The very idea that the State is seeking to establish – that self-defense is conditional upon actually suffering serious injury – is, of course, ridiculous on its face. The purpose of the law of self-defense, particularly in the context of the use deadly defensive force, is to be able to protect yourself from an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm before that harm occurs, not to require that you actually experience death or grave bodily harm before you may act to protect yourself.Also, Branca is following the trial live today here.
July 1, 2013
"How Much Injury Is Required Before Self-Defense is Justified?"
Andrew Branca analyzes the law and the evidence in the Zimmerman trial.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
363 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 363 of 363So is Zimmerman going take the stand and allow himself to get confronted on cross-examination with these alternatives under the watchful eye of the jury on his demeanor?
Is he going to testify about how he keeps his gun locked and loaded at all times, even when he's going to the grocery store where there may be lots of kids running around?
HA HA HA
Officer Sereno is about to get brutalized.
Zimmerman was looking for a house address which areasonableman breezes right by...
ARM: "I think it is fine if you guys want to believe everything Zimmerman has to say. It fits with the narrative that Zimmerman is simply a victim of race-baiting coloreds and a jew-controlled media. Maybe that is reality."
LOL
Yes.
This is really all they have left.
Left Bank of the Charles, please answer Michael's question. And,
"... even when he's going to the grocery store where there may be lots of kids running around?"
Listen qusai-Dude, quit using the term "children" as a cover for "me me me" -- admit it, you weak little man -- you really mean "where you might be [walking] around" (Today's children aren't allowed to run in stores, f'ing prog parents took care of that. Once little Johnny is allowed to be born, (and thus the narcissistic "look what "I" did" -- not what a miracle and a wonder little Johnny as a separate being is,) all manner of safety regs by the prog-parentals are implemented to protect the poor kid from "harm."
Most convenient and transparent conversion term there is from narcissist's - "the children"
Once someone gives you the evil eye, then it's at least time to think about shooting them.
ARM: "I think it is fine if you guys want to believe everything Zimmerman has to say. It fits with the narrative that Zimmerman is simply a victim of race-baiting coloreds and a jew-controlled media. Maybe that is reality."
Earlier ARM: 'I think it is fine if you guys want to believe everything those white Duke Lacrosse players have to say. It fits with the narrative that middle class white males are simply a victim of the politically correct academics and a liberal dominated university administration. Maybe that is reality.'
Officer Serino expresses zero concern that Zimmerman followed Martin.
Perhaps because following isn't a crime.
Drago said...
Earlier ARM: 'I think it is fine if you guys want to believe everything those white Duke Lacrosse players have to say.
In reality I have never expressed any view on this case. Why not stick with the facts?
Jay: "Perhaps because following isn't a crime."
But, but, but isn't that "criminally profiling" someone?!!!
Isn't that against the law?
Why can't we enforce such a law?
After all, we already have the ARM's of the world available and they have the capacity to look beyond (ignore really) ALL the actual evidence and see into the dark dark parts of that 1/4 black "White" Hispanic's heart!!
Plus, wasn't Trayvon darker than Zimmerman?
What else do we even need?
Remember when the "justice for Trayvon" crowd was pretending there was no investigation at all?
LOL
ARM: "In reality I have never expressed any view on this case. Why not stick with the facts?"
LOL eleventy!!1!11!
Yes.
ARM just wrote "Why not stick with the facts?"
You. Can't. Make. This. Stuff. Up.
"criminally profiling" someone
Ah yes Drago, they invent these silly, undefined terms as they go!
Jay: "Ah yes Drago, they invent these silly, undefined terms as they go!"
If you want to have some real fun, ask 3 different lefties to define NeoCon.
Then, sit back and enjoy...
It's like watching the Jaywalking segments on the Tonight Show.
O'Mara must have said "John Good" 14 times so far.
Good technique :-)
Some of you seem to be asserting the killing gun has no safety at all when there is a round in the chamber except the long trigger pull. Really, or are you perhaps Zimmerman-style omitting a key fact or two?
You say it's safe, and shows no malice, to keep a round in the chamber, but isn't that a question for the jury to decide?
Officer Serino had zero concerns and zero evidence Zimmerman was inconsistent based on the evidence gathered the night of the scene...
You say it's safe, and shows no malice, to keep a round in the chamber, but isn't that a question for the jury to decide?
Considering it is legal in the state of Florida to do so, no.
Lots of posts since I left at noon, mostly Matthew Sabian going mano-a-mano with the Unreasonable Troll. I'm glad Matthew defended reality, but it is always a waste of time trying to debate the troll. The facts always change, the playing field changes, as well as the placement of the goal posts. Indeed, anything necessary for the troll to keep flinging posts on the "wall" hoping something will stick!
AReasonableMan,
I think it is fine if you guys want to believe everything Zimmerman has to say. It fits with the narrative that Zimmerman is simply a victim of race-baiting coloreds and a jew-controlled media. Maybe that is reality.
Funny, I was just over at Volokh Conspiracy fighting off the suggestion that "Zimmerman" was a stereotypically Jewish name, and therefore his prosecution was motivated by anti-Semitism. Whatever conspiracy theory works at the moment, I suppose.
HA HA HA HA,
HA HA HA HA
I just turned on MSNBC and the utter denial of what is going on here is epic.
On what basis was the prosecution permitted to play Zimmerman's recorded interview with police from the night of the incident? There had to be a motion in limine on this. Did the defense stipulate to letting it be played?
This is perfect for the defense. It gets his side of the story in front of the jury, but does not subject him to cross examination by the prosecution.
Left Bank,
Sorry but Z had a DAL semi-automatic. It was not 'COCKED'. Loaded yes, cocked no.
I pack a Glock 26 all the time, and yes to the store with children. And I do have a CHL.
You need to get a lot of training about the things you post about. You seem to parrot things that sound bad but are not.
You have no knowledge of auditory exclusion, tachypsychia, tunnel vision, Cognitive Dissonance, and other things you can experience in stressful situations.
Try reading..
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/VB6.html
And start to understand what happens in real confrontations.
DAO.. I mend DAO not DAL.. oh well, that is what you get when you type fast!
Oh, and Left Bank, most police officers guns HAVE NO SAVETY.
They are DAO, just like Z's gun was.
Again, you need to do a lot of studying.
Earlier, Jay predicted that Serrino was about to get brutalized. That has not happened at all, but O'Mara is doing an excellent job of getting Serrino to brutalize the prosecution.
You say it's safe, and shows no malice, to keep a round in the chamber, but isn't that a question for the jury to decide?
It's the way the gun is designed. The prosecution agrees, so it isn't a matter for the jury.
AllenS said...
"Once someone gives you the evil eye, then it's at least time to think about shooting them."
mean-mugging
Does MSNBC have a financial interest in the outcome of the trial? If Zimmerman is acquitted, I imagine his defamation suits will carry more weight--and pack more of a punch. Not sure how that works. Shoot, they might have an interest in defaming the guy as a negotiating tactic--so long as they can get away with it. The more FUD in general circulation, the stronger the incentive on Z to settle for a modest sum out of court.
mean-mugging? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of.
Originally, I was going to say to the question of when is self-defense justified, is when you find out that he's black, but then I decided not to say that because there are so many light-assed little bitches on this site. Nobody understands good humor any more.
I see AnUnreasonableTroll is making his last stand.
The odds were better at Little big horn.
Maybe troll can call in The She Devil of the SS for some of her "Brava" cheerleading, followed by the Baghdad Bob of Althouse telling us how the NYT and the ACLU will protect Zimmerman when "My people" Holder files a civil rights violation against him.
(actually, Z probably has a civil rights case against Choom, because he looks just like "Trayvon"'s father)
AllenS said...
there are so many light-assed little bitches on this site.
