Prosecutor John Guy's first words to the jury recounted what Zimmerman told a dispatcher in a call shortly after spotting Martin: "F------ punks. These a-------. They always get away." Zimmerman... viewed [Martin] "as someone about to a commit a crime in his neighborhood.... And he acted on it. That's why we're here... He shot him for the worst of all reasons: because he wanted to.... Zimmerman thought it was his right to rid his neighborhood of anyone who did not belong."
२४ जून, २०१३
"Trayvon Martin armed himself with a concrete sidewalk and used it to smash George Zimmerman's head."
Said the defense attorney, in his opening statement. Meanwhile:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४२७ टिप्पण्या:
427 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Defense had the better opening IMO:
"Knock. Knock," said defense attorney Don West.
"Who is there?"
"George Zimmerman."
"George Zimmerman who?"
"Ah, good. You're on the jury."
He shot him for the worst of all reasons: because he wanted to.
Well, since when do you shoot people who you don't want to shoot?
Zimmerman's atty was a cross between a child pschologist talking to 6 year olds and a bad PR man pushing victimization of Z by the Martin family.
.
An all woman and mother jury will reject Z's atty
totally, and Z's chaances with him,
"Zimmerman thought it was his right to rid his neighborhood of anyone who did not belong."
Oh, God save us from the mind-reading attorneys.
Reminds me of John Edwards and his ESP act with unborn children. "Please let me out! Please let me out right now! Distress! S.O.S.! I need a C-Section, dummy! Or at a minimum I need you to give millions of dollars to John Edwards!"
Some attorneys aren't just smart. They're sensitive.
A cousin of mine died from head wounds inflicted by a concrete sidewalk at the hands of another man. They were both unarmed. They were both drunk. My cousin died, the killer went to jail.
Have you ever tried a case in Florida? Banjos.
Well, since when do you shoot people who you don't want to shoot?
Only when your an over-militarized cop?
And tradguy continues wishcasting the outcome, though I don't think he's made it clear yet if it's because his wife is involved in the prosecution or he just has a stash of money riding on a conviction.
The racist spinning never ends.
I saw an article where the online "news" corp (ABC?) said "George Zimmerman self-identified as Hispanic".
Sheesh.
I'm glad they are televising the trial, because he is clearly hispanic.
I think Democrats are just disappointed they couldn't delay the trial until Sep 2014 so they could demogogue it again.
That line says it all.
If you buy it, Zimmerman walks.
Saint Croix said...
Zimmerman thought it was his right to rid his neighborhood of anyone who did not belong.
Oh, God save us from the mind-reading attorneys.
Sounds like AnUnreasonableTroll trying to set the conditions of the "debate".
Anybody who's seen a few old Westerns knows how it ends.
Why the analysis? The outcome will be determined by racism, not the attornys or the facts of the case.
major league eff up by Z's lawdog to have an all woman jury. too much pressure on 'em to not convict.
And yes, I did go there.
He shot him for the worst of all reasons: because he wanted to.
What a reckless and disgusting thing to say.
A good chunk of the country wants to see Zimmerman found guilty of racially motivated murder. If a 1980’s NYC jury can acquit Bernard Goetz, a white Christian Jew, of racially-tainted vigilantism, surely a 2010’s Florida jury will acquit a black white Hispanic non-Jew.
Of course, Goetz was pre-Sharpton.
Boy, after those opening statements, I can see why law school is so hard.
And it's also clear that the jury must be Twilight fans, the ones not smart enough to read the books.
"He shot him for the worst of all reasons: because he wanted to.... Zimmerman thought it was his right to rid his neighborhood of anyone who did not belong"
Now he has to prove that.
Zimmerman was profiling Martin as he followed him, Guy said. He said Zimmerman viewed the teen "as someone about to a commit a crime in his neighborhood."
If "profiling" (detached from the racial angle) were so repugnant would celebrities allow paparazzi to profile them... even after getting blamed for Lady Diana's death paparazzi "profiling" never stops.
The defense should do well not to deny profile occurred at all but to tackle the profiling bit by trying to delink it from the racial component the prosecution is trying to present it in.
Or at least try and put in the minds of the jurors that "profiling" does not automatically and necessarily means racial profiling.
Z was Crime Wave Profiling... and there is nothing wrong with that... at least not yet.
I spent an entire day last summer reading a web site (one of which was TalkLeft) about the case. Clearly, Zimmerman is being railroaded and Holder will see that he gets jail time even if the women of Florida don't cooperate. Only other black men are allowed to shoot young black men.
First the sentence, and then the evidence!
"He shot him for the worst of all reasons: because he wanted to."
Well, that's yer gun safety training. If one's taught to never shoot anyone or anything one doesn't intend to shoot then does it not follow that the careful gun user will only shoot that which he did intend to shoot?
I bet both sides have people on retainer who are experts in the care and feeding of lady parts.
The fact is that the two individuals were fighting before Trayvon Martin was shot. You'd want to hear all the eyewitnesses before you'd come to any conclusion.
I'd say the prosecution got the best start - portraying Zimmerman as a loaded gun accident waiting to happen may not get them the second degree murder conviction but could be good for manslaughter.
George Zimmerman's capital crime was that he was released from jail before the body was identified. But is it fair to put that on him?
Watch the trial, and by the end we will know the answer: Was Z an angry stalker ready to use deadly force if crossed by a fucking bastard on his territory that he had gone after despite the police dispatcher's cease and desist message, or was Z a victim that got surprised and attacked by a tough bully fighting for rights to be in the same territory?
Either way, I can't see Z as a victim. He was just a loser carrying a Glock.
His attys are the ones sinking Z so far. If Z is a victim, he is a victim of his defense team.
This is going to be a sickening trial. I'm already deciding to boycott "news" about it from any commentary show.
But, Obama has made his wishes clear in the matter and Zimmerman doesn't have a prayer.
"Either way, I can't see Z as a victim."
Because you presented a false choice.
Maybe Z was actually a citizen patrolling his neighborhood, which was being robbed repeatedly by punks who do so with impunity. And Martin was gonna teach him a lesson for getting in his way.
In your world, people cannot defend themselves and their property. That ain't America. and maybe that America is dead, but you have to make that argument, not assume it.
Obama has made his wishes clear in the matter and Zimmerman doesn't have a prayer.
Should Z be convicted, couldn't Obamas commentary on the case be used to appeal?
traditionalguy said...
Watch the trial, and by the end we will know the answer: Was Z an angry stalker ready to use deadly force if crossed by a fucking bastard on his territory that he had gone after despite the police dispatcher's cease and desist message, or was Z a victim that got surprised and attacked by a tough bully fighting for rights to be in the same territory?
How about he was jumped by a gang-bang wannabe who wanted a little street cred?
Either way, I can't see Z as a victim. He was just a loser carrying a Glock.
His attys are the ones sinking Z so far. If Z is a victim, he is a victim of his defense team.
No, Z is a victim because the media needed a racial story to help set up the "election" last year.
Pogo said...
Boy, after those opening statements, I can see why law school is so hard.
And it's also clear that the jury must be Twilight fans, the ones not smart enough to read the books.
How do you think John Edwards got to be a Senator?
And almost Veep
(talk about ducking a bullet!)
I have an almost inexhaustible supply of cynicism that protects me from most of the bullshit involved in politics and law. But this case really bothers me. Zimmerman has been the victim of a politically motivated trial. I thought the US didn't go for the whole show trial thing.
Every year I get more convinced the American experiment has failed. How sad is that?
Safe to say, another crap trial. I blame lawyers.
Ima follow the trial through Nancy Grace on HLN! Nancy is the most entertaining "legal expert" on the idiot tube!
Z looks like he put on a little weight.
I cant decide if that's helpful in the eyes of the women or not.
traditionalguy,
Are you sure you have enough rope to make the 13 knots required?
In the Dominican Republic a "vigilante" is not a bad thing.
Any Latinas on the jury?
