might concievably say is going to come up on cross, similar to the way they got admissions from the investigator at the bail hearing.
As a prosecutor I want to limit the number of times government witnesses are put under oath. A defense attorney wants the opposite. Having this procedure available in a case where there is good self-defense evidence is a blessing for the defense.
shipwreckedcrew (96a8a6) — 5/18/2012 @ 5:54 pmIt’s the second shot to do it right, I’m thinking of shipwreckedcrew. Jeopardy. Let the prosecution sweat for one roll of the dice.
nk (875f57) — 5/18/2012 @ 6:00 pmThat a good point, shipwreckedcrew. In addition, this article indicates defendants are entitled to evidentiary hearings upon request, and more and more Florida defendants are asking for them:
We’ll see what Zimmerman’s attorney decides to do. I think they’ve already waived speedy trial. They may want to wait and see what the DOJ does. On the other hand, under your theory it would make more sense to expedite the immunity hearing in order to lock in the prosecution witnesses’ testimony and hopefully prevent the DOJ from using them.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 6:18 pmAlex the cowardly liar is using my name. Again.
JD (605175) — 5/18/2012 @ 6:25 pmI want to comment on the OPINION of the investigator that is getting so much play in the liberal media — that the entire episode was avoidable by Zimmerman if he had just remained in his car. Lets unpack that a little bit.
First of all, the investigator’s comment is erroneous in terms of the facts. He suggests Zimmerman should have heeded the advice of the dispatcher and stayed in his car. But by the time the dispatcher made that comment, Zimmerman was already out of his car.
Second, while Zimmerman might have had the opportunity to have avoided the confrontation, his was the first opportunity. Martin also had the opportunity to avoid the confrontation. When Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin while still sitting in his truck, Martin was about 70 yards from the front door to his father’s girlfriend’s house. Yet 4 minutes passed before the fatal shot was fired, but he had made it less than halfway to the house in that time.
Had he simply continued on the path to her house — as his supporters claim he was trying to do — he would have been on the couch half-way through his Skittles and Tea by the time four minutes went by.
So, the idea of blaming Zimmerman because he could have avoided the incident is a little bit … shall we say ….. IDIOTIC.
shipwreckedcrew (96a8a6) — 5/18/2012 @ 6:42 pmComment by shipwreckedcrew — 5/18/2012 @ 6:42 pm
I also think the investigator’s opinion ignores an earlier part of the conversation between the dispatcher and Zimmerman.
IIRC, the dispatcher told Zimmerman to “let me know if he does anything” (twice, I think). Well, if the guy you are watching starts running and there isn’t a road to follow on, the only way to really keep the dispatcher informed is by getting out of the vehicle and following on foot (probably with the sole intention of observing and reporting). It seems to me that an argument could be made that Zimmerman was following the dispatcher’s instructions when he exited the vehicle to see where Martin was running.
It appears that Zimmerman did his best to “let [the dispatcher] know if [Martin] does anything” – by getting out of the vehicle to observe as much as possible – and then when the dispatcher said “we don’t need you to do that” – in reference to following on foot – the discussion indicates that Zimmerman had already lost Martin and was no longer following anyone. The conversation seems to indicate that Zimmerman was actually doing what the dispatcher “advised”, throughout.
Sue (6623c5) — 5/18/2012 @ 7:31 pmSue, you might want to look at the transcript. The dispatcher said to tell him what the subject’s doing twice, right after GZ says that subject is coming toward him. When GZ was clearly pursuing, and used the epithet the dispatcher says “we don’t need you to do that.” There’s no confusion about the message.
tifosa (ec1b8c) — 5/18/2012 @ 8:12 pmhttp://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html Transcript.
tifosa (ec1b8c) — 5/18/2012 @ 8:12 pmtiffy – A question. Zimmerman said to the dispatcher it looked like Martin was on drugs and now it turns out he was on drugs, right?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/18/2012 @ 8:26 pmTiffy is all hot and bothered. Facts will never get in the way of its Narrative.
JD (605175) — 5/18/2012 @ 8:26 pmJD – I have no interest in tiffy’s hormone imbalances.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/18/2012 @ 8:32 pm“a trace amount of THC” 9 nanograms per milliliter says NOTHING about level of intoxication. btw, that could have been in his system for DAYS.
tifosa (ec1b8c) — 5/18/2012 @ 8:38 pmhttp://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/18/201941/944
narciso (1c125b) — 5/18/2012 @ 8:49 pmtifosa, that level of THC was nearly twice what proposed legislation in Colorado would have made intoxication for operating a vehicle.
But even that’s irrelevant, it undermines the false claims of the family as to the innocence of Martin’s behavior that evening and is consistent with Zimmerman’s contemporaneous statements to dispatch.
But the bottom line remains, that nothing has been introduced into the evidence that contradicts Zimmerman’s self defense claims. Not a single thing. While all the early claims about Martin have fallen to the wayside as facts come out.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/18/2012 @ 9:14 pmFacts are stupid things, SPQR, specially when they don’t support the narrative;
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/media-openly-lying-about-zimmerman-case-now-say-evidence-fails-to-answer-who-was-screaming-except-for-those-2-eyewitnesses/
narciso (1c125b) — 5/18/2012 @ 9:18 pmTifosa,
So he was stoned, a documented disciplinary problem, a violent person, and antisocial. And has Zimmerman’s. Blood and Dna on his knuckles.
Ericpwjohnson (73bef6) — 5/18/2012 @ 10:53 pm1.5 ng per ml in the blood means:
if Trayvon was a light pot user he smoked within 2-8 hours.
If Trayvon was a heavy pot user he might have smoked the day before.
Zimmerman saw his erratic nature and deduced he was on drugs. And he was one hundred percent right.
Trayvon may have been able to legally drive a car but that is not what we are talking about. He was visibly affected by drugs. Zimmerman was proven correct.
luagha (5cbe06) — 5/18/2012 @ 11:11 pm“tiffy – A question. Zimmerman said to the dispatcher it looked like Martin was on drugs and now it turns out he was on drugs, right?”