Must be all those creepy-ass crackers.
Patrick,
I stand corrected.
This isn't a good day for the defense, it is a great day.
LOL
Serino: "In this particular case, Zimmerman could have been a victim, too."
I've lived now in the same place for 15 years. To go to the next town north, I go up my street, whose name I know, make a L onto a street I know, make a L at the stop sign, go .6 miles, and make a R on a street I know. That .6 miles? I've never looked at the street sign to see the name of that street. I've driven along it's entire length, about 12 miles or so, but haven't a clue of it's name, or even if it has the same name throughout. In this area of rural NY, just because you are on the same road you were on 2 miles ago, without any turns off, doesn't mean the road has the same name.
I know where the road goes and where it gets me. I don't need to know its' name- and that's how you live on an area for years and don't know all the road names.
And I'm sure every one of you does the same thing- travels every day on roads the name of which you do not know- because you don't have to. EVERY one of you.
Means zip diddly squat nothing that Zimmerman didn't know a road name.
I'm fairly certain that the shooter in Meade's "mean mugging" posting is a vampire as he appears to be non-photographable.
May be my google skills.
Does anybody honestly believe the broadcast of Z's SSN by CNN was an accident?
Notice how O'Mara is asking Serino open-ended questions -- doesn't even have to lead him -- a very friendly, and productive, cross examination.
Officer Serino just testified that he tried to trick Zimmerman by saying they had video of the altercation on Martin's cellphone and Zimmerman responded by saying "Thank God, I was hoping someone had a video"
When asked if he though Zimmerman was lying or telling the truth with that answer, Serino said he thought Zimmerman was telling the truth.
Ah, don't take this personally ARM, but nobody epitomizes ass crack cracker more than you. Don't take that the wrong way, man, but when you give the evil eye, it emanates from your ass crack. Not cool. Even the homos on the site probably wouldn't think it's cool.
I think it is fine if you guys want to believe everything Zimmerman has to say.
And why not? Zimmerman has never changed his testimony, and the prosecutor has never been able to come up with evidence that refutes any part of it. Even the testimony of Rachel Janteal, the supposed "star witness" for the prosecution, supports Zimmerman.
It fits with the narrative that Zimmerman is simply a victim of race-baiting coloreds and a jew-controlled [sic] media. Maybe that is reality.
What is certainly the reality is that the media started off this case with a one-sidedness that we haven't seen since the Southern newspapers fomented lynch mobs to provide lynch-law "justice" to Black men under arrest back in Jim Crow days. I suppose you could ask ABC why it chose to use a grainy video of Zimmerman's arrest that hid the extent of his injuries when they had in their possession a high-definition video of the same event that clearly showed blood on his face and the back of his head. We already know that NBC was forced to fire a producer and to publicly apologize for editing the tape of Zimmerman's 911 to make him out to be a racist. Of course, NBC has a Roman Catholic for its president, so perhaps that explains things.
I am a little skeptical.
A little??? You mean as in a total suspension of reality, not to mention casually overlooking the American principle of "innocent until proven guilty?"
I don't think that my view is entirely unreasonable. Maybe I am wrong.
No "maybe" about that, sonny.
ARM; "I am a little skeptical. I don't think that my view is entirely unreasonable. Maybe I am wrong."
What exactly is your "view"? If Zimmerman set out, armed, to kill a harmless, unarmed toddler he saw walking down the road, how exactly did he end up with a broken nose and the back of his head scratched up? And who did Good see getting the shit beaten out of him on his lawn, if it wasn't Zimmerman? And most important, where was Martin during the two full minutes Z lost sight of him? According to the prosecution's "star witness", he went home, to his Father's girlfriend's house. So how did he end up on top of Zimmerman, 400 feet away? Did Zimmerman force him off the porch, and frog-march him at gunpoint to the execution site?
Jupiter: " Did Zimmerman force him off the porch, and frog-march him at gunpoint to the execution site?"
Whoa!
Don't give ARM any ideas. He'll be working that "theory" into his litany of assertions.
As for Tradguy, I fully expect him/her to show up here in a few minutes to continue expounding on the theory that Zimmerman is just an extension of that 1920's KKK.
You know, "objectively" and all...
I have to keep reminding myself, these are the prosecutions witnesses we have been seeing. Because all you have to do is believe every word they say, and Zimmerman walks with the thanks of a grateful community. The State is supposed to be proving their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". But at this point, it would appear that Zimmerman's innocence has been proven to that standard. And the defense has not even presented a witness yet.
So, what we're saying is both Zimmerman and Martin went for the gun?
Dante said...
Do you have a link for this?
ARM sez:
I'm watching the live telecast and just heard him say it on tape. It should be on youtube this evening.
I'm listening to this link.
This is with the original female interrogator. What I heard Zimmerman say is he could not breathe prior to Martin covering his nose and mouth, as well as after.
I think when it comes time for the defense, they will make the case the reason he could not breathe is blood was running back through his sinuses and down his throat.
I haven't heard any mention of chocking, at this point. And I would not consider someone covering mouth and nose as chocking. I would associate that with blockage in the throat (there is something funny that happens with the larynz that stops breathing if there is a lot of fluid in the throat, such that many drowning victims have no water in their lungs).
Chocking is not consistent with smothering. Chocking is consistent with blood running down your neck and getting your throat to lock up and prevent breathing.
"You say it's safe, and shows no malice, to keep a round in the chamber, but isn't that a question for the jury to decide?"
-- They need to compare it to what a responsible gun owner does. If that is the accepted, normal way of carrying the gun, it would be wrong for them to decide it was malicious. I don't carry guns, so I'm basing my understanding on the evidence provided so far.
On this record I guess we'll truly find out what the Judge is made of when the defense makes its motion for judgment of acquittal.
consistent with blood running down your neck
Should read
consistent with blood running down your throat.
The State is supposed to be proving their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". But at this point, it would appear that Zimmerman's innocence has been proven to that standard. And the defense has not even presented a witness yet.
I think we'll see a request for a directed verdict when the state rests. Such a ruling would increase the ability of the left to claim outrage though, so the poitical pressure will be not to grant the request.
Regarding Zimmerman's gun. It is a Kel-Tec PF9, which weighs about 12 and a half ounces unloaded, 18 ounces loaded. It's one of the thinnest 9mm pistols you can buy, and pretty cheap for a 9mm, which makes it very popular for concealed carry. It's common to carry it with a round chambered because the Kel-Tec has a hammer block safety that prevents the gun from firing accidentally. The safety disengages when the trigger is pulled.
The thinness and light weight are why people who carry it may forget that they have it on.
People who've reviewed the Kel-Tec for gun magazines remarked on its long trigger pull (you have to move the trigger further than on many other guns) and they've suggested that the trigger takes more than the officially-reported 5 pounds of pull to fire the pistol (one reviewer estimated it closer to 8 pounds).
All in all I'd say that the gun is safe enough for concealed carry, even around kids. It won't go off accidentally, which is what you want.
Here's where I think the big divide is. A lot of the people on the left aren't race-baiting, etc. They just think Zimmerman doing what he did was stupid. I think he shouldn't have gotten out of his car; I think he should have backed off of Martin once he knew the police were on their way.
I, however, can logically distance myself from what I would have done with what makes someone ethically and morally culpable. For example, if I were Zimmerman, no one would be dead. The left sees that result and thinks: "Therefore, Zimmerman's actions killed Martin."
When you look at it like that ("We all have a responsibility to society; acting in an irresponsible way should be avoided. Zimmerman was irresponsible and, despite anything else, that caused Martin's death,") the logical outcome 'Therefore, we punish him,' is fairly natural.