Zimmerman's attorney seems pretty bad, but this is an easy case for him to win.
It seems particularly strange to me that the prosecution plans to argue that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the fist-fight. So Zimmerman supposedly carried a gun because he wanted to shoot criminals, but decided it would be fun to wrestle with the guy first? That theory's hard to even consider without giggling.
Why is he being prosecuted? Power. Fear. He's being prosecuted because the D.A. has power and can prosecute anybody he wants to. And he's being prosecuted because the D.A. is afraid of the press and bad publicity.
It is barely possible he is being prosecuted because of the pain and suffering of Trayvon's parents--who strike me as very nice people--and a desire to do justice.
But people become cynical about laws and lawyers because we have so many bad examples.
John Edwards, after his ESP act with the unborn children that made him a millionaire, turned around and voted against a statute making partial-birth abortion a crime.
That's ironic, you might say, and I guess it is.
In 2000 I voted for John Edwards for Senator. I asked him at a Q-and-A session in front of 500 people what he thought of partial-birth abortion. At the time I was trying to cling to some kind of pro-choice position. And John Edwards told me, in front of all these people, that he was "appalled by it."
And I was happy by what he said. I believed him and I shook his hand gratefully. (He avoided eye contact with me). And I voted for him and he was elected.
Why did he say it, if it's not true? How do you vote for something that "appalls" you? You do it for power, I think. You're not really appalled. That's just a line you tell the rubes in Chapel Hill.
Are you sure George Zimmerman is a murderer? You're charging him with second-degree murder. Are you sure that's an appropriate charge? Are you doing your absolute best to be honest and fair?
Althouse has given this trial the "crime" tag. I don't think she's trying to pre-judge the case! But these opening statements by the prosecution, defining Zimmerman as a vigilante out to kill innocent people, that is a lie. You have no proof to back up that statement. The case has just started and you are already lying.
I think we need a "cynicism" tag.
Ah, Professor? What about the effect of the clear equivalent of Unlawful Command Influence.
Obama violates that concept often.
Prosecutors routinely overcharge, in order to put pressure on a defendant to plead out.
Every time you do it, you are lying. If you can't justify the charge, you are lying.
At best this is a manslaughter charge.
@Traditional Guy: I still recall the thread more than a year ago when people wondered if someone had hijacked your blogger account. You asserted back then than Zimmerman had no visible wounds: link. I wonder if the subsequent revelation of those wounds affected your opinion at all.
"So Zimmerman supposedly carried a gun because he wanted to shoot criminals, but decided it would be fun to wrestle with the guy first? That theory's hard to even consider without giggling."
Exactly. And to choose hand to hand with a guy substantially taller and younger than you. That's scenario is impossible to believe, and therefore it's impossible to convict.
If Zimmerman wanted to shoot Trayvon from the beginning, he would not have called the cops, and he would not have let himself get hit. That's the whole case.
If Zimmerman wanted to shoot Trayvon from the beginning, he would not have called the cops
Oh yeah, forgot about that part. So the "I'm gonna shoot me a punk" battle plan is:
1. Grab gun
2. Call cops
3. Wrestling
4. Head butt the guy's fists with your face
5. Bang!
He's got a frickin' bleeding head. Did you miss that? Insufficient self-defense = manslaughter. It does not equal murder two.
You people who demonize white people? You suck. Did you not learn anything from the Duke Lacrosse case?.
He's not even frickin' white, you idiots. That's how deranged you are. You stink of the bigotry. And now that you've discovered he's not-white, what are you going to do? You got to continue the charade!
We need more white people in jail. Even it up. Balance.
More white girls in jail. Find a white girl. They probably did something. Look into it.
"He shot him for the worst of all reasons: because he wanted to".
Yea, but only after Martin broke his nose, bashed his head against the cement, punched him repeatedly in the face....
Oh, but Martin was a sweet kid! Just ask his mama!
The only thing that matters is: will the jurors fear riots (or more 'personalized' violence) if they acquit?
I think they will.
...one of the first witnesses for the prosecution was a custodian of police dispatch calls. During the witness' testimony, prosecutors started playing police calls Zimmerman had made in the months before he shot Martin. The defense objected, arguing the calls were irrelevant.
The judge said she would address the matter Tuesday and sent the jurors to the hotel where they are being sequestered ...
I believe the idea here is to plant a sinister idea in the minds of the jurors, should the judge reject playing previous Z police calls.
And if the judge allows the calls to be play, well, that works for the prosecution too. The prosecution gets to go on a 'fishing expedition' looking for something that may shock or paint Z in a bad light.
That first decision by the judge will telegraph if the judge is going to Lance-Ito it, or, is she going to keep a tight leash on the naked maneuvering.
Maybe they can have two courthouses, one where they burn Zimmerman in effigy, and one where they have the trial.
I do not have any idea how to assess an all female jury in that area of the US for that matter, for the female mind is a mysterious place unfathomable due to its unexpected diversions and the unpredictability of operating values. I have no way of knowing if through their eyes they see and value a guy like Zimmerman who patrols their neighborhood at night with a vigilance that brings him directly into harm for their behalf, I have no way of knowing if they see it that way. Are they composite Janes, do they trust local police to protect them? Do they live alone? Have kids? Do they fall for the Skittles® bit of dramatic writing? It was like Little Red Riding Hood with our little basket of Skittles off to Grandmother's house we go through the dark forest at night fraught with compassionless wolves. HE'S ONE ME! BANG uuugh, I'm dead. That one? Do women over there believe that? I do not know.
campy mused:
The only thing that matters is: will the jurors fear riots (or more 'personalized' violence) if they acquit?
I think they will.
Surely you don't respect that sort of ransoming ransack of justice?
I'm in the same boat Chip.
campy said...
The only thing that matters is: will the jurors fear riots (or more 'personalized' violence) if they acquit?
I think they will.
According to Ann's oldest commenter, they'll only give a fuck if it's going to happen in their neighborhood.
A Show Trial?
Here in America in the 21st Century?
Perish the thought!
"I try to be cynical--but I can't keep up."
----Lilly Tomlin, Political Philosopher
For those who want to read up on government officials who engage in racist prosecutions in the 21st century, I would start with this.
And it's not just the government, of course. We have these show trials courtesy of the Marxist left in our academy, and our Pravda media.
Testimony of the 911 operator went well for Zimmerman.
...ransoming ransack of justice?
It just rolls of the tongue.
off.. rolls off. rolls off.
When Zimmerman was talking to the 911 operator it practically had to be dragged out of him that Martin was black. That was the infamous NBC editing that made it sound as though Martin's race was what Zimmerman honed in on not his suspicious behavior. Zimmerman's life is over and the NBC suits go sailing on.
Phil Corbett, an editor for the New York Times...
Our guidelines say we mention race or ethnicity if and only if it’s pertinent to the story. Given that this is being investigated as a possible civil-rights case and has stirred protests in part because of concerns about racial elements, it seems clear that race and ethnicity are pertinent, for both people involved.
God help us from mind-reading New York Times editors.
Your race is pertinent because we say it's pertinent. And we say it's pertinent becomes the mobs on the street say it's pertinent. And the government says it's pertinent.
Indeed, not only has the government said that race is "pertinent," President Obama says the dead guy looks like him. Hint hint, nudge nudge.
@Lem: We all illiterate sometimes.
Saint Croix wrote: Why is he being prosecuted? Power. Fear. He's being prosecuted because the D.A. has power and can prosecute anybody he wants to. And he's being prosecuted because the D.A. is afraid of the press and bad publicity.
That isn't what is happening. The State Attorney in charge of Seminole County decided to NOT try Zimmerman. Then the Martins got an attorney who started agitating this along racial angles, eventually the President adopted Trayvon as his one true son, and then the Governor of Florida got scared and appointed a prosecutor from another jurisdiction to take over the case and bring Zimmerman to trial.
This is on the President and the governor.
@ traditionalguy
Do you actually have anything worthwhile to add or this endless flow of utter shit all we can expect from now on?
