Zimmerman Prosecution Witness (?!): It Sure Looked to Me Like Trayvon Martin Was Beating Zimmerman
The witness describes a darker-skinned person on top of a lighter skinned person, straddling him and making movements with his arms going downward.
He also said it looked like the darker-skinned guy was raining blows down on the lighter-skinned person MMA-style, and believes that the lighter-skinned person on the bottom was calling for help. But he was not 100% certain about this.
Sounds to me like the prosecution knew this guy was going to be called and did their best to put a positive spin on it, as best as they could. Problem is, his testimony is devastating to the prosecution any way you spin it.
UPDATE: Comments are closed. The thread is getting too big. New thread here.
Not a good end of the week for the prosecution.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/28/2013 @ 7:25 pmYeah. Despite my pessimism on this general topic (self-defense law), I’m coming around to the view that Zimmerman’s team is doing well.
The prosecutors seem inept, but worse, have a pathetic case that shouldn’t have been brought. I don’t think it’s clear that Martin was particularly motivated by race, but it certainly seems clear that there’s no way Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even the jury should see this and Zimmerman should walk on manslaughter too, if the prosecution includes it. Shameful prosecution.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/28/2013 @ 7:36 pmWho knows, maybe when the defense presents their case things will look up for them.
/s
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/28/2013 @ 7:46 pmFormer Conservative, that you would even still bring up the red herring of Zimmerman’s “motivation” is beyond belief.
SPQR (768505) — 6/28/2013 @ 7:48 pmPatterico, is it ridiculous for me to think that the prosecutor is approaching the point of deliberately throwing the case?
SPQR (768505) — 6/28/2013 @ 7:48 pmI wondered that.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/28/2013 @ 7:56 pmLet’s see now, you’re the prosecutor and so far the evidence indicates the Hispanic guy with the busted nose was flat on his back screaming for help while getting his head bashed in on the concrete, and the young black thug with the bloody knuckles who was high on Sizzurp was sitting on the supine Latino’s chest and raining down blows on his face and head MMA style.
What to do, what to do?
ropelight (172ac9) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:01 pm#7
Does this suggest they’ll offer a deal to let Zimmerman plead guilty to manslaughter?
Gerald A (b44a50) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:05 pmShorter FC – Don’t pay any attention to all that stupid stuff I’ve been saying all week.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:05 pmi think zimmerman killed him
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:06 pmSo the prosecution is still maintaining that after Zimmerman told the dispatcher where to have the cops meet him, he got off the phone and hunted Martin down and shot him in cold blood?
No, no, that totally makes sense.
Ghost (2d8874) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:08 pmI’m not a lawyer but it’s my guess the prosecution would make that deal in a NY second if the defense was stupid enough to take it.
ropelight (172ac9) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:08 pmC’mon Daley, cut the kid some slack. At least he’s coming around faster than Surls did.
Ghost (2d8874) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:09 pmSomebody should sue Crump.
elissa (d03d59) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:20 pmMartin family attorneys say case is not about race.
Shhh. Nobody tell the president, OK?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/6/28/154919/856/crimenews/Martin-Family-Attorneys-Now-Say-Case-Not-About-Race
elissa (d03d59) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:22 pm‘Shirley they can’t be serious’
narciso (3fec35) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:27 pmFlorida has pattern jury instructions. Interesting:
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
nk (875f57) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:32 pmIn order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.
Yeah, I don’t see how they get a murder 2 conviction. I wonder what the standards are for manslaughter, but even that, I’m not seeing it.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:36 pmGet rid of “stand your ground” laws! One of the more asinine elements of the racial politics of this case is that the anti-Zimmerman crowd talks about it as if Florida’s “stand your ground” law had anything to do with it.
When you’re pinned to the ground and somebody is wailing on you “MMA style” you’re no longer exercising your right not to retreat. You’re exercising your inability to retreat, which makes it classic self-defense.
I can’t prove it but it seems to me that the state of Florida is trying to throw this case in an attempt to divert attention to “stand your ground” laws as sort of a safety valve.
With the active collusion of the MFM, natch. My suspicions was reinforced when I read this today.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/28/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE95Q0EE20130628
Can you believe that? The eyewitness says he saw TM on top of GZ raining blows on the guy and you’d never know that from the Reuters report. Everything Mr. Good said is exactly in accordance with what GZ told police and what does Reuters tell its readers?
Good didn’t undermine anything; he testified as to what he saw. He doesn’t have x-ray vision; he couldn’t see through TM’s back to witness what he was doing with GZ’s head, which was the view he had of the situation.
It seems to me that Florida knows GZ always had a nearly perfect self-defense case. One of the prosecution witnesses, the medical technician who worked for the doctor who examined GZ admitted that from a medical perspective shooting TM may have been the only thing that saved GZ’s life.
So in a perversion of justice they charged GZ with a crime they can’t prove in order to make it appear that Florida law allows racists to go free after killing black kids. In reality the only murder charge that appears warranted would be the attempted murder charge against TM had he lived.
As an aside people have commented that GZ looks like he’s gained 100 pounds since he was granted bail. That’s probably due to overeating due to stress. Still I doubt his attorneys would have advised him to take up weight training and protein supplements in the past few months so he could stroll into a courtroom a rippling mass of muscle while they argued a 17 year old beat the crap out of him.
I’m sure GZ gets all the donuts he wants when they get together to discuss his case.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:36 pmGhost – Surls did not have actual testimony to review. The kid does.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:37 pmI meant to say you’d never know it was Zimmerman who was getting severely beaten from the Reuters headline. They do get around to at least implying that was what was happening while misleading their readers about what Good actually testified to on the stand.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:41 pmCommas matter. Florida’s self-defense law interpreted.
nk (875f57) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:43 pmHe’s also wearing a bullet proof vest under his suit jacket which adds to the heft. But, when you look at Z’s face today compared to photos from the time of the shooting there is no question he is carrying major poundage.
elissa (d03d59) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:44 pmI wonder what the standards are for manslaughter, but even that, I’m not seeing it.
You don’t have to wonder. I gave you the link to all the criminal instructions.
nk (875f57) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:45 pmAh, thanks.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:46 pmAccording to West from an interview a couple of weeks back Zimmerman has put on 100 lbs. since this started.
nk (875f57) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:46 pmIn another thread, someone mentioned that no injury is required. True, Bassalo v. State.
nk (875f57) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:50 pmLooks to me like Jeantel outweighs GZ.
ropelight (172ac9) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:51 pmIt’s ridiculous that injury should be required.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:53 pmi think zimmerman killed him
Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:06 pm
Um, yeah, thus the trial. Question is did he INTEND to kill him?
I haven’t heard anything that I didn’t already learn in the days/weeks after the charge was brought, which tells me common sense is in seriously short supply in the Fla. DA’s office!
Amy Shulkusky (676892) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:53 pmInjury is not required.
nk (875f57) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:55 pmI know, I’m saying the concept is ridiculous.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/28/2013 @ 8:57 pmWhy is everything we are told, at best an incomplete understanding;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578573382649536100.html
narciso (3fec35) — 6/28/2013 @ 9:01 pmSome prosecutor, judge and jury made it stick at least once, sufficient to make the Florida Supreme Court change its jury instruction.
BTW, I don’t know how other lawyers do it, but the Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions were my starting point on the law of any case.
nk (875f57) — 6/28/2013 @ 9:02 pmNo, but it definitely helps make the case in certain jurisdictions.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/07/auburn-man-facing-charges-after-killing-bear-in-his-backyard/
Especially in jurisdictions run by people who believe female bears with cubs aren’t threats to people. To avoid charges you have to wait until it chews a leg off.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/28/2013 @ 9:03 pmSurls did not have actual testimony to review.
That name rings a bell. I believe he was the forumer who sympathized with Martin and excoriated Zimmerman. The clincher was when Surls said he lived in a neighborhood that was so comfy and safe, he never even bothered locking his doors and windows at night.
People like Surls drive me nuts. I can tolerate the willful naivete of such folks if they at least live in a borderline section of urban America, much less a paradigm area along the lines of a Detroit or southside Chicago. But when they live in walled-off neighborhoods, or exclusive compounds, or communities that are far from the madding crowd, and then have the gall to turn around and be cynical about people like Zimmerman, that is sickening to me to the 10th degree.
However, I don’t believe Surls was a liberal, or at least not a typical, dyed-in-the-wool one. So he perhaps deserves credit for not falling for the notion that his POV about Martin/Zimmerman was guided by great compassion and humaneness.
Mark (67e579) — 6/28/2013 @ 9:18 pmGood’s testimony was good for the prosecution.
JD (46092c) — 6/28/2013 @ 9:22 pm?
nk (875f57) — 6/28/2013 @ 9:27 pmTrayvon’s case is falling apart?
Gay marriage!!!!
LAT Front page (be0117) — 6/28/2013 @ 9:33 pmOT, but things are bad in Egypt. U.S.`State Dept #2 was not happy to be called so late at night. Some embassy staff told to leave.
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/06/28/breaking-amerian-photojournalist-stabbed-to-death-in-egypt-during-pro-anti-morsi-protests/
elissa (d03d59) — 6/28/2013 @ 9:37 pm#33, because understanding isn’t the objective, manipulation is. Be especially on-guard whenever the writer is Edward Jay Epstein. He’s widely suspected of being on the CIA’s payroll as far back at the JFK assassination. Google Operation Mockingbird.
ropelight (172ac9) — 6/28/2013 @ 9:37 pmDidn’t we just send tons of aid and planes to Morsi?
elissa (d03d59) — 6/28/2013 @ 9:39 pmA bad harvest, plus food prices getting dangerously out of reach,
narciso (3fec35) — 6/28/2013 @ 9:45 pmI won’t say ridiculous, but I will disagree, and direct you to the last paragraph of the post.
You would not find me prosecuting this case, I promise you that. I would not care what kind of pressure anyone put on me. This is wrong.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:08 pmI had better add the obvious for the you know who crowd: that is my personal opinion. Not that of my office. Like it says in the sidebar.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:09 pmJD’s right; Good’s testimony was great for the prosecution.
Assuming the prosecution wants to lose.
In the same vein this was another strong witness for the prosecution.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-5-analysis-video-states-own-witnesses-undercut-theory-of-guilt//#more
As an aside on a different thread DRJ speculated that the prosecution opened the door to bringing in the videos of Trayvon Martin engaging in his hobby of MMA style street fighting.
It seems to me that since the state not only introduced the transcript in which Good mentioned what he described as TM engaging in an MMA style ground & pound but also brought up GZ’s membership in an MMA gym they didn’t just open the door. They drove a truck through any excuses the judge might have raised to keep it out.
But I’m not an expert on that. All I can tell you is that if I was on the jury I’d be wondering why the state of Florida is wasting my time since every one of the prosecution’s witness does nothing except pile reasonable doubt upon reasonable doubt.
I’m supposed to be convinced that Zimmerman acted with a depraved mind to convict him of 2nd degree murder, or negligence to the point of reckless disregard to convict him of manslaughter, and the state finds a witness that tells me that from a medical perspective GZ may well have saved his own life by shooting TM?
If that’s not reasonable doubt, what is?
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:10 pmnarciso,
I miss your more cryptic comments.
==
Hunger changes your frame of mind. I was starving one time (semi-intentional) and I was thinking “I have to kill some one and get some food”. How odd I thought.
If there is hunger in Egypt the place will blow up. Totally.
M. Simon (1aa256) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:18 pmThere are demonstrations scheduled for this weekend,
narciso (3fec35) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:24 pmand even suggestions the military might step in, as they did in ’52, and didn’t give up ever since until two years ago.
I think we all realize this is a persecution rather than a prosecution.
So the persecuting attorney is doing his job sort of in the sense that he is allowing the liberal press to run thru a parade of the most foul mouthed self righteous micro brained race hucksters that the Democrat party could provide.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:33 pmThey’re railroading that Cuban boy.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:35 pmI get the fact the prosecution has to address all the evidence. And consequently as you say in the first sentence of the final paragraph:
But then the idea they should even have attempted to make this case gets blown out of the water by the final sentence of the final paragraph.
It wasn’t just his testimony, referring to Jonathon Good. That’s what I found so interesting about Linzee Folgate’s testimony. I don’t get what the state was thinking. They brought in a physician’s assistant who was I guess supposed to say that GZ had not yet suffered any life threatening injuries. Which is bizarre because I already knew before the attorneys at Legal Insurrection mentioned it that not having yet suffered life threatening injuries isn’t a requirement for engaging in legitimate self defense.
You merely need to prove you have a reasonable fear you are the danger of life threatening injury or grave bodily harm is imminent.
And the state’s witness, a physician’s assistance, confirmed the defense’s assertion that was a reasonable fear from a medical perspective.
How does the state overcome that? It doesn’t matter how many neurosurgeons the state brings in now. GZ isn’t a neurosurgeon. There’s now reasonable doubt to believe that a layman like GZ would have had grounds to believe he or she wouldn’t have survived if they didn’t stop the attack. The state’s own medical witness confirmed that.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:46 pmHe’s of Peruvian background.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:47 pmThere are demonstrations scheduled for this weekend
My initial response to your sentence was it referred to perhaps political activists in Florida, ready to clamor and cause commotion outside the courthouse in order to force the public into rallying around the cause of Trayvon Martin, or to make them spooked at the thought of what would happen if Zimmerman received a non-guilty verdict.
That the distinction between the US and a nation like Egypt (or certainly a Mexico or Argentina) is not quite as wide and clear cut today as it was in the past says a lot to me.
Mark (67e579) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:55 pmProbably plays the pan flute when he is not out creepy cracker stalking Obama’s imaginary composite son.
When does the Secret Service testify?
I want to know what this guy Bernie did to earn his shot at the Florida trial of the decade…
SteveG (794291) — 6/28/2013 @ 11:06 pmHere Bernie, go depose your star witness at Trayvon’s moms house as soon as Crump is done coaching her…. she’s illiterate, belligerent, entitled and yes more than a bit dumb. Then try to get the paramedics to testify that as a cracker, Zimmerman’s head just might be naturally lumpy and prone to spontaneous bleeding. That bloody nose thing is probably just an impacted booger caused by stumbling around cracker drunk with a dirty finger knuckle deep up a nostril… we see it all the time out in the double wides… right?
Was that black girl retarded, or the defense counsel. Hmmm. She was so accomplished.
pat (83ebf3) — 6/28/2013 @ 11:12 pmSaying the word Peruvian or writing it out, makes me feel like I know more Spanish than I need to.
For conversational purposes I’ll continue refering to the defendant as “that poor Cuban boy”.
Lost his father did he?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/28/2013 @ 11:15 pmNever a burden to his mother. Poor, poor, Cuban kid.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/29/2013 @ 12:34 amCorey prosecuted a 12 year old boy, for murder, before this incident, and caught quite a bit of flack for it.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:18 amThis is the way, the Post spins it;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conflicting-testimony-from-neighbors-in-zimmerman-trial/2013/06/28/124f211a-e01c-11e2-963a-72d740e88c12_story.html
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 6:27 am19
Get rid of “stand your ground” laws! One of the more asinine elements of the racial politics of this case is that the anti-Zimmerman crowd talks about it as if Florida’s “stand your ground” law had anything to do with it.
The “stand your ground law” does have something to do with it in that it encourages people to carry guns and stand their ground (rather than avoiding confrontations).
Also as a practical matter raising the speed limit from 55 to 65 doesn’t just increase the number of people going 55-65 it will also increase the number of people going over 65 (which is not to say Zimmerman was over the line).
James B. Shearer (d50741) — 6/29/2013 @ 6:48 amDon’t of it’s true, but I saw Judge Alex Ferrer, a former Florida judge, last night on “Hannity” (a show I rarely watch anymore). Florida has a quirk about witnesses in crimimal trials. The prosecution as per this law is required to call any and all available witnesses to a crime, and if they fail to do so and the defense in fact calls them, the defense is entitled in closing to point this out. Ferrer did not make clear whether this also requires the judge to give an adverse inference instruction in such situations. WOuld be clear that this would apply to Mr. Good, but at a loss why it would apply to “Precious”. Further that ….person was intereviewed in a room with Martin’s mother present; another in a legion of issues which make her credibility nil.
As evidence all they can really say about this woman is phone records show she had several conversations with Martin, and she can testify to what she claims was she heard (noise and Martin’s statements) as a present sense impression exception to the usual hearsay rule. But in only can be proof that she heard (or claims she heard) these things, not that they actually occurred since she did not see the incident. It’s a very legalese but important distinction. Simply the prosecution calling her was a disaster and there is no way in hell the defense would’ve called her ever. If the DA was worried about the defense calling her they are blasted fools.
Bugg (b32862) — 6/29/2013 @ 6:51 amGet rid of Corey.
nk (875f57) — 6/29/2013 @ 6:53 amBugg, I doubt it’s the law. It’s sometimes a trick used by either party in arguments, kind of like Clint Eastwood did debating the empty chair. It’s also used by jailhouse lawyers, one actual example: Gang shooting in a school yard. S**tbird’s post-conviction argument, why did the prosecution call only four witnesses and not all 187?
nk (875f57) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:01 amShearer, horse manure.
SPQR (3dad66) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:03 amCan the Bar Nigong the morons on the Prosecution?
Sheesh. This really looks like Prosecutorial Misconduct to me.
Really? Every piece of evidence supports the Defendant’s story and the only contradicting evidence is testimony from a liar who changed her testimony after-the-fact — and likely due to pressure from the Prosecutor.
Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:04 amI saw the following at cbs.com, in an article titled “Is Cursive Writing Dead?,” with reader comments following it.
Mark (67e579) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:26 amNK-
The guy is a former Florida judge, but he didn’t make it clear if failing to call all relevant witnesses merely allowed the defense to make the point on closing or also made the judge hit the prosecution with an adverse inference charge in the PJI. From my misspent youth as a DA and then a defense attorney those are 2 very different things. Ferrer gave the impression it did lead to an adverse inference charge, i.e., the jury should hold it against the DA that the witness was called by the defense rather than prosecution.Hannity didn’t really allow him to discuss it much and instead had the other 2 guests shout and babble.Note to Fox News; if you’re going to have people on to discuss an issue let them speak rather than having a shout over the other guy festival. Further what rules are there to determine which witnesses are necessary? Is there a hearing on such an issue pretrial? All issues Ferrer should have been allowed and encouraged to explain.
Bugg (b32862) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:30 amHunger changes your frame of mind. I was starving one time (semi-intentional) and I was thinking “I have to kill some one and get some food”. How odd I thought.
Just think of all the cute li’l commercial jingle possibilities… “Don’t kill tonight, call Chicken Delight…”
Colonel Haiku (94ab1c) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:40 amUnder Brady and progeny, the state cannot hide potentially exculpatory witnesses from the defense. It would be new to me if the state had to present them at trial. If it did present them, it would be as Patterico suggested, to minimize their impact.
I’m not doing much, let me see if I can find some Florida law on this on Al Gore’s internets.
nk (875f57) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:41 amI still believe this is persecution to placate the race hustlers. Poor GZ and even poorer after not working for over a year.
If the persecutors didn’t call witnesses for the defense, they wouldn’t have anyone to call.
The state attorney assigned to the case(angela corey) is a whore and the persecutor her puppet.
Jim (823b10) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:46 amFerrer did not really discuss it as Brady material, which is a given. He made it specifically about calling witnesses and that this was unique to Florida law. Could very well he misspoke since Brady (Rosario is the leading case in NY, so here it’s typically called “Rosario material”)that’s applicable in every state and being a cable blowhard tried to make a common legal practice sound very complicated. As a DA and a defense attorney never understood DAs that argued against releasing materials spare witnesses’ contact data redacted. There’s nothing a defense attorney despises more than wading through page after page of documents, most pointless,to find a few needles in the haystack of repetitive nothing.
Bugg (b32862) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:49 amThere’s a fairly broaddiscovery rule, 3.220 which gives almost everything the prosecution has to the defendant, well beyond Brady, but I did not find any “adverse inference” instruction either in the code, rules, or instructions even for spoliation. ?
nk (875f57) — 6/29/2013 @ 8:27 amAdvertised on CNN just now;
NIGGER: the power of the N-Word.
Because racial harmony!
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/29/2013 @ 8:45 amMark,
Actually, she speaks curse-ive very well.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/29/2013 @ 8:54 amHere’s the rub. The most foul mouthed self righteous micro brained race hucksters paraded across CNN are US congressmen and women from black districts, elected to office presumably because they are comfortably racist.
Is it fair to assume this a general condition of a population when they send representatives to Washington infused with the trait?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/29/2013 @ 8:58 am63
Stand your ground laws encourage civilians to carry and use guns. You can argue about whether on balance this is good or bad but I don’t see much case that they don’t have this effect.
James B. Shearer (d50741) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:08 amRe; # 69
“The state attorney assigned to the case(angela corey) is a whore and the persecutor her puppet.”
nonsense. A whore gives value for money. Corey is a Badger Game artist.
C. S. P. Schofield (adb9dd) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:11 amYou have it wrong, James. Stand your ground laws protect a person acting in self defense from having to prove that he had no ability to run and nowhere to run to. Only that he was lawfully where he was. There is no balance involved. Good 100, bad 0.
the prescient nk (875f57) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:20 amStand your ground laws encourage civilians to carry and use guns. You can argue about whether on balance this is good or bad but I don’t see much case that they don’t have this effect.
The fact that you can’t see much case speaks more to your lack of imagination. Stand your ground is not at all applicable to this case, and even if it were, it discourages confrontation. It gives protection to those that are confronted.
JD (b63a52) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:26 amWhen I was an armed officer we were explicitly told that any attack which could incapacitate us was to be considered a deadly attack as being incapacitated could lead directly to our own weapon taken and used against us/others.
IIRC there was an incident at a US DOD facility, one of the Knolls Labs, where a contract worker grabbed an officers PR-24 baton and was shot. Ruled valid self defense, although the factls later showed the worker most likely thought he was horsing around.
Have Blue (7d2a7d) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:38 amSpeaking of demonstrations this weekend, it illustrates how deeply reactionary Obama is.
In Iran, Turkey, Egypt, anywhere, he sides with the fatuous professors and elites who only want to control their people by force or by ancient religious doctrine. He reveres socialism, which has failed anywhere it’s been tried.
Obama, El Caudillo!
Patricia (be0117) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:42 am77.You have it wrong, James. Stand your ground laws protect a person acting in self defense from having to prove that he had no ability to run and nowhere to run to. Only that he was lawfully where he was. There is no balance involved. Good 100, bad 0.
Few laws are 100% good and this isn’t one of them. Stand your ground laws make it harder to prosecute bad shootings as well as good shootings.
James B. Shearer (d50741) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:48 amYou’re 100% wrong.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0614/Stand-your-ground-defense-fails-in-Texas-case.-Lessons-for-George-Zimmerman
You’re basing your conclusions on press misrepresentations of what “stand your ground” laws. If you ever took the training necessary to get a concealed handgun license you’d know just how wrong you are.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 10:10 amOk, this right here is absolute BS. You could raise the limit only 5mph and you’ll still have Clovers driving 20 under anyway.
That’s like saying, “if you make horse-f**king legal, more people will f**k horses!”
What you’re really saying is that there is no such thing as a moral compass outside of a politician’s scribble called “law.” If horse-f**king became legal, I would still have no desire nor inclination to do that. Just as making guns illegal will not make me give mine away.
Ghost (2d8874) — 6/29/2013 @ 10:14 amStand your ground laws encourage civilians to legally carry and legally use guns.
James – FTFY. Why do you say that like it’s a bad thing?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/29/2013 @ 10:15 amThis trial gives us an idea of what would have happened if Nifong had been able to bring a trial against the Duke Lacrosse players.
DN (09d6b1) — 6/29/2013 @ 10:20 amNot having a duty to retreat and avoiding confrontations are two entirely separate things. If you get involved in a shooting that results from a confrontation that you and the other actor mutually participated in you can expect to be charged with a crime. Even if you didn’t start the confrontation like this Rodriquez guy did, and even in Texas.
The prosecution of GZ is demonstrating why that is. They’re going to try to paint you as the aggressor. Which is why it’s so important that the prosecution had to get Rachel Jeantel to changer her story. Instead of hearing GZ responding to TM’s challenge with, “What are you talking about?” she had to tell Brian de la Rosa she heard GZ say “What are you doing here?”
The first can portray GZ as not wanting to confront TM. The second can’t.
Actually, the Raoul Rodriquez case wasn’t as cut and dried as the MFM reported it. The reason he had set up the camera was to record the loud music and the reason he was in the street outside his neighbor’s home was that he was waiting for the police again. He had called the police three or four times previously but when the police arrived the neighbors weren’t on their balcony loudly singing karaoke. So they just looked and drove off.
Rodriquez actually videotaped himself explaining why he was setting up the camera and why he was where he was. He had the handgun simply because like most CHL holders he always has it on when he leaves the house. Even Gov. Perry says he does as much, and he’s got a DPS security detail.
There’s are a lot of indications of poor headwork on his part. For instance he took out his licensed concealed handgun when he saw a car coming because he thought it was a squad car. Which in and of itself a good way to get shot. But it turned out that the care belonged to one of the party goers. Who told the other partiers some guy threatened him with a gun which caused the highly intoxicated party goers to spill out into the street and angrily confront him.
There was quit a bit of evidence that Rodriquez didn’t want the confrontation he was involved in but didn’t think he could safely disengage. So he just wanted the cops to get there more quickly. Rodriquez was actually on the phone with the 911 dispatcher when he felt he was forced to shoot.
In any case if you can be painted as starting a confrontation, or escalating or even continuing it, you can expect to be charged. Especially when one of the people you shoot as a result can be described as “widely beloved,” as the local press did when talking about the elementary school teacher. And since Rodriquez was waiting outside the neighbor’s apartment to file a nuisance complaint it was easy for the MFM to portray him as some hothead who shot his neighbors over loud music.
The bottom line is it’s ridiculous to say that “stand your ground” laws encourage confrontation. All stand your ground laws do is remove some elements you’d normally have to prove to assert self-defense. Anyone who takes a CHL course in Texas and pays attention (it’s not entirely clear to me Rodriquez did) knows that first bullet is going to cost you a big chunk of your savings just to prove you were acting in self-defense. Which is why the CHL instructor advised our class that in addition to picking out a carry gun we also purchase an umbrella policy to cover our expenses if we ever have to use it.
Stand your ground laws or no I’d never risk getting involved in a confrontation over a loud music complaint while carrying a concealed handgun. Murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, armed robbery; yes I’d risk a confrontation over those since someone’s life’s at risk. But as our instructor told us, you can shoot someone to protect property in Texas but if the DA is convinced you shot a burglar as he’s fleeing your house because you didn’t want to miss “American Idol” you can kiss your but goodbye.
Prof. Jacobson is quoted in the CSM article I linked to saying that stand your ground laws are widely misrepresented in the press:
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 11:20 amIf anybody cares to know what they’re talking about, this is the instruction the Zimmerman jury will get, if the case gets that far.
nk (875f57) — 6/29/2013 @ 11:29 amDurham County North Carolina DA Mike Nifong’s ugly racist and deeply self-interested crusade against the Duke Lacrosse players was upended by an investigation by the North Carolina Bar Association. Comments Nifong made to reporters during the first days of the case alerted the NC Bar to possible official conduct violations and they began an internal process to examine his professional behavior.
Eventually, the Bar charged Nifong with several ethics violations, which constituted a conflict of interest resulting in a situation where Nifong could no longer act as a prosecutor in the Lacrosse players case. Nifong had no choice but to ask the State Attorney General to take charge of the prosecution. Quickly, NC Attorney General Roy Cooper appointed a Special Prosecutor who initiated a review of the details of the case and an examination of the charges of sexual assault and kidnapping against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans.
The review and investigation found no basis for prosecution and all charges were dropped. Nifong was later disbarred.
In Florida a different process took place. The police and the local DA declined to prosecute. That’s when Pam Bondi, Florida Attorney General stepped in, appointed a Special Prosecutor, and initiated a campaign to railroad George Zimmerman of murder.
In NC, the rule of law prevailed, in Florida self-interest and ambition combines with the rule of the racist mob to mock the law.
ropelight (03b57e) — 6/29/2013 @ 11:31 amThe instruction says the defendant can’t assert the right of self-defense if the defendant ” initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless…”
I’m surprised the instruction doesn’t tell the jury that GZ couldn’t have provoked TM with words alone.
It’s not the Florida statute I know, but don’t most states have laws that say you can’t pound somebody’s head into the sidewalk just because you think you were “disrespected?”
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 11:52 amSome parts will be edited out. Only those parts that conform to the charge and the evidence will be given. The “no duty to retreat” part seems to be an “always give”.
nk (875f57) — 6/29/2013 @ 12:00 pm84
84.Stand your ground laws encourage civilians to legally carry and legally use guns.
Like the guy in the link in 82? Making it harder to convict people for using guns doesn’t just encourage legal use.
James B. Shearer (d50741) — 6/29/2013 @ 1:39 pmWhere this case went wrong was when the state attorney’s office stepped in and bypassed the grand jury process.
I’m not disputing the conventional wisdom that any decent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But the Anglo-Saxon tradition of presenting cases like this one — especially when there is a claim of self-defense or other justification — is older than the United States.
The prosecution’s evidence would certainly have resulted in a no-bill. The community would have spoken — not through the unchallengeable decision of prosecutors bending to political correctness, but through the community’s own representatives on the grand jury. And there the case would, and should, have ended.
Beldar (4fd21e) — 6/29/2013 @ 2:50 pm(For those who haven’t been following the case, the Florida state attorney’s office deliberately and shamefully bypassed the grand jury process in this case. Florida law needs changing to prevent that.)
Beldar (4fd21e) — 6/29/2013 @ 2:51 pmTwist:
http://patdollard.com/2013/06/trayvon-martins-involvement-in-local-burglaries-covered-up-by-media-school-police/
Sarahw (b0e533) — 6/29/2013 @ 3:10 pmSeriously? It only took the jury five hours to convict Raoul Rodriquez. It’s laughable to suggest the stand your ground laws made it harder to convict him. They weren’t even a speedbump on the road to convicting him.
So where are you going to move the goalposts next so you can try to continue your campaign against stand your ground laws.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 3:10 pmShearer, just repeating MSM propaganda won’t cut it.
SPQR (3dad66) — 6/29/2013 @ 3:14 pmMake new Florida law, or change the Attorney General who abused existing law?
I voted for Pam Bondi in the 2010 election, but I’ll never make that mistake again.
ropelight (03b57e) — 6/29/2013 @ 3:16 pmOur esteemed host wrote:
And, of course, the initial police investigation led to George Zimmerman not being arrested or charged, and the local district attorney’s office declined to push for charges; this case isn’t being conducted by your counterpart, but by special prosecutors bought in due to outside pressure.
I haven’t been watching the trial or following it closely, but what I have read suggests to me that the prosecution is making a poor case because they have no case. Even the liberal websites, like Think Progress, seem to be grasping at straws.
One would think that the jurors would have been singularly unimpressed by the testimony of the lovely Rachel Jeantel.
Still, anyone who says he can know, in advance, what a jury will do, is lying. But the thought that keeps occurring to me is: will Eric Holder order federal charges of violating Trayvon Martin’s civil rights if Mr Zimmerman is acquitted on the state charges? I’d bet a case of Mountain Dew that is exactly what will happen.
The Dana pointing out the obvious (af9ec3) — 6/29/2013 @ 3:35 pmMy wife noted that even the local 24 hr news station, known to be as PC and lib as any, commented that the prosecution witnesses sounded like they were for the defense.
But as already pointed out, juries are not guaranteed to make rational and reasonable decisions.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/29/2013 @ 3:44 pmsarahW@94–thanks. That’s quite an article. As a commenter there mentioned if the burglary(s) had been handed properly by LE instead of buried by the school in order to keep down student crime statistics, Trayvon might not have still been out casing places to burgle and might still be alive. Tray’s dad doesn’t come out so well in the article either. It’s just amazing how much the “journalists” missed or didn’t bother to ask about in this high profile case. (eyeroll)
elissa (b60602) — 6/29/2013 @ 3:50 pmIt’s actually worse then that, much like the resident of Altgeld Gardens, their was an utter failure of the system;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/new_evidence_shows_trayvons_life_unraveling.html#.Uc9hWH41NbA.twitter
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 3:55 pmTwist:
http://patdollard.com/2013/06/trayvon-martins
Sheesh. Chief Hurley was doing to his bureaucracy what like-minded people have been and are doing to the State Department, the US military, the IRS, the NSA, the DOJ, the White House, the EPA, school districts throughout America, etc, etc, etc.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
(Well, if not “not us” very literally, then certainly our fellow citizens who suffer from the derangement of crummy judgment and lousy policymaking, aka liberal-itis.)
Mark (67e579) — 6/29/2013 @ 3:56 pmTheir might have been some overlap between the two pieces.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 4:01 pmIt’s actually worse then that
I wouldn’t be so resentful towards various liberals in the media, and elsewhere — who love to sound so idealistic, humane and tolerant — if they, instead of casually and nonchalantly residing in protected, generally socially-economically segregated enclaves, lived in Trayvon-Martin type of environments 24/7.
Mark (67e579) — 6/29/2013 @ 4:07 pmSonnie over at Breitbart indicates she has friends and relatives very like Trayvon and R. Jeantel and exhorts us to “send our bucket down” to these folk.
Well maybe not me, I really don’t know what she’s saying. Something would prolly get lost in translation.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/29/2013 @ 4:21 pmBasically, ‘rescue them’ gary, but what if they don’t want to get in the lifeboat.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 4:53 pmSo when does the prosecution get to put on its case?
And why do the prosecutors act as defense attorneys?
Gosh, Floriduh law is hard!
TomB (4a72e4) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:07 pmThey had no case, just the snowjob Crump had Julison put up, next it’s time to ‘sweep the leg’
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:10 pmala Karate Kid.
Well, assuming that the state has any interest what-so-ever in the truth, it might matter but, so far, there is precious little evidence that the prosecution is concerned in the least about such trivial matters as who assaulted whom.
The need to railroad a “creepy-assed cracker” to show who is running the show!
WarEagle82 (2b7355) — 6/29/2013 @ 5:52 pmThe Trayvon Martin incident from October 2011, kicked off an internal investigation by M-DSPD Police Chief Hurley. They didn’t want the public to know that Trayvon had been picked up with stolen goods from a nearby B&E by school security.
School security answers to the Superintendent, not the police department, in this case Alberto Carvalho.
You think Alberto would have incentive to prevent the railroading of that poor Cuban kid?
Breaking and entering implies a generally violent person
aka this guy. He broke in on a young mother with her infant children, then beat the crap out of her.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/29/2013 @ 6:57 pmNot that it matters, but his mother was Peruvian, and his grandfather was black,
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 6:59 pmWhich is why in states with strong Castle Doctrine laws, in these situations the homeowner/occupant is presumed to have acted in self-defense. The individual doesn’t even have to raise a defense, but the state has to prove otherwise if it wants to challenge the presumption.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 7:48 pm“U a hoodlum,” said the friend. “Naw,” said Martin. “I’m a gangsta.”
Always read links from narciso.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/29/2013 @ 8:16 pmIt is criminal that too many people helped put treyvon’s parents up to pursuing this.
I guess the neighborhood association already paid a settlement from what I remember. They need space and grief counseling.
Eric Zorn in his latest Chicago Tribune column (which is linkable off of RealClearPolitics blog) makes a powerful plea especially to his liberal readers to look at the reality of the Zimmerman case. He points out the lynch mob mentality, reiterates that Martin was not the angelic middle schooler of the pictures and narrative, and that Zimmerman sustained severe injuries. Zorn points out that the trial so far has shown that the prosecution basically has no case.
I want to excerpt one of the comments I found on Zorn’s post left by a person named Jonathan Cohen which I loved. He evokes Atticus Finch.
Each day Mark O’Meara looks more and more like Atticus Finch. Defense attorney is a tough job. Most clients are either guilty or are at least problematic people. But for all the cynicism that is beaten into defense attorneys by the brutal world in which they operate, there remains some part of the idealism that led them to that profession. Somewhere simple pride must lead them to dream of some day taking on a very public case of a despised defendant who is innocent but being railroaded by a howling lynch mob ginned up by opportunistic politicians and journalists.