The level found is way too low for anyone to tell.
Someone who just smoked a joint would have a thc blood level around 100 to 200 ng/ml. What the autoposy showed was a thc blood level of 1.5 ng/ml, which tells you he has smoked dope sometime in the past…but, he wasn’t high at the time.
At least that’s how it works in people who haven’t been shot dead by speed freak skinheads (who, amusingly, think they can judge OTHER people on how they look, and that then start chasing them with a loaded pistol at the ready).
I know that’s a big blow for you Zimmerman lovers (and folks who believe that weedheads ought to be shot on sight)…but, there ya go.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:08 am“He was visibly affected by drugs.”
Baloney. You don’t what the hell you’re taling about.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:14 amDave
Do you have a citation on the speed freak skin head claim.,
Ericpwjohnson (73bef6) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:30 amIt’s tough to square that the kid, who was doing nothing wrong, and had every right to be where he was, was killed in an “ultimately avoidable” situation, by an armed, power-hungry vigilante.
tifosa (ec1b8c) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:43 amYeah, he’s taking adderall (or at least he has a prescription for it), and he’s got short hair.
Of course, the adderall bit is what was reported in the MSM, so who knows if it’s really true.
Those guys could screw up a wet dream, and if half of what the MSM reports actually turns out to be true…it’s a freaking miracle.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:47 am“According to the report, prior to the shooting Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer than 10 percent of patients. – ABC News Exclusive”
tifosa (ec1b8c) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:51 am@ tifosa: you know how this whole event could have been avoided?
1. thug life would have not gotten expelled from school for possession of marijuana, which would have eliminated the need for him to go live with relatives.
2. since he didn’t have the sense to do that, once he broke contact with Zimmerman, he could have taken his young butt back to the crib and been safe and sound, even if the cops showed up.
instead, he decided to come back and attack Zimmerman, to prove his street cred, or defend his rep or whatever stupid reason he thought such a course of action was a good idea.
of course, since he decided to do so in a state that allows citizens to exercise their right to self defense, he got himself shot.
the morals of the story are that everyone is responsible for the outcomes of their personal decisions and also that attacking adults in a shall issue CCW state is just another way to play Russian Roulette.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/19/2012 @ 1:14 am“tifosa: you know how this whole event could have been avoided?”
Sure if black kids would just stay off the streets, they wouldn’t get stalked and shot by morons like Zimmerman.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/19/2012 @ 1:41 ampo’ Dave… still delusional after all these years.
fact: Martin had broken contact with Zimmerman, and Zimmerman had stopped trying to find him.
now, all Martin had to do was take his young macho butt back home and everything would have been over.
but he didn’t.
the rest is history.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/19/2012 @ 2:36 am“he decided to come back and attack Zimmerman” Zero evidence. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
tifosa (ec1b8c) — 5/19/2012 @ 2:50 am(Haha Dave 🙂
“these a–holes, they always get away” gave up?
tifosa (ec1b8c) — 5/19/2012 @ 2:52 amI think not…
Yeah, if the nigras would just stay off the streets when a white man was trying to drive by, popping his meth tabs and toting his pop gun, there wouldn’t be no trouble.
I’ve heard it before, hoss.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/19/2012 @ 2:56 am“the rest is history.”
We’ll see about that after the trial…if there is one.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/19/2012 @ 2:59 amGood Allah.
JD (605175) — 5/19/2012 @ 3:10 amnone are so blind as those who will not see, JD.
Martin broke contact, and Zimmerman could no longer see him.
Zimmerman tried to follow Martin, as evidenced by the phone call with the heavy breathing, but the heavy breathing stopped, which also means the attempt to follow stopped.
so, the only way Zimmerman and Martin could meet up again would be for Martin to return to where Zimmerman was.
this is just another reason the Left hates facts: they destroy memes.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/19/2012 @ 3:17 amthis is hereby nominated for the “Most honest statement by a troll” award for May 2012.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/19/2012 @ 3:20 amThe adderall is just dirtying up the defendant. It’s just a variant of Ritalin. They give that **** to six-year old kids. It is not an element of the case (except maybe if Ito is presiding).
nk (875f57) — 5/19/2012 @ 3:22 amBTW, I have had a prescription for morphine because I cannot take blood-thinning analgesics like aspirin or ibuprofen. I tore it into little pieces, because I want to function. I also have a variant of Vallium, Ativan. I got 60 pills, two months ago, and have only take five. The most they do is lower my blood pressure.
This nonsense is collateral and is not into play.
The state has to show that Zimmerman caused Martin’s death, knowingly or intentionally, without legal justification. It is the state’s ultimate burden, beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman, getting the h*** beat out of him is reasonable doubt.
nk (875f57) — 5/19/2012 @ 3:30 amtifosa, you’ve pointed out no, none, zip evidence that contradicts a self defense claim.
Surls, still making up stuff I see.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/19/2012 @ 5:57 amNot to mention Surls misstates the autopsy findings with regarding to marijuana. From CNN: “1.5 nanograms per milliliter of one type (THC), as well as 7.3 nanograms of another type (THC-COOH)“
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/19/2012 @ 6:07 amFWIW, while I don’t remember Dave Surls ever being a person whose comments I eagerly awaited (I imagine the feeling is mutual), I don’t remember him ever being stubbornly stuck on a baseless claim such as Zimmerman hunting down and provoking the conflict with M in order to shoot him. I don’t understand. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that scenario except made up stuff in some of the early MSM reports. One could as well postulate that Z killed M to get his Skittles.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/19/2012 @ 6:53 ammota maniac
Colonel Haiku (7dba0b) — 5/19/2012 @ 6:53 amthe young thug sportin’ hoodie
threw down on wrong guy
I said a young man
Colonel Haiku (7dba0b) — 5/19/2012 @ 6:57 amsick at heart ain’t got nothin’
in the world these days
MD in Philly, Surls’ behavior is literally a mystery to me. Not least the pattern of trying to ascribe the most ridiculous statements to those he disagrees with.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/19/2012 @ 7:08 amNo, it’s about a pattern of behavior;
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/geraldo-rivera-trayvon-martin-looks-just-like-the-people-who-had-been-burglarizing-and-victimizing-that-neighborhood-video/
narciso (1c125b) — 5/19/2012 @ 7:20 am________________________________________________
Surls’ behavior is literally a mystery to me.