You bore me. Go away.
It was painful watching Zimmerman's attorney repeatedly describe him as 'soft', with cross-shots to Zimmerman sitting there looking soft, both physically and mentally. This struck me as a poor strategy, given the circumstances. I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of murder but 'soft' is not a good thing for someone to be when they are patrolling the streets with a semi-automatic weapon.
It just rolls off the tongue.
I'm trilled you said that!
It was reminiscent of Safire's "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism".
Surely you don't respect that sort of ransoming ransack of justice?
Respect it? No, but I acknowledge it. I also acknowledge that it is in my best interest if Zimmerman is found guilty of something.
Hell, it's probably in Zimmerman's best interest if he's found guilty at THIS trial. If the State of Florida fails to convict, Zimmerman is going to have the entire Federal government come down on him like Paul Anka. They won't stop until Zimmerman is either in a supermax, or put into a general population of black prisoners to knife him in the yard.
the Governor of Florida got scared and appointed a prosecutor from another jurisdiction to take over the case and bring Zimmerman to trial.
Thanks for the correction, and I agree it's definitely a political trial.
But the decision to charge murder two, and not manslaughter, was made by a prosecutor.
And that is corrupt and wrong and dishonest. And it really doesn't matter how you got your job or what your boss says. You still have an oath to follow our Constitution and our laws. You got to do the right thing.
There is no legal basis for a murder 2 charge on these facts. Probable cause? It doesn't even meet maybe-I-can-get-away-with-this cause.
His attys are the ones sinking Z so far. If Z is a victim, he is a victim of his defense team.
As a rule, starting a comedy routine or opening arguments at a trial with a knock-knock joke is not a good idea.
According to Ann's oldest commenter, they'll only give a fuck if it's going to happen in their neighborhood.
There town/community/general local. And they'll potentially fear for themselves, too.
Seriously, I love how many of you want to see people killed in riots just for your personal satisfaction.
I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of murder but 'soft' is not a good thing for someone to be when they are patrolling the streets with a semi-automatic weapon.
I think you misunderstand women in this regard here and that is all that matters to the defense attorney. Remember that Trayvon is portrayed as "soft and cuddly."
Without the h...
1.Produce a quavering or warbling sound.
2.Sing (a note or song) with a warbling or quavering sound.
AReasonableMan said...
It was painful watching Zimmerman's attorney repeatedly describe him as 'soft',
Zimmerman's attorney was quoting the personal trainer who was teaching Zimmerman boxing.
You have no regard for even the most basic of facts in this case. And, if you can't understand why the defense did this, you're borderline retarded.
"It is barely possible he is being prosecuted because of the pain and suffering of Trayvon's parents--who strike me as very nice people--and a desire to do justice."
Nice people don't hang out with the likes of Benjamin Crump.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
It was painful watching Zimmerman's attorney repeatedly describe him as 'soft', with cross-shots to Zimmerman sitting there looking soft, both physically and mentally. This struck me as a poor strategy, given the circumstances. I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of murder but 'soft' is not a good thing for someone to be when they are patrolling the streets with a semi-automatic weapon.
Patrolling the streets?
A semi-automatic weapon?
Like an M-4?
Why not just go whole hog and call him a kill-crazy Vietnam vet.
Some poor grunt. Even better, a LRRP with a string of ears around his neck, out for one more kill.
Christ, Troll is a living, breathing museum piece of how Lefty lawyers operate.
Seriously, I love how many of you want to see people killed in riots just for your personal satisfaction.
Riots should not happen. Full Stop. Nor should pretend threats to do so weigh in juror's minds. It's obscene.
West quotes gym instructor: " GZ was soft, would never have let him in ring, sucked at fighting."
Which of course bears no resemblance to what the unreasonable girl said.
Part of Zimmerman's defense strategy seems to be ballooning up to look like Chaz Bono.
Saint Croix said...
It is barely possible he is being prosecuted because of the pain and suffering of Trayvon's parents--who strike me as very nice people--and a desire to do justice.
Funny, I was taught in school people were prosecuted because they broke the law.
How times change.
when they are patrolling the streets with a semi-automatic weapon.
Zimmerman was not "patrolling" any streets.
He was on his way to the grocery store.
Even the state concedes this.
Again, you're borderline retarded.
Thanks for the correction, and I agree it's definitely a political trial.
No problem. It is definitely a political trial, I just want the correct people to be identified as the culprits.
But the decision to charge murder two, and not manslaughter, was made by a prosecutor.
The governor chose a prosecutor know for being a real hard-ass. The attorney in question (a woman - I don't think she's conducting the actual trial) would not have been chosen unless the governor thought the prosecutor wasn't going to bring murder charges. I'm sure everyone involved on the prosecution side was disappointed they couldn't stretch it to murder one.
I love the "with a semi-automatic weapon" bit too.
Thanks for confirming you're not a gun owner, unreasonable girl.
A semi-automatic weapon?
A Glock is Austrian-made and is easily conflated by an idiot to das Sturmgewehr.
Zimmerman's attorney was quoting the personal trainer who was teaching Zimmerman boxing.
Ah, that's interesting. "Soft" probably means Zimmerman didn't like getting hit, or getting in scuffles. People that don't like getting hit generally don't start fist fights. A willingness to getting hit, even in the face, is almost compulsory for serious martial arts training.
El Pollo Raylan said...
I think you misunderstand women in this regard here and that is all that matters to the defense attorney.
If he was the victim sure, but he is clearly not the victim. He was the one who initiated the conflict, at least in the broad sense, and the one who was armed. I am not sure how well women respond to 'soft' in a man.
ElPollo...the early days of MSNBC's selective pieces had everyone confused. I just wanted to see more evidence and give the Martin family a trial of the evidence.
My point then, and I will repeat it now, is that in the pictures we had 's nose was not seriously broken and that the rear of his head only showed some mild abrasions that Z could have done to himself in a few seconds that night. Yes,Z may have received some marks in a struggle with Trayvon after Z fell backwards. But saying Z suffered any serious head trauma was obviously not true.
Riots should not happen.
Yeah, I bet they said that in LA during the Rodney King cop trial in 1992. How'd that work out?
Nor should pretend threats to do so weigh in juror's minds. It's obscene.
Also, I'm presuming you don't have gold tooth home boys wandering your neighborhood wearing "No justice, no peace" t-shirts. While doing the ghetto shuffle and holding their ridiculously droopy pants up.
Icepick said...
Ah, that's interesting. "Soft" probably means Zimmerman didn't like getting hit, or getting in scuffles. People that don't like getting hit generally don't start fist fights
Don't tell the unreasonable man this! She's busy pretending this is the dumbest defense strategy ever!
He was the one who initiated the conflict, at least in the broad sense,
WTF is that even supposed to mean?
You're just here peddling dumb bullshit.
@Lem, I was counting on you appreciating how "r's" are trilled in certain latinate languages.
@ garage mahal
"Part of Zimmerman's defense strategy seems to be ballooning up to look like Chaz Bono."
Ahahaha. Ahahahaha. Ahahahaha.
Too funny. Really. Very witty.
You can squirm back under your rock now.
garage mahal said...
Part of Zimmerman's defense strategy seems to be ballooning up to look like Chaz Bono.
Says the fat guy.
Also, I'm presuming you don't have gold tooth home boys wandering your neighborhood wearing "No justice, no peace" t-shirts. While doing the ghetto shuffle and holding their ridiculously droopy pants up.
Oceanside has gang problems. There were shooting deaths just a few months ago.
But you sound like you live in fear which is not good.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
I think you misunderstand women in this regard here and that is all that matters to the defense attorney.
If he was the victim sure, but he is clearly not the victim. He was the one who initiated the conflict, at least in the broad sense, and the one who was armed.
Lucky for him.
And how dare he say, "Hey, kid! What're you doin' back there?".
Wars have started with less.
"Trilled", I first thought of agriculture when I saw the word.