Anyone who looked carefully at the evidence that was presented at the time of the indictment knew that there was little grounds fora prosecution let alone a conviction. The problem for the prosecuting attorneys isn’t that the defense attorneys are doing a better job. The problem is that the overwhelming evidence points to Zimmerman’s innocence and any honest evaluation of the available evidence should have told them so. There is a reason that the prosecution witnesses have essentially been turned into defense witnesses. It is simply because Zimmerman is obviously innocent.
elissa (900371) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:52 pmYes, O’Mora is so earnest in that part, West is more flashy, but the fact remains there is no case.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/29/2013 @ 9:56 pmI don’t usually agree with Ann Althouse, but she thinks the Zimmerman prosecution is designed to fail. The state went ahead with this trial to prove to the lynch mob that Zimmerman should never have been prosecuted.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/06/now-playing-in-theater-of-racial.html
She thinks the trial is Act II. I still think there’ll be an Act III in which we’re all supposed to join hands and walk down to our state capitols and demand our rulers repeal stand your ground/Castle doctrine laws before we kill again.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 10:35 pm@ Comment by Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/29/2013 @ 10:35 pm
I object and move for acquittal. Mollifying a mob is not a valid reason to bring prosecution against the poor Cuban boy.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/29/2013 @ 10:55 pmHere’s two questions:
1) I think the Murder 2 charge is utterly preposterous. I’m also very skeptical about manslaughter but it sort of depends on a more professional understanding of the law and the evidence than I would have. Since there are lawyers here, are there any grounds in law and/or evidence for a rational non-stupid person to vote for a manslaughter conviction?
2) Here’s a moral reasoning problem I’m curious about. Let’s say you were a juror on this trial, and having listened in good faith, and impartially, to all the evidence, you concluded immediately that the whole thing was nonsense and voted to acquit. You discover in the first five minutes in the jury room that all the other jurors feel the same way: in other words, you’ve got a solid Not Guilty verdict within five minutes.
Given it’s such a political powder keg, would you feel a moral obligation to sit and play cards in the jury room for a day or two to give the impression that you were really pondering a thing which needs no pondering, so as not to give offense and possibly help prevent civil unrest; or would you feel you had a moral duty to march back out with your verdict within five minutes, in order to send the state a message about false and malicious prosecution?
I don’t know what I would do myself, curious if others have a confident view.
kirby79 (fee1b9) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:43 amthe saddest part of this whole thing is that we even had to listen to Ms Chantel in the 1st place and then make her the face of America for her 15 minutes that she never ever deserved nor was warranted
I denounce myself
E.PWJ (016f5f) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:10 amI hope Zimmerman sues Trayvons parents for the money the extorted and the lies they told – he should move to Texas and sue their lyin butts
E.PWJ (016f5f) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:12 amjeantel, sorry to all the chantels out there
E.PWJ (016f5f) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:17 amIt strikes me that the prosecution is calling the defense witnesses. Who is the defense going to call? Can the judge issue a directed verdict?
quasimodo (6d3411) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:56 amThere are no grounds for manslaughter, just as there are no grounds for second degree murder. It would also be a horrible loss for Zimmerman. Martin was a “child” under Florida law, Zimmerman would face 30 years in prison. A compromise verdict may be just the straw the prosecution is praying for.
And Althouse should never be taken seriously. She’s a dipstick.
nk (875f57) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:19 amYes, the judge “can” dismiss the case on directed verdict, but the standard she must apply is the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. What is your judgment?
nk (875f57) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:25 amShe does have some blindsides;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/another_race-based_show_trial_turns_into_farce.html
narciso (3fec35) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:29 amThe following is worth scrutinizing because — as with so many controversies of today (including the reason a trial in Florida is occurring to begin with) — the core of the issue (ta-da!) is liberalism gone berserk. The idiotic leftist tilt of a community, in which over 90-plus percent of people, decade after decade, embrace ideas and politicians of the left, the idiotic leftist tilt of people (or their bowing to it) in positions of authority, and a media that, while not quite as ludicrously one-sided (perhaps over 80-plus percent of the left), is similarly unbalanced.
Keep in mind that if the phenomenon of Nidal-Hasan-ization (and Nidal Hasan is not black, btw) can corrupt — and is corrupting — no less than the US military (and NOT the ACLU, Green Peace, the Rainbow Coalition, NOW, GLAAD, NAACP, etc), variations of this certainly are occurring throughout society in general.
Mark (67e579) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:48 amI found this by following Steve’s link; good article written by a liberal:
Zimmerman trial has all the ingredients for a miscarriage of justice
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:55 am127. That is the Zorn column I mentioned upthread with the Atticus Finch comment. Thank you for linking it because I couldn’t last night.
elissa (a70b23) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:59 amI really enjoy her blog, but the secret is indeed to not take her seriously. She is very much an academic with little contact with the world as I know it, which is why she entertains a lot of theories that are obviously wrong, but interesting. Great discussion threads for the most part. She also did good work during the Madison protests.
—
I don’t think the judge can give a directed verdict, even if her tendencies up to this point hadn’t been pro-state. The discredited witness Jeantel’s testimony is (weak) evidence that George was the aggressor in the fight he defended himself from, so this needs to go to the jury in my opinion.
Dustin (8b7882) — 6/30/2013 @ 7:10 amelissa wrote:
Well, no. Mr Zimmerman sustained injuries, a bloody nose, and some cuts and bruises; offered first aid at the scene, he declined a trip to the hospital. I wouldn’t call those “severe” injuries. He was losing a fist fight, right up until it became something other than a fist fight.
However, the fact that it even became a fist fight destroys the prosecution’s claim that he killed Mr Martin not in self-defense, but because he “wanted to.” If he was out to kill Mr Martin, he’d have shot him before Mr Martin could get in a blow.
The Dana pointing out the obvious (af9ec3) — 6/30/2013 @ 12:16 pmThe point being even a dipstick can see the glaringly obvious. This trial is a complete sham.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 12:26 pmDana @30, I wouldn’t be too quick to underestimate the severity of the injuries. Even if he declined a trip to the hospital the night of the shooting. His adrenaline would have been up. Then there’s the psychological relief of having survived a life threatening event.
This is why people can walk around normally immediately after an accident on what turns out to be a broken leg. They can’t walk around later. Or why (in addition to the fact that it takes time for inflammation to set in) whiplash and back pain symptoms take time to manifest themselves.
In any case GZ had injuries when self defense merely requires that you have a reasonable fear that you’re about to experience deadly force or suffer great bodily harm.
In addition to actually having injuries, the PA who assisted the Doctor who treated GZ the next day, Linzee Folgate, testified that those injuries were consistent with being punched in the face and getting the back of his head slammed into a sidewalk. And she testified that in her medical opinion GZ might not have survived the attack if he hadn’t stopped it.
The fact is GZ could have been out cold on the next punch and dead within minutes if TM continued to beat him the way he was. There’s no way he could have determined he would live, and if he did live how permanently he would have been injured.
Had Reginald Denny been armed no doubt in the wake of the Rodney King riots he too would have been accused of being a white racist who killed unarmed black men. But he was beaten within an inch of his life and after years of therapy he still can’t speak or walk normally.
He’d have been entirely justified shooting those guys, as many as it took to neutralize the threat, before they ever laid a hand on him and dragged him from his truck.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 12:48 pmI still can’t believe this was a witness for the prosecution.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 12:50 pmAnn Althouse is smart and pretty i like her a lot
I thought she was annoyingly hamletesque about deciding who to vote for in 2012 though
but you know that was a big step for her
happyfeet (c60db2) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:04 pmhappyft
the picture she has on her blog isquestioned to be at least three decades old, if this is true, to me goes to her credibility which I have always found at times to be lacking.
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:10 pmDana
Zimmerman didn’t have any facial swelling, severe bruising in the pictures I saw nor any trauma to the head except a scrape when he fell to the ground. Yes he had injuries, yes his life possibly – we will never know – his life was possibly in danger – but the standard of shooting someone who throws a punch or two is really going to be the point?
The kid died before we knew what he was going to do, he seemed to be dangerous and a wild animal to just grab someone and throw them down on the ground like that.
BUT GOING TO THE FACTS – Z
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:14 pmshe changes her pic a lot Mr. EPWJ and she does a lot of video
plus she has a great smile and eyes what sparkle with wisdom
happyfeet (c60db2) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:16 pmBUT GOING TO THE FACTS – Zimmerman – did he overreact? I would think so but a standard is that he didn’t and he should go free and sue those who said he did wrong and did this deliberately.
Trayvons parents need to be forced to return that money.
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:18 pm“But Jonathan Good, a former resident at the townhouse complex, told the jury in Seminole County criminal court that he never saw Martin slam Zimmerman’s head into the concrete sidewalk, undermining a key element in Zimmerman’s defense.”
Possibly Mark O’Meara is saving this for closing arguments.
Now, there is no question that George Zimmerman had those injuries to the back of his head, and they had to come from his head slamming the sidewalk.
Nobody saw the two fighters switch positions.
Nobody saw the start of the fight.
Zimmerman’s head was slammed down yet he didn’t pull out a gun, and took punishment for around 45 seconds.
He was still crying for help around the time he pulled out a gun.
Is that depraved indifference?
Nobody seeing Zimmerman’s head being slammed HELPS the defense because it means it happened more than half a minute before he pulled out the gun.
What Zimmerman says is that all that time he was trying to hide the gun (which of course handicapped him in the fight) and when Trayvon Martin saw the gun he said words to the effect that now Zimmerman was going to die and he had a reasonable fear that Trayvon Martin would be able to get that gun from him. So he shot him first.
And of course he didn’t know that police had been called, given the location, and were about to arrive.
Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:21 pmBut for all the talking heads on both sides to say that this is a cut and dry case for Zimmerman need to see pictures of MMA fighters or bar brawl participants to see that the injuries – yes they were there, but to me, were insignificant as far as a standard to kill.
But since Trayvon looked like he was intending to hurt Zimmerman grievously, then well Zimmerman did what he had to do.
But are people going to be killed for shoving someone, are we setting a new low bar for the use of deadly force?
That’s why this isn’t the cake walk everyone thinks it is.
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:22 pmfeets
she was for Obama and secretly still is, that all you really need to know
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:23 pm“injuries – yes they were there, but to me, were insignificant as far as a standard to kill.”
EPWJ – you’ve got yourself completely confused. The standard for self defense has nothing to do with the severity of injuries already received.
Then you add the line “But are people going to be killed for shoving someone, are we setting a new low bar for the use of deadly force?”
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Its completely unrelated to the case at hand, Florida law and unrelated to anyone’s suggestions about self defense law.
SPQR (768505) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:41 pmEPWJ – Are you a trained medical professional too?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:43 pmSPQR
That was an incorrect statement -totally incorrect
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:45 pmDaley
yes
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:46 pmEPWJ – those statements were direct quotations from your comment.
SPQR (768505) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:48 pmSPQR
He had minor injuries, very minor, this is the problem.
But the kid throwing him to the ground then starting to imitate an MMA style pounding, this makes it difficult to convict Zimmerman if he was smaller, and weaker – which is undetermined.
Trayvon acted with malice not fear, and certainly provoked the encounter to a physical level and got shot dead as an result.
But this wasn’t a cut and dried situation like most seem to think. If Zimmerman had to be hospitalized, then it would have been a cut and dried situation, but the fact he even refused aide from the paramedics who cleaned him up anyway could and will be used against him.
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:52 pmSPQR
Your statement was incorrect, 2nd try at basic reading comprehension
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:53 pmEPWJ, I don’t have a reading comprehension problem, you have an incoherency problem. Not that that is news. The severity of his injuries have nothing to do with self defense law.
SPQR (768505) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:55 pmE.PWJ, GZ didn’t shoot TM because he was shoved in a bar fight.
That’s a seriously flawed analogy because if GZ brought a gun into a bar that would be illegal in Florida, thus he’d be the aggressor, and getting shoved is inadequate provocation.
I was instructed that to be in reasonable fear for your life, a reasonable person would have to believe the attacker has the intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, the ability to do so, and the threat is imminent.
But here’s what the Florida statute says:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2012&Title=-%3E2011-%3EChapter%20776
If we stick to the facts of the GZ case all the elements for reasonable self-defense are there.
But, sure, it’s easy to make up alternate scenarios where they aren’t.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:57 pmare we setting a new low bar for the use of deadly force?
Is your ambivalence coming from the touchy-feely, big-hearted part of your soul? If it is — and in this case — dismiss it, don’t rely upon it, don’t trust it. The sentiments behind such a mixed emotion, when applied to the particulars of Martin and Zimmerman, have a knack for steering people in the wrong direction, time and time again. Misplaced compassion is anything but compassionate.
However, if you delve into what is fueling your reaction, and you instead detect a strain of ruthlessness and callousness, then, yes, okay, Trayvon Martin deserves some emotional accommodation. And, in turn, it also makes sense to shrug off the plight of George Zimmerman–who in order to not have triggered that feeling of ambivalence (due to one’s ruthlessness) would have to have been the dead one.
Mark (67e579) — 6/30/2013 @ 2:09 pmNo one is saying that the severity or lack thereof concerning Mr Zimmerman’s injuries constitutes any standard at all concerning his guilt or innocence. But I do object to them being called severe or serious, because they simply were not. He walked away, after a bit of first aid, and had no documented turn for the worse or concussion.
He was losing a fight that he may or may not have started, right up until the moment that he won the fight, for good.
The Dana who strives for accuracy (af9ec3) — 6/30/2013 @ 2:10 pmMr 57 wrote, before citing Florida statutes:
Given that Mr Zimmerman was losing the fight, and has injuries consistent with his head being down, probably battered down, against the pavement, the “ability to do so” standard would seem to have been met, even though it was not part of the statute you cited.
The Dana who isn't a lawyer (af9ec3) — 6/30/2013 @ 2:13 pmBut I do object to them being called severe or serious
Yep, because this is sort of like a sprained ankle or a little “oopsie.”
Mark (67e579) — 6/30/2013 @ 2:15 pmFlorida law on the use of deadly force:
Kevin Drum suggested “great bodily harm” is more than getting beat up. Florida case law seems to agree … to a point:
FindLaw states that Florida law defines simple battery as unwanted touching, while aggravated battery requires a showing that “the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim or that the defendant used a deadly weapon.” IMO Martin’s actions and Zimmerman’s injuries (which included a broken nose as well as bruises and lacerations) were more like aggravated battery than simple battery.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/30/2013 @ 2:17 pmE.PWJ, are you really a trained medical professional? It’s hard to believe given your cavalier attitude toward the beating GZ was getting at the hands of TM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8epwlcUc2zU
Roman Simakov and Sergey Kovalev are both uninjured at the start of the video. Kovalev wins with a TKO at approx. the 55 second mark. Simakov is unconscious within seconds and carried lifeless from the ring at the 1:37 mark.
He has no visible injuries but he was killed in the ring. All in 43 seconds.
Your MMA and bar fight scenarios are bogus. Even with a referee in the first instance or a bar owner who wants to keep his liquor license and possibly bouncers who are paid to stop fights you can go from uninjured to dead in less than a minute.
So, really, I think I’ll go with the medical professional who testified in open court for the prosecution. Instead of some guy who claims to be a trained medical professional and immediately puts that claim into doubt with an amateur assessment based only on GZ’s visible injuries.
When O’Mara asked Linzee Folgate, who had helped treat GZ the day after the fight, if in her medical opinion it’s possible the only reason GZ lived through the beating he took is because he stopped it she had a one word answer.
“Yes.”
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 2:17 pmDidn’t the state produce a witness, some kind of EMT, who said that GZ’s self defense may have saved his life?
May have = reasonable doubt.
Dustin (8b7882) — 6/30/2013 @ 2:20 pmYes, Mark, these are minor injuries. They were all injuries from which Mr Zimmerman was able to heal and recover without anything more than first aid.
He was losing a fight. He might have suffered much more serious injuries had he not been armed, but we don’t know that, and that’s not the matter on which the law turns.
The Dana who isn't a doctor (af9ec3) — 6/30/2013 @ 2:37 pm“But are people going to be killed for shoving someone, are we setting a new low bar for the use of deadly force?”
Hurling metaphorical pebbles is a DEATH THREAT
JD (8f669d) — 6/30/2013 @ 2:41 pmMy mistake; Folgate gave a four word answer:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-5-analysis-video-states-own-witnesses-undercut-theory-of-guilt//#more
But I agree with you Dustin, although I don’t believe “reasonable doubt” is the proper term. A medical professional confirmed that reasonable person in GZ’s situation would have had a reasonable fear for their life. And that medical professional could make that determination from the calm of her clinic a day later. Unlike GZ who had to make a decision within seconds while enduring a violent assault.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 2:44 pmHe had minor injuries, very minor, this is the problem.
Not true.
JD (8f669d) — 6/30/2013 @ 2:46 pmHe might have suffered much more serious injuries had he not been armed, but we don’t know that
But, Dana, what does your heart tell you? Do you think Lindzee Folgate’s heart was more in the right place, or less in the right place, based on her believing Zimmerman might not have survived without a gun?
Is your compassion making you sense that a broken nose can be or shouldn’t be characterized as “minor”?
Mark (67e579) — 6/30/2013 @ 2:48 pmYes, Mark, I’d say that a broken nose can be characterized as minor. He did not require medical treatment beyond first aid; that, in itself, is indicative that the injuries were minor.
What does my heart tell me? It tells me absolutely nothing that is of legal value in this case, nor do I want anybody’s heart telling them how to decide this case; if the jurors use their hearts, they might well sympathize with poor, poor Trayvon Martin, and convict George Zimmerman; if they look solely at the facts, as they are being presented in court, at least so far, stating that Mr Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the second degree is unjustified.
The incompassionate Dana (af9ec3) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:00 pm— A medical report by George Zimmerman’s family doctor shows the neighborhood watch volunteer was diagnosed with a fractured nose, two black eyes and two lacerations on the back of the head after his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin.
Not at all insignificant. Or minor. Breaking your nose is damaging. Just be ause there isnt tons of treatment for the injury doesn’t mean it is minor.
JD (8f669d) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:01 pmThe Dana,
Is that what they taught you in medical school ?
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:04 pmif the jurors use their hearts, they might well sympathize with poor, poor Trayvon Martin
That’s interesting, Dana, because my hunch that you’re struggling with misplaced compassion is borne out by your assuming that if people are oozing do-gooderness, then they’ll naturally boo-hoo more for Trayvon Martin than for George Zimmerman.
By take is that if one is truly compassionate — or less likely to foist tears in the wrong direction — then he or she will be appalled by the ruthless, violent-prone nature of Martin, and, in turn, appalled that a guy living in a housing complex where robberies had become a growing problem — and was trying to assist his neighbors due to that — almost lost his life in the process.
Misplaced compassion is turning the US into one, big Nidal-HasanLand.
Mark (67e579) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:12 pmSteve, what I meant was that the state has to prove one (any) element of George’s self defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the state’s own case shows that Zimmerman’s attack was one where his survival was at possible stake, I don’t think the stat can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t, to say the least.
Dustin (8b7882) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:16 pmWhat does my heart tell me? It tells me absolutely nothing that is of legal value in this case
BTW, the 2nd para in my previous post should start with “My take.” And your sentence above illustrates “The sensible Dana” in a battle with “The Touchy-Feely Dana.” All of us have such bouts with both our good and bad sides throughout life, and that’s why jurors and their verdicts can be such a crap shoot.
Mark (67e579) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:17 pmRather, the state has to disprove any element of the self defense claim, of course. And it also has to prove every element of murder (or a lesser included offense).
Dustin (8b7882) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:17 pmThe Dana,
I don’t know what experience you have in sports, but often times when an athlete’s adrenaline is running high, it distracts from the pain of a fresh injury. As a result, a player is unaware until the next day when he wakes up sore or with compromised mobility, that he may need to see a doctor. After an x-ray or MRI, it is discovered there’s a broken bone or a torn ligament.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:26 pmSimilarly, Zimmerman was in the heat of battle, and when the paramedics arrived a few minutes later, he likely had adrenaline running high and a lot of other thoughts on his mind which elicited him to not recognize the degree of his injuries.
JD
A note from his doctor?
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:29 pmMark wrote:
Trouble is that much of Mr Martin’s history won’t be made known to the jurors; unless the prosecution fouls up and opens the door — as they may have with the MMA bit from their own witness — whether Mr Martin was a thug or not isn’t something that the defense can raise. The prosecution is raising the case that Mr Zimmerman was some sort of out-of-control vigilante, and are trying to set up the daffy vigilante vs the absolutely good kid.
The cold-hearted Dana (af9ec3) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:31 pmSteve,
we’ll see who testifies – the state must be pretty confident that this was just a minor fist fight otherwise they wouldn’t have gone forward, IMO.
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:32 pmTrue.
And like Steve said, would a reasonable person fear serious injury if his head was being smacked into the pavement while his nose was broken?
I think 100% of the time the answer would be yes.
You don’t even need to be actually touched to be able to defend yourself from a reasonable fear of serious harm or death.
Dustin (8b7882) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:34 pmMr Stone, I’ve played football and perhaps, just perhaps, I’ve gotten into a scrap or two in my life. The possibility exists that I’ve even lost a fight in my lifetime. Yeah, I know about adrenaline, and bad scrapes from the pavement and what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a punch.
But unless you have some information to the contrary, Mr Zimmerman not only declined to go to the hospital after paramedics arrived, but received no treatment for anything significant in the following days.
You see, I am not speculating on how serious his injuries were, but noting that, whatever they were, they were not serious enough that he or a physician saw the need for serious treatment. That’s the factual part, and that’s he only thing that can be presented to a jury.
The Dana who might have been in a fight or two before (af9ec3) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:38 pmDustin
Deadly force -in a jury trial – probably needs a higher level of injury or threat than a guy embarrassed that he was sucker punched and may have lost his cool and then got scared…
Now his life is ruined no matter what I or anyone else thinks – its a shame – and Trayvon’s parents who knew he had problems need to be the one’s who serve time..
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:39 pmThe state did initially not charge on this case because of a lack of evidence… then all the politicians got involved.
I do worry that the jury will convict for manslaughter under a theory that he was the aggressor in the attack. It would be preposterous to say the state proved this, but I worry.
Dustin (8b7882) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:39 pmI agree. The state will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no higher level of threat.
So far, the state’s case seems to be that Zimmerman may not have survived at all had he not defended himself, so there’s that.
Dustin (8b7882) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:41 pmTrapper, Dana, M.D.,
It is one thing to “look something up” in an Encylopedia as you often do, but it is another thing to be so confident in your assessment of the injuries of someone you’ve never examined.
I’m in awe !
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:44 pmE.PWJ, what part about “lawful self-defense requires no evidence of injury” don’t you understand?
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:46 pmAlso your speculation about how the guy was embarrassed and lost his cool has no basis in fact.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:47 pmsteve57
This is a jury trial, its what 6 women think, once they see the pictures – that’s usually it – a trickle of blood down the scalp vs a gaping hole in a bully’s chest
All the wonderful pronouncements and phrases mean nothing, they are not trained attorneys and they are now the law.
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:55 pmJD
A note from his doctor?
Do you need a note from a doctor to know a broken nose is a bad thing? Do you need a note from a doctor to know that bashing a skull against concrete is dangerous? Coming from EPWj who claimed a death threat over a metaphorical pebble being thrown is rich.
JD (b63a52) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:00 pmThere’s an excellent discussion of the use of deadly force at Legal Insurrection: “How much injury is necessary before the use of deadly force is justified?”
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:01 pmWhat is the “serious treatment” for a broken nose? What is the “serious treatment” for a minor concussion? WTF people?!?!?!?
JD (b63a52) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:02 pm“lawful self-defense requires no evidence of injury”
Steve beat me to it.
JD (b63a52) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:04 pm#92-3, Beldar, Drudge has a link to ‘How Rachel Jeantel went from star witness to train wreck’ which takes you to a Yahoo News site containing Patrik Johnson’s 6/29/13 artice in the Christian Science Monitor Here’s an excerpt:
I checked the Christian Science Monitor and found a different construction, and no indication of an update:
ropelight (18d2f0) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:10 pmProvidently enough, there’s a new post up at L.I. on this very subject.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-update-how-much-injury-is-required-before-self-defense-is-justified/
The short answer is “none.” But attorney Andrew Branca elaborates at length about why it’s ludicrous for the state to even being going down this road.
A couple of short excerpts, centered on the jury instructions concerning self-defense:
Two points.
Andrew Blanca observes that while GZ’s injuries appear to be transitory that may not be the case. No one has evaluated him to determine if he suffered permanent damage from a closed head injury. In fact he reports that several state witnesses testified that GZ was complaining about symptoms such as dizziness. So to limit the discussion to external physical manifestations of trauma misses the point.
Second, every cop will tell you that when they get into a fight they’re extremely aware that there’s always at least one gun present. They’re own. I wish I could find their accounts online but unfortunately I only ever read them in gun rags that I no longer subscribe to and threw away when I moved. But I’ve read more than one account of a cop attacked by some gang member fresh off the prison weight pile who wound up in the exact same position GZ did. On the ground, gangster on top, blows raining down. They’d feel the guy go for their gun as the punches start taking effect.
Remember, GZ was afraid TM had found his gun and was going for it.
Like GZ the cops’ physical injuries were minor. But unlike GZ when they shot the hood before they lost control of the gun they weren’t charged with a crime.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:14 pmFortunately they won’t be reading your blog comments in which you display your purported medical and legal expertise, either.
O’Mara and West are trained attorneys. The jury gets to see and hear them. Speaking of trained attorneys why don’t you follow the links over to Prof. Jacobson’s Legal Insurrection and read what they have to say about the state’s nonsense.
DRJ, sorry I didn’t see you had provided the link.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:19 pmI should have mentioned this is incorrect. The jury is not now the law. In a jury trial the judge determines the law. The jury determines the facts.
This is why what the state is doing is nuts. The judge will instruct jury exactly what the law of self-defense in Florida is before they deliberate. And those instructions say GZ didn’t have to have a scratch on him before lawfully defending himself.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:28 pmIt’s more clear to say in a jury trial the judge is the trier of law.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:30 pmNot even that; the phone wasn’t hers, and while she had access to it, so did several other people.
Milhouse (a55903) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:33 pmYou see, I am not speculating on how serious his injuries were, but noting that, whatever they were, they were not serious enough that he or a physician saw the need for serious treatment. That’s the factual part, and that’s he only thing that can be presented to a jury.
Comment by The Dana who might have been in a fight or two before (af9ec3) — 6/30/2013 @ 3:38 pm
Did you not hear the testimony of the paramedics that said they recommended that Zimmerman be examined at a hospital?
When I was trained as an EMT/Paramedic, we were taught that all forcible injuries to the head were to be treated as serious. This included both open head and closed head injuries. And we were always to recommend that the injured person seek immediate treatment at a hospital, as a head injury could prove fatal with hemorrhaging in the brain.
One case in point. Treated person for open head injury to the forehead area. Patient had small laceration with minor bleeding and swelling caused by head striking windshield at impact. All Vitals normal at time of exam, bandaged wound and recommended transport to nearest hospital for further evaluation. Patient refused and said he would see his Dr next day.
Later on that same PM, received call from person’s wife requesting paramedics. Upon arrival, found patient that had earlier refused transport in an unconscious state with failing vital signs. Transported patient to nearest hospital with trauma center. Tests on patient revealed a Epidural hematoma from which patient lapsed into a coma and died. Any injury to the head should be treated as serious.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/18/brain.injury/
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/intracranial-hematoma/DS00330/DSECTION=causes
So lets stop the conjecture that these were only minor injuries, please. Besides which, Florida law states that you don’t have to suffer injury, you only have to reasonably believe you are about to suffer great bodily harm or death. And with any injury to the head, it can be either fatal or disabling. Quote: ” A serious injury may have occurred even if there’s no open wound, bruise or other outward sign of damage.”
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:42 pmSteve
The law is determined by the verdict rendered….
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:44 pmAnd if EPWJ claims to have medical training, and states that the head injury was minor, then he is lying about having any medical training whatsoever. Head injuries are always treated as possibly life threatening by First Responders. Only testing which cannot be done in the field can determine whether the head injury is minor or major.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:46 pmTrouble is that much of Mr Martin’s history won’t be made known to the jurors
Dana, from a purely legal standpoint — and analyzing things in the context of the system being rigged against the defense — I can see why you think the trial, as observed through the eyes of the jurors — has to be characterized in a Nidal-Hasan-ized (or OJ-juror-ized) manner. But I was curious about what was making you tick, what was your own personal gut reaction towards Martin and Zimmerman.
Mark (67e579) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:48 pmlawful self defense is defined by the jury’s verdict….
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:51 pmlawful self defense is defined by the jury’s verdict….
Comment by E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:51 pm
No, lawful self defense is defined by the law.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:53 pmlawful self defense is defined by the jury’s verdict….
Comment by E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:51 pm
Courtrooms in Tennessee, Texas, Saudi Arabia, Indiana, New York, Jakarta, and throughout the world beg you to stay away.
JD (b63a52) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:53 pmThe jury is the Trier of Fact, they are not the Trier of Law.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:55 pmLook for the defense to immediately request a directed verdict of not guilty when the State rests its case.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/30/2013 @ 4:58 pmInteresting this where the conversation has evolved into;
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-update-how-much-injury-is-required-before-self-defense-is-justified//#more
narciso (3fec35) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:02 pmEPWJ, not for the first time, you are making up stuff and pretending that you are an expert where you clearly are not.
The relevance of Zimmerman’s injuries are that they are consistent with his story about the circumstances he was in when he shot Martin. Their severity is not an element of self-defense, only his reasonable fear that he could sustain serious or fatal injuries going forward.
Its always a mystery why you bring your clown show around.
SPQR (768505) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:07 pmComment by SPQR (768505) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:07 pm
Just applied an algorithm and analyzed EPWJ’s handle. It returned BOZO as an applicable alternative.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:11 pmnzrcisco
I think Zimmerman who killed someone, is going to have to convince 6 people he didn’t start the fight and then murdered that kid.
I don’t think this is going to be a fair trial, and I think despite the eyewitness, Zimmerman’s going to do some time. To me Trayvons parents were the whole cause of this, sticking this animal in the wrong place and lying about him being a peaceful boy – which he was not
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:12 pmWrong again. Where do you come up with the idea? GZ is presumed guilty unless he convinces a jury he didn’t commit 2nd degree murder?
To overcome GZ’s claim of self-defense the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman started the fight and then murdered that kid.
So far the state is proving GZ’s version of events. So GZ won’t have to prove much of anything.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:17 pmTheir only eye witness, backs up Zimmerman, other’s overheard some details, but their recollections have been at odds with their previous account, Surdyka and Manaloo, and their ‘star witness’ is downright incoherent, ‘it’s just a flesh wound;
narciso (3fec35) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:21 pmWhy might this be? “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”
Dustin (8b7882) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:23 pmThere is no evidence introduced by the prosecution to date that Zimmerman started the fight.
SPQR (768505) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:27 pm6 ladies are now the standard
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:29 pmSix women who promised they would do their best to uphold the law, and the law is that if there is reasonable doubt that George did not defend himself, he is acquitted. In other words, George doesn’t have to prove a thing.
These women would have unanimously vote that the state proved beyond reasonable doubt that George did not defend himself, and also that the state proved every element of the charge (for murder this includes a depraved mind).
It is certainly possible they will do this. People do get lynched by kangaroo courts. I haven’t met the jurors so I can’t say. The media has done its best to send justice off the tracks on this one.
Dustin (8b7882) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:36 pmdustin
yes he does, he killed someone and is on trial for his freedom, shouldn’t be, but he is
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:44 pmOh good Lord. Here I thought I suffered through a brutal afternoon at Comiskey Park– but this thread is unbelievably brutal to read.
elissa (f237b6) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:44 pmOne lady is now the standard. The state needs all six to convict. The defense only needs one to have reasonable doubt.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:45 pmgood point steve57
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:47 pm6 ladies are now the standard
What is the standard for you to post nonsense?
I think Zimmerman who killed someone, is going to have to convince 6 people he didn’t start the fight and then murdered that kid.
Let us ignore the abysmal construction, and question the assertion that GZ started the fight and murdered TM
JD (b63a52) — 6/30/2013 @ 5:51 pmif Georgie Z gets convicted will Pam Biondi openly touch herself or just smile softly and save that for laters?
if only I’d paid more better attention in fascist whore class
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:01 pmZimmerman killed someone – that part isn’t in doubt – so the point comes down to who are we to believe the guy who pulled the trigger – or the state?
Its nothing more than that – as I said before he shouldn’t be on trial but he is – I cant change that
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:22 pmand its waaay past hf’s time to depart the blog forever…
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:24 pmIt’s waaay past who’s time to depart this blog forever?
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:26 pmHe deserved it he proably was going to rob someone
joe (4c97f1) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:32 pmNice job zimmerman
joe (4c97f1) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:34 pmZimmerman killed someone – that part isn’t in doubt
Other than inside your head, nobody is questioning that. The question is whether or not it was murder or self defense. You can’t even get the essentials of this correct.
JD (b63a52) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:35 pmsteve57
if you are supporting those kind of comments then, that’s all we really need to know about your character, or confirms what we already did know, especially when you made false and defamatory comments about a dead naval aviator who passed away in the line of duty
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:42 pmZOMFG here comes the Kray Kray
JD (b63a52) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:44 pmWell he was wrong about Okeefe, about Ramos and Campean, who were ‘hung out to dry’ in order to protect that DEA snitch, his batting average is right up there with the Marlins.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:49 pmi apologize for my massageyness sentiments
but not really i got my fingers crossed
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/30/2013 @ 7:00 pmEPWJ, ooooooo, you want to bring up past behavior on blog? I’m soooo ready for that. Bring it.
SPQR (768505) — 6/30/2013 @ 7:02 pmAbandon hope all ye who enter here.
elissa (f237b6) — 6/30/2013 @ 7:04 pmBranca is one of the leading self defense experts, elissa, that’s why I brought his link up, but squirrels have to wander I guess?
narciso (3fec35) — 6/30/2013 @ 7:06 pmLet’s have a jooooooooooooo counting contest.
JD (b63a52) — 6/30/2013 @ 7:11 pmok im in. http://www.superhitops.com/images/IMG_20130625_123530.jpg
SarahW (b0e533) — 6/30/2013 @ 7:19 pmthat puts hope in perspective is what that does
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/30/2013 @ 7:23 pmI knew that would send EPWJ away for more liquid courage.
SPQR (768505) — 6/30/2013 @ 8:00 pmE.PWJ’s comment brought to you by they Psychotic Ex-Girlfriend’s School of Logic and Argumentation.
Rule No. 3: When you don’t understand the present, dredge up your twisted version of the past and start yelling about that.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/30/2013 @ 8:03 pmRecall Obama himself saying if he had a son he’d have looked like Trayvon,
We need a picture of Martin in all of his “gangsta” glory to go with the quote.
Of course, if one put a picture of a younger Obama smoking marijuana with a picture of a gangsta Martin occupied likewise, one could probably make a comment about Obama’s claim being correct as there is a resemblance.
But I don’t think that is what he intended to communicate, and AG Holder might be investigating you.
And by the time you know the brain-case hit the concrete one too many times it is too late to do anything about it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/30/2013 @ 8:05 pmThere is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.
and its waaay past hf’s time to depart the blog forever…
Comment by E.PWJ (1cedce) — 6/30/2013 @ 6:24 pm
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/30/2013 @ 9:20 pmNo, that was his great-grandfather, and he was probably only part-black himself, so Zimmerman is at most 1/8 black and probably less. The only difference this makes, of course, is with reference to 0bama’s claim that any son he might have had would be likely to be like Martin. I’m not sure whether he meant a thug and burglar.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/30/2013 @ 10:05 pmhf
the batteries started to run low the first day of state testimony and then the whole thing dried up like as if caught in a haboob
steveg (794291) — 6/30/2013 @ 10:11 pmNo.
Let me explain a bit further, though: Last year I was on a civil jury, and we had something like the situation you described. After four weeks of testimony, we walked into the jury room and it was clear that we all thought the plaintiff had no case. But I thought we owed it to the plaintiff to go over the strongest bits of evidence they had given, and see if there wasn’t something we were missing, something that would convince us there was a case to consider. In particular in the plaintiff’s lawyer’s closing she had asked us to call for specific pages in the record and examine them, claiming that these would convince us of the justice of her client’s case, so we dutifully called for them and examined them, although we were pretty sure we remembered them and didn’t find them convincing the first time.