Even more so since I believe he in general isn’t one of those really dumb liberals that is totally devoid of even an ounce of common sense.
I recall getting a few similarly totally unexpected and baffling reactions from at least one person (who was, more or less, of the right) back in the 1990s when the OJ trial was underway. IOW, the obviousness of the guilt of the defendant in that murder case flew right over the head of some people’s perceptions.
I’d have more respect for such observers if they at least said things like “Trayvon Martin likely was a troublemaker, perhaps even beginning a life of felonies, but my sympathy leans in his direction because of [insert reason here]. Or “OJ certainly was guilty of double homicide, but my sympathy leans in his direction because of [insert reason here].
Such controversies should be a reminder that one can never trust human nature or the perceptions of any variety of people. Of course, if they’re of the left, they already start out unreliable from the get-go.
Mark (fe9517) — 5/19/2012 @ 7:44 am“Not to mention Surls misstates the autopsy findings…”
No, you’re the one who is making misstatements.
“tifosa, that level of THC was nearly twice what proposed legislation in Colorado”
Wrong. The level of thc found in Trayvon Martin’s body is less than one third of that mentioned in the absurd law they’ve been trying (and failing) to get passed in Colorado.
Being wrong often happens when someone (like yourself) goes around talking about things they know nothing about.
Caveat: That’s assuming that the media reports of what the autopsy found is correct, which I’ll grant is a mighty big assumption.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/19/2012 @ 10:53 amWell Dave, it’s on the PDF, it matches why he was suspended in the first place, isn’t it time to at least reevaluate some of the evidence,
narciso (1c125b) — 5/19/2012 @ 10:56 amnarciso – Stop confusing people with facts!!!!!!!!!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2012 @ 11:07 amI know it’s ‘doubleunplusgood’
narciso (1c125b) — 5/19/2012 @ 11:17 amCurrent Drudge link:
More than 60 Percent of Males Arrested in 2011 Used Drugs, Federal Survey Shows
Always a question of cause vs effect… Did the drugs “cause” people to do illegal stuff–Or are many of the arrests because drugs are “illegal”.
Don’t think the THC results should determine guilt by itself–But it certainly is part of the narative which, from what I have read, supports GZ’s reported statements and impeach the MSM reports.
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/19/2012 @ 11:27 amComment by tifosa — 5/19/2012 @ 12:43 am
Whatever Martin was doing (and good luck convincing anyone it was irrational to call in a suspicious person report given the recent break ins and home invasions, and given that his behaviour was odd and there is nothing to suggest he did NOT look like he was on drugs, as Zimmerman said to the dispatcher)
What ever he was doing – he ended up doing something WRONG, something criminal, if he jumped Zimmerman And but for that act, Zimmerman would have had no call to use force to escape the attack.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/19/2012 @ 11:34 am“given that his behaviour was odd”
SarahW – Who could call ducking under the awning or overhangs of houses that do not belong to you in a crime-ridden neighborhood odd?
Seriously?
What the heck are you thinking!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2012 @ 11:49 amRaaaaaacist!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2012 @ 11:50 amIt was raining (as I recall)–So going under an awning to avoid the rain would not be the strangest thing in the world…
Did the THC interfere with TM’s judgment (went on a several mile hike in rainy weather with only a hoody (if only TM’s Mother was there to teach him about jackets)… Does not really matter.
Was it possible that TM wanted to avoid contact with the police (possible drug charges)–And decided to teach nosy GZ a lesson? We will probably never know.
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:08 pm“It was raining (as I recall)–So going under an awning to avoid the rain would not be the strangest thing in the world…”
Bfc – Right, in my hood people put out “Intruders Welcome If It’s Raining” signs on their porches. I don’t know about yours. Perfectly normal.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:12 pmBfc – So let’s revisit the Tiffy/Surls narrative. Martin was out for a stroll in a public place where he had every right to be, doing nothing suspicious.
Except, according to Zimmerman he was crossing private property where he had no right to be and was acting suspiciously, like he was on drugs, which was confirmed by the autopsy.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:19 pmThat would be as it appears, daley, the Serino report suggests that he shouldn’t have gotten out of the truck, but it ignores the Burgess report
narciso (1c125b) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:32 pmof the most recent burglary, just three weeks past.
Daleyrocks,
Don’t get me wrong–I think it was very proper for GZ to call the police. And that TM was, more than likely, the attacker. Also, that GM was, again probably, justified in defending himself with the handgun (based on what we have seen so far).
We cannot know what TM was thinking other than being concerned that GZ was following–for some reason(anything from the Girl Friend call?). And even if TM were available, what he thought that evening vs what he would have testified to–Probably two different things.
TM was not making great choices in life up to that point. And we will likely never know for sure what he was doing (or if he was or would have been involved in the local break-ins).
I am just saying that there are several sides to this story and, while there was enough behavioral information to justify a phone call to the police… It would not have been enough for any sort of conviction by itself.
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:40 pmAlso, Condos seem to bend the idea of private/private vs private/common areas (another reason why I do not plan on ever purchasing a Condo).
If TM was a guest of the Father’s girlfriend–Then TM would certainly have use of the common areas.
I don’t know the details of where the common areas end and the private areas begin (if TM was inside a fenced area–probably a violation. If TM was under a porch that connected to a public sidewalk/grassy area–perhaps not–Not claiming to be a lawyer here).
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:44 pm“Don’t get me wrong–I think it was very proper for GZ to call the police.”
Bfc – I understand your position and am not trying to give you a hard time. I’m illustrating the parts of the narrative conveniently left out by the “public place/every right to be there/no suspicious activity” truthers.