Icepick, please get a grip:. What you're condoning is getting close to excusing what Spike Lee did.
And to be honest, the rest of the country not affected by riots is not going to cower. They're just not. You're suggesting, for personal and understandable reasons, that they should condone threats. It's akin to asking each and every part of the country to surrender guns and self defense because the cities are out of control. It's just not going to happen, no matter how many crocodile tears the President sheds on camera.
Honestly fat ass garage jawing at fat people and Girly man traditionalguy talking about losers. TOTKO I guess.
I agree with Revenant (5:40) that Zimmerman's attorney did not do well, but subject to the weaknes of juries, it should be an easy case for him to win.
The knock knock joke was absurd and perhaps evidence the attorney might be bad enough to lose.
The prosecution argument that he shot him because he wanted to was over the top and gives the defense a huge opportunity to demonstrate to the female jury that shooting him was the last thing Zimmerman wanted to do. I was surprised at the early takes in these comments saying of course Zimmerman wanted to shot him, that is what guns are for.
The rest of Revenant also seems right: "It seems particularly strange to me that the prosecution plans to argue that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the fist-fight. So Zimmerman supposedly carried a gun because he wanted to shoot criminals, but decided it would be fun to wrestle with the guy first? That theory's hard to even consider without giggling."
Says the fat guy.
How would you know? Did you look me up online or something, pervert?
By the way: I'm taken. Sorry.
Part of Zimmerman's defense strategy seems to be ballooning up to look like Chaz Bono.
It may a challenge for which ever actor plays Zimmerman when the TV movie comes out. But hey, De Niro pulled it off.
Part of Zimmerman's defense strategy seems to be ballooning up to look like Chaz Bono.
That may be an overstatement but it's not a bad idea. There are times when a young man wants to look tough and a little dangerous. A murder trial in which that young man is claiming self-defense is not one of them.
But you sound like you live in fear which is not good.
Last summer I had some sixth graders who kept trying to catch some kittens a feral cat had at my house. They wanted to beat them to death with sticks. I eventually scared all of them but one of. That one left when the house he was living in went into foreclosure and his family moved. But that last was the nastiest of the boys, and he eventually caught one of the kits and killed it. They did this just because it seemed like a fun thing to do.
This is the neighborhood I live in. And those little monsters grow up into great big monsters.
"I was surprised at the early takes in these comments saying of course Zimmerman wanted to shot him, that is what guns are for."
I just figured it was bad humor. When he shot him, yes, he meant to shoot him. (That's sort of a tautology unless someone is claiming that it was a negligent or accidental discharge.) But the prosecutor's statement, at least the part quoted up top, implies that Zimmerman called 911 and more or less announced that he wanted to shoot the asshole punk... which of course makes all sorts of sense that you'd plan on shooting someone but called 911 first to call the guy names. (that last was sarcasm)
CBS and NBC News are still trying to get Zimmermann convicted.
George Zimmerman
Chaz Bono
Okay, Garage, maybe you weren't overstating things.
somefeller said...
There are times when a young man wants to look tough and a little dangerous. A murder trial in which that young man is claiming self-defense is not one of them.
I can see the logic in this but the emphasis on 'soft' is an invitation for the line of argument that I think will ultimately result in a conviction of manslaughter, which is that Zimmerman panicked resulting in an unnecessary death. The defense seemed to concede this too completely and too early. Maybe they genuinely believe that a murder conviction is possible here.
Why would we think that neighborhood vigilantes would ever abuse their power? I mean, it's not like cops ever do, even when they're right in the courthouse!
If Zimmerman were black, we'd never ever have heard of this case, and he wouldn't be prosecuted, most likely. Anybody still want argue that justice is color-blind?
"But saying Z suffered any serious head trauma was obviously not true."
Allowing self-defense only after serious head trauma is a bit like only allowing self-defense after rape.
That is not how it works.
"But, Obama has made his wishes clear in the matter and Zimmerman doesn't have a prayer."
If that's true, shouldn't he get a mis-trial and automatic pardon?
garage mahal said...
How would you know?
You're fat and lazy, and you have fat little kids.
This has all been discussed on this blog before.
Z's weight gain could be interpreted by the jurors as the doings of an uncaring, unremorseful Z who instead of loosing appetite for food, brought about by, say, a natural fear of prosecution, chose instead to indulge in the pleasures of culinary delights... or something.
I say that not knowing the measurements of the women jurors.
Should the jurors be on the Roseanne Barr side of the scale and not the Roseanne Roseannadanna, Z's weight gain should not count against him.
That's my lightweight analysis.
chickelit, you haven't noticed, but the Republic is dead, Rule of Law is a quaint term to be seen in history books, thugs and grafters run the government, and violent criminals largely get their way in poor neighborhoods. (Assuming the police don't muscle their way into the action so that the crime benefits the cops directly.)
The government doesn't give a shit about anything but looting the treasury anymore. The police are not excepted from this. Nor are prosecuting attorneys or judges.
So yes, in this environment, I am only concerned about me and mine, especially mine. All other considerations are strictly irrelevant, and occasionally laughable.
...
Let me give examples of how the government runs. The Federal government is doing everything it can to subvert the first, second, fourth, fifth and tenth amendments, to name a few. Meanwhile, that same government is asserting that the same constitution that they're subverting in other ways GUARANTEES that two men can get married, and that snipping the spinal cord of a new born completely covered by the emanations and penumbras of that hoary old document. So I'm supposed to respect rule of law because why? I'm supposed to believe in some concept of justice because why?
Meanwhile, at the local level, we have down here in Central Florida police departments that shot hundreds of rounds in apartment complexes endangering the lives of sleeping babies (this has actually happened) because someone decided that some car thief was a modern John Dillinger - and the state sanctioned these actions because fuck you. We've had cops showing up in the middle of the night at peoples apartments, making threatening noises without identifying themselves, and then shooting the person in the apartment for not being properly deferential. (Those cops also got off - but rumor has it they feel really bad about intentionally gunning down a random civilian who had done nothing wrong. Which is why they and their guns are back on the street looking for more people to shoot.)
This is the local law enforcement establishment.
The governor decided that he'd better get Zimmerman tried and convicted because it would maybe help his reelection bid in 2014. Because Rick Scott (Republican Medicare defrauder) is really hoping to win the black vote next year by showing he's down with the Lean crowd, yo.
We've got a President who decided that it was necessary for him to adopt someone with the hope of stirring up racial animus to help his reelection last year.
This is the world we live in. And you really want ME to be the one to show a bunch of idealism on this front? I may be cynical, but you are downright delusional if you think my opinion means shit, and that I should risk my family because George Zimmerman was too much of an idiot to stay the fuck in his truck and let the Sanford police come shoot Trayvon Martin instead.
somefeller said...
Part of Zimmerman's defense strategy seems to be ballooning up to look like Chaz Bono.
That may be an overstatement but it's not a bad idea. There are times when a young man wants to look tough and a little dangerous. A murder trial in which that young man is claiming self-defense is not one of them.
No, that's the deceased that did that. Over and over again.
The defendant tried to defend himself from said punk.
The Baghdad Bob of Althouse has his characters mixed.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Why would we think that neighborhood vigilantes would ever abuse their power? I mean, it's not like cops ever do, even when they're right in the courthouse!
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
And when exactly was the Neighborhood Watch a Committee of Vigilance, although, with punks like "Trayvon", I could see where one miight be needed.
The testimony on cross examination by dispatcher Sean Noffke
O'Mara: "Do you hear any anger in [Zimmerman's] voice?" Noffke: "No sir.
O'Mara: "You are trained to get a sense of the caller?" Noffke: "Yes sir."
Quotation of “These fool always get away." O'Mara: "You hear any anger?" Noffke: "Sounds calm to me."
O'Mara: "You wanted Zimmerman to tell you what path TM took?" Noffke: "Yes."
O'Mara: "After he said Martin was gone, did you hear any anger in his voice?" Noffke: "No sir."