The idea that Zimmerman could have done something they disagreed with, while also being blameless in a moral and legal sense, is where the mental blockage is happening.
If this trial were the SuperBowl, it would be like Super Bowl XXIX: San Francisco 49, San Diego 26 - it was never that close, the Niners demolished San Diego.
I don't think there is a reason to watch anymore except out of wonder how many more state witnesses will be called. The poor "Justice for Trayvon" gal on CNN made the claim that we've "Only see 24 witnesses so far" as if that is both some tiny number and the really effective witnesses are forthcoming.
Someone said something like: With the rate this case is going, I'd almost half-expect Martin to walk into court one day with how badly the State is going to get its murder conviction.
Jupiter said...
What exactly is your "view"?
I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder. I think he is self-evidently and transparently lying about his reason for getting out of the car.
I think he is guilty of manslaughter - the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm.
Zimmerman is quite clearly very stupid. He is also incompetent, by the statements of his own defense team. No sensible competent man placed in the same situation (armed, in his car, on the phone to the police) would have ended up shooting dead an unarmed teen within yards of his home.
I genuinely cannot understand why people are so invested in this stupid incompetent man who needlessly shot an unarmed teen. Zimmerman depicted Martin as dangerous and threatening. Does anyone seriously believe that the 'soft' unathletic Zimmerman would have gotten out of the car without a gun? All his subsequent actions have to viewed in this light.
Adding to Big Mike:
The gun.
"Firing mechanism is Double-Action Only with an automatic hammer block safety."
For semi-automatic pistols with a traditional hammer (that employ only the double action function of the trigger), the hammer will return to its decocked position after each shot.
automatic hammer block
"Safeties can generally be divided into subtypes such as internal safeties (which typically do not receive input from the user) and external safeties (which typically allow the user to give input, for example, toggling a lever from "on" to "off" or something similar). Sometimes these are called "passive" and "active" safeties (or "automatic" and "manual"), respectively."
"Most double-action revolvers have no external safety devices; a sufficiently firm trigger pull will always result in firing. The heavy trigger pull required to cock and then fire the firearm usually prevents accidental discharges due to dropping or mishandling the gun. Most modern double-action revolvers have an internal safety, either a hammer block or a transfer bar, that positively prevents firing without the trigger being pulled.
"Hammer block
A hammer block is similar to a firing pin block. It is a latch, block or other obstruction built into the action and normally positioned to prevent the hammer contacting the cartridge primer or firing pin when at rest. Similar to the firing pin block, the obstruction to the hammer's travel is removed as a consequence of pulling the trigger. This allows the hammer to contact the primer or firing pin only when the trigger is pulled."
Let's deconstruct ARM's most recent post.
"I think he is self-evidently and transparently lying about his reason for getting out of the car."
-- Prove it. Offer some proof, because it is not self-evident as NUMEROUS posters have provided nearly a dozen reasons for doing so. You have no reason to believe this is self-evident if you've been actually listening and watching the proceedings and listening here.
"I think he is guilty of manslaughter - the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm."
-- One cannot be guilty of manslaughter if there's a legal defense, in this case, self-defense. Thus far, every element of self-defense has been shown (immediate jeopardy, no avenue to retreat, etc.)
"No sensible competent man placed in the same situation (armed, in his car, on the phone to the police) would have ended up shooting dead an unarmed teen within yards of his home."
-- It doesn't matter. Stupid people have the right to self-defense just as much as anyone else. This comes back to the raped woman question I've been asking for an answer to. Should a woman being raped not defend herself if she walked through a bad part of town in a miniskirt? I mean, that's really stupid, so the Zimmerman standard says she should just take her raping. If you think that doesn't work, then you have to understand WHY people think your reasoning for Zimmerman is flawed.
"I genuinely cannot understand why people are so invested in this stupid incompetent man who needlessly shot an unarmed teen."
-- It was not needless; his life was in danger. People are invested in this because A) it is a major topic of conversation B) justice is important C) People keep lying and their lies may further ruin Zimmerman's life. I would want people to know the truth if I were ever in a bad spot.
"Zimmerman depicted Martin as dangerous and threatening. Does anyone seriously believe that the 'soft' unathletic Zimmerman would have gotten out of the car without a gun? All his subsequent actions have to viewed in this light."
-- Zimmerman may have; since apparently he only recently started carrying his gun, and we know he followed other people as part of his neighborhood watch duties, he clearly has made this decision before -- even unarmed. In fact, it has always worked out well (one call Zimmerman did CAUGHT a home invader.)
Zimmerman was legally armed, and acting in a legal manner. That's what we need to consider.
Dante said...
I think when it comes time for the defense, they will make the case the reason he could not breathe is blood was running back through his sinuses and down his throat.
If he could not breathe he could not be the one shouting for help since it takes a lot of air to scream like that. Also Zimmerman quite clearly disavows that he is the one screaming for help on the 911 tape during the police interviews. Taken together this makes pretty strong evidence that either it was Martin who was screaming or, alternatively, that Zimmerman is lying in at least some of these statements.
Note: Manslaughter requires the killing to be "unlawful," if Zimmerman shot in self-defense, killing Martin is, by definition, not manslaughter.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
What exactly is your "view"?
I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder. I think he is self-evidently and transparently lying about his reason for getting out of the car.
So transparently nobody else thinks so. Troll is doing a Linda Greenhouse.
I think he is guilty of manslaughter - the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm.
Zimmerman is quite clearly very stupid.
Not as stupid as Troll at this point.
He is also incompetent, by the statements of his own defense team. No sensible competent man placed in the same situation (armed, in his car, on the phone to the police) would have ended up shooting dead an unarmed teen within yards of his home.
No, the incompetence is all on the prosecution side and on the Leftists who wanted to lynch an innocent man for political purposes.
Too bad the facts came out before he was dead, huh?
Plenty of other possibilities: Zimmerman could simply be -wrong- about how badly he was injured in the immediate aftermath of the fight. I've been sucker punched before, and I know I thought I was a lot worse off than I was. Heck, when I got slide tackled in soccer, I sometimes thought the injury was worse.
If anything, people saw his injuries weren't able to recognize him any more, and in the aftermath he calmed down and thought he wasn't hurt as bad as he was. We know he was injured, fairly badly; whether he was choking, unable to breathe clearly, or simply in a panic we may never really know.
What we do know is -he thought he was in serious danger- and -eyewitness testimony- corroborates that he was in danger.
AReasonableMan said...
Also Zimmerman quite clearly disavows that he is the one screaming for help on the 911 tape during the police interviews.
You simply can not make a post on this topic without lying.
Zimmerman is quite clearly very stupid. He is also incompetent, by the statements of his own defense team. No sensible competent man placed in the same situation (armed, in his car, on the phone to the police) would have ended up shooting dead an unarmed teen within yards of his home.
Nothing of substance.
All name calling.
You have nothing factual or logical to say on the topic.
If he could not breathe he could not be the one shouting for help since it takes a lot of air to scream like that.
Alternatively,
Zimmerman never stated that Martin covered his nose and mouth for the entirety of the altercation.
Do you ever tire of posting this stupid, nonsensical bullshit?
Matthew Sablan said...
-- Prove it.
There was absolutely no need to leave the car.
There are only three streets in the community. It defies credibility to believe he didn't know the street name. But let's say he is incredibly stupid. Drive to the next street sign. Why walk across to a completely different street? Same goes for the house numbers. Why walk to a completely different street to get the house numbers?
Furthermore, why walk in the same direction that the threatening Martin just walked a few moments previously. Why not walk in the opposite direction?
If you want to believe this nonsense it is entirely your right to do so, but it remains nonsense.
He is also incompetent, by the statements of his own defense team.
You may as well just be flinging poo at a wall.