FYI, I don’t believe a porch would be considered a common area.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:50 pmComment by tifosa — 5/18/2012 @ 4:55 pm
what extraordinary contortions will have to be done to square the EMT report of the MINOR injuries after the incident with Zim’s dr report the next day?
“small laceration on the back of his head…all injuries have minor bleeding”
— Tiffy concedes the injuries, but somehow makes a quantitative (or qualitative) judgment call that they aren’t severe enough to justify self-defense?
ahh,sweet georgie…”f—ing morons” anybody consider that?
— Ah, yes, the “establish a pattern of behavior” meme. As shipwreckedcrew said, so what?
Comment by tifosa — 5/18/2012 @ 8:12 pm
The dispatcher said to tell him what the subject’s doing twice, right after GZ says that subject is coming toward him.
— The dispatcher told Zimmerman to tell WHO “what the subject’s doing”? Who is the “him” that Z was supposed to tell?
When GZ was clearly pursuing, and used the epithet the dispatcher says “we don’t need you to do that.” There’s no confusion about the message.
— Except for the way in which you just completely misrepresented it; right? The irony of you following up this total distortion of what actually happened with a link to the real transcript is just too much! You insert the ALREADY PROVEN TO BE A NON-EPITHET into the wrong spot on the timeline, as well as disregarding the mixed message conveyed by the 911 operator: urging him not to ‘pursue’ while at the same time asking that he keep them apprised of the suspicious person’s movements.
“a trace amount of THC” 9 nanograms per milliliter says NOTHING about level of intoxication. btw, that could have been in his system for DAYS.
Comment by tifosa — 5/18/2012 @ 8:38 pm
— Must have just been a lucky guess on Z’s part, then. And your point is WHAT?
It’s tough to square that the kid, who was doing nothing wrong, and had every right to be where he was, was killed in an “ultimately avoidable” situation, by an armed, power-hungry vigilante.
Comment by tifosa — 5/19/2012 @ 12:43 am
— Damn bitter clingers!
“According to the report, prior to the shooting Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer than 10 percent of patients. – ABC News Exclusive”
Icy (ae54ba) — 5/19/2012 @ 12:55 pmComment by tifosa — 5/19/2012 @ 12:51 am
— It’s pretty tough to credit that ABC News is the only source that knows what the side-effects of those drugs are.
It is a strange argument where the Condo Owner on common street/walkways should have stayed in his vehicle or face 2nd degree murder charges vs an, apparently, intoxicated guy wondering in/around dwellings has every right to walk up to somebody watching/report and have the right/duty to start wailing on said person.
And today, I still see years old pictures of GZ booking photo (where he was younger/heavier) and those of TM at 11-12 years of age–When there are lots of pictures (police, personal twitter account) available from around the date of the event.
GZ seems to be, otherwise, a poster child for a Democratic Party Diversity Minority Person. GZ has protested the son of a local police officer that beat on a black homeless person and was going to go free, tutoring minorities, attempting to start a small business or two, member of neighborhood watch (not that matters in this case), trying to be involved with the community, defending his friend in a bar where an undercover officer was being physical about suspected under age drinking(charges against GZ dropped)…
Even armed himself with a handgun (took training, got permit) after being directed to do this by the police (protect himself against aggressive dog).
What more could you want from the guy. Yes, it is possible he made some mistakes that night… But where is the evidence of that?
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/19/2012 @ 1:14 pmThe Jay Carney to tifosa’s Barack Obama ranted:
At least that’s how it works in people who haven’t been shot dead by speed freak skinheads (who, amusingly, think they can judge OTHER people on how they look, and that then start chasing them with a loaded pistol at the ready).
— First of all, criminal profiling is something that cops the world over do every day, and it saves countless numbers of lives and amounts of property from being lost. Second, to what extent are you willing to beclown yourself in your slavering desire to paint Z as an inhuman monster? I mean, you’ve already flat-out lied by calling him a “skinhead”; and now you’re doubling down by labeling him a drug addict as well? Isn’t it enough for you to focus on what he allegedly did?
I know that’s a big blow for you Zimmerman lovers (and folks who believe that weedheads ought to be shot on sight)…but, there ya go.
— I guess that answers my question. Apparently, for Surls it’s NOT enough.
Sure if black kids would just stay off the streets, they wouldn’t get stalked and shot by morons like Zimmerman.
— Dave getting his full Sharpton on.
“the rest is history.”
We’ll see about that after the trial…if there is one.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/19/2012 @ 2:59 am
— This is the equivocating Dave: making a half-assed concession that there really isn’t any evidence to garner a conviction, while maintaining that Z is guilty as hell anyway.
Being wrong often happens when someone (like myself) goes around talking about things they know nothing about.
Icy (ae54ba) — 5/19/2012 @ 1:25 pm— FTFY
An interesting (if tragic) conviction by same FL prosecutor. What not to do:
Woman gets 20 years for firing warning shot
So, that is how “not to stand your ground”…
Should it have resulted in a 20 year sentence… Don’t know.
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/19/2012 @ 1:36 pmThe judge threw out her “stand your ground” claim because she (allegedly) had the option of NOT standing her ground?
Is that how the Stand Your Ground law is written? Is it really a Backed Into A Corner law?
Judicial activism, anyone?
Icy (ae54ba) — 5/19/2012 @ 2:10 pm“This is the equivocating Dave…”
LOL. Yeah, that’s me. I never make explicit statements.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/19/2012 @ 3:40 pmyou make lots of explicit statements.
you just don’t make very many that are correct.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/19/2012 @ 4:23 pmThat’s not equivocation.
Leviticus (870be5) — 5/19/2012 @ 4:26 pmIcy, her case was worse than that. She left the location of the confrontation to get a gun and came back.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/19/2012 @ 4:33 pmGood Lord. Being intoxicated on prescribed drugs is a defense. But why would you want to there, if you have “He had me on the sidewalk, pounding my brains out”?
nk (875f57) — 5/19/2012 @ 4:49 pm‘I mean, you’ve already flat-out lied by calling him a “skinhead”;’
He is a skinhead.