O'Mara: "Any concern in how Zimmerman presented to you?" Noffke: "No sir."
O'Mara: "Any concern about Zimmerman's cursing?" Noffke: "No sir."
"Based upon your six years of doing this, if you ask someone which way someone else is running, they may actually go find out?,"O'Mara asked.
"My intent was to get a location for the officer," Noffke said. "I can understand if someone interpreted it in a different way. I can't control how they interpret the words."
The state's case seems to be somewhere between merely shouting racist! and some sort of cartoon version of events.
campy wrote:
I think they will.
Will what? Fear riots or acquit, or both?
tradguy: nose was not seriously broken
How broken do you have to let someone else make it before it's self defense??
Seriously, just tell us what your personal ax to grind is here, because your comments regarding this trial, as Pollo have noted, are so far out of your normally sensible character that they can't help but generate suspicion.
I would shoot MYSELF if I were on the jury. What a freaking nightmare.
Fear riots or acquit, or both?
If the jurors have no fear and the defense is semi-competent, the jury with acquit. There's just not enough KNOWN to convict Zimmerman of anything more than bad judgement and a stupid decision. And there are plenty of reasons to doubt the state's interpretation of Zimmerman's mindset and intentions, including testimony that Zimmerman was losing a fight badly when the shot happened.
If the jury has fear, they'll convict of something.
"@ traditionalguy
Do you actually have anything worthwhile to add or this endless flow of utter shit all we can expect from now on?
You bore me. Go away."
6/24/13, 6:47 PM
There should be far more types like Traditional Guy and far less "eds". Who made you thread monitor, ed? Boring name, boring comments from boring eds.
I saw an article where the online "news" corp (ABC?) said "George Zimmerman self-identified as Hispanic".
The media could with equal justification call Barack Obama a self-identified black, but of course they never do. Look up "first black president" on Google and you get 733 million hits. It's like his dad was Kenyan and his mother Ethiopian by way of Kansas.
This has all been discussed on this blog before.
Whatev, creeper.
Hmm, I wonder how many comments this thread will hit? At least 450.
Zimmerman is an overweight Hispanic with no special support from Hollywood celebrities or Washington power brokers. He's definitely the underdog in this case......The people a who like to brag about their support for the marginal and disenfranchised want nothing to do with him. Only underdogs of certain pedigree need apply for their sympathy......,I get the feeling that I would not want to hang out with either Trayvon Martin or Zimmerman, but Zimmerman would be the better neighbor. I'm on the side of the underdog in this case. I hope the bigots here will take this opportunity to reexamine their prejudices against overweight Hispanics.
In my first comment, I snarked, "Well, since when do you shoot people who you don't want to shoot?" in response to the prosecution's stupid "argument" that Zimmerman "shot him for the worst of all reasons: because he wanted to." But my snark was there to point out the illogic of what the state was saying. I forgot the key to winning or losing this trial: the jury. The jury is entirely made up of women. Actually, the prosecution was not being stupid at all.
This entire trial will be one of the prosecution making appeals to emotion and the defense doing the same. In this regard, the prosecution's opening statement was right on the money. The defense will try to feminize and victimize Zimmerman, to make him appear weak and helpless in the hope that the jury can better empathize with him and his plight. We have already seen this with the defense. "Trayvon Martin armed himself with a concrete sidewalk and used it to smash George Zimmerman's head." Zimmerman is a victim, not Trayvon.
This will be the picture that will be painted in the coming weeks. The emotional picture will be the key. Whoever does a better job in constructing a tale of woe will win. The law will be an afterthought. We will find this whole trial frustrating and stupid, but it will make great TV.
Inga said...
There should be far more types like Traditional Guy and far less "eds". Who made you thread monitor, ed?
Yeah, don't you know?
That's the She Devil of the SS' job.
Z was Crime Wave Profiling... and there is nothing wrong with that... at least not yet.
You're right and your observation is prescient. It no doubt will soon be made illegal. In fact, as is apparent from the comments of many people about Zimmerman, a lot of them seem to think it's illegal for a neighborhood watch volunteer to racially profile someone today.
Another point. The police dispatcher testified in today's trial that he "advised" Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Not so. The dispatcher merely observed "we don't need you to do that."
But even if he had advised (even ordered) Zimmerman not to follow Martin, since when is anyone required to listen to a civilian police dispatcher?
Measurement.
Is That what the trial is going to come down to.
Who's got the measurement compelling narrative.
To the women of OJ's jury The glove didn't fit.
Z's not fit... who fits the descriptions... was the joke fitting a serious trial?
When is it fit to shoot someone?
Should their race fit in the calculation as to when it is fitting to shoot and not shoot?
I fear Zimmerman's going to be sacrificed on that most exalted platform, the Altar of Race.
By virtue of his skin color Trayvon Martin had the inalienable right to be anywhere at any time and do anything to anyone short of an actual crime (said crime proven in a court of law before a jury of his peers) without interference by anyone, let alone a self-appointed neighborhood guardian. Therefore Zimmerman had a beating coming, and should not have resisted or defended himself, being the real guilty party from the outset.
My second paragraph is nonsense of course, but it is a fair summary of the prosecution's case. Presented to a cross section of rational adults acquainted with the doctrines of self-defense Zimmerman stands little chance of conviction. However, the State has been busy staffing the jury with the most emotionally malleable persons it could find.
Fat kids get picked on and bullied at school and have a hard time getting into the teams.
But Z is not a kid.
Still.. how many moms do you have in that jury?
ARM - Zimmerman is being tried for 2nd Degree Murder, and not for manslaughter, where the state would have a higher chance at conviction. Sure, self-defense gets him off anyway, but 2nd Degree requires more than that he shot Martin - for example either while committing another felony (that isn't a lesser included offense, which was not done) or a depraved mind, and the state is basing that, I think, on his identification to the dispatcher of Martin's race.
Prosecutors often multiply charge defendants - for example with assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, and murder. Since the first two would have been lesser included charges, only the most severe of these that a defendant is convicted of count.. But, they didn't here. And, they can amend charges up until the time that the trial starts. But, adding manslaughter late in trial when 2nd Degree Murder seems to be losing is most often not allowed, as having that charge throughout the trial may, and in this case probably would affect litigation strategy.
I'm trying to figure out if the weight gain may have been deliberate.
Synova said...
"But, Obama has made his wishes clear in the matter and Zimmerman doesn't have a prayer."
If that's true, shouldn't he get a mis-trial and automatic pardon?
Wouldn't you just think so?
although, with punks like "Trayvon"...
Ahhh... There's Smegma Ed's Law and Order, for ya! Is someone a "punk"? Does he have a name you don't like? Shoot him! Shoot him! Schiesse! Schiesse!
I would shoot MYSELF if I were on the jury. What a freaking nightmare.
Thank the NRA, Bunny, for deciding that Americans aren't good enough to have an actual, accountable police force do their policing for them.
Why would we think that neighborhood vigilantes would ever abuse their power? I mean, it's not like cops ever do, even when they're right in the courthouse!
For example, sometimes the police abuse their power by arresting the victim of an assault and putting him on trial for second degree murder. But only if the assailant wasn't a white man. If the assailant was a white man, nobody would question that he wasn't allowed to just start pummeling a Hispanic guy for following him around.
Sidenote: It isn't panicking to fear for your life when that fear is justified.
Queastor ( ;-) ) sarcastically said:
By virtue of his skin color Trayvon Martin had the inalienable right to be anywhere at any time and do anything to anyone short of an actual crime (said crime proven in a court of law before a jury of his peers) without interference by anyone, let alone a self-appointed neighborhood guardian. Therefore Zimmerman had a beating coming, and should not have resisted or defended himself, being the real guilty party from the outset.
By which, he meant:
By virtue of his skin color George Zimmerman had the inalienable right to be anywhere at any time and do anything to anyone short of an actual crime (said crime proven in a court of law before a jury of his peers) without interference by anyone, let alone a self-appointed neighborhood guardian. Therefore Trayvon Martin had a beating (or execution) coming, and should not have resisted or defended himself, being the real guilty party from the outset.