AReasonableMan said...
Furthermore, why walk in the same direction that the threatening Martin just walked a few moments previously
Notice how you just can't help yourself with these lies.
Martin did not walk. Nobody asserted he "walked" yet you claim he did.
Why don't you have any interest in the actual facts of this case.
None of what you offered is proof.
"There was absolutely no need to leave the car."
-- There was no need for him to go to the grocery store either; for Martin to get Skittles. None of that matters; what you feel people NEED to do is immaterial. Offer some proof.
"There are only three streets in the community. It defies credibility to believe he didn't know the street name."
-- Which other residents could not remember, that were recently renamed, late at night, in the rain. Do we need to go over this time and again? Do you not listen?
"Why walk to a completely different street to get the house numbers?"
-- Because he couldn't see the house number of the house he was by. The owner of the house testified, much to the prosecution's annoyance, that no, her house number was not visible from the road. Again: Do you pay attention at all to the proceedings? You really should if you want to keep talking about it.
AReasonableMan said...
. Why walk across to a completely different street? Same goes for the house numbers. Why walk to a completely different street to get the house numbers?
Note that the questions were answered for you, and you pretend that asking these silly questions is some sort of response to the answer.
It is also comical you think these idiotic, already answered questions, are "proof" of a lie.
If he could not breathe he could not be the one shouting for help since it takes a lot of air to scream like that. Also Zimmerman quite clearly disavows that he is the one screaming for help on the 911 tape during the police interviews. Taken together this makes pretty strong evidence that either it was Martin who was screaming or, alternatively, that Zimmerman is lying in at least some of these statements.
They will also say he swallowed the blood allowing him to breathe. That's the purpose of the larynx lock up, I think.
AReasonableMan said...
In reality I have never expressed any view on this case. Why not stick with the facts?
lol wut? orly?
"I am a little skeptical. I don't think that my view is entirely unreasonable. Maybe I am wrong."
What exactly is your "view"?
His view is "sweet Jesus... I can't tell all these right-wingers I've been wrong all these months, but it has become impossible to argue 'Zimmerman is guilty' without looking like a complete idiot. What am I supposed to do?"
Or so I'd surmise.
Zimmerman quite clearly disavows that he is the one screaming for help on the 911 tape during the police interviews.
No he doesn't.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
AReasonableMan,
I think it is fine if you guys want to believe everything Zimmerman has to say. It fits with the narrative that Zimmerman is simply a victim of race-baiting coloreds and a jew-controlled media. Maybe that is reality.
Funny, I was just over at Volokh Conspiracy fighting off the suggestion that "Zimmerman" was a stereotypically Jewish name, and therefore his prosecution was motivated by anti-Semitism. Whatever conspiracy theory works at the moment, I suppose.
Trolls are goal post movers. They make you chase them while they twist the fabric of reality to the narrative they want to shape for you.
Matthew Sablan said...
None of what you offered is proof.
"There was absolutely no need to leave the car."
OK, what was the need to get out of the car?
He can drive anywhere he wants. He's safe. He can shine his flashlight or headlights on any sign he needs to see.
Clearly at some point Occam's razor kicks in. The simplest explanation for his actions is that he is lying about following Martin. To twist yourself into knots over this detail reveals how invested you are in Zimmerman.
"I think he shouldn't have gotten out of his car; I think he should have backed off of Martin once he knew the police were on their way."
"Does anyone seriously believe that the 'soft' unathletic Zimmerman would have gotten out of the car without a gun? All his subsequent actions have to viewed in this light."
What you both seem to be overlooking is that George Zimmerman was - may still be - a caring person who wanted to help his community. He volunteered to perform neighborhood watch activities, and the testimony has been that he was a valuable and conscientious officer. He says the reason he got out of his car was because the dispatcher had asked him for an address. As it happens, we have a recording of that event.
Put it this way; If Z were a cop, no one would be asking why he got out of his car. So, what you are really saying is that Zimmerman was a fool to try to reduce crime in his neighborhood, he should have left that to the police. Well, you may be right. Certainly, I wouldn't cross the street to save either one of you from a beating. It sounds like Zimmerman would have, so perhaps that makes him a fool. What it doesn't make him is a criminal. If Zimmerman intended to use his gun when he got out of the car, his nose would not have been broken. Even a drug-addled wannabe thug would not have attacked Zimmerman if he had known he was armed. Martin went looking to bash a cracker and got a bit more than he bargained for. Under the laws of the State of Florida, Crackers are not required to submit to beatings. Not yet, anyway.
Jay said...
If this trial were the SuperBowl, it would be like Super Bowl XXIX: San Francisco 49, San Diego 26 - it was never that close, the Niners demolished San Diego.
I don't think there is a reason to watch anymore except out of wonder how many more state witnesses will be called. The poor "Justice for Trayvon" gal on CNN made the claim that we've "Only see 24 witnesses so far" as if that is both some tiny number and the really effective witnesses are forthcoming.
As a San Diegan who was at that game, I resent this awful use of reality, sir.
AReasonableMan said...
OK, what was the need to get out of the car?
He can drive anywhere he wants.
I love this.
It is so revealing about your knowledge of what actually happened.
Matthew Sablan said...
"Why walk to a completely different street to get the house numbers?"
-- Because he couldn't see the house number of the house he was by. The owner of the house testified, much to the prosecution's annoyance, that no, her house number was not visible from the road.
Why not look at the townhouse next door on the same street? Why get out of the car and walk a considerable distance to a completely different street?
Now "areasonableman" is suggesting Zimmerman can drive through the area the fight occurred or something.
Matthew Sablan said...
Note: Manslaughter requires the killing to be "unlawful," if Zimmerman shot in self-defense, killing Martin is, by definition, not manslaughter.
Which still mystifies me why this is a 2nd degree murder case. The self defense was evident. Special prosecutors be damned.
"OK, what was the need to get out of the car?"
-- He doesn't need a NEED to leave the car. This isn't an episode of CSI or Perry Mason; you can't argue by theoretical counter-factual in the hopes the witness breaks down on the flimsiest of flights of fancy.
You say there was no need to leave the car; I say: It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the hottest woman in the world was in his car offering him the best sex of his life, so why would he leave the car?
The fact is: He LEFT the car. Leaving the car was legal. It was not negligent. Even if it WERE negligent, self-defense is a justification against manslaughter.
We know that Zimmerman stopped following Martin. How do we know? Because Martin got home, then turned around to catch BACK UP with Zimmerman where the fight was.
Unless, we assume Jeantel is lying about what Martin said to her. In which case, the only possible witness the prosecution has loses what veneer of credibility she had.
So, now, again: What proof do you have Zimmerman lied and did not simply make a choice you would not have made?
As a San Diegan who was at that game, I resent this awful use of reality, sir.
If it is any consolation: I was at the AFC Championship game when SD shocked Pittsburgh. It was awful.
"Why not look at the townhouse next door on the same street? Why get out of the car and walk a considerable distance to a completely different street?"
-- Who knows? We answered why he couldn't see the one closest. Maybe he thought that direction was the closest one he could see. Again: This isn't a TV trial where the lawyer can go "Ah hah!" and close out the trial with a bang by simply saying something is ILLOGICAL or CONTRADICTORY.
You need actual proof; you've offered nothing but "Well, I don't like peanut butter sandwiches, so WHY WOULD THE DEFENDANT EAT A PEANUT BUTTER SANDWICH!?"
Leaving a car and following Martin is not illegal.
"Areasonableman" can't fathom being anywhere near those dangerous negros.
That much is clear.
(The answer in that specific case was that they were out strawberry jam and no one likes grape jelly.)
Revenant said...