So what could have been five minutes’ deliberation turned into three hours, after which we were satisfied that we’d been fair to the plaintiff and there simply wasn’t any there there. We felt sorry for her, but what happened to her wasn’t the defendants’ fault; it was an act of God, so let her sue Him. Then we returned a verdict for the defendants with a clear conscience.
But in a criminal trial the standard is reasonable doubt, so if we started out convinced of the defendants’ actual innocence I don’t see how any amount of examining the evidence could change things so dramatically that we’d all become convinced not only that he might be guilty, or was probably guilty, but that he was certainly guilty. There’d be no point. Still, if there were specific points the prosecutor had asked us to review I’d probably be for reviewing them, just in case, in order to be fair. But as soon as it became clear that we were never going to move from actually innocent to guilty beyond reasonable doubt, I’d be for reporting immediately, and the optics would not be any of our business.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/30/2013 @ 10:20 pmSo far, the case is crying out for a directed verdict. The prosecution has not presented any evidence that would support its case, let alone anything that could possibly dismiss any reasonable doubt about a conviction. Unless next week is a whole lot better for the prosecution, a directed verdict would be legally required. But I don’t expect the judge to do so anyway, because she’s clearly biased to the prosecution.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/30/2013 @ 10:23 pmI don’t think so, for two reasons: 1) She is so thoroughly discredited that no properly instructed jury could possibly fail to have at least reasonable doubt about her veracity. 2) What exactly did she say that actually counts as evidence on which a conviction could be based? To the best of my recollection, even if we were to believe every word she said (taking the latest version in cases where she contradicted herself) there’s nothing that’s inconsistent with the defense’s story.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/30/2013 @ 10:36 pmI don’t believe that the persecution can present any evidence at this point to overcome the reasonable doubt that has already been raised. Unless they can present a video with audio that shows Z walking up to Trayvon, shouting “N@gger, you gonna die!” while simultaneously pulling out his pistol and shooting him, then rubbing T’s knees with grass, his own back with grass, and then slamming his own head and nose down on the cement sidewalk and causing his own injuries.
Milhous is right, if ever a case screamed for a ‘directed verdict’ of not guilty, this is it. If she doesn’t grant it, when he is found not guilty, his attorney should immediately file a complaint with the State Bar on the judge and the State’s Persecutors, especially Angela Corey, that decided to move this case forward. Anyone that had anything to do with pressing this case past the investigation stage needs to be disbarred and prevented from practicing lawlessness anymore.
It was done to try and quell racial tensions, and had absolutely nothing to do with prosecution that the sum total of evidence showed guilt on the part of the defendant. It was politically motivated from the beginning in an attempt of what appears to be a public lynching. Corey bypassed the Grand Jury process because she knew that there was no way she could win an indictment, and she should be held personally and legally responsible for her reckless and intentional acts of malfeasance.
peedoffamerican (04dfe5) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:01 amI think that there are some inconsistencies in GZ’s testimony that will be problematic for the defense. Here are a couple: 1) GZ says that TM was hitting his head against the concrete yet in the photo of the body, the head is facing away from the concrete, 2) During the re-enactment GZ told the investigator that after he fired, he thought TM could still be alive, he found himself straddling the body and pushed the arms outward to restrain TM’s hands, yet the photo of the body and witnesses at the scene including GZ said TM’s arms
Will (57d217) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:08 amand hands were under the body, 3) GZ said that TM saw his gun and reach for it, yet every witness said that it was so dark that they could not see much of anything and the weather was rainy or misty, 4) In one interview GZ said that TM jumped out of the bushes, yet when he did the re-enactment, he said that TM was walking down the street approaching him. Maybe the inconsistencies in GZ’s reporting of the facts don’t mean anything but when added to the reports of one of his former employers who GZ formerly provided security for at parties who said that GZ was a generally nice person but all of a sudden he could turn into a monster without warning, I would be hesitant to put him back on the street. Maybe that’s just me.
I think that there are some inconsistencies in GZ’s testimony that will be problematic for the defense.
Maybe that’s just me.
Comment by Will (57d217) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:08 am
What testimony? He hasn’t testified yet. And no, it’s not just you, there are other nuts that refuse to acknowledge the exculpatory testimony that has already raised reasonable doubt of Z’s guilt.
peedoffamerican (a84075) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:17 amWhat testimony? He hasn’t testified yet. And no, it’s not just you, there are other nuts that refuse to acknowledge the exculpatory testimony that has already raised reasonable doubt of Z’s guilt.
Comment by peedoffamerican (a84075) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:17 am
You are right. He has not testified. He has given sworn statements. He may be found guilty or he may
Will (57d217) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:25 ambe found not guilty. The jury will decide and maybe those on the jury are nuts like me.
The jury will decide and maybe those on the jury are nuts like me.
Comment by Will (57d217) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:25 am
If you think that the prosecution is going to introduce his statements where he establishes his basis for self defense, which they cannot cross examine, then you are crazy. And I highly doubt that all 6 jurors are going to disregard all of the testimony from most of the witnesses that already have establish the element of reasonable doubt. They would truly have to be batsh!t crazy. If the judge is wise, it may not be decided by a jury, but by a directed verdict of not guilty.
peedoffamerican (a84075) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:38 amIf you think that the prosecution is going to introduce his statements where he establishes his basis for self defense, which they cannot cross examine, then you are crazy. And I highly doubt that all 6 jurors are going to disregard all of the testimony from most of the witnesses that already have establish the element of reasonable doubt. They would truly have to be batsh!t crazy. If the judge is wise, it may not be decided by a jury, but by a directed verdict of not guilty.
Comment by peedoffamerican (a84075) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:38 am
What about the inconsistencies I listed? Address them specifically.
Will (57d217) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:06 amIf that jury concludes that the screaming is TM begging for his life and that GZ savored it by letting him beg for his life for 45 seconds, it is over. That is what the “nuts” and “batshit crazy” people hear. A kid begging for his life and a murderer who does not have the decency to pull the trigger right away but drags it out to hear him scream.
Will (57d217) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:27 amMilhouse
F you shoot someone, and you have minor injuries, after you are on record with the police that you are either engaging them or continuing to follow them a kind of passive confrontation, then you have to prove (not the state) to a JURY that you didn’t murder the kid/animal.
He shouldn’t have been charged, but this animals parents and supporters and the MFM decided it should be so – so there it is.
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:14 amCan anyone be so consistently wrong as BOZO? ^^^^
peedoffamerican (c1642d) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:25 amWhat about the inconsistencies I listed? Address them specifically.
Comment by Will (57d217) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:06 am
Objection; Assumes facts not in evidence. No need to address them as they most likely won’t be submitted as evidence. Maybe better if you will address the exculpatory testimony of Mr. Good.
peedoffamerican (127915) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:29 amRemind us again how Scuzzeyfavor was the true conservative in the race for the senate.
peedoffamerican (a84075) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:30 amMeanwhile back at the ranch;
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/06/libyan-documents-egyptians-including-dr-morsi-linked-to-benghazi-attacks/
narciso (3fec35) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:41 amObjection; Assumes facts not in evidence. No need to address them as they most likely won’t be submitted as evidence. Maybe better if you will address the exculpatory testimony of Mr. Good.
Comment by peedoffamerican (127915) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:29 am
The only thing that Mr.Good was 100% certain of was what he did not see. — Good says he went outside and saw the two people rolling around in the dirt. He hears the person on the bottom saying help me (maybe once, maybe twice, maybe three times). He says he told them to stop and they didn’t. So he told them he is calling 911 and went upstairs. All of this took place in 3-10 seconds. He calls 911 and tells the operator that he just heard a shot and O my God there is a dead black man downstairs. Do you believe that story. Does it have the ring of truth. I wonder what color shirt Mr. Good was wearing. Address the inconsistencies.
Will (57d217) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:40 am…… then you have to prove (not the state) to a JURY that you didn’t murder the kid/animal.
#facepalm
Will – your listed in inconsistencies border on irrelevant,but …
1) whether or not Trayvon struck GZ’s head against the concrete has no relevancy to the position of Trayvon’s head after his death.
2) there is a period of time that would have passed between the time of the shooting and when a photo was taken. The concept of a participant in an event not remembering the specifics and details of a meaningless action is unremarkable.
3) none of the witnesses were as close to the event as GZ. There is no inconsistency in him being able to see something that a witness could not.
4) I am doing my best to try to not mock you.
It would be difficult for a person to come up with less important and less relevant inconsistencies.
JD (b63a52) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:45 amIMOH He didn’t have to shoot him but instead he let him cry, beg, and yelp for 45 seconds. Then he pulled the trigger. That is in evidence and the prosecution made sure the jury heard it twice.
Will (57d217) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:48 amYour description of Good’s testimony is inconsistent with his actual testimony, Will. Address the inconsistencies. Because that was about as disingenuous as can be, similar to the commenter who claimed Good’s testimony was good for the prosecution.
JD (b63a52) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:48 amIMOH He didn’t have to shoot him but instead he let him cry, beg, and yelp for 45 seconds. Then he pulled the trigger. That is in evidence and the prosecution made sure the jury heard it twice.
Who made who cry, beg, and yelp for 45 seconds. Can you point us to that evidence? Who testified to it? What evidence was provided?
JD (b63a52) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:51 amWill – your listed in inconsistencies border on irrelevant,but …
1) whether or not Trayvon struck GZ’s head against the concrete has no relevancy to the position of Trayvon’s head after his death.
2) there is a period of time that would have passed between the time of the shooting and when a photo was taken. The concept of a participant in an event not remembering the specifics and details of a meaningless action is unremarkable.
3) none of the witnesses were as close to the event as GZ. There is no inconsistency in him being able to see something that a witness could not.
4) I am doing my best to try to not mock you.
It would be difficult for a person to come up with less important and less relevant inconsistencies.
Comment by JD (b63a52) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:45 am
Let us see who is mocked and what is unimportant when the lead detective testifies today.
Will (57d217) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:53 amI tried taking you seriously, Will, but I can’t anymore. Your claimed “inconsistencies” are patently silly, and meaningless. You dishonestly and Inaccurately describe testimony. And your response is then, just wait for what is coming today.
JD (b63a52) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:56 amWill
Trayvon, sucker punched the guy and threw him to the ground.
Had he not done that – Trayvon would be alive today.
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 7/1/2013 @ 5:26 amhowever the republicans in the house are drafting their own bill taking out any path to citizenship or legalization and converting those to some kind of extended work visa like I have had overseas – 3, 5, 10 year work visas.
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 7/1/2013 @ 5:41 amComment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:41 am
Always follow links from narciso
So, there is actually evidence not only linking Egyptians to the Benghazi attack, but audio recording of “Don’t shoot, don’t shoot, we were sent by Morsi”??
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/1/2013 @ 5:42 amConsistent with the idea of a planned capture to trade for the Blind Sheik, as some had proposed.
Let us see who is mocked and what is unimportant when the lead detective testifies today.
Comment by Will (57d217) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:53 am
Actually, no matter what happens today at least some of your attempts at reasoned defense are laughable.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/1/2013 @ 5:46 amBecause people at a distance couldn’t see clearly therefore there was no way Martin could not have seen Z’s gun close up, or that Z did not have reason to fear Martin seeing his gun?
Really, you must do better than that.
Serino, was the one who leaked the altered police station tape to ABC,
narciso (342f74) — 7/1/2013 @ 6:08 amI am curious about the burglary rate at Twin Lakes since February 26, 2012. Not that we’re likely to get any reliable information, the only crimes the police report honestly are car thefts.
For the children (not) the story of Tiny Hippo. Language, violence.
nk (875f57) — 7/1/2013 @ 6:09 amThe one who was Gutman’s source, for many of the dubious assertions, aired early in the investigation
narciso (342f74) — 7/1/2013 @ 6:10 am263. Yes, Walid Shoebat translated the video the week following Benghazi.
Marines entering Aqaba, Russkies evacuating Tartus(naval facility!), Turkey shuts down US traffic to Aleppo, Egyptian rebels give Mursi a day to exit and Military’s response unknown, Iran setting up logistics depot at Port Sudan.
This is the fight we’ve been waiting for and guess what, we’re on the losing side!
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/1/2013 @ 6:38 am…added to the reports of one of his former employers who GZ formerly provided security for at parties who said that GZ was a generally nice person but all of a sudden he could turn into a monster without warning, I would be hesitant to put him back on the street. Maybe that’s just me.
I’ll grant you raising the possible nature of Zimmerman in other circumstances to understand what makes him tick, but you had better do the same thing for Martin. Even more so since the latter displayed his disreputable qualities happily and proudly on the internet and also before the eyes of his buddies.
But since most every person out there can be a jerk or asshole on occasion, I don’t know if Zimmerman is necessarily any different from you or me, or anyone else. However, I’d be interested in his politics, since I’m far more wary of people who fall for the idea that compassion for compassion’s sake (and is very likely to misapply feelings of compassion) makes one a wonderful human being.
Mark (67e579) — 7/1/2013 @ 6:50 amcompassion for compassion’s sake
Is there any other kind?
nk (875f57) — 7/1/2013 @ 6:56 amwe’re on the losing side!
Obama is so lacking in basic common sense that he’ll do to a Mohamed Morsi in Egypt what he did to Trayvon Martin in Florida. Or he’ll do to the opponents of Syria’s current government what he did to Henry Louis Gates in Cambridge a few years ago.
Obama is the face of the idiocy and lunacy of modern-day liberalism.
Mark (67e579) — 7/1/2013 @ 6:58 am271. Every crisis is an opportunity.
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/06/30/west-goes-nuclear-on-obama-the-time-draws-near-to-teach-this-usurper-and-charlatan-the-lesson-our-forefathers-taught-king-george-iii/
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/1/2013 @ 7:07 amWill’s point 2 is ignorant, as anyone who reads Legal Insurrection knows. Martin was still alive when the police arrived, and would naturally have moved his hands under his face-down body once Zimmerman released them, either consciously (to try to stop the bleeding from his chest wound) or unconsciously (as a step towards the fetal position that the dying tend to assume). This was pointed out by the commentators at LI. Anyone who comments on this case without reading LI first is committing blogular malpractice.
Dr. Weevil (40c627) — 7/1/2013 @ 8:05 amWill, at best you’ve confused yourself hilariously. The photo of the body is pretty meaningless since TM was worked on by paramedics before the photo.
SPQR (768505) — 7/1/2013 @ 8:28 amCNN aired an enlarged photo of a George Zimmerman document with his social security number unredacted which was used by the prosecution. It is now gleefully being passed around the world. I hope his lawyers can take a few minutes away from their trial to sue CNN. I assumed the prosecutors have some cloear legal obligation to handle this type of information properly as well. Oh wait.
elissa (ff35cf) — 7/1/2013 @ 11:12 amgary gulrud, West seems to have gone way to far. 0bama may be a charlatan, but he’s not a usurper. He was elected in conformance with the constitution, and until 20-Jan-2017 he is the legitimate president.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/1/2013 @ 11:53 amConsider this. John Good testified that he stood on his lighted patio and witnessed a lighter skinned man wearing a light/white or red shirt on the bottom and a darker skinned man wearing dark or black clothing on top and straddling the man on the bottom throwing punches downward MMA style. No. 1 Mr. Good was standing in the light and his eyes would automatically have been adapted/accommodated to the light of his patio. He was looking 17 feet out into the darkness and it was raining. The patio light did not extend out to the area where the two men were fighting. It is a physical impossibility that Mr. Good could have stood in his patio lighting and seen the colors of the clothing anyone was wearing 17 feet out in the darkness. That defies the physiological capability of the human eye. Why didn’t the prosecution call him on it? It’s just a very fundamental fact that everyone knows if they just think about it.
Madeline Brashear (49bbcb) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:52 pmIn addition , Zimmerman was the one who had intensive MMA training three times a week and boxing training. It stands to reason that Zimmerman was the man on top.
Madeline Brashear (49bbcb) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:54 pmYou’re making sh*t up there, Madeline. It’s quite possible for the eye to distinguish colors a short way into darkness. 17 feet is not very far, roughly the length of a car.
If you insist on claiming that it’s physically impossible for the human eye to discern colors as Mr. Good said he did, then please provide us with a link showing evidence for your claim.
Chuck Bartowski (7c7e89) — 7/1/2013 @ 1:55 pmBrashear, it does not stand to reason at all. Zimmerman was the one who suffered the injuries from being beaten, not Martin.
SPQR (768505) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:05 pmSeveral of the witnesses in this trial, especially police officers, have followed this pattern:
1. Prosecution calls witness, witness testifies some stuff that is perhaps weakly supportive of the prosecution’s case, maybe.
2. Defense attorneys, to the relief of the witness, cross examine and makes it obvious the testimony fully supports the defense theory (which is why the police didn’t lay charges until they were pressured).
3. Prosecutor tries effectively to tear down own witness on redirect.
—
What a disaster!
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:11 pmI don’t know if you’ve ever been in a fight before, Madeline, but even if a man is trained, he can absolutely be dominated by a sudden act of determined aggression and end up on the bottom.
That, and also that’s what the testimony indicates happened, so your point is absurd. Your standard of proof is kind of on the low side for anything that suits your biases.
You make it expressly clear your biases are the only proof you require.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:22 pmMadeline thinks FIRE CANNOT MELT STEEL GOOGLE IT !!
JD (b63a52) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:24 pmlol
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:24 pmIn reply to the comment and question above from my friend ropelight (#187 — 6/30/2013 @ 4:10 pm) regarding whether the charges against Zimmerman were ever tested before a grand jury through the normal indictment process:
My recollection from this past spring was that the state attorney’s office had used a provision in FL law that permitted them to sidestep a grand jury, based on contemporaneous news accounts like this one from USA Today. There are lots of similar accounts from this same April 9 time period discussing the decision to skip the previously-announced grand jury presentation, and a good-sized smattering of op-ed punditry both questioning and defending the prosecution’s choice, especially since they’d previously said the case would be presented to a grand jury.
Now, I suppose the state attorney’s office could have gone BACK to a grand jury for an indictment sometime after April 9th. But I’ve done perhaps two or three minutes’ of Googling looking for a copy of a grand jury indictment against Zimmerman, and I haven’t yet found one. Perhaps it’s there and I just missed it.
Be careful, though, because a lot of people — including sometimes crime beat reporters for MSM publications — don’t always distinguish between the various ways, under various states’ and federal criminal procedural laws, regarding grand jury indictments, prosecutor informations, presentments, and other forms of criminal charging. It would not surprise me if the Christian Science Monitor, for example, said that Zimmerman was “indicted” when they really meant he was charged by prosecutors (not by a grand jury responding to a case presented by prosecutors).
Note well: I’m not a criminal lawyer nor licensed in FL. Our esteemed host, Patterico, may know more, or others here or elsewhere might. I vaguely recall Patterico, and perhaps his frequent commenter (and former federal assistant U.S. atty) “WLS Shipwrecked,” explaining before the difference between these sorts of things, and doing so far better than I can.
In fact, the former prosecutors I know were always very appreciative of the opportunity to present the facts of a potential self-defense or other homicide justification to a grand jury — whose members are quite often permitted to ask questions, unlike jurors in a trial on the merits (a/k/a petit jury).
Other advocates pay private consulting firms huge fortunes to set up mock trials to war-game and predict jury trial outcomes, but the prosecution gets this chance to preview and polish its case with citizens who’ve taken a very real oath.
There’s also a long tradition of elected prosecutors benefiting politically when grand juries take those prosecutors “off the hook” — via a no-bill, a refusal to indict — on those cases where a self-defense or other justification defense seems particularly strong, but is particularly controversial for some reason. Like this case was.
My inference is that the prosecution team skipped the grand jury because they feared they couldn’t get an indictment if they did, and they desperately hoped that somehow things would get better: The prosecution team was hoping for new evidence, hoping for some key defense witness (maybe even the defendant) to self-destruct on the witness stand, or maybe for some juror to decide that he hates the defense lawyer because of a knock-knock joke.
Beldar (f38a66) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:27 pmThey just cleared the jury because among other things, the defense co-counsel asked the initial lead-investigator this question and got this answer:
“Evidence you had all fit into self-defense theory, right?” Serino: “Yes.”
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:27 pmOh man. This is actually the funniest trial I’ve ever seen.
And yes, I’ve thought Zimmerman was being terribly railroaded for over a year, and this is a total waste of the police’ and witnesses’ time, and that’s outrageous.
However, the trial itself is a blast of government self-parody.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:29 pmlol Serino is now calling the defendant “George”.
The police’s thoughts about this case are pretty blatant if you read between the lines.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:32 pmIs the prosecution going to move for a dismissal? Can they do that? Would jeopardy attach if they did and it was granted?
htom (412a17) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:42 pmMy (layman’s) impression is: No. Yes. Yes.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:44 pmObservation: watching the livestream at Mediaite, they’re still using the Trayvon Martin hoodie photo from 3 years earlier as their thumbnail.
How manipulative. Why don’t the media just use baby photos from anyone their sympathetic to? Go all out with it!
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:48 pmWow, I don’t even know how to summarize the last five minutes of Serino’s testimony just now, before recess. You’ve got to find it on YouTube later tonight if you haven’t seen it.
But yeah, one more strong witness for the defense.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 2:59 pmIf I am standing in the light of my patio, looking out 17 feet away, maybe the light from my patio somehow escapes from its constraints and heads off out into the darkness rather than just confining itself to directly entering only my eyes.
SteveG (794291) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:05 pmOf course Mr. Good could have turned around and stared intently into his patio light (so as to better see the altercation occurring) but did not.
Mark wrote, well above:
My gut reaction is that I hope Mr Zimmerman is acquitted. This was a case on which the local law enforcement officials decided that there was no real case, but it was pushed by the left and became a political persecution. This is the Duke lacrosse team rape case, all over again. On that basis alone, I hope Mr Zimmerman is cleared.
As for the case itself, it seems as though the prosecutors have a poor one; they certainly aren’t presenting a good case at any rate. I would say, at least thus far, that Mr Zimmerman ought to be acquitted even on a preponderance of the evidence basis, and the law requires the harder guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
That said, I don’t think that Mr Zimmerman is some kind of innocent victim; he was playing cop when the real cops told him to back off, and that was the genesis of the confrontation. If he had backed off when he was told to back off, none of this would have happened. He’s in a situation of his own making, which just might be the crux of the matter if he is brought up on federal charges for violating Mr Martin’s civil rights.
As for the debate concerning Mr Zimmerman’s injuries, I am not speculating at all, where others are. It is possible that the blows to the head could have resulted in serious injuries, but the facts are that he was not treated for such, and recovered pretty much on his own; that says, in itself, that the injuries were not, in fact, serious, and if the question of how serious his injuries were is raised, it will be the documented fact that he required only a bit of first aid which will be the germane evidence.
Sorry that it took so long to answer, but I can’t surf Patterico all day long at work.
The Dana who answers questions (af9ec3) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:17 pmSo today the prosecution introduced the recording of Zimmerman telling his story in the police interview.
This is a bizarre tactic by the prosecution in my opinion, (granted I don’t practice criminal law) since they’ve removed any need by the defense to put Zimmerman on the stand.
SPQR (26706b) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:20 pmFormer got it right:
I’d put it a bit differently, however. In an MMA bout, both fighters have been trained, but one of them is still going to lose. Whether Mr Zimmerman was well trained or not, the undisputed fact is that he was in a fist fight that he was losing. Perhaps Mr Martin was as well trained or better, or Mr Martin was stronger or more athletic, but, for whatever reason, he was wining the fight and Mr Zimmerman was losing it.
The Dana who thinks that this is obvious (af9ec3) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:28 pmWhy do so many people write things like “when the real cops told him to back off”? I must have read that a hundred times, but it is blatantly false. Telling someone “you don’t have to do that” is not the same thing as telling him to back off or (to put it bluntly) “you have to not do that”. It’s telling him he can do it, or not do it, as he pleases. The emphasis is on the lack of an obligation to do it, but there is no hint of any obligation not to do it.
A second point: it seems to me that a broken nose is in fact a “serious injury” by any reasonable standard. The fact that he recovered without a permanently misshapen nose means it was not a permanent injury, but it was still quite serious. Maybe Evil Knievel or Mike Tyson would consider a broken nose a minor injury, but will the all-female jury agree? Imagine if someone tried to rape or rob one of them and she escaped unraped and with all her money, but with a broken nose: what do you think she would say if the police said “hey, at least you weren’t seriously injured”?
Dr. Weevil (40c627) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:34 pmOkay, I’d be interested in anyone here’s perspective
My perspective is that the last two police officers at least (Singleton and Serino), and really all of them, have been pretty down with Zimmerman’s version of events.
I suspect they secretly are on his side as they never thought the evidence matched the charges. I would go that far.
What do you think?
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:46 pmDr Weevil, additionally no police officer told Zimmerman to “back off” regardless of the semantics. A dispatcher did. They are not police.
Former Conservative, I don’t know if the officers were sympathetic to Zimmerman or not, but its clear that they think the prosecutor is a clown.
SPQR (26706b) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:49 pmThat said, I don’t think that Mr Zimmerman is some kind of innocent victim; he was playing cop when the real cops told him to back off,
Nope. A civilians dispatcher said to
and that was the genesis of the confrontation.
From the info a available, the genesis of the confrontation was when Trayvon decided to circle back and directly confront GZ
If he had backed off when he was told to back off, none of this would have happened.
Hindsight is wonderful.
He’s in a situation of his own making, which just might be the crux of the matter if he is brought up on federal charges for violating Mr Martin’s civil rights.
Exactly what civil rights did GZ violate?
JD (38e188) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:54 pmAnd you’re right, Dana, Madeline’s point was asinine. If one just watches MMA, one realizes that trained men get on the bottom with people punching them all the time.
And I don’t think Zimmerman is an MMA superstar. Just sayin’.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:03 pmBeldar, in Florida non-capital prosecutions may be initiated by either indictment or information. The Seminole County Circuit Court’s online docket shows an information filed on 4/11/2012 with affidavit of probable cause on 4/12/2012. If there was a Perry Mason type preliminary hearing? Or it was waived by the defense? Maybe somebody else can sift through the docket?
nk (875f57) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:33 pmLest anyone think what I said about Serino’s testimony, especially the last 5 minutes, being surreally helpful for the defense, here’s Legal Insurrection’s resident self-defense expert’s (who has a self-defense law book on pre-order if this interests you) description in his analysis that he just posted:
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:36 pm*Lest you think it’s exagarrated
Hint: it’s not.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:38 pmnk (#302 7/1/2013 @ 4:33 pm), thanks for that confirmation and link. That fits my recollection of what was being explained about Florida criminal procedure at the time.
Beldar (f38a66) — 7/1/2013 @ 7:00 pmIsn’t this the investigator that all the trolls kept saying that he wanted to arrest Z for murder?
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 7/1/2013 @ 7:09 pmYes, this is one and the same.
narciso (3fec35) — 7/1/2013 @ 7:10 pmFrom narcisco’s link …
The last O’Mara question of the day, the last words the jury heard to take with them into the evening recess, could only be characterized as catastrophic for the State’s theory of the case. Looking directly at the man who had been the chief investigator on the case, who had possessed access to ever bit of evidence of any sort, who had interviewed, and re-interviewed, and re-re-interviewed–applying increasing from each interview to the next–O’Mara asked him:
“Do YOU think George Zimmerman was telling you the truth?”
Serino succinct answer: “Yes.”
JD (38e188) — 7/1/2013 @ 7:15 pmDo we think that the prosecution is regretting they brought this to trial, or are there other factors that make up for this disaster of a case?
In the unwarranted but possible event that Z is found guilty of something, would that be vindication or even a worse legacy?
Bringing to trial a case without substance seems bad enough, to bring such a case only to be part of a miscarriage of justice seems about as low as one can go on the Nifong scale.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/1/2013 @ 7:35 pmHas there been even one prosecution witness that in the net, was more beneficial to the prosecution than the defense?
Other than Perry, does anyone else truly believe this is going well for the prosecution?
JD (38e188) — 7/1/2013 @ 7:42 pmOkay, I’ve watched probably an hour and a half of today’s testimony.
It was as if Hollywood sitcom writers had decided to do a spin-off from the old “Police Squad!” TV show and “Naked Gun” movies — “Prosecutors Squad!” This is like a very cruel parody of a criminal prosecution. I’d expect better of a prosecution team composed of random fourth-graders.
Beldar (f38a66) — 7/1/2013 @ 7:42 pmJD, this is going about as well for the prosecution as the proverbial turd in a punchbowl.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 7/1/2013 @ 7:50 pmWhich witnesses did you watch, Beldar?
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 8:03 pmWell, I admit I was wrong about one thing. The prosecution is crazy enough to introduce GZ’s statement that established his claim of self defense. Whoda thunkit?
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 7/1/2013 @ 8:04 pmThe proverbial turd in the punchbowl is actually a good thing – if you’re an alcoholic dung beetle.
Dr. Weevil (40c627) — 7/1/2013 @ 8:10 pmFC, I’ve been watching clips from the direct & cross of Detectives Singleton and Investigator Serino.
It’s almost like this trial is being presented by DC Comics — and it’s taking place in Htrae, the square-shaped planet that’s home to Bizarro and his fellow distorted reflections of humanity.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why there aren’t repeated comptency/foundation/speculation/bolstering objections being made and sustained. It’s like both sides have agreed to ignore the rules of evidence and try the case based on hearsay and speculation from oath-helpers — except the oath-helpers here aren’t the usual crew (the defendant’s girlfriend or mother or fourth-grade teacher), but the investigating police officers!
Beldar (f38a66) — 7/1/2013 @ 8:20 pmDr that’s no way to talk about Mooch. 😆
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 7/1/2013 @ 8:21 pmYes, it’s pretty shocking!
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/1/2013 @ 9:07 pmYou want an example of missing the point;
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/07/01/zimmerman-trial-prosecution-still-game
narciso (3fec35) — 7/1/2013 @ 9:24 pmDo we think that the prosecution is regretting they brought this to trial, or are there other factors that make up for this disaster of a case?
I was under the impression that a big factor that forced the hand of the government was threats of “civil unrest.” But if the verdict doesn’t please and placate the liberal nitwits who are predominant throughout the “If I had a son, he’d look like…” community, then talk about another civil “uprising” may be more than idle chatter.
If so, well, let the chips fall where they may. The idiocy of modern-day liberalism has totally exhausted and sickened me, and squeezed out whatever “compassion for compassion’s sake” I once had.
Mark (67e579) — 7/1/2013 @ 9:27 pm“In addition , Zimmerman was the one who had intensive MMA training three times a week and boxing training. It stands to reason that Zimmerman was the man on top.”
Oh OK
SteveG (794291) — 7/1/2013 @ 10:22 pmSo intensively trained G Zimmerman uses his skills and gets on top of Martin and goes to “ground and pound” without leaving a mark on Trayvon, but George does manage to lump the back of his own head up and bust his own nose…. right?
I am pretty sure I could train intensively for years and never be able to get a guy into the “ground and pound” position, and then beat my own ass
Comment by SteveG (794291) — 7/1/2013 @ 10:22 pm
Sorta sounds like an old Richard Pryor joke about his Golden Glove boxing days. Other boxer was throwing his gloves at his own head prior to the match starting. Richard says, “Hey coach, he’s kicking his own ass, he don’t give a sh!t about me!”
peedoffamerican (a84075) — 7/1/2013 @ 11:53 pmWow, that prosecutor was as horrible as this de la Rosa clown in Florida. Do these prosecutors not know or not care about the law?
Does she not know the GZ legal team is not mounting a “stand your ground” defense? O’Mara told the judge they weren’t going to seek a stand your ground hearing back in March. It’s just straight-up self-defense to this point.
Or is she just a media whore who’s willing to degrade herself to get face time before a TV camera? I can’t imagine saying something that stupid. Something so wrong on so many levels.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:14 amMaybe Nicolazzi wants a job with Angela Corey at the Florida Attorney General’s office. To build on what Beldar said, it looks like Corey uses a variation of Jeff Foxworthy’s show “Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?”
You’re only in the running if you lose.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:17 am1) jury question. The judge can’t determine whether she is discredited or not.
2) Of course it’s already established that George shot Trayvon. The matter at issue is whether George acted in self defense. Jeantel’s testimony, if seen in the light most favorable to the prosecution, shows that George instigated the actual fight. Of course I do not believe that it does, but I think the judge has to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the respondent to a directed verdict motion. Because an aggressor cannot claim self defense without some caveats, that would mean a directed verdict is not appropriate.
As a common sense matter, of course the state has not proven George did not defend himself by any standard, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. There’s too much evidence that he was not the aggressor, and that what he protected himself from was indeed serious.
I guess we’ll see if this pans out.
Dustin (303dca) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:39 amDustin, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of cases where the judge dismissed the case because it was “too dangerous” to let the jury convict on the evidence presented. My understanding is that in considering whether to give a directed verdict the judge must choose from among all the reasonable interpretations of the evidence the one most favourable to the prosecution; not from all the possible interpretations. In other words if the judge sees that a witness has been completely discredited then it would not be legitimate for the jury to convict on the basis of that witness, and she shouldn’t allow the jury to do so. Only if the witness hasn’t been completely discredited, and there’s some reasonable way in which the jury could believe her, should it go to them. Am I misunderstanding something?
Also, how exactly does Jeantel’s testimony, even if credible, show that Zimmerman started the fight? She didn’t claim to have heard the fight start, did she? At worst, she heard Zimmerman answer Martin’s challenge aggressively rather than placatingly (“what are you doing here?” rather than “what are you talking about?”). But suppose that’s true; Zim had every right to ask Martin what he was doing there, and that would not have justified Martin hitting him. And Jeantel had no information on who had actually first swung his fists. So even taking her testimony in the light most favourable to the prosecution, how does it support a conviction?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:47 amDana, you seem hung up on this “not doing whatthe police told him” issue.
1. It was a dispatcher, not a policeman
2. It wasn’t an order
3. If it had been an order, it would have been ultra vires, and he’d have been well within his rights to ignore it
4. The reason the dispatcher made that suggestion was not because there would have been something wrong with his following Martin, but because it might have been too dangerous for him, and he’s not required or expected to take such a risk.
5. He says he obeyed the dispatcher’s suggestion, and returned to the car, and there’s no evidence to contradict him. In the absence of such evidence I see no reason not to take his word for it.
What am I missing, in your view?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:53 amJD asked:
I do! 😆
Hamilton Burger (3e4784) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:49 amWhere did Perry comment? Or is JD on the ghost hunt for former commenters again. Can anyone say obsessed?
Ian G. (b2d693) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:38 amI’m guessing that the song playing in the background as Ian G. was watching JD’s comment pass over his head Mr. Burger was Peter, Paul, and Mary singing “Leaving on a Jet Plane.”
reff (e41361) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:51 amThe man with President Nixon’s middle name, plus an “e”, wrote:
No evidence? Well, it’s pretty clear that he wasn’t in his car when he got into the altercation with Mr Martin, isn’t it? If he did return to his car, he didn’t stay there.
I don’t find the distinction between being told by the police or a civilian dispatcher to leave the situation alone significant; regardless of by whom he was told this, he did not comply. Mr Martin may well have started the fight, when Mr Zimmerman got close to him, but Mr Zimmerman created the situation by stalking Mr Martin in the first place.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:09 amdana,
One sided explanations are always very compelling
E.PWJ (6140f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:20 amthere is no corroborated evidence, so far, that anything Zimmerman said was true except for the part where he ended up on his back beneath Martin.
Dana, not really IMO, Zimmerman had a right to call the police, but not act like one. But regardless, this is why we had a trial even though many breathlessly out there, say this was an open and shut case, including me at one point.
Someone’s dead and you have someone who was pursuing the victim/aggressor then a court room, not the DA’s intake office is the place to sort this out
E.PWJ (6140f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:27 amAnd tome, if Zimmerman is going to have any chance at peace in life, this trial will be his saving grace.
So I poise the question, “did the DA do Zimmerman a favor by having a trial if he is found not guilty”
E.PWJ (6140f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:29 amI don’t find the distinction between being told by the police or a civilian dispatcher to leave the situation alone significant; regardless of by whom he was told this, he did not comply.
The civilian dispatcher has no authority over him.
Claiming GZ stalked him is overtly disingenuous.
JD (38e188) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:47 amSomeone’s dead and you have someone who was pursuing the victim/aggressor then a court room, not the DA’s intake office is the place to sort this out
There is no evidence GZ pursued TM, and none that GZ was the aggressor.