“Skinhead”
“1: a person whose hair is cut very short”
Got a problem with word definitions? Take it up with Merriam Webster.
And I haven’t lied about anything, punk.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/19/2012 @ 5:21 pmDave Surls, you have been caught in quite a few fabrications. And short hair does not make someone a “skinhead”, regardless of your repeated flatulence, punk.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/19/2012 @ 5:22 pmYes, he’s an Afro Peruvian skinhead, who tutored African American children, and protested against
narciso (1c125b) — 5/19/2012 @ 5:25 pmabusive police officers, the worst kind.
I called Corey Foley somewhere above. I don’t care anymore. Give FL back to the alligators. To Hell with the Seminoles.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 5/19/2012 @ 5:47 pm‘And short hair does not make someone a “skinhead”’
Yes, it does. That’s one of the meanings of the words Says so right in the dictionary.
And lying about it ain’t going to help you any.
And, neither is claiming that I’m lying when I’m not.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/19/2012 @ 5:47 pmThat is just intentional ignorance, since skinhead has a pretty specific connotation.
JD (605175) — 5/19/2012 @ 6:03 pmFunny, Tracey Martin says the cat calling for help on the tapes wasn’t his son. But Corey took his ex’s word as gospel.
They didn’t need to look at the coroner’s report.
I’d be a little surprised if this case is heard.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 5/19/2012 @ 6:03 pm“That is just intentional ignorance”
Yeah. Ignorance on the part of people who claim I’m lying when I corectly refer to the guy as a skinhead.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/19/2012 @ 6:11 pmwe be chillin’…
http://youtu.be/s4uqBkiVV5A
Colonel Haiku (c5ecf9) — 5/19/2012 @ 6:18 pmMichael Jordan is a skinhead.
JD (605175) — 5/19/2012 @ 6:32 pm“1: a person whose hair is cut very short”
Oh, you mean like the President.
nk (875f57) — 5/19/2012 @ 6:50 pmActually, Dave, skinhead means skinhead. Guys who shave their heads. Kojak. Not crewcuts, not buzzcuts. Bare skin.
nk (875f57) — 5/19/2012 @ 6:53 pmSurls, you are a liar because that’s not the meaning you obviously want the reader of your incoherent ranting comments to perceive.
No one can comprehend the reason for your intentionally offensive stupidities. I’m starting to believe its because you sympathize with hoody wearing, dope smoking, burglar wannebees.
SPQR (d04a30) — 5/19/2012 @ 7:14 pmShaq, Ernie Johnson, Kenny smith and Charles Barkley are skinheads.
JD (605175) — 5/19/2012 @ 7:16 pmKobe Bryant – skinhead
JD (605175) — 5/19/2012 @ 7:35 pmPau Gasol – not skinhead
Kevin Durant – skinhead
James Harden – not skinhead
Dave is being disingenuous. He has to be aware that “skinhead” has a certain connotation that isn’t covered by his cherry-picked definition. He should be aware that, by his definition, Michael Jordan is a skinhead. And, he has to know that nobody in his right mind would call Michael Jordan a skinhead.
It appears that Dave has let emotion get the better of his reason, which is what lynch mobs do.
norcal (58464e) — 5/19/2012 @ 7:52 pmMarine Corp?
EricPWJohnson (8a4ca7) — 5/19/2012 @ 8:00 pmI think Dave believes in his heart that the police are sole, authorized protectors of the public.
When, in reality, they are seldom present in the event to protect and are generally just investigators on behalf of government.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 5/19/2012 @ 8:05 pmCorrect. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
norcal (58464e) — 5/19/2012 @ 8:13 pmBottom line remains: when challenged to show any actual evidence that contradicts Zimmerman’s self defense claim, Surls goes with “skinhead”.
That’s all Surls got.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/19/2012 @ 8:53 pm495. Comment by Steve — 5/18/2012 @ 4:16 pm
# 478. “Point blank range” is something in George Zimmerman’s favor…
I’m not trying to be a jerk, Sammy, nor am I picking an argument. “Point blank range” is really a marksman’s term and doesn’t belong in the realm of the medical examiner.
That didn’t come from the medical examiner. AD-RtR/OS! in comment 446 on 5/18/2012 @ 8:48 am said it was a Los Angeles radio reporter who used that term. The reporter was trying to capture the idea in one word and I think everybody understands the meaning – so close you can’t possibly miss.
“Point blank” is the range at which you can hit the vital zone of the target while aiming directly at it. A bullet describes a trajectory; it starts from the muzzle below the level of the sights, then arcs above the level of the sights before starting to drop back down.
A dictionary backs you up. And the word probably started in artillery. But it also has a more colloquial meaning, as in “He fired the gun point blank at the burglar” where my dictionary has the alternate definition of straight, but I am afraid that is just trying to give it a consistent meaning – it means very very close. Many people are not thinking of – they don’t even know – the effect of gravity and friction. They are thinking a shot can miss because the angle needs to be too precise or motion of the hand.
So point-blank means – well, as close as Jack Ruby got to Lee Harvey Oswald. Not as close as Lee Harvey Oswald got to John F. Kennedy. Very few people would use the words point-blank range to describe the latter.
Point blank has an even more extended meaning of “blunt” “straightforward” “plain” “directly” as in “She refused point-blank.” “A point-blank answer”
I’m talking strictly what the rifle/cartridge is capable of. Some people couldn’t hit their own house shooting from inside it, no matter sort of precision equipment you gave them
Most people when they use that word, especially applied to pistols, are thinking of the second kind of error. When that second kind of error is almost impossible to make, or expect, it’s point bank. I think it may have been used that way in the movies.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/19/2012 @ 9:31 pmComment by Alex — 5/17/2012 @ 8:06 am
So it is a distance of 18″ to 24″, or it’s not a distance at all? Just not clear (I’m not clear
18 inches was about the maximum distance according to one sort of test (and one inch the minimum) But another test, on Travon Martin’s clothing indicated the gun was fired when in contact with his clothing, which it is said, would give you about 3 inches as the maximum distance.