His view is "sweet Jesus... I can't tell all these right-wingers I've been wrong all these months, but it has become impossible to argue 'Zimmerman is guilty' without looking like a complete idiot. What am I supposed to do?"
I have never thought the state had a good case for 2nd degree murder.
"Clearly at some point Occam's razor kicks in. The simplest explanation for his actions is that he is lying about following Martin. To twist yourself into knots over this detail reveals how invested you are in Zimmerman."
The simplest explanation for his actions is that, as he remarked to the dispatcher, "they always get away". He had been calling the police about suspicious people, and watching them get away, for a long time. He had no reason to suppose this one was not in the process of getting away as well.
But assuming that obvious explanation is false, what then? You still haven't explained how this cold-blooded hit man found himself lying on his back getting the shit beaten out of him. To twist yourself into knots over this tiny detail, when it leads nowhere, and supports no plausible hypothesis, shows that you are fundamentally unserious about the whole case. Fine, Zimmerman was lying. So how dd he wind up on his back?
Matthew Sablan said...
"Why not look at the townhouse next door on the same street? Why get out of the car and walk a considerable distance to a completely different street?"
-- Who knows? We answered why he couldn't see the one closest. Maybe he thought that direction was the closest one he could see.
But this is obvious nonsense. They are townhouses, all in a row. You obviously don't need to walk any distance, much less drive, to find another house sign. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
I have never thought the state had a good case for 2nd degree murder.
How reasonable of you. I don't think they have a case that Zimmerman committed any crime that night.
"But this is obvious nonsense. They are townhouses, all in a row. You obviously don't need to walk any distance, much less drive, to find another house sign. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?"
-- Saying it is nonsense doesn't prove it is. For all we know, he DID walk to the next one. And couldn't see that number either. Remember why Martin was walking up to houses and looking like he was casing them?
The rain was bad, it was dark, and Martin was having trouble finding the right house number for where he was staying.
Zimmerman, probably, was less willing to go wandering onto other people's property. After all, he considered it suspicious when someone else did that. So, he may have just kept walking until he could see one, and then ended up going farther than he wanted to.
Yet again, another perfectly reasonable interpretation other than: "Pshaw! He's a lying liar who lies!"
So, do you have some proof that he's lying? You NEED it to make the claim and be taken seriously at this point.
More on the beating, the interviewing cop says Zimmerman was bleeding out of one of his ears.
Also Zimmerman quite clearly disavows that he is the one screaming for help on the 911 tape during the police interviews
Are you really that stupid? Zimmerman clearly stated during the two interviews with the SPD investigators that he called for help. He even stated that he saw the neighbor (Good) who looked out but when back inside to call police and didn't help. The 911 recording corroborates his claim that he called for help and no where did he disavow it.
"Unless, we assume Jeantel is lying about what Martin said to her. In which case, the only possible witness the prosecution has loses what veneer of credibility she had."
I will just point out, that even if we believe every word she said, or at least every word which could be construed as meaningful, there would still be no evidence that George Zimmerman did anything wrong, let alone illegal. The prosecution literally seems to be proceeding on the theory that if they present enough witnesses, the jury will assume some of the testimony must prove the crime alleged, even if one can't see quite how.
Zimmerman said the person on the 911 tape didn't sound like him.
Of course when you're all super-duper "reasonable" you conclude he COMPLETELY DISAVOWED!!!! it.
So if an ex-lover of yours played back a voice mail and you said "Wow, that doesn't sound like me" the key take away is that you're COMPLETELY DISAVOWING that it was you.
And if you don't know that you're like a Zimmerman supporting kook and stuff.
Unreasonable Homophobe, saying "clearly" and "obviously" doesn't make the retarded shit you keep repeating sound any smarter.
Take it over to the daily kos kids, they are impressed with words like that.
You clearly are a stupid motherfucker who obviously doesn't have a clue what happened the night Trayvon got his justice.
Clearly at some point Occam's razor kicks in.
Let us know when it kicks in for you.
The simplest explanation for his actions is that he is lying about following Martin.
So what if he was? The dispatcher asked him which way the teenager in the hoodie was running and he exited the car to ascertain that information. That was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You'd probably do it too, in the same situation. When the dispatcher says that they don't need him to leave the car, he returns to his truck. But he doesn't get there, because he's attacked by Trayvon Martin.
Jupiter said...
The simplest explanation for his actions is that, as he remarked to the dispatcher, "they always get away". He had been calling the police about suspicious people, and watching them get away, for a long time. He had no reason to suppose this one was not in the process of getting away as well.
But assuming that obvious explanation is false, what then? You still haven't explained how this cold-blooded hit man found himself lying on his back getting the shit beaten out of him. To twist yourself into knots over this tiny detail, when it leads nowhere, and supports no plausible hypothesis, shows that you are fundamentally unserious about the whole case. Fine, Zimmerman was lying. So how dd he wind up on his back?
Unlike Mathew you at least acknowledge the self-evident, that Zimmerman was lying about his reasons for leaving the car.
Clearly I don't think Zimmerman is a cold-blooded killer. My problem is with opposite end of the spectrum. Are we all really comfortable with 'soft' incompetent men killing teens without any penalty at all. I would have had the same issues if he had run him over with his truck. This is not about race or even really guns for me, I would have the same views if Zimmerman had knifed and killed Martin. It is about what is the appropriate penalty, if any, for an unnecessary killing. Manslaughter seems appropriate to me. I fully acknowledge that other can see this differently.
LOL, one on hand ARM argues that Zimmerman should not have followed Martin, yet he wonders why he didn't go to the next house to see the numbers. Doing so would require him to go in the same direction in which Martin ran.
ARM again;"But this is obvious nonsense. They are townhouses, all in a row. You obviously don't need to walk any distance, much less drive, to find another house sign. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?"
ARM, old fellow, have you actually looked at any of the maps of the scene which are readily available all over the internet? The townhouses are arrayed along a street. Martin went down a "dog path" which is at right angles to that street. Zimmerman parked his car on the street, and walked down the dog path. To drive down the path would have involved driving his car over other people's lawns. To simply sit in the car would mean that the police would not have accurate information. Most important, you forget that he had been doing this for years, and had never been involved in a confrontation, and had no reason at all to suspect that this time was different.
"Unlike Mathew you at least acknowledge the self-evident, that Zimmerman was lying about his reasons for leaving the car."
I acknowledge no such thing. I am merely pointing out that nothing follows from the assertion either way. That even if you were correct that Zimmerman was lying, that "fact" gets you nowhere.
"It is about what is the appropriate penalty, if any, for an unnecessary killing."
In American law, the trial comes *before* the penalty phase, ARM. I believe the court may well be competent to determine an appropriate penalty, should that crime be proven. But Martin's death was only "unnecessary" if Zimmerman's bodily integrity was likewise unnecessary. Note, not Zimmerman's life. Zimmerman may well have been in fear for his life. I know I would have been. But even if he just didn't feel like getting his nose rebroken and his head scratched up some more, he was legally justified in using deadly force against his attacker.
Jupiter said...
ARM, old fellow, have you actually looked at any of the maps of the scene which are readily available all over the internet? The townhouses are arrayed along a street. Martin went down a "dog path" which is at right angles to that street. Zimmerman parked his car on the street, and walked down the dog path. To drive down the path would have involved driving his car over other people's lawns. To simply sit in the car would mean that the police would not have accurate information. Most important, you forget that he had been doing this for years, and had never been involved in a confrontation, and had no reason at all to suspect that this time was different.
You are making two conflicting points. To get the house numbers of sufficient accuracy to pinpoint his location for the police he simply needed to go up or down the street was already on in his car.
As you say, he followed Martin. He denied this, repeatedly. All I am saying is that Zimmerman's testimony is impeachable on some critical details. The true believers can't acknowledge this. Once his testimony become something less than the gospel truth then some legitimate questions arise about his course of actions.