I also think that bringing charges to quell the mob is a disgusting concept. People should be tried because the State has evidence of guilt, and. Either the police or DA had anything close enough to do so.
JD (38e188) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:53 am“Ian” is apparently too cowardly to admit what we all know.
How many names and IP’s are you up to?
JD (38e188) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:57 amMr Zimmerman created the situation by stalking Mr Martin in the first place.
Comment by The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:09 am
Give a cigar to the gentleman who knows the difference between concrete and cement. That is the prosecution’s theory of the case, to wit: Martin was where he was lawfully. He had no duty to retreat from a creepy ass cracker who was stalking him while he was bringing Skittles to his baby brother. The creepy ass cracker as the initial aggressor had a duty to retreat when he was confronted if he wants to claim self-defense.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:59 amHe was the neighborhood watch captain, in a building where they had been 400 calls in one year,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:11 amincluding a breakin three weeks prior, what is so
unreasonable about that circumstance.
I’m not saying it’s so, I’m saying it’s the only rational (non-insane) reason this case can proceed.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:17 amWe may have glossed over “creepy ass cracker”. Hearsay is a statement made out of court offered in court for the truth of the matter asserted. BDLR did not put it in (repeating it five times) for the sake of Martin’s present sense impressions. He put it in for evidence that Zimmerman is a creepy ass cracker. Remember also BDLR’s opening, “F***ing punks, they always get away with it”.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:22 am#285, Beldar, my comment at #187 wasn’t intended to raise the question of an indictment by grand jury or at the direction of the prosecutor intentionally bypassing a grand jury for obvious reasons.
I was pointing out (unsuccessfully) that The Christian Science Monitor’s article contained the correct information, and the same article at Yahoo News claimed Zimmerman was indicted by a Seminole County grand jury.
Either the CSM article was originally incorrect (GJ indictment) and was subsequently changed without notification of an update, or that YN altered the article to make it look like GZ was indicted by a local grand jury and letting prosecutors off the hook.
ropelight (03df4c) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:32 amPeople keep claiming that Zimmerman following or “stalking” Martin made him the “aggressor”.
Nonsense. Complete and utter horse manure. There was nothing illegal about Zimmerman’s following of Martin. But legal or illegal, following someone does not make one an “aggressor” in a self-defense sense. The “aggressor” was the one who started the physical fight.
SPQR (768505) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:37 amOne of our Dana’s wrote: “I don’t find the distinction between being told by the police or a civilian dispatcher to leave the situation alone significant; regardless of by whom he was told this, he did not comply. Mr Martin may well have started the fight, when Mr Zimmerman got close to him, but Mr Zimmerman created the situation by stalking Mr Martin in the first place.”
The distinction is important because there is no legal obligation to comply with the “instructions” of a dispatcher. (Which were not phrased as orders in any event).
And Zimmerman obviously did “create” the situation in the sense that if he had not followed Martin, Martin would not have had a confrontation with Zimmerman. But that’s not culpability in a criminal sense and that’s not being the “aggressor”.
SPQR (768505) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:40 am336-If Zimmerman had taken the dispatcher’s advice TM wouldn’t be dead.
Ian G. (bd7302) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:41 amThere is no evidence that Z confronted Martin that I can see. Even by the bulk of the prosecution account and the 911 recording, Z was following at a distance to see what Martin was up to while waiting for the police to come.
The only account we have of how the two came into close contact was Z’s account that Martin unexpectedly approached him and acted the tough guy, which is consistent with what we know about Martin’s persona in his recent years, cute pictures of a younger Martin not withstanding.
From the beginning, as implied by the edited version of Z’s comments to the 911 operator, the only thing that makes this a case is if one assumes from the beginning that Z must have been motivated by racism and wanted an excuse to shoot the “poor innocent black” kid.
Once upon a time it was all too common for African Americans to get blamed for things they didn’t do and not only get convicted of crimes but lynched, and that not only in the south but also the north.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:47 amBut while that is true, miscarriage of justice in 2013 does not make up for miscarriage of justice in 1913 or 1963. If you’re looking for vengeance, on the other hand, be careful what you wish for, as looking for vengeance leads to never ending violence.
346-It doesn’t logically follow that a boy without a weapon would confront a man with one.
Ian G. (bd7302) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:48 ambut Mr Zimmerman created the situation by stalking Mr Martin in the first place.
Oh, sheesh, Dana. The word “stalking” is loaded in a way that hints you’re struggling with the compassion-for-compassion’s-sake side of your gut reactions. Keep in mind that type of bias is why this and other societies throughout the West in particular are creaking and wheezing under their own weight.
Mark (a38238) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:56 am346-It doesn’t logically follow that a boy without a weapon would confront a man with one.
How do you suppose TM knew GZ had a weapon? Basically, all the evidence, testimony, and police investigation suggests you are wrong.
JD (b63a52) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:01 amIf Zimmerman had taken the dispatcher’s advice TM wouldn’t be dead.
And if your wonderful, beautiful, glorious feelings of do-gooderness and humaneness had ruled the day, Zimmerman would be the one 6 feet under. But your Nidal-Hasan-ized compassion should remind people why, ultimately, it’s important and necessary to vote with one’s feet. A reminder why even plenty of liberals in today’s era still avoid moving to or spending much time in communities where lots of people look like Obama’s son if he had a son. Because the politics sure won’t help them when push comes to shove.
Mark (a38238) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:03 amBy Z’s account he did follow the dispatcher’s advice, even though he did not have to, and it was Martin that closed the distance between them.
That may not have been what happened, but we have no evidence to the contrary.
I believe the dispatcher also asked Z to watch Martin to see where he was going, and after Z lost sight of Martin (from a distance) is when Z headed back to his car.
If Martin had been in jail or some residential program for delinquent youth, either of which seem warranted by his activities prior to this event,
he would still be alive.
Every person who ever died in a car accident wouldn’t have died if they stayed home, so what?
You would have to prove that:
A) Z had a legal obligation to follow the dispatcher’s advice (which he did not)
B) that he indeed clearly disobeyed the dispatcher’s instruction’s (which you can’t)
c) that Z’s disobedience to the dispatcher’s instructions were the cause of the direct confrontation (which you also can’t)
Z had no legal obligation to follow the dispatcher’s instructions, but it is also possible to say he did to the extent he tried to both “see where he was going” and not “follow” close enough to get into a confrontation
It appears by Z’s story that it was Martin who caused the direct confrontation.
If Z “stalked and hunted Martin down to shoot him” there is no evidence for it, other than the fact that Martin is dead. There is another explanation, Z’s account, which is substantiated by all of the testimony of the prosecution. It is much easier on the evidence given to say that it was self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt (which one does not have to prove), than to say that Z initiated a direct confrontation and is responsible for killing Martin.
If you want to start convicting people based on suppositions and prejudices instead of evidence, that is a very, very bad precedent.
No justice for all, no justice at all still holds.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:05 amVengeance doesn’t work.
This is why it became necessary for Spike Lee to tweet his parent’s address, a bounty issued by the New Black Panther Party,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:05 am346-It doesn’t logically follow that a boy without a weapon would confront a man with one.
Comment by Ian G. (bd7302) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:48 am
The best you can do is make up something that we have no evidence for, rather than analyze the case on the basis of the facts we do have?
Might as well claim that Obama is not legally President because he was born in New Zealand.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:14 amDoes the NSA have data archived that contains the GPS data for the cell phones of Z and Martin at the time of the event?
It would seem that if there is evidence that shows Z’s phone closing the distance on Martin’s phone, or Martin’s phone closing the distance on Z’s, it would make a difference.
Not really different from looking into the security tape recording of a facility, except that the NSA is the one who has the data stored, because it has the capacity to, rather than the security tape of a facility that is kept only for a relatively brief period of time before it is erased and written over.
Obama’s NSA undermining Obama’s pet prosecution.
It seems that the defense has no reason to look into it now,
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:26 ambut if Z is acquitted and Holder brings federal civil rights challenges, I would go for it immediately. But then I’m not a lawyer, and I should ask nk and the rest of you lawyers first.
How does anyone know that another has a weapon? He sees it.
Also, if GZ had gone home TM would still be alive.
Ian G. (bd7302) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:28 amPeople like Ian G really irk me when they have the luxury of being so idealistic and willfully naive because they’re living in a bubble of a relatively safe, secure location—when they’re guilty of one of the more notorious aspects of “limousine liberalism” (and one does not have to be wealthy to be guilty of such phoniness).
I’ll never forget reading an article in the LA Times several years ago about a couple (2 white/Anglo gay guys, btw) residing in a part of LA that was “transitional,” but where the crime and dysfunction that kept seeping into their neighborhood eventually got the better of them. They then picked up and moved to Portland, Oregon.
It’s easy to talk the talk when you never have to walk the walk—or when your feet take you far away as soon as the going gets too tough.
Mark (a38238) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:32 amAlso, if GZ had gone home TM would still be alive.
Comment by Ian G. (bd7302) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:28 am
And if TM were still alive, maybe he would have killed someone in search of his gangsta persona.
And if…
There are lots of what if’s, and there are lots of reasons for family and friends of TM to grieve, but there is little, if any, apparent reason to hold Z criminally responsible for TM’s death under US law.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:39 amYou have evidence that Zimmerman had an AK slung over his shoulder?
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:44 amIf you turn left and not right when going for a walk, you may never meet your wife.
Well, not the good wife, anyway. 😛
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:13 amMD, I have no clue about the technology.
I do know a little about the DOJ’s policy on successive prosecutions. There will be no reason for a federal prosecution on the same facts if Zimmerman is acquitted. This is not a sham trial (e.g. Medgar Evers), and what evidence would the feds have that is not available to the prosecution now?
Since we’re talking politically-motivated prosecution, it was a Republican governor, a Republican Attorney General, and a Republican Special Prosecutor, who overrode the judgment of the local police and State’s Attorney. Neither Scott nor Biondi were up for reelection in 2012 so my guess is they were trying to help Romney and Rubio. Romney lost Florida but Rubio won. Was it worth it?
Just because they have the R does not mean they ‘r on our side.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:15 amnk
Kid is dead, prosecutors ALL the time, overrule the judgment of local police.
We only have Zimmerman’s word on what happened, yes one witness corroborated some of it but not enough IMO
E.PWJ (6140f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:27 amAlso, if GZ had gone home TM would still be alive.
Comment by Ian G. (bd7302) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:28 am
And if TM hadn’t assaulted GZ, TM would be alive.
SPQR (768505) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:40 amComment by nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:15 am
You’re right, that they were repubs. I don’t know if they thought caving to the public pressure was the things to do, in part because of the 2012 elections or what.
And as long as Holder is the AG, and Holder has the one as his boss, laws and policies don’t seem to mean much if they are only in the way of what they accomplish.
yes one witness corroborated some of it but not enough IMO
Comment by E.PWJ (6140f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:27 am
What part of “beyond a reasonable doubt” do you not understand? You have a claim of self-defense. You have the actions of the accused c/w an innocent person having defended himself. You have physical evidence c/w the claim. The witness testimony available supports self-defense.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:05 amThe only things that don’t support self-defense are the inaccurate early portrayals of Zimmerman and Martin and the desire to base the outcome of the event on racism, whether there is evidence for it or not.
If TM had gotten his Skittles and gone home, rather than wandering the neighborhood looking in windows, he’d be alive, too. Or if he’d run home after GZ saw him. Or if the store had been out of Skittles, and he’d gone further to a different store to get them, he wouldn’t have been seen by GZ at all.
htom (412a17) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:12 amKid is dead, prosecutors ALL the time, overrule the judgment of local police.
We only have Zimmerman’s word on what happened, yes one witness corroborated some of it but not enough IMO
Comment by E.PWJ (6140f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:27 am
Is disingenuousness one of your names? Scott and Biondi overruled Phil Archer the State Attorney for Seminole County and the proper person to decide on prosecution. They appointed Angela Corey, a State Attorney from another circuit, whose name is a byword for malice, viciousness and prosecutorial overreaching, as special prosecutor.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:20 amnk
that happens all the time, someone is , who was unarmed, who was approached by an armed adult.
Let the court case find mr z not guilty, lets not condemn those who are just doing their job
E.PWJ (6140f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:40 ammd
kid is dead, Z took a pistol to a confrontation. Very minor injuries, partial witnesses, going to be A hung jury IMO
E.PWJ (6140f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:42 amThat happens all the time? Tell me just one other time.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:50 amThe only reason I can see for 6 women to convict is to avoid a race war.
Small chance for hung jury IMHO.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:54 am== Z took a pistol to a confrontation.==
This is why people have a problem with your comments so often. They are disingenuous to the max. There was no foregone “confrontation. There was a man with a legal gun in his waistband walking at night in his own neighborhood. Start there.
elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:55 amComment by The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:09 am
If he did return to his car, he didn’t stay there.
I don’t even know where that claim comes from.
Zimmerman had arranged to meet with the police. He says he was concerned he didn’t have the exact address.
His call to the police ended like this:
Note: at that point, Zimmerman was not by the mailboxes, and neither was his car if I am right, and in any case he was not near his car. He had gotten out, chased Trayvon Martin for about 15 seconds, and then stopped and continued talking to the police on his cellphone for 1 to 1 1/2 minutes since about 2:34 into the call. He doesn’t start walking anywhere till sometime after the call ends at 4:07 minutes into the call]
Zimmerman said he was going to call back with the correct address. He says that he walked to try to find a street sign because he didn’t know the name of the street. Even if that’s alast second decision to go after Martin, he could not have caught up to him on foot if Martin was running away.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:57 amIt’s possible Martin had a secret destination (to meet someone, or to buy marijuana, but probably not to burglarize) that he didn’t want Zimmerman to see.
But Zimmerman was not leaving the area.
H was forcing him either to miss his connection or the Basketball All Star game on television.
Solution: Beat him up.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:58 amMARTIN MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN WHERE TO FIND HIS CONTACT (that could be why he was looking at all the houses) AND HE MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH SOMEONE WHO KNEW THE AREA TRYING TO GET EXACT DIRECTIONS TO, let’s say, THE LOCAL PART TIME MARIJUANA DEALER.
He had $22 in his pocket, which is enough to get a little marijuana.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:59 amBTW, in describing Angela Corey as a slatternly, evil, soulles witch, with the ethics of a rabid weasel and personal hygiene and halitosis to match, I do not mean to imply that she is also given to unnatural sexual practices with small animal indigenous and non-indigenous to Florida, nor that she indulges in halucinogenic substances distilled from tree frogs and the secretions of primitive marine animals. I apologize if I have given that impression.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:02 amVery minor injuries,
Let me see, note to self, before I use a gun to defend myself, wait until level of consciousness is reduced from either brain trauma or blood loss to show I had reason to fear for my life.
Yeah, got it.
This has been debunked numerous times, in addition to elissa’s comment addressing your framing of the situation.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:06 amThere’s a lot of nonsense on this thread.
Some people can’t see the difference between a suggestion and a command. There is a world of difference between “you don’t have to do that” and “don’t do that!”
The first leaves it up to the individual to decide if they’ll do something they don’t have to do.
Some people refuse to see the distinction between a suggestion from a 911 operator and an order from a police officer.
Then there’s the idea that GZ stalked TM. Stalkers don’t stay on the phone telling the 911 operator where their stalking victim is headed.
Finally there’s the idea that GZ was the aggressor because he “created” the situation. No, he didn’t. In any case more is required.
From Volokh:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-self-defense-laws/
Most states spell this out. I doubt there’s a need to as proceeding down the same street some distance behind someone else does not constitute a provocation. No matter how much TM disliked GZ looking at him. I know in Texas the relevant statutes stipulate the provocation can not be verbal.
In other words GZ could have closely followed TM and hurled racial slurs at him and that wouldn’t constitute sufficient provocation for TM to assault GZ. But GZ didn’t do that. The only way under the law GZ could have provoked TM and therefore forfeited his claim of self defense is if he had physically attacked TM first. And even then he could have “regained his innocence” by attempting to withdraw or signalling his willingness to withdraw if he was unable to do so.
I imagine screaming for help might be taken as one such signal.
But then since there’s zero evidence GZ attacked TM then there’s zero evidence he lost his right to self defense.
All the speculation to the contrary is nonsense.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:34 amMark wrote:
When I wrote the paragraph, I initially used the word “following,” but deliberately changed it to “stalking,” because it is precisely the word I intended to use and meaning I wished to convey. “Following” could mean simply being behind someone on the sidewalk, completely coincidentally, but stalking means deliberately trailing someone.
And that is exactly what Mr Zimmerman was doing: he was deliberately trailing Mr Martin to see what Mr Martin was up to. That can’t be denied, because Mr Zimmerman has admitted it.
Mr Zimmerman’s actions were, at that point, not illegal, and it may well be that Mr Martin was the actual aggressor, starting the fight. But that does not mean that Mr Zimmerman did not create the situation in the first place.
The very precise Dana (3e4784) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:37 amZ took a pistol to a confrontation. Very minor injuries,
Good Allah. He did not set out for a confrontation. Minor injuries is both disingenuous and irrelevant.
JD (b63a52) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:43 amFlorida law spells out the only way GZ could have “created” a situation in which he forfeited a claim of lawful self-defense. And that would be if he “created” a situation in which TM was justified in using force against GZ.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html
There’s no evidence that GZ ever threatened to use any level of unlawful force against TM. So he wasn’t the aggressor except in the minds of people like E.PWJ who apparently think they are a law unto themselves if they ever get on a jury.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:44 ambut stalking means deliberately trailing someone.
Not in the eyes of the law.
JD (b63a52) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:48 amTo the very unprecise Dana; stalking is illegal. Really, you ought to look it up.
Following someone down the street to report suspicious activities to the police isn’t stalking. If that were the case every single criminal who was trailed by a citizen so the cops would know where to make the arrest would have a slam-dunk lawsuit.
And no, GZ didn’t create the situation. I don’t know why people keep insisting on making up non-existent legal theories to assign guilt to GZ.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:49 amWhat word would you use, JD, to describe following a specific person, in an attempt to determine what he was doing?
The Dana seeking guidance on grammar (3e4784) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:50 amThat can’t be denied, because Mr Zimmerman has admitted it.
It can be denied. I, and many others here, and likely GZ and his lawyers, would deny stalking. I don’t recall GZ admitting to stalking anyone. Could you show where he did so?
JD (b63a52) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:51 amSo when a parent finally agrees that their child is big enough to walk to the corner grocery by themselves for the first time, but deliberately trails them at a distance to make sure the kid is safe, that parent is guilty of stalking.
Who knew?
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:52 am“And that is exactly what Mr Zimmerman was doing: he was deliberately trailing Mr Martin to see what Mr Martin was up to.”
Dana – Well, if you mean keeping an eye on Mr. Martin until the police arrived to handle the situation so that Mr. Zimmerman would not be involved in a confrontation himself, I’m not sure stalking is the right word choice. Observing is more neutral.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:53 amNobody suggested he should get into his car. The dispatcher merely said that although she’d asked him which way Martin had gone, he didn’t need to actually follow him to find this out, to which he replied “OK”. He says he returned to his car, where he was when Martin attacked him. So far no evidence has emerged that contradicts this account, so why don’t you believe it?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:54 am784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) “Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.
(7) Any person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).
History.—s. 1, ch. 92-208; s. 29, ch. 94-134; s. 29, ch. 94-135; s. 2, ch. 97-27; s. 23, ch. 2002-55; s. 1, ch. 2003-23; s. 3, ch. 2004-17; s. 3, ch. 2004-256; s. 17, ch. 2008-172.
Not stalking
JD (b63a52) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:54 amYou just beat me to it, JD.
It seems the very precise Dana is using the term stalking very unprecisely.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:57 amIf you are gonna be precise Dana, you should be precise. You chose a loaded emtionally charged word.
JD (b63a52) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:57 amAgain, he says he did; but suppose he didn’t, it was 1) a suggestion, not an order, and 2) from someone with no right to give him orders.
Which, in your speculative scenario, he had every right to do. How can that make him responsible for Martin’s utterly illegal and unwarranted response to his lawful (supposed) act of following Martin? How does this make him less than 100% innocent, even if he’s lying about returning to his car?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:58 amMr Zimmerman was…deliberately trailing Mr Martin to see what Mr Martin was up to. That can’t be denied, because Mr Zimmerman has admitted it.
That was earlier.
He called the police and said: Hey, we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy…..This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about.
Then Trayvon Martin (assuming it was him, because another possibility is that there were two men in the area) stops and starts starinmg at GZ.
He approaches GZ, gets close enough for GZ to more certainly identify his race (at first he only said he looks black and assess his age as “late teens”
GZ says he was or is looking at all the houses. It has to be was even if GZ used the present tense because TM has stopped. (GZ is referring to what the situation was before the man stopped.)
Zimmerman says Something’s wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out. He’s got somethin’ in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is.
He’s mystified. GZ asks for a policeman to come over. He exclaims They always get away and then, suddenly, the man begins running zaaway from him towards the other entrance to the neighborhood
GZ gets out of his car starts chasing him, and exclaims something else under his breath which might be ‘F-ing cold’ because he can’t reach him and blames it on a cold. The word sounded most like “colts” to me when I listened to the tape.
The dispacther asks if he is following him and says he doesn’t need to do that and GZ says OK and apparently stops, at least until the end of the call, 1 1/2 minutes later.
At first GZ arranges to meet the police by the mailboxes, which would mean walking back some 100 to 150 feet to his car, getting back into his car and driving the car back the way he just came, but then says he will call them back and tell them where he is.
He later says he went further to get the name of a street. (Not to mention being attacked by surprise)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:00 amMr 57 wrote:
So, are you of the opinion that Mr Martin would somehow have just accosted Mr Zimmerman had Mr Zimmerman not been trailing him?
Assuming we are to believe even part of the testimony of Mr Martin’s lovely and svelte lady friend, Mr Martin had spotted Mr Zimmerman stalking/ trailing/ following him, for what purpose Mr Martin was not able to say; that was (apparently) the only reason Mr Martin took any notice of Mr Zimmerman at all.
Mr Martin may have been a thug, and Mr Martin may have been the one to start the physical confrontation, and Mr Zimmerman may have been perfectly within his legal rights to defend himself, but that does not somehow make Mr Zimmerman a hero, does not somehow mean he didn’t create the situation, and does not mean he’s somehow as pure as the wind-driven snow. He is, in my opinion, the victim of an overly zealous persecution, when the local authorities determined they didn’t have any evidence sufficient to bring charges, and for that reason alone I want to see him acquitted, but that doesn’t mean that I see him as someone completely innocent. He is an idiot.
The Dana seeking clarification (3e4784) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:00 amJust in case anyone is wondering I thought under the circumstances it was appropriate to use unprecisely instead of imprecisely.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:00 am379. Florida law spells out the only way……..
Steve57 – Don’t forget about nk’s law of sidewalk exclusionary zones under which one is allowed to assault another person if their perfect enjoyment of a sidewalk is spoiled by that other person talking to them or being an obstacle for them to walk around.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:01 amAnd Reginald Denny was an’idiot’ for driving across Florence and Normandy, recall that little tidbit.
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:02 amDana, I am saying that it isn’t up to you, me, or GZ to know ahead of time what perfectly legal activity is going to offend a thug like TM.
And there’s no if to it; he was a thug. He was proud of it.
We have a saying in my neck of the woods.
The bear won’t attack you unless you piss it off. Only the bear knows what’s going to piss it off.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:04 amMr 57 wrote:
In the English definition of the word, stalking means, among other things, “To track prey or quarry.” It has a connotation of threatening or menacing, which Mr Martin seemed to perceive, but yes, in the scenario you gave, such a parent would be doing just that, stalking.
I used the term stalking precisely as I said, an English term, not in reference to a legal definition.
The English-speaking Dana (3e4784) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:06 amFollowing someone is not aggression. Martin had no duty to retreat from Zim, but why would he need to? Unless Zim attacked him (and so far nobody claims to have any evidence of this) there was nothing to retreat from. He had no right to attack Zim, and if he did so (as Zim claims, with no evidence to contradict him) he was the aggressor, and Zim had no duty to retreat (not that he could retreat anyway).
This is of course all on the unsupported assumption that he exercised his right to ignore the dispatcher’s suggestion.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:08 amReally? Why not? What law would have prevented him from following Martin or even confronting him, if he had done so (which he says he didn’t)?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:14 amMr 57 agrees with me!
It’s also true that the bear won’t attack you unless he notices you. Had Mr Zimmerman been minding his own business, instead of Mr Martin’s, the bear would never have noticed him.
Perhaps it never occurred to Mr Zimmerman that he might piss off the bear by following the bear, but he followed the bear, and the bear got pissed off.
Robert E Howard may have explained it best, in 1933:
It seems that Mr Zimmerman thought he could stalk/ follow/ tail a man who was not doing anything illegal, because he was taking some assumption about the range of possible reactions from his quarry, and those assumptions might not have encompassed the full range of what was possible, and what actually happened.
The Dana who appreciate's Mr 57's agreement (3e4784) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:16 amDon’t forget about nk’s law of sidewalk exclusionary zones under which one is allowed to assault another person if their perfect enjoyment of a sidewalk is spoiled by that other person talking to them or being an obstacle for them to walk around.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:01 am
What did happen to that guy? Not the punk with the camera, the one the punk was stalking. Did he go to jail?
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:17 amSo what? How does that make him guilty of anything, and why should that mean he has to go through the ordeal and expense of a trial? Martin attacked him, and paid the price. This is not a bad thing, let alone a crime.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:21 amComment by The Dana who appreciate’s Mr 57’s agreement (3e4784) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:16 am
It seems that Mr Zimmerman thought he could stalk/ follow/ tail a man who was not doing anything illegal, because he was taking some assumption about the range of possible reactions from his quarry, and those assumptions might not have encompassed the full range of what was possible, and what actually happened.
Since the teenager started running away from him, that meant, he probably thought, he was afraid of him. SO THE LAST THING HE’D FEAR IS BEING ASSAULTED.
But TM was probably spooked by GZ’s cell phone, not GZ himself. The fact that GZ was talking on a cell phone meant possible reinforcements. And if that was the case, he wasn’t wrong, since GZ was calling the police.
Later, when he spots GZ, perhaps he attacks GZ to prevent him from using his cell phone to give away TM’s position. TM could have gone home, but he had some other destination.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:22 amEtheridge. That was a fun thread. I can’t do, now, what Etheridge did, maybe I can run them over with my walker.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:23 amEven if you were, without any evidence, to assume that, it still wouldn’t be a case without any evidence that he attacked Martin. So long as he waited for Martin to be the aggressor, he’d still be innocent.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:23 amTM could also have been spooked by the car.
He almost certainly did not suspect GZ had a gun.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:23 amWhat’s illogical about it? Even if Martin was behaving rationally (and we have no basis for supposing this) how would he know that Zim was carrying? Martin was bigger, younger, stronger, and badder, and determined to punish Zim for following him. At least that’s what Zim says, and we have no evidence to the contrary.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:25 amAs long as we’re speculating, if Zim had not spotted Martin that night, whose house would have been broken into?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:29 amAnd this would have been a good thing why?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:30 amRopelight, thanks for the clarification (#342 — 7/2/2013 @ 6:32 am).
Folks, you may believe — and I would not try to dissuade you from the view that — in hindsight, it was unwise or imprudent of Zimmerman to be anywhere near Martin after speaking with the police.
Being unwise or imprudent is not a crime.
Being unwise or imprudent does not forfeit your right to self-defense.
One of the two men turned a nonviolent confrontation into a violent attack. To convict Zimmerman, the State of Florida has to prove, among other things, that it was Zimmerman who did that, and not Martin.
It’s not necessary at all for the jury to conclude that Zimmerman was being reasonable and wise and prudent in order for the jury to find that the State has failed to negate, beyond a reasonable doubt, Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. Indeed, in most successful self-defense cases, there’s some point in the history of the events at which one can say, especially using hindsight, that the defendant could have made different choices that might have been more prudent, and that definitely would have prevented the killing.
Zimmerman doesn’t have to have been an angel, a paragon of reason and prudence, for the killing to nevertheless have been legally justified under the law of self-defense.
The prosecution hasn’t rested yet, but the holes punched in their case by their own witnesses seem to me to compel a directed verdict of acquittal from any fair-minded judge.
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:33 amMartin had just arrived in Sanford. It is unlikely he would be planning to break intoa house so soon.
More likely, he was planning to meet someone at a house he could not find because he was unfamilar with the area, possibly to buy marijuana, possibly for somewhat worse purposes, and he was hiding that from his family.
He attacked GZ either because GZ was preventing that meeting or because he was afraid of GZ’s pals whom GZ could call on his cell phone.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:34 amAlso, if GZ had gone home TM would still be alive.
And this would have been a good thing why?
Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:30 am
This thread has gone on too long.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:34 amNo, Dana, I don’t agree.
Another civilized man wouldn’t have tried to split GZ’s skull over something that only a savage would find discourteous.
Or as the savage would have put it, “disrespecting.”
Do you really think it’s a compelling argument to claim that GZ’s actions were perfectly legal but he violated the law of the jungle and therefore he’s to blame?
Really? Do you cower in your house and leave your neighborhood streets to the thugs because you don’t want to “piss off the bear?”
I didn’t figure you for someone who wants to help the TMs of the world dismantle civilization.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:35 amBeldar, it’s good to see you commenting more often, especially because you distill these crucial points so plainly. You’re absolutely right. That George’s foresight wasn’t perfect is practically a given if he got into a self defense situation.
While I disagree, I hope you and Milhouse are correct about that. I think we all know that this particular judge will not do this, but that doesn’t mean you’re wrong. I just saw Judge Nelson strike the investigator’s testimony that he believed Zimmerman. I do not understand why she ruled that way. This is the guy who investigated the shooting… that he believed the defendant is relevant information. It feels unjust, no matter what the law might be on the topic.
Dustin (303dca) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:40 amIs anyone watching Angela Corey’s pet Medical Examiner demonstrate just how deeply she’s in the bag for the prosecution?
ropelight (03df4c) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:46 amI agree with Steve that Trayvon’s freaking out that George is watching him doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Some people act guilty when they know someone is watching them because they are. I walk my dog, and sometimes have done so at night. Naturally sometimes someone will notice and make clear they see me. I wave and make a friendly comment about the evening or something. That people have an eye on their neighborhood is not evil.
Dustin (303dca) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:46 amI would think that the testimony of the State’s witnesses in this matter make “beyond a reasonable doubt” a very low bar.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:46 amBy their very testimony they have raised all sorts of doubts about the veracity of the State’s case, that is built upon their interviews.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:34 am
This thread has gone on too long.
It’s gone off onto a tangent.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:48 amWhy “probably not”? It seems as good a guess as any. Or he may have been casing the houses for future burglaries. I don’t see a good reason to rule any of these possibilities out.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:48 amNow I think people are misunderstanding the Florida law of self defense.
Quoted in Legal Insxurrection and in comment 188.
http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-776-012%E2%80%83use-of-force-in-defense-of-person/
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
It is not necessary for someone to believe he needs to use deadly physical force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
It is enough if he wants to do it to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony against himself.
In general this is talking about BEFORE any felony has been committed.
However, in this case, the felony had already been committed by Trayvon Martin. That felony was assault.
Now this is future oriented, so the question is will Martin continue to assault him or not.
If yes, that’s all Zimmemrman needs under the law to justify the use of deadly physical force. He doesn’t need a separate fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:50 amWhy is that relevant? How does it make him anything less than completely innocent, and how does it justify putting him through the ordeal and expense of a trial? If by going about his lawful business he created the situation, then he had every right to do so.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:51 amDustin, it strikes me as patently unfair, too.
Andrew Blanca describes it as an ambush over at L.I.
The state had a detailed motion to suppress, which he believes they must have spent most of the night working on. When the defense couldn’t respond in a sufficient manner off-the-cuff the judge ruled in favor of the state.
I contrast this to how the judge ruled when the state moved to introduce evidence of GZ’s prior bad acts, claiming the defense had opened the door by asking Ms. Lauer about her personal experience with GZ.
O’Mara said it was ridiculous and cited a specific statute in his favor. But because the state wasn’t prepared to respond, and the judge said she wasn’t prepared to rule, she deferred the motion. I do not see how the judge could have been prepared to rule on this motion concerning evidence first thing in the morning.
It seems to me she’s quick on the draw to rule in favor of the state, and awfully slow to rule against the state.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:53 amFollowing.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:56 amMr 57 wrote:
Do you lock your car? How about locking the doors of your humble abode at night? If you do either, are you not assuming that there is a possibility that someone will be obeying the laws of the jungle and steal your wheels or rob your crib, and that it is prudent to take some precautions?
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:56 amhttp://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
Assault on your person is an unlawful act. A person has the right under Florida law to use deadly force to put an end to it. End of story.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:56 amIn order to avoid a dismissal or directed verdict of acquittal, the prosecution needs at least some evidence that George Zimmerman was not losing the fight or that the fight was over.
They have some (not very credible) evidence that that was the case.
In order to avoid a dismissal of the murder charges and limit this to manslaughter they probably need some evidence that George Zimmerman started the fight. That’s where Rachel Jeantel comes in.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:57 amnk – You’ve brought up your inviolate sidewalk exclusionary zones since the Etheridge thread, even in connection with Zimmerman I believe. It seems like an obsession for you. That’s what I don’t understand.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:01 pmPeople shall be secure in their inviolate personal exclusionary zones while perambulating, walking, standing, jogging, exercising or otherwise present upon public sidewalks.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:02 pm“It’s possible Martin had a secret destination (to meet someone, or to buy marijuana, but probably not to burglarize) that he didn’t want Zimmerman to see.”
Milhouse: Why “probably not”? It seems as good a guess as any. Or he may have been casing the houses for future burglaries. I don’t see a good reason to rule any of these possibilities out.
He had just arrived in Sanford. Casing houses makes a bit more sense, but I would favor looking to meet someone at an address, and not being able to find it because he didn’t know the area.
Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:48 am
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:03 pmHow is he not all of the above? He’s a hero for doing his bit to make the neighbourhood a safer place (and may well have prevented a break-in later that night). He didn’t create the situation in any relevant way; Martin attacking him did. You might as well say that a mugging victim created the situation by deciding to walk home rather than take a taxi, or by using an ATM where the mugger could see him. I know nothing one way or the other about his purity, or that of snow in Florida, whether wind- or reindeer-driven, but I know of nothing to rule out the possibility that he is an actual saint.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:05 pm386. Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:54 am
He says he returned to his car, where he was when Martin attacked him. So far no evidence has emerged that contradicts this account, so why don’t you believe it?
This has been corrected but Zimmerman wasn’t anywhere near his car when he the fight started.
He has said he went to another street to find out his location and then was walking back to his car when he was attacked.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:07 pm390. Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:58 am
even if he’s lying about returning to his car?
he’s notlying abouyt returning to his car, but he never said he walked directly back to his car. Instead, he walked ahead to get the name of a street, (and orient himself) so he could call back the police and give them the exact location where to meet him because he didn’t want to meet them at the mailboxes, but closer to where Martin had last been seen.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:10 pmOne obvious thing:
The fight, and the crying for help, stopped immediately after the gunshot, and the gunshot seems to be the only injury suffered by Trayvion Martin.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:12 pmObjection, assumes facts not in evidence. We don’t know whether Martin was doing anything illegal. Zim had at least a reasonable suspicion that he was doing something illegal, i.e. planning a burglary. Not that this matters, since there’s nothing wrong with stalking/following/tailing someone who is not doing anything illegal either. So Zim was correct in his thought that he could do so, that he had the right to do so without being molested. This does not make him legally, morally, or in any other way responsible for what happened.
In your fantasy scenario in which he actually did so, of course, since in the real world we have no reason to doubt his word that he stopped following Martin when the dispatcher told him he could.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:13 pmYes I do take precautions. But the precautions I take don’t include not watching someone who’s walking down the street looking into the windows of locked cars seeing if anything is worth stealing and then trying to find a rock big enough to break in when they do.