Very consistent with George Zimmerman being down on the ground and barely able to get his gun out.
I suppose also consistent with an execution style killing but a lot of other things aren’t consistent with that, including eyewitness and earwitness testimony – and recordings – that the gun was fired in the middle of a fight, and apparently brought it to an end.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/19/2012 @ 9:41 pmComment by tifosa — 5/18/2012 @ 4:55 pm
#461. Sammy, what extraordinary contortions will have to be done to square the EMT report of the MINOR injuries after the incident with Zim’s dr report the next day?
What are the contradictions? The doctor gave a more through examination and was maybe trying to make this sound more serious, because that’s usually what he incentives are..the injury to the nose had already been noted but not identified as possible fracture.
Only somebody like Brett Kimberlin fakes medical records of injuries, and even that was caught.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/19/2012 @ 9:58 pmComment by SPQR — 5/18/2012 @ 2:15 pm
eviddently the released evidence includes statements from a witness who saw Martin atop Zimmerman beating on him just before the gunshot was heard.
This seems to be the same story “John” told. Down to even telling (or attempting to tell GZ – from 30 feet away?) that he was going to call 911. Just right after he said that, the fatal shot was fired. This statement was taken down about 90 minutes after the incident. When we get the names, or more precisely all instances of the same person linked, things will be clearer. He might be on a 911 call too.
The way GZ was being beaten is described as “mixed martial arts” style.
Its a statement that was available to the charging prosecutor
The prosecutor disregarded all kinds of evidence. With regard to fight the affidavit of probable cause tries to make it appear there are no contradictions, without actually lying by saying:
…a struggle ensued. Witnesses described a Witnesses heard people arguing and what sounded like a struggle. During this time period witnesses heard numerous calls for help and some of these were recorded in 911 calls to police.
Who was beating up whom? All it says is:
Trayvon Martin’s mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice vcrying for help as Trayvon Martin’s voice.
Of course concealing what other people said. She didn’t choose to use the junk science that was probably offered to her. It probably would be inadmissible, but this of identification always is.
who is looking more and more like Nifong by the minute.
This is much bigger than one prosecutor. Anyway Angela Corey is basically a good prosecutor, or at least drove down the crime rate in Jacksonville, so we really shouldn’t want to see her replaced. Just reprimanded.
She made the Martin family into her clients.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/19/2012 @ 10:36 pmSammy, are you gonna be busy for the next few years?
Shipwreckedcrew is PO’d I’m fouling the thread talking about lord knows what. I get that. Kinda. So I ask.,,,,,,
All I’m saying is that is invoking your name the best argument against gay marriage. Do you really want to give the keys to your house to someone who is going to usethe chance to tell you just how wrong you are.
All the time. They’re on the look-out for that ****.
Instead, I could just display it.
Steve (773f84) — 5/19/2012 @ 10:39 pmmoonbat meltdown @ 600…
another layer of foil, stat!
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/19/2012 @ 11:17 pm“Actually, Dave, skinhead means skinhead.”
Actually, it means what the dictionary says it means. That’s how we determine the meaning of words.
At least that’s how normal people do it.
Whack jobs like Icy or the terminally asinine SPQR, apparently have a different way of doing.
No doubt they’re employing a variation of the Humpty Dumpty method.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/20/2012 @ 12:51 amMaybe in England, where they have the Queen’s English. Nothing makes Merriam-Webster authoritative in America — or in England for that matter.
nk (875f57) — 5/20/2012 @ 1:14 amcan i get a second on the motion that from now on all “Dave Surls” posts will automagically be attributed to “Humpty Dumpty”?
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/20/2012 @ 1:16 amYou’re talking to lawyers, Dave. We know English.
Forty years ago, the English called their skinheads tedddy-boys. They evolved from selling themselves to old homosexuals to also hating other people. Which makes sense, considering how much they must hate themselves. Don’t throw around these terms.
nk (875f57) — 5/20/2012 @ 1:20 amracism in action: Skinhead Moonstomp
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/20/2012 @ 1:21 am“We know English”
Barely.
And some people here, lawyers or otherwise, seem to have trouble with accepting dictionary definitions once one is presented.
Not only do they not know English, but they refuse to learn it.
So it is with many of the posters on this website…ignorant, and determined to remain so, at all costs.
That’s not neccessarily a bad thing, however. For example if one wishes to be a George Zimmerman fan, being ignorant, stupid and dishonest is an asset, not a liability.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/20/2012 @ 3:00 am“Skinhead”
“1: a person whose hair is cut very short”
Got a problem with word definitions? Take it up with Merriam Webster.
And I haven’t lied about anything, punk.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/19/2012 @ 5:21 pm
— That’s the tricky thing about “1”; quite often it is followed by “2”.
“2: a usually white male belonging to any of various sometimes violent youth gangs whose members have close-shaven hair and often espouse white-supremacist beliefs.”
Are you saying that when you call Zimmerman a “skinhead” that you are only referring to his physical appearance (def. 1) and that you are making no assertion whatsoever about his character (def. 2)?
If the answer to that question is YES, then I have two followup questions:
1) What was your point in using the term at all, especially in a context where it can so easily be seen as a derogatory slam against Zimmerman?
2) Why are you pissing on Dr. King’s dream?
Icy:“This is the equivocating Dave…”
Surls: LOL. Yeah, that’s me. I never make explicit statements.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/19/2012 @ 3:40 pm
— Since we’re all into the dictionary today:
equivocating: to avoid committing oneself to what one says.
So, when the same guy that insisted ‘there will be a trial and there will be a conviction’ changes his tune to “We’ll see about that after the trial…if there is one,” then . . .
Actually, it means what the dictionary says it means. That’s how we determine the meaning of words.
— Right, because common usage has nothing to do with it. Only the elites in academia are allowed to determine the meanings of words and stuff.
At least that’s how normal people do it.
— The “normal people” are the ones that let others do the thinkin’ for them? Well, that explains why you let Rev. Al do the thinkin’ for you on this one, boy howdy!