Drago:"Has everyone else noticed that the papers/msm are now increasingly calling what Zimmerman did "criminally profiling Trayvon Martin"?
I have been wondering about this for months? I have never heard the phrase "criminally profiling" before. What law are they referring to that makes it illegal for a neighborhood watch volunteer to profile someone who fits the description of people who have been burglarizing houses in in the housing complex he's trying to protect?
Unless I'm sadly misinformed (a possibility I know) there is no law against one person profiling anyone else for any reason. And there is no crime called "criminally profiling." Does Florida have such a law?
Here's where I think the big divide is. A lot of the people on the left aren't race-baiting, etc. They just think Zimmerman doing what he did was stupid. I think he shouldn't have gotten out of his car; I think he should have backed off of Martin once he knew the police were on their way.
This is interesting. I wonder if they object to Zimmerman having a gun, too. The fact that he did may have saved his life.
I would say having that gun was probably a good thing.
It is about what is the appropriate penalty, if any, for an unnecessary killing.
Saying it is an 'unnecessary killing' is silly and self-refuting.
"Once his testimony become something less than the gospel truth then some legitimate questions arise about his course of actions."
Actually, ARM, questions, legitimate or otherwise, do no "arise" unbidden. If you are aware of a question that might have some bearing on the case, then here at comment 300 or so would be an excellent point to get around to it. What crime do you think Zimmerman committed? What facts, being contrary to his testimony, would constitute evidence of that crime? The prosecution obviously cannot answer that question, can you?
"Are we all really comfortable with 'soft' incompetent men killing teens without any penalty at all."
ARM: you really believe, if Zimmerman is acquitted, he's suffered no penalty at all?
The guy has had his life ruined, regardless of the trial outcome. CNN broadcast his SSN and DL# today. There have been hundreds, maybe even thousands, of tweets threatening his life.
Apparently, all that "feeling" instead of thinking that lefties are famous for doesn't include any empathy for the position Zimmerman is in, regardless of the trial outcome.
The chief investigator testified today that he had been unable to find any evidence that contradicted Zimmerman's story, and that he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth. Also, that when they tried to trick Zimmerman into changing his story by telling him they had videotape of the fight, his response was "thank God".
This is a *prosecution* witness? Jeez.
Does anyone know if the state is planning to call Trayvon's mother as a witness? I'm curious as to how she's allowed to sit in the courtroom while Zimmerman's parents cannot because the prosecution has them listed as witnesses.
They just think Zimmerman doing what he did was stupid.
Being dumb is illegal? That explains why Martin's "girlfriend" looked so nervous on the stand. :)
@President-Mom-Jeans, UnreasonableMan is not a homophobe. If you read his comment at 3:21, he's a clear-cut anti-Semite.
Though I guess he could be both.
Trayvon Martin was safely out of Zimmerman's sight and in the grass near the townhouse he was staying in.
Had he not gone back to punch the "crazy ass cracka" he'd be alive today. He brought about his own death and sputtering about leaving a vehicle doesn't change that fact.
I'm curious as to how she's allowed to sit in the courtroom while Zimmerman's parents cannot because the prosecution has them listed as witnesses.
Blame "victim's rights" legislation. The victim's family is always allowed in court; the accused's family has no such protection.
Big Mike,
I was referring to the woman who posts as AReasonablMan's proclivity to throw around the homosexual slur of "faggot."
I'm sure she can tell you why its okay to do so when she is angry, as she tried to rationalize the other day.
"Unless I'm sadly misinformed (a possibility I know) there is no law against one person profiling anyone else for any reason. And there is no crime called "criminally profiling." Does Florida have such a law?"
What they were trying to suggest, was that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin because Martin was black. And when they were all schmoozing with Martin's parents, that may have sounded like a Very Bad Thing. But no, it is not a crime, although it might conceivably be an element in a crime.
It is difficult to guess what the prosecution thought they were doing when they brought this turkey into a courtroom. They don't appear to even have a theory of the case in which Zimmerman committed a crime. Each new bit of evidence comes as a complete surprise to them. Althouse thinks they are performing racial reconciliation theater. I can only suppose they never thought the case would go to trial.
AReasonableMan:I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder. I think he is self-evidently and transparently lying about his reason for getting out of the car.
Suppose he is, so what? Suppose he was following Martin down the sidewalk and Martin turned around, punched him in the nose, knocked him down, and beat his head against the concrete? Zimmerman it seems to me would be fully justified to use his gun to save his life.
I don't know what's wrong with following someone you think is up to no good anyway. It seems to me that is what any good citizen would do. When you punch someone in the face and beat his head into the concrete you shouldn't be surprised if your victim fights back.
Martin, it seems to me, was the one who initiated the violence. Fights are like wars. You never know what is going to happen when you start one.
Gene,
you have to understand that "areasonableman" is a middle-aged white woman and she is terrified of blacks.
Once you think through what that means a lot of what she is posting makes sense.
Flashback: Black woman says "There were black boys robbing houses in this [Zimmerman's] neighborhood"
"That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."
Criminal profiling!!!
Most of what the left, progressive jews in the media and racist blacks do is attack...
And sit back while people defend against the attack, then launch a fresh attack.
The initiative is thus always with the enemy.
It's better when the attacks can be done from the other side. Let the enemy defend, let them be the ones scrambling, giving evidence, thinking they are winning the argument.
It will take smarter people to start recognizing the strategy the Jewish Bolsheviks started was that the whole idea is there is no argument, no civil discourse. The whole idea is to attack to divide and tie up their targeted population sectors in arguments they think they can win, right up until the security people haul them away.
The Game is not about winning the argument.
It is about isolating and fixing the target. Then scorning and demonizing it until power passes enough to eradicate the targeted population sectors.
The Nazis learned well from the Jewish Bolsheviks.
So has the recent left-progressive jewish-black racist coalition.
The proper thing to do with ARM is tell him Trayvon is a thug, and eventually America will decline so much that the citizenry has to target people like ARM and remove them from power and positions of influence.
That more and more, we need to uncover their Networks, their cabals like Journ-O-List. Compile
lists of Enemy Within as prelude to their removal from positions of power and infuence.
Don't waste your energy arguing with them.
Spend time with groups that can ID the enemy.
Are we all really comfortable with 'soft' incompetent men killing teens without any penalty at all. [sic]
The law says that you're allowed to defend yourself with lethal force if there's no alternative. I'm comfortable with that. Why aren't you?
This is not about race or even really guns for me
B*llsh*t
I would have the same views if Zimmerman had knifed and killed Martin. It is about what is the appropriate penalty, if any, for an unnecessary killing.
But was it unnecessary? I think your problem is that you have made up your mind that Trayvon Martin was a victim. But the sad, sorry reality is that the person who did the most to cause Trayvon Martin's death was Trayvon Martin. No one disputes that Zimmerman lost sight of him and was returning to his truck when Martin assaulted him. Why did Martin decide to leave the safety of the house where his father was staying?
Once Martin turn back and assault Zimmerman, the odds were about 60% that Zimmerman would kill him, and about 40% that he'd wrest the gun away from Zimmerman by killing him or rendering him unconscious. Most of the time in that 40% Martin is there with a gun in his hand standing next to a man lying bleeding on the ground when the cops arrive. (According to the published timeline they arrived less than a minute after the gunshot.) What do you think happens next? Do you think Martin surrenders quietly? Or does he use the gun on the officers? Even if he runs, once they see a gun in his hand and a victim on the ground they're entitled to shoot.
Manslaughter seems appropriate to me.
Really? So you don't believe in self-defense?
I fully acknowledge that other can see this differently.