And yes I’ve done that.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:13 pmFollowed by calling the police.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:14 pmFrom this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/new_evidence_shows_trayvons_life_unraveling.html#.Uc9hWH41NbA.twitter
As his girlfriend complained, Martin was “always” fighting.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:15 pm==that does not somehow make Mr Zimmerman a hero, =
This is the crap that infuriates me. If there is one person who regularly comments on this Zimmerman thread or any previous Zimmerman thread who ever called Z a hero or insinuated they thought he was a hero I’d like to be reminded who that is. People believing and stating that in their opinion he is innocent of the charges against him and that he has been the victim of a witch hunt is hardly the same thing as painting him as a hero. You used to fight fair and comment with dignity Dana, What has happened?
elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:19 pmIt’s possible Martin had a secret destination (to meet someone, or to buy marijuana, but probably not to burglarize) that he didn’t want Zimmerman to see.
Why “probably not”? It seems as good a guess as any. Or he may have been casing the houses for future burglaries. I don’t see a good reason to rule any of these possibilities out.
Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:48 am
Me too. They have almost as much evidence to support them as the possibility that Zimmerman was a wacky, doughboy, mall ninja who set out to pot himself a n***er, covering himself by a pretext call to 911 beforehand.
nk who knows the concept of zero and negative numbers (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:21 pmOK. Milhouse just called him a hero. I stand corrected.
elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:23 pmThe notion that Zimmerman hadn’t yet suffered “serious” enough injuries to warrant using deadly force is rather Orwellian.
What was he supposed to do—-wait until he was unconscious ?
The beating stopped only because Zimmerman ended the beating by shooting Martin.
Otherwise, if Zimmerman hadn’t shot Martin, who knows what Martin would have done to Zimmerman. Any punch to the face or head can potentially cause serious damage, and the cumulative impact of multiple strikes to the face and head can be reasonably construed as an imminent threat to one’s life.
The question is, is George Zimmerman justified in doing what he had to do to stop the beating which an eyewintness testified was an “MMA style” beating ?
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:30 pmZimmerman had two choices on the menu—one, allow the beating to continue, or two, use the gun.
So you’re accusing Zimmerman of imprudence? How is that anybody’s business but his own?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:34 pmWho started what?
Zimmerman had a legal right to be where he was.
His simple presence could not be a provocation.
If Z was “jumped” by TM, that sets who the aggressor is, and triggers FL’s self-defense statute.
BTW, is the dismissal of the police investigator’s testimony something that can be used in an immediate appeal, or on an appeal upon conviction?
askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:34 pmTo be fair, he did so after repeated assertions that GZ was not a hero.
All the assertions that GZ is no hero occurred before anyone said he was.
I still wouldn’t call him a hero, just a concerned citizen.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:38 pmI’m not saying he is a hero, just that it’s not unreasonable to call him one. He did put himself at risk for the benefit of his neighbours, after all.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:39 pmAngela Corey’s pet Medical Examiner who testified the injuries to Zimmerman’s head were “insignificant” not only owes her job to Corey’a recommendation but she admitted she never examined either TraMar or GZ. She reached her conclusions, which were highly supportive of the prosecution’s case, by looking at pictures.
Which means she lacks any direct experience on which to base an opinion and should never have been called to testify about the significance, or lack thereof, of GZ injuries. It’s a clear indication the prosecution is desperate and now crossing the line into blatant misconduct.
ropelight (03df4c) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:40 pmFor everyone who thinks GZ is at fault for “creating” the situation:
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-proper-focus
I guess it’s Deputy Rankin’s fault for creating a situation with a dangerous thug when he only thought he was dealing with a suspicious individual.
Cops have no more right to provoke people than anyone else.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:44 pmBTW, is the dismissal of the police investigator’s testimony something that can be used in an immediate appeal, or on an appeal upon conviction?
The part about believing Zimmerman? Neither. The jury decides credibility, the investigator’s opinion is irrelevant at best.
nk who knows the concept of zero and negative numbers (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:44 pmYes, I lock my house. But if I don’t lock my house, that doesn’t give anyone the right to enter it without my permission. And if someone does enter my house without my permission, I’d be well within my rights to shoot him.
I really expected better arguments from you, Dana.
Chuck Bartowski (7c7e89) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:47 pmAre there any actual rules regarding testimony and evidence in Florida or are they just making this up as they go along?
Watching the state make its case (and I’m including the judge in that category) reminds me of playing checkers with a 3 year old. The rules say they win.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:47 pmCops have no more right to provoke people than anyone else.
Comment by Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:44 pm
Cops have a duty to provoke people acting suspiciously and they have a duty not to retreat from the possibility. Don’t equate Zimmerman to policeman. Zimmerman would have to do more than eat three dozen donuts a day to achieve that status.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:49 pmMilhouse and Steve57–I was just acknowledging that after I threw down the gauntlet to the Dana, Milhouse obliged Dana and kind of kneecapped my argument even as I was typing it. I do not believe that people here view Z as a hero in the traditional meaning, which is the rather serious point I wanted the Dana to see. But I felt compelled to acknowledge that Milhouse used the H. word because that’s what honest posters should do, I think.
elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:50 pm*from the possibility of force* although *from the possibility of provoking people acting suspiciously* is good too.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:50 pm, but that does not somehow make Mr Zimmerman a hero,
I suppose it is too much to ask to show where anyone is portraying him as a hero here?
JD (51d3cd) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:51 pmBut that does not mean that Mr Zimmerman did not create the situation in the first place.
Comment by The very precise Dana (3e4784) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:37 am
You know, I could get quite perturbed at the suggestion that someone watching out for his neighborhood “created” a situation.
This is the crap that infuriates me. … People believing and stating that in their opinion he is innocent of the charges [of murder] against him and that he has been the victim of a witch hunt is hardly the same thing as painting him as a hero. You used to fight fair and comment with dignity Dana, What has happened?
Comment by elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:19 pm
I don’t understand Dana’s insistence on this either.
The notion that Zimmerman hadn’t yet suffered “serious” enough injuries to warrant using deadly force is rather Orwellian.
What was he supposed to do—-wait until he was unconscious ?
Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:30 pm
You must have missed my definitive answer:
Let me see, note to self, before I use a gun to defend myself, wait until level of consciousness is reduced from either brain trauma or blood loss to show I had reason to fear for my life.
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:06 am
Altered consciousness, but not altered enough that you can’t think straight.
A fine line.
This thread has gone on too long.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:34 am
I think it is not only Z getting beaten, but also a dead horse.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:52 pmNevermind. It is still BS. That is the same crap Surls used to do, accuse people of worshipping their hero GZ
JD (51d3cd) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:53 pm448-
askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:57 pmMy question, nk, is about the judge’s actions in not letting the jury consider that testimony, not the veracity of the testimony itself.
Angela Corey’s pet Medical Examiner who testified the injuries to Zimmerman’s head were “insignificant” not only owes her job to Corey’a recommendation but she admitted she never examined either TraMar or GZ. She reached her conclusions, which were highly supportive of the prosecution’s case, by looking at pictures.
Comment by ropelight (03df4c) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:40 pm
The person should have their license for practicing medicine, even if “only” forensic pathology, taken away.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 12:58 pmReally, they should. This is like the Nifong of medical examiners and I hope the Medical Board is paying attention.
We’ll probably find out she’s a Veterinarian.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:00 pmPam Bondi and Angela Corey are making George Zimmerman the face of wrongful prosecution, they’re making him the poster boy for what a victim of official persecution looks like.
Zimmerman may not be a hero, but standing up to being railroaded by the State of Florida’s legal system is damn sure approaching the heroic.
ropelight (03df4c) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:01 pmA closed head in jury can be fatal without any external evidence.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:01 pmLicense to practice taken away, sanctioned by professional societies, sued for malpractice-
Z can now pay his legal fees.
Instead of reaching for his gun, why didn’t this George Zimmerman person just call The Dana for advice ?
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:06 pmaskeptic, I thought the only part that was stricken was whether the investigator believed Zimmerman. Was there more? In any event, the only interlocutory appeals by the defense that I know of are double jeopardy and disqualification of defense counsel. Everything else waits final judgment.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:08 pmin jury; injurygotta go, later…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:09 pmEven a vet should know that closed head wounds can be fatal.
One of the most puzzling things to me about this is how Zimmerman was allowed not to go to the hospital for a checkup. All sorts of damages that don’t show up five minutes after you get smacked upside the head, but are screamingly obvious a half-hour or half-day later.
htom (412a17) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:09 pmI didn’t see the basis of the prosecution’s motion but a witness can’t invade the province of the jury – and saying that you “believe” the defendant is just that.
Not a big problem, in a way, the prosecution only reemphasized that testimony, and the fact that he said it can’t be erased from the jury’s minds. Further, the defense can still argue his other comments about him not finding any contradictory evidence to Zimmerman’s story.
SPQR (768505) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:10 pm“I suppose it is too much to ask to show where anyone is portraying him as a hero here?”
JD – Zimmerman is a skinhead Nazi speed freak.
Good times, good times.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:10 pmBeldar @ 410: I would love to agree with your last point about a directed verdict……BUT……what odds would you give that this judge watches the news media and would NEVER subject themself to the vitriol of that same media with a directed verdict???
reff (76c56f) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:11 pmApparently the medical examiner has had troubles in the past, as O’Mara pointed out (Warning: there is a video at the link that may autoplay):
http://www.news4jax.com/news/more-complaints-on-jacksonville-medical-examiner-dr-valerie-rao/-/475880/20640256/-/rurvpcz/-/index.html
In any case, O’Mara destroyed her insinuations that Zimmerman’s injuries were consistent with being hit only one time. Instead, she admitted there were scenarios where Zimmerman could have sustained those same wounds by being hit multiple times.
The ME’s testimony also proves that Zimmerman was the one being beaten, not Trayvon.
Multiple people on this thread have explained and linked to explanations that the resulting injuries do not matter to the self-defense case, but that the fear of bodily harm does.
ratbeach (f5aad4) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:28 pmBTW, zimmer is German for room. A Zimmerman is a man who makes rooms, a carpenter. Your kitchen is a cooking zimmer and you sleep in a bed zimmer.
ropelight (03df4c) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:29 pmDustin, thanks for the kind words. Your comment above (#414 — 7/2/2013 @ 11:40 am) prompted me to look into the ruling regarding Serino’s testimony this morning. I haven’t seen the video, but if the description of what happened from Andrew Branca is correct, I’m also quite surprised by that ruling.
IMHO (as a lawyer but one neither admitted in FL nor a regular practitioner of criminal law): It is a material error by the trial judge, but an appellate court is likely to deem it harmless even if Zimmerman is convicted.
Throughout the defense lawyer’s cross-examination of Serino yesterday, the defense lawyer asked — without objection by the prosecution — for Serino’s opinion as to Zimmerman’s state of mind at various times and throughout the investigation: Did you think he was truthful? Did you think he was hiding anything?
When offered for the purpose of proving what Zimmerman’s state of mind was, those questions are wildly improper under Anglo-American rules of evidence going back centuries. No one but Zimmerman is legally competent as a witness who can give direct evidence as to Zimmerman’s state of mind. No one else has the capacity to know and report upon Zimmerman’s state of mind on the first-hand basis required as a fundamental basis for witness competency.
What police officers can do, and routinely do, is observe objective actions and inactions on the part of the suspects they’re questioning, and then those police officers can and do testify about those facts. “Did he hesitate?” “Was his face flushed?” “Would he meet your gaze directly?” Those questions all go to objective facts, as to which the investigator may be competent to testify.
And juries can, do, and should consider those sort of objective facts as circumstantial evidence from which they (the jurors) can draw their own ultimate conclusions as to Zimmerman’s state of mind. They will be so instructed in the court’s charge to the jury.
I used the term “oath-helper” above. Many centuries ago, the law of evidence was the opposite of what it is today. An individual was considered to be disqualified — on grounds of obvious bias and self-interest — from testifying about his own state of mind and intent. Instead, the only way either side could prove that was by calling “oath-helpers”: those who knew the actor, who would swear that “I know Joe the Miller’s son, and I’m very certain that he’s the sort of boy who could and would deliberately turn Daisey into a newt! He’s thought about that on many occasions!”
But we haven’t permitted that for centuries.
That said:
It may be that what Serino thought about Zimmerman’s truthfulness may be relevant for some one or more limited purposes. By definition, those cannot include showing that Zimmerman really was truthful or evasive or whatever. But if there’s some really good reason why it’s important for the jury to know what Serino thought about Zimmerman’s state of mind, then Serino’s testimony might be relevant for that.
And that’s clearly how defense counsel was, at least initially, trying to nibble around the edges of this subject.
The whole line of questioning about “challenge interviews” was intended to create a factual predicate for why the jury ought to care, one way or another, about whether Serino did or didn’t believe Zimmerman. It was intended by the defense to create a framework from which it could argue as follows:
“Judge, for the jury to understand the full context of the police investigation, the jury has to understand why the investigators chose to do some things, and why they chose not to do others. The prosecution has already opened the door to all this on direct, and now I’m entitled to complete the story. The prosecution brought out on direct that Investigator Serino decided, for example, not to arrange a longer or more rigorous or confrontational ‘challenge interview’ with Mr. Zimmerman. But the prosecution never let Serino explain why he did that. In defending Mr. Zimmerman, I should be allowed to show why Investigator Serino made the decision he did. And if he made that decision based on his own, that is, Investigator Serino’s own personal and subjective evaluation of Mr. Zimmerman’s truthfulness, that’s relevant to explain the context of the investigation — what it did and didn’t include, and just as importantly, why. And you can give a limiting instruction.”
So the judge would allow the question and answer about what Serino thought Zimmerman was thinking, but the judge would tell the jury that they should only consider that testimony from Serino for the limited purpose of explaining how the investigation took place, and that Serino’s judgment about Zimmerman’s truthfulness is no evidence either way as to Zimmerman’s real state of mind, which will be for the jurors to decide at the end of the case.
That is roughly how this ought to have been handled.
But you only have that discussion and ruling and limiting instruction if the prosecution has first made a timely objection to the question which calls for Serino to opine about Zimmerman’s state of mind.
If you don’t object, you waive your objection.
Perhaps in bench conferences or other pretrial proceedings, the prosecution team had raised this issue and had somehow gotten a “running objection.”
But this — the basic rules of witness competency and testimony — is the kind of thing that law school moot court students are expected to know and understand by their second week.
It’s a bizarre trial.
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:33 pmOh: Apologies for leaving this out of what was an already way-too-long comment:
Unless there’s something that saves the prosecution from having waived its objections by failing to make them timely (during the testimony), then the judge’s ruling today, and her statement to the jury striking that testimony, was error.
But since the objection should have been sustained if it had been timely made — i.e., because the testimony (as presented, without limiting instruction) was incompetent — then the defendant can’t complain that he was improperly convicted on that basis.
And being deprived of the chance to offer Serino’s opinion of Zimmerman’s state of mind for the limited purpose of explaining the scope of the investigation would be deemed too collateral an issue to count as a reversible error.
Just a guess. Apologies again for the Beldar Wall-o’-Text™.
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:37 pmBeldar, and everytime something “bizarre” happens from the bench, it aids the prosecution.
SPQR (768505) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:38 pmWhoa, has anyone else seen this? Is this old news?
The Sac Bee is reporting that Corey has been indicted by a grand jury: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/02/5539380/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey.html
The article claims it happened last week, but I’m only finding links to sources today.
ratbeach (f5aad4) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:40 pmMr Stone wrote:
That’s just it: he did. In real life, ’twas a dispatcher instead of me who answered the phone:
Had he actually followed the dispatcher’s advice, which was very similar to what The Dana’s advice would have been, he wouldn’t be on trial, and he wouldn’t be facing the possibility of spending the rest of his life behind bars. Even if he is acquitted, his life will probably have been ruined. He has made himself virtually unemployable.
I very much hope that you don’t think that Mr Zimmerman took a wise decision to continue to follow Mr Martin.
The very realistic Dana (3e4784) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:46 pmratbeach, read carefully. That’s BS from Klayman. There is no such thing as a “citizen’s grand jury”.
SPQR (768505) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:46 pm@474 ratbeach — My limited understanding is that that’s a political action group, not a real grand jury.
htom (412a17) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:47 pmBeldar, you make more sense when you’re being long-winded than most commenters, me included, do on a good day.
ropelight (03df4c) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:48 pmI saw that link, ratbeach. It refers to a “Citizens’ Grand Jury”. There’s no such thing (or, at least, no such thing that carries any legal weight).
Chuck Bartowski (7c7e89) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:48 pmAnd had Trayvon Martin not reacted with violence when none was called for, he’d still be alive, and Zimmerman wouldn’t be on trial.
You keep posting that Zimmerman “created” the situation. I disagree: it was created when Martin attacked, not a moment before.
Chuck Bartowski (7c7e89) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:50 pmYou keep posting that Zimmerman “created” the situation. I disagree: it was created when Martin attacked, not a moment before.
This
JD (51d3cd) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:57 pmSome elementary understanding of the concept of Proximate Cause might help to clarify the issue of who caused what, although I have my doubts.
(From the Free Legal Dictionary, on-line)
ropelight (03df4c) — 7/2/2013 @ 1:58 pmErr, the proximate cause of a human death in this case was penetrating trauma from a gunshot.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:05 pmBeldar, thank you for your extensive, and highly concise, explanation of what did, or should have, transpired.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:14 pmWhat was the proximate cause of the physical combat?
ropelight (03df4c) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:14 pmA full moon. Proximate cause is a civil torts concept. You do not see it in criminal law. There is an act and there is a state of mind. The consequences of that act, under that state of mind, are punishable.
nk (875f57) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:20 pmOh, The Dana, you’re so good on so many issues.
But hey, even Michael Jordan had an occasional bad game where he shot airballs.
George Zimmerman is not on trial for following or not following Trayvon Martin. Neither is he on trial for abiding by what was asked of him by the dispatcher.
Rather, he is on trial for the question of whether or not he used justifiable force in ending the MMA beating he was receiving by the hands of Trayvon Martin.
When one is being pummelled like that, one’s adrenaline is running high and the notion of “fight or flight” kicks in.
When one is on one’s back and getting pounded upon one’s head and face, one has a mere few seconds to make an informed decision about how to end the beating one is receiving. It is not the time to consult the editorial page of the NY Times—it is about self-preservation.
Zimmerman had two choices on the menu—
call the editorial page of the NY Timestake the beating or end the beating by overpowering Martin. Apparently, Zimmerman couldn’t overpower Martin, so he pulled the trigger on his gun and ended the imminent threat to his own life.You can play Monday Morning Quarterback all you want, but George Zimmerman had to act very quickly (while he was still conscious) without the benefit of a TV timeout or instant replay or a consultation with the officiating crew.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:23 pmHe had to act to preserve the threat to his own life, and I believe he did so justifiably.
Exactly.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:25 pmIsn’t it a matter of professional judgment? He interrogates all sorts of people all the time, and most of them lie to him, so if in his professional estimation Zim was telling the truth that should count for something.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:27 pmIt’s a “citizens’ grand jury”. There’s no such thing. In other words, the story is bulldust. Larry Klayman is a nut.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:30 pmMay 28th:
The judge ruled that George Zimmerman’s defense team cannot mention Trayvon Martin’s suspension from school.
Today:
Prosecutors asked the judge to allow them to introduce school records showing Zimmerman took a class that addressed Florida’s self-defense law.
— Can’t talk about Trayvon breaking the law in school, but we can talk about Zimmerman learning the law in school? Well, of course, because Zimmerman only learned the law just so he could attempt to skirt around it … later on … or something.
Not quite sure how they’re going to convict Z of Murder2 by putting the self-defense law itself on trial.
Icy (940358) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:35 pmWith all the trepidation about the aftermath of a possible acquittal, I’m glad I never emptied all of the full mags I have in close proximity to my Personal Defense Weapon (spent a full evening during the R.King Riots loading those babies).
askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:39 pmBeldar, why can’t Serino testify about his own state of mind, viz Zimmerman having convinced him of his truthfulness. Or see Serino as a sort of expert in mendacity, and in his expert opinion Zimmerman is not mendacious.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:39 pmZimmerman took the beating fro about 30 to 45 seconds. He said that Taryvon spotted the gun.
Now the only reason he wasn’t injured more is he was able
1) To get to the grass from the sidewalk.
2) To slow down the speed at which his head hit the sidewalk or grass.
The closer he was to the ground the harder it was.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:42 pmHe says he did follow the advice. What basis do you have for doubting his word?
But suppose he hadn’t. He still shouldn’t be on trial, and the fact that he is on trial is a travesty. So the predicate cause for his being on trial would not be his alleged disregard of the dispatcher’s advice, but Khouri’s craven decision to try him.
Supposing he made such a decision, I wouldn’t call it prudent, but I might call it brave, going beyond what’s required of him in order to do the right thing. If it had occurred to him that he was endangering himself and yet he had chosen to do it, I might even call it heroic. On what basis would you disagree with that?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:44 pmOops, my fingers typed “predicate” instead of “proximate”
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:45 pmMilhouse, Sorino can testify about his own state of mind when and if his own state of mind is relevant. Sorino’s state of mind might be relevant to explain why the investigators did or didn’t do something, if that action or inaction by the investigators is important for some reason (and arguably here it is). But testimony from Sorino about what Sorino’s state of mind was at various stages of Sorino’s interactions with Zimmerman is not competent evidence to prove what Zimmerman’s state of mind was.
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:47 pmBah. Mangled that last sentence, which ought to have read: “But testimony from Sorino about what Zimmerman’s state of mind was at various stages of Sorino’s interactions with Zimmerman is not competent evidence to prove what Zimmerman’s state of mind was.”
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:51 pmaskeptic, I think that there are elements in the MSM that want a riot upon an acquittal.
SPQR (60ba58) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:52 pmOr better:
“But testimony from Sorino about what Sorino’s state of mind was regarding Zimmerman’s state of mind at various stages of their interactions is not competent evidence to prove what Zimmerman’s state of mind was.”
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:53 pmTrying again: Beldar, why can’t the question go like this: Mr Sorino, you interrogated Mr Zimmerman several times, investigated him, and tried several ways to challenge his story. You have a lot of experience doing that with all sorts of suspect, many of whom have turned out to be guilty, but some of whom have turned out to be innocent. Is that not correct? Are liars not constantly trying things out on you, and are you not wise to their ways? Given that experience and expertise, what opinion did you form of Mr Zimmerman’s veracity in the story he told you and how he reacted to your questioning? In your professional opinion, was he telling the truth?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:55 pmI also found this . . . ‘curious’:
Late in the morning the prosecution called Mark Osterman, a federal air marshal who described Zimmerman as “the best friend I’ve ever had.”
He testified that he spoke with Zimmerman both the night of and the day after the shooting. Osterman later wrote a book about his recollections of what Zimmerman told him.
Under questioning by de la Rionda, Osterman said that Zimmerman told him Martin had grabbed his gun during their struggle, but that Zimmerman was able to pull it away.
That account is different from what Zimmerman told investigators in multiple interviews when he only said it appeared Martin was reaching for his gun prior to the shooting. He never told police the teen grabbed it.
“I thought he had said he grabbed the gun,” Osterman said. “I believe he said he grabbed the gun.”
— So, either way this demonstrates a consistent story that Trayvon was grabbing for the gun, but the prosecution somehow thinks they can use the ‘inconsistency’ of whether or not he actually ‘grabbed it’ as a means of discrediting Zimmerman’s statement? of casting ‘reasonable doubt’ as to whether or not Trayvon was grabbing for the gun at all?
Sounds to me like a fairly thin & desperate line of attack on the part of the prosecution.
Icy (940358) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:00 pmAlso, to respond to this question from my friend Milhouse ():
Do you really want to live in a society in which we permit the opinions of the police to be the basis for conviction, when those opinions are about what was or wasn’t inside someone else’s head? That quickly breaks down into, “Trust me, you should convict him because I’m a policeman and I know about these kind of things.”
No, there are excellent reasons why the Anglo-American rules of evidence have long prevented that kind of testimony.
The rules don’t prevent lawyers from nibbling around the edges, which is probably all defense counsel expected to get away with. He ought at best have expected just a little bit of wiggle room in adducing this testimony from Sorino for a limited purpose (why the scope of the investigation was what it was), with a limiting instruction (“Jurors, you must not consider the investigators’ evaluations of Zimmerman’s credibility for any purpose other than explaining the scope of the investigation, and it ought not influence you on your own decisionmaking regarding Zimmerman’s intentions and state of mind”), and very briefly (“Move along, counsel.”)
What’s incredible to me is that the prosecution never objected. If I were grading a law school mock trial, I’d flunk a student for that.
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:02 pmYou can’t even ask a psychiatrist “In your professional opinion was he telling the truth?”
Whether someone was or wasn’t telling the truth we leave to juries. There is no profession — not the police, not headshrinks, not lawyers, not spiritualists — who are competent to give opinion evidence on someone else’s truthfulness.
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:05 pmWe don’t allow machines to directly tell a jury whether or not the defendant is telling the truth, why people?
SPQR (60ba58) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:10 pm“…elements in the MSM that want a riot upon an acquittal…”
They need to be careful about what they ask for…
askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:19 pmsome of SoCal’s “finest” were caught in the cross-fire during the R.King “Insurrection”, they all had a very negative opinion about the experience.
@SPQR, htom, and Chuck Bartowski
Thanks for clarifying – I should have picked up on the “citizen grand jury” part. It seemed fishy since others were not picking up the story, though there has been much discussion about wrongdoings by Corey.
ratbeach (91b261) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:20 pmaskeptic, I can tell you that when the jury verdict is expected to be announced, I intend to be very very far away from any streets named “MLK”.
SPQR (60ba58) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:25 pmI’m using the term consistently as opposed to how the people who accuse GZ of provoking TM are using it.
In Texas an individual can claim self-defense against a police officer if the police officer uses unlawful force.
Cops have no more right to use unlawful force than anyone else (in many states but not all). Since that’s the only way GZ could have provoked TM, i.e. used or threatened the use of unlawful force, then in that sense cops have no more right to provoke people than other citizens.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:26 pmThis should have preceded subsection (2):
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:28 pmSPQR, I programmed Ms. Garmin to avoid all streets designated as MLK; she wouldn’t let me out of the parking lot.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:34 pmaskeptic, that joke went over my head.
SPQR (60ba58) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:37 pmI think Chris Rock had an ironic riff on the subject,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:46 pmBeldar — what do you think tactically of the idea of going to the judge this morning with a motion to strike the question and answer, where the practical impact of doing so is that the judge has the question and answer read back so they hear it again, then tells them to no consider what they’ve just heard for a second time?
Sometimes as a prosecutor its better to let that stuff go and then ARGUE in closing that the opinion is entitle to no weight or consideration for all the policy reasons you’ve articulated.
But to call attention to it the way they did only leads me to again conclude these clowns have no idea what they are doing.
shipwreckedcrew (5de044) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:46 pmThe medical examiner, said that Zimmerman’s account of the fight cannot be true as he sustained very minor injuries
I think this is what the prosecution was banking on, this is why she was at the end and they got the weak but necessary witnesses out there first.
No or slight injuries, really no witnesses for the whole thing, not a good sign for the GZ easy acquittal team.
this whole thing is a ness
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:51 pmEPWJ, your concern troll act got old years ago.
SPQR (60ba58) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:53 pmshipwreckedcrew, my reaction was exactly the same as yours (#514 — 7/2/2013 @ 3:46 pm). They’ve created a potential appeal issue for Zimmerman (although I think ultimately not a winning one). They’ve reemphasized the testimony — and thereby highlighted to the jury the importance of that testimony, regardless of what the judge says. And in exchange, they gotten what was in effect no better than a limiting instruction would have been, but delivered so late as to be meaningless. Almost the worst of all worlds, and entirely self-inflicted.
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:59 pmI posted this on another thread. Two Russian contenders for the IBF light heavyweight title, Sergey Kovalev and Roman Simakov, squared off in Ekaterinaberg in December 2011. Sergey knocked Roman down in the sixth round. Here’s what happened in the seventh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8epwlcUc2zU
Kovalev knocked Simakov down again; Simakov got back up but within a few seconds lapsed into a coma from which he never regained consciousness, and died three days later. And there are no external injuries. The video is deceptive because even though Simakov had just as much brutal punching power as Kovalev does, he wasn’t as good a boxer. It was the accumulation of blows he took during the fight and not just any one of those on the video that killed him.
I sure as hell wouldn’t wait until I had enough visible damage to satisfy any of the people dismissing GZ’s wounds as insignificant before using deadly force.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:01 pmComment by SPQR (60ba58) — 7/2/2013 @ 3:37 pm
White Liberal Guilt went a little bit overboard in renaming streets for the Rev. King.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:02 pmStreets and schools are better named for Dr. King than for Barack H. Obama in my opinion.
elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:06 pmMilhouse wrote:
Considering the result of the incident, something clearly not in dispute, it’s pretty difficult to call it anything other than foolish.
Of course, Mr Zimmerman couldn’t know, in advance, what the end would be, but he was advised, by the 911 dispatcher, that the police did not need him to continue to follow Mr Martin. He took a real risk, against the advice of the professionals, and it sure did turn out badly.
The question you raise is the proper one: was it the right thing for Mr Zimmerman to do to continue to follow Mr Martin? He called the police, and was told, by a (supposedly) trained dispatcher that the police did not need him to continue taking the action he indicated he was taking. The police were supposed to be on the way, meaning that Mr Zimmerman knew that people trained to handle these things were coming, yet he decided to continue to keep his untrained self in the situation. Had he seen some evidence that Mr Martin was about to commit a crime of violence against another individual, it would have been the right thing to do to try to stop that, but all he saw was a man he believed to be suspicious, possibly casing the place, but not taking any actions which presented an imminent threat to anybody. Stupidity is not bravery, it’s just stupidity.
The Dana who examines the facts (af9ec3) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:08 pmSenatus Populusque Romanus wrote:
Want, or simply expect? I certainly don’t want one, but I’d bet a case of Mountain Dew that we get one.
The inquisitive Dana (af9ec3) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:11 pmInquisitive Dana, I think that not reporting on the weaknesses of the prosecution’s case by MSM is going to contribute to rioting if there is an acquittal. I think that’s deliberate.
SPQR (60ba58) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:13 pmI’m pretty sure the state lacking evidence means reasonable doubt to their charges.
I also am pretty sure I’ve seen photo proof that “no injuries” is not a fair way to describe his injuries.
Of course, it is not correct that someone has to show any injuries to claim self defense. The state’s case includes a witness who says she thinks it’s possibly George wouldn’t have survived without his defense. The state’s case has conceded that this was so serious an attack that George may not have survived.
Dustin (4b596e) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:22 pmYet another reason why prosecutors routinely present self-defense and other justification claims to grand juries is because grand jury proceedings are secret. That secrecy has long and deep historical roots, and it serves a variety of different policies. For purposes of this context, though, with a potentially unpopular defendant being hounded by metaphorical and quite literal mobs, though, our forefathers were quite content with permitting secret proceedings of responsible citizens, acting together on sworn evidence and their own oaths, the power to free that defendant without fear of compulsion or reprisal.
Relying on a grand jury to “no-bill” on the basis of self-defense — as compared to leaving it to the trial (petit) jury to return a “not guilty” verdict — avoids a public trial that there’s insufficient evidence to justify even holding in the first place.
That’s how, and where, and when, this case ought to have been resolved. It wasn’t, and the reason for that is the most crass and shameful of racial politics.
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:23 pmHe didn’t, very uninformed Dana.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c9_1372546233
The Zimmerman reenactment video.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:27 pmdustin,
He was described by a highly respected national reputed chief medical examiner as a liar, that he sustained very minor injuries and not consistent with his story.
Its over
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:27 pmZimmerman was acting in his capacity as a member of Neighborhood Watch, which mostly operates under the same guidelines as Un-armed Security, where the watchword is to Observe & Report.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:27 pmWell, he was Observing by following TM, and he was Reporting by calling the Police Dispatcher.
Comment by elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:06 pm
Exactly!
askeptic (b8ab92) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:30 pmWell about that witness;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3038359/posts
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:42 pmSome further details;
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-06-27/story/jacksonville-medical-examiner-has-history-controversy
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:44 pmActually, it’s remarkable she was ever hired here;
http://search.lubbockonline.com/fast-elements.php?type=standard&profile=lubbock&querystring=%22VALERIE%20RAO%22
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 4:47 pmnarcisco,
sheriffs arguing with coroners? never ever been heard – shocking!!!!!!!!!!!
omg, quick someone tell all the medical examiners that they need to ask the country bumpkin sheriffs how and when the person died and forget decades of experience
again happens all the time
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:01 pmE.PWJ, isn’t it looooong past time you left this blog community?
Nobody is buying your act anymore.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:10 pmIt is striking how deep the fraud, isn’t it Steve,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:16 pmHeadline at Mediate: “As George Zimmerman Prosecution Implodes, A Media Invested In His Guilt Grows More Shrill”
Icy (f16d87) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:23 pm— Wheels coming off?
Yes, narciso, it is.
http://www.fox30jax.com/content/topstories/story/Former-employee-speaks-out-about-medical-examiner/fOK-GYLiMESM11Hjs5EpzQ.cspx
Highly respected, indeed.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:23 pmsteve57
Happyfeet has a problem, you are an enabler of that.
But from someone who mocks and scorns the death of a aviator in the line of duty – your personal character was established by yourself long ago – nothing to see here
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:25 pmFasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.
elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:32 pmE.PWJ:
The reason it’s not “over” is that everyone on the jury knows that (with a very few exceptions like Evil Knievel or G. Gordon Liddy or Mike Tyson) someone who calls a broken nose a “very minor injury” is simply lying. I imagine they were all sitting there thinking “it’s easy to call it ‘very minor’ when it’s not your nose that’s being broken or your head being bashed on the concrete”.
The fact that the prosecution didn’t call the medical examiner who did the actual medical examination of Zimmerman should also make them raise their eyebrows.
Dr. Weevil (40c627) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:33 pmIsn’t that odd, Doc, it’s almost as if the fix were in,:
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:35 pmSteve57
Autopsy rooms can be contaminated and with time sensitive procedures washing off your body in a sink is a not unheard of practice.
Especially in backwater jurisdictions where budgets for gloves, protective clothing, paper shoes, proper instruments are lacking for the volume many of these small municipalities have.
not a good day for Z.
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:43 pmEPW Idiot, I not only didn’t scorn LT Hultgreen’s death I said the Navy was culpable for causing it. She’d be alive today if the training command had listened to her flight instructor instead of listening to the CNO directing them to beat the Air Froce and put a woman in a fighter cockpit first.
As a matter of fact the relevant officers admitted exactly that when they were deposed during the course of Lohrenz v. Donnelly. In which former Navy LT Carey Lohrenz sued
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness for libel for stating the only reason she passed flight school was due to affirmative action.
Lohrenz’s case against Donnelly was dismissed. Donnelly was greatly aided by the testimony of former and serving naval officers who admitted that they lowered standards for women due to pressure from DC. That and the fact Lohrenz flunked carrier qualification while attempting to get aboard the Abraham Lincoln. The air operations officer, a man I know, finally had to send her ashore because she was a danger to herself and others.
Lohrenz didn’t get to kill herself and other crewmembers because other people stopped her. She wouldn’t stop herself. She wouldn’t even listen to the LSO. Any potential naval aviator who doesn’t follow the LSO’s instructions does not in fact deserve to be a naval aviator.
Something that the flight instructors said about Hultgreen. She’d be alive today, or rather she wouldn’t have been killed in that particular accident, had the Navy
So in addition to being tired of your act I believe we’re all tired of your lies.
You really do argue like a psychotic ex-girlfriend. There is no limit to the number of subjects you don’t know a thing about that you’re unwilling to distort and become hysterical over. You are well past the point of earning nothing but contempt and mockery.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:47 pmHe was described by a highly respected national reputed chief medical examiner as a liar, that he sustained very minor injuries and not consistent with his story.
Its over
Someone got into the wacky weed again. This synopsis is wrong on soooooooo many levels.
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:49 pmYes, contaminated. Which is why its not a good idea to perform procedures without gloves, let alone eat in the autopsy room.
Two other complaints among a long list of others against Corey’s pet ME.
And Jacksonville FL isn’t a backwater.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:49 pmThe jury, while sequestered now, were living in America and could not have been oblivious to the outsized hue and cry at the time of the shooting and the wall to wall national coverage of a local “crime” story which was so strongly weighted against Zimmerman. The trajectory of the actual trial they are witnessing must quite a surprise for them in that regard. It’s called cognitive dissonance. I hope they know how to deal with it.
elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:52 pmDR weevil
his nose was not broken. This is the problem, we get imperfect information, like he was beaten, um, no he wasn’t. Trayvon was acting suspicious, only Z reported that.