GZ's "fucking punks . . . that always get away" comment was part of a level, unemotional conversation held with the non-emergency operator. First of all taking quotes out of context in order to win at trial has to be unethical. Essentially what GZ said can be backed with the many unsolved crimes in his gated community.
According to a commenter at Talk Left:
The defense got the non-emergency operator Sean Noffke to tell them several times that he thought nothing of George Zimmerman saying "these assholes" or "f'ing punks" since he's heard that kind of language many times before and GZ didn't seem to be saying it in a way that indicated specific anger or intent to act.
The prosecution had to try to rehabilitate by getting Noffke to say that it "could" be evidence of ill will or spite.
So begins the trial by inuendo.
You go on and keeping fighting the good fight against the oppression of the white race in America, Revenant. We all raise our hands in support. Or something.
Ritmo invents a strawman distraction:
Thank the NRA, Bunny, for deciding that Americans aren't good enough to have an actual, accountable police force do their policing for them.
An accountable police force? We haven't had one of those in a long time.
Not sure if the defense is going to depend on emotion. Obviously, the prosecution has nothing else - without them convincing the jury that Zimmerman in his call to the dispatcher showed significant racial animas, they don't have the depraved mind requirement for 2nd Degree Murder, and convincing them of that is going to require that they accept the prosecution's interpretation of the call, instead of their own. Getting the call into evidence early was probably smart on the part of the defense, along maybe with the dispatcher.
Nevertheless, I listened to some of the testimony concerning the expert witnesses (that were ultimately not allowed to testify), and Zimmerman's attorney seemed more methodical than anything. No big emotional pitches. Not show boating. And, he ultimately won. And, he may do so this time around too. The prosecution seems willing to play fast and footloose with the facts in order to make their case. So far, the defense seems to be methodically deconstructing it, and probably ultimately destroying it
I think the very best attorneys are both methodical and capable of emotionally connecting with juries. But, this isn't a perfect world, and I think that the defense with do just fine, lame jokes and all.
We shall see.
Allowing self-defense only after serious head trauma is a bit like only allowing self-defense after rape.
Exactly. That's why it is called "self-defense", not "revenge". The whole point of defense is to AVOID death or serious injury.
The only relevant question is whether Martin's assault of Zimmerman could have killed or seriously injured Zimmerman. The answer is "yes, pounding a man's head into the concrete can kill him. Duh." There is no legal or moral obligation to wait until after that happens before shooting the guy who is beating you.
Quaestor said...
I fear Zimmerman's going to be sacrificed on that most exalted platform, the Altar of Race.
Maybe not.
Remember, he's a "white" hispanic and Hispanics are the new protected class.
Tough decision for the Demos.
Rhythm and Balls said...
although, with punks like "Trayvon"...
Ahhh... There's Smegma Ed's Law and Order, for ya! Is someone a "punk"? Does he have a name you don't like? Shoot him! Shoot him! Schiesse! Schiesse!
Then address my point. You want to call Zimmerman a vigilante? Well, maybe vigilantes were needed if gang-bang wannabes like "Trayvon" were up to no good in that housing complex.
You don't want to do that, do you? Too hard to rebut, but maybe you can start a name-calling contest. Yeah, dat's da ticket. Turn everybody's attention away from what a little sack of slime "Trayvon" was turning into. And what he was doing that night.
Ritmo's getting nasty early (and easy to see how he identifies with "Trayvon").
Even he knows he's losing.
You go on and keeping fighting the good fight against the oppression of the white race in America, Revenant. We all raise our hands in support. Or something.
You'll have to send me updates from this alternate-universe Revenant you're reporting on. Does he have a goatee? :)
An accountable police force? We haven't had one of those in a long time.
Speak for your own village.
BTW, nobody's saying, "Shoot", but Ritmo and his friends have lynch ropes handy, don't they?
Bruce Hayden said...
ARM - Zimmerman is being tried for 2nd Degree Murder, and not for manslaughter,
As you have said many times.
There does seem to be some dispute on this issue.
Zimmerman is now charged with second degree murder, which requires proof of intent to kill, and carries with it a maximum sentence of life in prison. However, embedded in the second degree charge, are what are called "lesser included offenses," including voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, which carry a maximum sentence of 15 years. - Mark I. Pinsky
I say lets skip all of the bullshit and wait for the gunshot wound evidence. Either it will corroborate Zimmerman or it won't. If the wound is consistent with Zimmerman's account of his shooting Martin while Martin was on top of him while he was getting his head bashed then he is inocent of second degree murder. If not, then he is guilty. The rest is just theater.
Icepick is right to be afraid. I to am afraid as my business is located in the Overtown/Liberty City area of Miami. I have been through the McDuffie and Lozano riots in the eighties and believe me trying to get out of the area durring a riot is no joke. Still if the evidence supports Zimmerman I don't want an inocent man going to prison and possibly getting killed just to avoid a financial risk. If the evidence doesn't support him, screw him.
We known what village you speak for, Ritmo. Potemkinville, the low-rent district specifically.
Rhythm and Balls said...
An accountable police force? We haven't had one of those in a long time.
Speak for your own village.
Ritmo's neither - Snowden and Darrell Issa have made that very clear - but Ritmo thinks he's safe because he's one of the apparatchiks.
He doesn't know what happens to all apparatchiks eventually.
How did Martin bash a bald George Zimmerman's head into the concrete several times, smash him in the face 25-30 times, without getting blood on himself, or without getting a trace of Zimmerman's DNA on his knuckles, palms, wrists, fingers or thumbs?
The dispatcher merely observed "we don't need you to do that."
I can see how Z may have processed that to mean exactly the opposite of how we believe he should have processed it.
In the mind of Z, he could have heard, 'we don't need you to put in the extra effort, don't try to be a hero, we don't need you to do our job for us, you are ill equip, unfit, not ready, who do you think you are?'.
By virtue of his skin color
Brown?
That's funny Queastor. I didn't realize how underappreciated the Soviet component of the George Zimmerman case really was, but you managed to go and find it.
I guess it was the least you could do. Literally.
Depending on these all female jurors, they will either accept 17 year old Treyvon, Obama's son, as either a poor innocent child as depicted by his younger smiling photos that they will be sympathetic and/empathetic to or they will see Treyvon Martin as a punk ass bitch that did his punk ass bitch hoodie routine, made a choice and began pummeling a guy on the sidewalk who just happened to have a gun defending himself. It's on thing for Zimmerman to follow someone, it's another completely to attack someone for that reason and try to kill him on a sidewalk. That's how I see this going.
The evidence will bear what I said out. We will see if they choose to ignore the evidence or not in favor of sympathy for Obama's son.
How did Martin bash a bald George Zimmerman's head into the concrete several times, smash him in the face 25-30 times, without getting blood on himself, or without getting a trace of Zimmerman's DNA on his knuckles, palms, wrists, fingers or thumbs?
Martin had blood from two different individuals on his left sleeve, although the testers weren't able to say whose because the sample was too small.
I suppose it is possible our little gangsta wanna-be had beaten the crap out of a *different* innocent man before wrestling with Zimmerman, but that's a bit of a stretch. :)
Even he knows he's losing.
Oh right! "Up to no good" is the best excuse for shooting someone.
You unwittingly prove the point with every comment. Martin's not a model citizen. Therefore, shoot him.
It's ok. The NRA said so.
I speak for anyone who doesn't want his rights prematurely yanked without due process of law, you douchebag. It's in the Bill of Rights. Read it sometime, in between the rousing passages of Mein Kampf and your state assistance statements.
How did Martin bash a bald George Zimmerman's head into the concrete several times, smash him in the face 25-30 times, without getting blood on himself, or without getting a trace of Zimmerman's DNA on his knuckles, palms, wrists, fingers or thumbs?
You're sure he didn't?