Whack jobs like Icy or the terminally asinine SPQR, apparently have a different way of doing
Icy (f73c9d) — 5/20/2012 @ 3:21 am— I’m a “punk” and a ‘whack job’; SPQR is “terminally asinine”; and Dave Surls is what, “too cool for school”?
How about you drop the personal attacks and just debate the issues, huh?
Why all the late-night
Concernel Haiku (f73c9d) — 5/20/2012 @ 3:31 amhate? Was it something you ate?
Couldn’t get a date?
Did she fail to inflate?
Tag Line (f73c9d) — 5/20/2012 @ 3:40 amAnd some people here, lawyers or otherwise, seem to have trouble with accepting dictionary definitions once one is presented
— Some people here have trouble accepting your claim that you meant definition 1, when it seems pretty obvious that you meant definition 2.
Not only do they not know English, but they refuse to learn it.
— Yeah, well, you know that English-only crowd: lyin’ hypocrites every last one of them.
So it is with many of the posters on this website…ignorant, and determined to remain so, at all costs.
— We have weekly contests for this. Currently, Alex holds the crown, but there’s an opportunity for a spirited, determined challenger to swoop in and snatch up the title for himself. Think you’re up for it?
That’s not neccessarily a bad thing, however. For example if one wishes to be a George Zimmerman fan, being ignorant, stupid and dishonest is an asset, not a liability.
Icy (f73c9d) — 5/20/2012 @ 4:03 am— What about those of us that are simply interested in justice? R oui stoopid 2?
“How about you drop the personal attacks and just debate the issues, huh?”
How about you don’t call me a liar and THEN i won’t call you a punk?
Or, go ahead and call me a liar and I’ll come right back at you with an insult of my own.
Either way works for me.
Your call.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/20/2012 @ 4:03 amHow about you respond to this?
Icy (f73c9d) — 5/20/2012 @ 4:25 amAre you saying that when you call Zimmerman a “skinhead” that you are only referring to his physical appearance (def. 1) and that you are making no assertion whatsoever about his character (def. 2)?
If the answer to that question is YES, then I have two followup questions:
1) What was your point in using the term at all, especially in a context where it can so easily be seen as a derogatory slam against Zimmerman?
2) Why are you pissing on Dr. King’s dream?
Louis Farrakhan -skinhead.
JD (605175) — 5/20/2012 @ 6:22 am612- because the regulars never ever call people who disagree with them liars here…. hypocrites.
tye (9cc16f) — 5/20/2012 @ 7:09 am“tye” you are called a liar because you tell lies. You could easily fix that, but it would require you to act contrary to your nature.
JD (605175) — 5/20/2012 @ 7:32 amThe “lies” that I tell are common factual knowledge to the rest of the universe.
tye (9cc16f) — 5/20/2012 @ 8:42 amThat is a lie, and you are a liar “tye”.
JD (605175) — 5/20/2012 @ 8:58 am“…common factual knowledge to the rest of the universe…”
you must be referring to Uranus, because that is the only plausible source of said “facts”…
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/20/2012 @ 9:10 amtwo black eyes is 100%
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/20/2012 @ 9:31 amSurls, you began the insults long ago. Pretending you were doing it in retaliation is itself a lie.
SPQR (d71dc6) — 5/20/2012 @ 9:31 amNikita Khrushchev – skinhead?
Telly Savalas – skinhead?
Yul Brynner: skinhead (actual name: Юлий Борисович Бринер, Yuliy Borisovich Bryner)
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/20/2012 @ 9:33 amRed – “tye” is one of those community based reality things. It is not even honest about its “name”
JD (605175) — 5/20/2012 @ 9:41 am600. You’re not making any sense, not even about what shipwreckedcrew is complaining about.
In post 496 on 5/18/2012 @ 4:19 pm, he said:
How about taking the business plan and alcohol comsumption during prohibition dialogues to another post that’s not really being commented on.
I was involved in those two. The question is where should it go?
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/20/2012 @ 9:55 amThere is a photograph of a can of Arizona Iced tea in the released material. It was posed on top of blanket covering his body. They say it fell out of his sweatshirt pocket while the ambulance people were working on him. They got to him almost right after he was shot – there were still signs of life.
They identified Patient number 2 as John Doe(no ID and nobody knew who he was) and estimated his age about 20 years old.
I think they did not find skittles. He probably never bought them. The New York Times reported some time ago that when Trayvon Martin left the house, he asked Chad, the 14-year son of his father’s girlfriend, if there was anything he wanted him to buy and he said skittles. I don’t know that it is clear that he bought the iced tea either. He could have taken it from Brandi Greene’s home.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 5/20/2012 @ 10:03 amSomething similar happened in Philly yesterday, except there were many witnesses, the person being beaten was a police officer (who was presumably not told to not follow), the person doing the beating was over 6′ and 300 lbs, and the beater had just acquired control of the officer’s nightstick (better to beat heads with) when the officer shot the assailant multiple times. No word as to the amount of skin pigment in each individual, both are alive, the beater less so as of this am.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/20/2012 @ 10:34 ambeater shot in head
Colonel Haiku (2f3306) — 5/20/2012 @ 10:42 amwhich increases his chances
no melon piercers
___________________________________________
For example if one wishes to be a George Zimmerman fan, being ignorant, stupid and dishonest is an asset, not a liability.
And, by contrast, being a fan of Trayvon Martin makes you or any like-minded person what? An honest, humane, generous, logical, loving human being?
Applying negatives to those who see hard reality as being on the side of Zimmerman and not Martin is what? A case of projecting?
Most people (of all political stripes) have a little left-leaning voice in the back of their mind. Sometimes that’s okay, sometimes that’s so-so, sometimes that’s idiotic. In this matter, just realize the little voice in question is at the heart of the notorious dynamic of “limousine liberalism” and shouldn’t be relied upon.
Mark (f382e9) — 5/20/2012 @ 10:51 am“So, when the same guy that insisted ‘there will be a trial and there will be a conviction’…”
Only in your little dream world did I say that.