Trayvon punched him and threw him to the ground, again, only Z we have his word for it.
A witness maybe 10seconds and saw no blows couldn’t have, it was raining, and it was dark.
Then one shot, dead kid.
This case sucks because you have a guy who disobeyed an order from a law enforcement official and confronted someone while being armed
We still don’t know what happened and never ever will. One thing is certain, Z lied about getting his head slammed repeatedly on the concrete.
Of course everyone’s going to say hey that’s not true – but its the end all of this
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:52 pm* had the Navy acted with any amount of regard for her life and the lives of those around her.*
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:52 pmShe evaluated GZ by looking at pictures?
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:54 pmMore lies. Is that the first thing they teach you at the Psychotic Ex-Girlfriend School of Logic and Argumentation?
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:54 pmYes, JD, that’s how she did it.
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:56 pmhis nose was not broken. This is the problem, we get imperfect information,
So you know better than the doctor that actually treated him?
“We” get imperfect information?!?!?! You seem to have the market cornered on that.
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:56 pmAutopsy rooms can be contaminated and with time sensitive procedures washing off your body in a sink is a not unheard of practice.
Not in the sink used for be autopsy. Good Allah.
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:57 pmsteve57
Impugning a highly trained medical professional doesn’t negate the fact that Z said his head was being repeatedly slammed onto concrete and that’s why he acted.
tiny dribbles of blood on his bare head from 2 bandaid worthy booboos.
They didn’t need any medical professionals
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:58 pmTrayvon punched him and threw him to the ground, again, only Z we have his word for it.
And the injuries sustained by GZ consistent with his version.
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:58 pmOK E.PWJ fuck you. You are a lying piece of shit: the proverbial turd in Patterico’s otherwise-delicious punchbowl. How many times do you have to be reminded that “You don’t have to do that” is NOT NOT NOT an order not to do that? When you write that GZ “disobeyed an order from a law enforcement official” you are simply lying. The rest of what you write is at best shamefully tendentious crap. Do you get paid to write what you write, or do you wallow in filth just for the joy of ruining a better man’s site?
Dr. Weevil (40c627) — 7/2/2013 @ 5:59 pmA witness maybe 10seconds and saw no blows couldn’t have, it was raining, and it was dark.
His testimony was that he saw many blows being delivered in an MMA ground and pound fashion. If you were to be accurate LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL you would note be said be did not see the actual point of impact.
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:01 pmThis case sucks because you have a guy who disobeyed an order from a law enforcement official and confronted someone while being armed
Since when did civilian dispatch operators become law enforcement officials?
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:02 pmShe had to. She’s the ME for Duval county up by the border with Georgia.
Sanford is in Seminole county down by Orlando. So she isn’t even the ME who did the autopsy on TM.
I guess Corey couldn’t count on the ME in Seminole county doing her bidding.
And what the hey is an ME doing opining on a living person’s injuries anyway?
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:03 pmOne thing is certain, Z lied about getting his head slammed repeatedly on the concrete.
Okay, I will bite. How are you certain of this? His injuries are consistent with his version. Even the police thought so.
You literally had a mistake, lie, or outright fabrication in every “paragraph” of that comment.
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:04 pmJD
Eh, from a guy who to the bitter end believe that Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test – cause his lawyer said so….
his nose wasn’t broken, it was a tiny bit bloody, tender, but not broken.
Scream away tonight guys – its over – I really thought Z had contusions, lacerations, broken nose, blacken eyes, nope just a trickle, and two little scratches on his scalp
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:05 pmMSNBC Panel Concedes Prosecution’s Case Is Weak, ‘Little Hope’ Zimmerman Will Be Convicted
I.cy (f16d87) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:06 pmSteve – was she really appointed by Corey?
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:06 pmJD–There are prolly a bunch of other “highly respected national reputed chief medical examiner(s)” who can diagnose injuries from a picture too. I imagine the defense will be availing themselves of several of them.
elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:06 pmEh, from a guy who to the bitter end believe that Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test – cause his lawyer said so….
Jesus f@cking Christ you are a liar. That was not and is not and never will be my position.
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:07 pmWhat is E.PWJ’s evidence that GZ’s nose was not broken? Anything like the evidence that it was “a tiny bit bloody”? We’ve all seen the color picture: that more than a “tiny bit” of blood. So why does E.PWJ lie? Does he work for the prosecution? Or does he do it for pure love of lying?
Dr. Weevil (40c627) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:07 pmhis nose wasn’t broken, it was a tiny bit bloody, tender, but not broken.
Did you ask him? How do you presume to know better than the doctor that evaluated him?
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:08 pmThe point is it wasn’t Mr. Bao who was the medical examiner, yes she was JD, then Scott confirmed her for a permanent slot,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:08 pmLied in EWPWTFO’s world means, well, anything yo want it to mean according to the Psychotic Ex-Girlfriend’s School of Logic and Argumentation.
In this case it seems to mean that he “lied” because GZ’s story doesn’t match up to some idjit’s fabrications who never examined him.
Which means of course that the people who did examine him, such as Linzee Folgate are lying to as they’ve testified his story is consistent with receiving multiple blows.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:09 pmScream away tonight guys – its over –
The last time the village idiot claimed something was over was when he claimed Perry had the nomination wrapped up. Or was it when he claimed Dewhurst would easily beat Cruz? Or Scozafava was the conservative choice? Or the 2,000,000 jooooooooooos in Iran? Or Christians outnumbering Muslims in UAE? I get so confuzzled.
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:11 pmEric, do you know Dr. Rao personally? You seem to be extremely invested in this particular aspect of the trial.
elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:11 pmKRAY
KRAY
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:12 pmI hope they do. A parade of highly respected nationally reputed chief medical examiners testifying one after the other that not even a mediocre ME would testify about injuries to a person without examining them. To do so from pictures makes you wonder what Caribbean diploma mill gave Rao her medical degree.
Sort of like how the defense sound experts eviscerated the state’s supposed experts. Apparently they got a couple of part-time sound studio engineers when real experts laughed the prosecutors out of their labs.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:15 pmGo back a bit more than three years ago on this blog. EPWJ is the one that claimed that he had seen the cellphone video of the Border Patrol agent shooting at the youth at a border crossing. And that that video showed the agent pursuing the youth into Mexican territory to shoot them. EPWJ gave detailed descriptions of what the video showed …
When it showed no such thing. And it was clear that in fact EPWJ had never seen the actual video in question.
That’s the very long standing reputation of EPWJ as a dishonest concern troll.
SPQR (768505) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:18 pmIf his nose was broken he had the right to defend himself, and if it wasn’t broken then he didn’t have that right?
I.cy (f16d87) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:19 pmEPWJ is, was and always will be … a concern troll.
SPQR (768505) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:19 pmSeriously.
On the topic of EPWJ being a concern troll – Can I get an “AMEN!” from the audience?
SPQR (768505) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:23 pm‘So Say We All”
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:25 pmI forgot a out the throwing metaphorical pebbles being a death threat.
JD (620716) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:28 pmIf one actually … oh I don’t know … watches the video of the cross examination of Rao lets say. Then one sees the defense shred her credibility as she refuses to even acknowledge injuries in photos of Zimmerman that other medical people have already specifically noted and pointed out for the jury.
Rao might be “respected” in the concern trolls fetid imagination but not to anyone who paid attention to the cross examination. Now she’s a clown.
SPQR (768505) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:34 pmwhats a shame is that well meaning good people here, were used, played by this guy. The MSM is doing their best to make this a race issue, not caring what really happened, but used this as just an in your face opportunity to seize guns and instances like this plays into their hands why couldn’t he just have stayed in the f’in truck.
but I was shocked at the pictures of his face – oh man a big fat nothing – a zero –
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:34 pmEPWTFO! is a brazen, congenital liar of a concern troll.
He said:
The exchange he’s referring to took place on this thread:
https://patterico.com/2013/04/04/rihanna-latest-swatting-victim/
And here’s me mocking and scorning LT Hultgreen’s death:
Clearly I have no respect for LT Hultgreen.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:35 pmI meant the last line sarcastically.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:37 pmEric if you keep this up Steve57 will be forced to bring out the big artillery and call you a clueless baby duck. Be forewarned. You are on very thin ice here.
elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:38 pmWhen I wrote the paragraph, I initially used the word “following,” but deliberately changed it to “stalking,” because it is precisely the word I intended to use and meaning I wished to convey.
Dana, “stalking” at best — or if used in an innocent manner — can be defined as “to pursue by tracking stealthily,” which one can say was what Zimmerman did with Martin. But that also reminds me of an English class I took years ago where a textbook’s brief definition of “wench” — and which was laughed at and derided by the teacher — was “young girl.”
Your cynicism about Zimmerman’s actions and activity plays straight into the hands of ambulance-chasing lawyers and money-grubbing spin doctors everywhere. It’s the reason people can be so easily manipulated and find themselves increasingly risk-averse (or a form of political correctness gone berserk), with feelings of “don’t get involved!” and “mind your own business or else you’ll be sued!”
In this thread, under this topic, I hereby bequeath you with the screen name of “The Nidal-Hasan-ized Dana.”
Mark (9b8d77) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:39 pmThat’s when I’m being nice, elissa.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:43 pmEPWJ is, was and always will be … a concern troll.
He merely is afflicted with what quite a few people throughout modern society are infected by: Compassion for compassion’s sake. That ailment is a major reason why I suspect he came under the spell and charms of Dede Scozzafava awhile back.
Mark (9b8d77) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:45 pmNo, Mark, look at the history of his comments in this thread alone. He plays this game of wavering back and forth until he picks a moment to say: “Aha! Now we see that I was right all along to be concerned!“.
Its a f’ing concern troll act.
SPQR (768505) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:48 pmaaand on to an easy thousand
But I got two emails from my Jakarta children, through pestilence, the govt not letting me in, volcanoes, 2 tsunami alerts, dengue fevers, 4 hour traffic jams, crazy household staff drivers that fall asleep while driving – they thrive without me, so everyone has apparently enjoyed my wisdom enough for the evening.
Have a good evening everyone.
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:48 pmROFL and the concern troll mimics brave Sir Robin.
SPQR (768505) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:49 pmSPQR
I am hardly an act, crazy, looney, self inflated, moronic, I admit but not an act.
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:50 pmOf course, an honest man would have answered some of the specific questions he’s been asked before signing off. I guess we’ll never know why he thinks GZ’s nose was not broken.
Dr. Weevil (40c627) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:03 pmOn the topic of EPWJ being a concern troll – Can I get an “AMEN!” from the audience?
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/2/2013 @ 6:23 pm
— More of a ‘concern idiot’.
I.cy (f16d87) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:11 pmAnn Althouse’s theory, which Steve57 posted above, is looking better (as in plausible, not ethical):
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:13 pmIts a f’ing concern troll act.
It’s actually worse than that, SPQR.
“Troll” implies a person isn’t really being honest with his opinions, but I think EPWJ and Dana are manifesting a major reason why our culture has become so deranged. So deranged that an anti-American, pro-Islamic-spouting extremist was tolerated by his fellow US military enlistees until a fateful day of murder and mayhem. Not much better is that chaplains in that same military now feel either restrained or forbidden from voicing something as basic and traditional as “marriage should be between a man and woman.”
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Mark (9b8d77) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:13 pmI am hardly an act, crazy, looney, self inflated, moronic, I admit but not an act.
— He’s more of a ‘method’ guy.
I.cy (f16d87) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:15 pmQ: Dr Rao, is it medically possible for severe injury to occur from even a single blow of the head to a concrete sidewalk?
A: Yes
Q: Well then, wouldn’t it be prudent for someone whose head is being bashed into a concrete sidewalk by another to stop the bashing immediately by any means possible?
Calfed (5b899d) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:16 pmE.PWJ….
GZ approaches TM, verbally confronts him, after civilain dispatcher tells him to get away. TM, surprised, scared, in an unknown area, backs away, verbally confusing comments from him. GZ, approaches again, and, TM, in fear, reacts, punching GZ once in the face. GZ falls, hits his head, causing a cut, and TM, in fear, jumps on top of him and begins to yell for help. GZ tells TM to get off, but TM does not. TM continues to yell fo help. (I know: I’m possibly twisting some facts here, but, bear with me.). Now, here it gets a bit more convoluted. TM is yelling for help, sitting on top of another man. Why is he yelling for help? Only two logical reasons: 1) he wants police/citizen help because he is in fear, or 2) he wants his friends to come to his aid. GM is on the ground, under a man he possibly already fears, and hears the man he fears calling for help, after being punched in the face by this man, the same man who won’t get off of him, and is now yelling for help. GZ knows the police are aware of him, and knowing they are possibly coming, has a new problem: why is this guy who punched me in the face and is sitting on me calling for help? Only two logical reasons: 1) he wants police/citizen help because he is in fear, or 2) he wants his friends to come to his aid. GM picks the latter, IN FEAR FOR HIS LIFE since TM has knocked him down, and is yelling for help (a logical conclusion because law-abiding citizens do not normally punch someone in the face and THEN yell for the police) and, in that fear, draws and shoots TM. I am assuming that the info for angle of trajectory and closeness of the shot match this scenario.
My question for you, E.PWJ, is how would this not be self-defense, justifiable homicide, and still meet all of your (ridiculous) points? I believe I have covered nearly all of them, using what I believe is acceptable versions of the same known evidence.
I await your meaningless response, but, at the same time, I condemn myself for feeding the concern troll.
Sincerely…..
reff who wants to be sincere like the Dana who,is sincere (4dcda2) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:18 pmBeldar, why can’t Serino testify about his own state of mind…
Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/2/2013 @ 2:39 pm
Whether Serino can testify in court about his own state of mind or not, the state of mind for various others could use some consideration…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:42 pmThis trial is a travesty, and the best you can say for the prosecution is that they are conducting it in a manner calculated to lead to justice — i.e., wholly incompetently and in a way that serves the defense.
Our host
That is an interesting thought. But I would never trust a jury to do the right thing with my limited jury experience.
So, do some really think the prosecution went along because they were forced to from above and are doing their best to show the faults of an already bad case?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:50 pmI don’t think they are throwing the case deliberately.
I just think they are doing a terrible job, and in my view (since I sympathize with Zimmerman) I think that will more likely lead to an acquittal, which in this case will serve justice.
Patterico (9c670f) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:55 pmPatterico, but you are becoming less certain that she is not throwing the case, aren’t you?
SPQR (d562e7) — 7/2/2013 @ 7:59 pmI agree with Patterico. It seems far-fetched that they’d try Zimmerman to lose on purpose. But that seems to be what Althouse thinks.
And the prosecution has done so bad that it makes you wonder.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:00 pmIf the judge has an ounce of courage, it will be a directed verdict of not guilty. This might be enough to shut down the riots and shut up the dead-enders.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:03 pmThank you for the clarification, kind host.
But judging by what I’ve seen of the lawyer commentary here and referred to from elsewhere, they seem to be holding a clinic on how not to prosecute a case.
It seems peculiar that for a case given so much attention by the higher ups it is being run so poorly.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:04 pmBut then there are lots of peculiarities about this case,
and sometimes people over-think something and get silly instead of taking a basic approach.
IDK, I just hope Z is found innocent and cool heads prevail, not the NBPP.
Then there won’t be a directed verdict.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:10 pmIf the people who are prosecuting Zimmerman, and those who foisted a trial onto him to begin with, are decent, honorable and humane, they should have — or must have — pangs of great shame and regret about this whole debacle. IOW, they would unconsciously be throwing the trial. But, again, that’s assuming they’re compassionate, civilized
Mark (9b8d77) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:11 pmhuman beings.
It’s been a ‘travesty of a mockery of a sham’ from the getgo, Crump had Julison the publicist float the talking points to a host of reporters, and officials at organization like think progress, the video ,audio and transcripts were either omitted or altered, in that milieu, the the likes of the NBPP,Spike Lee, et al, were allowed to run rampant,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:12 pmpeople all over the whirl – errybody! – join hands join hands we’ll have a love trial love trial
pam biondi justice is a warm hug on a cold cold miami night I tell you what
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:14 pmooh yeah let’s do this thang I’m a feeling it
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:17 pmDana, I wanted to say that I appreciate you bringing a different view in a respectful and intelligent manner. It is a much more valuable contribution to this discussion than the insults you’ve taken have been.
I don’t agree with you, but oh well.
Dustin (4b596e) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:19 pmI don’t think the prosecutors are “throwing the case.”
I think these prosecutors got marching orders to get a conviction from someone who didn’t know or care about the evidence, including the evidence of self-defense.
I think that’s why they decided to skip presenting the case to a grand jury after having already announced plans to do so.
I think they are hoping against hope for a defense mistake or some sort or miracle or deus ex machina, and/or for a jury that will ignore the exculpatory evidence and excuse the lack of inculpatory evidence. But given what the key witnesses — like the police who investigated the homicide — had already said and were likely to say at trial, that was an extremely thin hope.
And I think all that’s left to them is a portion of that, the hope that the jury will convict no matter what evidence supports self-defense, and no matter how little evidence tends to negate it.
But make no mistake: Anyone who has the first clue about competency of lawyers in general, and of prosecutors in particular, must agree that this is a shoddy, shameful, ridiculously bad job of prosecuting a case. Win or lose, this team has covered itself in ignominy.
From what I’ve seen, my strong impression is that any fair-minded judge would direct a verdict on grounds that even if there is some shred or scintilla of evidence that might support a finding that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense, nevertheless, from the evidence adduced through the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, no rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, per Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). But whether that will actually happen or not is anyone’s guess.
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:24 pmJust so you know I don’t agree with Althouse’s conclusion. I agree it certainly looks like the prosecution is trying to throw the case.
But then you’d have to watch the trial itself, and not watch what the media is saying about the trial, to know that. And the impression the MFM is giving is that it’s going much better for the prosecution than it is.
For instance there’s this AP report:
http://news.yahoo.com/prosecutors-attack-zimmerman-story-several-ways-225209162.html;_ylt=As2h9LJPlk_D7He7e2eoFn0JVux_;_ylu=X3oDMTJhbDRjbWt0BG1pdANBVFQgMyBTdG9yeSBKdW1ib3Ryb24gSG9tZSBDYWNoZWQEcG9zAzEwBHNlYwNNZWRpYUF0dFdpZGdldHJvbkFzc2VtYmx5;_ylg=X3oDMTFkcW51ZGliBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3BtaA–;_ylv=3
So there’s no way Althouse can be right about any racial reconciliation coming from this. Even if that’s what the state intended from this farce, without the cooperation of the MFM that won’t happen. And the MFM ain’t cooperating.
So no matter what happens inside the courtroom the racial lynch mob led by Sharpton et al will be convinced (or easily be convinced by race pimps like Sharpton) Zimmerman was let off because he’s white and a black man can’t get justice in this country.
I still think the ultimate result ignorant left will demand the repeal of racist stand your ground laws. Another thing they don’t know about, like what happened in the courtroom last week and into this. They don’t need to know about them. They’ll just keep portraying them as a license to kill black and brown kids with impunity.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:25 pmI posted these up towards the top, but I think they need reposting after the incredibly inept and inaccurate testimony that was given by a paid hack.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/18/brain.injury/
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/intracranial-hematoma/DS00330/DSECTION=causes
I think I trust the Mayo Clinic a lot more than some supposed doctor that got her license from the Jakarta Mail Order Physicians School.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:26 pmBy the way, if a prosecutor realizes mid-trial that his evidence can’t support a conviction, the way to handle that isn’t to “throw the case” and let the defendant win. It’s to dismiss the case; since jeopardy has attached, that dismissal would be with prejudice to retrying the same charges later, and would have the same effect as an acquittal. Prosecutors have special duties beyond those of ordinary private advocates.
And yes, this actually does happen in real life — rarely, and it should only be rarely (because a thorough investigation earlier ought usually to reveal when a case is too thin to prosecute).
This isn’t a question of “compassion,” it’s a question of the canons of legal ethics, including some that are specific and particular to prosecutors.
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:31 pmIt isn’t about truth, Steve, it’s about their agenda, the facts get in the way,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:33 pmBeldar, perhaps I’m being naive but if these prosecutors are merely being good Germans and carrying out orders aren’t they committing ethical violations per the ABA code of ethics under Rule 3.8?
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:35 pmSteve57: Yes, you’re correct, and I believe most prosecutors in most places take those obligations seriously, and perform them appropriately, most of the time. Here, in my opinion, these prosecutors haven’t.
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:38 pm“the prosecution has done so bad” because they’ve overplayed their hand from the get-go. They bowed to public/political(?) pressure and charged Murder2 instead of Manslaughter, when they NEVER had the evidence and/or witness testimony necessary to prove the more serious charge, let alone the less serious one. They’re doing the best they can with what little they’ve got, so that after it’s over they can go to Trayvon’s parents, and the public, and claim that they worked as hard as they could ‘in the pursuit of justice for Trayvon’.
I.cy (f16d87) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:41 pmIOW, they’re going down swinging, even though they must be at least somewhat aware that very few of their punches are landing.
Oh, I know that. I learned that as a kid. I wasn’t a kid when Clinton was elected, but he’s a vivid example of the type.
He’d go speak in coastal democratic enclaves when he was promoting his assault weapons ban and say things like “nobody needs an assault rifle to hunt ducks.”
And the NRA would respond with something like “Clinton doesn’t even know you don’t hunt ducks with rifles.”
He grew up in Arkansas; of course he knows. He just knew how to create this mental image in the minds of East Coast and San Francisco liberals. They didn’t know. And it wasn’t his job to teach them but keep them as ignorant as possible.
Plus he got a laugh out of the people at the NRA and anyone else who thought the facts mattered.
As one gun control advocate I debated was finally forced to admit, “Hey, if they’re stupid enough to buy it then why shouldn’t I use it?”
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:42 pmActually, I.cy, lots of their prosecution’s blows are landing — on their own chins. But yeah, if “flailing around like someone who flunked out of law school” counts as swinging, they’re still swinging.
Beldar (c119f6) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:43 pmWell put, Beldar.
Icy (no longer mocking E.PWJ) (f16d87) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:45 pmI just hope that if I ever get indicted for a crime, that these are the prosecutors that handle my trial. Definitely don’t won’t one like our esteemed host, that’s for sure.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:56 pmHave they done anything that would warrant filing an ethics complaint?
It certainly seems that Angela Corey has stepped over the ethical line at some points. I recalled this post from last year.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/if-angela-corey-threatened-suit-against-dershowitz-and-harvard-she-needs-to-step-down-from-zimmerman-case/
I’m not an attorney but I believe it’s an ethical violation to threaten someone with filing a complaint with the bar. If you have a legitimate complaint you don’t use it as leverage. You just file it.
There have been other instances I recall when Corey threatened people with litigation over personal matters using official stationary.
Her regard for ethics seems to have rubbed off on her subordinates. I’m just curious if saturation coverage of the Zimmerman trial isn’t a sword that cuts both ways. Sure, the media is giving wall to wall coverage because they’re out to get Zimmerman. But is it possible that the prosecution team has already crossed an ethical line? It certainly seems so to me since they’re trying to convince the jury to convict Zimmerman based upon something other than the law.
That following someone is sufficient provocation to forfeit the right to claim self-defense, for instance, when the only provocation sufficient to meet that standard is unlawful physical force. That his injuries weren’t sufficient to justify self-defense when that isn’t the standard. And that he was a “wannabe cop,” as if that has any relevance.
I’m just curious if there’s anything they can do during this trial, if they haven’t already, that would give prosecutors take their obligations seriously sufficient cause to accuse them of ethical violations?
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:57 pmI was wondering why a period started appearing after the I. Sometimes I guess that I can be slow on the uptake.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:57 pm*prosecutors who take*
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:00 pm“The prosecution is losing on purpose,” and The prosecution is doing a terrible job.”
Well, what do you expect when you bring a case to trial in which the evidence isn’t there for either a murder or manslaughter conviction. No wonder the prosecution looks bad.
DN (09d6b1) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:02 pm627.I was wondering why a period started appearing after the I. Sometimes I guess that I can be slow on the uptake.
Comment by peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:57 pm
— A mostly symbolic gesture, since I’m fairly certain that EricPWJohnson has been blocking my posts for quite awhile now.
Icy (no longer mocking E.PWJ) (f16d87) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:08 pm@617 Perry Mason and Hamilton Burger. The Case of the Off-Duty Neighborhood Watcher.
Mr. Beldar, your posts and comments are always informative and comprehensible. I suspect I miss some of the details from not being a lawyer, but I enjoy them greatly. Thank you.
htom (412a17) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:13 pmI will make two predictions:
Zimmerman will be found innocent. Protests will ensue. The protests will influence the off-year elections. The GOP will lose the House.
Zimmerman will be found guilty. Protests will ensue. The protests will influence the off-year elections. The GOP will lose the House.
Any way you look at it, this trial is not about guilt or innocence. It’s about the rule of the state.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:23 pmIcy–I suspect Eric is far too full of himself to block yours or anybody’s posts. He wants to see how much attention and pushback he is generating from his comments here.
elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:24 pmWE’re quite nearly at this point;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPk7cpiMgbM
narciso (3fec35) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:34 pmI’m under the impression that EPWJ is mainly a “Rockefeller Republican.” He’s someone who has bits of common sense interwoven with bouts of liberalism. Plenty of people out there are similar to him—and even more people are in worse shape. That’s why a society can fall apart quite easily and remain that way indefinitely (see: Mexico; see: Argentina; see: Greece; see: France).
Mark (9b8d77) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:53 pm==Plenty of people out there are similar to him==
Actually, no Mark. They’re not. I know you love the process, but trying to analyze EPWJ is fools errand. Really.
elissa (c183db) — 7/2/2013 @ 9:59 pmI’m a share this just cause of it’s so smoov
that zimmerman’s been eatin him some bread, no?
He needs to buy him some keds and volunteer for some extra patrols when all this is over.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:04 pmelissa – I think you are right. I think periodically EPWJ gets lonely and wants attention.
I was going to suggest that he have one of his daughters test out his medical theories by having her bang his head on cement a few times and pummel his face to see how he felt, but he probably would have accused me of threatening him.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:04 pmNo, daley. He would have accused you of perversion for suggesting he have his daughter do it to him. EPWTFO! considers that light foreplay.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 10:10 pmI believe the defense will only avail itself of one.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/post-mortem/interviews/vincent-dimaio.html
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:16 pmIt’s typical of the way this case is going.
The state gets a couple of underemployed sound studio engineers to act as its experts.
The defense gets experts like Dr. Nakatone, PhD, the senior scientist in the FBI’s voice recognition program, and Dr. Doddington, PhD, who has worked on voice recognition programs with DARPA, NSA, NIST, and the voice recognition technology used in the F-16 to come in and laugh at them while ripping them to shreds.
The state gets Dr. Rao the snacking, footwashing itinerant ME that local governments love not to retain when her contract is up to say whatever her benefactress Corey wants her to say.
The Defense gets…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
…let’s just say they get a guy who can hold onto any job he wants.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:33 pm*Dr.
NakatoneNakasone, PhD,*Gomennasai, Sensei.
Steve57 (192f26) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:35 pmDid I hear my name mentioned somewhere upthread? I take it the trial is quite the circus.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/2/2013 @ 11:42 pmReally, Surls, a circus? Its still the prosecution’s turn, and every claim you’ve made about the case has been proven false by prosecution witnesses.
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:10 amIs that a fact? Dangerous George still looks like a scumbag murderer to me…but, I was never much of a fan of grown men with guns shooting down unarmed teenagers.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:26 amObviously you’ve let none of the testimony seep past whatever psychosis you use to insulate yourself from reality, Surls.
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:37 amyou’re not much a fan of facts or the truth either Dave, so your “judgement” is somewhat suspect.
and your “teenager” was bigger than the grown man, and in better shape too. that puts a big dent in the whole sympathy ploy, at least to the reality based part of the audience here.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:40 amDave – I thought Zimmerman shot up at the thug who sitting on him and whaling on him MMA style.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:42 amIf I remember rightly, I said he ought to be put on trial for murder…and there he is on trial for murder. Sounds like my reality closely resembles real reality. My psychosis notwithstanding.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:47 amYou think he should be on trial for murder and the special prosecutor thought that … and it looks like you both are clowns. ‘Cause the best she can do is beclown herself. Just like you did for week after week here.
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:56 amWell, in this the clown is happy with the outcome. I said this case should go to jury over a year ago, and it has…so, I’m satisfied. And, now the jury can decide whether he’s actually guilty of the crime he’s been charged with, and I’ll respect what they decide…as it should be.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:12 amSurls’ idea of a grown man who did the right thing and let himself get killed.
http://www.khou.com/news/Young-man-gets-life-sentence-in-fatal-knockout-game-attack-205798651.html
A happy ending for you, Surls. The grown man didn’t gun down the unarmed teenagers.
Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:26 amElex Murphy reminds me a lot of George Zimmerman. Hopefully, this trial will end in the same result.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:55 amThere are some clever folks commenting on this post, and others who are less clever but still amusing, and others.
I am a fan of droll humor, and there’s been more than a little here.
steve57, I should probably be fairly careful what I say about legal ethics matters, especially when I must confess to only a partial knowledge of the trial and its underlying facts and proceedings. Suffice it to say that for a variety of reasons, some principled and some cynical but based on real-world observation, I don’t think it would be productive or a good investment of resources for a private citizen, unconnected with the case, to attempt to file any such complaint. But YMMV.
I’m also guessing that our host is still skimming, and can find amongst these comments and the most recent trial proceedings ample grist for a new post.
Beldar (83942c) — 7/3/2013 @ 2:21 amOr he may be waiting to see if this post’s and its comments’ momentum carries it past 1000!
Beldar (83942c) — 7/3/2013 @ 2:22 amROFL. On planet EPWJ, maybe.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 2:55 amI really need to get around to updating the greasemonkey ignore script to work with Patterico’s redesign. The only regular poster here that I actually used it on was EPWJ.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 3:33 amIf that were so, why no compassion for Zim?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 3:35 am‘It’s time for the English Hungarian phrasebook
narciso (3fec35) — 7/3/2013 @ 4:01 amAll it means is that the real world is sometimes run by psychotics like you. The real authorities whose job it was decided not to try him, but a despicable governor and AG appointed an unethical lawyer to override that decision and knowingly try an innocent man.
You wished for a crime to be committed, and it has been. No decent person would be happy about that.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 4:34 amContinuing to set aside the fact that you have no basis for this fantasy, let’s again suppose it were true. In the alternative universe in which this happened, Zim knew that police were coming, and would be there in five or ten or fifteen minutes, by which time they would do…what? The suspicious character would be long gone, the police would pat him on the head and say “well done reporting that”, and the next morning, or some morning soon, another break-in would be reported. So — still in this fantasy — he went beyond his minimum duty, and set out to keep the suspect in view, so that when the police arrived he could tell them where to find him. I would call that bravery, heroism, giving his all. Something to be celebrated, not derided because he ended up with head injuries. And certainly not the cause of the ordeal he’s suffered for the past year — that is the result not of his own (supposed) bravery or imprudence, but of the malfeasance of several unethical lawyers and judges.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 4:52 amMilhouse, are you saying GZ kept following?
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:17 amMost likely the Zimmerman trial will be the last appearance of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence in a serious trial. Soon trials will be conducted according to the standard of Social Justice jurisprudence, with the proper weight given the race, class, and gender of the plaintiff and defendant until the adversary system of justice itself is discarded in favor of magistrates of social justice who have the power to investigate and punish crime.
ErisGuy (76f8a7) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:26 amNo, Milhouse didn’t say that, tifosa. In fact, he said Zimmerman didn’t follow Martin, and then he addressed the hypothetical question of “What if Zimmerman had followed Martin?”
But you knew that, didn’t you?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:29 amaw drj, I think Milhouse has talked himself into believing that GZ continued to follow and heroized himself. 🙂
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:43 amThe Mark who disagrees with me wrote:
Oh, have you seen someplace where I have suggested that we should somehow “understand” Major Hasan’s motivations, or that the Army bears some responsibility for the Fort Hood massacre by assigning Major Hasan to duty in Afghanistan? My site is linked underneath my screen name, and there is a search function at the top of the right-hand side bar; just search for “Nidal” and you’ll bring up all of the articles mentioning him.
Major Hasan was assigned to report for duty in Afghanistan (or was it Iraq?), something which would be a normal function for the Army and deployment a standard obligation for service members. Mr Zimmerman, on the other hand, was taking a decidedly non-standard action in tailing a person he thought, for whatever reasons he had, was somehow a threat to the community, and did so even after the police dispatcher told him that he did not need to follow Mr Martin.
That is a definite distinction, and not even a subtle one.
It does not matter to me whether Mr Zimmerman’s actions might have been completely legal, nor that Mr Martin may have reacted illegally; the situation arose because Mr Zimmerman chose to tail Mr Martin, obviously enough that Mr Martin noticed that he was being followed. Had Mr Zimmerman complied with the dispatcher’s instructions, none of this would ever have happened.
The Dana who recognizes that George Zimmerman is no great hero (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:44 amOh, cool! I got comment #666!
The satanic Dana (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:45 amaw drj, I think …
Should’ve stopped right there. Leading with obvious nonsense is rarely effective.
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:48 amEricguy
social justice is the main reason we have our court system today.
I was defending the DA I have a habit of doing that and will continue to do that because, being around a DA’s office so woefully underfunded, I still see where there can be forces brought to bear to influence DA’s in their decisions to charge people.
THis wasn’t as clear to me as everyone thinks it was long before the trial began. I was not the only long time commentator to notice it.
Bringing it to trial was valid because based upon one persons story who was mildly injured if we want to stretch it to that, the guy who pulled the trigger gets to write the narrative.
So that’s why the guy is on trial – I still think he maybe innocent, but with the pictures I am not so sure. Also Trayvons parents need to immediately return the money to however they got it from, they are far from victims letting their son run wild like an animal.
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:48 amHere’s a question for the lawyers. As I understand it, the state put Zim’s interview with Hannity on, in order to point out what they think is a lie, the claim that he had never heard of the SYG law. OK, let’s suppose it was a lie; so what? Isn’t he entitled to lie to Hannity? Surely he could tell Hannity whatever he liked. He wasn’t under oath. How is his having done so (assuming he did) relevant to the case?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:49 amwhom ever they got the money from….
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:50 amMark wrote:
Really? Well, there’s a rather simple Amendment to our Constitution which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .” The original part of the Constitution specifies that no religious test shall be imposed to hold any office under the United States government. In other words, we could not bar Nidal Hasan from the Army because he was Islamic.
As for his radicalization, you might ask why this radicalization was noticed, but nobody did anything about it. You certainly won’t find me defending political correctness.
The Dana Mark believes is bringing down society (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:51 amHad Mr Zimmerman complied with the dispatcher’s instructions, none of this would ever have happened.
If GZ had gone to bed early none of this would have happened. If it wasn’t raining out, none of this would have happened.
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:52 amWhat part of “Continuing to set aside the fact that you have no basis for this fantasy, let’s again suppose it were true […] in the alternative universe in which this happened […] so — still in this fantasy — […] his own (supposed) bravery or imprudence” did you not understand?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:52 amI still think he maybe innocent, but with the pictures I am not so sure.
Last night you told us it was over for GZ.
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:53 amDon’t bring that up Dana, people sadly here are so galvanized as to ignore facts like – injuries were inconsistent with Z’s story – hence then his justification for shooting Martin seems to be weaker.
Facts don’t mean anything unfortunately to some(most) of this sites “favorite” commentators.
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:55 amJD
What I believe and what I wish for are 2 different things
I believe its over for him, its a hung jury and the 2nd retrial will be more factual brief and to the point
I think personally
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:56 amJD
What I believe and what I wish for are 2 different things
I believe its over for him, its a hung jury and the 2nd retrial will be more factual brief and to the point
I think personally
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 5:56 amc’mon Milhouse, all those precious words lauding a righteous “follow.” justsayin
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:00 amJD
What I believe and what I wish for are 2 different things
I believe its over for him, its a hung jury and the 2nd retrial will be more factual brief and to the point
I think personally that Z like Dana said, started it and then had to finish it and played himself into a world of hurt not realizing that we are raising young men who have no inkling of a moral compass. Its frustrating and sad on both sides, but also damages in the long term our rights to defend ourselves.