Tears are pouring from my eyes and threaten to short out the keyboard.
A reasonable man said "I genuinely cannot understand why people are so invested in this stupid incompetent man who needlessly shot an unarmed teen."
An incomplete sentence for sure. Let's try this.
I genuinely cannot understand why people are so invested in this stupid incompetent man who needlessly shot an unarmed teen who was sitting on top of him beating the shit out of his face and banging his head into the pavement trying to kill him.
Maybe finishing the thought there will help him figure it out.
At this point, it is obvious to me that ARM is simply trolling for our reactions. He's just a little bit better at it than Ritmo, and a lot better at it than Garage. Ignore him, there's nothing to be gained.
A couple of things. GZ's magazine was full, when the police got his gun, indicating that the bullet that hit Martin was in the chamber. Some have hypothesized on why the gun didn't cycle, but that is really irrelevant to the trial.
According to the reenactment, GF didn't know the street name of where Martin went because he didn't live around that area. And the problem with the address was that he was on a sidewalk between the backs of the town houses. He walked down to the street to get a house number, then walked back, and when that walk ran into another one is where he ran into Martin. At that point, there were no house numbers anywhere close at that time (because they were behind the town houses). He was on his way back to his vehicle to meet the police when the altercation happened. Think of it as a T, running behind the town houses, with GF parking at one end of the top of the T, walking all the way down the top of the T (to find an address), not seeing Martin the entire time, then walking back and when he was crossing the vertical part of the T, Martin approached and confronted him from a little behind. The concrete walk that his head was being hit against was on the vertical part of the T, right below the top.
Watch the reenactment to get a better feel for this.
Big Mike said...
If you read his comment at 3:21, he's a clear-cut anti-Semite.
You should probably reread that post and the one above before calling me an anti-semite.
If Zimmerman was some out of control hot-head looking to shoot f**ing coons, why didn't he empty the clip into Martin?
Something else from the reenactment. The reason that GZ was able to get the gun before Martin was that Martin was reaching completely across GZ, down and behind. Even with his longer arms, he wasn't able to do so quickly enough. GZ showed how Martin's hand was too high and not far enough around. Both are most likely right handed, which means that the gun was on GZ's right side, inside his pants. Which means that Martin had to reach all the way across GZ, right to left, for the gun. GZ had a much shorter reach.
Cedarford said...
The proper thing to do with ARM is tell him Trayvon is a thug, and eventually America will decline so much that the citizenry has to target people like ARM and remove them from power and positions of influence.
I have no power or influence. Many years ago I lived in the inner city of St Louis for two years on 16K a year with a wife and kid. I lived on the fringe of the 'white' area. I don't need a lecture on what life is like. Ultimately we are all citizens and have to find a way to coexist. There was some racially polarizing posturing around this investigation at the start but look at it from the parents point of view. They want a trial for their dead son. I would want a trial in the same situation. They could have just gone down to the police station and self-imolated themselves. That would have attracted sufficient attention from the media. Short of that action they didn't have a lot of realistic options.
As Ozzie Meyers famously said, "money talks, and bullshit walks."
The key evidence here is John Good's testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, hitting him in the "ground and pound" MMA style. He was the only witness with a clear view of the fight before the shot. His testimony alone, without anything else, creates reasonable doubt.
Zimmerman will not take the stand. There's no reason for him to. He has already testified through the interview tape that the prosecutor so helpfully played yesterday. There is so much reasonable doubt already that if this wasn't a politically charged case, the court would grant a directed verdict for the defense at this point.
ARM; "There was some racially polarizing posturing around this investigation at the start but look at it from the parents point of view. They want a trial for their dead son."
The parents' point of view? So, we are no longer concerned about Zimmerman lying, because we agree that would be irrelevant, and we are no longer concerned about Trayvon's death being "unnecessary", because it wasn't. Well, that's progress.
ARM is now arguing for the Oprah Winfrey approach to prosecutorial discretion. If the parents would like to have a trial -- and whose parents wouldn't? -- then they should have one. And Benjamin Crump is certainly entitled to his 30% as well. Because lawyers also like to have trials.
Well, ARM, I don't agree, but it appears the State of Florida does, so at least you are finally on the same page with someone. I shall leave you there, with your friends.
Jupiter said...
Well, ARM, I don't agree, but it appears the State of Florida does, so at least you are finally on the same page with someone. I shall leave you there, with your friends.
The State of Florida has a conservative Republican governor so I should be in good company.
I have heard the Zimmerman NEN call that night and his previous calls that are archived on the internet. He never spontaneously brings up race. In previous calls, the dispatcher's first question is always, "Is s/he Black, Hispanic, or White?" (Which I find incredibly insensitive to Asians and Native Americans. They are being excluded!) In that night's NEN call, the dispatcher asks for a description and only then does Zimmerman include race. He says it again later once TM is circling GZ's car with his hand in his waistband trying to intimidate him (as if he's hinting there's a gun in his waistband). The second mention is to confirm the race now that he sees the suspicious person up close. And, GZ describes suspicious BEHAVIOR as what makes TM a suspicious person--in the context of a neighborhood suffering burglaries and home invasions, someone in a hoodie on a stormy, rainy night standing on the front lawn of a townhouse peering into the windows is suspicious behavior! Looking around to see if he's being observed is suspicious behavior. TM wasn't just walking home. TM signaled his fight prep EARLY--while approaching GZ's car, he was putting the skittles and the tea in his pockets, freeing up his hands for the fight (instead of carrying a shopping bag).
George finished the call at the top of the T--he didn't go down the dog walk. On the T, GZ was looking at the backs of the houses. Dispatcher was asking for a street and house number repeatedly and also asking where TM was and direction of travel and what actions are happening--inviting GZ to make those observations. The dispatcher hears the bell of the car door and does NOT ask GZ to get back into the car.
TM had turned the corner and ran down the dog walk by the time GZ was waddling up to the T. He wasn't following because he was hanging back not to confront.
ACCORDING TO HIS NWP TRAINING AS TESTIFIED TO TODAY. NWP coordinator lady said she has never told people they couldn't follow at a distance just to observe. She kept saying you are the eyes and ears of the police in your community. GZ was trying to fulfill that call--be the eyes and ears, hang back, observe, report on the NEN if there's no immediate crime or crisis, don't confront or engage. GZ followed that exactly. He did not have a problem with TM. The owner of the townhouse being cased did.
TM's question is obviously to suss out whether GZ was a cop, and finding that he wasn't, it was immediately on to sucker punch and ground and pound time.
Let's not bring the shooting into this question--but up to that moment:
What law did GZ break?
Quote Florida statutes please.
Here's what perturbs me about today's proceedings: the jury tells the judge they can't hear the audio/video that everyone is discussing, and the judge tells them they can listen to them during their proceedings.
WTF?! How are they supposed to understand the follow up questions and arguments presented about an audio they won't be able to hear or listen to until the trial concludes?!
That is evil. Imagine you are the defendant in such a situation. Do you feel you are getting a fair trial under such conditions?
You should probably reread that post and the one above before calling me an anti-Semite.
You may recollect that I quoted from that comment.
Revenant said...
The chief investigator testified today that he had been unable to find any evidence that contradicted Zimmerman's story, and that he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth.
Luckily while the entire Florida law enforcement investigative apparatus cannot refute Zimmerman's account of that evening ARM, who has never set foot in the neighborhood, is convinced. If only he could get on touch with prosecutors to share his wonderful news.
It's bizarre watching who weren't there claim they know exactly how everything should have and would have happened.
The evidence is in, and overwhelming. The verdict is clear: AReasonableMan is a complete fucktard.
Marshal said...