But, like I said, being dishonest is an asset, not a liability…if you’re a George Zimmerman fan.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/20/2012 @ 10:58 amMaybe you could point to a GZ “fan”
JD (605175) — 5/20/2012 @ 11:28 amIs it wrong to feverishly masterbate to images of Trayon?
[This is not the real JD.]
JD (afb584) — 5/20/2012 @ 12:14 pmmark, if you have voices in ur head take lithium like me. Works well!
[This is not the real JD.]
JD (afb584) — 5/20/2012 @ 12:16 pmNoticed that there is now video of Tray buying Skittles and a Tea. I remember back when many on here we speculating on the reputation of a dead child by claiming Skittles was code for Extasy and Tea for weed, I love the apologies for this behavior that have been flooding in!
[This is not the real JD.]
JD (afb584) — 5/20/2012 @ 12:40 pmOnly in your little dream world did I say that.
— That’s it? This is how you engage in a discussion with someone that asks you several questions based on what you wrote? You pick out the one line where I was careful to paraphrase and attack it as untrue? Fine. You only assert that Z is guilty, not that he will for sure be convicted . . . which leads to another question: Why do you not believe that — if he is guilty like you say — his conviction on murder 2 is NOT a slam dunk?
But, like I said, being dishonest is an asset, not a liability…if you’re a George Zimmerman fan.
Icy (ab44b5) — 5/20/2012 @ 12:45 pm— Yes, we get your meme-of-the-week: We’re not defending him so much as we’re applauding his actions. You call him a racist, you call us racists; here a racist, there a racist, everywhere a racist racist. Got it.
Alex is back . . . and there was much rejoicing.
Meh.
Icy (ab44b5) — 5/20/2012 @ 12:47 pmDoes the convenience store clerk that sold Martin a drink and Skittles look a little like Zimmerman? Specifically, the clerk reminds me of Zimmerman because he has short black hair and similar coloring, is shorter than Martin, and his red & black shirt is similar to the design of Zimmerman’s orange & black jacket.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/20/2012 @ 12:48 pmIcy, just being guilty doesn’t mean you will be convicted, or convicted easily. Look at OJ.
[This is not the real JD.]
JD (afb584) — 5/20/2012 @ 12:49 pmDRJ, what I notice in that video is that Trayvon, the soon-to-be “dead child” (to quote JD’s sock) looks more like a full-grown adult man than the older-than-Trayvon man behind the counter.
Icy (ab44b5) — 5/20/2012 @ 1:05 pmBesides the fact that he scared you, Did you also notice he bought skittles and tea?
[This is not the real JD.]
JD (afb584) — 5/20/2012 @ 1:07 pmDRJ – Just noticin the coincidence? Or considering a possible point of confusion for Martin?
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/20/2012 @ 1:34 pmThis sockpuppet nonsense has got to stop.
Icy (ab44b5) — 5/20/2012 @ 1:35 pmAnd NO, I didn’t say I was scared, sock. I’m saying that the person in that video appears to be physically capable of getting the upper hand in a physical confrontation and slamming Zimmerman’s head into the ground.
Icy (ab44b5) — 5/20/2012 @ 1:40 pmFrightening!
[This is not the real JD.]
JD (afb584) — 5/20/2012 @ 1:42 pmSarah’s apology for defaming a dead child is much appreciated!!!
[This is not the real JD.]
JD (59b070) — 5/20/2012 @ 1:51 pm“That’s it? This is how you engage in a discussion with someone…”
Yeah. With someone who make up a phony quote and tries to claim that it came from me.
I also immediately start insulting ANYONE who starts insulting me.
That’s just the way I swing.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/20/2012 @ 1:55 pmSarahW,
I think it’s a coincidence and I imagine there are a lot of dark-haired male convenience store clerks in Florida communities, just as there are where I live. I also agree with Icy that what stands out most is Martin’s height in relation to the clerk, although we don’t know how tall the clerk is.
But it looks like Martin and the clerk might have had a conversation that is more than “That will be $3.50,” “Here’s the money,” and “Thank you.” If so, I wonder what was said. If they did have words, is it possible Martin may have initially thought it was the clerk that was following him?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/20/2012 @ 1:56 pmI was wrong. T’was skittles and tea (yet, those are street names for at least one drug of choice for TM).
And you Alex, will admit you were wrong when you typed:
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/20/2012 @ 2:08 pmDave, if you do not think that Zimmerman is a racist, then why do you keep referring to him as a “skinhead”?
Icy (ab44b5) — 5/20/2012 @ 2:17 pmAlex/Ryan is a lying coward.
JD (605175) — 5/20/2012 @ 3:27 pm637. Comment by DRJ — 5/20/2012 @ 12;48 PM
Does the convenience store clerk that sold Martin a drink and Skittles look a little like Zimmerman? Specifically, the clerk reminds me of Zimmerman because he has short black hair and similar coloring, is shorter than Martin, and his red & black shirt is similar to the design of Zimmerman’s orange & black jacket.
The video says “a drink”, not the Arizona iced tea that was found at the scene. And where are the Skittles? And how do we know that’s Trayvon? And how did anybody know where to look for the video?
The clerk had hair. Zimmerman had barely any that night.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/21/2012 @ 10:28 amThis George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in cold blood narrative is really penetrating the zeitgeist. Even Abigail Thernstrom fell for it.
http://tinyurl.com/cgdj9sl
Abigail Thernstrom: The Good News About Race in America
The 1965 Voting Rights Act has been a huge success. So why are black activists keen to press the discrimination button on issues
!!!
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/21/2012 @ 10:36 amI hope somebody corrects Abigail Thernstrom about the facts.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/21/2012 @ 10:37 amYou understand therefore considerably with regards to this topic, produced me in my view believe it from numerous various angles. Its like women and men aren’t interested except it’s something to do with Girl gaga! Your personal stuffs outstanding. Always maintain it up!
promotion pack (05924f) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:00 pm