That is another outcome that’s going to come down, more unneeded gun control, while theiris never any corresponding control over people like Martin, who feel they can sucker punch annoying people at will.
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:00 amYou could equally say the situation arose because Tracy Martin left his wife (who was not his son’s mother) and took up with his girlfriend. Or because Trayvon Martin got into trouble and went to stay with his father. Or because Gladys Mesa chose to marry Robert Zimmerman. Or because Officer Whoever stopped for a doughnut and didn’t get there in time (there’s as much evidence for this supposition as for yours). Or because some planner decided not to put proper lighting in the area, and not to put up adequate street signs so people would know where they were. Or because that infamous butterfly in Brazil flapped its wings and caused it to rain in Florida. There are any number of things that could have prevented the situation from arising, why focus on this (supposed) one?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:02 amSo? The situation still (perhaps) arose because of that.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:03 amThe army certainly could have. It has no duty to take all comers, and need not give a reason for rejecting someone. But there was really no reason to do that; there are plenty of Moslems who have served with distinction. What it should have done, though, was keep an eye on him, and on all Moslems in the service, bearing in mind the significantly higher (though still low) likelihood of treason among them. Just as it undoubtedly did with servicemen of German origin in WW1 (and probably in WW2 as well, though I’m less sure of it).
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:07 aminteresting that no one defended Dana when Mark decided that dana’s freedom of speech entitled him to be labeled a terrorist.
can discuss the lack of swelling, bruising, lacerations, stitches etc – but we can call people Nidal’s
cute…
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:08 amYes, he would have been well within his rights to have followed Martin, and doing so might even have been heroic. But he says he didn’t, and there is no reason to doubt his word.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:09 amI must have missed that. Please quote the exact words, and the number of the comment in which they appear.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:10 amMilhouse,
exactly which branch of the military monitors the private lives of its soldiers and is staffed to do it?
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:10 amMilhouse,
just read – you know right where he was
“The Nidal-Hasan-ized Dana”
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:13 amyoo hoo Miiiilhouse
which branch of the military monitors the private lives of its soldiers?
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:14 amHe said he didn’t follow, he also said the kid he just shot in the heart said “Oh, gosh, you me, you got it, you got me, you got it,” he said his head was pounded into the sidewalk 20-30 times… Puh. Leez.
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:15 amThe military seems to have enough people looking at servicemen to catch drug use, sexual assault, adultery, imprudent facebook posts, disrespect for the CiC, etc.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:19 amokay so the liars and name callers are out this thread is dead.
A warning to new commentators – this is a site where you MUST agree with SPQR, JD and the usual cabal, if you don’t you will be smeared, accused, libeled, threatened.
These people with the full knowledge and support of the owner, will relentlessly attack anyone who doesn’t think the way they do.
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:20 amDo you have any reason to doubt any of that? Any at all?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:20 amSo no, you don’t have a quote in which Mark labelled Dana a terrorist. You’re just making stuff up as usual. Thank you.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:23 ampeople sadly here are so galvanized as to ignore facts like – injuries were inconsistent with Z’s story –
Outright lie
JD (b63a52) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:24 amHow about, oh, I don’t know, the Defense Security Service?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:26 amNot one single offensive wound on TM, not one single defensive wound on GZ, a person with a bullet in their heart can talk, location of the struggle (south of the T) vs. GZ’s statements, GZ’s own statements that the voice crying for help on the 911 taped call is not his (2/29 Tape3,) to start.
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:27 amYeah, a few reasons.
Let’s hear from GZ.
Tifosa, WTF? Head wounds are defensive. Where do you get this nonsense.
SPQR (d562e7) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:30 amA warning to new commentators – this is a site where you MUST agree with SPQR, JD and the usual cabal, if you don’t you will be smeared, accused, libeled, threatened.
If by smeared you mean having you inanity thrown back in our face, then yes. If you have been libeled, you have recourse. You haven’t been threatened.
As to the MUST agree nonsense, it is just that, pure unadulterated nonsense. Not telling lies, fabrications, distortions, and otherwise being mendoucheous tends to lead to different results.
JD (b63a52) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:30 amLie
Plenty of wounds on the back of his head; what would a defensive wound look like and where would you expect to find it?
Yes; do you have any grounds to doubt this?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:30 amI thought a defensive wound is a wound sustained by defending oneself. He didn’t defend himself with the back of his head.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:31 amNot one single offensive wound on TM, not one single defensive wound on GZ,
This is the lying tiffy we hav come to expect.
JD (b63a52) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:31 amA powder burn on his hand would be a defensive wound.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:34 amAs I understand it, he was actually shot in the lung, not the heart.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:36 amSo . . .
Surls feels personal pride for having predicted — after the trial date was set — that the trial would actually take place.
Wow.
It’s like watching Kreskin in his prime.
Icy (456cf4) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:37 amIn other words, we could not bar Nidal Hasan from the Army because he was Islamic.
Dana, am I reading you correctly? Are you implying it was proper legal/constitutional channels that somehow was at the root of Hasan being tolerated until it was too late? I hope not, because if so, ‘ya gotta be kidding me! That would be like saying no one can be barred from or reprimanded in a workplace because of the parameters of the law and the Constitution.
However, I don’t think you’re making that point, or I hope you’re not making what would be a fatuous argument. But when I see another one of your comments, I become a bit leery of what’s at the core of your reactions:
Had Mr Zimmerman complied with the dispatcher’s instructions, none of this would ever have happened.
…that comes rather close — too close for comfort IMHO — to saying, “if the woman hadn’t dressed the way she did, she wouldn’t have been raped.”
interesting that no one defended Dana when Mark decided that dana’s freedom of speech entitled him to be labeled a terrorist.
Huh? EPWJ, I know left-leaning biases do influence your POV on occasion, because for you to take my comments and decipher them as meaning that Dana is similar to a Nidal Hasan can only be the conclusions of a silly liberal. Only a person saddled with a leftist tilt would not understand that “Nidal Hasan-ization” refers to the rampant idiocy in no less than the US military, where no one spoke up even when a guy — a fellow enlistee — was spouting anti-American, pro-Islamic comments.
Oh, but that was his within his Constitutional rights, you say!? Uh, er, then for other military enlistees to not be allowed to say they don’t approve of homosexuality and, in particular, same-sex marriage must be another form of speech that peculiarly and strangely is deemed as not deserving the protection of that same constitution.
Misplaced or upside-down compassion will be the undoing of this society.
Mark (9b8d77) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:40 amE.PWJ wrote:
No, that isn’t what I have said. I have said that Mr Zimmerman created the whole situation by following Mr Martin, but that is not the same thing as saying that he started the fight. I rather doubt that he started the fight, because, if he had, he’d have already had his weapon out . . . and there would have been no fight. The simplest explanation is that Mr Martin started the actual fist fight, because he was angry at being followed, and did not realize that Mr Zimmerman was armed, but that has yet to be proved, and may well be unprovable.
The Dana who may be understanding the point of contention here (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:44 amHe had both sides of his hands photographed at SPD. Where was the “powder burn?”
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:48 amwhich branch of the military monitors the private lives of its soldiers?
EPWJ, you have to deepdown admit that comment of yours was really dumb. After all, how you can conflate the openly anti-US, pro-Islamic comments of Nidal Hasan — which was described by other members of the Army — and analogize that to hidden, private speech goes beyond absurd.
Perhaps every human out there has left-leaning emotions in the nooks and crannies of their brain, so for you to be influenced by them is to be expected. But just remember that liberal biases can easily make you or other people just the opposite of what they tend to highly admire about themselves or others.
Mark (9b8d77) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:53 amWhat is your point? Are you claiming that he didn’t shoot Martin after all?!
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:53 amThere is ample evidence of TM’s offensive actions all over GZ’s head
JD (b63a52) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:53 amThe witness on the stand now testified Zimmerman got an A in his criminal litigation class — establishing that Zimmerman is a murderer.
Q.E.D.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:55 amMilhouse with an e wrote:
If you want to get that silly, you can say it happened because Mr Martin’s biological parents decided to copulate the day she got pregnant. But we are looking for proximate causes, and it is undeniable that if Mr Zimmerman has not followed Mr Martin, there’d have been no altercation.
That is the locus of all of these events; had Mr Zimmerman not decided to follow Mr Martin, they’d have been nothing more than two people in the same neighborhood who had nothing to do with each other. It was Mr Zimmerman’s assessment that Mr Martin posed some sort of threat whose presence needed to be investigated, and decision to conduct that investigation, which brought together two people whom otherwise would never have interacted. That Mr Zimmerman’s actions may have been entirely legal and that Mr Martin may have started the actual physical confrontation does not change the fact that it was Mr Zimmerman’s decisions and actions which caused this situation to happen in the first place.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:55 amWould this have been a “good” shooting if GZ had been a LEO? What difference does it make whether GZ was a real cop or a wannabe cop? Even fools and bad actors have a right of self defense, don’t they?
crazy (d60cb0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:56 amHe didn’t say “hidden”, he just said “private”. Hassan’s treasonous speech and affiliations were private, i.e. not part of his official duties. EPWJ seems to imagine that the military can’t or shouldn’t inquire into what its servicemen do or say off duty, even if they have reason to suspect that one might be disloyal.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:56 amE.PWJ has chosen to ignore my post at 600, so again I condemn myself for troll feeding.
reff who wanted to be sincere like the Dana who is sincere but ended up as a simple troll feeder (f0f8b6) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:57 amWhat’s the evidence TM caused those wounds ?
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:57 amCSI: Tiffy
Icy (456cf4) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:57 amdana
started the confrontation by getting out of the truck. After being told not to – I hope that clarifies what I meant
Z did the right thing by calling the police, then did the wrong thing and ended up in a world of hurt.
Now he’s on trial and we only have one side of the story and the story according to the crazy medical examiner – didn’t show any injuries consistent with history of Martins assault.
Because of the heated nature of this case – its not going to be of much comfort with any verdict.
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:58 amYou are dumb.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 6:58 amZim following Martin (again assuming that he did so) was not the proximate cause of the altercation. Martin’s decision to jump him was an independent and intervening cause.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:01 amShorter tifosa… fire can’t melt steel.
SPQR (d562e7) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:03 amit was Mr Zimmerman’s decisions and actions which caused this situation to happen in the first place.
And at its core there is a bit of truth to the observation that a person driving a nice car in the bad part of town is asking for trouble, a woman dressed for a night of nightclubbing is running the risk of rape, and a person who uses an ATM is subjecting himself to robbery.
Yea, that’s correct, and it originates from a compassionate, humane, beautiful way of explaining reality.
Mark (9b8d77) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:04 amJD,
I must have missed all those wounds, a tender nose and two band aid treated boo boo’s.
Remember someone is dead, someone who was approached by an armed adult. Someone who according to many witnesses had a reason to be there and was 100 or yards from where he was staying.
And died.
My point is people are accusing the DA of being out for Zimmerman, some are even saying its for political reasons or a crime to even demand that Z have to answer for a shooting of an armed kid.
erase all the political circus out there – if this were to happen between two people of the same race – then it would have gone to trial without the circus right?
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:05 amstarted the confrontation by getting out of the truck. After being told not to – I hope that clarifies what I meant
Wrong. Mathis was not proximate cause, as Dana also asserted. GZ made no attempt to initiate any contact with TM. The confrontation was a confrontation of choice by TM.
JD (b63a52) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:07 amGetting back to the real world (as per Zim’s uncontradicted account) Martin had already noticed him by that point and taken umbrage, and turned around to find and confront him. Unless you’re talking about Zim’s original decision to report Martin’s suspicious behaviour, and to get out of the car and find out for the dispatcher where he had gone, before the dispatcher told him that wasn’t necessary.
Do you dispute that this was a correct assessment? Would not any responsible neighbour do the same?
I don’t understand how an otherwise reasonable person can keep repeating the same garbage. Zim’s lawful behaviour can not have caused Martin’s unlawful behaviour. And if you want to discuss what caused the situation to happen in the first place, surely it was Martin’s lurking, not Zim’s noticing and reacting to it. Please address that. Why is Martin’s lurking not the proximate cause that you’re looking for?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:09 amGreat explanation going on in the trial right now of why Trayvon had every right to SYG 🙂
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:09 amMr Milhouse wrote:
The military has standard criteria for accepting or rejecting applicants, and the Constitution forbids making a religious test one of those criteria.
What you have suggested is some sort of religious profiling: we can’t bar Muslims from enlisting, but we can keep a closer eye on them. Try running that idea through our legal system and tell me how it works out. Of course, neither President Bush nor President Obama would ever have authorized such, because Mr Bush was very concerned about making sure that this wasn’t a war against Muslims, but a war against “terror,” while Mr Obama, well, he’s Barack Obama.
There are a lot of things we did concerning Americans of German and Japanese origins during World War II, and not all of them exactly covered us with glory.
Individually, we can investigate service members more closely if they hold a security clearance or are being considered for duty which would require a clearance. Soldiers voluntarily surrender some of their civil rights by enlisting, but it has never been held that they surrender their freedom of religion. Major Hasan’s e-mails with Anwar al-Awlaki should have raised concerns, but nothing was done about those.
Of course, there’s an obvious question: do you believe we should somehow bar the enlistment of Muslims from the Armed Services, or deny them either clearances or certain specific duties (other than as a Christian chaplain, obviously) solely due to their religion?
The Army-daddy Dana (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:09 amand the story according to the crazy medical examiner – didn’t show any injuries consistent with history of Martins assault.
Is this the ME that Corey appointed, and didn’t actually evaluate GZ, but did look at some pictures, as opposed to the Docs who actually examined GZ and documented injuries consistent with his account?
JD (b63a52) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:09 amThat is an outright and deliberate lie.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:10 amI must have missed all those wounds, a tender nose and two band aid treated boo boo’s.
Aggressive lies.
JD (b63a52) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:10 amHassan’s treasonous speech and affiliations were private, i.e. not part of his official duties.
Milhouse, it was worse than that because he was reported as spewing anti-US, pro-Islamic speech in public areas, particularly in what I believe was the setting of a military classroom.
What’s totally pathetic and disgusting is that the argument being voiced by EPWJ is apparently mirrored in good portions of today’s US military, and NOT in (or not just in) the offices of the ACLU or Move On, or Act Up, or the NAACP or NOW, etc.
Liberalism gone berserk.
Mark (9b8d77) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:11 amrase all the political circus out there – if this were to happen between two people of the same race – then it would have gone to trial without the circus right?
Comment by E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:05 am
No. There would have been no circus, and no trial.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:13 amWow! I haven’t seen a blog with so many comments!
Maggie (407883) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:15 amWatching the prosecution is comparable to watching a prize-fighter taking a dive!
I admit, I was upset when I first heard the news about the poor 11 year old black boy murdered after school, going to his home with his Skittles and iced tea by the big nutty neighborhood Jewish man! I AM NOT BEING SARCASTIC! That is just the way I heard it in NYC! Then, I heard the facts. Then I was angry that my emotions were manipulated to perpetuate B.S.! I have 6 kids & 2 Grandkids. I was a NYS Court Officer for 17 years until I was hurt in an altercation.
The “Star Witness” was bad enough, (Judges who aren’t on T.V. do not tolerate behavior like that! Not even in Liberal NYC!), but I am convinced this is a farce to push an agenda!
A prosecutor would NEVER allow a witness to testify that he believed the defendant & certainly wouldn’t ask the Judge to instruct The Jury to “forget” that case blowing statement! Florida has no intention of convicting George Zimmerman! What is truly laughable is the media saying an all white Jury of women are going to relate to an obviously racist, uneducated, rude, lying 19 yr. old black woman from the “Hood”! WTF? Very doubtful! Woman are going to think,”If a 6ft black man, or any man for that point, was on top of me, my son,daughter,ETC., I would pull the trigger too!”, sorry!
Then again, most woman aren’t going to walk any where near someone @ 3AM. I don’t know if Mr. Zimmerman will be convicted. If he is, it will have nothing to do with the prosecution’s case!
Yes. Exactly as we did with Germans in WW1 (and probably WW2). There is a rational basis for suspecting their loyalty, and it is criminally insane — treasonously insane — to pretend otherwise.
Sigh. I’ve already directly addressed this, in the very comment you just quoted. What part of “What it should have done, though, was keep an eye on him, and on all Moslems in the service, bearing in mind the significantly higher (though still low) likelihood of treason among them” is not clear?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:15 amOther than your minimizing the injuries, which may well include long term brain damage due to the trauma of having his head battered, as well as having his own blood go down his throat while he was on his back being hit, and a hematoma on his head (and the state’s medical expert testimony that Zimmerman’s actions could have saved his life, preventing a subdural hematoma, epidural hemotomia, or other immediately life-threatening brain injury), you’re also missing one of Zimmerman’s several injuries: to his sacroiliac joint.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:15 amoffensive wounds on TM, defensive wounds on GZ?
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:15 amanyone?
Tifosa has itself in a lather today.
I’ll bite, tiffy, how would you describe the cuts to the back of he head and broken nose that GZ suffered?
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:20 am“What’s totally pathetic and disgusting is that the argument being voiced by EPWJ is apparently mirrored in good portions of today’s US military, and NOT in (or not just in) the offices of the ACLU or Move On, or Act Up, or the NAACP or NOW, etc.”
– Mark
Do you think it has something to do with the burgeoning male-on-male military rape epidemic?
I bet you do…
Leviticus (2c236c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:20 amComment by The Army-daddy Dana (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:09 am
Dana, for you to write that entire post in the context of this debate really startles me. You remind me of a person back in the 1990s who I once had fairly great confidence in, or who I previously had assumed was generally reliable and down-to-earth. But when he told me that OJ Simpson couldn’t possibly have been guilty of double homicide — that the evidence wasn’t strong enough — I was floored. I did a double take and felt outright shocked.
That was one of those moments when I realized just how corrupt human nature could be or could become.
Mark (9b8d77) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:20 amDefinitely an intentional lie.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:21 amDo you think it has something to do with the burgeoning male-on-male military rape epidemic?
Leviticus, and by contrast you cavalierly wave off the implications of the reportedly growing problem of rape (ie, male-on-male) in the military? Well, after all, you are one very compassionate, humane human being.
Mark (9b8d77) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:24 amCaptain Carter: What an impressive witness on the stand right now.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:24 amThe offensive wounds were on TM’s hands. You pretend they weren’t there because you’re a liar.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:25 amThe commentator on his period (it’s right there, mon, between the 5th & 16th letters of de alphabet) asked:
erase all the political circus out there – if this were to happen between two people of the same race – then it would have gone to trial without the circus right?
— If this were to happen between two people of the same race, then it might have gone to trial — for manslaughter. It is BECAUSE of the racial component that the more serious, and unprovable, charge of Murder2 was filed.
Irredeemable Cabal Yahoo (456cf4) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:25 amEvidence TM caused those wounds? (GZ dna under fingernails, hands, clothing?)
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:26 amthis thread sure got a large bolus of stupid this morning…
to include some from regulars i really expect better of.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:26 amLeviticus – I think it says more about their willingness to engage in charitable giving
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:27 amMore on witness Captain Carter (tweet)
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:28 amShorter tifosa: fire can’t melt stupid.
Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:29 amAndrew Branca, LOSD @LawSelfDefense 5m
#Zimmerman Trial: Good God, it’s like Carter is an expert witness on law of self defense for the defense team. http://is.gd/MiCo0J
redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:31 amHahaha… well we’ll see what Rupert Everett has to say about this!
Leviticus (2c236c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:32 amFlorida Channel 9 Legal Expert: “Oh my God, I can’t underestimate the importance of this witness for the defense [emphasis his].”
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:32 amfor the defense [emphasis on that part]
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:33 amhttps://twitter.com/LegInsurrection/zimmerman-trial
redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:35 amlol
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:40 amor the state, fcon. Perfect case for TM SYG
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:41 amInteresting that they paint a hypothetical that GZ started the conflict.
Channel 9 Legal Expert talking about Captain Carter who said, among other things, “Hey George, how are you doing?”:
“This witness was devastating [emphasis his] to the state’s case.”
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:43 amHahaha… well we’ll see what Rupert Everett has to say about this!
I hope you’re not smirking about the issue of male-on-male rape based on the stereotype of gay dudes getting a cheap thrill over the idea of being forced into sex by another male.
Mark (9b8d77) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:45 amSorry, uninformed Dana, the state’s own witness is telling the jury that GZ didn’t create the situation. TM did with his disproportionate response.
Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:45 amSYG is not relevant to this case, tiffy
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:45 amHa ha
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:46 amI’m curious; why does everyone who wants to frame GZ as guilty emphasize the fact TM was a teenager?
At 17 he was old enough to join the military (with parental consent).
Somebody who’s old enough to be a Soldier or Marine is old enough to be plenty dangerous.
Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:48 amThe Milhouse who does not respect the First Amendment wrote:
We got away with a lot of things during the wars that we can’t do today, and I would suggest that you know better than to think we could, in this day and age, consciously set up a program which would more closely monitor people based upon their religion.
There is no category which is more thoroughly protected in our Constitution that religion, not only by the First Amendment but also by the prohibition on imposing any religious tests for any office under the United States. I happen to think that when the Constitution says that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” (Article VI, paragraph 3) in means no religious test.
The President of the United States, every member of Congress, and every member of our Armed Forces, takes an oath that he will support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . and that is very much part of the Constitution.
Do you believe that that section, and the First Amendment, should be repealed?
The Dana who respects the Constitution (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:48 amDefense-Attorney West: “You don’t have to almost die before you defend yourself?”
State’s Witness Army JAG Captain West: “No … I would advise against that.”
George Zimmerman and the rest of the courtroom except for the prosecution and judge: Laughs, smiles.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:49 amPurely anecdotal, and 750+ comments into the thread, but I always got the impression that this was never about Zimmerman or Martin. This was always about the Sanford Police Department. The outrage from the Jacksons and Sharptons, then echoed through the evening news programs, was less that Zimmerman killed Martin but that the police didn’t bother to charge him. As Professor Reynolds says, it was then used cynically to help black turnout for the 2012 election.
Had Sanford P.D. booked Zimmerman and then dismissed the charges after an investigation, I think the race-baiting would never have reached this level, and the political pressure to bring charges never would have been there. I don’t know what the proper Florida procedure is in this case, but the absence of at least a charge is what fueled the original racial outcry.
The media’s behavior throughout this matter has been despicable. It is a sad irony to see the black community coalesce only to form a lynch mob.
Hadlowe (33cc56) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:50 amGreat point.
Steve57, what did you think of Captain Carter’s testimony? (My opinion: great witness, incredibly composed and relaxed, knowledgeable and credible as all hell, obviously likes Zimmerman, and delivered mighty pwnage onto the heads of the prosecution.)
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:52 amReally? What is your legal basis for believing so? What part of the first amendment, or the Religious Test clause, or any other part of the constitution, prevents the government from profiling on the basis of race, religion, or any other criterion that seems relevant?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:53 amMark @ 740: My comment concerning the OJ Simpson trial was that the man won the Heisman Trophy and rushed for 2,000 yards in a single season, so we had to cut him a break. 🙂
Doesn’t look like he took advantage of that.
The NFL fan Dana (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:53 amAnd had they done so they would have been in violation of the law, Zim’s rights, and of the entire basis for their own legitimacy to hold authority. Just as Khouri and her merry troupe have done.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:55 amProfiling is one of the most valuable tools our brain has for processing information. We could not exist without it. And until about 20 years ago, no sane person in the history of the universe has ever questioned it or considered it wrong.
Of course one must be careful not to put too much confidence in it, as if it were a magic formula that’s guaranteed to always give the right answer. If you bet on a card drawn from a complete shuffled deck not being a face card, you’ll be wrong 3/13 of the time; if you’re stupid enough to think you’re certain to be right then you’ll lose your shirt. But you’ll still be right 10/13 of the time, and if you don’t bet enough on any one draw to put yourself out of business then you’ll go home significantly richer.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:01 amIt’s also a mistake to rely on profiling once particular information is available about someone. Profiling is an appropriate tool for creating initial impressions, when you have a large number of potential suspects and know nothing about any of them beyond what you can see. It tells you where to focus your attention first, what to look for first, where you’re most likely to find what you’re looking for. Once you have detailed information about an individual, the profile is no longer useful and must be discarded.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:05 amMilhouse wrote:
It’s pretty obvious: if you are profiling on the basis of religion, then you are imposing a religious test.
Now, we have had some decisions recently — perhaps decisions with which you disagreed? — which do allow the state to consider race, to achieve compelling state goals, as long as strict scrutiny is used and there are no other methods of achieving such goals. I happen to disagree with those decisions, in Grutter v Bollinger and Fisher v University of Texas, believing that the 14th Amendment puts an absolute prohibition on such things, but perhaps you do not.
But to be logically consistent, if you are going to say that we can consider religion to be something which we can consider, to achieve the compelling state interest of fighting the Islamists, then you must also agree with the Court’s reasoning in Grutter, in Fisher, and in Bakke v Board of Regents.
I happen to take the apparently radical view that the Constitution means exactly what it says.
The logically consistent Dana (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:05 amFC, I thought Carter was devastating to the prosecution and a home run for the defense.
Earlier in #626 I wrote this while wondering if we’re actually witnessing the prosecution violate the ABA code of ethics (I didn’t mean to put Beldar on the spot):
The state has been trying to convince the jury that GZ is somehow guilty because he’s a “wannabe cop.” That he’s somehow the aggressor because he “created” the situation by following TM. That he therefore lost the right to claim self-defense. That in any case his injuries were only minor so he couldn’t have been in fear for his life.
And in one fell swoop Carter came in and undid all that BS. As Branca said in a tweet, the prosecutor Mantei was caught so off guard it appeared he was just hearing about the law of self-defense as Carter was telling him about it. It was like Carter was holding a remedial clinic on the subject for some very dull students.
Not the jury, mind you. The prosecutors.
Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:10 amWatching the trial?
This Skype call is a disaster. The current Professor being interviewed is getting Skype calls every 2 seconds.
Literally.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:12 amMilhouse @ 771: It seems to me that Mr Zimmerman was doing exactly what you have said is a valuable tool, and profiled Mr Martin. (He’s never going to admit to racial profiling, of course, but I’d bet a curry chicken lunch special that is exactly what he did.)
And he got it wrong. You admitted that sometimes profiling leads to the wrong conclusions, and in this case, it yielded a spectacularly bad ending.
Who knows? Maybe Trayvon Martin was casing the joint, planning on returning to break into houses and rob people, or maybe he was planning on buying drugs, or perhaps he was even scoping out a potential rape victim. But if he was planning such things, he never actually did them, there is no evidence that such was ever his intention, and the law can’t somehow assume that he was planning anything of the sort.
Mr Zimmerman, however, obviously thought he was up to no good, and, in a way he was right: no good came of all of this.
The logically consistent Dana (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:12 amGreat explanation going on in the trial right now of why Trayvon had every right to SYG
Comment by tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 7:09 am
“I say, old bean, what’s that young fellow doing over there?”
Icy (456cf4) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:14 am“Don’t rightly know, old stick. Allow me to take a closer gander at yonder to-do, forthwith, for the purpose of determining what sort of rummy business is taking place, what?”
“Right ho! Carry on, and all that.”
. . . . .
“Well? What’s the scoop, old twig?”
“It’s the most extraordinary bit of rummy business I have ever encountered, don’t you know; eh, what? If — and I must forewarn you, me old chappie, that several of the variegated machinations of yonder pugilistic enterprise yet escape me — but, if I understand correctly, then the performance what’s being played out before us involves the younger fellow sitting upon the older man’s chest and slamming his head into the concrete sidewalk for the purpose of — now how did he put it . . . oh yes — for the purpose of ‘standing his ground’.”
“Extraordinary! Bit of the old rhubarb for the other fellow, don’t you think, old boy?”
“Yes. He most certainly appears to be in the soup, as it were, old wart.”
“I do hope the constabulary are on their way to break up this business. It’s slightly unseemly, I’d say.”
“Oh, ra-ther!”
For instance, if all you know about someone is that he’s in Afghanistan, it’s fair to assume he’s a Moslem. But if you know he’s a US serviceman, then it becomes fair to assume he’s not a Moslem. Then when he shows you his Koran it becomes fair to assume once again that he is one. Until he shows you the rest of his library of religious books, and that assumption changes again. The more information you have to add to your profile the better your guess will be. But at each stage of that progression you’re profiling.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:14 amNo, you are not. Surely you know the definition of a test.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:15 amNowhere does the constitution say that we must ignore what we know about the statistical correlations between race or religion or any other trait and criminality, or disloyalty, or illness, or anything else with which they may be correlated.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:18 amHe certainly did profile Martin; as a young man who appears to be on drugs and who despite the rain is not heading to some destination but is instead ducking in and out among buildings where nobody who doesn’t actually live in them has any business being. He did not profile him by race, since he didn’t know his race at the time. Had he been able to see Martin’s race, he probably would have added that to the profile, and he’d have been correct to do so.
Really? What makes you think so? In fact he got it right. He pegged Martin for a criminal, and he was one.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:23 amHave any of the people referring to 17-year-old TM as a “boy” (e.g. arguing whether “a boy without a weapon would confront a man with one”) ever asked themselves what the living TM would have said or done to anyone who referred to him as a “boy”? I’m just guessing, but I think a “ground and pound” would have been a likely result of even the most positive use of the term – at least if a non-black person said it.
Dr. Weevil (40c627) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:25 amWere he charged with any those things, you’d be right that the law couldn’t just assume him guilty. But how can you say that Zimmerman was wrong to suspect him of it, or that we should not suspect him of it? How can you deny the likelihood that he was up to some such illegal scheme? What other explanation do you have for his behaviour?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:25 amGZ said that he was in his “late teens” and called him a “kid.”
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:30 amThe Dana who insists on qualifying his name with ridiculous and untrue adjectives writes of GZ (#776): “He’s never going to admit to racial profiling, of course”.
Why the Hell should he? Would he not have called the police if some white teenager in a hoodie was walking around looking like he was on drugs and apparently casing apartments for burglary? Or a Hispanic or Asian teen? Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the police dispatcher ask him what color the suspect was, and wasn’t he at first unsure? That itself would disprove racial profiling.
Dr. Weevil (40c627) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:31 amIt is my understanding that the FBI regards profiling as an extremely useful tool, and employs people whose entire function is to create and apply profiles. And that these profilers do take race and religion into account — if they were to deliberately exclude these factors they’d be criminally negligent.
And yet we all saw what happens when too much reliance is placed on these profiles, when the DC snipers were stopped by police and let go because they didn’t fit the profile, by not being white. Some of the fault for that lies in the choice of the wrong profile to apply to the case — the ignoring of the possibility that jihad was involved. But most of the fault lies in the police imagining that the profile was 100% accurate, and if a suspect did not match it 100% then they must be ruled out.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:31 ameveryone under 30 is a “kid” to me, but that doesn’t make them a juvenile…
Thug Life was a large, strong athlete, not some helpless toddler.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:42 amMr Milhouse wrote:
You have just given us the definition of “assume:” it makes an ass out of u and me. 😆
I happen to have a Koran at home . . . but I’m Catholic. Koran’s are cheap, and they’re good reference material at times. There’s a Book of Mormon around the house somewhere — one of my wife’s family sent it to her — and enough Shakespeare sets that you’d think I read the Bard all the time.
Well, actually, I am reading Richard III right now, but that was after watching a show on the discovery and identification of his remains. But I haven’t really read that much of his works, the fact that I have posted a couple of things as The Sonnet Avenger notwithstanding.
The Dana with an extensive library (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:45 amDana obviously didn’t even read the paragraph he quoted, particularly this part: “Until he shows you the rest of his library of religious books”.
Dr. Weevil (40c627) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:54 amDana @764,
You do realize that Islam is not just a religion but a totalitarian ideology, don’t you?
By totalitarian I mean there is no aspect of human life that Islam does not dictate down to the smallest detail.
When the Obama administration disgraced this country by sending the US ambassador to Pope Tawadros II to try to get him to tell the Copts not to protest Morsi, he politely told her his authority over Coptic Christians extended only to religion, not politics.
You would never get the same response from a Muslim authority. Their authority extends to all aspects of life. It is a complete system; political, social, and legal. It is not a religion as the founders conceived of religion.
Islam is incompatible with our First Amendment. In fact, devout Muslims would be the first to tell you so. If that is you were a “moderate Muslim” they were berating for submitting to such an infidel idea such as man’s law as embodied in the Constitution superseding Allah’s law as revealed in the Koran, the Hadiths, and the resulting Shariah legal codes. Because Islam demands the establishment of religion.
Of course, they’d never tell you or me that. Until you confront what’s know as the Muslim numbers problem. When the Muslim population reaches a critical mass then they demand Islamic enclaves where shariah law is primary and the police do not enter. As we have seen in Stockholm the past couple of months. Or beheadings in broad daylight in London. Which along with other large cities in England has no-go zones for infidels.
There is a reason moderate Muslims don’t speak out against what we call extremists. Because the great weight of Islamic authority is on the side of what we only wish were extremists. They’re not extremists; it’s what’s been mainstream Islam for centuries.
Individual Muslims certainly want to assimilate. But Islam doesn’t assimilate. That’s why Islam divides the world into two parts. Dar al Salaam, the House of Peace where Muslims rule, and Dar al Harb, the House of War, which Muslims have yet to conquer.
If we pretend Islam is only a religion and is at all compatible with the First Amendment, they we are seeing only what we wish to see. We are not dealing with reality.
Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:56 amThe fact that GZ called TM a “kid” rather than a “boy” is just one more hint that he was not racial profiling. If ‘tifosa’ has never even heard that black men in the US were called ‘boy’ for centuries and that therefore non-racists do not even call boys ‘boy’ if they are black unless they are very small, then ‘tifosa’ needs to either educate herself about the topic or stop posting about it. Is anyone else here uncertain about how TM would have reacted to being called a ‘boy’ by a non-black person?
Dr. Weevil (40c627) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:59 amI think Milhouse’s great profiling example would work in describing you, then.
Trayvon committed attempted murder that night. that’s what it is to smack someone’s head into the pavement. It looks like George profiled Trayvon accurately. If only George knew more, for example about Trayvon’s comments about his love of fighting people and his description of himself as a “no-limit n____”. George’s mistake is not leaving this serious criminal to the police. He took an additional risk with this person because he wanted to reduce the chance he would lose him, but it wasn’t worth the risk and he almost died and could easily have lifelong health repercussions, to say nothing of the cost of the political witchhunt that has targeted him.
Dustin (303dca) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:04 amDana, true or false: A much greater proportion of Moslems than of non-Moslems possess a Koran. Possession of a Koran is significantly correlated with being Moslem.
True or false: If the only information you have about someone is that he is human, the probability of his being Moslem is about 20%. If in addition to that you know only that he owns a Koran, that probability immediately rises to above 80%.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:05 am> concerning whether he believed George Zimmerman
um, what?
that’s … just not ok to ask, not ok to allow to be answered. objection!
> REPLAYED ALL THE AUDIO OF THE OFFICER GIVING THAT OPINION before telling the jury to ignore i
um, what?
*sigh*
aphrael (d646cd) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:11 amThe same is true of Judaism, and at least some forms of Christianity.
When the founders conceived of religion, Islam was certainly one of the ones they had in mind. They were well aware of it, and often referred to it in the context of America being open to all religions. They even concluded a treaty with (I think) Morocco which spelled out that the USA has no established church, and is therefore no more a Christian country than it is a Mohammedan one.
No more so than are most forms of Christianity. The first amendment is a compromise, an attempt at avoiding the religious conflicts that had dominated UK politics in the second half of the 17th century and the early 18th.
There is no question that the first amendment applies to Islam every bit as much as it applies to any other religion. Don’t forget that at the time the USA was founded, the founders would have seen Roman Catholicism as a greater threat than Islam, and yet they made sure that in the new federation Catholics and the Roman Church would be treated equally.
As I wrote above, there is no reason at all why Moslems should not serve in the US defense forces, and indeed many have done so with distinction. We cannot and should not ignore that; doing so would be just as insane (i.e. denying of reality) as is ignoring the danger jihadists pose to us. In my opinion the proper attitude to Moslems is “trust but verify”, or rather “respect but suspect”. Recognise that any individual Moslem is very probably a good person, and treat them as such, but keep an eye out just in case that initial assumption turns out to be wrong, because the chance of it being wrong is significant.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:19 amI guess I disagree that it’s not appropriate for the investigator to be asked if he believes George’s story. That was his entire job. He was basing his opinion on the evidence, on the way George was grateful when lied to about video being found of the attack, etc. This investigator’s conclusion was that George’s story held up… why not ask him?
Dustin (303dca) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:26 amWhether the story is believable or credible is a judgment for the jury, not for a witness.
aphrael (d646cd) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:27 amMr 57 wrote:
Deuteronomy 25:5
Leviticus 15:19-24
It’s a good thing that no other religions try to regulate life down to the smallest details, huh?
The Catholic Dana (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:28 amMilhouse wrote:
Clearly there were some within the Obama Administration — perhaps even some higher ranking that low level employees in Cincinnati — who believed that any individual conservative is very probably a good person, and treat them as such, but keep an eye out just in case that initial assumption turns out to be wrong, because the chance of it being wrong is significant.
I guess it just depends on whom gets to pick what beliefs are dangerous.
The McCarthyite Dana (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:32 amI get that it’s improper to ask for a conclusion, but it seems wrong to me.
I want to hear the reasons for this conclusion, too, but it seems important that the investigator felt that George was telling the truth, after going through his investigation. Why not let the jury evaluate whether this investigator’s got a point?
Anyway, they had their chance to object and didn’t.
Dustin (303dca) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:34 amQuestion: does being Muslim constitute probable cause, under the Fourth Amendment, under the law?
The serious Dana (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:34 amBetter still, Deuteronomy 23:13-14.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:36 amDustin wrote:
And yet the objection got placed, but handled in the worst possible way for the prosecution.
Are the prosecutors really that dumb? Or are they trying to throw this trial?
The Dana who isn't an attorney (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:36 amNo, but it can be a factor in Reasonable Suspicion.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:37 amEven more interesting is that the investigator was demoted for not supporting a murder charge, and that the first prosecutor didn’t either. It’s also interesting that the President himself got involved, and now even the person who did the autopsy has been replaced with someone who will do things ‘the right way’ for the intended outcome. They even had to throw out the first judge.
There should be a kangaroo court exception. Once a defendant has been improperly demonized politically to this extent, I think it becomes important to hear from those who weren’t on board, and why, and what happened to them too.
Dustin (303dca) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:38 amDustin, the problem is that if the jury simply defers to the witness’ judgment because the witness ought to know for whatever reason, then the defendant hasn’t really gotten a trial by jury, he’s gotten a trial by the opinion of one witness.
It’s fine to ask him the questions about the things that lead up to his conclusion, but asking him for his conclusion is a problem, and an objection is proper.
That said, objecting retroactively the next day seems very wrong to me, too.
aphrael (d646cd) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:38 amMaybe. As you all can tell, I am no attorney either.
I first thought this show trial was intended to protect the politicians in Florida by giving the race hustlers the verdict they wanted. Maybe it’s only intended to protect the politicians by passing the blame for not getting the verdict they wanted. Now it’s the jury’s fault, and I suppose also George and his lawyers’ fault for bothering with a defense.
But in my gut I think the real problem is that most of the people involved with this case are stupid. The entire warpath to get this murder charge before a jury was obnoxiously stupid, dumbly ignoring evidence. That the people on board with the prosecution, including the judge, are stupid is the real reason for the mess.
Dustin (303dca) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:42 amOf course. The jury should evaluate whether these opinions are justified, but I don’t mind if the jury is aware of the opinions. I don’t think it’s as proper to ask the investigator “should the jury rule George is guilty?”, but asking “after your investigation, did you believe George’s story?” is a substantially different IMO.
But I suppose if I disagreed with the investigator I would have a different view. I really am more interested in how this investigator’s conclusion led to his removal as an investigator, and how that fits in to a pattern of this prosecution being an injustice. I do think that should be mentioned at some point.
Dustin (303dca) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:47 amAphrael, good to see you, btw. Beldar has a lot of excellent comments in this thread (most of which undercut my views, but such is life!)
Dustin (303dca) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:51 amMy friend Dana [who says and does many interesting and funny things] commented above (#666 — 7/3/2013 @ 5:44 am; italics mine):
I understand that argument. I’m not sold on it, and parts of it I find very hard indeed to swallow, and other parts of it I think I disagree with outright.
But I don’t think it’s a ridiculous position, and I’m not inclined to argue about it here, mostly because it is a statement of what Dana finds personally important. As Dana was careful to remind us in the language I just quoted, it’s not a statement regarding whether Dana thinks Zimmerman is guilty of a crime in some abstract sense, or whether Zimmerman will (or even should be) found guilty based on the evidence adduced at this particular jury trial, with its unique (and very odd) combination of personalities and events and antics.
If it is also Dana’s opinion that, indeed, Zimmerman ought to be found guilty based on the sort of evidence the State has adduced so far, then we very much disagree, but respectfully.
There are a number of other commenters here who are critical of Zimmerman and supportive of the prosecution and its performance whose arguments don’t reach the threshold of earning my respect. But I’m not going to feed trolls.
And of course, leaving all of us in blog-world to the side for the moment: The jurors have taken an oath to put aside their own personal feelings, including those (like Dana’s) which may prompt them to make judgments about Zimmerman on issues different from those the judge will be asking and instructing the jurors about in the court’s charge before they retire to deliberate. For the jurors to do their jobs according to their oaths, they must put aside such things as their own sentiments as to what’s prudent in doing neighborhood patrols, or even what was the most reasonable opportunity for the conflict to have been defused or avoided (and who had it).
Instead, for the jurors to do their jobs according to their oaths, they must indeed concentrate on such things as whether Mr. Zimmerman’s actions were, indeed, legal — as determined using only the evidence they’ve seen and heard in open court, as weighed using the law and legal instructions in the court’s charge.
So it seems to me a lot of y’all are talking past each other in fussing at Dana on this thread. But Dana obviously can and will continue to speak for Dana, and needs me not as an advocate.
My friend Milhouse asked above (#670 — 7/3/2013 @ 5:49 am):
It’s unclear to me that the prosecution should ever have been able to introduce that evidence at this stage of the case; I’m not at all convinced that there was a proper predicate laid, or that there was a proper determination of relevancy either. I’m guessing that evidence came in only because the defense team didn’t object to it (in anticipation, correctly in my view, that it would more likely blow up in the prosecutors’ faces than harm Zimmerman’s defense overall). But I haven’t watched those portions of the trial and I don’t really know whether or how vigorously or on what grounds the defense objected; maybe they did and were (wrongly) overruled.
Neither side seems to particularly want a real trial in which the rules of evidence are enforced. The defense doesn’t want that because they think they’re winning (and I think they’re winning) in the current chaos. And I honestly don’t believe the prosecutors don’t know the rules of evidence. (Although an alternative theory is that they’re simply pretending not to because that’s necessary to comply with what I presume to be their marching orders — to get a conviction no matter what, regardless of the evidence and even if it’s based solely on racial prejudice and politics.)
Beldar (83942c) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:52 amAn inadvertent double-negative there. That sentence ought to have read, “And I honestly believe the prosecutors don’t know the rules of evidence.”
Beldar (83942c) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:55 amThere are two possible views of what was going on there. The more benign view is as you have presented it: that they were profiling groups with “TEA Party” in their name as more likely than others (including those with “Progressive” in their names) to be in violation of the relevant laws. If this is the case, the problem with what they did is that the profile was wrong. It would be like profiling Moslems as more likely than others to be involved in insurance fraud. Sure, it happens, but there’s no reason to suppose it’s more common among Moslems than anyone else. On the other hand, if you’re looking at cigarette smuggling, you should definitely concentrate on Moslems, who seem to have a corner on that particular market.
Of course the other, more cynical view of the IRS scandal is that those involved didn’t really think such groups were more likely to submit fraudulent applications for tax status, but that they were more likely to harm the President’s re-election campaign. That would be a correct profile, but of course not a valid basis on which to delay their tax status applications.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 10:51 amIf they were to simply defer to him, sure, but why should they not take it into account among all the other evidence? I mean, the same applies to a forensic witness; the jury shouldn’t simply defer to his view that that cut mark must have been made with left-handed scissors, and so the defendant’s story that his right-handed mother made the cut can’t be true, but the witness is allowed to tell them that that is his view, and they then decide what weight to give it.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 10:55 amtifosa – Does the New Black Panther Party still have a bounty on George Zimmerman’s head?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:02 amJust to reinforce what I wrote two comments up, had it been true that groups affiliated with the TEA party movement were more likely than others to submit fraudulent tax forms, then the IRS would have been 100% correct to single these out for more intensive scrutiny. (Though if the same were true of “progressive” groups, and yet they were not subjected to the same scrutiny, then that would be a problem. But supposing that TEA-Party groups were submitting fraudulent applications and “progressive” ones were not, then the extra scrutiny for the former and not the latter would be justified.)
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:04 amI think this trial has shown the state had no case except in a biased and hostile press.
I hope the jury recognizes the implication if they imprison a man for defending himself from a deadly attack by a thug who glorified the gangster image and was clearly a criminal who saw decent people as prey.
We should be honoring the attitude of those who watch out for their neighbors, showing more concern than many LEOs who are paid to do so, yet we seem determined to hound and ruin them. This reminds me of Richard Jewell. We need to stop eating our heroes. We will not like the society we are building.
We seem to want the State to make us helpless sheep while eliminating the sheepdogs. We will be left pawns between the government and criminal wolves, with little to set them apart.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:07 amWe already have ample grounds to expect the Florida Bar to examine both Pam Bondi and Angela Corey for ethics violations, and Florida’s Medical Board to investigate an obviously biased and grossly incompetent ME Dr Rao.
ropelight (e18203) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:23 amMr Beldar wrote:
No, I don’t believe that Mr Zimmerman should be found guilty, based upon the very partial evidence I have heard. I said much earlier — though with over 800 comments, it could easily have been missed — that I thought that Mr Zimmerman shouldn’t be being tried at all, and that this was a miscarriage of justice in that the appropriate authorities, the one’s whose responsibility it was to take that decision, were overridden by outsiders based on a purely political motive.
Even without that consideration, what testimony I’ve heard does not seem to me to meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt; I’m not certain that it would meet a preponderance of the evidence standard.
My argument is solely that the incident was caused by Mr Zimmerman’s actions in choosing to play policeman when the real authorities told him not to do that.
It seems to me that many people here believe that if Trayvon Martin was a bad guy, then George Zimmerman must be a good guy; on the other side of the fence — say, on the Lost Kos — it’s frequently the other way around, that Mr Zimmerman must be a sans-hood Klansman, and Mr Martin as pure as the wind-driven snow. To me, one being wrong does not make the other automatically right: Mr Martin could well have been the aggressor in starting the physical confrontation even if Mr Zimmerman created the situation which led up to it.
This case also raises an interesting conundrum for our friends on the left: the better outcome is that Mr Zimmerman is acquitted, because, while Mr Martin is still going to be dead, that doesn’t have Mr Zimmerman spending the rest of his life in jail. But for the left to see that as the better outcome, they have to admit fault on the part of Mr Martin, which they are unwilling to do.
The Dana explaining himself (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:27 amIf inmates in Florida’s penitentiaries watched Dr Rao’s performance on the stand yesterday all those convicted on evidence from her office celebrated their good fortune. They’ll be lined up waiting to see jail-house lawyers to file appeals based on her malfeasance.
ropelight (e18203) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:31 am“Surls feels personal pride for having predicted…”
Just satisfaction that things went the way I said they ought to.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:32 amMilhouse wrote:
Actually, it makes sense: since much of the Taxed Enough Already Party’s beliefs are centered around the belief that our taxes are too high, I can see why people at the Infernal Revenue Service might think it reasonable that such people would be more motivated to evade income taxes. I just don’t believe that they should have been profiling anyone based on his political beliefs.
The snarky Dana (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:34 amIn spite of the fact that I’m psychotic and a clown.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:36 amGZ is a racist meth-head skinhead
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:40 amHe seems to have grown his hair out. Don’t think you can call him a skinhead any more.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:45 am“My argument is solely that the incident was caused by Mr Zimmerman’s actions in choosing to play policeman when the real authorities told him not to do that.”
*Comment by The Dana explaining himself (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:27 am*
What are the qualifications of 911 operators that make them “real authorities”? Are they sworn and trained LEOs? What makes them better judges of the situation than a man on the scene?
I keep remembering a story a while back where a grandmother alone with her grand daughter found an intruder on a shelf in the grand daughter’s closet. She confronted him with a gun while the grand daughter called 911. On the 911 tape you could hear the old woman commanding the intruder to come out and then you heard a shot. The operator immediately asked if the old woman had shot him and ordered the grand daughter to tell her grand mother to stop shooting him.
I was struck at the time that the operator had no way to know if the man was armed or was attacking the old woman. What if she had stopped shooting and he had raped and killed them? If they have a knee jerk reaction to stop using deadly force to defend yourself in a dangerous situation without any reason to believe that force was not justified and appropriate, then why should one obey them without question when the circumstances seem to indicate otherwise?
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:45 amWould the people who are crying for this wannabe gangster thug rather live in a neighborhood with more George Zimmermans or more Trayvon Martins? Who would even Jesse Jackson prefer to see walking past his house and looking at his windows and cars as they pull out?
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:52 amAlso the 911 operator, even if invested with such authority, did not invoke it. Such passive language as “we don’t need you to do that” is hardly an order.
Its the opposite of an order, an explanation that the 911 operator is not advising him to do that, and is not requesting that action. It is not an order to stop. And yet, Z. says “ok” and asjusts by not “doing that” anymore.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:52 amMachinist
the 911 people are very experienced and highly trained professionals who are better able to access a situation and send the right people to the scene than lets say a guy in a pickup truck with a gun.
Megan Kelly, surprised me just a minute ago when she said their is no way those 6 women are going to ignore the fact that a kid who didn’t or wasnt doing anything wrong, ended up dead
This maybe in reaction to the DNA guy stated I think there was no DNA of Zimmerman’s on Martins fists.
I could have misheard – but if its true – that martin didn’t hit Zimmerman hard enough to get DNA then – well – his story of fearing for his life maybe weakened further?
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:55 am“My argument is solely that the incident was caused by Mr Zimmerman’s actions in choosing to play policeman when the real authorities told him not to do that.”
Calling the police is playing policeman? The only person he talked to was a dispatch operator, someone who held no real authority or training over him. When did the concept of a neighborhood watch become so controversial?
Oh, and saying the incident was caused by GZ is about as factual as saying it was caused by the school suspending him.
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:58 amand as a disclaimer – I am a aggressively dishonest liar who is a moby, and a troll and a terrorist sympathizer who wants guns in the hands of code pink only……
not really but I wanted so save everyone from hand cramps from pounding their keyboards…
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:59 am“I could have misheard – but if its true – that martin didn’t hit Zimmerman hard enough to get DNA then – well – his story of fearing for his life maybe weakened further?
Comment by E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:55 am ”
So it’s your contention that Zimmerman broke his own nose and bashed his own head on the concrete as Martin watched?
What is the training given to 911 operators that makes then able to evaluate the situation better than a man on the scene. Do they get more training than Zimmerman had?
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:00 pmto save, I wanted to save everyone.
I also think its funny in spite of Greta Van Sus tweeting that she has a contract that Kelly said three times that she is coming back to host in prime time = hilarious
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:01 pmThe head injuries occurred on the cement?
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:01 pmmachinist
I’m just repeating what I heard on TV and again – Zimmerman’s nose was not broken.
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:02 pmHe chances of EPWJ describing testimony accurately is slightly below 0.00003873691%
Those highly trained professional civilian 9/11 operators in Cleveland sure were awesome. Maybe they were trained at the same place the highly trained nationally respected Mesi am examiner was trained at.
I forgot, it is over.
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:03 pm“Oh, and saying the incident was caused by GZ is about as factual as saying it was caused by the school suspending him.
Comment by JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:58 am ”
JD, there is precedent. I was just reading that the government in Egypt was saying the woman raped at anti-government protests were 100% at fault for going where men were. I guess if you try to help a rape victim then any harm coming to the rapist is your fault, too.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:04 pmI’m just repeating what I heard on TV and again – Zimmerman’s nose was not broken.
Again, his do you state this in direct contradiction to the a that doctor that examined him?
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:04 pmI am curious. Have any of you ever read the book by Gavin de Becker titled The Gift of Fear? IMO it should have been called “The Gift of Intuition”. But whatever.
His premise is that embedded in our millions of years of survival DNA is the ability to know when something in a situation is not right and when we are in danger if we just pay attention to this gift. The book focuses on self defense (both physical and mental) but only after he deeply explores criminal psychology.
elissa (3eda8a) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:08 pm”
machinist
I’m just repeating what I heard on TV and again – Zimmerman’s nose was not broken.
Comment by E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:02 pm”
Well then he was obviously in no danger. If a thug is on top of you beating on you MMA style you can’t defend yourself until he breaks your nose. Got it.
So a police officer being beaten this way would not be justified in using deadly force?
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:08 pmmachinist,
that was a totally silly question, most/many 911 operators are LEO’s that for health reasons cannot patrol or EMT’s likewise.
If this is your level of , disparaging everyone but the hero Zimmerman, then well, there’s no where to go, the medical examiner is crazy, the DA’s are corrupt, the judge is bought, the DNA guy is wrong, the 911 team is corrupt and incompetent – the constitution is violated yada yada
A guy, shot a kid, no one saw his head being slammed and he had no significant injuries to correspond with his one sided version of events
And if I heard right NO dna on martins hands?
not good for Z
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:09 pmelissa, that sounds rather like Jeff Cooper’s old writings on situational awareness and it’s importance to personal security.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:10 pmhttp://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=16353532
Lets put EPWJ’s lying to bed, yet again.
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:10 pmThe only thing you can say is that 1 1/2 minutes later, George Zimmerman changes his plan at the last moment.
He had agreed to at first to meet the police at the mailboxes. That would entail walking back to his car (about 150 feet) and then driving the car back to the mailboxes away from the direction in which TM had fled.
It probably occurs to him, as Milhouse said in the scenario in comment 661:
and then there’d be some more burglaries maybe.
He wants to maximize the chances the police will find the man if he’s still there and stop and question him, so he says no, he’ll tell the police where to meet him. This can only be because he doesn’t want to drive back to the mailboxes, and the only logical reason for that is that’ll put him further away from the boy.
It’s probably not because he’s too lazy to drive or it will be out of his way. It would have been no more than a one minute drive or so. And if it is because he will miss the police – well, it takes him longer. He knows it will take him longer because he says he’ll call back the police (that gives him some time) and tell them where he is.
Now it is almost certainly not his intent to confront Trayvon Martin but it could be it is his intention to try and see if he’s still around, maybe doing something illegal. That’s not what he says later. What he says is, he was looking to find the name of a street so he could tell police where he is.
George Zimmerman then walks in the direction in which Trayvon Martin had disappeared. He had stopped chasing at 2:34 into the 4:07 minute call and at about 3:40 into the call he had said, after being asked his apartment number:
In other words, he thinks Trayvon Martin might be hanging around near him and hiding – and maybe he can hear what he is saying on the telephone call – and he’s afraid maybe he will come over and rob him or something later if he knows where he lives.
So anyway he goes to check and make sure that Trayvon Martin is NOT there, or maybe to see if he is, in addition to walking further than he thought to get the address.
On his way back he gets attacked.
Because GZ doesn’t see TM but TM sees GZ.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:12 pmmachinist
where’s the dna evidence of a beating?
where’s the injuries sustained from at least a 30 second beating, no bruises, no swelling?
I agree Z got punched in the face, made a cut on his nose, got his head banged at least once – is it going to convince a jury that he was in danger of dying – think its going to be a hung jury and then some plea deal
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:13 pmmost/many 911 operators are LEO’s that for health reasons cannot patrol or EMT’s likewise.
You are kidding, right?
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:13 pm“Comment by E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:09 pm”
And I maintain that any rational person finding themselves or a loved one in Zimmerman’s situation would feel justified in defending themselves or their loved one, and to deny Zimmerman that right is stupid and corrupt.
What percentage of 911 operators are ex LEOs?
And yes, I do consider Zimmerman and people like him that watch out for their neighbors to be heroes. We need more of them today.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:15 pmYes, JD. Exactly. That 911 operator who first took the hysterical call from the Ohio girl clearly identifying herself as the missing girl who along with 2 others were being held as sex slaves for a decade, wasn’t exactly impressive in either competence or compassion.
elissa (3eda8a) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:16 pmI agree Z got punched in the face, made a cut on his nose, got his head banged at least once – is it going to convince a jury that he was in danger of dying
You are so dishonest. Good testified to seeing TM beating GZ. The medical evidence includes a broken nose, back injury, and lacerations to his head. The ME you laud never evaluated GZ.
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:17 pmIf Trayvon Martin had not elected to act suspiciously that night, cutting across the private patios of residents and peering in their windows, instead sticking to public walkways, perhaps there would have been no reason for George Zimmerman to act like a concerned resident attempting to prevent further crime from occurring in his neighborhood.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:17 pmIf we could go back in time and tell George
The Sonnet Avenger (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:17 pmThis won’t turn out well and you should back off
Would he avoid hammer, anvil and forge
Or listen to our advice and just scoff
If we could go back in time and tell Tray
Don’t start this fight, it won’t go well for you
Would he heed our warning or laugh and say
Don’t worry ’bout me; the white boy will rue
The day that he mess’d with this bad ass bro
I’ll kick his white ass and beat in his head
That creepy ass cracker will surely know
That he’s damn lucky that he isn’t dead
Alas! that hindsight is twenty-twenty
The blame for all this? There is plenty!
Being in danger of dying is not the standard, EPWJ.
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:18 pmJD, remember a certain commenter here claiming that asking him if he was willing to have rocks thrown at him was making death threats against him? I guess the standards of what puts you in danger tend to shift.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:18 pmAs usual the only liar is again JD who didn’t tell you that this was an official medical report but a note from a “family doctor” of Zimmerman
shame on you JD for lying yet again do you have any integrity?
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:19 pm30 second beating, no bruises, no swelling?
Those are lies. And you are a liar.
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:19 pmHis family doctor evaluated him. And made his report. I lied about nothing.
JD (cead21) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:21 pmWhat EPJW doesn’t know about bruises and swelling is a lot.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:21 pmMachinist
JD can take his comments to the Fischer DA and see for himself whether they though his repeatedly asking me to submit was a threat or not.
Then lets find out right? Made once in passing, but JD made it several times, over several days and is now bringing it up again – why – what does this have to do with this case?
Other than discrediting this entire blog as a place to have a discussion?
You were the guy if I remember who thoroughly disgraced himself by saying that the other 911 hijack victims were cowards correct – that was you wasn’t it?
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:22 pmWhat he doesn’t know about integrity is more.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:22 pmSarahw
What the medical examiner knows is what I was going on, you can compare and contrast your experience, but carry on I don’t want Z convicted but its not looking as good as everyone thinks IMO
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:25 pmEPWJ – you need to lock the liquor cabinet back up.
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:25 pm==why – what does this have to do with this case?==
Remind me again. What does Sara Hultgreen have to do with this case?
elissa (3eda8a) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:26 pmThe family dr. saw him the next day.
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:26 pmHere’s the EMT report from that night: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/zimmerman.fdems
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532#.UdR6tG20TKc
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:27 pmMachinist,
What did you write about the other 3 planes – about the people on them.
Then let everyone judge for themselves what you are.
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:29 pmtifosa, we’ve seen detailed photographs of Zimmerman’s injuries. Your claim above that he had no “defensive” injuries (besides sounding like you watch too much CSI on TV) is simply brazenly false.
Whereever you read that, whatever lying TV commentator said that, or whatever MSNBC lying hack you listened to, was lying flat out.
Probably intentionally so.
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:30 pmE.PWJ, I didn’t see JD bring that up, I did. You claimed that young people throwing rocks at a border patrolman posed no threat but when asked if you would be willing to be put in the situation you claimed these were death threats against you. If you were asked several times it was because of your dishonest evasions and dodging.
I did say that hundreds of adults should not have sat passively while four to six men with box cutters tortured women until they were allowed into the control room of aircraft and that we were wrong to indoctrinate young people to submit to evil that way as we do. I still feel that way. The proper response to violence against the innocent is action, not passive submission and obedience.
Maybe that is why I see Zimmerman as a hero and you see him as a criminal.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:30 pmEPWJ reminds me of Ron White’s comedy routine “Drunk in PUBLICK”
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:31 pmI see machinist isn’t answering the question – which is typical…
Look you don’t have to answer, you were upset typed something you probably didn’t really mean that way.
But that’s okay impugn my character at will though all for reporting what I heard on TV
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:33 pmSPQR, what defensive injury did GZ have?
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:34 pmA red mark, abrasion, bruise, broken fingernail that shows he protected his head?
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:35 pmDana, thanks for the gracious response and clarification (#818 — 7/3/2013 @ 11:27 am).
Beldar (83942c) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:35 pmWhat question did I not answer in comment #866?
I am quite content to have people judge me on what I have said here now and before.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:36 pmBeldar speculated:
The thought of such amuses me: I’m trying to think of just how much of a bind whomever gave such orders would have put himself in. Can you imagine what the reaction would be if the prosecutors, assuming that they lose, were to say, “Well, we knew we had a crappy case going in, and didn’t want to do this in the first place, but we had to follow the orders of Pam Bondi and Al Sharpton.”
Thing is, Mr Beldar’s alternative theory is as plausible as anything else; unless the prosecutors really are as dumb as Debbie Whatshername Schultz, they had to know that all they had was junk. When your star witness is Rachel Jeantel, you know you don’t have much.
The amused Dana (3e4784) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:37 pmtifosa, you do realize that a person’s actual injuries are irrelevant to an assertion of self defense, right? (I think you do, and you’re just being your typical disingenuous self here.) If you don’t realize it, read the whole thread: it’s been thoroughly explained by nk and Beldar.
Chuck Bartowski (7c7e89) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:37 pm“But that’s okay impugn my character at will though all for reporting what I heard on TV
Comment by E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:33 pm ”
I couldn’t impugn it as well as you do.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:38 pm== for reporting what I heard on TV==
Eric, I’m guessing that everybody here who is following the Zimmerman case and watching the trial proceed has a TV. It is really not necessary for you to “report” what you heard on TV. Just sayin’.
elissa (3eda8a) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:40 pmThis is surreal
JD (a3f19f) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:40 pmComment by E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:13 pm
where’s the dna evidence of a beating?
DNA evidence? You mean somebody should have tested that blood on Zimmerman and proved it came from him and not Trayvon Martin?
Does a broken nose and scalp wounds count?
where’s the injuries sustained from at least a 30 second beating, no bruises, no swelling?
George Zimmerman knew enough of fighting that he knew to slow down the speed at which his head hit the ground and get the brunt of the impact on parts of his body that would not sustain much injury or that were covered by layers of clothing.
He was handicapped in wrestling with Trayvon Martin in that he was trying to hide the gun.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:41 pmI agree Z got punched in the face, made a cut on his nose, got his head banged at least once – is it going to convince a jury that he was in danger of dying – think its going to be a hung jury and then some plea deal
First of all, that itself carries with it some danger of dying. Second he had a gun, which might be grabbed. Third he doesn’t need to be in danger of dying, but only facing a felony – and I think the kind of assault and battery he was undergoing was a felony.
The law of battery:
http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/chapter784.html
http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/784.03.html
Seems like it is not a felony unless he was convicted before of misdemeanor battery.
But …
http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/784.041.html
But George Zimmerman DIDN’T suffer “great bodily harm” you say!
But deadly force is justified against an ATTEMPT to commit a felony.
This would be here an attempt to cause great bodily harm, and surely we can say Trayvon Martin was attempting that, or at least George Zimmerman had reason to fear it.
Especially if, as George Zimmerman has said, Trayvon Martin had belatedly noticed the gun and mentioned it to George Zimmerman, and said he (GZ) was now going to die.
Even if you could have some reasonable doubt as to whwether George Zimmerman was telling the truth on that point.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:50 pm625. Comment by peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 7/2/2013 @ 8:56 pm
I just hope that if I ever get indicted for a crime, that these are the prosecutors that handle my trial.
No, that the evidence will be as much in your favor. It’s the evidence – the facts – that is what is causing all this trouble for the prosecution.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:52 pmJust satisfaction that things went the way I said they ought to.
— The prosecution blowing a case that they never should have brought in the first place is the way things ought to have gone?
In spite of the fact that I’m psychotic and a clown.
— In your case, it’s BECAUSE of that fact.
He seems to have grown his hair out. Don’t think you can call him a skinhead any more.
Icy (456cf4) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:52 pm— And by “you”, you mean YOU.
876. Not everybody has cable. And the Internet can be slow.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:52 pmmAchinist
again that’s not what I said and that’s not what happened. That still has no bearing on a discussion, an opinion need to have violent threats constantly brought up and repeated?
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:53 pmActually, though we have a TV we do not have cable, so I am interested when people point out meaningful events of the day.
And speaking of pointing out, maybe we should make a volunteer schedule for those willing to summarize any new and worthwhile discussion every 100 posts or so.
I appreciate those who are steadfast in trying to keep the facts in the forefront, but i want help avoiding the temptation to sit and read every post since I saw it last this am with less than 700.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:53 pmEPWJ reminds me of Ron White’s comedy routine “Drunk in PUBLICK”
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:31 pm
— They let him out in public?
Icy (456cf4) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:54 pmSammy
Its not good when you claim someone beat you up so you shot him dead and none of you is on his knuckles – if that is indeed what the guy said – I may have misheard – but if that is the case – its not the best thing for Z to a jury right?
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:55 pmEPWJ
There have been instances of rape where no dna has been found to have been exchanged.
Plenty of truama and evidence, just none of his dna on her or her dna on him.
It happens.
Everyone watches CSI Miami and thinks that every crime is awash in dna… and it may be. But can we collect and measure everything to that standard?
Evidently not at the Sanford PD level
I am pretty sure that the final punch of a fight:
steveg (794291) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:56 pmA. Could break/bloody a nose
B. Leave no blood etc on hand, clothing of person delivering punch
“That still has no bearing on a discussion, an opinion need to have violent threats constantly brought up and repeated?”
I can’t tell what you are trying to say there.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:58 pm~ouch, musta hurt when the recoil from the gun popped GZ in the nose~
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:59 pm“A red mark, abrasion, bruise, broken fingernail that shows he protected his head?
Comment by tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:35 pm
Whereever you are copying that from, tifosa, they are liars. Why do you think that making false statements is going to impress anyone here? Who have been following the details of this case for months.
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:01 pmI looked at the pics of both sides of GZ’s hands from SPD. You have something else?
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:04 pmI think prosecution is quietly trying to undo their own perp walk. “Sorry, we tried. But the facts had us hog-tied.”
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:05 pmtifosa, his head you idiot.
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:05 pmhis head wounds aren’t defensive.
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:06 pm900 comments on a backwater California blog.
Just shows how comprehensive and dedicated the statists and race baiters are in railroading the Cuban kid.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:09 pmtifosa, really? His head wounds come from his attack on Martin? How? He head butted him backwards?
You are truly bizarre.
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:09 pmhis head wounds aren’t defensive.
Comment by tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:06 pm
Strictly speaking, perhaps not,
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:11 pmbut unless you suggest Z was attacking Martin with the back of his head, they are evidence that Z was getting the worst of the interaction prior to the gunshot.
tifosa, you really are in some bizarre alternate reality. You can’t create a scenario where the fact that he was getting his head beaten upon/against the ground is not significant but his lack of serious wounds on his hands is significant.
Fire can’t melt steel, right tifosa?
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:11 pmSPQR, we both thought of the same possibility, I guess it must have happened that way after all
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:12 pmMD in Philly, I’m not interested enough to go do any searches to figure out what whackjobs are feeding tifosa this horse manure.
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:13 pmBut Surls reappearance was sure bizarre. Celebrating that the prosecution is doing such a bad job … “like he predicted would happen” …
Dave Surreal should be his nick.
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:14 pm==Actually, though we have a TV we do not have cable, so I am interested when people point out meaningful events of the day.==
MD–my comment about TV was addressed specifically to EPWJ and his ever helpful parsing of “the news”. If you want to get your meaningful info from his posts be my guest. But I don’t think you do.
elissa (3eda8a) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:15 pmSupergenius, wile e coyote level:
(LI–Branca author)Under O’Mara’s questioning it became clear that much of the content put into evidence by the State may have been contained in the class textbook but was never actually covered in class. The greatest blow, however, came with O’Mara’s last question (as has happened before) when he asked Pleasant what Zimmerman had told him about his career goals. Pleasant answered,”he said he wanted to be an attorney, and eventually become a Prosecutor.”
narciso (3fec35) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:15 pm886. Comment by E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 12:55 pm
Sammy
Its not good when you claim someone beat you up so you shot him dead
George Zimmerman never claimed to be completely beaten up, but he was not able to escape. People saw them struggling.
and none of you is on his knuckles
Trayvon Martin was most probably mostly beating George Zimmerman on his clothes and trying to force him against the ground.
He did punch him in the face, but the only place George Zimmerman bled from was the back and top of his head, as far as I know.
He had a broken nose. He did not have a bloody nose.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:19 pmif that is indeed what the guy said – I may have misheard – but if that is the case – its not the best thing for Z to a jury right?
No, it just proves George Zimmerman was not spurting blood.
He was hit – he wasn’t stabbed.
And I think even when someone stabs someone with a knife they don’t always get blood on themselves.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:20 pmUnless there’s something more, #737. 🙂
tifosa (7f8b9c) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:23 pmtifosa, have you been getting into EPWJ’s liquor cabinet?
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:24 pmWhy would defensive wounds matter? TM jumped him, hit him out of the blue, without warning. That he did not block a punch means nothing. I suppose the broken nose and head lacerations were offensive wounds?
JD (a3f19f) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:27 pmThis did go they way they intended;
(Branca)
narciso (3fec35) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:28 pmWest’s cross-examination of Carter, however, was devastating for the State. Carter described Zimmerman as “one of my best students,” and asked what grade he had assigned he answered, “an A.” (Interestingly, when Captain Carter had first entered the court room he had said, “Hi,” to Zimmerman.) Then West led Carter through a lengthy discussion–a lecture, really–of Florida’s self-defense law. It was like a legal seminar for the jury, and West particularly emphasized that there was no legal requirement to have actually incurred any injury whatever before you can act in self-defense. Carter even opined that you definitely would not want to wait to act in self-defense until you had been seriously injured. As the State saw the narrative spinning against them they repeatedly objected, constraining West’s cross. By then, however, the damage had largely been done to the State’s theory of the case.
when you call 911 here in LA, you get self-important government slugs who want to play20 questions with you instead of actually transferring you to the actual dispatch people.
there was a major MVA down the street by my house, with a vehicle on its side up on the sidewalk, etc, which stopped all traffic, thus blocking my view.
because i couldn’t describe each vehicle in detail, the 991 idiot refused to transfer me to LAFD to dispatch paramedics.
another time, a guy was beating a woman in a car in front of my house, and rather than patch me through to LAPD emergency, they insisted that i provide details such as car make & the plate, neither of which i could see, while he kept whaling on her. from experience, this info doesn’t get transferred when they finally deign to forward your call, because you have to give it all over again, so they are just being self-important.
the only good thing in this instance is that, by the time i got the shotgun out, she had managed to drive off, so 911 offered to transfer me to the NON-emergency dispatch number.
911 is a joke and the people on the other end are your stereotypical government employees who’d rather fill in blanks than actually accomplish their mission. after all, they are safe inside a protected building, so what do they care?
redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:34 pmand i have more 911 horror stories… one killed a guy i was doing CPR on with others
redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:37 pmnarciso, did you see a photo of the defense-friendly Alex Carter?
SPQR (768505) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:40 pmIn New York City the new 911 system isn’t quite working, at least for ambulances. It loses (or buffers) calls.
The City Time system which was supposed to save money by making time stamping more accurate ran up a tremendous overrun
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:44 pmReally?
Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:44 pmtifosa – Can you please describe what defensive head wounds would look like?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/3/2013 @ 1:47 pmThese obtuse blockheads want the White Hispanic’s blood and they don’t give a damn about a fair trial or the presumption of innocence or any other of the protections usually afforded to an accused. George Zimmerman used a handgun to kill an unarmed teenager who happened to be black.
To the mindless lynch-mob ghouls commenting here that’s enough to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree Murder and banish him to prison. Lie, twist the evidence, invent self-serving narratives, deny the obvious, whatever it takes to mak