Luckily while the entire Florida law enforcement investigative apparatus cannot refute Zimmerman's account of that evening ARM, who has never set foot in the neighborhood, is convinced. If only he could get on touch with prosecutors to share his wonderful news.
It's bizarre watching who weren't there claim they know exactly how everything should have and would have happened.
But Serino recommended a manslaughter charge. I agree with Serino.
Some have hypothesized on why the gun didn't cycle, but that is really irrelevant to the trial.
As I recall, the original officer took out the clip, and there was another round in the chamber that he took out.
Do you know why people are saying this/have a link?
But Serino recommended a manslaughter charge. I agree with Serino.
The prosecutors seem to think that because Zimmerman didn't have brain damage he wasn't justified in defending his life.
AReasonableMan said...
But Serino recommended a manslaughter charge.
But it took you to find the clearly visible street numbers of the closer homes, so he's clearly stupid. Why align yourself with such utter stupidity?
ARM: Serino recommended a manslaughter charge. I agree with Serino.
1.) Hey, window-licker, if the investigator wanted manslaughter, why is he being charged with 2nd degree murder?
2.) Hey, fucktard: Read this from 2012: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/12/2892510/more-evidence-released-in-zimmerman.html
The lead Sanford Police investigator who sought manslaughter charges against George Zimmerman told the FBI that a sergeant and two other officers tried to pressure him into making an arrest in the controversial case — even though he didn’t think there was enough evidence.
AReasonableMan said...
But Serino recommended a manslaughter charge.
You're completely and ridiculously a liar.
Jason said...
The lead Sanford Police investigator who sought manslaughter charges against George Zimmerman told the FBI that a sergeant and two other officers tried to pressure him into making an arrest in the controversial case — even though he didn’t think there was enough evidence.
But this doesn't change the fact that in his March 13th report to the state attorney that Serino recommended a manslaughter charge.
The trial is going so badly for the prosecution that the house lefties have fled and leaving the rear guard action to A reasonable troll. Its a complete travesty the way the state overcharged on this one. If I was a taxpayer in florida I'd be pretty pissed at Govt. Scott.
"If Zimmerman was some out of control hot-head looking to shoot f**ing coons, why didn't he empty the clip into Martin?'
-- Dude read his Camus and knows how that ends.
That's right folks. Phoenix Wright, Chicago and The Stranger references. I'm a freaking encyclopedia.
Dante - if there was a round in the chamber when the police got there, then fine. I had heard the opposite. If anyone has a link to some police report or other evidence either way, I would appreciate it. It is still really irrelevant to the case, but would ease my curiosity.
@ Revenant responding to "I'm curious as to how she's allowed to sit in the courtroom while Zimmerman's parents cannot because the prosecution has them listed as witnesses."
Blame "victim's rights" legislation. The victim's family is always allowed in court; the accused's family has no such protection.
My question is how the step-mom (or whichever mom it is) is going to testify about the voice yelling "help!" being Trayvon's. Doesn't that mean she is on the witness list? Is she in the courtroom?
Which "mom"? TM had 3 of them, I think.
I noticed on CNN tonight a Martin family lawyer picked out the two or three tidbits from today's testimony that "might" reinforce their case, amongst another day's debacle for the prosecution.
And they've got a great chance that it'll work, too, since it's an all-woman jury. They no doubt are still in the thrall of Obama because he's saved their women parts and gotten all women "free birth control".
I saw the videos of GZ's testimony. He seemed decent, well spoken, and intelligent. I also give him points for not requiring a lawyer to be present during questioning. He just doesn't look guilty. I think it takes a fair amount of bigotry to portray him as a malicious or his actions as provocative.....And, I also think that if Martin wanted to run away from Zimmerman he could have done so. In fact, he had done so. Why can't we take Martin's comment about "creepy ass cracker" as indicative of malicious intent on his part......We've come a long way in race relations in America. White America, as ARM demonstrates, has internalized the values and ethos of the Simpson jury. I wouldn't bet the farm that Zimmerman walks. The mere fact that he's going through this ordeal based on such non existent evidence is proof of how much the system is rigged against him.
Can anyone name one Hollywood celebrity or political heavyweight who has come out and said that Zimmerman is getting a raw deal?
If he wanted support from the Hollywoodies and the leftist tits he should have shot a police officer.
Bruce:
I was curious about this after you mentioned it. The answer is that West made an error during opening statements, which you can see here @ 147 +
The error is that the magazine contained 7 rounds (which is capacity).
However, if you read the officer who handled the gun's testimony here @ 149 + you will see that he cycled the gun and a round came out.
I'm not suggesting you are susceptible to this, but these are the kinds of details that become significant in the minds of some, to convince themselves of a previously held position.
Kind of like Rosie and that George Bush blew them up.
"Why not look at the townhouse next door on the same street? Why get out of the car and walk a considerable distance to a completely different street?"
There was testimony about this. Because the house had a bush in front of it, and because there could have been a car in front of it. There was testimony about this.
Are you understanding what happened?
A man who was concerned about his neighborhood walked around in the common areas of a complex he paid for. It is wrong under these circumstances to do it?
Recently there were two people on my property. I went up to them. I treated them with respect, but they were trespassing. Should I have called the police? Instead, I merely told them they were in the wrong place. They left.
And yes, they were strong men. Definitely not computer engineers, but people who work their bodies.
I don't know the specifics of Florida state law, but as a starting point Washington's isn't greatly different from most other states':
RCW 9A.16.050 { Homicide — By other person — When justifiable. }
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is. [emphasis added]
Note the bolded sections are specifically and explicitly about potential actions. No actual harm needs to have come to the self-defender in order to be justified.
Meth,
"The entire bullpen of DA's involved in that whole mess should be fired and replaced..."
And use real fire.
MDT,
Indeed. The only reason my father-in-law's store didn't get touched after the Rodney King verdict riots (he owned a popular food-service establishment on Capitol Hill in Seattle) was that he got wind the verdict was going to be announced and raced up to the store and sat there holding his shotgun with all the lights turned on. Quite a few neighboring establishments had windows broken (or worse.)
Great Ghu tradguy you are just going for stupid-raised-to-the-nth-power.
What we did know right from the beginning of this story getting national attention was the local PD investigated and found no reason to file charges.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?????
"Perhaps you'd see it differently if you were in the Defendant's chair, facing life in prison, and paying attorneys' fees. "
No, not even tradguy deserves this. But it's hard not to wish it upon his shriveled, obstinate soul.
Good question. One might also ask, how much is enough retribution for a "cracker" to express for saying the "N' word many years ago? Please say what it will take to make it square.
Some of you seem to be asserting the killing gun has no safety at all when there is a round in the chamber except the long trigger pull. Really, or are you perhaps Zimmerman-style omitting a key fact or two?
No. You've been watching too many movies.
I can't think of any revolvers that have a safety at all and they all operate on the same principle: you pull the trigger and it goes bang.
Quite a lot of automatic pistols have no external safety. Glocks, the single most popular police sidearm, have no external safety. Sigs, many S&W M&P's, many small carry pistols, and so on. They're designed to be carried in a holster that covers the trigger and have a significant trigger pull.
Modern pistols are designed to be carried with a round in the chamber for exactly the reason shown by Zimmerman. It takes to hands (or some fancy manipulation) to chamber a round in an automatic pistol. You have to rack the slide against significant recoil spring pressure. Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, pounding him, and they were grappling. Zimmerman couldn't realistically use two hands to rack the slide while also maintaining possession of the weapon.
That's why police carry with one in the chamber.
MMA "Ground and Pound", such as TM was doing to GZ, is a winning strategy. The victim underneath is allowed to tap his opponent on the shoulder as a sign of surrender. he is NOT allowed to shoot him, however.
Post a Comment