Talk about vigilante action -- ol' garage here wants to know why they're wasting time with a jury trial. You just want to take that there Hispanic out and lynch him, don't you?
Garage wants to make sure those Hispanics know their place. Hispanics ain't allowed to defend themselves against Black teenaged thugs. Garage wants an example made of this Zimmerman guy.
How did Martin bash a bald George Zimmerman's head into the concrete several times, smash him in the face 25-30 times, without getting blood on himself, or without getting a trace of Zimmerman's DNA on his knuckles, palms, wrists, fingers or thumbs?
That's got to be the most scientifically expert testimony, a 911 dispatcher has ever given, since 911 dispatchers started testifying.
Chip Ahoy said...
I do not have any idea how to assess an all female jury in that area of the US for that matter, for the female mind is a mysterious place unfathomable due to its unexpected diversions and the unpredictability of operating values. I have no way of knowing if through their eyes they see and value a guy like Zimmerman who patrols their neighborhood at night with a vigilance that brings him directly into harm for their behalf, I have no way of knowing if they see it that way. Are they composite Janes, do they trust local police to protect them? Do they live alone? Have kids? Do they fall for the Skittles® bit of dramatic writing? It was like Little Red Riding Hood with our little basket of Skittles off to Grandmother's house we go through the dark forest at night fraught with compassionless wolves. HE'S ONE ME! BANG uuugh, I'm dead. That one? Do women over there believe that? I do not know.
This may very well be a prototype for how we might possibly believe a female president will deliberate on serious matters as well. Granted it's not the same circumstance, but 12 women clucking their way to a verdict is something I haven't seen before. Anyone else?
Rhythm & Balls feels pretty much the same. Self defense? That's so 18th century.
Reasonable man, I've read your comments over the past couple of days. If I understand correctly, you think Z is guilty because you think he saw M, identified M as a black man who "didn't belong" scuffled with him and shot him.
I don't know if that is exactly how it went down, we kno some things, some information is known only to M or Z or both. But the fact is the Prosecutor has the burden to show that your scenario, or a similar one happened, beyond a reasonable doubt. That is going to be tough. First, Z called 911, not something that a guy hell bent on killing would do. Second, lots and lots of what Z said in his statemnets to the police have corrobaroation in the physical evidence. Head slammed on the pavement, broken nose, wet on the back of his shirt, shot at close range. Whether Z is a bad guy or not I think that those (and other stuff) can easily add up to reasonable doubt to a jury that will look fairly at the evidence.
Your statement the other day that Z should be convicted of a lesser charge (2d degree - I don't recall) seems to rely holly on believing the best of hat M was doing and the orst of what Z did. It's possible a jury will do that also, but they will be violating their oaths if they render a verdict ith those assumptions.
This case made me think of mobs and justice.
The Supreme Court hates mobs. Casey can be read as a "fuck you" to the pro-life mob outside its doors.
But of course the problem is that if you are responding to the mob in an antagonistic way, that's just as bad.
"We're killing this fetus." (Cartman voice). "Now respect our authoritay!"
The mob is irrelevant. Writing about the mob, referencing the mob, marks your judicial opinion as a disaster.
Why would you talk about the people outside? Or how you, the judge and jury, are perceived?
the sustained and widespread debate Roe has provoked calls for some comparison between that case and others of comparable dimension
Why would you talk about other cases? Imagine if Zimmerman is acquitted and the judge and jury reference the mobs outside its doors. Or they compare this case to the O.J. Simpson case and the Duke Lacrosse case.
Imagine if the judge and jury said, a la Casey, that "a terrible price" would be paid if we convicted George Zimmerman. Or if we acquitted him. It does not matter, because once you reference the "price," you are just identifying your own corruption.
Big Mike doesn't realize that he just revealed that he thinks the right of self-defense only applied to George Zimmerman.
R&B, do you think Martin had a right to physically attack Zimmerman because Z asked him questions?
I think that if you can find me reliably iron-clad evidence on exactly what happened prior to the shooting, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.
The problem with Castle "doctrine" is that it's a way to make testimony less reliable than ever. It's the he-said-she-said of violent crime.
You just want to take that there Hispanic out and lynch him, don't you?
LOL. No, I asked a pretty straightforward question.
How do you smash a bald dudes head on the concrete several times without getting a trace of DNA under your fingernails? Did he palm Zimmerman's head like a basketball?
Rhythm and Balls said...
Even he knows he's losing.
Oh right! "Up to no good" is the best excuse for shooting someone.
You unwittingly prove the point with every comment. Martin's not a model citizen. Therefore, shoot him.
It's ok. The NRA said so.
I speak for anyone who doesn't want his rights prematurely yanked without due process of law, you douchebag. It's in the Bill of Rights. Read it sometime, in between the rousing passages of Mein Kampf and your state assistance statements.
The eye witness testimony is going to be crucial here I think. A lot of preconceived notions are going to be shattered. We have seen Z's injury photo's, but we haven't seen Martin's injury photos yet. The second blood stain is from someone else, but the circumstance of how it got there is open since no one else has come forward to say their blood got on Martin. Opening statements will be forgotten until closing arguments. This will be like Jody Arias. Prosecution will try to pain Z as a cold blooded racist killer, hunting down the negro's southern florida style. No need for a burning cross when you own an ASSAULT WEAPON OF DOOM!!! Fun times.
R&B, I don't have to find it, the prosecution does and then has to convince the jury. And this case does not involve the Castle Doctrine-it involves self-defense, a different matter as I understand it.
Apparently Rhythm & noballzatall is unaware that Zimmerman lost sight of young Mr. Martin and was headed back to his car when young Mr. Martin jumped him from behind.
The whole incident was over, but young Mr. Martin decided on his own to reenergize and escalate it.
I'd put Mr. Rhythm & noballzatall down as a low-information commentator.
Big Mike said...
Hispanics ain't allowed to defend themselves against Black teenaged thugs.
The most effective testimony for the prosecution was the testimony of Chad Joseph, the 15 year-old son of Martin's father's girlfriend. He was genuinely touching in his description of Martin and the scene that he painted of Martin asking him what he wanted from the store was as plain and ordinary as could be imagined. He was only two years younger than Martin and came across as a child, diffident and uncertain in the courtroom. It was a clever starting witness.
Rhythm and Balls said...
I think that if you can find me reliably iron-clad evidence on exactly what happened prior to the shooting, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.
IOW, Ritmo won't listen to anything that proves him wrong.
Then Ritmo's blather falls of its own weight.
Zimmerman's cuts and bruises prove he was attacked. And felt obliged to defend himself.
Poor Ritmo, each time he opens his mouth, he's the Conservatives' best friend.
Did he palm Zimmerman's head like a basketball?
Where would Martin's hands be, if not on the front of Zimmerman's head?
You and Rhythm & noballzatall should put away your rope. You ain't lynching nobody tonight.
R&B, I don't have to find it, the prosecution does and then has to convince the jury. And this case does not involve the Castle Doctrine-it involves self-defense, a different matter as I understand it.
How convenient then! Let's put the burden on the state for proving that killers killed the person they killed on the streets illegally. Brilliant.
You understand wrong.
IOW, Ritmo won't listen to anything that proves him wrong.
Your problem is that you have no idea of the difference between assertions and evidence.
No, state assistance can't help you with that personal shortcoming either.
He was genuinely touching in his description of Martin and the scene that he painted of Martin asking him what he wanted from the store was as plain and ordinary as could be imagined.
And that's evidence that Martin wasn't a thug? Pity you didn't attend a mixed race school. We have a whole generation of young Black men who can be perfect gentlemen until they suddenly think they've been "dissed." Then they turn violent. Very violent.
Climb out of your ivory tower some time and sample the real world.
....those Hispanics know their place. Hispanics ain't allowed to defend themselves against Black teenaged thugs
This brings up a reality that the liberal and mainstream media doesn't want to face. There is a huge amount of animosity between the booming illegal Hispanic population and inner city blacks. They are both vying for the same 'turf' so to speak. While the unemployment for young blacks and especially young black men is soaring to unbelievable levels, hispanics are taking the entry level jobs that might have previously supported the young blacks or at least granted them an entry into the workforce. The hispanic flood is going to depress wages for ALL blue collar and mid level American workers. It will decimate the construction industry....why do you think that the trade unions oppose the recent "amnesty" bill?
So not only are blacks and hispanics competing for jobs. The have rival gangs and real cultural and religious differences.
The black on brown violence that occurs regularly in urban areas is being under reported and ignored.
Whether Zimmerman is a case in such, is debatable, but wow!!! what a can of worms that would be if the prosecution decided to take that route.
Big Mike is someone who stated that fragging wouldn't be a disturbing practice, and who goes onto other people's blogs in order to threaten them with physical violence.
So you can take his ideas on self-defense with those golfball-sized grains of salt.
How do you smash a bald dudes head on the concrete several times without getting a trace of DNA under your fingernails? Did he palm Zimmerman's head like a basketball?
That question hints a presumption that smashing a dudes head on the concrete several times to see what happens is a perfectly testable hypothetical worthy of Mythbusters.
You ain't lynching nobody tonight.
You're one weird dude.
R&B, I'm not a lawyer, but I always thought that it IS the burden of the state to prove that an accused person committed a crime.
And that's evidence that Martin wasn't a thug?
Being a "thug"? Again, not an execution-worthy offense.
Every time these authoritarians open their fat mouths it's painfully obvious that they can't tell the difference between punishing someone for an act and punishing someone for who or what they are - which isn't even an actionable by the state or any government in any event.
Perhaps that's why they're in favor of this kind of vigilantism. They think it will give them free rein to pick off people that they just don't like.
You're missing the point, poppa.
Ritmo wrote:
I think that if you can find me reliably iron-clad evidence on exactly what happened prior to the shooting, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you
The broken clock effect strikes! The natural follow-up to that rare blip of wisdom -- so what is George Zimmerman doing before a jury?
Let's put the burden on the state for proving that killers killed the person they killed on the streets illegally.
You were fine until the last word of the sentence. Everyone agrees that Martin is dead and Zimmerman killed him. But not every killing is illegal or even unjustified. Every scrap of evidence I've seen so far says it was self-defense. Which is still legal in this country.
Poppa India is right and you are the one who is wrong. Now you and garage go put away your rope.
Every time these authoritarians open their fat mouths it's painfully obvious that they can't tell the difference between punishing someone for an act and punishing someone for who or what they are - which isn't even an actionable by the state or any government in any event.
Nothing illegal about being a thug; nothing illegal about defending yourself from a thug, either, is there?
@garage, I am one righteous dude. You should be used to it by now.
The broken clock effect strikes! The natural follow-up to that rare blip of wisdom -- so what is George Zimmerman doing before a jury?
Having forgone the Soviet angle to the Zimmerman case, Quaestor brilliantly surmises that guilt should be proven or disproven before the trial even occurs.
Kill everyone who looks suspicious on the streets and trials aren't needed to determine guilt or innocence. Yes, we actually have idiots who think (if you can even call it that) this way in America.
Rhythm and Balls said...
IOW, Ritmo won't listen to anything that proves him wrong.
Your problem is that you have no idea of the difference between assertions and evidence.
Lessee here,
if you can find me reliably iron-clad evidence on exactly what happened prior to the shooting, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.
That "reliably iron-clad evidence" line is pretty damning.
Just because you want to dismiss it out of hand because it destroys all the talking points your puppetmasters have given you doesn't make it a fool's paradise.
That, of course, is what passes for Ritmo's mind.
No, state assistance can't help you with that personal shortcoming either.
I thought state assistance was all that was keeping you going these days.
Big Mike is someone who stated that fragging wouldn't be a disturbing practice, and who goes onto other people's blogs in order to threaten them with physical violence.
Sounds like Ritmo doesn't know the difference between fragging and fracking.
Surprise!
Zimmerman was profiling Martin as he followed him, Guy said. He said Zimmerman viewed the teen "as someone about to a commit a crime in his neighborhood."
If you are on a neighborhood watch, I guess, by this definition you are profiling anyone you view suspicously.
"Being a "thug"? Again, not an execution-worthy offense."
-- No one shot anyone for being a thug; the fatal shut was fired, if the defense is to be believed, because Zimmerman believed his life was in danger.
A trial attorney has to be a realist first because partisan ideology is only weak morning fog that burns off as the sun of facts presented by live witnesses arises. And jurors are hard to fool with good stories more than a day or two after they have gone home and sleep on it.
I will be just as happy as the Zimmerman claques are here if Z testifies sincerely, and everybody in the court room will then know it too and acquit him.
As for broken noses, on a scale of 1 to 5 Z's was an 0.5. When a nose is hit with an elbow, or a knee, or a well swung fist it is mashed to the face, the eyes are blackened, often the cartilage called the "nose bone" is cracked vertically in two and makes a compound fx with the sharp end piercing the nose skin. Then the flow of blood will also soaked the clothes and will not stop until both nostrils are packed bulging with rolled gauze.
The poor opening statement was a dramatic attempt to connect with the men on the jury sending a message that we are all frail human and the lawyer is inept too, there are no real monsters.
One problem: the 6 jurors were female mothers likely educated in real life in which men do have to deal with real attacks. Think of a jury composed of six of our Ingas. Pretty attempts to humanize Z will not work with those jurors unless Z testifies and wins their hearts.
You're missing the point, poppa.
No, R&B, you missed your own point.
You're so enamored with your own thoughts that you bather on way past whatever minor insult you wish to inject into what is typically a calm and forthright discussion ere your ill-starred appearance, usually to the detriment of your rhetorical ground. In other words, Q.E.D., except that the quod is not the quod you had in mind.
Patrick said...
Your statement the other day that Z should be convicted of a lesser charge (2d degree - I don't recall) seems to rely holly on believing the best of hat M was doing and the orst of what Z did. It's possible a jury will do that also, but they will be violating their oaths if they render a verdict ith those assumptions.
Manslaughter. I think manslaughter is the appropriate charge. I clearly don't think the worst of Zimmerman. I do think he is incompetent, a Walter Mittyesque character who is a threat to himself and others.
I believe strongly that a civil society has no place for armed vigilantes, no matter how 'soft'. The well intentioned but incompetent can often be a greater danger than the mean but competent. Most men would not have killed Martin when placed in the identical starting situation as Zimmerman. Martin's death was completely unnecessary.
-- No one shot anyone for being a thug; the fatal shut was fired, if the defense is to be believed, because Zimmerman believed his life was in danger.
You should really read threads before you opine on them. "Big Mike" - (someone, whom I note, believes that fragging is not a big deal) - his own words betray the fact that he is motivated to shoot not based on actions but based on how he assesses the "character" of people walking the streets late at night in split seconds or less.
Which shouldn't bother anyone at all, given his incredible social skills.
@edutcher, Rhythm & noballzatall is a coward. A sniveling coward. If he saw Trayvon Martin in his neighborhood he'd be on the phone to 911 and screaming at the police. 'sdruth.
You're so enamored with your own thoughts that you bather on way past whatever minor insult you wish to inject into what is typically a calm and forthright discussion ere your ill-starred appearance, usually to the detriment of your rhetorical ground. In other words, Q.E.D., except that the quod is not the quod you had in mind.
I'm done responding to your intentionally ignorant blather, clod.
The whole point/problem of Castle doctrine is to make the evidence involved in a killing more one-sided. Because, you know, one person died sooner than would ordinarily be the case.
Only an intentionally ignorant asshole doesn't understand how that impacts prosecutions. Ask the lawyers who have to hear and/or try these cases. They're nearly unanimously opposed for a reason.
But the NRA isn't!
Right. But the thug-status of the person shot has no relevance to the case; it is a squirrel and a distraction and should be dismissed as such.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा