ABC News has been given a photograph that might make the difference between life in prison and a walk. For weeks, we have been discussing the case and the application of the Stand Your Ground law. As discussed earlier, I think the case was over-charged and I remain doubtful of a conviction. This picture will likely be the single most important piece of evidence in the case. It shows Zimmerman with significant blood on the back of his head — an image that supports accounts from the scene and will be used to corroborate Zimmerman’s account of a struggle with Trayvon Martin where he feared serious bodily injury. [UPDATE: Zimmerman granted bond].
Unlike the photos of Zimmerman at the police station, this photo was taken a few minutes after the fight. Zimmerman’s shaved head could prove Godsend for Zimmerman. Had he had longer hair, the injury would have not appeared so stark.
The photo shows both cuts and a contusion — injuries that would normally be defined as serious bodily injury by many courts in torts cases where head injuries are treated as inherently potentially serious. The original police report said that he was bleeding from the nose and head and that his clothes looked like he had been in a fight. Zimmerman claims that it was Martin who jumped him, punched him, and pounded his head on to the concrete sidewalk.
The prosecutors can still argue that they do not contest the fight but that Zimmerman started it. However, with this photo, the charge of second-degree murder appears even more excessive and undermines Special Prosecutor Angela Corey’s claim that she was not affected by the political pressure to charge Zimmerman. I can understand a manslaughter charge, even with the photo, but no reasonable prosecutor would consider the second-degree murder charge as based on this evidence. Corey clearly must have seen this photo and the reports before her charging of Zimmerman.
The photo should also assist Zimmerman in his efforts to get bail.
Zimmerman, 28, is still being held on charges of second-degree murder of Martin, 17. In my view, a denial of bail would be an abuse and unwarranted given the fact that Zimmerman cooperated at the scene and voluntarily turned himself in.
Source: ABC
I think a plea deal is in the making…… Zimmerman is requesting bond today…… I think the best case is simple manslaughter…… This is agree is an over charge…..
Yet, Zimmerman was told NOT to follow the person he reported. I don’t care what kind of injuries he got, because he brought that on himself. He’s still breathing, Mr Martin is not.
Agree with you, who am I to disagree, have to believe the Corey either has something; was attempting to drive a plea deal, or, was setting up the case to be thrown out.
Hopefully the case will force changes to the law, if not repeal. Ludicrous that someone can initiate, whether the actual scuffle or not, a confrontation, especially with and unarmed person, and then failing to man-up pulls a gun and kills. Long been an adage; you get what you ask for.
He was not “told not to follow.” Read the transcript; list to the tape. “We don’t need you to do that.” is what the dispatcher said. Remember the case is going to go with the actual evidence, not what we might wish it to be.
I’m not so sure about “serious” injury. A bald guy, like the top of my pate, can easily scrape his head on concrete to produce bleeding without serious trauma. Might be some bruising as well. Just sayin. Let’s wait for forensics.
So J, you’ve never had a course in how to get cooperation have you? Teachers & cops do it all the time. They never say “Do this” or Don’t do that” they say “I NEED you to do this” “We don’t need you to do that”. Those phrases are taught as they have a physiological pull to them. Z was told not to follow M. He initiated the confrontation but under SYG thats OK you get a free murder once you start losing the fight you started.
BTW – there is no way this law is changed even though this, and the insane case at the root of the OK killings make its failings painfully obvious. The powers that wanted it have not moved an inch and a few hundred extra gun deaths a year are not going to bother them in the least.
So the moral of this story may end being if you outright kill someone, just bash some cuts on yourself then claim self defense.
If the guy you are provoking, or attacking happens to start getting the better of you, use stand your ground as a defense.
I fail to see how because he has cuts on him it somehow mitigates the facts that he was the aggressor or provacator, meaning Trayvon was the one actually using a defense of stand your ground.
That kind of bleeding could come from two small cuts; it doesn’t say who attacked who or why, or how he got the cuts. Forensics will help determine the relative position of the two people, and if Trayvon was killed (as some have said) on his knees, then no amount of head lacerations will explain a downward trajectory for a bullet into the chest of a man 6 inches taller than the gunman.
What ever the value of this photo as evidence, I don’t think it is going to reduce the controversy.
This photo may be plain and unaltered. But someone needs to explain exactly how it was taken and handled afterward.
Note the ear to the left in the photo with its reasonable approximation of flesh tone. Note the washed out tones of the scalp, perhaps due to over exposure caused too much flash. Note the bright red which is presumably blood.
I don’t think anyone can be confident of what we are seeing in this photo. We need an explanation of how the photo was taken and how it was handled afterward.
And yes, I do have a view regarding this incident. There is no doubt in my mind that this tragedy could have, and should have been avoided. Whether a crime was committed under Florida law is a different and perhaps far more difficult question.
If Zimmerman was following Trayvon, wasn’t Trayvon also then standing his ground?
“Z wasTOLD not to follow M.” No, he wasn’t. Saying it as many times as you want does not make it what the dispatcher actually said, which was, “We don’t NEED for you to do that.” Even courses in “how to get cooperation” using phrases having “physiological pull” will not replace the actual words as evidence. Now once the actual evidence is presented it will be up to the judge or jury to evaluate it and they could very well (or maybe even not) agree with you on how Zimmerman should have understood the words. My objection is that it is repeatedly being stated as fact that the dispatcher said words he did not say.
I’m sure that Mr. Turley, being an attorney, could come up with a number of ways to turn this murderer loose. That does not make it right. Likewise with Zimmerman doing everything he can to testify but not in court. His crap from yesterday was an attempt to get Trayvon’s parents to meet with him in private….just the three of them! He should be charged with harassing them for that stupid maneuver.
I read an article yesterday that said more witnesses had come forward. What a crock! Those witnesses were neighbors who were subjected to a visit from him to show them huge butterfly bandages on the back of his head and on his nose. Of course they claim that this proved he was telling the truth. Some Witness!
The only thing those damn bandages prove is that Zimmerman started looking for ways to back up his lying story by putting bandages on his own head or having them put on. The picture above looks less damaging than something my 5 yr old granddaughter did to her knees when she fell on a concrete walk. She also broke a tooth and busted a lip. She had lots more blood than what is shown on this murdering thug.
Somewhere along the line the murderer said that he jumped on Trayvon’s back after shooting him & that’s the reason a couple witnesses saw him getting up off the kid. He’s obviously reading all the comments he can get his hands on and working on his own lying BS to tell why each thing happened. Seems to me that if he keeps his big mouth running he will eventually prove that he planned to shoot someone all along.
It is clear (to me at least) from the ear-witness testimony of the girlfriend, and the 911 tape, that Zimmerman was pursuing Trayvon, and confronted Trayvon, and instigated the struggle.
According to the girlfriend, she heard Trayvon say, “Why are you following me?” and heard Zimmerman reply, “What are you doing here?” Followed by what she thought were sounds of a struggle.
That is inconsistent with Trayvon sneaking up on Zimmerman and jumping him, I believe that is a fabrication. It is consistent with Zimmerman confronting Trayvon and frightening him into an act of self defense.
Which means any injuries Zimmerman received are the direct result of his choice to instigate a fight with an unarmed kid, and should not change the charge in the least. It was, as I think the 911 tape shows, a pre-meditated stalking and confrontation. That is not pre-meditated murder, but in my mind it certainly warrants 2nd degree murder. I’ve been a juror, and jury foreman, and I have no doubt several more days of evidence will be presented, but based on the data I have now I would vote to put Zimmerman in prison. In my opinion he has proven a mental attitude and lack of intelligence that makes him an imminent and demonstrable danger to society, and quarantine is justified.
You’re assuming that Martin wasn’t the one standing his ground. On what basis?
Its ‘interesting’ but not a big surprise to see comments here dismissing/denying the latest photo of Zimmerman’s injured head.
As we have KNOWN, it was reported that Zimmerman was treated soon after the tragedy and PRIOR to the grainy LOW RESOLUTION surveillance camera video showing Zimmerman being led into the station (handcuffed).
As we have KNOWN ,not all the FACTS have yet to be displayed and presented to us >the public. Hypothetically, if ‘you’ were in a similar circumstance (regardless of how you were put into it) and someone was on top of you punching and slamming your head into the pavement ,fearing for your consciousness and survival, if ‘you’ had a gun on your person ,what would you do????
Someone earlier stated this “I don’t care what kind of injuries he got, because he brought that on himself. He’s still breathing, Mr Martin is not.”
In ALL communities our police departments have always declared the NEED for the community INVOLVEMENT in keeping our neighborhoods safe and free of crime. They cant do it alone. So if Zimmerman’s account of what happened is correct ,keeping in mind that we now are being shown more photographic proof of Zimmerman’s injuries, people here will still disregard anything less than that of showing that (the child) Martin was 100% innocent and Zimmerman is 100% guilty.
Do not rush to judgement-WAIT for more information and FACTS to this case.
That is a very strange looking photograph. As was noted above, the white is washed out and the blood looks too red. Has that been enhanced or photoshopped in some way? Of course, we know that both law enforcement in Florida nor the MSM would never do such a thing—ever. Heads tend to bleed when the skin is broken. Not just bleed, but bleed a lot. You can get more blood than that from a tiny cut to the head from running into a tree limb or falling down in the dark. Also, the person who starts an altercation is not the one who should be complaining about getting hurt. This photo is not a game changer, IMHO. Like most of the people here with legal or forensic science backgrounds, the photo is conclusive of only the fact a photo exists. We need to know more before concluding anything.
If that had been a serious injury he would not have been walking around telling his lies the next day. Hell I just noticed the direction of those “serious wounds”. Does that look a whole lot like something that could have been self inflicted (a few blows to the head), with his head leaned over to be sure he scored a hit that would produce the needed blood evidence?
Explain the direction of the blood flow Mr. Turley.
Head wounds often bleed profusely–even if the wounds aren’t serious. I wouldn’t say that the picture proves anything about the seriousness of Zimmerman’s head injuries.
Bosco says ” In ALL communities our police departments have always declared the NEED for the community INVOLVEMENT in keeping our neighborhoods safe and free of crime.”
I can make an equally unsubstantiated generality, to wit: Professional law enforcement want citizen vigilantes to stay out of the law enforcement business. Actually, I think my statement is less tendentious .
Head injury symptoms
Minor head injuries may cause headache, bruising, swelling and cuts, which may bleed profusely even if small.
What’s usually more worrying than any obvious trauma to the outside of the head (although this can in some instances cause very serious problems) is the possibility of damage to the delicate structures inside the head – to the brain and related tissues. This is referred to as traumatic brain injury or TBI. With any head injury, there’s a risk of permanent damage to the brain, especially if the injury is not treated quickly.
The following symptoms may occur soon after the head injury or appear more slowly hours or days later. They are a sign there may be an injury to the brain that needs urgent investigation:
•Headache with nausea and vomiting.
•Blurred or double vision.
•Slurred speech.
•Confusion or drowsiness.
•Loss of consciousness – this is usually a sign that more serious damage to the brain may have occurred.
•Blood or clear fluid (cerebrospinal fluid which normally bathes the brain) from the ears or nose.
•Excessive thirst – this may be an early warning sign that the pituitary gland has been damaged during the injury.
•Loss of sense of smell – this is common in more severe injury and may be prolonged.
These symptoms must always be taken seriously and given proper medical attention.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/headinjury1.shtml
I know this is lengthy but please read my posting. I hope you all will not get into this type of situation but I want to impress it can happen and to always keep an open mind despite all the facts know to you.
I haven’t spoken about this publicly but wanted to relay this incident that happened to me just a couple years before I retired from LE in the hope it will provide some understanding. It has some similarity to Mr. Zimmerman’s Case and I invite you to read it because it illustrates very clearly what can happen and a tragic event can take place despite reasonable actions from both sides. First remember Zimmerman’s 911 call, and what was described by Trayvon’s friend of what he was describing as Zimmerman following him.
I was at work patrolling the NW portion of the county late one night. Suddenly, a very broken radio call came out from a detective on our multi-agency narcotics team (who patrol did not know was working an assignment that night) came on with a distressed voice saying their cover was blown and they were getting shot at. The reception was bad and the dispatcher was suddenly not able to reach them.
I responded from about 12 or 13 miles away, driving as fast as I could, and occasionally receiving very limited updates such as the team was staking out a grow operation, that two of the suspects had seen the officers and started shooting at them. The shooters then got into a vehicle and began circling around looking for them with their lights out, the location was then unknown. (Rural farming area). I and an officer from a city nearby who was 45 seconds behind me rolled into the area and I blacked out as concealment in case I received incoming fire. We pulled up and I waited a few moments for my backup to arrive. When he did I opened my door and suddenly someone on the radio came out “The suspect vehicle just pulled behind you.” (detective saw him on his IR scope).
There it was, suddenly 10 feet behind mine, and I was stuck between my car and my partner’s. I crouched down and we both drew down on two men who were in the pick-up Fearing that we were about to be ambushed, I ordered both of them in English and the Spanish to put their hands out the window. The passenger complied, the driver refused to comply. He then began reaching under the dash and making other moves consistent with hiding a weapon or accessing a weapon. After about a minute or so, despite constant yells and orders to have him show his hands, the driver continued to be non-compliant. I was convinced he might have a weapon and I was strongly considering taking him out and would have if he displayed one. Then he put only one hand out. But there was just something not right with him. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but at the time I was thinking “is there a possibility he was just some passer-by or something?” My mind was racing pretty fast.
Just before I decided to commit, the driver finally, and thankfully, put his other hand out the window. We waited for another cover unit to arrive and took the two men into custody. A loaded pistol and ammunition was on the floorboard next to the gear shifter; exactly where the driver was reaching. The pistol had been fired previously.
Aftermath. After all the dust had settled we then sifted through what happened. The drug task force had about 8 or so of its officers dressed out with M-4 rifles and their usual surveillance gear. They were in BDU uniforms. They were watching a suspected drug grow operation at a farm house where the operators were Hispanic. Suddenly, one of the pick-up trucks where two men were working on turned its headlights on and the lights illuminated the team from a bit of a distance. A dog began barking and the two men saw them. One pulled out the pistol and starting shooting in their direction. The team took cover and called it in.
Now, the “Rest of the Story”. A man, (the driver described earlier). Three or four days previously bought a vehicle from another, rather unscrupulous person. The deal went bad and the seller of the vehicle later threatened to shoot the driver and repossess the vehicle. The driver then called our office to report the threats and the incident (we confirmed this happened). On the night of our incident, the driver and a friend were working on the vehicle when the friend turned on the headlights and the barking dog alerted them to several “guys with guns” sneaking around. The driver and the friend believed it was the seller making good on his threat to shoot him and take the truck back. The driver, fearing for his safety, fired warning shots over their heads to scare them off. He then lost sight of the men and he and the friend began driving around trying to locate them incase they returned. When the men came around a corner a few minutes later, they saw two police cars parked next to each other and drove up to report what happened.
See the possibility for tragedy here? The driver came millimeters away from losing his life due to what essentially came down to a complete misunderstanding of the other’s intentions. I don’t want to be dramatic here but it can happen like this. In my opinion both sides acted reasonably based on the facts believed to them at the time. Some might argue he should not have shot at the others but the two were never charged with assault, but were on the weapons offense because they unlawfully possessed the pistol.
I’m sorry for the length of this posting I tried to be brief. Allow Mr. Zimmerman the benefit of a fair trial curse him as you will for that is your right. But agree that Trayvon’s family has suffered a loss and understand they may grieve differently or the same as we do
“This picture will likely be the single most important piece of evidence in the case. It shows Zimmerman with significant blood on the back of his head”
I really must strongly disagree, both on “most important” and “significant blood”.
The most important piece of evidence will be the ballistics report. What can that tell about where the two were in relation to each other?
Coupled with that , and perhaps equally important, would be a determination of which of them was “wailing No”.
If Zimmerman had drawn his gun and had thereby halted the altercation – no matter who had started it – then firing that gun was excessive. This is *particularly* so if it was Martin that was shouting No. That would make it an execution.
Even if Zimmerman had been going about normal business and Martin had made an unprovoked assault on him, shooting a person who is “wailing No” is murder.
As for the blood, I’ve seen more alarming flows from a nose-bleed. If there is no sign of bandaging in the police video, this might indicate that the cuts were very minor. If we accept that this is a proven photo of Zimmermans head, all it shows is that he got some minor cuts. The amount of blood in irrelevant. Zimmerman could not see the back of his own head.
The fact that there was a fight does not appear to be in dispute. Any cuts simply support that. The fact of the fight does not give Zimmerman a free pass, particularly as he was the instigator.
Zimmerman provoked the entire incident. It’s clear that he was following Martin. It’s clear that Martin, going about his lawful innocent business, was alarmed by some stranger following him.
Hey, Zimmerman hunted Martin like an animal! Zimmerman was told not to folllow Martin by the 911 operator. Zimmerman provoked the confrontation that led to the killing.
I’m sorry but all of your statements about “Zimmerman following Trayvon,” in my opinion, are false . If you listen to the 911 tape the dispatcher doesn’t say “we don’t need you to do that” until almost the end of the conversation. The call ended roughly one minute after the dispatcher told him that, so no one knows without a doubt that Zimmerman had continued to follow him. Second thing, even if we knew for a fact that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after being told “we don’t need you to do that,” he didn’t have a “legal obligation” to stop following him and keep an eye on him. A dispatcher stating that isn’t law, it is more of a “suggestion.”
Either way you look at it, no one knows without any doubt, which one was the aggressor. If you want to look at it injury wise, did Trayvon have any injuries besides the gun shot? We can see clearly in this picture that Zimmerman DID have injuries congruent with his statement as to what happened. All evidence I have seen so far points to Zimmermans statement being correct.
To all of you who want to say the “law is the problem,” it is not. The law is for OUR protection, and if Zimmerman’s statements are correct, it was used in this case in a correct manner. If it were me in this situation I would have done the exact same thing without a doubt in my mind.
To all of you who want to say this is a racial issue and are also relying on what “the girlfriend” said she heard over the phone are ignorant and moronic. This is in no way, shape or form a racial issue, this is a case of a man being attacked and defending himself. You also cannot rely on the girlfriends statement alone. You really think she’s going to say something that is going to put her “boyfriend” as the aggressor? No, she would not. That’s also called hear-say in the courts eye.
The media is the biggest disgrace in this whole situation. I’m sick and tired of their race baiting and trying to make this an all out war between races. Look a little deeper into what the media has done throughout this whole case, maybe then it will make you open your eyes a little more.
Bosco says ” In ALL communities our police departments have always declared the NEED for the community INVOLVEMENT in keeping our neighborhoods safe and free of crime.”
That triggers a question that I have not seen clarified.
From the outset, Zimmerman was described as a “Watch Captain” in his local Neighbourhood Watch.
This appears to have been a move to endow him with some sort of quasi-legal authority, and to lessen the pressure to question his actions.
Was he actually a member of Neighbourhood watch?
If he was, was he on duty at the time?
If he was, and whether or not he was on duty, why was he carring a weapon? It appears that Neighbourhood Watch members are told *not* to carry weapons, and presumably told why they should not.
If he is in Neighbourhood Watch, what sort of training had he undergone?
If he is a Captain (implying a higher level of training and expertise), who are the Lieutenants, Sergeants and Patrol cops?
My own view is that this is not a racially-driven incident per se.
It’s a Walter Mitty with a real gun incident.
It wasn’t premeditated. It was simply an almost inevitable result of an incompetent fantasist being permitted to carry a weapon and to play at being a cop.
Matt, you make very good points. One of the biggest points is the
“race baiting” issue. There is no doubt at all of the media pundits and activists added to the initial frenzy and rage. As an example regarding the media, I never would have imagined that I would be in complete disagreement with Bill Maher and in complete AGREEMENT with Bill O’Reilly.
I disagree with you SlingTrebuchet on a couple things. As far as I’m concerned a “neighborhood watch” is always on duty. If I lived in a gated community with recent break-ins, I would have a watchful eye at all times, on duty or not. As for him having a gun, it doesn’t really matter. Either way you look at it he had a valid CCW in the state of Florida and he had is gun on him. I have a valid CCW here in Ohio and I’ll tell you this, I never leave my house without it. Why, you might ask? Because I’d rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
Matt: “I’m sorry but all of your statements about “Zimmerman following Trayvon,” in my opinion, are false.”
I expect that the prosecution will produce a timeline from Cellphone calls, 911 recordings and witness statements that might clarify where people might have been at times during the incident.
Looking at the maps of the area, it is clear that Zimmerman left his vehicle on the road way and moved a significant distance up along the pathway that led between the buildings.
Unless Martin dragged Zimmerman from (near) the vehicle and all the way up that path, Zimmerman *was* following him.
The timeline may be able to show how much time passed between 911 saying “we don’t need you to do that” and the altercation breaking out.
Thank you Bosco. I’ll also add that if they are going to take Zimmerman in and charge him with 2nd degree murder then why haven’t they gone after the black panther movement for inciting panic and delivering death threats (of which I might add that they tried to “deliver” those death threats when they recieved a tip as to where Zimmerman was at. They actually showed up to a house of an elderly couple.)
Interesting stories Darren. Confusion is confusion no doubt. But there is a huge difference between law enforcement performing their duties, and cowboy vigilantes provoking encounters. Besides the fog of war aspect, we’re not talking about the same thing. Strip away the presumptions that go with being law enforcement.
——————-
Matt, there is a difference between “being attacked”, and “provoking an attack”. You are altering even the few facts that are reasonably assumed.
I agree with Jonathon T on this on the over charging. I would go farther. There should be no criminal charge. This guy has been tried in the media like someone charged with assault upon a wheelchair bound school child by a gorilla back in Nazi Germany. When is a person no longer a child in Florida for purposes of charging him as an adult? A 17 year old male can be one bad hombre. The CNN and Fox faux journalist schmucks depict the dead guy in a photo taken years before the incident. They describe him as off on a lark to get candy. His mom and dad cry on television for justice. The cops are vilified. Zimmerman is depicted as either whining in his mug shot or grinning from ear to ear in his car license mug shot. If I was defense counsel I would pray that he has a scar on the back of his shaved head. I would photograph it and then have him start growing hair for trial. I would put on every witness who saw him that morning, that day, in a jovial mood. I would put on his Priest and violate his oath and say that Zimmerman spoke well of minorities during Confession. I would put on the cop who arrived on the scene and took the bloody head photo and take photos of the concrete if the cops have not done so already–hopefully photos with blood and ruff uneven concrete at that.
How many times did he slam your head into the concrete before you could reach the revolver? When it went off did you intend to fire it? How many times did it go off? And you were on your back getting your head pounded into the pavement when it went off? Did you ask for his drivers license to obtain his age or date of birth prior to the second that he jumped you and started pounding your unprotected, hairless head into the pavement? So you did not know he was 17? You already cried and said that you are sorry but what is it like to rot in jail over this and see yourself on tv being vilified by the likes of Al and Jesse?
I saw his lawyer on tv myself and like him. The two jarheads who were yakking on tv before they retired from his case should take up garbage detail.
The jury will take lunch after they retire for the verdict and acquit him within six hours of total deliberation. They will be taking odds in Vegas and remember my prediction, if you are a betting dog.
Ok SlingTrebuchet, I will also re-state something I said in the original statement. It was NOT illegal for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon, it is not illegal for you or myself to follow someone on the street who may look “suspicious” or “up to no good.” Now, who was the aggressor? NO ONE knows without a shadow of a doubt who was, but I re-state also, Trayvon did not have any marks on him that shows that he was hit at all. Zimmerman did, and that leads me to believe that Trayvon was the aggressor.
“Provoking” an attack in not the same as being an aggressor. The aggressor is the person who attacks first. In my OPINION, Trayvon is the aggressor. Do I know that for a fact, absolutely not, but injuries to Zimmerman are congruent. Not to mention that if you read the police report the officer on scene that night stated the back of his jacket was “wet and had grass stains” and there was a witness who stated that he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating him and that Zimmerman was yelling to him for help (the incident happened in the front yard of the witness).
Matt
I think that anyone should be keeping a watchful eye.
If someone, whether in Neighborhood Watch or not sees something they believe is suspicious, they would do well to take note of the advices given in the Neighbourhood Watch handbook.
https://www.bja.gov/Publications/NSA_NW_Manual.pdf
“Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement.
It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles.
They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity.
Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous.”
Zimmerman broke all the rules.
TalkinDog,
If my teenage child had been killed by some “neighborhood watchman” who was carrying a gun and who had ignored a police dispatcher when he was told not to follow my child, I’d want the person who killed my child to face charges. Zimmerman needs to answer for what he did. Zimmerman brought the confrontation upon himself. The truth needs to be uncovered. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Matt, to add to your point regarding incitement.
Why is Spike Lee not being charged for incitement of violence when he STUPIDLY ‘tweeted’ what he ASSUMED was Zimmerman’s address? Especially knowing that the new black panthers had put a bounty on Zimmerman’s head. Although Lee has publicly apologized and had to compensate the elderly couple that actually lived at that address, he has not been charged based on the law.
Elaines BIASED and slanted point of view regarding this tragedy is reflective of what is wrong overall with the media presentation.
What Elaine said.
I’ve noticed Mr. Turley’s bias from the beginning, wanting to exonerate Zimmerman. And now with this photo showing some blood on Zimmerman’s head, I see Mr. Turley seizing a perceived opportunity to have his bias vindicated. If there is to be a bias, it should be for the poor child who was doing nothing wrong, and in fact was well within his rights throughout, from being where he was in the first place to himself “standing his own ground.” You simply don’t get to pursue a child, and then use deadly force when the child gets justifiably scared enough to defend himself. I’ve lost a lot of respect for Turley on this one. Having a bias favoring Zimmerman is disgraceful.
Don,,were you asking -’What did Elaine say?’ or are you in need of going to syntax class 101?
PollyAnna, I’ve had a few instances of reaction, reading this blog, where legalities and legalisms trump everything, and I don’t like it, but it’s their (legal beagles) show. If you want to get a taste for being blinded by the light — in this case from the strictly defense attorney pov — take a trip to “Talkleft” and watch Jeralyn slobber everytime there’s an opportunity to get some heinous deeandant off the hook. You may already be familiar.
Bosco – I agree with that also, we tend to agree. lol
SlingTrebuchet – Zimmerman was also going through schooling to become a police officer (criminal justice). I am not saying that gives him the ability or right to “act as a police officer.” Zimmerman was not actually part of a neighborhood watch program, he was a self appointed, so the rules you posted do not apply per-se. In the eyes of the state of Florida (as with ohio for me) believe that he was all the right in the world to carry a gun. There are a lot of steps involved in getting a license to carry a gun, including a VERY extensive background check that is sent through the FBI, the same background check that is used to enter into the military (I know because I was in the military also). He was not in the wrong for carrying the gun because he was a licensed individual, or else the police would have arrested him that night.
Elaine M. – Again I state, there was nothing wrong or illegal with Zimmerman following Trayvon, I would have done the same thing if I saw someone who I thought was “suspicious” walking through my neighborhood. You don’t know for a FACT that Zimmerman instigated or brought the confrontation upon himself.
Bosco,
It seems to me you that YOU are the one with a biased and slanted point of view.
Amazing how people here can and do paint a biased picture by slanting the overall facts contradictory to how we know them to be.
“You simply don’t get to pursue a child, and then use deadly force when the child gets justifiably scared enough to defend himself.”
On top of the obvious ASSUMPTIONS to this statement, Martin at the time of his unfortunate death was NOT a ‘child’ . He was a YOUNG MAN at 6’3″ and approx between 140-160lbs. Not as he was in the ONLY photos released of him when he was a child.
Is it biased to want ALL the FACTS to come out BEFORE we JUDGE anyone?
Thanks for the story Darren, good way to highlight the importance of knowing the full story.
This brings up a lot of questions…
But the biggest one, in my mind, is the blood trails.
Did he never stand up straight after getting cut? If he had, would the blood not have bleed straight down the base of his skull? The upper/left cut mainly bleeds towards his left ear, while the cut on the right mainly runs to the right…just not the blood trails I would expect to see from someone who’s been in a scuffle, had his head ‘slammed’ into the concrete, waited around for the police.
I just don’t see how the blood could run in opposite directions if he was in any position other than the sitting/kneeling with head down position he is shown in the photo.
Not to mention concrete doesn’t give you small cuts, it causes scrapes and abrasions…. These just don’t look consistent with the story.
I also wonder why, after only 4 hours, he shows up at the station without any bandages and being totally cleaned up? (If you’ve ever had a bloody cut, you know it takes a serious scrubbing to get the dried blood off)
Where are the mug shots? I’d think they’d show definitive evidence of a broken nose. I’d also assume in the case of someone claiming self-defense that the police would have taken a lot of evidence photos after he was cleaned up…they always do.
Something about this picture just does not compute with everything else we’ve seen/heard.
Matt,
There was nothing wrong with Trayvon Martin walking home to the house where he was staying in the gated community. There was nothing wrong with his asking Zimmerman–a stranger–why he was following him.
If some stranger were following me as I walked home, I’d be frightened. I’d think the person following me was a “suspicious” person.
Bosco,
You’re claiming I’m biased BECAUSE I want the truth to come out in a trial. If Zimmerman had never been charged, we would never know the truth. We’d just have his side of th story. Let’s hope the trial will bring the truth to light.
Elaine – “You simply don’t get to pursue a child, and then use deadly force when the child gets justifiably scared enough to defend himself.” I agree with Bosco, he was NOT a child. If he had commited a crime he would not have been “child” in the courts eyes. Also, he did not walk up, start to talk to the guy and then shoot him. There was a fight that broke out. Who threw the first punch? Who knows besides Zimmerman and Trayvon, but I lean more towards Zimmerman due to his injuries. You make it sound like Zimmerman walked up and confronted him and then just shot him because he didn’t like him.
Elaine – you are also assuming that Trayvons’ “girlfriend” was telling the truth 100%. Again, you can’t use her words because that’s hear-say. Do you really think the girlfriend of any person is going to say something that would “incriminate” their significant other? Answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT or in my worlds….HELL NO! lol
This photo does not show a “serious injury” on his head. It shows some scrapes. If this was taken three minutes after the incident and the blood hasn’t even trickled down past his collar, there’s not that much blood to begin with. Anyone who’s ever had or seen a scalp wound knows how much they bleed.
I’m not much for stunt reporting, but I’d actually love for some reporter to shave his head and show on camera how shallow these wounds must be. Geraldo, I’m looking at you — you owe us one.
Regarding bias Elaine, just based on your own words of comparisons to the shooting alone…
“If my teenage child– not to follow my child, –who killed my child.”
Your also insinuating that Martin was a ‘child’ . Of course you would be correct is the only pictures released of Martin were very RECENT to the time of his death. They are NOT. Martin was a young man .That is a biased point of view on yours and others part here.
READ the police report filed by Officer Ayala the night of the crime. It says that they came, they saw Martin on the ground face-down, they told Zimmerman to give up his gun and he did, he mentioned calling for help and nobody helping, etc. etc. etc. in lots of detail. NOT ONE WORD ABOUT PHOTOS HAVING BEEN TAKEN ON THE SCENE. IF this is evidence — IF — IF this is evidence, I am not sure what it is evidence OF. It doesn’t prove ANYTHING to me. Zimmerman immediately started talking “self-defense” that night — but would he not do that in any circumstance? More important to me than the condition of Zimmerman’s head is the entire record of what went down that night and no, I don’t think injuries to an aggressor while he is killing somebody mitigate his crime. Furthermore, I think that Angela Corey, who is obviously a very smart prosecutor, would have had the affidavit DEAL WITH THIS PHOTO if it were really part of the evidence that had been presented to her during her investigation. THink about it: She dealt with the “punks” allegation; she would have dealt with this as well. What does the official report of the EMT on the scene say? Let’s figure THIS one out: Was any of Zimmerman’s blood on Trayvon’s body?
EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE. If I were Corey, I would take this to trial and I would plan on winning. If I were Corey, I would have seen this photograph before I brought Murder 2 charges in a career-making or career-breaking case. And if I were Corey, I would be ambitious. Check it out.
Matt,
You’re putting words in my mouth. I never said Zimmerman walked up to Trayvon and confronted him. That’s your perception of what I wrote.
You lean toward Zimmerman because he had injuries–the seriousness of which we do not know yet–and not to Trayvon Martin who was a teenager who was shot with a gun and killed by Zimmerman when he was walking home.
Bosco, newer photos have been released. Martin, while not a child, was certainly not a large man.
Linda Oleksa – I, as an EMT, have seen a SERIOUS injury to the top of somones head. There was a lot of blood on him and on the ground but at the time we got on scene the bleeding had, for the most part, stopped. How serious of an injury was it? When we got to the ER they laid him on the table and pulled the skin back and you could, literally, see the top of the actual skull. In my opinion with the picture, absolutely that is a serious injury. Any injury to the head is a serious one due to the fact of symptoms it can cause that Elaine M. posted at 10:27 this morning up above.
OK LInda,,so firstly everyone like you were making the statements..’look at that video, he has NO injuries -everyone is lying’
Now that there is the first photo showing Zimmerman’s head right after the incident in which he WAS injured and now you would discount it.
Linda,,where you there as one of the acting EMTs to inspect and treat his injuries ? Do you know first hand how bad the injuries were?,,first its ‘he never was hurt’,,next ‘oh that injury was only a scratch’ Its amazing how people can be.
Bosco,
You wrote:
Regarding bias Elaine, just based on your own words of comparisons to the shooting alone…
“If my teenage child– not to follow my child, –who killed my child.”
Your also insinuating that Martin was a ‘child’ . Of course you would be correct is the only pictures released of Martin were very RECENT to the time of his death. They are NOT. Martin was a young man .That is a biased point of view on yours and others part here.
**********
Yes, I wrote my child because Trayvon Martin was someone’s child. We all are. What should I have written?
I’d feel the same way if my ADULT child were killed by a neighborhood watchman and allowed to go free without any charges being brought against him.
Are you a parent? Do you have a child/children? Are they not still our children no matter how old they are?
The head bleeds like a stuck pig even when slight cuts happen. They were not treated with band-aids or the like. The blood was washed off by the paramedics with no doctor treatment required. They didn’t need further attention.
Martin, since he was not doing any crime, had the right to resist Zimmerman who was pursuing him even after an authority (911 dispatcher) told him not to.
And now people here will discount the fact that Martin was a young man too. “newer photos have been released. Martin, while not a child, was certainly not a large man”.
You know that for fact do you? 6’3″ 140-160lbs(based on the autopsy report) is a decent sized young MAN.
Oh brother, Elaine now you want to mix it up with semantics. He was a decent sized YOUNG MAN NOT physically a CHILD anymore. Your bias and play on words wont work with me.
Dredd – I disagree, read my last post
Matt,
“Any injury to the head is a serious one due to the fact of symptoms it can cause…”
*****
Not all head injuries are serious. I should know. When I was in college, I was involved in an auto accident when someone smashed into the side of my car at an intersection. (That was in the day before seatbelts.) I suffered a head inury. There was a lot of blood in my hair. Police took me to the hospital–where I received a few stitches on my scalp. That was it. I had no concussion…no vomiting…no blurry vision…no headache…no slurred speech. I just had to wait for the hair that they shaved on my head to grow back. That and my stitches were the worst part of that head injury.
I’d say that head injuries should be considered to be serious until proved otherwise.
Bosco,
You obviously missed my point.
Elaine M. – “Not all head injuries are serious.” So you’re telling me that I’m wrong in my profession and that everyone who has ever taught me anything about being an Emergency Medical Technician is wrong? As I have learned ALL head injuries are ALWAYS serious no matter how minor they can look. The fact that there is “only that much blood” doesn’t mean anything. Head injuries, even minor ones MAY bleed profusely. Keyword is MAY. It all depends on the person who is injured and the way their body reacts.
@Bosco: It makes no difference, legally he was not an adult, and a 6′ 3″ boy at 150lb is a skinny rail with very little overt musculature; it seems very unlikely to me that Trayvon would be mistaken for an adult.
I don;t recall if Zimmerman complained of head trauma per se. (and if so why not immediately go to hospital – actions speak louder then photos) The head bleeds profusely so even a little cut will look as though it is an horredous wound. I heard the reporter on one of thre morning shows say this shows Zimmerman was hit repeatedly. No, not necessarily.
Matt: “Zimmerman was not actually part of a neighborhood watch program, he was a self appointed, so the rules you posted do not apply per-se.”
The Neighborhood Watch issue is not really central to the situation.
I only mentioned it as all the initial reports spoke of a “Watch Captain”. Where did that come from?
You say he was self appointed. Did Zimmerman claim that he was a Watch Captain? If so, then there’s a definite “Walter Mitty”.
Talk of things like carrying a gun or following someone being “Not Illegal” is largely irrelevant.
Doing things that are “illegal” is a negative.
Doing things that are “not illegal” is not a positive.
The core of the thing is the moment of the shooting. Where were they in relation to one another? Was the shooting necessary?
Colouring that is the fact that Zimmerman was following an innocent man – at night – along a path away from the roadway. Zimmerman was the one presenting the actual threat.
The rules that apply “per se” are common sense rules. Zimmerman broke them. He was playing cops and robbers, but with real people and while carrying a real gun. He got into trouble. He shot someone.
Hopefully, the court case will produce a scientific analysis of what exactly happened.
Matt, talk about semantics. Every head injury is a serious one” , objectively, is not the same as “Every injury to the head must be considered a serious on” per EMT training.
I’ve had the adolescent car accident too which, ‘n my case, almost took my life and, my head cuts and abrasions were accompanied by concussion. SOME head injuries are serious.
There was a big CNN broadcast about some county in some state prosecuting at 12 year old as an adult. Is it Florida? If so, then the state can not argue that Travon was some child.
Matt, I cant help but make this comparative in re to how people would and would not accept what they hear read and see.
There is a recent case in which tenants of a home they have been renting somewhere in N.J. is suing the owner because the house is “haunted”.
One piece of ‘evidence’ that they have is a video in which a ceiling light in the home had turned on ‘all by itself’ . Some would DECIDE that a ghost turned it on, others would accept that there may be more to that fact, like say,,faulty wiring. Some people will discount the later and just ACCEPT in their own minds that a ghost did it.Regardless of other possibilities.
I’m definitely in a “wait and see” with respect to this photograph. Where is the statement filed by the officer who allegedly took this picture? Why was it not taken in the hospital or the ambulance and why was there at the same time no description of the injury? Another thing: If you look at the enhanced stills that came off the police video, the “injury” being advertised on those very popular flicks was NOT IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE SOURCE OF BLOOD ON THIS PICTURE. Liquids follow gravity and find their own level — remember Professor Turley’s blog of the Englishmen shooting water balloons? — so this picture, I am expected to believe or assume, represents a head that was repeatedly smashed on concrete? Where are the pictures of the blood on the concrete? Where is the smudging? OK, forensics, get going. Oh, and another thing: who cares? Zimmerman has admitted on the stand, now, that he knew nothing about Trayvon Martin. He approached the kid (yes, under 18, a child!) in the dark and whatever happened after that ended with him taking out HIS OWN GUN that HE OWNED and that HE TOOK OUT OF HIS CAR WITH HIM and following (yes, he said he was FOLLOWING that kid) the kid with a gun. So we expect the law to give him a walk because the kid bashed his head before getting murdered?
I have no faith in the justice system. So maybe Zimmerman will get a walk. Hell, perhaps he’ll get a walk, a law degree, and become a judge. It’s all well within the possible.
Already it’s following a crazy path. $150,000 bail is nothing. It’s probably not even going to be posted — there will be an agreement in the back room so money doesn’t have to change hands COULD work. But even if it is posted, it is less than the amount of a trial. So this means things are coming up pretty weird even at this early stage.
THere was a case in Maryland in 2009 where a mother was accused of molesting her daughter by putting a rubber duckie into her vagina while bathing her, and the daughter, when interviewed about this, did not confirm, and in fact, denied ALL ABUSE and said to the social worker, while being recorded on a video: “I just want to see my mommy more.” Get it? Kid denied abuse on tape. The mom was charged with felony child abuse anyway and held at first on a no-bail and then on EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS’ BAIL — that’s $8,000,000.00. After much jail and another bail hearing it was reduced to a mere $375,000. BUT they had to drop the charges in the end — they had no case, and admitted they couldn’t get the child to testify to any abuse by her mother. Yet they forced the mother (to get out of jail after 13 months!) to plead to a misdemeanor for SENDING HER DAUGHTER A GREETING CARD so she pled nolo for time served to escape the continuous “pretrial” jail — when there obviously could be no charges proven. Compare this to a dead body, a call to police where the shooter states his intent to follow the victim, and a boo boo on his head.
The story seems to be: WHO can get defended?
Matt,
I also wrote this–which you chose to ignore: “I’d say that head injuries should be considered to be serious until proved otherwise.”
TalkinDog, “child” is not the same for all legal purposes, even in the same state.
What’s a “puppy”. Depends, eh?
It is my understanding an important factor in a self-defense shooting/killing is the concept of “looking for trouble.” In this case, the defendant had clear opportunity to de-escalate the situation. Regardless of the police said or did not say (and regardless of the Neighborhood Watch aspect), it appears that Zimmerman confronted the victim and was “looking for trouble).
Well I think I’m done arguing and I’m gonna move on to some more important things of the day. I will however leave with my final words. Am I leaning more towards Zimmerman in this case? Yes I am, and I fully believe the story he is telling is the way things happened. Am I 100% sure that his story is true? No, I am not, but I will say that I am 98% sure. All in all I don’t believe that it is even possible for Zimmerman to recieve a fair trial due to what the media has done and how they have portrayed this case to the public. I will also go as far as to say that I honestly believe that Zimmerman will recieve a guilty verdict and go to jail the rest of his life just to appease the public. OJ had his trial (even though we all know for a FACT he was guilty) and he got away with murder. I believe, in all honesty, that was because of all the protesters outside of the courthouse that stated “We will riot if he is found guilty….look what happened.
Society treats a 17 year old like a child when it suits them. A 17 year old male can be one bad dude. Back in my human incarnation before I got to be a dog in this one, I was drinking and fighting inside adult barrooms with great big males with guns. It was the mob or mafia that kept order. There are hundreds of thousands of muggers out there that are 16 years old, mean, tough, and fearless. I am not saying that Travon was, but a lot of you are saying he was a child and a helpless little baby. A jury of 12 with some sensible males on it, white or black, will know the truth of the abilities and inclinations of a 17 year old.
DonS,
According to Matt: ALL head injuries are serious. Evidently, there is no such thing as a minor head injury. Good thing I found out all these years later that the head injury I suffered when I was in college WAS serious. I can feel a concussion coming on. Excuse me while I call my doctor.
Matt,
“Well I think I’m done arguing and I’m gonna move on to some more important things of the day.”
*****
Don’t hit your head on the way out. You’ll sustain a serious injury!
Reasonable doubt is not an issue of any import, because Zimmerman confessed to shooting Martin who was unarmed.
That leaves only the matter of degree for consideration in the case in chief, and in Florida lesser included offenses, like manslaughter, are included automatically. Degree is a jury matter.
Zimmerman must prove the case of self defense, the prosecution does not have to negate that defense in the case in chief.
Matt, nobody tried to prove that Zimmerman was committing a crime by ILLEGALLY following Martin, or that he was only entitled to follow Martin if the police had not indicated otherwise to him. None of this matters.
What matters is that: HE * WAS * FOLLOWING * MARTIN
OK, since he was following Martin, and Martin KNEW that he was being followed, and did not know by whom, and did not know why, that absolves Martin of anything HE might have done to protect himself from someone who was following him. So HE had the right under Florida law to stand his ground.
THerefore, if Zimmerman got hurt (a little, a lot, does not matter and cannot be proven now either way because the police told the second ambulance NOT TO COME so we have no detailed medical reports) that is almost irrelevant.
Zimmerman was armed.
He decided to follow Martin, although under no legal compulsion to do so.
He confronted Martin. although without legal authority to compel any answer.
He shot Martin. Martin was unarmed.
PollyAnna, I agree with your assessment. I saw Professor Turley’s inclination with the very first article he put up on this case, and see the first comment he got from a “mom.” He is a constitutional lawyer and has defended some people (at least one I know of whose child, the alleged victim, was and remains very much opposed to her father’s defense) who seem to have violated the bounds of decency in our society. I don’t think Zimmerman gets off easily here unless Florida realizes that it had better sell him a walk because now that there are motions that have been gone through, Defenders of guys like Zimmerman who kill guys like Martin are more powerful in our society than supporters of the mothers of guys like Martin.
That is the mathematics of our culture.
Uh, guys: “ABC News has been given a photograph.”
Uh, well: BY WHOM?
Interesting discussion back from this summer….
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/03/tea-party-we-are-not-terrorists/
Just got through reading all the comments. I do agree with Elaine. I find it interesting that no one (or at least I missed it) mentions that he never went to the hospital. If the head injury is serious I believe you would be in the ER and possibly admitted. If your head is being banged on the concrete then it would certainly have been a very serious head injury. You look at the above picture and then the video of when he was taken to the PD and I find it hard to believe that the picture above is realistic. If it is, then I agree that it wasn’t serious enough to go to the hospital.
It will be interesting to find out the trajectory of the bullet.
So what if Zimmerman was training to be a police officer. Does that mean he’s immuned to being a vigilante. I don’t think so. We just had a case here where a police officer was convicted of 23 counts of sexual assault of a child. My point is, just because he’s training to be a policeman doesn’t mean that he’s innocent.
Malisha,
Here is a link to Jonathan’s first post about the killing of Trayvon Martin:
Who Watches The Watchman? Florida Family Calls For The Arrest Of “Watch Captain” Who Sought Teen (March 15,2012)
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/15/who-watches-the-watchman-florida-family-calls-for-the-arrest-of-watch-captain-who-sought-teen/
*****
I think you’re referring to his second post:
The Zimmerman Tapes: 911 Recordings Released From Shooting Of Teen In Florida By “Watchman”
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/19/the-zimmerman-tapes-911-recordings-released-from-shooting-of-teen-in-florida-by-watchman/
Elaine and Matt,
I suppose that Matt might claim that a serious injury is any injury that EMT, in accordance with standards of care, treat as serious.
But most of us do not use ‘serious’ in that sense of the word.
Head injuries are particularly dangerous, in part, because there may be internal bleeding which cannot be felt. Head injuries that cause no pain and no immediate symptoms may lead to permanent damage or death. That is why head injuries are frequently treated as though they may be serious.
The fact that head injuries are frequently treated as though they are serious is not at all the same as the proposition that ‘all head injuries are serious’.
If all head injuries really were serious then half the elementary school kids would be in ICUs. OK, I exaggerate a bit. But maybe you take my point.
Angela Corey’s other case in which she grossly overcharged a defendant—in this case, a 12-year-old. Looks like she has a pattern of stupid behavior:
http://justice4juveniles.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/the-story-of-cristian-fernandez/
“Serious” injury? Really? My son looks a whole lot worse than that every time he scrapes his knee. He also usually ends up with blood on his shorts and his socks within that same amount of time. But the only treatment required is a quick cleaning and a band-aid. The “injuries” in the photo, especially considering it’s the head, are not indicative of the severe repeated blows to the concrete as is being claimed. Head injuries tend to bleed a lot, and having one’s head repeatedly bashed into concrete is likely to result in a concussion, at the very least.
Otteray Scribe -This photograph, to my trained photographer eye, does not look strange. It’s simply not a good photo. The white part is washed out and the blood looks funny because of the whiteness of the flash. It was likely taken at close range with a point and shoot camera.
Funny how some here would prefer to debate and deduce the extent of the injury to the back of Zimmerman’s head rather than admit that it is POSSIBLE that Zimmerman sustained the injury(s) by the hands of Martin(the child).
” . . . been given a photograph . . ” Yeah, let’s just sling all that ‘evidence’ right out in public.
We know the slingee (ABC suppposedly). Who is the slingor???
Here is a comment on some of the testimony by an eye witness:
(HuffPo).
Bigfatmike, Head injuries are particularly dangerous, in part, because there may be internal bleeding which cannot be felt. Head injuries that cause no pain and no immediate symptoms may lead to permanent damage or death. That is why head injuries are frequently treated as though they may be serious.
The fact that he was not taken to the hospital immediately indicates no one saw anything to indicate he needed treatment for head injury.
leejcaroll – agreed.
I’m back! lol
Malisha – I completely understand he was following him, however, that does not give Martin the right to haul up and punch Zimmerman and “defend himself” if that’s what really happened. Again, we don’t know who attacked who, but if it was Martin, being followed does not mean he can attack Zimmerman in “self defense.”
Betsy – If you had fully read my post I said that just because he was training to be a police officer doesn’t mean he was right.
leejcaroll 1, April 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm
…
The fact that he was not taken to the hospital immediately indicates no one saw anything to indicate he needed treatment for head injury.
====================================================
Exactly.
And “no one saw anything” includes the paramedics who cleaned up the blood from the cuts, before he was taken to the police station.
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 2:01 pm
I’m back! lol
Malisha – I completely understand he was following him, however, that does not give Martin the right to haul up and punch Zimmerman and “defend himself” if that’s what really happened.
======================================
Zimmerman was not just following Martin, in the sense of a nonthreatening type of “following.”
Zimmerman was running after Martin in the direction of Martin’s home, according to the detective who testified under oath at the hearing this morning.
No doubt that gives Martin the protection of the stand your ground law.
Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft posted this image of Zimmerman showing what seems to be a broken nose: Zimmerman’s Neighbors Speak Up
Dredd – I’m sorry, was the detective there the whole time the altercation was happening between Zimmerman and Martin?! Then I fully apologize, I didn’t realize that a detective watched the whole thing and then decided to ONLY disclose this information in the courtroom. I don’t believe that at all due to the fact that the trial hasn’t even started yet. All they did was the bail hearing today.
And “no one saw anything” includes the paramedics who cleaned up the blood from the cuts, before he was taken to the police station.
And the police officer who noted the injuries to Zimmerman’s face and back of head in his report.
-At the bond hearing:
investigator Dale Gilbreath said wounds on the back of Zimmerman’s head were consistent with his skull being struck with something harder than his skull, and said under questioning from O’Mara that the object could have been a concrete sidewalk.
FWIW, the music in that video is from the band “Edge of Etiquette” and described here.
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Dredd – I’m sorry, was the detective there the whole time the altercation was happening between Zimmerman and Martin?! Then I fully apologize, I didn’t realize that a detective watched the whole thing and then decided to ONLY disclose this information in the courtroom. I don’t believe that at all due to the fact that the trial hasn’t even started yet. All they did was the bail hearing today.
==============================================
The detective was testifying about what eyewitnesses said, what is in the police reports.
The testimony by Detective Gilbreath was that an eyewitness saw the two men tunning toward Martin’s house, one chasing the other.
They were not running toward Zimmerman’s vehicle.
This was just before a shot or shots were fired.
“running toward Martin’s house”
“During further questioning by O’Mara, Gilbreath admitted that the state has no evidence who started the fight. There is also no evidence that Zimmerman didn’t walk back to his car after chasing Martin on foot, as the defendant has claimed.”
Squiggly 1, April 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm
And “no one saw anything” includes the paramedics who cleaned up the blood from the cuts, before he was taken to the police station.
And the police officer who noted the injuries to Zimmerman’s face and back of head in his report.
-At the bond hearing:
investigator Dale Gilbreath said wounds on the back of Zimmerman’s head were consistent with his skull being struck with something harder than his skull, and said under questioning from O’Mara that the object could have been a concrete sidewalk.
============================================
The issue is the degree of injury.
The more people who saw it and did not send him to the hospital, including the paramedics, and including Zimmerman himself, indicates the cuts were not serious, no matter what caused it.
Not going to the hospital for a checkup is not what would be expected when one’s head is bashed against concrete.
It is what would be expected after being slightly cut by rolling around on the ground or sidewalk.
The eyewitness who told police she saw a man chasing another man in the direction of Martin’s house, not in the direction of Zimmerman’s vehicle, immediately before gunshots were heard, says Martin is the one who had the right to stand his ground, not Zimmerman.
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 2:20 pm
“During further questioning by O’Mara, Gilbreath admitted that the state has no evidence who started the fight. There is also no evidence that Zimmerman didn’t walk back to his car after chasing Martin on foot, as the defendant has claimed.”
=====================================
It is not a matter of who started a “fight”, it is a matter of who started a flight.
Zimmerman followed then chased Martin in the direction of Martin’s home. Martin wanted to get to a safe place because someone was chasing him at a running speed.
Zimmerman caused the flight, the fear, the aggression.
Martin, upon being overtaken, had the right to stand his ground, not Zimmerman.
It wasn’t Zimmerman’s ground to stand on, it was Martin’s who was standing on his ground near his home.
Dredd – And by your last statement you mean that the witness saw a man chasing a child right? lol
Is this witness, without a doubt, 100% sure that what she saw was Zimmerman and Trayvon and maybe she didn’t earlier in the day see two people who live in the neighborhood just running or fooling around. I’m pretty sure “I saw two shadowy figures running, one being chased by the other” is enough to stand up in court.
SO MANY OPINIONS FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT WITNESSES AND HAVE MADE THEIR MIND UP AS TO WHO WAS IN THE RIGHT BEFORE EVEN KNOWING THE FACTS.
THANK YOU JESSE AND AL AND THE NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY, FOR STIRRING THE POT SO THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE TO MAKE YOUR LIVING BY DOING SO.
YOU DO YOUR RACE AND THE COUNTRY A DIS-SERVICE, BY YOUR
RABBLE ROUSING.
Dredd – Quite honestly your looking at this whole thing from an emotional standpoint. You are not realizing that all of the facts are not out, the media is going to portray this case in whatever way that is going to be beneficial to them, and there are two different things. I can have a verbal confrontation with anyone I feel all day long. Once they put their hands on me then it’s all over.
@Dredd
I’m sorry Zimmerman wasn’t injured enough to be deserving of your sympathy.
The extent of Zimmerman’s injury is not relevant to the justification to use lethal force as a means of self-defense. What is relevant is the perceived threat. You don’t have to wait until your seriously injured before you can defend yourself with lethal force. You just need to be in a situation where a reasonable person in the same position would feel they risked death or serious bodily harm.
Martin wanted to get to a safe place because someone was chasing him at a running speed.
Then there is no safer place than inside his home and locking the doors. Then, a person looking for safety, when given the chance, would be expected to call 911.
Martin, upon being overtaken
Martin was overtaken by Zimmerman? Zimmerman’s account to the dispatcher was that Martin was coming toward him. Martin’s girlfriend said that Martin said he was going to walk fast, but refused to run. How scared was Martin again?
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Dredd – And by your last statement you mean that the witness saw a man chasing a child right? lol
Is this witness, without a doubt, 100% sure that what she saw was Zimmerman and Trayvon and maybe she didn’t earlier in the day see two people who live in the neighborhood just running or fooling around. I’m pretty sure “I saw two shadowy figures running, one being chased by the other” is enough to stand up in court.
=========================================
If that is the cross exam the defense puts out at the stand-your-ground hearing, it will go to the jury.
Matt, you’re just plain wrong about Martin not having a “right” to punch or “attack” Zimmerman. WRong under Florida law, wrong under the law in other states, wrong from a perspective of how a person should handle himself or herself in a situation of danger (stranger with gun = danger) and morally wrong.
@Malisha
When did Martin know that Zimmerman had a gun?
@Squiggly: It was Zimmerman that told 911 Martin was running, it is on the tape.
So it makes no difference what Martin told his girlfriend earlier. If he ran, like Zimmerman says, then Zimmerman chased him, which was a threatening act toward Martin.
And if Martin told his girlfriend the truth, and he did not run, then Zimmerman lied to 911, presumably to justify his subsequent confrontation of Martin.
Either way, what Zimmerman said on the 911 tape implicates him as the aggressor.
Testifying today, Zimmerman’s father, Robert, a former magistrate, told the court that the day after Martin was killed he saw injuries his son suffered.
“His face was swollen quite a bit,” Robert Zimmerman said. “There was a protective cover over his nose, his lip was cut and there were two vertical gashes on the back of his head.”
********************
I see one vertical and one horizontal gash on the head in the photograph.
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Dredd – Quite honestly your looking at this whole thing from an emotional standpoint. You are not realizing that all of the facts are not out, the media is going to portray this case in whatever way that is going to be beneficial to them, and there are two different things. I can have a verbal confrontation with anyone I feel all day long. Once they put their hands on me then it’s all over.
===============================================
You’re “looking at this whole thing” is wanting.
In terms of emotions, 98% of your cognition is emotional, as is everyone else’s.
So, it is not a matter of what kind of “looking at” is important (emotional / not emotional), it is whether or not that “looking at” is sensible or not sensible based upon the facts.
Your amygdala gets to look at everything you sense before your 2% conscious cognition does.
It is not about you, or me, it is about the case.
@Tony C.
1:45 you can hear the door chime from Zimmerman’s truck.
1:54 dispatcher ask Zimmerman if he is following him. Zimmerman says yes. Dispatcher tell Zimmerman “we don’t need you to do that”. Zimmerman responds “OK”.
2:09 Zimmerman says “He ran”
Listen to the remainder of that call. Zimmerman isn’t winded. He’s not talking like he’s running after someone.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/68871920/News/George-Zimmerman-911-call-reporting-Trayvon-Martin
Tony C.
What a lie? Zimmerman lost Martin at some point so why didn’t Martin just go on home? This will show who the aggresor was. Also,,Zimmerman was a neighborhood watchman and he had every right to keep an eye on someone who he doesn’t recognize as a member of the community. Zimmerman did not break any law. Finally, the investigator testified under oath today he has no knowledge of any evidence to show Zimmerman started the fight.
mespo727272 1, April 20, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Testifying today, Zimmerman’s father, Robert, a former magistrate, told the court that the day after Martin was killed he saw injuries his son suffered.
“His face was swollen quite a bit,” Robert Zimmerman said. “There was a protective cover over his nose, his lip was cut and there were two vertical gashes on the back of his head.”
********************
I see one vertical and one horizontal gash on the head in the photograph.
==========================================================
In terms of quality of evidence, what happened at the scene is more important than what some, who are not paramedics, or doctors, say they saw, way after the fact.
If the vertical vs. horizontal changed, it likely didn’t change at the scene at the time of the event.
“Zimmerman did not break any law.”
He only killed another human being.
Elaine M.
“Zimmerman did not break any law.”
I agree
“Zimmerman did not break any law.”
That remains to be seen.
mespo727272
Where is the Rev. Al Sharpton who said that Treyvon was murdered and that Zimmerman did not have any appearance of being beat up? The new photo shows otherwise. This case is heading strait being thrown out especially after the terrible testimony of the detective this morning.
Gene H.
We saw today how weak the prosecution case is and the leap they took in filing 2nd degree murder charges.
Did anyone else find it strange that the Investigator did not try to obtain the doctors report? Zimmerman’s attorney had the report with him and turned it over to the prosecutor after asking the investigator if he had seen the report. I don’t think Zimmerman’s attorney would have turned the doctor’s report over to the prosecution if that report wasn’t consistent with the report of Zimmerman, the police officer’s report, and the image released today.
I can’t tell from that image (even if I blow up a better quality image) whether there would be horizontal or vertical injuries. The right side looks to be vertical, but the left side is too washed out by the flash to provide enough detail.
Squiggly 1, April 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm
@Dredd
I’m sorry Zimmerman wasn’t injured enough to be deserving of your sympathy.
The extent of Zimmerman’s injury is not relevant to the justification to use lethal force as a means of self-defense. What is relevant is the perceived threat. You don’t have to wait until your seriously injured before you can defend yourself with lethal force. You just need to be in a situation where a reasonable person in the same position would feel they risked death or serious bodily harm.
Martin wanted to get to a safe place because someone was chasing him at a running speed.
Then there is no safer place than inside his home and locking the doors. Then, a person looking for safety, when given the chance, would be expected to call 911.
Martin, upon being overtaken
Martin was overtaken by Zimmerman? Zimmerman’s account to the dispatcher was that Martin was coming toward him. Martin’s girlfriend said that Martin said he was going to walk fast, but refused to run. How scared was Martin again?
=====================================
Zimmerman, like all sociopaths or psychopaths have my sympathy, but only to the extent they seek therapy. To the extent they want to act out, there is no sympathy to apply.
The pieces of the puzzle, the testimony and other factual sources, must fit together.
The testimony by Detective Gilbreath was that the eyewitness who was the last in the sequence of pieces of the puzzle, stated that just before the shots a man was chasing another towards Martin’s home, not Zimmermans’s vehicle.
In terms of quality of evidence, a person facing life in prison because he shot someone dead, is not expected to give quality evidence. They are expected to give self-saving, self-serving evidence.
The better evidence indicates that Zimmerman ran down Martin before Martin could reach his home, even though at the last he changed his mind and decided to make a run for his home.
He wasn’t fast enough, so Zimmerman gunned him down after he stood his ground.
Not everyone who stands their ground prevails.
Squiggly
Too many people on this blog are blinded by truth and bathe in their own ignorance.
Jim 1, April 20, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Squiggly
Too many people on this blog are blinded by truth and bathe in their own ignorance.
==================================================
Actually, it is the few, the loud, the latrine heads who do that.
Dredd
What is wrong with you? The tapes indicate Zimmerman lost Martin and was on his way back to his car. That car was not on the way back to Martin’s House which means Martin should have gone on home. That did not happen and the detective from all accounts does not know who started the fight. His best guess was shadows running by but doesn’t know who was in front and behind. This case will be thrown out or pleaded way down.
Dredd
Also, If I were Zimmerman I would sue the Prosecution for filing false charges. It should have been manslaughter.at best.
Jim:
Where is the Rev. Al Sharpton who said that Treyvon was murdered and that Zimmerman did not have any appearance of being beat up? The new photo shows otherwise.
*****************************
Mr. Zimmerman, who knows a thng or two about the need for accuracy as a magistrate, testifed as to what he actually observed on the day following the homicide. Under no tortured definition of the word “vertical” is the top gash running from top to bottom. It is clearly horizontal based on both the blood flow and the gash itself. Based on Mr. Zimmerman’s testimony, that photograph does not depict the injuries he observed on his son’s head.
I am interested in the blood spatter or trace evidence of tissue from the sidewalk. Surely that would tell whether this photograph is evidence of a fight or “made for tv” evidence. No blood/tissue there; no fight.
It’s looks like a voluntary manslaughter case at this juncture. We’ll know more when we get the voice comparison and the sound enhanced 911 tape.
Malisha – No, I’m right. I can argue with anyone, does that mean I go to jail because I’m “the aggressor?” No, it means I had an arguement with someone. Once it starts being a physical confrontation then it becomes a crime, and whoever throws the first punch is the aggressor, and I’ll tell you what, you put your hands on me when I don’t want you to and it’s over for you.
Squiggly — When Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun? At some time before he died.
Squiggly: How scared was Martin? I don’t know. I DO KNOW how scared I WOULD BE. Very very VERY scared. Even if I didn’t know the guy had a gun, I would be scared because anybody who would follow someone who THE FOLLOWER felt confident enough to follow might be assumed to have a gun if it was not perfectly obvious that the FOLLOWEE was unarmed. See what I mean? If someone’s chasing after ME and he doesn’t know if I have a gun or not, he MUST HAVE A GUN.
Squiggly: with reference to your comment:
“The extent of Zimmerman’s injury is not relevant to the justification to use lethal force as a means of self-defense. What is relevant is the perceived threat. You don’t have to wait until your seriously injured before you can defend yourself with lethal force. You just need to be in a situation where a reasonable person in the same position would feel they risked death or serious bodily harm.”
OK, OK, here’s what I have to say to that:
If the extent of injury is not the measure of legitimacy to be applied in a case of whether lethal force is appropriate, if what is relevant is “the perceived threat,” then ZIMMERMAN’S injuries do not matter at all to the murder charge. Because Trayvon Martin WAS in a situation where a reasonable person in the same position would feel they risked death or serious bodily harm, because HE ACTUALLY SUSTAINED DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM. He could NOT have sustained death or serious bodily harm in the absence of RISK of it. IT HAPPENED! The risk of rain cannot be zero on a day when it rains!
So Trayvon Martin absolutely had the proven right to defend himself by any means necessary that night. Any reasonable person would have perceived threat from a killer, whether he was to become a murderer or a manslaughterer or an accidental “self-defending” (and simultaneously self-absolving) killer.
I think before Zimmerman got bail he should have been subjected to a serious evaluation of his mental health. I think it would have been much wiser for the defense to have him in the psych.ward in case his defense strategy doesn’t play out as planned and I think it would have been much wiser for the prosecution to demand evaluation before setting him loose in the community, especially since so many in the community would love for him to never have to face the music.
Matt:
Always threaten women or is that a little charm you picked up alongt he way?
@Jim: Zimmerman lost Martin at some point so why didn’t Martin just go on home? This will show who the aggresor was.
If one guy starts chasing the other guy, the chaser is the aggressor. If he lost him and Martin circled around and came back, it makes no difference: Zimmerman began the threatening action by following and chasing Martin. Further, according to the girlfriend, she heard Trayvon ask Zimmerman “Why are you following me?”, and Zimmerman responded aggressively: “What are you doing here?”
Zimmerman clearly began the fight, there would BE no incident if it weren’t for Zimmerman pretending he was some sort of super cop and intimidating kids on the street. Your argument hasn’t a leg to stand on, the evidence speaks for itself; Zimmerman was picking a fight.
mespo727272
That photo by ABC news is irrelevant because on the video at the police station we see the officer looking at the back of Zimmerman so we know he did get hit and there is a medical report presented today. One thing that absolutely should happen immediately is the FEDS need to get out because this is not racial case. The 911 tape has been evaluated that Zimmerman said “cold” not coon. If Holder keeps involved then it has become purely political.
Mespo – Really? You don’t understand “you” as in general assembly. No, I do not hit women and I am very pissed off that you want to portray me that way. How about you get some common sense you dumbass. Go try and play your little shit games elsewhere!
Let me guess Mespo, you’re a women’s rights activist?
Jim 1, April 20, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Dredd
What is wrong with you? The tapes indicate Zimmerman lost Martin and was on his way back to his car. That car was not on the way back to Martin’s House which means Martin should have gone on home. That did not happen and the detective from all accounts does not know who started the fight. His best guess was shadows running by but doesn’t know who was in front and behind. This case will be thrown out or pleaded way down.
====================================================
This is not a cafeteria where you select only what you want.
In a case all parts of the picture, all parts of the puzzle must be considered … I mean if you are a defense attorney, a prosecutor, or a jury member.
That is what I do, the media is irrelevant. I take the facts from the record and the court hearing, then apply them to the law.
You need to grasp what “your ground” means in the context of “stand your ground”. It isn’t the same as “stand any ground”. It must be “yours”, a notion of ownership.
In that context, when someone is not committing a crime, and someone becomes aggressive, the “your” part of “your ground”, which you are going to stand on, begins to materialize.
Trayvon was walking home to finish watching the big sports event, the big basketball game.
He had done no wrong. He was on his ground quite solidly.
Zimmerman thought otherwise, thought Martin was doing a crime, based upon Zimmerman family senses. Senses data which had first gone through his amygdala, the “propaganda central” of the brain.
As I said up-thread, everything we see, feel, taste, hear, or smell is sent FIRST to the amygdala for processing BEFORE it ever gets to our conscious cognition … our conscious thinking.
Zimmerman’s amygdala is the center of his fears, his suspicions, and the whole gambit of constructs that make people see things that are not a part of reality, but rather are a part of their own fabricated reality.
The amygdala is more powerful than consciousness … in you, me, and Zimmerman.
He was so self-deceived by his amygdala that he was running after an innocent teen who he thought was a monster dragon who needed to be slayed.
Jim 1, April 20, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Dredd
Also, If I were Zimmerman I would sue the Prosecution for filing false charges. It should have been manslaughter.at best.
===========================================
And you would lose at the preliminary motions stage of the case.
Ah Matt, you make it too easy:
mespo said, “It’s looks like a voluntary manslaughter case at this juncture. We’ll know more when we get the voice comparison and the sound enhanced 911 tape.”
Yep. (TM)(C) 2012
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Let me guess Mespo, you’re a women’s rights activist?
===========================================
And let me guess, you are a war on women activist (the ones delivering the reelection to the President)?
Matt: Malisha – No, I’m right. I can argue with anyone, does that mean I go to jail because I’m “the aggressor?” No, it means I had an arguement with someone. Once it starts being a physical confrontation then it becomes a crime, and whoever throws the first punch is the aggressor, and I’ll tell you what, you put your hands on me when I don’t want you to and it’s over for you.
Mark Esposito, Attorney in the United States: Matt:
Always threaten women or is that a little charm you picked up alongt he way?
Kids, it’s attorneys like Mark Esposito that keep us from having nice things.
Blouise – How would you like me to come out and paint a picture to all the folks posting on this site that you are racist towards blacks even though you know that isn’t true?
@mespo727272
Surely that would tell whether this photograph is evidence of a fight or “made for tv” evidence.
If it was, as you imply, “made for TV evidence” then whomever created it was pretty good. The metadata, according to ABC, indicates that it was taken by an iPhone 4S at 7:19:07 PM of 2/26/2012.
“No blood/tissue there; no fight.”
Did the police take samples from the sidewalk where Martin allegedly banged Zimmerman’s head into? If not, does the absence or evidence become evidence of absence?
Dredd – Tred carefully, you are getting dangerously close to the stupidity level of Mespo
The majority of you are looking at this like we all just watched a surveillance video of the whole altercation and shooting and now it’s our turn to see how we’d do as judge. ALL of the facts are not out yet but a lot of you apparently watched the whole thing and didn’t do anything about it by the way you are trying to paint the picture to everyone else. How about you all just WAIT until everything comes out and is out on the table before you start making definitive decisions of what you think should be done with Zimmerman. You are all playing and losing to the media’s coverage, biased and race baiting behavior!
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Dredd – Tred carefully, you are getting dangerously close to the stupidity level of Mespo
=======================================
Why did you stop talking about the evidence to go all ad hominem rogue and mavericky?
I ask that not for my edification, but for yours.
It won’t work before a jury, will work for a little while before the press.
You must feel like the evidence is getting all shitty all over you huh?
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 4:03 pm
The majority of you are looking at this like we all just watched a surveillance video of the whole altercation and shooting and now it’s our turn to see how we’d do as judge. ALL of the facts are not out yet but a lot of you apparently watched the whole thing and didn’t do anything about it by the way you are trying to paint the picture to everyone else. How about you all just WAIT until everything comes out and is out on the table before you start making definitive decisions of what you think should be done with Zimmerman. You are all playing and losing to the media’s coverage, biased and race baiting behavior!
==========================================
Not really, we are just saying your case sucks on the current evidence.
Your argument on that evidence sucks worse than the evidence does.
And we don’t expect your case to get any better.
You have to do better, not us.
Self defense is something the defendant must prove, not something that the prosecution must negate in the case in chief.
“You are all playing and losing to the media’s coverage, biased and race baiting behavior!”
Really.
Because I thought some of us were thinking that up to this point a reasonable argument for the lesser and included charge was being made but that all the evidence has yet to be presented.
I read through that and see nothing about media coverage, bias or race baiting factoring into the thinking at all.
@Dredd: In my single experience on a jury, the eleven people I was with cut through three days of testimony in fifteen minutes, and all had already concluded the same thing. We had a unanimous verdict in about 30 minutes.
At a murder trial I attended (I knew the victim) the same thing happened: After over two weeks of testimony, the jury convicted and gave the highest possible sentence in about 45 minutes. I imagine the same thing happened there, everybody on the jury had it figured out in the first three or four days, and then it was just a matter of venting their opinions and doing some paperwork.
I do not think it will matter a great deal, to the jury, the technical details of what constitutes 2nd degree murder or manslaughter or whatever. I think they will, as is human nature, first decide that Zimmerman was the aggressor, and then mentally justify whatever they need to do in order to make sure he gets punished. Or if they are sympathetic to Zimmerman, the other way around.
The precise meaning of “depravity” or whatever won’t matter. Jurors are ALSO typically ruled by their amygdalae, and that means they will resist letting a killer go on a technicality. Jurors do not have to explain their thinking or justify their decisions; once they realize that then they are free to decide anything they feel.
Zimmerman would be best served, if he has a choice, by foregoing a jury trial and letting a judge decide his fate; he is far more likely to go free on a definition or technical point of law if a judge is deciding his fate.
@Malisha
You like to employ a lot of circular reasoning. Then when questioned about it you add more of the same.
Martin would have been reasonably in fear for his life once a gun was drawn. Perhaps even when he saw that Zimmerman had a gun.
Very very VERY scared.
Why not just very very scared? Or VERY VERY scared? (Do the all caps words make a difference? Are you sure you weren’t very VERY very scared?
Because Trayvon Martin WAS in a situation where a reasonable person in the same position would feel they risked death or serious bodily harm
Is THAT your final answer? If someone is following you, you can reasonably fear for your life or serious bodily harm, and, that being the case, then would be justified in the use of deadly force? Nothing more? “Some one was following me so I shot them” is all someone would need to say, and the shooting of that person would be justified in self-defense? (OR does that only apply to Trayvon Martin?)
Dredd – Nope, Mespo just pissed me off and sent me off track. You chimed in with your dumbass comment which is you just wanting to run your mouth about something. I don’t feel shitty, the evidence thus far is in favor of Zimmerman as far as I can see. The problem I have is people like you that are so damn one sided that you are going to say anything against Zimmerman because you’re too damn emotional rather than rational. You look at obvious injuries inflicted on a man by your so called “innocent child” and you say those injuries aren’t that bad. If someone came up to you and said they had surveillance video showing Trayvon as the aggressor you’d say something along the lines of “it doesn’t matter, Zimmerman asked him what he was doing in the gated community.” You are just as biased as the media as far as I’m concerned.
Matt, Matt, Matt
If someone came up to me and said they had surveillance video showing Trayvon as the aggressor I’d say prove chain of custody and authenticity and then present the evidence if it meets those criteria.
@Gene H.
Because I thought some of us were thinking that up to this point a reasonable argument for the lesser and included charge was being made but that all the evidence has yet to be presented.
Some are. Some aren’t. Some have labeled Zimmerman as a sociopath psychopath.
How does this reasonable argument fact in to the statutory immunity from prosecution? That immunity is not an affirmative defense plead at trial, but an actual immunity from any prosecution. So far it looks like the only way a reasonable argument for the lesser charge can be sustainable is to ignore any legitimate claim of self defense.
“I heard things.” – Robert DeNiro
Tony C.
Asked on another thread but will put here too.
What was the decision on the wedding cake?
Gene – That’s you, but people who are too emotional *cough*Dredd*cough* are going to just shoot it down just like they did with this picture of injuries to Zimmerman. “Oh, that’s just a scrape, it’s not even bleeding that much, I think they are self inflicted.”
Gene – manslaughter would have been the correct way to go but, in my opinon, the prosecuter really jumped the gun (no pun intended) and went straight for a bigger charge to appease the public and (I think) to make herself look more powerful in the publics eye than what she really is. In other words, I think she did this to get more fame.
Tony C. 1, April 20, 2012 at 4:08 pm
@Dredd:
…
I think they will, as is human nature, first decide that Zimmerman was the aggressor, and then mentally justify whatever they need to do in order to make sure he gets punished. Or if they are sympathetic to Zimmerman, the other way around …
=======================================
” … if they are sympathetic …” … ” … typically ruled by their amygdalae …”
Well said (who is the victim is part of the game).
You articulate one of the mysteries of criminal prosecutions that take place before a jury, and before the press.
In essence, they consider the effects of “guilty“, i.e., the punishment, prior to hearing all the facts of the case.
But, all that is mixed in with the persona of the defendant.
This music video may explain Miss Justice.
@Blouise: Carrot Cake (with sour cream icing) makes an excellent wedding cake. For anybody that doesn’t care for carrot cake, the more traditional vanilla bridesmaid’s cake on the side is available. Or the groom’s chocolate cake. Or the Best Man’s lemon cake. I believe that is the question you were talking about. Let there be leftover cake!
Tony C.,
Thanks. There are several people on the blog who have wondered what the decision was.
Matt,
Then you don’t understand how prosecutors think. Overcharging has nothing to do with fame and everything to do with forcing a plea deal. It is done in DA’s offices around the country every day in cases you never hear about. Also, your previous statement begs the question Zimmerman has a valid claim of self-defense. That’s an affirmative defense and the burden of proof is his to make at trial. Should he fail and the prosecutor fail to make the 2nd degree murder charge but make the voluntary manslaughter charge, Zimmerman will legitimately face the penalty for that lesser included crime. As it is, we don’t know if this is overcharging or not. The prosecution’s case is not done yet. They very well may have the evidence to make the charge stick as filed. That being said, I think it may be an overcharge, but it is a perfectly acceptable and rational tactic used on a regular basis in the name of weeding out defendants from trial who have weak cases to start with. Is it a perfect practice? No. Does it serve a valid function? Yes.
I still say wait and see. Something about operas and large gals warbling.
One injustice has been avoided – Zimmerman getting a walk because of ostensibly looks like the “Ol’ Boy Network” in play. Anyone posting here who had allegedly done the same things but didn’t have a Magistrate dad would have been charged that night or the next morning.
Whether or not justice is to be had in the case proper is an open question.
Gene – I completely understand trying to get a plea deal by overcharging the defendent and I have seen this done in many cases. My opinions rise just because of the evidence that has been presented thus far. In my opinion, Zimmerman’s case is stronger at this point, but I do agree everyone should wait for it ALL to come out in trial. I again say, I don’t see how it is even possible for him to get a fair trial. Quite honestly, in this situation, I think the prosecution has damned themselves using this tactic, especially with such a high profile case, and again I think it’s just to try and appease the public and make themselves look better (the prosecution).
Matt:
“Nope, Mespo just pissed me off and sent me off track. ”
********************
No, Mattie you’ve always been off track. Threatening women doesn’t make you tough. It makes you a macho punk with an anger management problem –whether you call them “you” or not.
BTW, Keep talking I like your rugged manliness coupled with your brutish thoughts. Very becoming in a Neaderthal sort of way.
Jim 1, April 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Elaine M.
“Zimmerman did not break any law.”
*****
If you had read through the thread, you’d see those weren’t my words enclosed in quotations marks. I was quoting the words of someone else.
Nice try!
Matt:
I forgot to compiment you on your cool, rational prose in defense of Zimmerman. Very persuasive. Why don’t you tell us about the last manslaughter case you defended?
[anon, here's your cue to recapitulate everything I ever said]
Monkeys are fun because they shriek so loud and are incredibly predictable.
You guys need an agent.
Mespo – ‘ve NEVER threatened you or any other woman on here or anywhere. I am very protective of women and resent you for thinking otherwise. In no way am I a macho “punk,” it’s just when I’m portrayed that way by ignorant self serving folks like yourself. I am a very compasionate person, in all respects, but when I am disrespected by someone because they misunderstand something I say on a forum, that is when I become a ruthless asshole. At this point, I think it’s best that you don’t refer to me anymore on this website and just keep posting your opinions and comments about the subject at hand.
“Quite honestly, in this situation, I think the prosecution has damned themselves using this tactic, especially with such a high profile case, and again I think it’s just to try and appease the public and make themselves look better (the prosecution).”
I realize you are expressing opinion and not fact, but the above is an assertion you should be able to back in detail, i.e. more than a feeling.
How have the prosecution “damned themselves” by using a standard trial tactic?
They haven’t. Again, it remains to be seen if this is indeed an overcharge and even if it is, it is immaterial.
What does the profile have to do with it?
Nothing other than had they refused to charge, their would have been a rightful public outrage that Zimmerman was getting a walk for something every single other poster here would have been arraigned for.
And how is this catering to the public?
The public wanted charges and a trial. That’s what they got. How the trial plays out? Is simply another game of chess.
Unless this opinion is based on something substantive, it appears to be emotional and should be weighed as such because you yourself admit that you are operating with less than all the evidence to come to your conclusions that result in your above assertions.
mespo,
Matt wrote: “Let me guess Mespo, you’re a women’s rights activist?”
*****
Ohmigod, mespo, say it ain’t so!!!!! What could be worse than that?
Matt:
“I am a very compasionate person, in all respects, ”
********************
Well the folks here can read you compassionate coments to Malishand me, but one litle thing did strike me:
Matt: “I have a valid CCW here in Ohio and I’ll tell you this, I never leave my house without it. Why, you might ask? Because I’d rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.”
Yep all the compassionate guys I know are packing.This is good, please continue.
Elaine M:
“Ohmigod, mespo, say it ain’t so!!!!! What could be worse than that?”
*********************
He got me there. I cannot now claim misogynist on my resume.’ Damn. Maybe I’ll go threaten Malisha.
I told you he’s good.
Please everyone. I just checked in and saw the last series of comments. There is no need for personal attacks or name calling. There are good faith views on both sides of the Zimmerman case that should be addressed on their merits rather than their messengers. This blog has a complete commitment to civility. If someone annoys you with their comments on an issue, ignore them and move on. Please.
I wonder how Zimmerman felt when he eventually realized that the kid was walking home, that he did belong there as he was a guest of a resident, that he was armed only with an iced tea and a bag of candy, and that he, Zimmerman, had shot and killed an innocent?
Up thread Darren Smith wrote a long and very interesting thread @10:29am in which he said: “See the possibility for tragedy here? The driver came millimeters away from losing his life due to what essentially came down to a complete misunderstanding of the other’s intentions. I don’t want to be dramatic here but it can happen like this. ”
We know it can happen like this. Perhaps, if Zimmerman had had the opportunity to read something like Darren’s words before he took his car out that night, it wouldn’t have happened to Martin.
The photo was taken with and Iphone…Can’t find video of close-up of Zimmerman head release a couple weeks ago for comparison…I remember
the marks being more on top of his head. This whole thing stinks…The photo this morning looks fake as hell…Wounds to lower back of head, doesn’t match with shot released earlier.
Gene – “What does the profile have to do with it?” I mean more towards the fact that it is a murder case. In other cases, sure, use the tactic. The way I would operate in Zimmermans situation would be to fight all the way through rather than take a plea, that is, if I were 100% sure I was innocent. The public says they just wanted an arrest and trial. No, they want him in jail the rest of his life. They are going to push this case from outside of the courthouse and anywhere else they want to get a guilty verdict, the same way they did with the OJ trial.
JT:
Ok, in deference to civility, I’ll apologize sincerely to Matt for implying he’s a gunpacking, neanderthal, “macho punk” if he agrees to keep calling me a “woman’s activist.” I kinda like it.
Matt,
“I again say, I don’t see how it is even possible for him to get a fair trial.”
*****
Unfortunately, Trayvon Martin got no trial at all. He was assumed to be suspicious…up to no good by Zimmerman. That led to his killing.
Tongue-in-cheek alert!
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Dredd – Nope, Mespo just pissed me off and sent me off track. You chimed in with your dumbass comment which is you just wanting to run your mouth about something. I don’t feel shitty, the evidence thus far is in favor of Zimmerman as far as I can see. The problem I have is people like you that are so damn one sided that you are going to say anything against Zimmerman because you’re too damn emotional rather than rational. You look at obvious injuries inflicted on a man by your so called “innocent child” and you say those injuries aren’t that bad. If someone came up to you and said they had surveillance video showing Trayvon as the aggressor you’d say something along the lines of “it doesn’t matter, Zimmerman asked him what he was doing in the gated community.” You are just as biased as the media as far as I’m concerned.
=================================================
The most biased thing in any criminal trial is the evidence.
It is biased in favor of justice.
The reason that this particular case has gone viral is because it represents the 1% v the 99%, the oppressors vs the oppressed, yes the doctrine of Saint Ayn Rand.
You and the other children of the imaginary empire, that goes around the globe to invade other countries because those countries fit a preconceived profile, have been stunned by Stockholm Syndrome for decades.
You seek to incubate a notion of “holy murder” batman.
The representative of the people, the 911 dispatch police officer, who said “we don’t need you to do that“, meaning we don’t need for you to follow your imaginary monster hiding under your bed in your head.
Clearly, the public officer was saying, “Zimmerman listen, the people, justice, and the law,” do not need for you, Zimmerman to follow Martin in order to exact the wrath of the 1% then feign victimization.
But the dogma of the leader of the laundromat, Zimmerman, needed for Zimmerman to do “that” because of down-deep narcissism, down-deep sociopathy, yes, down-deep psychopathy.
So, Zimmerman did “that” because he had been made compulsive by the spin that his amygdala put on the scenario, before his conscious mind ever got a look-see.
He had to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran, etc,. to save Amuka from imminent threat and danger, like his “parents” did.
oops … forgot to name mespo
“In other cases, sure, use the tactic. ”
No. They use it all kinds of cases, including murder.
“The public says they just wanted an arrest and trial. No, they want him in jail the rest of his life.”
The logical fallacy of composition.
Some wanting that conclusions does not mean all want that conclusion.
“They are going to push this case from outside of the courthouse and anywhere else they want to get a guilty verdict, the same way they did with the OJ trial.”
Except OJ wasn’t found guilty at his criminal trial. He was acquitted. That he lost the subsequent civil suit is another issue as was his later conviction related to stealing memorabilia.
Blouise,
How about a “tongue-in-ear” alert?
@Blouise: Many, many problems can be solved with a simple application of ridiculous excess.
Elaine,
lol … quite literally long and loud
Tony C.
Right you are.
Mespo – You have no idea who is “packing,” or in less moronic terms, concealed carrying, hence, concealed carry. You could look at me and never know that I even have a gun on me. Second, I never threatened Malisha, you are the only person who saw it that way, which is why I said, “let me guess, you are a womens rights activist?” Even Malisha never thought I was threatening her, or never said anything, but you had to put out your witless little comment out there. So I will say again, I think it’s best if you keep your ignorant comments directed away from me and talk about the actual case.
Mespo,
That was a good save……
Elaine – No, Trayvon didn’t get a trial because he was killed by Zimmerman who states that he was attacked and used self defense against Trayvon. This is why it’s going through the court system.
Gene – The OJ trial they had protesters outside of the courthouse saying that if OJ was found guilty they were going to riot. What was the verdict for OJ again? Doesn’t matter about his most recent cases, I’m talking about the trial back in the 90′s
Matt,
“Elaine – No, Trayvon didn’t get a trial because he was killed by Zimmerman who states that he was attacked and used self defense against Trayvon. This is why it’s going through the court system.”
*****
And why is it going through the court system? If Trayvon Martin’s parents hadn’t spoken out and the media hadn’t reported on Zimmerman’s killing of their son, it is unlikely that there would be a trial.
Matt,
You have your expectations too high expect if you are expecting an answer from him, reasonable or not, it will not even be coherent.
“The OJ trial they had protesters outside of the courthouse saying that if OJ was found guilty they were going to riot. What was the verdict for OJ again?”
Fallacy of simple cause. The reason OJ got acquitted is because he had very good lawyers and a very mediocre judge (and I’m being nice about that) who quite honestly couldn’t control his own courtroom. The defense attorneys were. If OJ had been found guilty, you can count on one thing for certain: the LAPD would have been ready to bust heads of things got rowdy. They (under the auspices of the late D. Gates) invented the very questionable practice of militarized police in this country. The reason OJ lost his civil trial was because the DNA evidence – which should have been enough to convict him at the criminal trial, but “the Dream Team” was jjjjjjjjjjuuuuuusssssttttt able to create enough reasonable doubt with the jury for an acquittal. But the protestors were simply media window dressing. Their impact on the verdict was close to nil. The jurt was sequestered.
*jury*
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Elaine – No, Trayvon didn’t get a trial because he was killed by Zimmerman who states that he was attacked and used self defense against Trayvon. This is why it’s going through the court system.
Gene – The OJ trial they had protesters outside of the courthouse saying that if OJ was found guilty they were going to riot. What was the verdict for OJ again? Doesn’t matter about his most recent cases, I’m talking about the trial back in the 90′s
==============================================
Oh, that trial where the lead detective bragged on a tape for 20 minutes (the judge would not allow the full hour to be heard) how he had framed many “niggers” by planting evidence on them?
That same police department that was later found to be a “criminal enterpriese” by a federal court that ordered the DOJ take it over to clean out the snakes?
Then the state courts ordered hundreds of victims of those police to be released because they had been falsely convicted?
The same case involved in a book just released that argues the son did it, not O.J. the father?
Dredd,
I have said that for years…..there was something early on in a newspaper account I read that intimated as much….what is the name of the book?
Elaine,
Your post at 5:40 pm. That is something that must never be forgotten when discussing this case.
For all of you who keep saying the boy had no injuries, I read that the autopsy showed a blackened eye and a laceration on his upper lip.
Anonymously Yours 1, April 20, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Dredd,
I have said that for years…..there was something early on in a newspaper account I read that intimated as much….what is the name of the book?
==========================================
Here is a link to the LA Times review.
I recently heard about that on the radio, Dredd. Interesting theory. I’d like to see more DNA analysis, but the psych profile of Jr. certainly made more sense for the crime than Pops. It also goes a long way to explaining the drawn out low speed chase.
Elaine – “And why is it going through the court system?” In my opinion, because of public outcry once the media portrayed a 30 some year old man killing, what looked to be, a 13 year old boy. I personally believe that had the media not done so much “race baiting” that this case wouldn’t have even be heard because the police obviously believed it was a self defense case. I might also add that his parents really seemed heart broken (sense the sarcasm?), so heart broken that they decided to trademark his name. Which, by the way, they can now recieve money every time his name or those phrases (Justice for Trayvon and I am Trayvon) are used.
Dredd – “The same case involved in a book just released that argues the son did it, not O.J. the father?” Didn’t you hear the news? OJ openly admitted to his daughter that he did it when he was drunk. He openly admitted it YEARS ago! Not to mention his OWN book that was provocatively titled, “If I did it.”
Michele – Then why did the funeral directer state openly in an interview for the news that he “didn’t see any noticable marks on Trayvon that would indicate a struggle.” ?
Gene,
I am getting that book.
Dredd,
Thank you kindly…. You are a true gentleman…..
Dredd,
Again…Thank you….
OK, I have been off line for a while so before Professor Turley’s well deserved admonishment I had intended to write a humorous (I would consider it so, although y’all will be the judges) response to Matt. Well I will anyway since it’s not ad hominem.
First, to Elaine M: I stand corrected. It WAS his second article, the 911 article, NOT the first.
OK, Matt, here comes: We have a problem with communication, Matt. I did not mean that I would be very very VERY afraid of Zimmerman. In fact, I wouldn’t have been afraid of him past perhaps very very ve–. But I would be very very VERY afraid of YOU, if you were following me one night as was Zimmerman following Martin on 2/26/2012. Here’s why: I’d say:
“Wow that guy is defensive. If I stop and ask him nicely, ‘why are you following me?’ he will say: “What, you accusing me of beating up and raping defenseless women? You saying I’m a wife-beater? You saying I’m looking to kidnap and/or murder you? You making false allegations against me so you can bring me up on charges and get me prosecuted by some gung-ho media-mad legal sniper who wants me and all the other upstanding citizens of the world in jail for the rest of their lives so lying feminist misandrist bitches can run around crushing decent men who only want the world to be safe for good folks? Listen, you dumpy dowdily dressed daughter of a dork, you can’t fool me. You’re one minute away from a lesson in good manners, Bitch!’ And if I try to explain to him that his assessment of me is wrong and may even be profiling me which is not very nice, he will then say: ‘Where did you come up with that crap? You know what you have done, and I don’t need to tell you. Now you either start apologizing right now or you’re dead meat!’ Then I’d realize in a flash that this guy was the less successful brother of two boys who spent their childhoods locked in a horrible sibing rivalry, and the other brother won. Uh oh, bad news. I’d look quickly to my right, quickly to my left, and realize there was no good escape route. I’d think, “well maybe if I surprise him he’ll fall and I can get away,” and I’d throw a punch at you. BAM I would break your damn nose, Matt. Yes I would. It would all be part of my nefarious plan to have the media portray you as a misogynist. Then I’d leap on you and beat your head on the sidewalk. BAM BAM BAM. He’s not a man, he can’t take this kind of punishment — we all know that men are supposed to be able to take that kind of punishment don’t we? And finally I’d have you screaming, “HELP HELP HELP” but nobody would help. Why not? Because they are all secretly rooting for the woman to hurt the man, to dominate the man, to bring him down and humiliate him, I am SMOKIN, man I can’t STOP.
But then the great equalizer.
The man — as much as the dominatrix has brought him low and destroyed his manhood, the man reaches for his great equalizer. POW. I’m dead.
Well it wouldn’t have paid to be scared anyway.
The truth is, Matt, I couldn’t take you. You’d win. Because, as you point out, you don’t leave home without your great equalizer. How it must hurt to envision yourself as done-to as poor George Zimmerman, on the ground under that 17-year-old, taking a beating, having to get equal the only way you could — POW.
So long as you have that gun, Matt, you’re equal to me, or superior I’d say, at least one way.
Gene H, Mespo, et al: Thanks for your defense.
Matt,
Would you have been okay with Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin if Martin were shorter? Was it his height that makes him guilty in your mind?
*****
You wrote: “…the police obviously believed it was a self defense case.”
The lead investigator did not believe Zimmerman’s story. He thought there was probable cause to charge him with manslaughter. Have you forgotten?
Trayvon Martin Investigator Wanted Manslaughter Charge
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T5HcyfLtpF8
Matt,
Do you know how Martin’s parents felt when they learned about the death of their son? Do you know the reason that Trayvon’s mother decided to trademark two phrases related to her dead son? I don’t presume to know her reasoning.
*****
Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s Mom, Files For Trademarks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/sybrina-fulton-trademarks_n_1382491.html
Excerpt:
The mother of slain teenager Trayvon Martin is seeking trademarks for two phrases that have become associated with the movement surrounding her son’s death.
The Smoking Gun reports that Sybrina Fulton filed two applications for trademarks of the phrases, “I Am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon.”
Some Smoking Gun commenters seem to think the move is an effort to profit from the outpouring of support for Martin.
One commenter wrote:
Crowd of hundreds: “Justice for Trayvon Martin!”
Mom: “Thank you, all! Now that will be $9.95 from each of you for using his name.”
But Victor Baranowski, a patent attorney with the law firm Schmeiser, Olsen and Watts in Latham, N.Y., told The Huffington Post that people can seek trademarks for all sorts of non-economic reasons.
“If you trademark the name, that’s going to prevent others from doing it and potentially capitalizing on it in a negative way or a different way than you want,” Baranowski said. “In a case like this, there’s gonna be others who would want to. So does she want to let somebody else do something with her son’s name or does she want it for herself?”
During the “Million Hoodie March” in support of Martin’s cause, a HuffPost reporter saw piles of merchandise for sale with Martin’s face on it. It was not being sold by anyone affiliated with Martin’s family.
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 5:52 pm
…
Dredd – Dredd – “The same case involved in a book just released that argues the son did it, not O.J. the father?” Didn’t you hear the news? OJ openly admitted to his daughter that he did it when he was drunk. He openly admitted it YEARS ago! Not to mention his OWN book that was provocatively titled, “If I did it.”
=====================================
No, not the same case.
I am talking about the one that happened in a court of law.
I tend to let the jury decide, as provided by the constitution, for some strange reason.
Wow, so we found out a couple weeks ago that the idea that he was never arrested and was allowed to go home with his gun was pure b.s. when video of him at the police station with hand cuffs was released. Then the experts/amatuer detectives declared that Zimmerman had no injuries and was never treated by anyone at the scene so his story must be b.s.. Of course he was treated at the scene and arrested and had injuries. All of the witnesses who have spoken to the media or were recorded by the emergency dispatchers when calling 911 indicated a person in a white shirt (Martin) was on top of and/or beating a person in a red shirt (Zimmerman). It’s appears that perhaps the police were not the Keystone Cops the 24 hour news boys (primarilly interested in selling advertising) would have us think. It can be a very dangerous thing when a state’s attorneys office reverses itself because public opinion polls.
From what I’ve read about Florda’s kooky stand your ground law, there is a strong presumption against arresting someone in Zimmerman’s position. It’s a stupid law and Zimmerman’s an idiot for playing super cop. But prosecution via plebiscite frightens me as much as people like Zimmerman.
Matt:
” You have no idea who is “packing,” … So I will say again, I think it’s best if you keep your ignorant comments directed away from me and talk about the actual case.”
***************
I ‘ll consider my kindly offer rejected. Oh, and I always know who’s packing — the insecure ones. And somehow they always find a way to use ‘em. That’s really what this case is about and I appreciate your letting us use you as exhibit A.
seamus,
“Of course he was treated at the scene and arrested and had injuries.”
Was Zimmerman arrested on the night of the killing?
seamus,
Trayvon Martin Case: Timeline of Events
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/trayvon-martin-case-timeline-of-events/
Excerpt:
Zimmerman tells police he killed Martin in self defense. Zimmerman’s head and nose are cleaned up at the scene by EMTs. He is then cuffed and driven in a police cruiser to the Sanfrod Police department. He is questioned, tapes a video statement and is released. Police do not arrest him, nor administer a drug or alcohol test. But the police report classifies this as a homicide under statute 782.11 for the “Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act”
Malisha – Well published. The reason I carry a gun is because the world is changing in a direction that I don’t really like. Am I afraid of anyone? No. Is it because I have a gun? No. I don’t trust anyone but God and my family, other than that I can put trust in people but from my experiences they usually fail. Do I feel superior to anyone? No. I am equal to all people, however, there are plenty of morons out there and I would really rather protect myself than be someone elses victim.
Elaine – “The lead investigator did not believe Zimmerman’s story. He thought there was probable cause to charge him with manslaughter. Have you forgotten?” The Chief of police also said that no such conversation between him and that investigator ever took place. The Investigator also has not stepped up to rebut his statement.
Dredd – I was just stating that OJ wrote his very compelling book and titled it “If I did it.” Isn’t that a little strange? Don’t want to get into his case. That was years ago and the bastard is in jail anyways.
seamus 1, April 20, 2012 at 6:30 pm
“Of course he was treated at the scene and arrested and had injuries.”
=========================================
Ye olde pot calleth ye olde kettle black (as Elaine M pointed out).
Your fear of having a public discussion reveals a strong link to authority deference.
Revisit for a moment, the real world of the unreal world then get back to us.
K?
Elaine – Yes he was arrested the same night of the killing. He was later released because they believed his story.
Mespo – “Oh, and I always know who’s packing — the insecure ones. And somehow they always find a way to use ‘em. That’s really what this case is about and I appreciate your letting us use you as exhibit A.” First of all, you must really like me, you keep writing to me, I thank you for your continued comments. I am not insecure, I’m well protected, and also protected by the 2nd amendment. If I’m being attacked and I feel my life is in danger or I’m in danger of serious bodily injury I am allowed to shoot my attacker. Are you protected? Would you be able to fend off a 200 pound man that pulls you into an alley to rape or kill you? You must be an all around gun hater aren’t you? One of the people who believes “the gun will go off all by itself”? It’s not finding a way to use the weapon, it’s a matter of using the weapon if I NEED it!
Matt,
According to ABC News Zimmerman was not arrested.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/20/reasonable-doubt-crime-scene-photos-shows-serious-injury-on-zimmermans-head/#comment-360662
Hey Mespo, I just re-read — well, sir, if YOU threaten me, I’m gonna change my tune. Yes indeed. You’re a Virginia lawyer. Anything a Virginia lawyer threatens me with, he can do — notice not needed, by the way — so I’ll just yessir you to death if you threaten me, no arguments at all, no false bravado. (Besides, I’m tired after changing clothes in a phone booth and fighting Matt!)
(Gene H, would you put one of those little faces in here for me? Thanks.)
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Elaine – Yes he was arrested the same night of the killing. He was later released because they believed his story.
==================================
That is false.
He was detained for questioning, not arrested.
They did not believe his stories so the lead dectective requested an arrest warrant.
The county mountie, who later recused himself from the case “for some reason”, denied the request for an arrest warrant.
Matt,
Which chief of police are you talking about?
*****
Trayvon Martin Investigator Wanted Manslaughter Charge
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T5HcyfLtpF8
Excerpt:
The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.
But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney’s office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn’t enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.
Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman’s attorney, despite his request for medical attention first. Ultimately they had to accept Zimmerman’s claim of self defense. He was never charged with a crime.
This is a great thread, because knowing you idiots are here makes it that much safer for the rest of us driving home tonight.
anon,
It appears you’re one of us “idiots.”
Elaine – We all know how trust worthy the media is. He was arrested and taken to the station for questioning. After questioning and the police believed he did in fact shoot Trayvon in self defense they let him go. The Chief I’m talking about is Bill Lee.
“An “outraged” Florida prosecutor fired back on Monday at the family of Trayvon Martin, describing as “outright lies” their account that he and a local police chief met and decided not to follow a detective’s advice and arrest the teenager’s killer.
Earlier in the day, the Martin family delivered a letter to the U.S. Justice Department through attorney Benjamin Crump’s office requesting a federal investigation of the decision not to arrest George Zimmerman after the fatal February 26 shooting.”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html
Dredd – I’m sorry, he was “detained” and taken in for questioning. The way Elaine was making it sound was that the police walked up and said, “Oh, you shot him? Ok. Have a good night.” and left. Detained is pretty much the same thing as arrested.
Elaine – I also just found this little excerpt out of something you posted a little earlier.
“Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman’s attorney, despite his request for MEDICAL ATTENTION FIRST.”
Ah, but I’m posting this from my iPad as I drive home from the bar, so no, I am not nearly the same as the idiots constantly hitting refresh at their laptops.
Anon – No…your just an idiot using an iPad while he’s driving home from a bar. Not nearly as dumb as us who aren’t driving. LOL
DRIVE SAFE! LMFAO
Matt:
“First of all, you must really like me, you keep writing to me, I thank you for your continued comments. ”
*********************
I do like you. Who couldn’t? I especially like your obsessions with getting in the last word and packin’. On packin’: my uncle, a decorated Korean combat veteran and the toughest man I know,* always told me that men carry around what they love the most. He never carried a weapon — didn’t need to. As for the last word have at it.
* Eight men went up Pork Chop Hill from his squad. Two came back. One of them carried by my uncle.
If I knew how to upload those links so people could see little video clips, I’d put up James Brown doing “PAYBACKS” and especially the line, “I don’t know karate, but I KNOW Ka-RAY-ZEE!”
To illlustrate my theory that the OJ criminal verdict was a jury nullification because the jury was getting paybacks for the Rodney King case. I’m just saying…
This is why a gross injustice that is perpetrated against the PEOPLE of a state or country will always “make bad law.” As tough cases make bad law, so also do EASY CASES that go south. And south, and south, and they can even end up in Florida, you shouldn’t know from it.
(Gene H, another little face if you will? Bilious green would be great)
Matt,
I wasn’t making it “sound” any way but the way I wrote it. You are certainly inept at comprehending what I write. Stop putting words in my mouth, if you please.
I think Zimmerman SHOULD have been taken to the hospital so his injuries could be examined/evaluated by doctors. I also think the police should have tested him for drugs and alcohol.
Malisha;
A police dispather is not authority you have to follow. Also No evidence has been forthcoming that Zimmerman did follow Martin most of this is just conjecture. The attorney O Meara has medical proof of a broken nose and head contusions.Omeara dismanteld the word profiling and presented substantlal proof he is not a racist. This means he was close enough to grab Zimmermans gun. No way this is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Elaine M:
How about adding a mental health screening for “God Complex”?
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 7:11 pm
…
Dredd – I’m sorry, he was “detained” and taken in for questioning. The way Elaine was making it sound was that the police walked up and said, “Oh, you shot him? Ok. Have a good night.” and left. Detained is pretty much the same thing as arrested.
=======================================================
The “not exactly” commercials come to mind.
mespo,
That would be about ten steps beyond a Napoleon Complex, wouldn’t it?
Elaine M:
Ten steps above, I would say.
“Detained is pretty much the same thing as arrested.”
Not to someone who has been arrested, I daresay.
Mespo – I commemorate your uncle and what he has done. I too am a military veteran and the military is not an easy decision to make or lifestyle to live. However, by saying that “real men don’t need to carry guns” is ridiculous. How many people do you think run around carrying guns illegally? I would much rather be protected myself, legally, than become another victim and statistic. I want you to do me a favor and hop on youtube and type in “armed citizen shoots robber.” Watch a few of those videos and report back. I know plenty of cops (my firehouse is connected to the police station and I have plenty of friends who are cops) who carry guns at all times also, on duty or not. I know plenty of military folks who also carry at all times. Are you saying they “aren’t real men” also? Criminals are everywhere, and I’m sorry that I don’t want to be one of their statistics.
Matt,
“The Chief I’m talking about is Bill Lee.”
And what happened to him? Pray tell.
steve,
“A police dispather is not authority you have to follow. ”
How about a neighborhood watchman?
steve echard 1, April 20, 2012 at 7:32 pm
A police dispather is not authority you have to follow.
===========================================
No, but a police dispatcher is a representative of the authority of law.
If they tell you something on behalf of the public authority, then you say “okay”, but proceed in the opposite direction, then you are self-willed, renegade, mavericky, rogue.
Like momma grizzly.
Don’t make her crush you into behaving bybee.
Elaine – “I stand by the Sanford Police Department and its personnel,” said Lee. He said he decided to remove himself “to restore some semblance of calm to the city which has been in turmoil for several weeks.”
Lee has come under fire for refusing to press charges against George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed the unarmed teenager Martin on Feb. 26. Zimmerman claimed he killed the teen in self-defense and Lee has said that under the state’s controversial “stand your ground” self-defense law, the department has no grounds to charge him.
Right, you are a model of civilized behavior, posting while driving, presumably after taking on a load at your favorite bistro.
Ok did every body get that. You all need to get a life. So head on over to the pub, tie one one and then its ok to post while you drive home.
Definitely puts you in a different class.
Excuse me while I calculate the odds of getting to heaven.
Dredd – “If they tell you something on behalf of the public authority, then you say “okay”, but proceed in the opposite direction, then you are self-willed, renegade, mavericky, rogue.”
Why don’t you listen to the 911 tape again.
Dispatcher: “We don’t need you to do that.”
Zimmerman: “OK”
According to Zimmerman, he started to walk back to his car. You and no one else knows for a fact if he continued in the direction of Martin or not, the 911 call ended shortly after.
BigFatMike – Did you see my post right after he said that? LMAO I completely agree!
mespo,
While you’re at it, how about checking out news reports and Youtube videos about armed citizens shooting unarmed teenagers…or armed citizens killing innocent bystanders…or armed citizen committing mass murders.
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 7:36 pm
…. I commemorate your uncle and what he has done. I too am a military veteran and the military is not an easy decision to make or lifestyle to live.
===========================================
W, you need to stay off the innertubes, leave the google to us.
K?
Matt,
I thought it was Norman Wolfinger who made the decision that Zimmerman should not be charged–not Lee.
Matt,
Are you suggesting that the lead homicide detective lied about wanting to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter? I thought he signed an affidavit on the night of the murder.
*****
“In an affidavit taken the night of the Feb. 26 killing, Serino stated he was unconvinced by Zimmerman’s version of events in which he claimed self-defense, the network reported.”
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-28/news/31246265_1_zimmerman-fatal-shooting-twitter-account
Matt 1, April 20, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Dredd – “If they tell you something on behalf of the public authority, then you say “okay”, but proceed in the opposite direction, then you are self-willed, renegade, mavericky, rogue.”
Why don’t you listen to the 911 tape again.
Dispatcher: “We don’t need you to do that.”
Zimmerman: “OK”
According to Zimmerman, he started to walk back to his car. You and no one else knows for a fact if he continued in the direction of Martin or not, the 911 call ended shortly after.
===========================================
You tell me to listen to the tapes, which I have, then you say “according to Zimmerman.”
Zimmerman is the least credible source of evidence.
Got criminology?
Once again, for about the fifth time, Detective Gilbreath testified that one of the eye witnesses testified that they were headed in the direction of Martin’s house, not Zimmerman’s vehicle.
If you don’t know what “we” (the public authority) “don’t need you” (reign it in man with the gun thingy) “to do that” (stay in your vehicle Zimmerman).
But Zimmerman did “that.”
Like, when the UN declared, no U.S.eh?, we do not need you to invade Iraq.
OK.
Then the news: “This morning U.S.eh? military killer everythings bombed, strafed, burned, killed, and maimed Baghdad, and everywhere else”, in a purely heavenly, democratic, god ordained, defensive response to being put in deadly, grave danger by Iraq’s stuff.
Monkey see, monkey do.
Matt:
“Criminals are everywhere, and I’m sorry that I don’t want to be one of their statistics.”
*****************
According to Ohio crime stats for 2008 (the most recent I could find), your chances of being subjected to deadly force by an unlawful attacker in Ohio is 5 in 100,000. That’s a blistering .00005% chance overall. Assuming you are Caucasian your chances of being a victim fall to a mere 34% of that figure or a scary .000017%. That’s 1.7 in 100,000. According to the National Safety Council, your odds of dying from exposure to smoke, fire, and fumes are 1 in 1,344 AWAY from your job. I suggest you leave your gun at home and keep your fire suit on all the time to really be safe. Also avoid getting charged with capital murder too since your odds for execution are just slightly worse than for getting shot by an attacker — 1 in 111,779.
So what is it Matt? It sure isn’t rational fear of homicide in Ohio. So, yes my uncle and I think carrying a gun doesn’t make you a man; it makes you a paranoid.
Sorry to take away the last word. Please take it. I’m done.
Matt, I would have read your previous post, but I’m busy posing while driving.
Besides the letters are kind of blurry after I prepared myself for thoughtful discussion by knocking back a few at local pub.
Must get to Maryland. This is absolutely true. In some parts of Maryland the liquor stores have drive through windows. Very, very convenient. Why can’t all states be that progressive.
Elaine – Why don’t you do the same, and while your at it look at how many black on black, black on white, hispanic on black, and black on hispanic crimes actually make it to the news with the intensity that the Trayvon Martin case did. Wait…I’ll save you the trouble…NONE! Also, there is no afidavit because one was never made up. Here’s your first clue, “THE NETWORK REPORTED.”
Mespo – Contrary to your belief, I don’t really give a damn about getting the last word. Also, look up statistics (updated ones please) for Cincinnati. Would you pretty please report back your findings?
Elaine M, THANK YOU THANK YOU!
Don’t do me….no damn favors,
I don’t know karate…but I know ka-ray-zee!
Thank you, thank you, I loved it. (How did you get those pictures to change and all that, too? You’re the BEST!)
And thanks to you, I know I’m still a rug-cutter. If Matt comes around here, I think I can take him now. (Y’all can stand down, Mespo, Gene H, et al. I’m safe now.)
Anon — those nice things we could have if there weren’t any attorneys like Mespo around, would those nice things include the right to appoint ourselves the authorities to identify, slander, follow, accost, interrogate and kill suspicious looking “punks”? Because if it does, don’t worry. There is a lawyer defending those rights as we speak, down in Sanford. Because of him, people like Trayvon Martin won’t be able to get away with beating up folks at random any more, right?
Let me put that music back on one more time…
Elaine – “While you’re at it, how about checking out news reports and Youtube videos about armed citizens shooting unarmed teenagers…or armed citizens killing innocent bystanders…or armed citizen committing mass murders”
What I mean, if you weren’t so ignorant in your thinking, was LEGALLY armed citizens. Gotta watchout for the gangbangers and thugs that the media wants to portray as “little boys.”
Dredd – I’m just talking to you because you bring absolutely nothing to the table except the same old rambling.
Dredd – DONE…sorry for my grammatical error
Matt,
Here’s a story that I recommend you read:
When “stand your ground” fails
John McNeil killed a white man who assaulted him on his property. But, unlike George Zimmerman, he’s serving life
BY RANIA KHALEK
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when_stand_your_ground_fails/
Excerpt:
As the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and the failure of authorities to arrest his killer, George Zimmerman, continues to grab headlines, many conservatives and gun rights advocates insist that race has nothing to do with it. Some have also rallied to the defense of Florida’s “stand your ground” law, the self-defense legislation under which Zimmerman was able to avoid arrest. Yet not all stand your ground claims are so successful. Not too far from Sanford, Fla., a black man named John McNeil is serving a life sentence for shooting Brian Epp, a white man who trespassed and attacked him at his home in Georgia, another stand your ground state.
It all began in early 2005, when McNeil and his wife, Anita, hired Brian Epp’s construction company to build a new house in Cobb County, Ga. The McNeils testified that Epp was difficult to work with, which led to heated confrontations. They eventually decided to close on the house early to rid their lives of Epp, whom they found increasingly threatening. At the closing, both parties agreed that Epp would have 10 days to complete the work, after which he would stay away from the property, but he failed to keep up his end of the bargain.
On Dec. 6, 2005, John McNeil’s 15-year-old son, La’Ron, notified his dad over the phone that a man he didn’t recognize was lurking in the backyard. When La’Ron told the man to leave, an argument broke out. McNeil was still on the phone and immediately recognized Epp’s voice. According to La’Ron’s testimony, Epp pointed a folding utility knife at La’Ron’s face and said, “[w]hy don’t you make me leave?” at which point McNeil told his son to go inside and wait while he called 911 and headed home.
According to McNeil’s testimony, when he pulled up to his house, Epp was next door grabbing something from his truck and stuffing it in his pocket. McNeil quickly grabbed his gun from the glove compartment in plain view of Epp who was coming at him “fast.” McNeil jumped out of the car and fired a warning shot at the ground insisting that Epp back off. Instead of retreating, Epp charged at McNeil while reaching for his pocket, so McNeil fired again, this time fatally striking Epp in the head. (Epp was found to have a folding knife in his pocket, although it was shut.)
The McNeils weren’t the only ones who felt threatened by Epp. David Samson and Libby Jones, a white couple who hired Epp to build their home in 2004, testified that they carried a gun as a “precaution” around Epp because of his threatening behavior. According to Jones, Epp nearly hit her when she expressed dissatisfaction with his work at a weekly meeting. The couple even had a lawyer write a letter warning Epp to stay away from their property. Samson testified that after they fired him, Epp would park his car across the street and watch their house, saying “it got to the point where my wife and I were in total fear of this man.”
Malisha – So now you want to call me a “woman beater” too? lol
Elaine – And was that story plastered all over the world like this case? How about the case of the white kid who was chased onto his front porch by 2 black kids who then proceeded to douse him in gasoline and light him on fire while yelling at him, “This is what you deserve white boy.” Was that plastered all over the world news? How about the story of the white couple who was carjacked in Tennessee? You know, the one where the 5 black people made the girlfriend watch while they cut off the boyfriends penis, molested him, dragged him out to the train tracks, doused him in gasoline, lit him on fire and then shot him execution style. Then they turned around and raped the girlfriend, made her drink bleach, and then shot her. Was that plastered all over world news? It’s called race baiting hunnie! They don’t want to plaster those because the criminals were black! God forbid it were white criminals, we would have never heard the end of it! Not to mention, Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white! Media was quick to just on the “He’s white” bandwagon!
Matt:
The ‘natti has about 300,000 people and averages about 65 homicides per year. That puts your scare factor at .0215% overall. Two out of three victims are black and assuming again you are Caucasian, your chances are .00731%. With a little over seven hundredths of a percentage chance of being victimized maybe you’ll need a bazooka.
“Anon — those nice things we could have if there weren’t any attorneys like Mespo around, would those nice things include the right to appoint ourselves the authorities to identify, slander, follow, accost, interrogate and kill suspicious looking “punks”? Because if it does, don’t worry. There is a lawyer defending those rights as we speak, down in Sanford. Because of him, people like Trayvon Martin won’t be able to get away with beating up folks at random any more, right?”
Ha! What a statement to be made at Jonathan Turley’s blog.
Anyone that has followed this case at this blog can see all the mespos and genehs and so many others have appointed themselves vigilantes and pressed to ignore Zimmerman’s civil rights. And definitely slandering Zimmerman and any commenter that might defend Zimmerman or critique the prosecutor — JUST AS YOU TRY TO DO TO ME HERE.
Amazing what race does for self-claimed, and proud liberals that would also otherwise claim to be civil rights advocates. I mean, you guys are a total joke and embarrassment.
I haven’t followed it closely lately, I have been busy driving the schoolbus and so can’t spend all day online like you guys, but last I saw, you idiots were condoning mass overcharging of Zimmerman.
In the meantime, take away any association pro or con from me about Martin. Unlike you dumbasses, I have no idea as to the details of what happened that night and think Zimmerman is a colossal dumbass and Martin certainly a victim of Zimmerman’s idiocy. Whether criminally or not, I do not know.
Anyway, have to get the bus to a baseball game.
Ooops make that seven thousandths of a percentage chance.
Elaine – The knife was folded in his pocket.
Matt,
You can insult me all you want. It’s not a persausive way to win an argument. In fact, it’s a pretty poor tactic.
LEGALLY armed citizens shoot and/or kill people with their guns. George Zimmerman did. Jared Lee Loughner, the man who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, had legally purchased a semi-automatic pistol.
*****
You wrote: Gotta watchout for the gangbangers and thugs that the media wants to portray as “little boys.”
Are you implying that Trayvon Martin was a thug or a gangbanger?
anon:
” I have been busy driving the schoolbus and so can’t spend all day online like you guys, but last I saw, you idiots were condoning mass overcharging of Zimmerman.”
*********************
Yeesh, I thought it was you!
Mespo – I have no idea what you are reading but you might want to take a look at this page for more updated statistics.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/oh/cincinnati/crime/
Elaine – I’m not saying “legally purchased” weapons, I’m saying legally carrying. Two different things.
I’m not trying to win an arguement by saying you are ignorant, I’m stating fact.
Yes, I do think he was a gangbanger. 3 suspensions from school recently. 1.) What was believed to be stolen jewelry 2.) In possesion of “burglary tools” 3.) Possession of a bag with weed residue
Also, have you read any of his posts to facebook or twitter? Do some research
Elaine – Sorry, myspace, one particular image should alert you. Him, in the bathroom posing for a picture with a gun plain as day laying on the counter.
Elaine M:
“Are you implying that Trayvon Martin was a thug or a gangbanger?”
**********************
No, Elaine he’s implying he’s black. And as he so graciously shared with us, “they” get all the breaks from the media:
Matt said: How about the case of the white kid who was chased onto his front porch by 2 black kids who then proceeded to douse him in gasoline and light him on fire while yelling at him, “This is what you deserve white boy.” Was that plastered all over the world news? How about the story of the white couple who was carjacked in Tennessee? You know, the one where the 5 black people made the girlfriend watch while they cut off the boyfriends penis, molested him, dragged him out to the train tracks, doused him in gasoline, lit him on fire and then shot him execution style.
Nope, never any white on black hate crimes — like is alleged in Tulsa. There defendant Jake English reminded us that “some of his best friends are black.” Matt missed those stories apparently in the ‘natti media.
Poor, poor put upon Matt and his white brothers in Cincinnati.
I was right about Matt all along: paranoid, macho, and decidedly “race conscious.”
Matt:
Uh, numbnuts I’m reading YOUR SITE. It said there were 68 murders. i estimated 65. Can you read?
Whitey says what?
Oh, I’m sorry. Did I say that out loud?
BTW, I have a picture of me with Mickey Mouse plain as day, but I don’t carry him in my waistband when I’m going to get tea and Skittles.
Maybe I should reconsider that policy though.
It sure would make running to the corner store a conversation starter.
“Is that a giant rat in your pants or are you just glad to see me?”
“Why, yes it is. Thank you for noticing.”
Gene:
I’ve got a picture of me at age 16 in front of my grandfather’s moose head trophy he got in Canada. It’s plain as day. You can envision the rest.
Amazing how little questioning it took for old Matt to show his true colors.
Matt,
Your insults to my intelligence hurt my fragile feminine sense of self-confidence. Oh, please, stop! I think I’m getting the vapors. Must get me to a fainting couch forthwith.
Matt, I didn’t call you a wife beater. I said that if you were following me, those would have been my thoughts, and the reasons for my unprovoked attack upon you. AND you took the bait!
Proving once again that when I make a good enough circular argument, somebody will jump into my circle.
Damn, I’m still a rug-cutter!
Now, folks, I just saw a news report clip from Florida. Here’s the origin of that picture. It did not come from the EMTs or the Police that night; no official source at all and there is probably no proof that it was taken that NIGHT. It appears to be the result of some previously unidentified (and therefore previously not interviewed by police?) “witness” on the scene whose story is that he heard Zimmerman calling for help AFTER shooting Martin, and he came by, and Zimmerman asked him to call his WIFE for him. (So now Zimmerman can’t call his own wife?) When the witness apparently asked what to say, Zimmerman reportedly responded, “Man, just tell her I shot somebody.” So the witness, rather than get all scared and freaked out like I would have been, or any other self-respecting American coward would have been, either DID call the wife AND took a picture of Zimmerman’s wounded head (huh?) OR did NOT call the wife BUT took a picture of Zimmerman’s wounded head. So, origin is: somebody with a cell phone that takes pictures. OH, and they say that they can figure out that it was taken on the scene “moments after” Zimmerman shot Martin.
So, we’re calling wifey rather than 911?
And…we’re taking pictures rather than turning over the kid to see if he is still breathing?
And we KNOW the picture came from that night but the photographer did not hang around to be interviewed by the police?
Is there something wrong with this picture?
Like, could maybe the picture have been taken the following night at the same approximate time of day? Or something? Jeez, I dunno, I wasn’t there. But it would seem better practice, in my humble opinion, for either:
(a) Police to take their own pictures;
(b) Hospital to properly record medical condition and treatment;
(c) pictures to be turned over to the investigating officers who need them; and
(d) Forensics to be done on the spot rather than speculated about later.
NOW, look at the picture. Do YOU see two little puncture type wounds? Is that what I’m seeing? Hmmm.
As far as I can tell, there MAY be evidence that between the time that the original call to police dispatcher was placed by Zimmerman and NOW, Zimmerman bled from somewhere for some reason. Somebody MAY have taken a picture of that blood. There probably is no way to determine more than that, on what I have read so far.
By the way, a friend of mine is an actor and she has worked with lots of Broadway fight choreographers. (I have never met them; they work on tech rehearsal days and I have never been there then.) But any one of them, together with a good make-up artist, could produce a picture at LEAST as good as the one on this blog, any night of the week, and after the show, we could all go out and party unless we were home mourning that someone had been senselessly killed.
Gene H:
Stop it Gene. I’m getting sick from laughing.
Mespo – You really are a dumbass. Murder is the only crime?
Total crime annually 24, 801.
annual crimes per 1,000 residents – 83.52
Now you want to label me a racist? Why? Because I actually open my eyes rather than have my entire head shoved up my own ass? I actually see the media for what it really is? It just so happens that Trayvon is black and this whole incident made national, sorry, world news. I’m simply asking, why didn’t the others that were black on white crimes? Aren’t they just as important? Not to mention a white elderly man who was beaten by multiple black teens in Columbus while he was walking home. They yelled, “this is for Trayvon” and nearly beat him to death. Did you hear that story you dumb bitch? Open your fucking eyes!
Gene – You’re so called “beloved angel” was posing in a picture with a gun and that’s ok? Under the age of 21 (which is an illegal age to own a handgun) but he’s got one? Why? He was “such a sweet little boy.”
mespo,
Poor Matt and his “legally armed” white brothers. They be scared of “suspicious-looking” teenagers. Poor lot. They’ve got to pack heat to feel safe. Such is life for some.
Me? I carry a purse that I could hide a baby hippo in. That’s the only weapon I need.
Matt, I have an album full of pictures of me with guns of various types at that age. In fact, I still have the .410 shotgun I got from my father when I was 14. He got it from his father when he was 14 himself. I had my daughter target shooting with a pistol when she was in junior high. She is now a sworn law enforcement officer. Your point?
Elaine – How about you stop making me out to be some racist prick when I have done nothing racially motivated and said nothing racial. I don’t carry a gun to feel safe, I carry a gun to protect myself, my wife, and my family IF something were ever to happen. This little bullshit of “white brothers,” you can take that all of that and shove it right up your ass.
Otteray Scribe – That’s all fine and dandy, but in his picture he has it partially hidden under clothes (not hidden enough). Fine if you own guns and did at that age, it is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to legally purchase a gun. I’m just pointing out that maybe this “angel” wasn’t so angelic.
Otteray Scribe – Did you give your daughter the handgun at her age and tell her it was hers?
Matt, Matt, Matt,
Do all the straw men you create remind you of home in Oz and your flying monkey brethren? I never said anyone was a “beloved angel”. Let’s get this straight.
He was 16.
If he was anything like any 16 year old male I’ve ever known (including myself), he was about 1/2 jackass, 1/2 mouth and 2/3 testosterone.
However, you are assuming ownership from a photo. Do you have proof it was his gun? Do you have proof it was even a real gun? Do you have proof the picture was taken earlier that day or just immediately preceding the events that ended with Martin’s death? What you seem to have is a boatload of supposition and innuendo that any kid who has their picture taken with a gun is a prime facie criminal. “Wise” has nothing to do with it other than it is unwise to infer information from a single data point without any supporting supplemental evidence and assert them as fact. Your photo proves nothing relevant about the boy or this case. It is not connected to this case in any substantive way.
It’s irrelevant.
mespo,
As long as you aren’t dragon’s breathing good scotch.
Being able to purchase a firearm at a gun store and owning one are two completely different things. There is a logical fallacy in your allegation, but am too tired to get into the details point by point. Suffice it to say that you are presenting a strawman argument. So it is in his clothes. BFD. You are as transparent as cellophane, so don’t play dumb. Every sentinent being who reads your stuff knows where you are coming from. I think most of us regulars here are not buying what you are selling.
Matt,
I didn’t make you out to be a racist prick. I didn’t call you ignorant because you disgreed with me. I would never suggest that you shove anything in any orifice of your body. Calm down…and play nice now. If you’re a good boy, I’ll let you borrow my purse for protection.
Everyone – I’m not basing solely on that. I am looking at everything Trayvon himself posted, including the picture of him and the gun. It is irrelevant and I got off into a tangent. I digress – Media is the biggest problem in this and every other case that has ever come up. All I have been saying all day is that there is not enough evidence to convict or not convict. I, totallity, just state that I personally lean more towards the Zimmerman side because of the evidence that has been presented thus far. Now, all throughout the comments, I have had personal attacks that are trying to make me out to be a woman beater, a racist, and what I can only conclude as “less of a man” because I decide to carry a gun LEGALLY.
Matt, it was a long barrel target pistol and it is MINE. She never asked for one of her own because she did not need one, although I did buy her a really nice compound bow. As for the target pistol, it is not for sale or for giving away. Right now she is after me to buy her a snub nose hammerless revolver with pink grips for her birthday.
To get back to the original point, so what if the kid had his photo taken with a firearm. That proves absolutely nothing.
Elaine,
I have been AWOL today, but from what I have read, Mr. Matt couldn’t handle your purse!
rafflaw,
He certainly couldn’t handle my purse…unless he pumps iron every day!
Elaine,
I don’t doubt it!
Otteray Scribe – Did you not just read my last post? It is irrelevant, I got off into a tangent. That is you as a parent, and you are probably a good one, but not all parents keep a watchful eye on their children.
Rafflaw – I can handle whatever is thrown at me. lol
Trayvon Martin’s history and personality are not relevant at all. Even if he were an escaped convict illegal alien whose DNA matched 10 unsolved crimes, Zimmerman had no right to follow him and kill him. This self-defense idea (Professor Turley’s defense orientation not withstanding) is a Zimmerman created drama that is really not worthy of a Pulitzer. Oh, and that dialogue daddy came up with: “You’re going to die tonight”? I would call that the line that made the producers decide not to back the script.
Matt, our posts crossed.
Agree with Malisha. Previous bad acts are irrelevant and inadmissible. Defense lawyers try to blame the victim all the time, but any alert judge and prosecutor are not going to allow that to get in.
The problem is that all of you are seeing this as Zimmerman killed Trayvon and should rot in prison. You don’t even want to look at the possiblity that Zimmerman was possibly (and I say that loosely) in the right. You all have it set in your head that he “absolutely followed Trayvon even after being told not to,” which doesn’t even matter if he had followed because it isn’t illegal for him to follow someone. The girlfriend says she heard the conversation between the two of them and you take her word as “law.” You all don’t have an open mind and can’t see the possibilities. Not all the evidence is out yet and you all are set in stone. You all see pictures of injuries to Zimmerman and some of you say “they were probably self inflicted” or “that doesn’t look like a serious injury to me, looks like scrapes.” Have an open mind people. Don’t rely solely on what the media is telling you because it will come back to bite you in the ass. The media has fed so many lies throughout this whole ordeal and you all eat it up and take THEIR word as “law.”
OS,
I disagree….. Sometimes prior bad acts are allowed…..to show conformity…..
and I forgot one…”the picture of Zimmermans head above looks like a fake.”: LOL Really? Come on!
AY,
The prior bad acts of the victims…the perpetrators…both?
Prior acts by the victim of a crime are not supposed to be allowed. That would be the moral equivalent of blaming the victims of the Green River murderer for being prostitutes. “But ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is innocent of murdering this woman because she was a prostitute.”
Actually Elaine both….. There are 2 exceptions where it is not generally allowed and they are 1) rape cases ; and 2) domestic abuse cases….. On the other types of cases In order to try and get it admitted or excluded most generally a motion will need to be filed…. But at present…. It appears that it is possible to have it admitted……
Elaine,
It may have changed but generally all evidence is allowable so long as it is relevant and not highly prejudicial…It csn be very relevant…. But if the prejudicial values outweighs probative value then it can still be excluded… Even though it’s relevant…
Matt, in regard to the photo: I have not been following that closely but my recollection was that some one said that as a photographer they believed the photo was authentic.
I raised the question of the photo early. I still believe that the photo should be examined for the possibility of manipulation.
As far as to what is possible: I have very superficial skills. But I assure you that a person with my skill level and an inexpensive program like Photoshop elements could knock out a manipulated photo much like the photo we see here in a very few minutes.
Is that what happened here? I don’t know. But I do not believe that can be determined just by looking at the photo, certainly not from a distance over the internet.
I would like someone with expertise to examine the original photo and the original file. If there were some kind of manipulation there might be artifacts in the digital file that would prove that one way or the other.
In conclusion, I don’t believe anyone can say one way or the other based on what we see here or in other media outlets.
As far as I am concerned it is an open question.
BTW what originally attracted my attention was the washed out color of the scalp. I attribute that to overexposure from flash. But if the skin tones are totally washed out how does the color of blood map into bright red? I am not saying that is impossible, I am saying I don’t know and that is not what I would have expected.
Some simple test ought to easily determine what happens to the color of flesh and the color of blood when the photo is overexposed.
Sorry, I have gone on a bit too long on this. All I meant to say is that I believe the reliability of the photo is an open question and ought to be tested.
Matt:
“All I have been saying all day is that there is not enough evidence to convict or not convict. ”
*********************
Well that’s not all you’ve been saying (and, by the way, you haven’t seen any evidence yet.) Here’s what else you’ve said:
“To all of you who want to say this is a racial issue and are also relying on what “the girlfriend” said she heard over the phone are ignorant and moronic.”
“I’ll also add that if they are going to take Zimmerman in and charge him with 2nd degree murder then why haven’t they gone after the black panther movement for inciting panic and delivering death threats (of which I might add that they tried to “deliver” those death threats when they recieved a tip as to where Zimmerman was at. They actually showed up to a house of an elderly couple.)”
“Again I state, there was nothing wrong or illegal with Zimmerman following Trayvon, I would have done the same thing if I saw someone who I thought was “suspicious” walking through my neighborhood.”
“I can have a verbal confrontation with anyone I feel all day long. Once they put their hands on me then it’s all over.”
“Was that plastered all over world news? It’s called race baiting hunnie! They don’t want to plaster those because the criminals were black! God forbid it were white criminals, we would have never heard the end of it!”
“I’m not trying to win an arguement by saying you are ignorant, I’m stating fact.
Yes, I do think he was a gangbanger. 3 suspensions from school recently. 1.) What was believed to be stolen jewelry 2.) In possesion of “burglary tools” 3.) Possession of a bag with weed residue”
What you’ve said is that:
Black people walking around gated neighborhood are suspicious and can be followed for no better reason than that.
Black Girlfriends can’t be trusted.
You can stop suspicious black people, engage in a verbal altercation, and if they touch you, we’ll it’s fine to just blow them away.
The media likes black people more than white people.
Black people commit terrible crimes against white people and the media are afraid to report it (despite the fact the crime you cite in Knoxville, Tenn (Christian/Newsom murders) was all over the news. I was there when it went down and you weren’t)
See any pattern there Firefighter Matt? Treat black people any differently than white people in your job as an EMT?
I was wrong about you. Oh, you are a gun packin’, macho punk, Neanderthal, alright. I just left out the utter, irrational fear and resentment of black people and the ‘liberal media’ that coddles them which, in turn, causes you to simmer at the first sight of any black kid in a hoodie. They must be a thug or gang-banger, you know.
Instead of worrying about poor George Zimmerman and his motivations, why not spend a little time examining your own attitudes.
In addition to what BFM said just above regarding the photo, I would like to add the problem of who in the heck is in the photo? No face is visible. Are they going to have to consult a phrenologist to identifiy the irregularties of his skull to make a positive ID? How about chain of custody of that photo? At one time, the courts did not allow enlargement photos. Everything had to be a contact print in the early days of film photography. The courts reasoned that in the enlarging process, it was to easy to manipulate exposure using distortion and exposure dodging techniques. In this age of digital photography, with Photoshop, Adobe and Microsoft Digital Image on almost everyone’s computer, there are almost limitless opportunities to manipulate images.
Mespo,
Seconded. Well played, mespo.
I do hope the judge took away Zimmermans conceal carry license. He has proven that his mind is too weak to be able to handle a gun in any situation.
By his own imagination and the power of a gun, he turned a innocent honor student into a criminal thug.
And then killed him in cold blood.
This case will certainly show the competence of the Sanford PD. I truly hope they did not neglect to take photos of the crime scene in great detail, even if the perp was the son of a magistrate.
this photo looks more like a razor cut, as someone cutting themselves, than any cut or abrasion from bashing, hitting or scraping skin on concrete. How do we even know it is George?
Checkout Otteray Scribe, who for days credulously fell hook line and sinker for the bullshit Tom Owens spewed about audio scream identification and gave us a bunch of treknobabble, now tell us that because of Photoshop we should assume all exculpatory photos are manipulated and will be thrown out, unless the judge is in on the conspiracy.
No shit sherlock.
Otteray Scribe, I hearby award you a barnstar for biggest bullshit artist of the blog.
But Gene H, and Mespo I also hereby award you co-barnstars for bullshit artists:
AND, heh. Heh. This’ll kill ya. I swear.
AND, GEne H, you may wish to read this fun little takedown not just of Tom Owen, but of the vaunted American College Forensic Examiners Institute.
Both Primeau and Owen report that they are credentialed by the American College Forensic Examiners Institute.
Sadly, it turns out there is an entire suite of these “American Forensic Board” sites, on almost any topic you can think of, which all seem to be ran by the same person, a gentleman named Dr. O’Block who claims to have nearly a dozen degrees himself.
Founder of the following boards:
American Board of Forensic Medicine
American Board of Forensic Examiners
American Board of Psychological Specialties
American Board of Forensic Dentistry
American Board of Forensic Engineering and Technology
American Board of Forensic Nursing
American Board of Law Enforcement Experts
American Board of Forensic Accounting
American Board of Forensic Counselors
American Board of Forensic Social Workers
American Board for Certification in Homeland Security
Once again, most of these sites use the same basic template and only change cursory details, making it difficult to gauge how legitimate the boards are, if at all.
Tom Owen also lists things like this:
Instructor “New York Institute for Forensic Audio” 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,2006, 2007
As prestigious as the “New York Institute for Forensic Audio” sounds, there is no such brick and mortar institute. It is actually a “division” of Owen Investigations, LLC. Tom Owen is basically claiming he was an instructor at his own unaccredited university.
No seriously guys, that you probably are lawyers boggles the mind.
anon:
“No seriously guys, that you probably are lawyers boggles the mind.”
******************
I’m impressed you can find you way to the school bus depot.
Oh, that’s not difficult. Parole officers are there to remind me.
anon.
Touche.’
I thought you might enjoy that.
Looks like they’re taking a page from the Obama playbook and using some bad PhotoShop. There is red on his head, yet there are no visible sources, like cuts.
It makes no difference if Zimmerman has injuries inflicted by Martin. Martin, law-abiding and pursued by a large and presumably scary stranger, has a right to stand his ground too. Which is why that law is such a clusterf**k.
When we eventually see the RELEASED MEDICAL FACTS related to the shooting that night i.e Martin’s autopsy / the EMT report concerning the extent of Zimmerman’s injuries complete with photos, and IF the reports shows Zimmerman’s claims of being assaulted to be POSSIBLE , how many of you here will discount those findings too and still PREFER to believe Martin was an innocent and Zimmerman was a racist killer ? Ill contend as i have from the beginning in agreement with Matt that we must WAIT for all the facts to come out before we ,as a CIVILIZED community, RUSH to judgement.
@Bosco: Count me in!
Whatever Martin did, he was provoked to do in self defense by Zimmerman stalking him. Martin felt threatened. The 911 tape is proof enough that Martin did not start this fight. The very “Stand Your Ground” law that gives a person the right to initiate deadly force when threatened applies to Martin, who had every reason to feel threatened. It does not apply to Zimmerman, any reasonable jury listening to the 911 tape could tell that Zimmerman was playing vigilante, or he would never have left his car.
So count me as one of the people for whom medical facts and forensic evidence won’t mean a damn thing. If Trayvon confronted Zimmerman by choice, that was a dumb teenager thing to do, but in Florida, legally standing his ground. If Trayvon hurt Zimmerman, it was in self-defense. Zimmerman started it by stalking Trayvon, there is no other realistic interpretation of the facts already released, and I personally cannot imagine any “medical evidence” that could refute that; any injuries received by Zimmerman were received in a struggle instigated by him, and mean nothing to me.
anon,
You certainly are obsessed with preliminaries and tangents. There was nothing in that article to prove Owen wrong, just criticism of the man and his business. As for the audio testing? The only one that matters in the final analysis is the FBI’s to be presented at trial. That others have indicated how that might play out is immaterial to how it will actually play out. Glimpsing around the corner to see what’s there isn’t like looking around the corner. You may glimpse around the corner and think you see a bear. However, you may look around the corner and see an armoire. Sometimes though, it actually is a bear. Sometimes, there is nothing there at all. But you don’t know until you look. Owens and Primeu’s statements are and always have been the glimpse around the corner. Neither are associated with the investigation proper. That you have issues with their suitability as experts in court is irrelevant. The fact is both men are experts. The look is coming from the FBI’s evidence. If you want to challenge the credibility of their witnesses, that would be the time to do it. This is indeed what I expect to happen. You aren’t familiar with how expert testimony works in courtrooms, are you, anon? Because that’s the same story every time – “My expert can kick your expert’s ass” in one form or another. Ultimately it is up to the jury to decide which one told the most compelling story of the evidence. see – OJ, DNA versus “If it don’t fit, you must acquit.” Sometime experts win, sometimes they don’t. Why don’t we see what the FBI’s experts say and weigh it in light of the totality of the evidence presented. That’s what the jury will be doing.
seamus 1, April 20, 2012 at 6:30 pm
“Of course he was treated at the scene and arrested and had injuries.”
=========================================
Ye olde pot calleth ye olde kettle black (as Elaine M pointed out).
Your fear of having a public discussion reveals a strong link to authority deference.
Revisit for a moment, the real world of the unreal world then get back to us.
K?
===========================================================
Thanks for the laugh Dredd, your powers of: criminal investigation, witty word-play, legal instruction, amatuer psychology etc etc are awe inspiring.
I assume from your comments that you believe (as do I ) that Zimmerman was a wannabe cop who acted on dangerously lacking information with deadly results. The sensitive geniuses who have cracked and wrapped-up this case are also dangerously lacking all of the evidence, regardless of their conclusions. So thanks for the pot/kettle nonsense. You’re hilarious. The fake detective, fake law professor, fake psychologist has gazed into all of our souls. You go girl!
In twenty years as a criminal defense attorney I have developed a fairly decent suspicion of law enforcement and authority. But hey, if you say otherwise you must be correct. You’ve solved the case, time for the lynch mob. Who cares what evidence might come out in court, we know what’s right!!! Just like Zimmerman did.You frickin’ idiot.
And already the discounting begins…just goes to show people will believe what they WANT to believe REGARDLESS of any possible facts
The fact is Gene H, the science isn’t there and has never been there and it was obvious from the get go.
The fact is Gene H that there is something profoundly wrong with lawyers that they would put such obvious bullshit up and then defend it by saying the process is we put total obvious bullshit up and then let the judge and jury decide what the science is.
The fact is Gene a little due diligence on your part or any lawyers part would have revealed the complete and total fraud that is Tom Owen and Block and their little scam circle diploma mill jerks of teaching institutes and forensic boards and you would never have presented them.
The fact is Gene if you were a real civil libertarian lawyer you would immediately research cases that any of these frauds were involved in that resulted in conviction and bring this bullshit up to the court in mistrials or whatever the hell is needed.
anon,
The fact is you’ve mistaken me for someone who takes you seriously. I really don’t care what your opinion of Owens and Primeau are or of the trial process itself. If you have a problem with the way experts are certified and deployed in court? Take it up with the legislature. The courtroom “War of the Experts” is not likely going anywhere any time soon.
Mespo – “Black people walking around gated neighborhood are suspicious and can be followed for no better reason than that.”
I never once said because he’s black. What I said was if I saw someone who I thought was “Suspicious” I would have done the same thing. Never once did I say a “suspicious black person.”
“Black Girlfriends can’t be trusted.”
Please show me where I said “black girlfriends can’t be trusted.” I’d love to see that one. What I said was that no girlfriend would EVER say something to the police that would incriminate their significant other, no matter what race.
“You can stop suspicious black people, engage in a verbal altercation, and if they touch you, we’ll it’s fine to just blow them away.”
What I said was you can have a verbal arguement with anyone (I never said black people). Does that mean that I can be arrested for having a verbal arguement? NO, you cannot be arrested for verbally argueing with someone. But yes, if the other person becomes physical then I have all the right in the world to shoot.
“The media likes black people more than white people.”
I was simply pointing out that you don’t see all the other crimes in the world but that the media likes to feed on “racially motivated” crimes only in one direction. Like I stated earlier, I didn’t see the incident where the two black kids lit the white kid on fire on his front porch plastered all over the news like this case, not to mention that THAT crime WAS racially motivated.
See any pattern there Firefighter Matt? Treat black people any differently than white people in your job as an EMT?
“I was wrong about you. Oh, you are a gun packin’, macho punk, Neanderthal, alright. I just left out the utter, irrational fear and resentment of black people and the ‘liberal media’ that coddles them which, in turn, causes you to simmer at the first sight of any black kid in a hoodie. They must be a thug or gang-banger, you know.”
You show me these points where I pin pointed anything on blacks solely and then we can talk. You are nothing but a cunt that likes to try and make others look a way you think they should. I told quite a few posts back to stop fucking with me but you continued to push me. Mespo, you need to keep your fucking mouth shut and quit being a little race baiter and following in the footsteps of the media. Now I’ll say it for the final time, step off you fucking race baiting bitch!
Shano – “By his own imagination and the power of a gun, he turned a innocent honor student into a criminal thug.”
Please show me where you saw he was an honor student. Is this the same Trayvon that was on his 3rd suspension from school? I think your confusing “honor student” with the schools having a candlelit vigil “in honor of Trayvon.”
Bosco – Thank you. Thank you for having an open mind unlike these dumbasses on here. It’s nice to have your head removed from your own ass and not staring at shit all day, isn’t it?
Gene H, you didn’t push this shit in a courtroom governed by asinine and corrupt processes, you pushed it here, you claimed it was truth, and you still stand behind it when it clearly is totally fraudulent crap driven by several scam artists. And you do that while telling everyone what a fine fine lawyer you are.
And then, having it shown to be bullshit, instead of acknowledging that, you still stand behind it and say, it’s my job to throw heaps of shit onto the world of science in order to confuse judge and jury.
And then having it pointed out these scam artists have likely helped dozens of people get railroaded into jail based on your bullshit tossing you say precisely … nothing.
All of this Gene Howington demonstrates your moral cowardice, intellectual dishonesty, and unethical behavior.
There is a world of difference between “My physicist says X”, well, “My physicist says Y”, and “I am going to counter your physicist with a snake oil salesman and count on judge and jury not to be able to tell the difference.”
anon,
You haven’t proven anything is “bullshit”. And again, you’ve mistaken me for somebody taking you seriously. There are plenty of de-caffinenated brands that tastes as good as the real thing. I suggest you try some.
Matt:
“You are nothing but a cunt that likes to try and make others look a way you think they should. I told quite a few posts back to stop fucking with me but you continued to push me. Mespo, you need to keep your fucking mouth shut and quit being a little race baiter and following in the footsteps of the media. Now I’ll say it for the final time, step off you fucking race baiting bitch!”
*********************
Introspection’s not your thing I see. Ok, so now I get to add “misogynist” and “potty mouth.” You’re going for the blog record of detestable posters. Right up there with Waynebro.
mespo,
Looks like Matty has his knickers in a twist again.
Mespo – It’s not my fault you don’t know when you keep your mouth shut. I told you a long time ago that I think it’s best that you don’t aim your comments towards me, but you continued. Excuse me for getting pissed off when you want to try and make me look like a racist AND woman beater. Yea…I have a “potty mouth” when I’m confronted by ignorant bitches that don’t know when you step off and leave someone alone. FUCK OFF!
Elaine and Mespo – How about you keep your comments directed away from me and we’ll be good, because quite frankly I’m sick and tired of hearing the bullshit that is coming from both of you.
Martain is dead and Zimmerman is a liar, you only have to be caugt in one ie to blow your credibility. where zimmerman location when he made the 911 tapes and where was zZimmerman and martain body found in wht ares of the gated community, The hEAD WONDS ARE NOT CONSISTANT WITH A HEAD BASHING HE HAD 45 DAYS TO GET HIS ACT TOGETHERS AND LIES.
DWEETTA ADAMS – Can you spell? Your credibility is non existant when you mispell damn near every word.
DWEETTA ADAMS – What’s your reasoning for thinking Zimmerman is a liar? Are you a forensics expert? How do you know those wounds aren’t consistant? Were you there? I don’t even know what the hell you are talking about the body positions…
Matt,
Let’s see:
“non existant” should be nonexistent
Matt,
“consistant” should be consistent
Skitt’s law – A corollary of Muphry’s law, variously expressed as, “Any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself,” or, “The likelihood of an error in a post is directly proportional to the embarrassment it will cause the poster.”
anon nurse,
Let us not forget that “mispell” should be misspell.
LOL!
Let’s see…
“Martain”
“caugt”
“ie” (I don’t even know what this is)
“where zimmerman location when he made the 911 tapes” (grammatical error)
“zZimmerman”
“martain” (again)
“wht”
“ares”
“WONDS”
“CONSISTANT” (sorry for my little typo, I did the same)
“TOGETHERS”
I think my errors are minor compared to this…..
Gene Howington,
If you had an ounce of ethics, you would consider that Tom Owens is likely a fraud, not to be hailed in court as an expert, but to be hauled into court as a criminal.
If you had that ounce of ethics, you would ask yourself what your duty as an attorney is to alert the court and then to seek out victims of his abuse who are likely languishing in jail and deserve a new look at their cases.
Your behavior contrary to this is an embarrassment to yourself and your profession, and does a dishonor to Professor Turley.
Bosco – “I think the toothfairy came down and altered the photo…so I think the photos shouldn’t be admitted in court.”
“I think the dinosaurs were on Zimmermans side and they blocked Trayvon from running any further so that Zimmerman could viciously attack him for absolutely no reason.”
“I think Zimmerman killed Trayvon and then punched himself in the face to break his own nose and then used a razor blade to make those cuts in his head, all influenced by Santa Claus.”
“I think satan jumped inside of the body of the eye witness that saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating the hell out of him and compelled the witness to say these cruel things against this innocent little boy.”
Anon,
Sometimes you amaze me…..
@Bosco: I believe what I believe BECAUSE of the facts already presented, it is you that believes what you want to believe regardless of the facts already presented.
The facts are clear: If Zimmerman had not been pretending to be a cop that night, then Trayvon Martin would be alive, and would have made it home to watch his game without committing any crime whatsoever. The altercation was due to Zimmerman following and pursuing and frightening Trayvon Martin. That is true well beyond the level of “opinion,” it is the facts of the case based upon the physical evidence of the 911 tape.
Your belief that medical evidence can somehow exonerate Zimmerman is an example of believing what you WANT to believe REGARDLESS of the evidence. I will not deny that Zimmerman was injured, it just makes no difference, because if Trayvon injured Zimmerman it was in justifiable self defense against a stranger stalking him, which is obviously true from the tape.
anon,
Again, you’ve mistaken me for someone who cares about the opinions of me personally espoused by anonymous Internet nitwits.
Hi, folks. I want to deal with an issue other than the relative dumbassitude, moronisationism, offayrationalisticism or spelling skills (and its obviously associated credibility) of my honored colleagues (I know I am being presumptuous but you can’t stop me) on this thread.
The issue of what has now been called the allegations of “prior bad acts” on the part of the late Trayvon Martin.
First of all, before we even entertain the notion that we should — or the court should — evaluate any of these proposed evidentiary offerings, I need to see all of George Zimmerman’s school records. I need to see his Juvenile Court records (which are probably sealed even to a criminal court). I need to hear from the girl he was going with when he was 16, 17 years old, if any. I need to see all pictures he ever posted or posed for. Then I’m willing to even BEGIN to think about these alleged issues regarding the late Trayvon Martin.
But presuming I have seen these things and they come up proving that George Zimmerman never (a) misbehaved in school; (b) was accused of misbehaving in school; (c) acted “wrong” according to the opinion of 28-year-olds when he was 17; (d) appeared suspicious to anyone at any time anywhere out in public; (e) wore a hoodie; or (f) was an “asshole” —
Still, then all I have is the following.
A person who never committed any prior bad acts from birth to age 18 (hereinafter called “Defendant”)
saw, regarded as suspicious, did not like and spoke ill of
A person who committed some prior bad acts before age 18 (hereinafter called “Victim”), which prior bad acts were unknown to Defendant at the time that he saw, regarded as suspicious, did not like and spoke ill of the Victim.
The Defendant reported his negative impressions (or some of his negative impressions) to the police when he saw the Victim.
The Defendant decided to get out of his car and follow the Victim because of his (a) bad opinion of the victim and his (b) desire to make sure that the asshole did not get away.
The Defendant, asked by the police if he was following the Victim, said, “Yes,” and the police person speaking with him on his cell phone then said, “OK We don’t need you to do that.”
The Defendant, indicating his understanding of the previously quoted phrase, said, “OK.”
The Defendant then, after more than 30 seconds’ elapsed time, came into contact with the Victim. (Here we do not have facts, subject to cross-examination, explaining the detail of the “coming into contact” phase of the proceedings.)
After some more elapsed time, some of which was audio recorded and some of which was not audio recorded, Defendant killed the victim.
Even after killing him, Defendant did not know of the victim’s many presumed failures or “shortcomings” as a person. If he actually was a dishonor student, even as he lay in the morgue, growing colder, minute by minute, Defendant did not know and could not discover (and presumably unkill) the blameworthy, or blameless, dead Victim. The dead Victim’s goodness or badness were still, after his death, matters completely unknown to Defendant, who could not even approximate his age properly, according to his own words spoken recently in court.
That’s really all we have, right now, because serious fact-finding and analysis is needed before we have more. Various people who consider various other people to be assholes, morons, dumbasses, and many variations on those themes, still do not have more.
I am willing to say that I will stake my reputation as a non-assoholic, undumb, only occasionally moronic (dear friend of mine who is also a lawyer and an economist called me a moron in 1990, though) American on the following: There is a presumption that if a person kills someone he doesn’t know, after having seen, disliked, dissed and followed him, that he probably committed a very serious crime.
Oh, and more. I think after you kill somebody, you’re ill advised to say that it wasn’t really as bad as all that because although you’re a good person, they were a bad one. Just seems to me to be bad form.
Now if I were to set up a society where people acted right, I would pass a law that said, if you kill somebody that you didn’t even know, because you THOUGHT he needed following, apprehending, and punishing for something although you didn’t know WHAT, and then after you kill him, instead of feeling sorry and horrible and falling all over yourself with remorse and misery and horror at your own terrible irreversible deed (and I don’t mean two months later in court with attorney’s advice, I mean two MINUTES LATER while you’re rending your clothes and pouring dirt on your head and crying out to god above to forgive you if he can), then you have to wear a “Mark of CAIN” on your forehead forever and everyone who sees you is entitled to say to you: “YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT BECAUSE IT MADE ME FEEL REALLY BAD!”
OK, that’s just MY WORLD.
Dweetta: You keep spelling your way; I understood every word!
In closing:
spehling duzzint kredibylitee maack;
budt summ nonsekwiters tayk thuh kaick!
Matt 1, April 21, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Let’s see…
“Martain”
“caugt”
“ie” (I don’t even know what this is)
“where zimmerman location when he made the 911 tapes” (grammatical error)
“zZimmerman”
“martain” (again)
“wht”
“ares”
“WONDS”
“CONSISTANT” (sorry for my little typo, I did the same)
“TOGETHERS”
I think my errors are minor compared to this…..
*****
We aren’t in the habit of correcting people’s spelling on this blog. Since you decided to criticize a poster for his/her spelling errors, I suggest you check out some of your own misspellings:
If he had commited a crime he would not have been “child” in the courts eyes.
I, as an EMT, have seen a SERIOUS injury to the top of somones head.
All in all I don’t believe that it is even possible for Zimmerman to recieve a fair trial due to what the media has done and how they have portrayed this case to the public.
I will also go as far as to say that I honestly believe that Zimmerman will recieve a guilty verdict and go to jail the rest of his life just to appease the public.
Dredd – Quite honestly your looking at this whole thing from an emotional standpoint.
Dredd – Tred carefully, you are getting dangerously close to the stupidity level of Mespo
Gene – manslaughter would have been the correct way to go but, in my opinon, the prosecuter really jumped the gun…
Gene – I completely understand trying to get a plea deal by overcharging the defendent and I have seen this done in many cases.
Which, by the way, they can now recieve money every time his name or those phrases (Justice for Trayvon and I am Trayvon) are used.
Michele – Then why did the funeral directer state openly in an interview for the news that he “didn’t see any noticable marks on Trayvon that would indicate a struggle.” ?
Elaine – Why don’t you do the same, and while your at it look at how many black on black, black on white, hispanic on black, and black on hispanic crimes actually make it to the news with the intensity that the Trayvon Martin case did.
Also, there is no afidavit because one was never made up.
I’m not trying to win an arguement by saying you are ignorant, I’m stating fact.
Him, in the bathroom posing for a picture with a gun plain as day laying on the counter.
I, totallity, just state that I personally lean more towards the Zimmerman side because of the evidence that has been presented thus far.
DWEETTA ADAMS – Can you spell? Your credibility is non existant when you mispell damn near every word.
How do you know those wounds aren’t consistant?
Final Score:
Elaine 1, Matt 0
@Malisha: The Defendant then, after more than 30 seconds’ elapsed time, came into contact with the Victim. (Here we do not have facts, subject to cross-examination, explaining the detail of the “coming into contact” phase of the proceedings.)
We have facts from valid inference: Zimmerman was outside of his car. By his own account. He claims he was jumped; but he was not, the girlfriend’s testimony will be valid in court, she can testify to what she heard with her own ears: Zimmerman was not jumped, he was having a hostile verbal exchange with Trayvon Martin before the struggle ensued. He was not jumped from behind, which to a jury will mean he was lying about the confrontation, and that will cast doubt on his entire story as a fabrication.
I think you all need to view these videos. I know most of you won’t because you have already made up your mind on this case. I will also, preemptively for all of you that want to say I’m a “racist,” I did not title or make the 3rd video down. I simply post that video because he made some good points.
Matt, the fact that you regard Faux Spews and Billo as “news sources” blows your small amount of remaining crediblilty clean out of the water. You are right on one thing; I doubt seriously anyone other than your echo chamber will click those video links.
@Tony C: Yes, I agree with you completely, but I wanted to leave the fact bundle as “bare-bones” as possible to avoid all allegations that were, up until the trial, hearsay, such as the girlfriend’s telephone call. I agree with you and raise you several points on the prosecution side too, because the prosecution will presumably be able to prove the things alleged by witnesses who claim the police were refractory to their attempts to offer statements disproving the self-defense claims. Bottom line here is that if the prosecution is NOT trying to throw the case, it is a strong case. If the prosecution IS tryin gto throw the case, they will do it with one of those very complex argue-forever sleight-of-hands that mark the worst cover-ups in our national archives of disgrace and shame.
By the way, there are two little weird-looking “holes” embedded (sp?) in the blood in this allegedly exculpatory photograph. One such hole appears in the midst of the left-side “bloodlike substance pattern” and one appears in the right-side “bloodlike substance pattern.” I’d like some forensic physicist to figure out how you smash a that-shaped head on a flat hard surface to produce those two interesting rivulets. I’m no physicist. Once I took a college physics course from a guy whose name I think was Professor Wellington, and he was a “submarine splash expert.” I loved that. Hated the course, though: dull!
Excuse me, folks, I was just reading through this thread to try to find something I thought had stimulated a thought of my own, and I stopped cold and got confused. Wait a minute, wait a minute: Did this really happen? Did Matt, at a little past noon (Eastern Standard) call Mespo a “cunt” on this thread and then proceed with some further “argument” about some alleged point on topic? Did that happen?
I went back and read it several times. Of course, my credibility cannot be very high (I misspell quite often, and commit grammatical errors as well) by now so perhaps I got it wrong…
@Matt: What would be the point of viewing these videos? Not one of these people has any more authority to comment than any of us on this blog; and some of the lawyers on this blog (which does not include me) are far more authoritative than they are.
If you think they make an argument worth hearing, don’t try to give us homework. Distill it for us. That also ensures that we hear what YOU are hearing, so we can argue with YOU. The people in these videos aren’t going to respond to anything we say. Posting videos to argue for your position is a coward’s tactic, it lets you avoid responsibility for what is said (for example, you are already telling us it isn’t you that is a racist, you are just posting a video by a racist you think makes good points) and lets you deflect criticism or logical flaws to others.
Don’t be a coward, you aren’t fooling anybody HERE with that tactic.
Otteray Scribe – Why you say that? Because you don’t want to hear things that contradict what you already BELIEVE to be the truth? Is it because you only want to hear the psycho-babble that all other news networks put out that are just boosting their ratings? Does the Fox network make you think too hard?
Every day you are listening to the other networks that WANT to make this a “race issue” and want to push you to watch them more because it gets you more angry and feeding false information (not all the time, but most of the time). I don’t really care what you all think my credibility is, you only feel that way because I’m trying to make you open your eyes and mind to other possibilities, other than “Zimmerman is a murderer and should be hung.”
Matt:
Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to click over to “Storm Front.” Any good new Leni Riefenstahl movies out there yet?
Signing off, now. My point is made. The floor is all yours.
___________
Elaine M:
Let’s leave Matt alone. He’s pouting. He likes his women and minorities (like you & me) quiet and without any troublesome opposing opinions or contrary facts. If he gets irrational it’s our fault. Welcome to Matt’s World where he doesn’t really want the last word — until he does.
malisha:
“Did this really happen? Did Matt, at a little past noon (Eastern Standard) call Mespo a “cunt” on this thread and then proceed with some further “argument” about some alleged point on topic?”
*******************
He did, indeed. He’s got this gender confusion thing going on or he misspelled “cutie.” As in “you are nothing but a cutie.” That must be it.
I’m done on this page. Obviously ignorance has gotten it’s full grasp on all of you because you don’t want to see it any other way besides your way. You all can keep on going thinking “videos are fake,” “pictures are fake,” “testimony is fake.” and only believe what you are fed.
I guess they were right. Ignorance is bliss!
Hey everybody, rather than clicking on the stuff Matt recently posted, you can always just go up to Elaine M’s posting from 7:30 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012 and hear James Brown sing PAYBACKS! It’s lots more fun and you can cut a rug while you do it!
No, really, did Matt really call Mespo…
Nevermind.
Uh oh, I feel a story coming on. I arranged a demonstration to take place at one of the downtown Washington DC buildings (can’t even remember it) some time during the 1990s about some case of covered-up sexual abuse in the military. Now these cases are coming to prominence but back then, not. So at this demonstration was a woman with a British accent who was so proper and perfect at all times that we — the rest of us plebian Americans — restrained our speech and even behavioral gestures to appear a lot less vulgar than usual, and so as to not offend her. She was an important activist with us. Anyway, I got a ride back into the suburbs with one of the other activists that day and this lady was in the back seat with me, and a demonstrator in the front seat made a loud complaint against one of the female members of the cover-up team that had led to the case we were demonstrating about. “What a F%#^-ing stupid Wh*re” she declared. We all gasped. I glanced over at Vanessa, who remained perfectly calm-faced as she said, in her aristocratic and authoritative voice, “Oh I much prefer the Anglo Saxon descriptive terms.” Beat. I then said it: “What are THEY?” In the same voice she responded: “Dumb F%#^-ing C*NT!”
I had for many many years bemoaned the fact that most of our curse-words, and at least those that had any real value or power, were all misogynist. Either you were no good because your mother conceived you while she was unmarried, or you were a son of a female dog, or you were just a female dog yourself, or you were female sexual anatomy presumed to be a degraded body part, or etc. etc. etc. They all basically “played the dozens” with you. Other languages seemed no better. I complained about this to a friend of mine in New York — another lawyer — and he helped me out of the dilemma. “HE IS A GOAT!” he declared (referring at the time to my ex). “Goat? Why a goat?” I had no reason to complain of these creatures, and their milk made the best cheese imaginable. “A GOAT,” he explained pedantically. “If he cannot eat it, and he cannot f*ck it, he will PISS on it.”
I wish I could find a good video clip for this one!
@Malisha: that were, up until the trial, hearsay, such as the girlfriend’s telephone call.
Sigh. What the girlfriend reports on the telephone call is not hearsay.
“Hearsay” is NOT the label we give to anything that was HEARD, “Hearsay” is when you were told a fact transpired by somebody that could have been LYING or MISINFORMED or MISTAKEN or MISREMEMBERING.
If your only knowledge of something is that somebody else told you it happened, then that is hearsay. If you heard something YOURSELF, as the girlfriend did over the phone, that is NOT hearsay, she can testify as to what she personally heard over the phone. That is called “earwitness” testimony, and I have seen a man convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison based almost entirely on a neighbor HEARING him commit a murder from the next apartment (and recognizing the voices he had heard many times).
The girlfriend can testify, under oath, what she personally heard over the phone; including Trayvon’s challenge and Zimmerman’s response and that she then heard what sounded to her like a scuffle before the phone went dead. Likewise, the people in the area can testify as to what THEY personally heard. She can even testify as to what Trayvon told her.
None of that is hearsay. Now note the difference: She can testify that Trayvon TOLD her he was being followed, but she cannot testify that he WAS being followed; the former is personal experience, the latter would be hearsay (for her) because theoretically, Trayvon might have been lying.
What she heard, by Trayvon and Zimmerman, is NOT HEARSAY, it is her personal experience. It would be earwitness testimony. If the judge believes it is relevant, it can be heard on the stand and under oath, and can be considered as reliable an account of the facts as eyewitness testimony.
Poor Matt. He could not find anyone to join him in a rousing chorus of The Horst Wessel Song. Sad.
Malisha: Not all curse words are misogynist. Asshole is not, dick, prick, dickhead, dumbfuck, and fuckwad are not. Even cocksucker is generally reserved for males, it is more of a gay bashing thing than a woman bashing thing.
@mespo, yeah, the last video Matt linked to starts off with truther/anti-vax conspiracy nonsense and goes down from there in what seemed to be a stormfront direction before I could take it no longer.
However, calling a male a cunt is a proper use, at least in the UK, and the urban dictioinary suggests it can even be used affectionately.
Here is Eric Idle (at 1:20)
Jeralyn Merrit: “Did the Prosecutor Blow It or Did It Fold? Answer: Both”
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/21/22713/4445
Tom Maguire:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/the-george-zimmerman-bail-hearing.html
This was a ghastly opening day for Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda, who seemed unprepared and admitted as much…
It’s hard to pick the lowest of the low, but the darker moments for the prosecution included:
- The admission by co-lead investigator that he had not personally interviewed George Zimmerman;
- the admission that he had not requested Zimmerman’s medical records from the hospital;
– the admission that the state has no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s claim that, following the advice of the police dispatcher, he headed back to his car;
– the admission that the state has no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s claim that Martin assaulted first.
– the admission that the investigtors have not been “given any insight” by the voice experts at the Orlando Sentinel and the FBI who attempted to identify the screams on the 911 tape (My ‘told you so’ moment).
The NY Times makes no mention of the comical prosecution presentation. Better their readers get that grim news elsewhere. [OK, their unmarked updating has now added a section of the prosecution debacle.]
The LA Times has a bit of the bad news deep:
The hearing was also notable for the extensive grilling that O’Mara gave one of the investigators for the state attorney’s office, Dale Gilbreath, who helped prepare the probable cause affidavit that was the basis for Zimmerman’s arrest.
The affidavit says Zimmerman “confronted” Martin, after which a struggle ensued. In a likely preview of the defense strategy at trial, O’Mara questioned the use of the word “confronted.”
“Do you know who started the fight?” he asked the investigator at one point.
“Do I know? No,” Gilbreath said.
“Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?”
“No” Gilbreath said.
YOU KNOW IT WENT BADLY FROM THE HEADLINE: ThinkProgress:
Prosecutor: Zimmerman Allegedly Slapped His Ex-Girlfriend And ‘Asked Her How It Felt’
They left out “Defense Counsel Slaps Prosecutor, Asked Him How It Felt”
The judge was far less impressed that Think Progress by Zimmerman’s inglorious past; fro the Guardian live blog:
The judge all but pooh-poohed the 2005 charges brought against Zimmerman for felony battery of an officer and resisting arrest. The charges were later reduced to a misdemeanor and Zimmerman never served prison time, although he was required to attend anger management classes.
This kind of thing is all too common, the judge said, suggested that the charges were somehow inflated and should not be taken as an indicator – that he, at least, would not be taking them as an indicator – of George Zimmerman’s propensity for violence.
Well, the prosecutor impressed the stalwarts on the left, so he has that working for him. Too bad about the judge…
@ Tony C: I did not mean that it would be hearsay when it got into court, Tony, so forgive me for using a legal term for it rather than explaining my real intent. (Didn’t mean to make you sigh, agree with what you said to me, once again.) What I meant was that I was using facts that came from reported events like the initial phone call of Zimmerman to the cops, and Ayala’s police report in hard copy, in print, and that kind of statement. But I was omitting things that witnesses were said to have said, because the reports of the witnesses, so far, while perfectly believable, have omitted their names and they have not (with the exception of the school teacher who called 911 while the child was shot to death) spoken directly to the camera yet. So I mistakenly called it hearsay when it will obviously be testimonial evidence once there is a trial. The reason I didn’t even use it in my assessment was that (a) the girlfriend has not yet made a recorded statement that has been aired in the news; and (b) therefore I didnt’ want to invite a whole nother round of “you’re using stuff that could be false and you want to pre-decide and pre-judge everything because blah blah blah.”
What I was hoping to show was that with a very SMALL bit of evidence that isn’t really controverted, it is possible to prove both aggression and ill intent on Zimmerman’s part. Even with the cops either destroying, hiding, or refusing to collect most of the evidence that would probably have proven much more about Zimmerman’s alleged criminal conduct that night, what there is that has already been revealed raises a very STRONG presumption that his story about self-defense is utter hogwash, and not very effective hogwash at that. (Anybody have some experimental dirty hogs for us to test this on?)
Malisha I think you and Tony C. have come up with the most perceptive point the whole day.
We definitely need some new curse words that cast opprobrium on the intended subject and don’t impugn the reputation or integrity of anyone else.
I would like to be the first to call upon you both to form a search committee to fill this important need.
Mespo I know you were being satirical, and I am not suggesting that anyone watch Riefenstahl for the ideology. But to compare her mesmerizing work with these YouTube videos is totally unfair to Riefenstahl.
I suppose I should not criticize without watching every minute of every video. But a man has to know his limits and I know mine – not another minute of that YouTube stuff – ‘Oh the inhumanity of it’ – ouch! ‘OK, I’ll cop to the plea, but please not another minute, no… no… ahhhhhh’
And finally, how does anyone get so may typos? Doesn’t any one else have their typo’s underlined in red for immediate correction? Sure, everyone will have some, especially if working fast. But doesn’t the presence of many indicate someone is formatting for effect, to make a point?
Tony C again: I agree those terms are not misogynist but back when I asked my friend about the misogynist curses, those were not very much heard, at least where I came from. We had bitch, bastard, son of a bitch, etc., a pretty tame lexicon. When my son came of age to use his own, I heard these others, and now, very rarely hear the old ones — ah, how I miss the good old days. My son could expand your collection a bit too, but since I was writing about what Matt called Mespo (if I can believe my eyes), I wasn’t thinking of them. If you have seen Katori Hall’s play “Hurt Village” you can expand that even more!
As to the affectionate use of “c*nt” I would check on the citation. I would also suggest that perhaps Matt did not mean to use the affectionate term for Mespo, at least not without consent.
@ Bigfatmike: Well, let me put out a few first drafts for coined cursewords:
Fluker — someone who tries to be a bigshot (and a person not suffering from erectile dysfunction) but who actually comes off as only a person who can kill a fish once it’s hooked, reeled in, and thrown on deck
Mother-Fluker — someone who blames all of society’s problems on one or another bad mother (This used to be called the “Hitler’s Mother Syndrome”)
Prussy — a man who is cowardly but hides behind a collection of sort of “John Wayne” phrases and behaviors meant to show that he could whup folks even without the props guy, the stage crafters, the fight choreographers, the cameramen, and the staging
Stash-wipe — someone who is so degraded and inferior that he can be compared to used toilet tissue
Liar — somebody whose credibility is tarnished by misspellings.
Oh dear, I’m so tired of this already, cun’t anybody take over for me now?
@Malisha: I agree with the intent; however, ABC has her on tape saying what she said, to Martin’s attorney with her mother present. I have heard that tape. Also, she was interviewed by the prosecutors for several hours prior to them bringing charges against Zimmerman.
I think she is their witness for 2nd degree murder, that what she heard, an exchange between Trayvon and an aggressive Zimmerman, is THE damning evidence against Zimmerman for his lie about how the altercation started. I do not believe the charge of 2nd Degree murder would have been brought without it.
The fact that she was on the phone is not in dispute; nor is the timing (when the call log of his cellphone provider showed their call disconnected, and the shot timing based on the recording of a neighbor’s 911 call on the incident).
I do not think any of that is in dispute. As I said before, she can testify to what she heard, and I believe she told the prosecutors exactly what she told ABC News, and she will repeat it on the stand.
I do not know if they have Trayvon’s cell phone or not: If it is damaged and they can show that damage would have resulted in the disconnect, I think that adds plausibility to the notion that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, perhaps knocking the phone out of his hand. People do not throw their cell phones to the ground in order to fight, and people do not start an attack on another person (if Trayvon had jumped Zimmerman) with a cell phone in their hand. Trayvon had a phone in his hand right up until the altercation began. It makes no sense that he began the fight.
Whatever, most of your rambling, judgmental, longwinded diatribes here marks you as a silly bunt too.
That was directed to threadjacker, blowhard, and pixel spiller Malisha.
@ Anon:
Your point is well taken that the prosecution bungled the bail hearing. But I think this is a very important point. One of any number of things can be happening, but what comes to mind to me at first is the following:
(a) Maybe the prosecution appointed by the Governor needed to (i) draw a charge significant enough to quell those very obvious charges of police and prosecutor corruption, and recover from the obvious racist issues that were pretty obvious and visible; AND at the same time (ii) provide for a proceeding where the prosecution could not possibly win, so they could say, “SEE, we TRIED, and we coudln’t convict, so that means that what was initially done was NOT CORRUPT but was well-reasoned and appropriate and was neither racist nor unreasonable. Yes, I am saying that the prosecution might be deliberately messing up so that the acquittal can absolve THEM (other players but the same prosecutor’s office, in the end) of wrongdoing. Remember, the feds are still investigating. So if the prosecution comes in gangbusters (faked and pre-arranged) and falls on its face, the feds have no grounds to say the actions of 2/26/2012 were a criminal deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law. Could be that people are being smarter than we give them credit for.
(b) Maybe the prosecution is deliberately letting Zimmerman get a few “leg up” decisions pre-trial so no “error” appears later and they mean to really nail Zimmerman for what he has done, but they also want to be in control of much of the spin before the show starts. Since Zimmerman could be released no matter WHAT bail was ordered (millions could be raised overnight by his gun-toting corporate sponsors), leaving it low enough to be respectable and not letting the prosecution bomb at the first public hearing could be very good strategy while they design the kill. That’s what I would be doing if I were not corrupt and I were prosecuting this case, anyway. Remember, you hold the feet to the fire of the side you’re going to support in the end, for it protects against appeal. And if Zimmerman is convicted of ANYTHING he doesn’t want to agree to (and even if he pleads, he will appeal and then file a habeas corpus claiming his plea was coerced because he was so afraid of being murdered by an unruly mob), the appeals will be saying he was discriminated against, disadvantaged, deprived of due process, portrayed as satan, prejudiced, shmejudiced, orange-juiced and thrown from a great height. I mean it will be “oh poor me, my head my head, oooooooh woooooooh help help help” from now until the end of time or until he is released and elected governor, whichever comes first.
There are probably a hundred other possibilities. Let’s watch the career paths of all those prosecutor personnel involved in this and that may help us figure out what the post mortem will be.
Malisha, I think you get the prize – BEST OF THE DAY.
I think you have earned Chair of the Search committee.
Fluker
Mother-Fluker
Hitler’s Mother Syndrome
Prussy
Stash-wipe
Does it get any better – I think not.
You may not have given new meaning, but definitely new vocabulary for when I feel a rant coming on.
Rare talent indeed.
@malisha
“Your point is well taken that the prosecution bungled the bail hearing.”
That’s not my point. I am truly clueless.
I was just pointing out what others, not commenting at this blog, think, ranging from liberal defense attorney bloggers to conservatives to the independent press many of whom seem to think the prosecution bungled the bail hearing, and radically overcharged Zimmerman.
If I have a point it is my constant surprise how the politically correct at this blog constant form up lynch mobs long before the evidence is in, only to walk away later wiping the egg from their face.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find this photo to be really strange?
It’s not that I doubt that he sustained injuries.. I can’t imagine him lying about that considering that there was a paramedic and police on the scene…
I just find the angle strange. It’s as if the photographer was standing right above the back of Zimmerman’s head, just hovering.
Then there’s the question of how he obtained them. I mean, I’m no CSI and what little I know can be fit into a thimble, but do they really allow random civilians to just hang about a crime scene and take snapshots?
The flash on the camera is rather brilliant.. And the zoom is pretty damn good. I guess I don’t understand why a civilian has a pretty clear shot of Zimmerman’s head when the authorities apparently do not.
Did the police on the scene take pics of his head? Surely they did, right?
We aren’t relying on photos taken by bystanders to be classed as ‘evidence’, are we? I always thought these types of things are dismissed in a court of law. I could be wrong.. Someone help me out.
I also fail to understand how these pictures exonerate Zimmerman? At the very least, they show that a scuffle broke out.. But they certainly do not portray him as a ‘victim’. It’s still not clear who initiated the altercation, and these pictures don’t make that aspect any clearer.
@Rebecca: Assume he is sitting on something. Like a stool, bench, or chair. The photographer is standing. The camera is either magically hovering on its own, or perhaps it is being held by the photographer.
Well, for my own dignity, I hope that law enforcement clears people from the scene before my bloodied head or dead body is photographed by strangers.
Why on earth would Zimmerman bother to follow a suspicious person who ‘looks as though he’s on drugs’. Call me an idiot, but suspicious people on drugs are pretty much to be avoided… That is, unless I know I have a gun.
It’s nice to know that a gun wielding person can follow me, approach me, and if I’m scared out of my wits and make a move, POW.. I’m dead.
What a scary world we live in.
Rebecca,
I think your impressions of the photo are about right.
When I expanded the photo, it pixelated rapidly, so there is not a lot more detail in the image sent over the internet.
But there is textured green around the head. It appears that the injured person is bent over with the photographer holding the camera over the back of the head, and pointing down toward grass covered ground.
To me, it does not appear that this is a photo made by a person from a distance that caught the head of a person standing or walking. To me it appears that the person with the injury bent over to give the photographer a clear shot of the scalp and injury.
It does not occur to me that there are any negative implications to be drawn from the fact that the pose suggest that the photo was taken intentionally to document the injury.
Even if this were nothing more that an accident on a bicycle, the person might want such a photo for insurance purposes.
As I have mentioned before, I am more curious about the washed out skin tones and the red which is presumably blood. The washed out skin tones are reasonably explained by over exposure from mis adjusted flash. But, would that kind of over exposure account for the red blood? I personally can’t help but wonder if there was some kind of editing performed on the photo.
At this point I want to state clearly, I don’t know what if anything was done to the photo. But I think it is a reasonable question.
Anon, I agreed with you that the prosecutor did not earn any gold stars at the bail hearing; I do not agree with you about the rest of your conclusions, especially about the disdain you expressed for the commentators on this blog. In my opinion, from just the evidence that has already BEEN revealed such as the initial call from Zimmerman to the cops and the police report filed by Ayala, and the videotaped interview of the school-teacher who was looking out her window, from that ALONE, it appeared pretty obvious to me that (a) Zimmerman should have been charged with at least manslaughter and probably second-degree murder the night of the incident; and even more importantly, (b) evidence should have been gathered starting at about 7 pm and gathered as if Monk and Columbo and the Mentalist and the leader of the pack in Criminal Minds were ALL ON THE SCENE RIGHT THERE. I believe that if the prosecution were to try hard even at this late stage with all the possibilities of mess up because of poor police work, they would nail Zimmerman, and probably for Second Degree. What I am saying in my post responding to your description (whether it was yours or came from the news media you read) of the prosecution’s less than stellar performance at the bail hearing was this: MAYBE they are trying to throw the case to protect their own department. MAYBE NOT. At this point, who knows. But it is a distinct possibility.
That’s really all I’m saying too, Mike.
This would have to go through the ringer before it could ever hold up. I suspect that it will, and may not be used as evidence at all. The potential for a civilian to tamper with it is far, far too great.
And again, it does not say that Zimmerman did not sustain any injuries, it just seems rather dubious to put a great deal of weight into some random bystander’s point and shoot.
And like I said, I can’t imagine Zimmerman lying about sustaining any injuries, it would be FAR too easy to prove otherwise. So I’m going to assume that he had some sort of abrasions.. Unless police and paramedics are lying, which is highly unlikely.
What he can do is fabricate the extent of his injuries.. And this photo doesn’t help much because it’s hard to say whether his injuries are minor/ superficial or quite serious.
What I don’t understand is why would a paramedic be declined if he was beaten to near death ( or as he says ‘almost unconscious’)?
I would imagine that those types of injuries would be taken very seriously and he’d be whisked off in an ambulance.
But hey, who knows how a person acts after they have just shot a person to death?
Oh Anon you porculating rogue you, how you express affection and intimacy, I just can’t STAND IT, ouch ouch!! (No, I mean help help — but nobody will help me!)
“That was directed to threadjacker, blowhard, and pixel spiller Malisha” — and to think that I was busy threadjacking, blowharding and pixelspilling when you called me a “silly bunt” so that I didn’t respond on time — I mean, what can I say?
OK, I’ll answer that. Here’s what I can say:
Listen here, you Thurmombulated rivonuclear-deposed petumbrate, if you don’t stop picking on me I’m going to take you off my Christmas card list!
And you better watch OUT: Mike Spindell and Rafflaw and Mespo and Idealist and some other guys are always ready to stand up and protect me and I can jack all the threads I want, so there!
(And I bought me a new hoodie just this morning, nah nah nah nah nah nah; and I’m gonna come to your neighborhood some evening at 7 pm and walk all around looking suspicious and you won’t even be allowed to stand your ground at me!)
Hey Elaine M, can you put up “I FEEL GOOD” by James Brown? Or maybe “Pappa don’t ‘low no trash”?
Something telling to me ( and this may be from an emotional standpoint) is Zimmerman’s comment to the dispatcher ‘they always get away’.
Who is ‘they’?
It REALLY sounds to me as though Zimmerman already had it in his head that Trayvon was a bad guy.
And we keep speaking in circles about ‘benefit of doubt’ and ‘innocent until proven guilty’ when it comes to Zimmerman.. But where was this for Trayvon?
From the get go, Zimmerman had him pegged as a suspicious looking person who appears to be on drugs.. And what was he doing? Just walking home looking at houses on his way while on the phone to his girlfriend.
I’m sorry, but I smell a rat! A huge rat!
The ‘they always get away’.. Paired with Zimmerman’s refusal to take the duspatcher’s advise not to pursue makes it seem quite probable to me that Zimmerman was looking for a fight that night.
Rebecca, Curtis Sliwa, founder of the “Guardian Angels” community watch organization (now very well known and respected in many countries) has said on a TV interview that he believes Zimmerman “woke up that morning” looking for trouble, looking to hurt somebody, looking to do something to somebody. Now Sliwa is not a forensic psychiatrist or anything, and in fact, he knows nothing about Zimmerman’s psychological make-up or character, which, to my knowledge, has even now never been tested by any impartial authority. But Sliwa was talking about the case because he was so upset that now, people associate the “neighborhood watch” concept with the actions taken by (or crimes committed by) Zimmerman that night. When Sliwa trains people to do the real job of really protecting their communities, he emphasizes: (a) NO GUNS OR WEAPONS; and (b) NO USURPATION OF POLICE AUTHORITY.
I think this is a very important point. Zimmerman’s concept of himself and who he thought he should be, and how much of a SUPERIOR and an AUTHORITY he wanted to be when he came up on Trayvon Martin that night, and how he wanted to be seen and responded to by Trayvon Martin that night — all that — nothing to do with what HE DID that night. His motivations? Only significant in terms of whether they are in fact the elements of the second degree murder charge. Was he respectfully addressing a young man he had already called an “asshole” and perhaps called a “punk”? Or was he assigning himself the role of the superior who could demand respectful obedience from an inferior, and when he didn’t get it, there was hell to pay? Usurpation of police authority is a dangerous thing. If we as a society allow it, we are done for. Each hostile person in our culture will be elevated to a supercop to do with us as he will. You and I would answer to Anon for our behavior. It wouldn’t be pretty.
(But don’t listen to me, I’m just a silly bunt, have already been convicted of silly buntitude, second degree.)
“MAYBE they are trying to throw the case to protect their own department. MAYBE NOT”
HEh, so that’s what you were trying to say. Sheesh, all those pixels wasted just to set up your conspiracy theory so should Zimmerman walk, you won’t have to believe it was because there was no evidence and reasonable doubt.
You should read more Ann Althouse who seems to feel Obama had his solicitor general purposely throw Obamacare so Obama can bring in something even more communist.
“You and I would answer to Anon for our behavior”
See, and that’s just defamation.
Mespo, GeneH, OS, you and others have been measuring loops in the noose for Zimmerman since the case became known, and I doubt I’ve said anything other than: Zimmerman is a dumbass who if he’s not actually in real life guilty deserves to be found guilty because his actions were so stupid.
But since you dislike what I say about that, you think it’s okay to project on to me your lynch mob thoughts and behaviors.
Nope, you can’t have it.
Keep your authoritarian lynch mob bullshit between you and your blog buds.
Anon, if you don’t think there was an arrangement made to fail to charge Zimmerman the night of the shooting, you’re either way too trusting of government (except for President Obama, apparently) or too concentrated in on side issues like identifying silly bunts. All the reported cases of self-defense are reported for the simple reason that the shooter gets charged, and then his defense counsel convinces a jury that he shot in self-defense, and if Zimmerman’s defense team can do that, he will go free. But the reason he was not charged on 2/26/2012 was NOT because there was not enough evidence to charge him, it was because obviously the cops thought Martin was some throw-away who would never be identified by anyone who had any power to complain of his death, and they didn’t want to charge Zimmerman, for one reason or another. When it turned out that there was a sizeable vocal bunch of folks protesting this “freebie killing” the cops and prosecutor’s office started giving out all kinds of idiotic excuses for their conduct and rightfully, investigations followed. NOW we have a second-degree murder charge but it’s anybody’s guess whether this is a further, really clever but corrupt piece of an even bigger cover-up outrage, or if this is a genuine attempt to do what should have been done in the beginning. Naturally you will presume that my take on this is simply a “conspiracy theory” promulgated by a silly bunt. But there have been conspiracies in history. One of them — well, way more than one, but the one I am thinking of right now — was a giant criminal conspiracy that had laws and judges behind it, and all kinds of justifications for it, but it was a mass murder and exploitation of people who had done nothing to deserve that, and it worked because so many people with guns protected each other from the natural results of such criminal conduct, and it was called slavery, and in each and every instance in which it worked, it worked because each participant decided not to hold other participants accountable for what they did wrong. And why would these good people support each other’s wrong-doing? Because they were doing wrong themselves and did not want to be held accountable either.
Why do people take part in conspiracies? To protect themselves for what they have done wrong. Easiest thing in the world to understand.
Now I hope that is not continuing to play out in Florida. It DID play out on 2/26/2012, in my opinion and the opinion of many rational people, many of them with law degrees. But how tightly are the wagons circled around the folks who gave us the Trayvon Martin case (and the folks who gave us the Trayvon Martin case are NOT the demonstrators but the cops and prosecutors who botched the thing at first)? I don’t know yet. I hope the feds will tell us that.
Malisha,
Who made your keyboard and how much will they charge for an “enter” key?
Let me know and I’ll paypal you whatever it takes.
malisha
i’ve tried finding out what a silly bunt is and i’ve come up short. the only bunt i’ve found is this http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bunte is spelled different and doesn’t make much sense to call someone a german ladies fashion magazine.
a silly punt would be a small flat bottomed boat and that makes no sense either
the only other choice would be a silly bint http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BINT but calling someone that would just be rude.
and anon would never do that.
pete,
I thought anon was calling her a silly cake until I remembered that was spelled “bundt”.
Which is kind of too bad.
Silly cake sounds interesting.
Pete,
Fwiw, here’s a bit of documentation that in the uk and australia, cunt can be used “affectionately”.
“Silly bunt” is from the Monty Python sketch I linked to above.
Similarly, I regret to confess that all Pythonista’s love to call people, well women, moistened bints.
2:50 above
I can’t wait to find out who the person was who took the pic. I find it quite ‘interesting’ that Zimmerman allegedly posed for the pics and asked this guy to call his wife. We’re they friends? Who asks a random stranger to call his wife and goes on to pose for a headshot? Why was this photographer/wife caller on the scene in the first place? This just gives me the heebies and seems like a major ploy.
I want to see POLICE photos of his injuries. In his mugshot, his nose looks pretty good for having been broken only an hour ago.
It is all so strange and not much of it adds up.. At least, it does not appear to add up as of what we know.
I’m sure there’s going to be plenty of information to be learned over the coming months
Sorry for the poor grammar and punctuation. I am typing with fat fingers from an iPhone and cannot find it in me to do any sort of editing.
Hey Rebecca, what “mugshot” are you referring to?
I haven’t seen any mugshots (where he is holding up a number for instance.)
The shot I presented above was taken last week when he was booked after he turned himself in, and so was weeks and weeks after the incident.
What was the point of that, anon? His nose didn’t look broken in that shot either. Is that because it was taken weeks and weeks after the incident?
Rebecca, what mugshot are you referring to?
Though I’ve picked my share, I know little about noses. But when I look at that picture (from TalkLeft), his nose does look different in the before and after, and perhaps bent and squashed. But yes, the immediate swelling and the black eyes are gone in that photo.
But what mugshot are you referring to?
Anon, I struggle to navigate this dang iPhone and find the exact location and time of the photo you posted. It was a split screen shot with a side view of Zimmerman’s nose. At the time I saw it, I thought it was a shot taken that night. So I recant that statement, but still maintain that I could not see a noticeable difference in the nose.
Another thing, and this may have been mentioned and I’m sorry if it’s flogging a dead horse… But what the deal with the hole in the back of Zimmerman’s head? It does not look like a gash, it looks like a puncture wound to me. Does anyone else see that?
Found it. 2:11pm.
Rebecca, I just posted this information on another thread. It may help some.
Here is the link to my parent comment.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/21/zimmerman-media-circuses-make-for-bad-justice/#comment-361304
i believe this is the mugshot she is referring to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_Zimmerman_Mugshot.jpg
it’s from 2005 arrest.
Thanks, otteray!
Yeah, I posted that from Jeralyn Merritt, and she refers to it as a booking photo — I honestly don’t know if that’s a mugshot or not, but I presume it could be. One of the lawyers, or maybe even Gene H, could clarify that.
Anyway, yes, that was taken six weeks or so after the shooting, so all that’s left is the bump, and not the inflammation or black eyes.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/17/17410/1544
Merritt writes:
“Here’s a comparison of Zimmerman’s profile from an undated photo before the shooting and when he was booked into the jail. I see a smooth bridge in the former and a bump in the latter, but maybe that’s just me.”
anon,
Now why would I assist someone who called me unethical? That would be inequitable. Since equity is a key component of justice, that would make it unjust. To be unjust is to be unethical.
Sorry.
Answer your own questions.
However, that you can’t figure out if a booking photo is a mug shot or not on your own is simply hilarious.
OK, Anon, just send me $10,000 and I’ll send you the change.
[return]
[return]
Pete, Gene H, your interest in what Anon is calling me is just turning my head. I personally like “silly kaak” which is a bit sweet, but what the H. I had a correspondence once with a psychiatrist who was in practice at (I think it was) University of Kentucky Medical School Hospital, and he was named Otto Kaak. When I mentioned that his name was palindromic, he told me that his mother, Anna Kaak, had a friend who sent her a 7-page letter that was entirely a palindrome. Many nights I have wondered what on earth could have been said to her in those seven pages. None of my business, actually. Dr. Kaak was an outstanding professional, very erudite.
[return]
[return]
Although the many defense suggestions and assertions (boo boo on the head, red shirt on the bottom of the two fighting forms, bump on the nose, “you’re gonna die tonight,” “Do you have a problem?” jumps from behind on the way back to the car, shouts of “help help” that do not show the voice-print quality necessary to identify as Zimmerman’s, etc. etc.) do lead to more and more questions, I think of the book “RULES OF THE ROAD” and especially the premise that defendants prevail (and this was written about civil trials, by a plaintiffs’ lawyer) when there are three things:
Confusion
Ambiguity and
Complexity.
If you have the guy in custody and you read him his rights and then he talks and he tells you, “I killed him in self-defense,” and you lock him up on assault with a weapon charges or something, and then in the morning you work more on the investigation and you get an autopsy and a ballistics report and you speak with all the witnesses, etc., and then you discount the self-defense assertion and charge him with manslaughter and wait for the prosecutor to make some kind of a determination, that’s pretty straight-forward. Let his defense lawyer try to prove self-defense; you know he shot the kid. He agreed that he shot the kid. He gave you reason (in his phone call a few minutes before ETD) to suspect that he had animus when he shot the kid. Not terribly confusing, minimal ambiguity, and in fact, complexity will be worked out with good forensic work over the next day or two, including in-depth interviews of all possible witnesses.
But if you have a guy in custody and then you speak to him, let him go, fail to do appropriate investigation, and let the whole thing get stale and inconclusive, then you have confusion (because now the guy is “in hiding” and you get statements from his brother, his father, his friends, his perhaps African American advocate, his long-time neighbors, his detractors, and people in the community who are either afraid of him or creeped out by his behavior or blah blah blah blah blah –
and you have ambiguity because DID he have cuts or bashes on his head or DIDN’T HE and DID he get medical treatment or DIDn’t he and WHEN did he get it and WHO took the pictures and HOW was this done and blah blah blah blah blah –
and you have complexity because everything (who was screaming HELP HELP and who was on top and who did what to whom?) spreads out in concentric circles of craziness until –
WELL WELL WELL, what have we here?
Confusion,
Ambiguity and
Complexity.
As in, “nobody knows what happened” so we have to take George Zimmerman’s word for it?
So really, is that the way to practice law enforcement? Perhaps, but only if you do not want ALL the laws to be enforced, just SOME of the laws SOME of the time.
My point. If this is a freebie killing, anybody can be a freebie killing, just so long as the killer does his killing without witnesses and then throws a tantrum about how scared he was and how he was beaten up. In those circumstances, I would think there would have to be a lot of “passes” for a lot of self defense. Might get out of control.
I write:
“One of the lawyers, or maybe even Gene H, could clarify that.”
Gene responds:
“Now why would I assist someone who called me unethical? That would be inequitable. Since equity is a key component of justice, that would make it unjust. To be unjust is to be unethical.
Sorry.
Answer your own questions.”
Man, you are such a dope. (“straight man, feed, dead wood, or stooge”)
Use your baboon like reading skills and reread what I wrote.
“As in, “nobody knows what happened” so we have to take George Zimmerman’s word for it?”
reasonable doubt, ain’t it a pisser?
Ask Gene H how to do away with that, he’ll just hire some phony crumbum to make up a whole new scientism and blame it on American jurisprudence.
The angles are quite different, too.
In one he is leaning to the right, in the other to the left. The difference is so minute that it’s hard to call it relevant.
Idk.
I get a very sick feeling about the newly released photo. I know many of you detest ‘gut feelings’ and ‘emotional debate’, but since I wasn’t there and don’t have every piece of evidence, it’s all I’ve got. I’m also not a professional in any field relevant to the case, so I’m here as strictly a layman.
So at the risk of being called a ‘bunt’ and having poo thrown at me, I am going to say that this photo is extremely questionable and it reeks of shadyness.
I’m not some crazy, über liberal who wants Zimmerman’s head on a plate, so I’ll clear that up now.
But the fact that he ‘posed’ for these photo’s, appears to be talking on a cellphone when he should be in cuffs, asks a complete stranger to call his wife.. All just a mere 3 minutes after the shooting.. Well… Something is off.. WAY off!
I don’t see these photos being helpful to Zimmerman at all. It may calm the media storm for a bit, but in court, this is going to be torn to shreds!
bfm:
“But to compare her mesmerizing work with these YouTube videos is totally unfair to Riefenstahl.”
*******************
Now that was funny!
Sorry, anon. I don’t speak or read baboon. If that’s what you were writing in, please use standard American English. Your cooperation on these matters is appreciated. What you said was “I honestly don’t know if that’s a mugshot or not, but I presume it could be. One of the lawyers, or maybe even Gene H, could clarify that.” It looks remarkably like English, but I’ll take your word it’s baboon. However, in English, you have presumed correctly that I could clarify whether it was a mug shot or not. You presumed incorrectly that I would. Now if your meaning was something else in baboon? I can’t help you or not help you there until you rephrase it in a language I do speak.
Oh those nose bump photos are just silly. If Zimmerman was so keen on having his head photographed minutes after the shooting, either he or the cops should have had him taken to the E.R. so the whole thing could be properly photographed and documented. His picture two months later whether it is a “booking photo” or a “mug shot” or a shot for him to get work as a nose model proves nothing. You have an undated “before” and a much-later-dated “after.” But Zimmerman left the police station and went HOME that night or early the next a.m. Surely he could have either gone to the hospital or had his wife take a full set of pictures of him with the dates on them. He didn’t try to memorialize anything properly because he didn’t think he had to; the cops worked it out so there wouldn’t be a fuss about what had happened. It wasn’t until the story broke into the big news that the situation changed. At that point, it would have been possible (while he was “in hiding” to avoid being killed by some person who might have thought he was a suspicious asshole, presumably) to make changes in his nose shape, if indeed there ARE changes in his nose shape.
[return]
[return]
I just shot someone dead after being beaten into almost unconsciousness. Here stranger, take a shot of my injuries and call my wife.
Uhhhhhhh
From a foundational point of view only two people we know about (obviously defendant Zimmerman couldn’t see them) saw the “gashes” the defendant is claiming. Zimmerman’s dad says he saw two vertical ones the next day. That’s not what I see in the picture. The other person is the photographer who refuses to be identified. Right now it’s interesting but decidedly inadmissible without more proof of authenticity.
beccs1980:
“I just shot someone dead after being beaten into almost unconsciousness. Here stranger, take a shot of my injuries and call my wife.
Uhhhhhhh”
****************
Uncommonly good common sense. This guy has been setting up his defense since moments after the killing. I am so upset … so upset ,,, really upset. Hey you take a picture of my head, will ya?
Sounds like guilty mind to me.
I’m far more interested to learn who the photographer is.. And if he knew Zimmerman personally. To me, it really appears as though he does.
I can’t imagine a confused, wobbly, half beaten man approaching ( or being approached) by a stranger and asking him to call his wife after posing for a photograph.
It just doesn’t register with me.
I feel as though I’m missing something.. As though I’m in a bizarre twilight zone.
@malisha, don’t forget the curious incident with the dog.
Anon, I did not say that the conclusion “we don’t know what happened so we have to take Zimmerman’s word for it” is the logical conclusion or the standard for trial. Quite the opposite. I was referring to that as the defense banner for the bloggers and talkers, like you and me, but not like me. For me, I think the trial will cover, besides “Zimmerman’s word for it,” at least the following:
Careful analysis of the events according to ALL recordings made that night on all police lines, all other phone or other lines (including the call from Zimmerman’s cell to his wife as the photographer possibly took the alleged possible picture of his possible injuries), distances, markings, etc.
Real results of verified interviews with all witnesses whether they witnessed sight, sound or other perceptions that night.
Interviews of the actual EMTs who were on the scene that night. !!!
Careful evaluation of the autopsy report.
Real results of all prior contacts Zimmerman had with the police.
In-depth interviews of all doctors, employers, psychologists or treatment providers of any type, etc. etc. etc. regarding Zimmerman.
In-depth interviews of all teachers, friends, relatives, and others who knew Trayvon Martin, to find out if he ever had a history of making unprovoked attacks upon people who were not threatening or assaulting HIM.
and many many etceteras.
We do NOT have to take Zimmerman’s word for it. The reason I mentioned the confusion, ambiguity and complexity issue was to show that there was good defense-team incentive to throw as many red herrings into the thing as possible to make it look possible for Zimmerman to get a “walk” on this — so that the public opinion, that the police screwed up big-time and probably on purpose, and that Wolfinger is corrupt at best and whatever is worse than that at worst, can be turned around in time for the survival of these departments as they presently are.
Nobody has to take the word of Zimmerman for what happened. Confusion can be overcome and if the prosecutors are half decent it will be. Ambiguity does not really exist and so far, has only been introduced by anonymous witnesses and a few who gave their names and then either quickly retreated (Taafe) or got humiliated off the screen (Oliver). And complexity is just something that a jury of Zimmerman’s peers will grapple with. We do not really know how they will come out. They might get overwhelmed with complexity, of course, but then again, they might sort it out together and come to consensus. This is something George Zimmerman and his defense team will have to deal with. Reasonable doubt will have to be reasonable, and we’ll see how it plays out. Remember, Mr. McNeil in Georgia was convicted on facts more sympathetic to him than those presently available in this case, and that conviction was upheld on appeal.
beccs 1980, what makes it even more bizarre is that Zimmerman says to the stranger, “Man, just tell [my wife] that I shot somebody.” And the stranger, instead of running away and calling 911 in a fright, stays there and takes a head shot, which he then does not provide to the police. Um, really? Uh, how did that go again?
I think right after Zimmerman shot Trayvon that his friend Sasquatch came over and broke his nose and cut his head to make it look like self defense. I then think that his friend Sasquatch snapped a photo and turned it over to the police later on in the case to complete the conspiracy theory.
Matt, OK, sounds rational, except that SASQUATCH did not want to give his name, and also, did not give the photograph to the police who were evaluating the situation that night. Why not? Just because he never wants to be seen, like Mr. Snuffle-uppagus?
Oh, about Duke Lacrose and Tawana Brawley? There was no dead body in either “case.” There was no admission by a shooter or alleged shooter (or other alleged perp) in either case that they had actually done something that COULD be considered a crime if motivated by anything other than the finest motives. That is, in those two cases, there was only “he said she said” evidence, nothing more. In the Trayvon Martin case, there was Trayvon Martin, DEAD, and George Zimmerman saying, “I shot him…but…”
As Peter Pan said to Michael, “lovelier thoughts, Michael!”
Malisha, Don’t try to complicate the reasonable POINT that the Tawana Brawley & Duke Lacrosse cases were brought up by others. The details of the cases are not the point.
The RUSH TO JUDGEMENT by black activists and our ‘yellowed’ media pundits IS the POINT. Both, by the way, having their own motivations behind their very public accusations . Later to be found FALSE.
Yes there is sadly to say a dead body in this case and that can never change. Its POSSIBLE that Zimmerman did act in self-defense and for many of you to accuse him of being a cold hearted racist killer without knowing all the facts is despicable deplorable and un-American.
Now the photo comparison of Zimmerman’s profiles have been posted here ,,thanks to those that had posted them.
Those pictures show a DISTINCTIVE change in the appearance of his nose. Of course the photos could not make any conclusions alone but they add to the possibility that Zimmerman WAS struck when you connect it to the bloodied head photo of Zimmerman.That is of course if these photos are backed up with the FACTS that we will be provided later. Have you known anyone who had had a broken nose before? I have..and the difference is the same as those pics.
Back to why i posted this comment. Malisha you are very WRONG for that last comment of yours . The reason those 2 cases were brought up here is the public handling and presentations by the YELLOW MEDIA AND BLACK ACTIVISTS. Not the details of each.
Rebecca,
We may never know what the nose looked like that night. And perhaps Zimmerman has a medical report describing the nose soon after the incident. Time and court proceedings will tell.
I do see a bump in the after picture. But I am pretty sure my x-wife has given me a worse bump on more than one occasion.
Of course she was 5’1″ with red hair and an Irish temper, so don’t even get me started on whether I feared for my personal safety.
BTW, I want to state for the record, I never went to the doctor and I did not shoot her.
@Rebecca, Beccs1980: Who asks a random stranger to call his wife and goes on to pose for a headshot?
I am not in the habit of defending Zimmerman and I think Zimmerman is guilty of murder and I hope a jury sends him to prison.
That said: Anybody ever involved in any kind of “incident” knows that police work is really rather boring, if there is no particular threat to life or health a great deal of time goes by with cops taking forever to get anything done. It isn’t like TV, the detective doesn’t rush over with sirens wailing and find the key piece of evidence in 30 seconds.
Under those circumstances, a guy involved in the incident, whether innocent or guilty, has time to contemplate his future. If he thinks the cops are failing to pay attention to his injuries or document them, and they have taken his phone/camera, he might well ask a stranger to take a picture, call his wife, whatever. And that is not a bad instinct. Cops miss things, investigators can be incompetent, and having a picture you can testify was from the scene is better than words alone.
Ditto for getting your wife involved immediately; I would do that too. No telling how long before I got my phone call, and if my wife is expecting me and I am more than two hours late and haven’t called and I am not answering my phone, she is going to panic and start calling emergency rooms.
Zimmerman was not wrong to obtain picture of his injuries at the scene, and not wrong to have his wife called, and I do not find this behavior damning in the least. I DO think he is guilty of murder, for other reasons, but this particular behavior is innocuous, it is the behavior of anybody whose mind is whirling while being detained, innocent or guilty he would seize upon any opportunity to take some action. Even with a complete stranger with a cell phone.
The ONLY commonsense mentioned and used within the last 2 postings- “Time and court proceedings will tell”
All else is SPECULATIVE and biased thinking.
@ Bosco: You said:
Its POSSIBLE that Zimmerman did act in self-defense and for many of you to accuse him of being a cold hearted racist killer without knowing all the facts is despicable deplorable and un-American.
Chill, Bosco. “It is POSSIBLE that Zimmerman did act in self-defense” —
Right off the bat, I do not concede that at all. It is POSSIBLE that he committed manslaughter after getting the worse part of a physical altercation that resulted from his aggression against a stranger, I do concede that. But when you see someone out in public, who is not threatening you, but you don’t like them, you follow them, you then have something to do with them [we do not know this part] and then shoot them dead, and then do not call 911 to report their injury or death immediately so help can arrive quickly, I don’t think you can make out a case for self-defense. At the very least, you have shown depraved indifference for their life. Mr. McNeil in Georgia wasn’t able to get off on self-defense when he was witnessed shooting someone advancing on him with a knife!
“and for many of you to accuse him of being a cold hearted racist killer without knowing all the facts is despicable deplorable and un-American.”
Woah. The media, the 75% of America that wanted George Zimmerman tried, and the folks on this thread whose comments you have despised and deplored ALL have said that the STATE should have accused Zimmerman NOT of “being” a cold-hearted racist killer or of “BEING” anything else. There is a very big difference between “being” and “doing” and that is the province of criminal law. You don’t charge someone with “being a cold-hearted racist killer” or of “being a soft-hearted non-racist self-defending killer” or of “being a criminally responsible manslaughterer of unknown psychological character” or of “being bad” or “being not good enough.” You charge him with a crime that has been written down by the legislature and you charge him with violating that statute in a certain way. SO those of us who believe that blood on Zimmerman’s head, whether it is really his blood or not, whether it was put on his head by slams against concrete or not, whether it implicated a dead man with murderous intent against Zimmerman or not, is not relevant to whether or not Zimmerman violated the criminal law of Florida are stating our opinion — some of us quite vigorously — and that is the essence of the American way. For you to adopt a position that we are becoming un-American by availing ourselves of the rights guaranteed to us under the First Amendment to the US Constitution is even curiouser than the case of the dog in the night-time.
Malisha,
This response of yours is a perfect example of the biased mentality going on here. Ill try to break it down.
you said-”..that resulted from his aggression against a stranger”
YOU were not there..you do NOT know that Zimmerman was being aggressive. Stepping out of a car to see what may be is not a clear definition of aggression. I’m not saying he wasn’t aggressive because i do not know. You on the other hand have made that decision in your mind without ALL the facts.
you said-”..when you see someone out in public, who is not threatening you, but you don’t like them… and then shoot them dead, and then do not call 911 to report their injury or death immediately…”
First of all, how do you KNOW Zimmerman did not like Martin? He may not have liked Martin’s alleged actions when he saw him, but we don’t know who he likes or dislikes. You say he didn’t like him,,why? Are you suggesting that he is a racist?
secondly, in re to the non call to 911 you accuse him of. It is public RECORD that Zimmerman knew the police were on their way! Also to add, i am sure that a tragedy like that effects us all differently. You nor i can pass judgement on those who have gone through something like that.
you said-”..75% of America that wanted George Zimmerman tried”
What data are you getting that number from? I don’t disagree because it is imperative that Zimmerman be given a FAIR trial .
Lastly you said-”..the folks on this thread whose comments you have despised ..”
Now you are passing judgement on me?
I do not despise ANYONE here. I respect opinions even if i do not agree. My words to not show hatred but in your biased mind I’m sure it does.
The rest of what you had to say is one-sided and boring.
@Bosco: All else is SPECULATIVE and biased thinking.
No it isn’t. I heard the tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call, I am not speculating about that. I heard the tape of Trayvon’s girlfriend and what she said, I am not speculating about that.
As for “biased” thinking, there is no such thing as unbiased thinking. The whole point of thinking is to determine how firmly one believes each potential sequence of events, to determine how plausible the different scenarios are. The whole point of thinking is to become biased!
If you are using “biased” as a code-word for “race-based,” that is not true either. I can easily believe that one person killed another person with malice completely unrelated to race. I do not have to believe Zimmerman was a racist to believe he stalked and killed someone he stereotyped as a “punk.” Existential rage can settle into any skin color or gender.
@Bosco
“This response of yours is a perfect example of the biased mentality going on here. Ill try to break it down.
you said-”..that resulted from his aggression against a stranger”
YOU were not there..you do NOT know that Zimmerman was being aggressive. Stepping out of a car to see what may be is not a clear definition of aggression.”
This response of yours is a perfect example of the biased mentality going on here. Ill try to break it down.
“Stepping out of a car to see what may be is not a clear definition of aggression.”
Perhaps because it was dark, Zimmerman did not notice that he was wearing Seven-league boots and that when he stepped from his car, that his foot landed a considerable distance along a path leading away from the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-league_boots
@ Bosco — YOU said that people on the thread were saying (maybe you even said thinking) in a way that was “despicable, deplorable and un-American.”
Despicable? That comes from the verb “to despise.”
Deplorable? That comes from the verb “to deplore.”
Where did I get you wrong, man?
AND — Yes I DO know that Zimmerman didn’t like Martin, after calling him an asshole and [at least] a punk. Am I to presume Zimmerman liked assholes and punks?
AND — Yes I DO know that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I know that he said Martin was “get[ting] away” and then he admitted to following him. That’s per se aggression. It wasn’t like Martin had stolen his purse and he was running after him to get it back.
AND — OK, I do biased thinking. VERY biased thinking. I think the things I choose to think and want to think based on my own attitudes, history, intellect, and opinions. Yeah, I’d say that was biased. See, the Censor is not yet allowed to tell me how to think and how not to think. So I think biased. When they pass that law that says I’m no longer allowed to just think what I want to think, but have to amend my thinking to think what I really SHOULD think, and the enforcement of that law requires that I be placed in a “re-education” or “rehabilitation” camp so that I will stop thinking biasedly, that will be time for me to eat my gun — oh wait a minute, I don’t own a gun. Oh well, nevermind, I’ll just go for a stroll in a hoodie. Somebody with a gun will find me.
When i said “..accuse him of being a cold hearted racist killer without knowing all the facts is despicable deplorable and un-American”
All REFERRING to a persons ACTIONS and not of the person he or she, themselves
Without knowing me personally, how is it that you can define it any other way? Your putting words into my mouth which is unfair.
And this statement-”If you are using “biased” as a code-word for “race-based,” that is not true either.” is just plain >stupid<.
the word biased meaning-
'particular tendency or inclination'
YOU are injecting a 'race-based' ideology to what i said.
Which is WRONG despicable and deplorable.
Just as you would absolutely decide without all the info and facts that Zimmerman killed Martin just because he was black.
Shame on you without having all the facts to your disposal.
Malisha,
“AND — OK, I do biased thinking. VERY biased thinking. I think the things I choose to think and want to think based on my own attitudes, history, intellect, and opinions. Yeah, I’d say that was biased. See, the Censor is not yet allowed to tell me how to think and how not to think. So I think biased. When they pass that law that says I’m no longer allowed to just think what I want to think, but have to amend my thinking to think what I really SHOULD think, and the enforcement of that law requires that I be placed in a “re-education” or “rehabilitation” camp so that I will stop thinking biasedly, that will be time for me to eat my gun — oh wait a minute, I don’t own a gun. Oh well, nevermind, I’ll just go for a stroll in a hoodie. Somebody with a gun will find me.”
*****
Don’t you know that a person is only allowed to biased on one side of the issue?
*****
Bosco said;
“secondly, in re to the non call to 911 you accuse him of. It is public RECORD that Zimmerman knew the police were on their way!”
Did Zimmerman know that police were on their way to investigate a shooting? Did Zimmerman call for paramedics? Did he know paramedics were on their way?
@Bosco: On the contrary, I do not assume Zimmerman killed Trayvon because he was black. I think he killed Trayvon because he was a paranoid asshole and Trayvon was a teenager casually sight-seeing a neighborhood in the rain, and Zimmerman’s paranoia interpreted that as Trayvon looking for trouble. I think Zimmerman profiled Trayvon as a criminal, and I have no idea how much race entered into that calculation; I think a white kid or Hispanic kid or Chinese kid dressed the same and acting the same (and also doing nothing wrong) could well have aroused Zimmerman’s unfounded paranoid suspicions the same.
What I think is that Zimmerman thought he could play the gun-fighting town marshal and run the punks out of town, and he stalked Trayvon, confronted or cornered him, and out of fear Trayvon fought back and got the upper hand. Then Zimmerman panicked and shot Trayvon, because Zimmerman was not his fantasy town marshal, he was a coward with a gun pretending to be a big man, and had never had to do anything before but show his gun to make punks run. But that does not make his actions self-defense, he was the aggressor, and losing a fight you started does not let you claim self-defense. THAT is what I think, that Zimmerman’s intent was the same as any bully, intimidation to make himself feel important and powerful, and that escalated to murder because he never expected anybody to fight back.
@ Elaine M — thanks for clear thinking, biased though it was!
Zimmerman “knew” that the police were coming out to investigate a suspicious looking asshole who was trying to run away toward the back entrance of the neighborhood. After he shot Martin, he presumably did not know whether Martin was dead or not, but apparently told two female witnesses to call the police (no mention of ambulances) and told another witness with a cell phone to call his wife (neither police nor ambulance) and take a picture of his head. Maybe. That witness has not been identified I think. It is strange that the witness who took the picture was not mentioned in the police report filed by Officer Ayala. To me it sounds like depraved indifference. Martin could have been alive at this time, bleeding out onto the ground. Had he gotten transfusions and been rushed to the ER, IF he was still alive while these things happened, might he not have possibly survived to tell the tale?
Why would Zimmerman ask someone to call his wife?
Is this that difficult to answer?
What is wrong with you people?
“THAT is what I think, that Zimmerman’s intent was the same as any bully, intimidation to make himself feel important and powerful, and that escalated to murder because he never expected anybody to fight back.” (Tony C)
And then, like so many bullies, he whined … “Daddy!!”
Did daddy respond using undue influence? Now that the justice system has fully engaged Zimmerman, the shooter, that is the question I want answered.
@Blouise: My opinion of the justice system is that their typical response is far too little, far too late. Chief Clancy Wiggum (Simpson’s) says in a lazy moment, “Why can’t anybody in this town take the law into their own hands?” I think most of the real police force is similarly un-motivated.
In my view publicity brings the appropriate response, because publicity endangers those at the top that have to run for office, and they in turn threaten the jobs of the police force that would rather ignore routine cases that won’t get them any career points. In this particular case, they just did not realize Trayvon Martin would not be a routine case. But it did reveal their routine treatment, and that is an embarrassment, so now they will proceed sticking meticulously to the book. Unfortunately, that is how our world sucks, for every Trayvon for whom justice is served, there are a hundred for whom justice was too much bother, and the media only has so much bandwidth.
Malisha – “After he shot Martin, he presumably did not know whether Martin was dead or not, but apparently told two female witnesses to call the police (no mention of ambulances) and told another witness with a cell phone to call his wife (neither police nor ambulance) and take a picture of his head.”
When you call 911 what is the first question they ask you? “What is your emergency?” So to say that he had people call 911 (police) and not an ambulance is wrong.
Anon – Let’s say you went out and told your wife that you would be back in a certain amount of time. Let’s also say that something happened (lets say you got hit by a car or hit someone accidently with your car) wouldn’t you want your wife to know and not worry (her)? I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask someone to call your significant other in case of an emergency. Not to mention that (apparently) he asked some other folks to call 911 also.
Blouise – That is the most asinine comment. Would you not go to your own family (whether your family member is a judge or not) asking for advice as to what you should do? I personally think that any “right minded” person would say yes to that question. I go to my father for advice all the time, on anything. I trust my family’s opinion and advice at all times.
“Did daddy respond using undue influence? Now that the justice system has fully engaged Zimmerman, the shooter, that is the question I want answered.”
Since asinine is a synonym for foolish, I’d say there is nothing foolish at all about Blouise’s question given that Zimmerman’s father was a Magistrate and his son mysteriously went initially uncharged in a situation where anyone else would have been charged. The proper adjective for Blouise’s question would be “pertinent” or “relevant” or even “proper”, but it is mostly certainly not a foolish question. It goes to the broader question of corruption, undue influence and/or judicial/prosecutorial/police incompetence that created the initial injustice proper in the first place – namely that Zimmerman was about to get a walk instead of charged.
Malisha (especially) and everyone else – I might also add that the photo was taken by a witness that “tells ABC exclusively that he heard Martin and Zimmerman fight before the shooting and that after Martin was killed, a wobbly Zimmerman asked the photographer to call his wife.”
Gene – There could be a question of “special treatment,” but was Zimmerman quoted as saying “My dad is a judge,” or more along the lines of “I’d like to talk to my dad for advice?” Nobody knows except for who was in the police station that night. Either way, police are not going to listen to the “my dad is a judge” story from anybody. People are pulled over all the time and state things like “My brother, mother, father, uncle, etc. is a cop, lawyer, judge, etc.” and they still recieve a ticket or are taken away in cuffs. So in this case of killing someone, especially this case, they are absolutely NOT going to let the person walk because they know someone in criminal justice.
Matt,
You apparently don’t understand how influence works. There could be a question of special treatment. End of sentence. Whether Zimmerman himself proffered the “my dad is a judge” story is irrelevant to the appearance of impropriety created when the police wanted to charge him and the prosecutors cut him loose under circumstances where anyone else would have been charged as standard operating procedure. Recall that the prosecutor responsible for cutting Zimmerman loose has “stepped aside”. This further adds to the apprearance of impropriety. It was only after media attention forced the issue that another prosecutor stepped in and charges were filed – as they should have been in the first place.
Sorry. Your apologetics and evasion on this issue simply don’t hold water.
The question of undue influence is at the heart of the narrowly avoided injustice that was about to be perpetrated by lettting Zimmerman walk.
Matt, Anon, whoever else it is who has been calling all the opinions and questions coming from those who disagree with their take on this “asinine” or “foolish” or [words to that effect], here’s the thing: We have different questions from yours. We also prefer to get information from people who identify themselves and show what they know, without becoming “mystery men” who jump into a case two months after the fact with photographs and stories they think magically make all things clear — though they did not provide those photographs and stories to the police who showed up at the crime scene that night. I mean, it’s just a bit weird that there was debate for three weeks about a video showing a mark on the CROWN of Zimmerman’s head and the blogs were buzzing and the newscasters were intoning their serious talking points and the debates were on and blah blah and how much blood does a woodchuck bleed if a woodchuck does chuck blood and on and on ad nauseam and…
and…
and…
[notice all the nice carriage returns that occur when I press the "Enter" key]
and…
THEN a picture is “given” [passive voice] to ABC News [uh...not the prosecutor deciding whether or not to draw charges? uh...not the cops?] that was apparently or allegedly (or both) taken minutes after the shooting, ON THE SCENE, by someone who saw something and never mentioned it before? I am to believe him?
Not just am I not to believe the guy who does not reveal his name or appear on Fox News for an interview, but there’s more: I am to say, to myself and then, very contritely on this blog so you can approve of my appropriate self-correction: “Oh, he DID have blood on his head? … Well then I guess he killed in self-defense. I mean, it follows as night follows day. So sorry I got it all wrong at first, my bad.”
Huh? Is that how it’s supposed to go?
Let me tell you what I think that’s SIMILAR TO, or if you will, ANALOGOUS TO, OK?
I think that’s analogous to Zimmerman thinking this:
“Suspicious guy. hmm. What’s up with him? Probably on drugs or something. Hmmm. Up to no good. Therefore up to bad. Needs me to stop the bad, whatever it is. Needs me to correct him, get him corrected, get him apprehended, punished, dealt with properly. Uh oh, getting away. Uh oh, running. Damn. Asshole. Shit, these assholes always get away. Fucking [whatever]. Damn, he’s gone. Oh no, there he is. Now I’ll approach. He will see my authority; I’m the captain. Hey punk, what are you doing here?” and it’s like Zimmerman thinking that Trayvon Martin should have then looked at him, realized his authority was undeniable, and should have said, words to the effect of: “Yessir, what is it I can do for you?” Whereupon, Zimmerman, seeing that at least the asshole punk was respectful, might have been able to question him properly, as in: “You look suspicious to me. Put your hands up in the air where I can see them.” ANd then he might have thought Martin should have said, “Yessir, I am unarmed and I mean no harm,” while obediently raising his hands to show that he was unarmed.
Etc.
See, guys, your wanting me to change my own view of what happened because you tell or show me something YOU FEEL ends the story and should end the debate doesn’t actually RULE. It does not actually count for much at all. I can still be what you would call recalcitrant and I can still deny the “truth” of what you think you should be able to declare as undeniable. That, gentlemen, is NOT unAmerican, that is, actually, very American, at least so far, at least on this blog.
And I thank Professor Turley sincerely for that.
Gene – It’s not an “end of sentence.” I said there could be a question of special treatment, BUT…(keyword=BUT)…you, along with no one else even knows what anyone said in the police station besides who was there that night.
You said: “when the police wanted to charge him and the prosecutors cut him loose under circumstances where anyone else would have been charged as standard operating procedure.”
All persons who were there that night DENY that an affidavit requesting the arrest of Zimmerman was ever brought forward or signed. Two of the detectives that were there that night have even said the rumor that was going around that there was a conversation about one of the detectives wanting Zimmerman arrested was a downright lie. The reason that the Chief of police stepped aside was because he was getting flack from the PUBLIC (protesters, Al Sharpton, Reverend Jackson) about him NOT arresting Zimmerman, NOT because (in the eyes of other officers in the police department) he did something wrong.
Malisha – You must also realize that a lot of what we saw (evidence) when this entire case first made the news was never supposed to have been released. It was even stated by multiple people involved in this case that everyone should wait until the evidence came out in the trial. The problem with evidence coming out to early is that is can be “scewed” or “be shown in the wrong context.” The media, in my opinion, showed a lot of what has already come out “in the wrong context.” It’s not a mystery. Most likely what it was (again….my opinion) was that the photos were given to Zimmermans attorney a while ago but was not released until now, during the court hearing.
And, in my opinion, was done that way to protect his client (Zimmerman) and this case from becoming a mistrial.
Malisha,
Here’s a tip for you.
“[notice all the nice carriage returns that occur when I press the "Enter" key]”
Whenever you feel the need to press “Enter”, PRESS IT TWICE.
Whitespace. It’s not just a conspiracy against African-Americans.
It makes your grey goo much easier to read.
Matt,
The appearance of impropriety may not matter to you, but it should.
As to your claims?
“Sanford cops wanted to charge Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin case
By Frances Robles
Miami Herald
Updated: 9:16 a.m. Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Posted: 7:04 a.m. Wednesday, March 28, 2012
SANFORD — Despite public claims that there wasn’t enough probable cause to make a criminal case in the Trayvon Martin killing, early in the investigation the Sanford Police Department requested an arrest warrant from the Seminole County State Attorney’s office, the special prosecutor in the case told The Miami Herald on Tuesday.
A Sanford Police incident report shows the case was categorized as “homicide/negligent manslaughter.”
The state attorney’s office held off pending further review, The Miami Herald has learned.” [emphasis added]
The same facts are also being reported by other outlets.
Where is your proof that no arrest warrant was requested?
I don’t want to hear “but, but, but . . . ” either.
Hey Elaine–your words-
“Did Zimmerman know that police were on their way to investigate a shooting? Did Zimmerman call for paramedics? Did he know paramedics were on their way?”
Elaine ,,you seem to have ‘MISSED’ inserting the prevalent part of my statement–
“… to add, i am sure that a tragedy like that effects us all differently. You nor i can pass judgement on those who have gone through something like that.”
Matt, thank you for also clearing up and adding to that segment regarding the shooting and also for pointing out how people here can TWIST/SLAM EVERYTHING on this thread due to their BIASED point of view.
A lot of the comments here ill pass over because they are so obviously slanted in their view.
SOME here would also bash, us,the people who wants only all the facts to be presented to the public and FAIRNESS to be given to everyone involved in this tragedy BEFORE any judgement is made.
IF Zimmerman is truly a racist killer then he should be put away forever.
IF its PROVEN that Zimmerman had UNFORTUNATELY shot Martin because he was defending himself ,being beaten as we have heard, the people that convicted him early on in their minds should have some sense of SHAME.
@Everyone, whenever I’ve shot and killed somebody, and especially those times it was in self-defense or just negligence on my part, I’ve always made it a point to arrange to have my lawyer and consigliere meet me at the jail and usually with a shit ton of untraceable, chemically clean bills.
As your afternoon exercise, put the name and phone number of a good, local, defense attorney you know or have heard of in your smartphone. Possibly tattoo it on the inside of a finger, maybe opposite your finger moustache.
This might be useful even if you are only arrested for an unpaid traffic ticket.
I still don’t understand why you folks can’t figure out why Zimmerman asked someone to call his wife and tell her what happened.
Is “scewed” a word?
Gene – “early in the investigation the Sanford Police Department requested an arrest warrant from the Seminole County State Attorney’s office, the special prosecutor in the case told The Miami Herald on Tuesday.”
I apologize, I misspoke, what I was talking about was that it was false that an afidavit was signed and brought forward.
“The state attorney’s office held off pending further review, The Miami Herald has learned.”
Hence, the investigation went on from there. Zimmerman was released while a review of the details were reviewed and further investigated. What I was stating before was that it was reported that there was “one detective that thought Zimmerman should be charged,” but all the other officers said, nope, we don’t believe that to be the case.
Elaine – My bad, skewed.
See, I thought you meant “screwed” but without the laughs. Arr, arr, arr.
“Hence, the investigation went on from there.”
Only after media brought attention to the case. Zimmerman was not charged until another prosecutor entered the fray and likely would not have been charged unless another prosecutor had entered the fray.
As to your claim, “What I was stating before was that it was reported that there was ‘one detective that thought Zimmerman should be charged,’ but all the other officers said, nope, we don’t believe that to be the case.”
Where was that reported? By whom?
@Matt: As Gene said, you do not understand how influence works. It does not have to be explicit or requested; word travels by radio, and something as innocuous as the name “Zimmerman” can trigger a memory by another cop that there is a judge named Zimmerman, and a quick check on police computers reveals that George is the judge’s son. That information is passed by the whisper network and quiet asides, the kid gloves are donned, and not even George Zimmerman knows why. Heck, the cops on the scene may well have recognized the name and made a quiet inquiry of their own. This is one of the ways cops look out for each other and rookies get educated, is understanding the social network and warning each other of the submerged dangers.
I obviously cannot say that happened, I can say that Gene is right, you do not know how influence works. It is, most frequently, a silent understanding of debts to be paid, not an explicit claim of privilege. Explicit claims like “my dad is a judge” have to be rejected because they could be a setup, they could be recorded, they could be career ending. Only the inept idiot would attempt such an approach, and they do not make good partners in crime. True influence relies on both parties to infer the deal and never mention it; that way no evidence of a quid pro quo can ever be produced, because no such evidence exists.
Hey Gene, “Hence, the investigation went on from there.”
>Only after media brought attention to the case.<
This is the 'popular assumption' by all the anti-Zimmerman people.
Gene, do you know FOR FACT that statement is veritably true or is it an ASSUMPTION?
I do not believe the States attorney would have DROPPED an investigation about a young man who was recently shot and killed.
Matt, can you add to this?
Gene – I apologize (again…lol…DAMNIT) it’s the initial state attorney.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/initial-state-attorney-in-trayvon-martin-case-outraged-by-outright-lies/
State Attorney Norm Wolfinger released a statement on Monday saying he is “outraged by the outright lies” contained in a letter by the family of Trayvon Martin’s attorney asking for a review of his actions with police in Martin’s death investigation.
The Martin family’s attorney, Ben Crump, said he is asking the U.S. Justice Department to review the investigation for possible interference by Wolfinger’s office Sanford police Detective Chris Serino.
Wolfinger released a statement Monday saying he was “outraged by the outright lies contained in the letter…” and he, “encourages the Justice Department to investigate and document that no such meeting or communication occurred.”
“I have been encouraging those spreading the irresponsible rhetoric to stop and allow State Attorney Angela Corey to complete her work,” Wolfinger said. “Another falsehood distributed to the media does nothing to forward that process.”
Bosco,
You mean like your assumption that I’m anti-Zimmerman?
I’m pro-justice. The facts of the matter are that Zimmerman was not charged until another prosecutor came on board. As to the rest, you need to learn what the word “likely” means.
“I do not believe the States attorney would have DROPPED an investigation about a young man who was recently shot and killed.”
Well good for you! Do your beliefs keep you warm at night? Not as much as an actual factual blanket would, I’m sure.
“I have been encouraging those spreading the irresponsible rhetoric to stop and allow State Attorney Angela Corey to complete her work,” Wolfinger said. “Another falsehood distributed to the media does nothing to forward that process.” >HEAR HEAR<
Good posting Matt!!!!
Gene, your obviously not ‘pro-justice’ …not at all…. and im SURE that you sleep very good at night.
Matt,
Are you surprized that Wolfinger would deny any implcation of wrong doing on his part? Do you think his denial is tantamout to proof of his counter-claims? I think the matter merits further investigation.
OK Gene,,answer my earlier question, show me/us PROOF that the states atty DROPPED the investigation. Because if you dont have that proof ,your ASSUMING.
Bosco,
I’m pretty sure I don’t care what your opinion of me might be, Anonymous Bosco. Demanding a suspected killer be charged certainly meets the criteria of justice in my book and just about everyone else’s too so I’m going to go with it as being a pro-justice stance. As to how I sleep? I sleep very well at night or any other time I should sleep. Thanks for your concern.
Gene – but it’s ok for you to believe that the girlfriend is telling the absolute, 100% truth in what she says she heard? Again I ask, do you really think the girlfriend is going to say something that would make her boyfriend out to be the aggressor? Absolutely not. She could be lying through her teeth, but that’s ok to you because she’s on the side of Trayvon. I’m sorry, I have to agree with Bosco, you (and many others that have been posting) are anti-Zimmerman, and rather than wait for facts, you have already given him a guilty verdict.
Bosco.
“show me/us PROOF that the states atty DROPPED the investigation”
The span of time in which no charges were filed and evidence was allowed to slip away by letting Zimmerman walk about uncharged thus compromising the police’s ability to collect evidence and the fact that charges were not brought until a different prosecutor was assigned to the case. This combined with the appearance of impropriety leads to the conclusion that the case was likely dropped. That this is a matter fit for further investigation is something I’ve already stipulated.
However, if you have a question about why this looks bad, you need to look up the term “self-evident”. Res ispa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself.
If you disagree? That’s your opinion and your prerogative. I still say it merits further investigation in to Wolfinger’s actions and why the SOP of charging someone in these circumstance wasn’t followed.
Gene, I feel exactly the same. I DO see though, that you are EVADING the question at hand. What or where is the PROOF to show that the States attorney DROPPED the investigation concerning Martin’s death??
So far you have not answered it or provided us all with that ‘fact’ of yours. Ill say again,,if there is no proof of your allegation then you are making an ASSUMPTION. The only difference here about assumptions is that your only making an ass out of yourself. Don’t go by innuendos or what the yellow media is telling you. So ill ask again Please show me the proof that there WASN’T an investigation ongoing,,even if the police had not arrested Zimmerman at that time.
Gene,,”leads to the conclusion that the case was likely dropped.” is an ASSUMPTION. no more no less.
Even if YOU highlighted LIKELY
Matt,
Prove I’ve said I agree with the girlfriend’s testamony.
I’ve said no such thing. In fact, I don’t recall commenting on her testamony – which technically hasn’t been had yet – in any substantive matter. I may have said it isn’t hearsay, but other than that, I’ve said nothing about it. The veracity of her testamony is up to the jury to decide. Always has been.
You can try to paint me as anti-Zimmerman all you like. It’s simpy not true just because I wanted him charged in circumstances that any other person would have been charged. As to your anonymous opinion of me? I could really give a rat’s ass. This isn’t about me. It’s about determining the facts around the shooting of Martin and Zimmerman’s culpability in that shooting.
You keep trying to muddy those waters though, because clearly your agenda isn’t justice but anti-Martin sentiments. If you were interested in justice, you would have stated things earlier as fact when they weren’t simply to portray Zimmerman in a positive light or Martin in a negative light.
(Reposting) Gene – but it’s ok for you to believe that the girlfriend is telling the absolute, 100% truth in what she says she heard? Again I ask, do you really think the girlfriend is going to say something that would make her boyfriend out to be the aggressor? Absolutely not. She could be lying through her teeth, but that’s ok to you because she’s on the side of Trayvon. I’m sorry, I have to agree with Bosco, you (and many others that have been posting) are anti-Zimmerman, and rather than wait for facts, you have already given him a guilty verdict.
Bosco,
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Apparently so.
Matt,
Asked and answered. Repeating yourself isn’t going to change my answer. It’s going to make me laugh though.
OK Gene,,help me out. SHOW me the proof that the investigation was dropped.
Ok, Bosco. I’ll help you out.
http://www.learntoreadfree.com/
Gene – “You can try to paint me as anti-Zimmerman all you like. It’s simpy not true just because I wanted him charged in circumstances that any other person would have been charged.”
So calling him a murderer before the trial is even a quarter of the way through isn’t “anti-Zimmerman” talk? I’m sorry but that is, you have already damned him as a murderer without ALL of the facts being out.
“It’s about determining the facts around the shooting of Martin and Zimmerman’s culpability in that shooting.”
But you’ve already called him a “murderer.”
“You keep trying to muddy those waters though, because clearly your agenda isn’t justice but anti-Martin sentiments. If you were interested in justice, you would have stated things earlier as fact when they weren’t simply to portray Zimmerman in a positive light or Martin in a negative light.”
I’ve been saying all along that you and everyone else on here should wait until ALL of the facts come out. I’m not muddying the waters, you are. All of your “what if’s” about all the evidence that is out thus far (i.e. I think the photo might look altered or photoshopped) doesn’t help, it hurts the case. I’ve been trying all along to make all of you open your mind to the idea that Zimmerman MAY NOT have been a “cold blooded killer.”
Ah OK,,you ARE going by assumption. No wonder you would try to shift the focus on others. You have NO PROOF that there wasnt an on going investigation afterall. And,yes your an ASS.
“I’ve been trying all along to make all of you open your mind to the idea that Zimmerman MAY NOT have been a “cold blooded killer.” and there is NOTHING WRONG in that.
Bosco – There you go, there’s Genes’ “evasion technique.” LMAO
Gene – If you don’t have a way of proving your point, just be a man and admit that you can’t, instead of pulling stupid shit like this out of your ass
Matt is absolutely correct. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you havent found any evidence of that, Gene. And your an ass.
Bosco – Have you read any of the posts from yesterday. So far I’ve been labeled a “Racist,” “Woman beater,” and “less of a man” because I decide to carry a gun for protection. LMFAO…it’s hilarious how most of the people here are so set on their decision that they want to label everyone else because they disagree with their standpoint.
Matt,
Blah blah blah. I’ve said all along he needs to be charged. He was. Now the matter is up to the courts.
“It’s about determining the facts around the shooting of Martin and Zimmerman’s culpability in that shooting.”
But you’ve already called him a ‘murderer.’”
Really. Because determining Zimmerman’s culpability in that shooting could also mean he’s found innocent.
I refer you to the same site as Bosco.
**************
Bosco,
And you’re just an anonymous half-wit who can’t read. What’s your point? Other than the one on your head?
Let’s start with the basics:
likely \ˈlī-klē\, adj.,
1: having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable
2: apparently qualified : suitable
3: reliable, credible
4: promising
5: attractive
Ergo, from the start, no statement of certainly was made, only a statement of probability. You wanted proof of my statement of probability and I provided it. You demand proof of a statement certain when none was ever made. That’s called moving the goal posts and it’s an informal logical fallacy. As I said before, if you disagree, that’s your opinion and your prerogative. That it differs from mine is irrelevant, just like most of your posts.
Gene – No, earlier throughout the posts you have called him a murderer. Nice try on the “evasion.”
I actually appreciated teh “¿quienes mas macho?” contest and how the important aspect of that thread was not to do away with “¿quienes mas macho?” contests in general, but just to redefine macho such that no hay armas de fuego es más machista que las armas.
Kind of like complaining about the stupidity of dick fights by insisting we use a Minkowski Metric over a ruler so that a penis the size of a black hole can be seen to be best penis.
Stupid thread was stupid.
Sigh.
Should have been “¿quien es mas macho?”
/abashed
“No, earlier throughout the posts you have called him a murderer. Nice try on the “evasion.””
Really, Matt?
Because a search will show that until you mentioned the word “murderer”, that none of my posts contain that word. Others may have, but I didn’t. Nice try on the straw man.
Bosco, Matt, Malisha here: I AM ANTI-ZIMMERMAN and proud of it. I would never pretend not to be and I would never pretend to be impartial so that I could sit on a jury. If I were (god forbid) a judge I would recuse myself from the case. But why should I be or pretend to be ashamed of being anti-Zimmerman? I WON’T. You go ahead and paint me as anti-Zimmerman as you like, you won’t get any protest from me on that count. Since when is being “anti-Zimmerman” some kind of misdemeanor, huh?
Here’s exactly why I am anti-Zimmerman:
I don’t think anybody with Zimmerman’s lack of credentials has the right to set himself up as the police-like authority to identify and target people he — without any knowledge — decides are “suspicious.”
I don’t think anybody with Zimmerman’s lack of credentials has the right to choose to follow someone he has presumed was an “asshole” and/or a “punk” (or worse) when that act of following the person could very well scare the person and deprive him of his life interest in walking down a street lawfully and peaceably.
I don’t think anybody who calls a stranger an “asshole” and a “punk” (or worse) is my kind of person at all; I am anti-that-person, almost automatically, because anybody who calls a stranger (who has done NOTHING TO HIM) an “asshole” or a “punk” (or worse) is prejudiced and probably pretty high on the “bully” scale.
I don’t think anybody who has just SHOT SOMEONE IN THE CHEST and then thinks only of himself and not of his victim is deserving of very much of my sympathy or empathy or concern. Let him go to his own family for that; my sympathies are with the victim of his gun and his temper.
I don’t think that in general, a man who files a “corresponding restraining order” against a woman who just filed a “restraining order” against him is likely to be an abused man; in my opinion he is far more likely to be a very defensive abuser. Happens all the time. Fortunately or unfortunately, most women who file these restraining orders that are met with “back at you” restraining orders by the men they seek protection from are just as happy to get away and leave well enough alone, so they either don’t want to fight their point or they can’t spend the money, time and effort on proving that ONLY the man was abusive and they were not co-abusers.
I don’t think that in general, a guy who has caused some of his neighbors to worry about his gun-toting cowboy he-man bluster and who, according to his friend and neighbor, is “fed up,” is the right person to accurately and truthfully describe the events that took place on a night when he killed an unarmed teen-aged boy he had never met and who was not committing any crime at the time that he died.
THERE. I am anti-Zimmerman. OK? You want to convince me that any of the above REASONS that I am anti-Zimmerman are wrong? Why bother? I am not the judge and I can’t serve on the jury. You disagree with me, so you are not anti-Zimmerman. I’ll bet that I’m plenty of other things that you’re not, too, and that’s OK with me.
Blah blah blah, Gene. You spent a lot of time typing all for the purpose of evading the key question.
Making a statement claiming that there was no ongoing investigation until the media stepped in is irresponsible at best. People follow Ass’s like you because you speak as if what your saying is FACTUAL , when you yourself are only PARROTING the likes of Sharpton,Jackson and much of the yellowed media pundits.
Now if you had proof to show that the state was NOT investigating this tragedy it would be a different ball game.
Hey Matt, did you spend ANY time to read Malisha’s slanted comment? I didn’t ..
Malisha are you misspelling ‘Malicious’ as your user name?
Bosco,
You’re funny when you’re flustered. Again, I refer you to my original statement: “Zimmerman was not charged until another prosecutor entered the fray and likely would not have been charged unless another prosecutor had entered the fray.” [emphasis added]
and the meaning of the word “likely”:
likely \ˈlī-klē\, adj.,
1: having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable
2: apparently qualified : suitable
3: reliable, credible
4: promising
5: attractive
You can try to distort what I said into a statement of certainty all you like but the plain language of my words are in terms of probability. I assume that most readers – unlike you – actually understand the words that they read or will consult a dictionary if they do not.
Bosco – I don’t waste my time reading her posts because they are 100% biased, I can’t take her seriously. She has been fully sucked in by the awful lies, no, outright lies the media has put out there. There is no saving Malisha, she has joined the “public outrage” so bad that I feel IF Zimmerman walks (which I don’t believe will happen because I think the court will try and appease the public, such as Malisha) I think she might be one of the first people searching for Zimmerman on command from the black panther movement.
Gene – “3: reliable, credible”
I don’t find you to be that at all because you can’t even find something to back up your statement.
One does not have to be “anti-Zimmerman” to want to see that justice is done. It has nothing to do with bias. A teenager is shot to death and no one is charged with killing him. The person who shot him is set free because he said he killed the victim in self-defense. So…you shoot and kill someone and just tell police it was self-defense and that’s the end of it? I’d be mighty upset if I were Trayvon parents. I’d want to know what happened on the night my child was killed.
And I don’t care what you find me, Matt, since you keep trying to argue in a dishonest manner. Just as now you attempt to make the argument about me instead of my statements which you cannot impeach because you have no leg to stand on. That’s called ad hominem attack and the legitimate use of the tactic is very very narrow. In most applications, it’s simply a logical fallacy, as it is now. Speaking of credibility though, how about the fact you’ve made three claims (the request of an arrest warrant, conflating the accusations against Wolfinger into something they were not, and saying I called Zimmerman a murderer earlier in the thread when I did not) that have been proven false?
I think I’ll test my credibility against yours at this point.
You feel free to flounder some more though.
Matt, you’re an EMT right? don’t you find it odd that Zimmerman wasn’t transported to the hospital after having is head bashed into the sidewalk?
And what Elaine said.
Gene – “Speaking of credibility though, how about the fact you’ve made three claims (the request of an arrest warrant, conflating the accusations against Wolfinger into something they were not, and saying I called Zimmerman a murderer earlier in the thread when I did not) that have been proven false?”
Yes, I have backed up my statements with proof (minus the you calling him a murderer) because I have other things I’m doing at the same time and I, truthfully, don’t have time to look up through 500+ comments to find the one time you called Zimmerman a murderer.
C.Everett Kook – Personally, I would have wanted to transport someone who was claiming that. Ultimately, it is not my decision to make, if the patient refuses then I cannot do anything and I have them sign a refusal form stating that they wish to not be transported to the hospital. After questioning at the police station Zimmerman was quoted as saying, “I want to go to the hospital,” and in fact he did go. Unfortunately, there have been no EMS reports or hospital reports that have been released, rightfully so. So in answer to your question, no, I do not believe it is odd that he didn’t get transported to the hospital.
Allow me to correct you Gene,,“Zimmerman was not arrested by the police BUT the States attorney’s office DID NOT DROP any investigation.
You say that I am ‘flustered’? Haha.. .another ASSUMPTION of yours..Just as you had labeled Matt as you did.
I’ll also add this for all of you. What gave Zimmerman the right to shoot Trayvon? Because he was being attacked by Trayvon (as a witness stated, not to mention it was in his front yard). You all say that the injuries you see above do not look that bad, (in my opinion they do, but that’s me) therefore the attack must not have been that bad. It’s not a matter of the injuries he did recieve, it’s a matter of what the injuries COULD have been had the attack gone on much longer.
Zimmerman being attacked is enough cause for him to shoot the person, especially since Zimmerman was unsure what Trayvon had. If all of you were in the same situation as him, would you have waited to see what he had before you decided to shoot him? Any reasonable person (including cops) would say no, I wouldn’t wait, because that one millisecond of “what if” could be one millisecond between life and death.
There is not one person here,,given the same set of circumstances, that would not have done whatever it took to save their own lives. ( Being battered and your head slammed into cement )
If its proven that what happened between the two is as Zimmerman said it happened that is.
It will be interesting to hear what the witnesses say under oath (if it gets to trial) and if that will change any of the opinions being expressed here.).
I agree with you 100% leejcaroll.
I cant wait to hear and see the medical report on Zimmerman’s injuries, full autopsy report on Martin, all the photos related to the shooting etc etc.
Hey ,,maybe one day we will SEE Martin’s most RECENT photos of him just prior to that terrible night.
Leejcaroll – IF Zimmerman is found not guilty and walks, everyone that feels he is guilty now will feel the exact same way they do now because they have been brainwashed by the media who displayed Zimmerman as a criminal and Trayvon as a 13 year old boy. Everyones opinion will stay the same. Most likely, because of the coverage this case has gotten, now February 27th will be “Trayvon Day.” lol
Matt,
“Yes, I have backed up my statements with proof (minus the you calling him a murderer) because I have other things I’m doing at the same time and I, truthfully, don’t have time to look up through 500+ comments to find the one time you called Zimmerman a murderer.”
You mean the “proof” where you had to apologize for being wrong on the first two points? Yeah, you certainly proved your credibility there. Also, if you’re too busy to use the Ctrl+F search function for the word “murderer” that doesn’t mean everyone else is. You’ve proven something alright. Just not what you think.
***************
Bosco,
My earlier statements need no correction, least of all by you. I said what I meant with precision and puposefully in the language of probablity. That you have the English comprehension skills of a Chihuahua is entirely your failing, not mine.
Sorry, February 26th
I am also concerned as to what may publicly happen if Zimmerman is found not guilty of 2nd degree murder. History has shown that there may be trouble. Oh oh,,is that profiling on my part?
Seriously though, I am deeply concerned. What may happen if Zimmerman is found guilty?
Gene – “You mean the “proof” where you had to apologize for being wrong on the first two points?”
You mean when I apologized because I got the name of the person wrong? You my friend are an idiot.
Gene said-”Bosco,
My earlier statements need no correction..”
Thats true ,we have all the proof we need to know that your an ignorant biased ASS here.
You make statements that you cannot back up with facts, you insult others when you feel that they don’t agree with your ‘philosophy’.
And its obvious that you would be happy to see Zimmerman found guilty regardless of the facts,,whatever they may prove to be.
Even the chihuahua comparative makes no sense .
Gene – That’s just me being a real man and admitting I was wrong on the name of a person. Have you started being a real man yet and found your PROOF of what you spoke of earlier? Didn’t think so, YOUR credibility is shot, and yes, I don’t have time for petty bullshit like searching through 500+ comments to find and prove that you called Zimmerman a murderer.
Bosco – That’s why I say I believe the courts will give a guilty verdict because 1) I don’t see how it can be a fair trial due to the media coverage on this story and 2) because of the riots and protests that would ensue
“Zimmerman being attacked is enough cause for him to shoot the person, especially since Zimmerman was unsure what Trayvon had.”
You’re assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. If Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, you’re assuming he had no reason to do so.
One also has to wonder if Zimmerman would have followed Trayvon and acted as he did on the night of Trayvon’s killing if he hadn’t been carrying a gun.
Matt , isn’t it funny that Gene would try to show use of perfect grammar and syntax in order to ,somehow, prove his points? He certainly doesn’t have a perfect understanding of EQUAL JUSTICE though, does he?
Elaine, you said to Matt..
You’re assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. If Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, you’re assuming he had no reason to do so”
Matt’s statement was always clear that IF what Zimmerman reported is true then-“Zimmerman being attacked is enough cause for him to shoot the person, especially since Zimmerman was unsure what Trayvon had.”
He is NOT assuming its so very obvious that he is asking that all here await all the PROOF and FACTS to be presented to the public before ‘convicting anyone.
@Bosco
“There is not one person here,,given the same set of circumstances”
These would be the circumstances where the “not one person” would follow someone that they thought might be a criminal up a path in the dark.
“would not have done whatever it took to save their own lives”
Not following a potential thug would be a good first step. THe cops were on their way.
Not challenging that person and not getting into a fight would be a good second step
Getting out of there at the first sign of trouble would be a good third step.
“( Being battered and your head slammed into cement )”
If he had the physical freedom and time to draw his gun, take the safety off, aim and fire – he had the ability to get out of there.
Getting out is a really, really good way of not getting killed.
“If its proven that what happened between the two is as Zimmerman said it happened that is.”
That is.
Another way of putting this is:
There is not one person here,,given that they were a fantasist playing cops and robbers,, would act sensibly.
– Fixed It For Ya
Matt, I loived in NYC during Rodney King trial. Macy’s and the rest of the city closed at about 3 pm expecting riots, protests, etc. The streets were empty (except for me and one other person walkiing home, quickly I might add). and what happened? Nothing. People behaved themselves. Hopefully whatever the outcome those solidified in their beliefs about the truth regardless of what those who were there or within earshot say will behave themselves and let the system speak through the jury (or plea bargain system).
As an aside no one protested when Bernhardt Goetz got off either.
Elaine – “You’re assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. If Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, you’re assuming he had no reason to do so.”
The reason I have a RIGHT to ASSUME that is because 1.) Zimmerman has wounds that are congruent with his story. 2.) According to the funeral director of Trayvon Martin, he had no wounds on his body that would be a sign of a struggle. I am not presenting that as fact, I’m saying in my belief.
“One also has to wonder if Zimmerman would have followed Trayvon and acted as he did on the night of Trayvon’s killing if he hadn’t been carrying a gun.”
I think so. Contrary to everyones belief, he was actually looking out for his neighborhood (I believe), a neighborhood in which had recent break-ins.
Bosco – Absolutely! Can’t agree more! He’s also been so quick to label me, wonder how he feels having it being thrown back at him.
SlingTrebuchet
I see that you are just another puppet here,
your words- “Not challenging that person and not getting into a fight would be a good second step”
How do YOU KNOW that Zimmerman ‘challenged’ Martin?
Were you there to witness any of it?? If not then your either ASSUMING or parroting what others have said without having the facts presented.
Sorry but you fixed NOTHING and showed yourself to be an ASS as well. .
Leejcaroll – That’s two instances though. How many sports fanatics riot when their team wins? I know of once instance here in Cincinnati where a white cop killed a black man (black men had a gun and was seeming to reach for it when cops shot him) and the people rioted for, if I remember correctly, 2 weeks. You do not know what the “explosive nature” of any one person is and I feel that the courts will, in fear of riots occuring, give him a guilty verdict.
Matt,
How about you admitting you’re a “real man” and trying to move the goal posts and/or create a straw man.
It takes a “real man” to admit he doesn’t know the meaning of the word “likely”.
Bosco,
As to equal justice? I dare say that considering you want Zimmerman to be pronouced not guility now before the trial indicates that I have a much firmer grasp on the meaning of justice than you do.
Bosco – “How do YOU KNOW that Zimmerman ‘challenged’ Martin?
Were you there to witness any of it?? If not then your either ASSUMING or parroting what others have said without having the facts presented.”
Couldn’t agree more! The assumptions get thrown around here quite often. I’m curious though, who is his puppeteer? Can’t be Gene, he’s too dumb to figure out how to pull the strings the right way.
Here is a YouTube vid’ with The song “Dirty Laundry” It fits in this case to describe media pundits such as Nancy Grace, Lawrence O’Donnell, Anderson Cooper, Bill Maher, Oprah and the rest of the media whores who depend on ratings rather than that of truth and substance in journalism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46bBWBG9r2o
Gene thank you for that. Not only do we know that you are an ASS but we now know you to be arrogantly stupid, regardless of the reading and writing comprehension you want to desperately to show you may have .
Your words- “I dare say that considering you want Zimmerman to be pronounced not guilty now before the trial ..” (i had to correct your spelling on this one by the way)
I challenge you to reread everything that i have posted thus far to show us any PROOF that I want Zimmerman to be pronounce not guilty.
Matt
April 22, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Elaine – “You’re assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. If Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, you’re assuming he had no reason to do so.”
The reason I have a RIGHT to ASSUME that is because 1.) Zimmerman has wounds that are congruent with his story. 2.) According to the funeral director of Trayvon Martin, he had no wounds on his body that would be a sign of a struggle. I am not presenting that as fact, I’m saying in my belief.
*****
Zimmerman could have received those wounds even though he might have been the attacker. You have a right to assume what you choose to assume–just as the rest of us have the right to assume what we choose to assume happened that night because of what we have read and have heard in the news
**********
“One also has to wonder if Zimmerman would have followed Trayvon and acted as he did on the night of Trayvon’s killing if he hadn’t been carrying a gun.”
I think so. Contrary to everyones belief, he was actually looking out for his neighborhood (I believe), a neighborhood in which had recent break-ins.
*****
I disagree. I think this tragedy would probably have been avoided if Zimmerman had no gun.
BTW, I never said that I believed that Zimmerman was not looking out for his neighborhood.
I ignored Elaines recent comment too. How about you Matt?
Elaine,
Zimmerman had no duty to watch his neighborhood and the police told him he didn’t need to follow Martin.
Sling T:
“There is not one person here, given that they were a fantasist playing cops and robbers, would act sensibly.”
Masterful!
Sensibly, decently, conscientiously, humanely, lawfully, appropriately, “other than homicidally,” sanely.
fafflaw- And if one of the reports is correct , Zimmerman ,stopped ‘following’ and went back towards his car.
Not sure I understand your point rafflaw, but
Elaine,
Zimmerman had no duty to watch his neighborhood and the police told him he didn’t need to follow Martin.
In a close-by alternate universe, we would be applauding you, rafflaw for rescuing three young children from a house he ran into after he discovered it burning, even after 911 advised him not to go inside but to wait until the Fire Department got there. And we would all admire how during fire season you take late night strolls in your neighborhood.
A “.. fantasist playing cops and robbers” eh?
Tell me something ,if you had decided to help your community by volunteering a part of a ‘Neighborhood Watch group’ would you have kept driving looking the other way if you spotted someone who ‘looked suspicious’? What would you have done?
You people are defining Zimmerman without knowing him nor ALL of the facts. The ONLY facts at our disposal thus far is that Zimmerman thought to see what this guy was up to..called 911, and there was a shooting death.
Thats it. From that you have deduced that Zimmerman is a killer. Amazing how some people would CHOOSE to blind themselves of ALL possibilities .
FWIW, There is never any proof that a murder investigation is dropped, because murders are open forever, they are never closed. The investigation is “dropped” by default, when suspects are no longer being investigated, leads or hypothesis are no longer being produced, and new evidence is no longer being gathered or existing evidence is left to disappear or degrade. Which, I presume, is exactly what Gene meant, and I agree with him. The investigation was dropped until publicity demanded a proper investigation.
Bosco,
“You people are defining Zimmerman without knowing him nor ALL of the facts.”
My, but that’s a whole lot of projection. Unless you personally know Zimmerman. Do you Bosco? Because it sure sounds like you’ve got a personal investment in portraying him in as good a light as possible. As to proof you want Zimmerman found not guilty? Why your voluminous postings about how innocent he is speaks directly to that point. If you weren’t arguing a pro-Zimmerman/anti-Martin agenda, it wouldn’t be so readily and manifestly apparent as to your intent.
You’ve shown that you don’t even know what the word “likely” means, so pardon me if I’m not just bowled over by your intellectual prowess. I’ve got clothes smarter than you. And the fact that you keep trying the same tactic in argument over and over again despite it having been revealed as fallacious and ridiculous is really funny. You do know that some people define insanity as repeating the same actions over and over again and expecting a different result, don’t you? Obviously not. You might want to remember that the next time you ask for proof certain on a statement of probability.
Now I’m going to be taking off here in a bit because I have other plans for the evening. I may or may not get back around to chuckle at you and your buddies sideshow until tomorrow. I’m sure you’ll provide a lot of laughter while I’m away.
Thanks, Tony and that is exactly what I mean by “dropped” in that context.
@Bosco: What would you have done?
As I said before, the place of a neighborhood WATCH is WATCHING, not confronting, not getting out of your car, not hunting. Take pictures. Take video. Call 911. Let a patrol car investigate. If nobody is in any physical danger there is absolutely zero reason for a neighborhood watcher to confront anybody. Period.
If Zimmerman had stuck to watching, he would not have left his car in search of Trayvon, and Trayvon would not be dead.
So Tony,,based on this “There is never any proof that a murder investigation is dropped, because murders are open forever, they are never closed. The investigation is “dropped” by default, when suspects are no longer being investigated,blah blah blah.” you are ASSUMING that they stopped looking into any of it. Are you related to Gene or do you just commonality?
Hi Gene the arrogant ASS , no there isn’t any projection needed here. You ‘are your words’ are you not? On the other hand your assuming a lot about me but that is no surprise. We know you to be like that. If you really want to have a laugh,,look in the mirror before you go out Gene. Im sure your ‘intelligence’ really STANDS OUT.
Oops sorry Gene ,,i meant ‘arrogant STUPID ass.
Tony–”..not hunting.” ???????? Yes your as ‘intelligent’ as Gene is.
“if he would not have left his car..Martin would not be dead”
Some would also say..’If Martin had not attacked Zimmerman in retaliation he would not be dead now’ Who is to say which is correct ..YOU??
rafflaw
April 22, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Elaine,
Zimmerman had no duty to watch his neighborhood and the police told him he didn’t need to follow Martin.
*****
I never said Zimmerman had a duty to watch his neighborhood. I know that the dispatcher he spoke to told him the police didn’t need hm to do that.
How can you all say FOR SURE that Zimmerman CONTINUED to follow Trayvon even after he was told “he didn’t have to do that”? The dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman said, “ok.” That was it. The 911 call ended shortly after that. You can’t say for a FACT that he continued to follow even after dispatch told him not to. Not to mention, again, that even though he was told that “they didn’t need him to do that” he doesn’t have a LEGAL obligation to stop following.
NOBODY can say that they know for a FACT that he continued to follow after being told not to. Some of you have even suggested that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, or even as far as “cornered him.” How do you know that for a FACT unless you were there?
Bosco and Matt, really, stop the name-calling and the unimpressive touch-tag attacks on commentators here, that’s not respectful OR respectable. Plenty of people are going to vigorously disagree with you during your lifetime, and they aren’t all stupid or asses or any of the other third-grade insults you throw around.
Bosco, look at what you said:
“You people are defining Zimmerman without knowing him nor ALL of the facts. The ONLY facts at our disposal thus far is that Zimmerman thought to see what this guy was up to..called 911, and there was a shooting death. * * * Thats it. From that you have deduced that Zimmerman is a killer.”
Please, Bosco, a “killer” is, by definition, one who kills (or one, obviously, who HAS killed.” Zimmerman is a killer. He has admitted it to his wife, to the court, to the meda. The question is, is he a murderer or a killer who is not criminally responsible because he killed in self-defense? The question is NOT whether he is a killer or not. He is.
Furthermore, look at your description of the events of 2/26/2012:
Zimmerman thought to see what this guy was up to
called 911 [sic],
and there was a shooting death.
Thats [sic] it.
You omitted:
Zimmerman told dispatcher that Martin was running away.
Zimmerman said “these assholes always get away.”
Zimmerman called Martin a “punk” or a “coon” or a “goon.”
Zimmerman FOLLOWED MARTIN.
Police dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that”
Zimmerman THEREAFTER SHOT MARTIN TO DEATH.
Not “there was a shooting death,” Bosco. Not “a shooting occurred,” Bosco. Not “Martin was shot to death,” Bosco. Not “Martin managed to get himself shot to death somehow,” Bosco.
Subject, predicate, direct object:
Zimmerman Shot Martin.
Zimmerman KILLED Martin.
Now. That’s all we need to know to “deduce” that Zimmerman is a killer. Whether he gets off or he gets convicted or he cops a plea or he jumps bail and vanishes or he something else, no matter what, Zimmerman is a KILLER. It IS a deduction. I would call it a “Q.E.D.”
@LeeJCaroll — if Zimmerman is found not guilty and walks, and February 27th is declared “Trayvon Day,” because a harmless teen who was not committing or planning a crime was shot to death by someone the law did not punish, you would find that a laughing matter? That’s a “laugh out loud” for you? Really? Otteray Scribe, do you know the technical term for that?
Bosco, Matt, any others, you’re free to call me an idiot now. But I’m not as dumb as I look.
Malisha, to paraphrase the late Flip Wilson, beauty is only skin deep, but stupid goes clear to the bone. Some of our earstwhile critics here are pretty bony. As for you, your presence here has been a breath of fresh air with your insightful and clear writing. I would love to see you and Gene or Mespo go at it in a courtroom. I could sell tickets.
anon: In a close-by alternate universe, we would be applauding you, rafflaw for rescuing three young children from a house he ran into after he discovered it burning, even after 911 advised him not to go inside but to wait until the Fire Department got there. And we would all admire how during fire season you take late night strolls in your neighborhood.
Zimmerman’s scenario: no emergency, no one in any danger
your scenario: emergency, people in danger
in your close-by alternate universe that may be an apt comparison, here? not so much
how’s this instead
see that sign? screw that sign, right? what authority does a sign have? it’s not illegal to feed that bear so you just walk right up there and share your cheetos with ole Mr bear and I’ll wait over here with the camera
and you know what else? scuba diving instructors, to hell with those guys, it’s not illegal to ignore to them so next time you’re 50 feet under the sea you just say screw you scuba diving instructor, spit that tube out and take a deep breath of fresh freedom
and don’t get me started on power lines and sky divers
Zimmerman is a stupid dumbass, and I’ve said that repeatedly.
Regardless, neither you, me, or Zimmerman have any responsibility to obey a 911 dispatcher, especially when the dispatcher knows this and acknowledges he/she understands that by using vague words of pleading and consensus like “We don’t need you to do that.”
Fuck the passive voice.
If a cop said, “Kook, we wish you would not video us, we wish you would move along”, I would defend you too as you video’d the cop even though there may be no reason or even a great reason for you to do so.
Zimmerman had every right to walk through that neighborhood EVEN after the dispatcher asked him not to follow or run after Martin.
It doesn’t mean Zimmerman isn’t a dumbass, it means that was his right, and my fucking rights, and yours, and my kids and your kids.
In that sense Zimmerman’s walking through the neighborhood stupid as it was, tragic as it was, is every bit as justified and defendable as rafflaw heroically in a emergency running into a burning building to save puppies, kittens, and children.
I think it’s a huge mistake to go from the dispatcher giving Zimmerman advisory information to anyone saying Zimmerman was wrong to disobey the police, or even to say he should’ve just followed his/her advice.
Yes, this means from time to time we may have ugly, tragic situations like this caused by some human doing something truly stupid.
Zimmerman, an adult citizen, was on the scene and the dispatcher wasn’t, and Zimmerman had no responsibility to listen or obey the dispatcher.
“Zimmerman, an adult citizen, was on the scene and the dispatcher wasn’t, and Zimmerman had no responsibility to listen or obey the dispatcher.”
And look what happened because Zimmerman didn’t listen to or obey the dispatcher. He did something stupid that ended in a tragedy-the death of another human being.
Who was right–the dispatcher or Zimmerman? Was Zimmerman justified in killing a teenager who was just walking home and hadn’t done anything wrong?
I haven’t seen anyone suggesting Zimmerman was obligated by law to follow the dispatcher advice. I pointed out your analogy sucked.
But most sentient adults, including George Zimmerman, know that law enforcement would prefer for civilians not to inject themselves into an unknown situation, Zimmerman was also aware of this from Neighborhood Watch rules and guidelines and possibly from getting a concealed weapon permit as well. That shows some seriously reckless behavior on Zimmerman’s part. He most certainly knew what he doing was ill-advised, imprudent, unreasonable, rash and a thesaurus worth of others.
That Zimmerman, while armed and pissed off(“these assholes always get away”, “fucking punks”), knowingly and purposely acted in a reckless manner seems to me to be more important than whether or not he broke the law by following Martin.
@Kook,
“I haven’t seen anyone suggesting Zimmerman was obligated by law to follow the dispatcher advice. I pointed out your analogy sucked.”
Then you’re an idiot and blind as well as a kook because lots of people have made the point that his non-compliance with the dispatcher should be used against him to prove his criminal guilt.
@Elaine,
“Who was right–the dispatcher or Zimmerman?”
I’ve repeatedly and only said that Zimmerman is a stupid dumbass.
But our rights, even your rights are not predicated on some police dispatcher being right or wrong. Zimmerman had every right to ignore her, and is ignoring her should have no bearing on his legal case.
“Was Zimmerman justified in killing a teenager who was just walking home and hadn’t done anything wrong?”
I don’t know. I wasn’t there, and I certainly haven’t heard the details discussed by any person who was there.
However, day after day, week after week, I’ve definitely read you, Malisha, Kooks, Mespos, OS,s and Genes create one noose after another, and speculate speculate speculate on 3rd party related bullshit that you guys take far beyond any evidence or logical or rational end.
Reasonable doubt, due process and civil liberties really seem to burn your knickers.
anon: However, day after day, week after week, I’ve definitely read …. Kooks…create one noose after another, and speculate speculate speculate on 3rd party related bullshit that you guys take far beyond any evidence or logical or rational end
no you have read no such thing from me, that would be a lie
@ Otteray Scribe – !!! Wow. [Have to take off a minute from my noose-measuring to say it again:] !!! Wow. And from you, I take this praise as higher than I would (most) otherwise. Otteray, if I meet you at DailyKos may I propose a project having to do with the way courts operate [on][with respect to] laymen and the coined phrase “lexogenic crime”? The project would involve several attorneys and a forensic psychiatrist. At all interested? I’d do all the typing and I promise to use white space…
@Kook — great analogies, and points well taken. There’s another point here. The sky diver, zoo fool, and scuba divers are endangering themselves and perhaps also some rescue people, etc. Those rescue people are trained and know how to respond to a sudden emergency; that is their livelihood and often their passion. But when Zimmerman disregarded, “we don’t need you to do that, OK?” and continued to follow Martin, ultimately to KILL HIM, he endangered a person who had no training in how to respond to a sudden emergency in the form of a crazed “white Hispanic” with psychological problems and a loaded gun. He endangered, and killed, a child. There’s another lesser included charge for the folks: child endangerment resulting in death. He didn’t KNOW Martin was under 18? Really? Oh FUDGE! Well in many states when you have sex with an underage person and you say you didn’t know, that doesn’t work for you — I haven’t checked Florida but since it’s only an analogy it doesn’t matter. Here he comes up upon a child and he has a loaded gun (child plus gun is already a no-no) and he has no training in this situation (just appropriates all decision making to himself because hey, he’s the man) and neither does the kid, who may respond “rightly” or may respond “wrongly” and get killed, and in all this, it’s about whether he is OBLIGATED BY LAW to listen to a dispatcher HE PHONED? Woah. Let me into one of those close-by alternative universes, OK? Anyway Matt and Bosco would be glad to see my back.
@Elaine M – I’m with you, and also think that this merits a value call. Not only is there an issue of “right and wrong” in Zimmerman deciding he would do something on his own to prevent the “asshole” from “getting away” — which he very effectively DID — but what he did was bad. If he is convicted, if he is acquitted, if he is imprisoned and born again, if he is the next big commentator on Fox News, if he is absolved, blessed, sainted, or deified, what he did on 2/26/2012 was bad. The fact that he didn’t have to do it but chose to do it makes it a lot worse. In fact, to me, when he was being beaten up IF HE WAS BEING BEATEN UP, if he had a shred of conscience in him, he would think, “I’m getting what I deserve because I didn’t listen to the dispatcher guy; damn, I hope I live long enough to never do this again.”
@Anon
“But our rights, even your rights are not predicated on some police dispatcher being right or wrong. Zimmerman had every right to ignore her, and is ignoring her should have no bearing on his legal case.”
People “have every right” to do all sorts of stupid things.
Being stupid is not against the law.
However, if someone’s stupidity is a reckless disregard for the consequences, then culpability in a legal case comes into it.
This “Watch Captain” – who it appears was not a member of any Neigborhood Watch – did two things that basic NW training/advice would instruct him *not* to do.
He followed ‘the suspect’. He carried a gun while doing so.
That training/advice exists for very good reasons. That is to avoid precisely the situation that arose.
Zimmerman’s family issued a statement to the effect that was not following at any time.
The 911 tape contradicts this. “Are you following him?” “Yes.” “We don’t need you to do that.”
I would suggest an improvement to the 911 standard procedures:-
Ask the caller “Are you following him?”
If caller says “Yes”, say “We don’t need you to do that.”
Then ask the caller “Are you carrying a gun?”
If caller says “Yes”, say “FFS – Get out of there you stupid asshole.”
“We don’t need you to do that.”
Should be amended to “We strongly advise you not to do that.”
He’s still have “every right” to be stupid, of course.
He would have “every right” to be stupid, of course, but NO RIGHT to kill anybody.
@Bosco: Who is to say which is correct ..YOU??
The jury will say which is correct, whether you like their decision or not. I do not expect to be serving on a jury in Florida, so I will not make that decision, but I do have a pretty good handle on how people think, and you can expect the jury (or somebody on it) to consider all of the points I have brought up here. That is the whole point of the judicial system, the defense attorney will try to bring up your points, the prosecutor will try to bring up my points, the jury itself can bring up these points, plus they have nothing else to think about except these points.
I believe they will come to the same conclusions as I have. That doesn’t mean I decide, it means that, if it goes to a jury, I am telling you what will most probably happen.
@Bosco: “…hunting????”
Yes, hunting. Zimmerman was hunting for Trayvon in order to confront him. As for whether he continue to follow him: He got out of his car, either during the 911 call or after it. Why did he do that except to find Trayvon?
You will not be able to create any reasonable doubt that it was for anything else but to continue to pursue Trayvon. Juries aren’t stupid, and they do not have to be compliant and accept some ridiculous contention that there was a good chance Zimmerman was doing something else.
The standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” not “beyond all doubt.” That means there would have to be some plausible alternative reason for Zimmerman to leave his car, in his state of mind he was in, which the jurors can infer for themselves based on what they heard on the tape and the girlfriend’s testimony.
Juries decide.
1) The jury will decide Zimmerman was pursuing Trayvon, the last thing he told 911 was that he was following Trayvon.
2) The jury will decide Zimmerman got out of his car in order to pursue Trayvon, because he was out of his car when the fight ensued.
3) The jury will decide the girlfriend is telling the truth, because she is a 16 year old girl, that gains nothing from lying, and is going to testify in a court session under oath. Testifying will probably be the biggest event of her life thus far; certainly the one with the most national attention. The jury will recognize that and put a lot of credibility in what she says. If the defense attorney badgers her, he builds sympathy for her. She is a high school student.
4) The jury will decide Zimmerman lied about being jumped, because in the girlfriend’s testimony, it was Zimmerman that confronted Trayvon with hostility. That is evident from what she heard. No matter what happened after that moment, even if Trayvon made the first move, Zimmerman lied about being jumped.
5) The jury will decide that Zimmerman was the aggressor, that there would have been no confrontation or fight without Zimmerman’s aggression, and thus Trayvon’s death was not in self defense and Zimmerman is culpable. Perhaps 2nd degree, perhaps manslaughter, but culpable. (And just like OJ, I expect a subsequent civil trial, where the standard is far lower, just a “preponderance of evidence.”).
You can believe that or not, I don’t really care if you want to stick your head in the sand. What is clear already is that Trayvon was not the aggressor. No matter how he was dressed or what he looked like, he was a free kid walking in the drizzling rain and talking to his girlfriend.
Probably, since I remember being a teenager, Trayvon was out walking in order to talk to his girlfriend and not be overheard by adults in the house. Which is a plausible explanation of his leisurely pace regardless of weather, random stopping, wandering, or other behavior Zimmerman found “suspicious.” Trayvon wasn’t on drugs, he was courting a girl and mentally he was with her, and his body language would reflect that.
And I should have said, on (4), that once Zimmerman is caught in one lie, it will taint his entire testimony about what happened; the jury will consider it all a lie.
anon,
“However, day after day, week after week, I’ve definitely read you, Malisha, Kooks, Mespos, OS,s and Genes create one noose after another, and speculate speculate speculate on 3rd party related bullshit that you guys take far beyond any evidence or logical or rational end.
“Reasonable doubt, due process and civil liberties really seem to burn your knickers.”
*****
I guess you don’t comprehend the point that I have been trying to make. A teenager was killed and the killer was set free. No charges were brought against Zimmerman. It was assumed that Zimmerman told the truth and killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense. Was there any “reasonable doubt” that Zimmerman might not have been telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Was there “due process” for Trayvon and his family?
*****
Here is one of my earlier comments on this thread:
Elaine M. 1, April 22, 2012 at 5:49 pm
One does not have to be “anti-Zimmerman” to want to see that justice is done. It has nothing to do with bias. A teenager is shot to death and no one is charged with killing him. The person who shot him is set free because he said he killed the victim in self-defense. So…you shoot and kill someone and just tell police it was self-defense and that’s the end of it? I’d be mighty upset if I were Trayvon parents. I’d want to know what happened on the night my child was killed.
*****
I don’t understand why you think “reasonable doubt, due process and civil liberties really seem to burn my knickers.” I haven’t created any noose. I think my logic is just fine.
Elaine your words-
“A teenager was killed and the killer was set free. No charges were brought against Zimmerman”- *Stand-your-ground law (look up the law and TALK to the ACLU)
ACLU-a nonpartisan non-profit organization whose stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to EVERY person in this country by the Constitution and LAWS of the United States.
“It was assumed that Zimmerman told the truth and killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense..” -The police did not ASSUME anything, as you KNOW they were prepared to arrest him. (because some people on this thread ONLY lives by ASSUMPTIONS does not mean everyone else in the country disrespects THE LAW)
” Was there any “reasonable doubt” that Zimmerman might not have been telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”- read the second response above
“Was there “due process” for Trayvon and his family?”-
‘Due process LAW’ is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person(s). The State NEVER ended an investigation, they could not hold Zimmerman due to the the ‘Stand-your-ground LAW’ in the books. So yes there has been since the beginning >Due Process< given to Trayvon and the Martin family EVEN if activists ,the yellowed media pundits and people like you , Malicious and Gene make ASSUMPTIONS with your BIASED minds.
OH, before you once again make an assumption on my meaning or try to twist my point around.
world definition of …
BIAS– "A cognitive bias is the human tendency to make systematic decisions in certain circumstances based on cognitive factors RATHER THAN evidence".
..
Ok, so i can see that my comment above was skipped over gracefully. How do you know for a fact that Zimmerman continued to follow trayvon after dispatcher said what he said? Please re read my last post, was around 10pm last night
And Ill also ask that IMPORTANT question of Matt’s –
“How do you know for a fact that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after dispatcher said what he said?”
Its important because the accusations & assumptions that are being made here hinge on that answer.
Reports say that he was going back towards his auto, so what proof does anyone have to contradict the reports? Was anyone THERE to see ?
Bosco,
You don’t need to SHOUT at me. Calm down and get your knickers out of a knot. It appears that anyone who disagrees with you regarding the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case is biased…in your mind. Is that an example of cognitive bias?
******
Here’s a song I think you’ll like:
Cognitive Bias Video Song
@Matt: How do you know for a fact that Zimmerman continued to follow trayvon after dispatcher said what he said?
It doesn’t make a difference if it is a fact, it is something that can be reliably inferred from the subsequent events. The last we heard from Zimmerman on the 911 call is that he was following Trayvon. Zimmerman ends up outside his car and “returning to his car,” what will the jury think he was doing by leaving his car? The last the girlfriend heard (and I think the jury will believe her) is Zimmerman confronting Trayvon with hostility.
What matters is what the jury will believe. The posters on this thread (probably minus the attorneys) are a good cross-section of who might appear on a jury; and what the jury will believe is that Zimmerman finished the 911 call so he could leave the car and search for Trayvon, and either he cornered Trayvon (as the girlfriend says happened) or somehow came into contact with him. Trayvon didn’t sneak up on him or surprise him, the girlfriend’s testimony of Zimmerman’s hostile question will be believed. Zimmerman will be caught in a lie, and the jury will presume the rest of his story is a lie to avoid prosecution.
What matters is what the jury believes, and I think the jury will believe that Zimmerman left his car to continue looking for Trayvon, and that makes him the aggressor, and a murderer. The jury does not need some scientific proof, their job is to decide whether Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon without provocation and can plausibly claim self-defense, and with the girlfriend’s testimony, I believe a jury will find it impossible to come to that conclusion.
@Bosco
“they could not hold Zimmerman due to the the ‘Stand-your-ground LAW’ in the books.”
Correction:
They *did* not – as opposed to *could* not.
The justification given at the time was the Stand Your Ground law.
However, that law is not one that gives a get out jail free card if the shooter simply claims that they were acting in self defence.
There’s a train of argument in this thread that the prosecution is only now going ahead because of public pressure.
It might be more accurate to say that public pressure forced a review of the decisions made and the basis used to justify them.
Properly applied due process would require a prosecution if that review found failings in the original decisions
“So yes there has been since the beginning >Due Process< given to Trayvon and the Martin family"
You are confusing 'a process involving the law' with 'due process'.
The original decision was made almost on the spot.
The new decision may well have been *triggered* by public pressure.
However that decision (1) was based on a more thorough review of all the circumstances and (2) would have been made that the reasoning for the new decision would be under extremely intense scrutiny.
One would there fore reasonably expect that the new decision was better based in facts and evidence.
Elaine, your tactic of avoiding the question isnt working.
ANSWER the question-“How do you know for a fact that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after dispatcher said what he said?”
(i use upper case letters sparingly to drive home a point,,not ‘screaming’ but really, what does it matter,,answer a simple question to backup your statements)
Sling’ your speaking in semantics-
“They *did* not – as opposed to *could* not.”
The police has been ready to go to his home to arrest him IF at the end of the States atty investigation found it prudent to do so.
Speculations go NO WHERE,,unless your name is Sharpton or some other media whore
@Bosco: Its important because the accusations & assumptions that are being made here hinge on that answer.
No, they don’t. They hinge on the facts that Zimmerman was admittedly following Trayvon, suspicious of Trayvon, and encountered Trayvon and killed Trayvon. They hinge on the girlfriend’s testimony that Trayvon was alarmed at being followed, walking fast to get away from Zimmerman, and by Zimmerman’s account, started running to get away from Zimmerman, so was clearly threatened by Zimmerman. They hinge on the girlfriend’s testimony that immediately before Trayvon was shot, he was face to face with Zimmerman and Zimmerman was hostile, which means Zimmerman lied about the fight. How Zimmerman and Trayvon came to fight, the fact that they fought is clear, and the facts are clear that it was Zimmerman frightening Trayvon, not the other way around. Zimmerman wasn’t afraid until he was getting his ass kicked, but he won’t get “self-defense” as an excuse on a fight he instigated.
@Matt
How do you know for a fact that Zimmerman continued to follow trayvon after dispatcher said what he said?”
No doubt the court case will produce a timeline of events.
Much of that will be based on the 911 tapes of Zimmerman and people who called in at the time of the shooting. It will also be based on the records of calls from Zimmerman’s and Martin’s cell phones.
As an example of that, have a look at
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/20/us/florida-zimmerman-timeline/index.html
At about 7.00 PM Zimmerman is making his 911 call
At about 7.10 PM Martin is talking to his girlfriend. She says that Martin describes somebody following him.
At about 7.25 PM Martin is shot and killed.
About 25 minutes overall.
Time Zimmerman’s call and see how many minutes into it he is told “We don’t need you to do that”
You see the problem?
Too much time between the “Don’t need you” and the shooting.
Funny how that didn’t prove out too well in the Bond hearing Tony.
By the way Tony, what proof do you know of to say that Zimmerman CONTINUED to follow Martin instead of heading back to his auto,which has been reported from the beginning?
Look, everyone should understand that regardless of the media sensation going on with this case, Zimmerman deserves a fair trial and will get one. There are those that believe this is a slam dunk guilty verdict and I would say that is far from the case. If he is guilty then he should be punished. If not, then the opposite is true. I do fear, however, the civil unrest that could ensue including riots and such. I posted on that on my site.
Jeff Metz
http://www.mostly-right.com
Elaine – “It appears that anyone who disagrees with you regarding the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case is biased…in your mind.”
No Elaine, what Bosco and myself have a problem with is people labeling him a killer/murderer before you have ALL of the facts in front of you. You all are saying that he continued to follow Trayvon even after being told not to, which you have no idea for a FACT that he did.
TonyC – “It doesn’t make a difference if it is a fact, it is something that can be reliably inferred from the subsequent events.”
It doesn’t?! Are you serious? Please explain how it’s something that can be “reliably inferred from the subsequent events,” and please please please, don’t say because you looked at a map of the complex this all occurred at.
“The last we heard from Zimmerman on the 911 call is that he was following Trayvon. Zimmerman ends up outside his car and “returning to his car,” what will the jury think he was doing by leaving his car?”
I would think, “Hey, maybe he was getting out of his car to be an observant neighborhood watch and be able to tell police EXACTLY where the “suspicious person” is.” That’s what I THINK he was doing.
SlingTrebuchet – “It might be more accurate to say that public pressure forced a review of the decisions made and the basis used to justify them.”
Can you PROVE that this was the case. As far as I know the original states attorney said he/she wouldn’t put out an arrest warrant until further review. How do you know for a FACT that they didn’t start that investigation the same night or early next morning?
Tony based on what you had also said-”Zimmerman wasn’t afraid until he was getting his ass kicked,..” So you have spoken directly with Zimmerman? So, you have had discussions with the police and EMT at the scene? You have INSIDE info that we don’t? If you cannot say yes to any of these rhetoric questions then you are speculating and assuming what happened. Are you related to Gene too? Hey Tony,,if someone was on top of you beating you and you had a gun i wonder what you would have done.
Back to the original question -“How do you know for a fact that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after dispatcher said what he said?”
@Bosco: Apparently you cannot read. I see no point in answering that AGAIN, or conversing with somebody that doesn’t bother to read my posts. Ironclad proof is not a necessity, what matters is what the jury will believe, and they will believe he continued to follow him.
Jeff Metz – I couldn’t agree more, but some of the yahoo’s on here have already made their mind up that Zimmerman is a vicious killer and there isn’t a DAMN thing that’s going to change that. Everyone that thinks he’s guilty now will think he’s still guilty even IF he is found not guilty.
@Tony, Apparently you refuse to answer direct questions. You seem to have a hidden agenda like some others here.
@Matt: Not everybody thinks he is guilty, clearly you and Bosco do not. But the fact that most of us do, based on the facts we have so far, should tell you something about how the jury is going to view his actions.
Bosco – “Ironclad proof is not a necessity, what matters is what the jury will believe, and they will believe he continued to follow him.”
Now TonyC. knows the jury too! LMAO
Jeff Metz,,Thank you for that comment used with COMMONSENSE .
The civil unrest is a big worry for all of us too but no one wants to see someone punished if the facts of the case show that he is not guilty of what he is being charged with. And that isnt a biased point of view it is something that the ACLU would also agree with.
Matt, hahaha good one.
@Bosco: Apparently you are incapable of comprehending what I wrote. You are the one that seems to have a hidden agenda, because you refuse to face facts. I have no HIDDEN agenda, based on the facts known so far and basic logic I think Zimmerman is guilty and a danger to society and should spend the rest of his life in prison, and I believe he should lose everything he owns to Trayvon Martin’s mother in a civil suit. What “agenda” can you possibly think I am HIDING?
TonyC. – You obviously feel he is guilty just based on the evidence you have gotten so far. You are basing your decision on what the media has FED you so far! I’ve just been telling you to wait until further evidence comes out in the courts before you make your decision. Thank God thatl lawyers aren’t like you, not being able to answer a question would definitely hurt their case!
Hey Tony would you also add Jeff Metz to this allegation?
“Not everybody thinks he is guilty, clearly you and Bosco do not..”
His words made it CLEAR and simple as to what we are pointing out.
TonyC. – No, I think MOST OF THE PEOPLE AND YOURSELF are a danger to society with how you jump to conclusions. You are just as bad as all the protesters and people rioting in Florida.
I refuse to face facts???????? HAHAHAHAHAHHA
Look in the mirror and then after your done with that read up on the legal system of justice.
We havent been granted ALL OF THE FACTS yet ,,which is my POINT you Gene wanna-be
Matt ,i think his name will be changed to TonyG
Bosco,
George Zimmerman released on bond in Trayvon Martin killing
Loa Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-released-20120420,0,4624254.story
Excerpt:
“Zimmerman called police before the shooting to report Martin as a suspicious character in the neighborhood, although state investigators say that Martin was not committing a crime.
“Prosecutors said Zimmerman followed Martin even after a police dispatcher told him not to do so, and shot Martin in the chest after a struggle.”
*****
New Account: Zimmerman Told Cops Trayvon’s Last Words Were ‘Okay, You Got It’
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/19/new-account-zimmerman-told-cops-trayvon-s-last-words-were-okay-you-got-it.html
Excerpt:
Since the days immediately after the shooting, news outlets have widely reported the 911 calls Zimmerman made, during which he told a police dispatcher that he would follow Martin, whom he described as suspicious. The police dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that.”
As has been reported, Zimmerman told police officials that he lost sight of Martin and went around a townhouse to see where he was. Then he claimed Martin confronted him and punched him, knocking him down.
“..suspicious character in the neighborhood, although state investigators say that Martin was not committing a crime.”
You can look suspicious without commiting a crime as yet.
Matt,
Zimmerman killed someone. That makes him a killer.
*****
From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
Definition of “killer”: One that kills.
Would you like to to provide you with the definition of the word “kill” too?
*****
Do you deny that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin?
@Matt: No, I am basing my conclusion on the 911 recording, which I listened to, and on the girlfriend’s comments to ABC, which I listened to. That is not what the media has “fed” me, it is the raw evidence. If we saw a videotape of Zimmerman shooting Trayvon in cold blood, would you say that is what the media FED me? Of course not, or you are an idiot. I heard the tapes.
Besides that, it is also reported the prosecutor met with the girlfriend for several hours, and prepared charges AFTER that meeting. That is not what the media FED me, that is just a reported fact, not a fiction made up by the media.
Logic tells me that the prosecutor would not have gone forward so quickly after the girlfriend interview if the girlfriend had been lying, or was backing away from her interview with ABC. So, as I said before, what I think most probably will happen is the girlfriend will testify, and say the same thing and more as she said to ABC, and I think the jury will believe her, and think Zimmerman lied, and will find him guilty, as I think they should.
Maybe the dumbest question here to date – “Do you deny that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin?”
@Matt
“How do you know for a FACT that they didn’t start that investigation the same night or early next morning?”
Look at the timelines
Again (as with the timing of the “don’t need you” v the shooting)
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/20/us/florida-zimmerman-timeline/index.html
February 26th – The shooting
March 22nd: Police Chief Lee announces that he is stepping down temporarily as head of the department, which has been criticized for its handling of the shooting. Scott announces that he is appointing State’s Attorney Angela Corey
April 11th: Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder
TonyC., Elaine – What happened to “a person is innocent until proven guilty?” Now all of a sudden he’s a “cold blooded killer?”
Bosco – Maybe the United States Constitution is wrong too… lol
SlingTrebuchet – Your comment never supported anything against my quote.
They purposely left out that part of the accusation of being a
>COLD BLOODEDPROFILE HIM< as a racist.
Apparently there is a glitch in my last comment, ill say again.
They purposely left out that part of the accusation of being a
>COLD BLOODED killer, which could classify him or >PROFILE HIM< as a racist.
Well Matt, as we all know there are entitlements to some not to others
Very true Bosco, very true
Nothing new here. Just more of Matt/Bosco’s innane bullshit about anyone who thinks Zimmerman should go to trial is anti-Zimmerman and somehow presuming him guilty. You boy(s) need to get a new act.
Gene – Did I ever ONCE say that he shouldn’t go to trial? All I said was stop saying he is guilty before you have all of the facts and before the trial is even 1/4 of the way through.
Matt,
Zimmerman admitted he killed Martin. Good grief!
Where–in any of my comments–did I say that Zimmerman was a “cold blooded killer?” There you go again–putting words in other people’s mouths. Are you trying to make a case that those who disagree with you are biased? If so, don’t put “your” words in “our” mouths to make your case.
ELAINE – YOU ALL HAVE BEEN CALLING HIM A KILLER, MURDERER, RACIST, AND COLD BLOODED KILLER ALL ALONG THROUGHOUT THESE POSTS! LOOK BACK AND YOU WILL SEE. ALL I SAID IS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION STATES, “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY,” BUT YOU ALL HAVE CONDEMNED HIM!
Gene,
Only some who have commented on this thread are “entitled” to express their own opinions and to draw their own conclusions in the Trayvon Martin case. You and I–I guess–are not among the entitled.
Elaine – Good for him that he said he shot and killed Trayvon. As far as I can see you have already stamped “guilty” on his forehead. And by the way, how quick you were to label me a “racist, woman beating, less of a man” but once it’s turned around on you you don’t like it so much. What a pitty!
Matt,
“ELAINE – YOU ALL HAVE BEEN CALLING HIM A KILLER, MURDERER, RACIST, AND COLD BLOODED KILLER ALL ALONG THROUGHOUT THESE POSTS! LOOK BACK AND YOU WILL SEE. ALL I SAID IS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION STATES, “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY,” BUT YOU ALL HAVE CONDEMNED HIM!’
*****
Is Matty having a temper tantrum? Sheesh! Grow up! Your shouting at me will not intimidate me. Try another tactic.
You look back and then prove I called Zimmerman a “racist” and a “cold-blooded killer.”
Zimmerman admitted to killing Trayvon Martin. Doesn’t that make Zimmerman the “killer” of Trayvon Martin? Zimmerman will have an opportunity to present his case that he killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense in court.
Matt,
Did I convict him without a trial? Did I say he was guility?
No.
Just like I didn’t call him “murderer” either.
That’s because he’s a confessed killer but he’s an “alleged murderer” until the trial is had.
You’re a terrible liar, but a liar nonetheless.
Matt,
Wow! You are becoming unhinged. Got an anger management problem?
Matt, Zimmerman condemned Martin. (whether you call him a killer, which he has admitted, or a murderer which, hopefully, will be adjudicated.)
@Matt: What happened to “a person is innocent until proven guilty?”
You apparently do not understand that, either. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a principle applied to punishment for a crime, it is saying no person should be punished by the police or courts until by due process they have been found guilty of a crime. It is supposed to be a prescription guaranteeing due process (now diluted by the Obam administration).
I agree that Zimmerman should not be punished for murdering Trayvon until he is proven guilty of murdering Trayvon.
Innocence is not a presumption I am required by the Constitution to personally make. We can believe somebody is guilty of a crime. Even the police can believe somebody is guilty of a crime, that is often the basis of a search warrant, e.g. they believe that damning evidence will be found in somebody’s house, car, boat, bank account or computer. It would be simply bullshit for a cop to say that he expects to find evidence that Mr. X killed his wife, but also Mr. X is an innocent man.
Government employees (and the public at large) are free to believe a person is guilty of a crime, they are just not supposed to take any action to punish that person for the crime until guilt has been proven in a court of law.
Tony C, you are merely stating the obvious. And not guilty only means they found say OJ not guilty, but that does not mean they found him innocent.
Matt,
“And by the way, how quick you were to label me a “racist, woman beating, less of a man” but once it’s turned around on you you don’t like it so much.”
I did all that? Really? I called you a woman beater? Have you misinterpreted some of the things that I’ve written?
Elaie,
Be very careful in how you defend yourself…..Some may think you are attacking them….wink….
Hey Matt, i noticed that the people here criticizing you are trying to get off the main points. They are focusing in on you and not your WORDS,,not at all. They will NEVER admit guilt to any hastiness . By the way Gene,,who are you calling BOY(S) ? Sounds a little racist to me
Its quite alright in your little pea brains to think that convoluting the issues and redirecting is a-ok. It isnt.
Bosco,
Calling you two “boys” wasn’t racist, half-wit. It was diminutive, dismissive, descriptive and derisive. It was supposed to be. When you act like children, then you get the appellation of children. But children come in all colors, including boy children. Since you don’t know what the word “likely” means, that you don’t know these facts about the word “boy” comes as no surprise.
AY,
What’s good for the gander is also good for the goose.
I guess it’s okay for some to call Trayvon Martin a gangbanger–but not okay to say that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.
My bad! I missed reading “Matt’s Book of Rules.”
Hey Elaine…..
Experience makes one much, much wiser…..Didn’t someone once say book learning may make you smart….but experience makes one wise….honk, honk, honk…..
Bill Lee, Sanford Police Chief, To Resign After Temporarily Stepping Down Following Trayvon Martin Shooting
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
Inapplicable.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
Inapplicable.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
Explains delay in arresting Zimmerman.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
The case against Zimmerman clearly hinges on 776.041(2)(a) and (b). That Zimmerman was told by the 911 dispatcher not to pursue Martin and that Zimmerman did anyway is evidence contradicting a “stand your ground” defense.
Even if Zimmerman did sustain the injuries he alleged, it still wouldn’t rise to the level required under 776.041(2)(a) and proving (b) would be a tall order indeed.
I agree with Jonathan Turley; there’s a possible case for manslaughter here, but not murder 2.
@Raff: Thanks for the details. I believe Zimmerman meets (2), that he initially provoked the use of force agaimst himself. So why isn’t it murder 2? If 2(a) is not available to him, and 2(b) is not available to him, then Zimmerman is left with no cause to use deadly force. Why is it just manslaughter and not Murder?
Bob,
While I agree with you and JT that manslaughter is the more appropriate and mostly likely to stick charge, I’m still willing to listen to evidence of murder 2 if the prosecution has it.
I think Zimmerman’s statement to the Martin family at his bond hearing is telling both as to race and about the obsession some have about packing concealed firearms. Zimmerman told the family, “I thought he was a little bit younger than I was, and I did not know if he was armed or not.”
So Zimmerman sees an admittedly younger, black male walking towards him in a hoodie while on the cell phone and his reaction is “I wonder if he’s packing?” As a young man it never occurred to me that someone merely walking towards me at night was carrying a concealed weapon. Permits were hard to get, and few felt the need to carry guns. And I grew up in the drug sponsored crime of the 1970s. By the way, what made Trayvon Martin different or “suspicious”? His race? What he was doing? The allegation that he had something in his waistband, is that enough?
The Second Amendment surely gives people the right to bear arms, just like the First Amendment gives people the right to call the families of American servicemen “fags” at the funerals of their loved ones. Does freedom require us to accept mayhem in the streets or be insulted when saying goodbye to genuine national heroes? Is this the logical extension of freedom?
For Second Amendment purists, my question is: Is this the “Dodge City” type of society we want to have? Let’s say Trayvon was packing. What would we have gotten in this situation? A “Stand-Your-Ground” stand-off? Perhaps, a gunfight at the “Retreat at Twin Lakes” Corral? Innocents and on-lookers be damned.
This is the “dog eat dog” world the ultra right-wing wants both socially and economically. They would do well to remember the words that echo down through history as a judgment against such societies:
Those who live by the sword; die by the sword.
I read that over the last few months some neighbors of Zimmerman have called police to complain about him confronting them as they walked and at their homes.
If this is true, are statements/complaints such as these admissible?
Gene H, the prosecution probably has lots of interviews with people who have been watching, hearing, and becoming more and more wary of Zimmerman’s obsessive desire to capture some criminal — and according to the fliers that he was papering the neighborhood with, the criminal he had in mind was a young black male. Those would tend to show that his following Martin was part of his plan to apprehend a criminal-type-person and become a hero in his neighborhood. He can probably be shown to have gotten out of his car with the actual intent of overpowering and dominating Martin, but he had no uniform, no badge. All the suppositions about his being beaten up may be based upon faulty evidence, if any evidence at all. For instance, I have listened over and over and over to the 911 tape in which he was actually shot. (The “Jeremy get IN HERE NOW!” tape) It appears to me that careful analysis of that tape is almost sure to yield pretty believable evidence that Trayvon Martin was not an aggressor. I also think the fact that there was no trip to the ER that night for George Z is going to weigh heavily against his “self-defense” ploy.
We shall see. Corey is no fool; she’s ambitious, tough and slick. If this were MY case and I were a prosecutor, I would not make out Murder 2 only to be humiliated.
Little bit younger and did not know if he was carrying, so he was afraid of a young person and thght I’ll shoot even if I do not know if i am in danger or not.
He hasn’t been tried yet, so I give it the benefit of waiting for the sworn testimony, but his words tell me it was not appropriate to shoot, it was appropriate to not follow as advised. My impression from news reports is that Zimmerman was on a hair trigger, so to speak, and looking for a target.
@Mespo
I was reading about Zimmerman’s seemingly starnge statements at his bond hearing. Apparently Trayvon’s mother, in a press conference the day before, had specifically asked Zimmerman if he knew how old her son was and whether he knew he was unarmed. His statements were an attempt to address the questions posed by the boy’s mother.
@Mespo: what made Trayvon Martin different or “suspicious”? His race? What he was doing?
Perhaps both, but plausibly, just the latter. My conjecture is that Trayvon left the house and walked to the store in the rain so that he could call his girlfriend in privacy and speak freely. At 17, kids are still developing an adult, sexualized identity they tend to hide from their parents and other adults in their family, for many reasons.
The reason I conjecture this is it would explain a great deal about what Zimmerman saw, and made him suspicious. The kid in the drizzling rain is going slow, that is because he doesn’t want to get home, he wants to talk and he can’t do that at home.
The reason he is aimless or looking around or making odd movements is because he is living in his imagination while in conversation with the girl, and Zimmerman mistakes those odd movements or sudden laughter for Trayvon being on drugs, and mistakes Travon staring at buildings (he isn’t really seeing) or looking around for Trayvon looking for trouble, something to steal or a place to break into.
I doubt Trayvon had some sudden craving for iced tea and Skittles, I think his purpose in going out was to speak freely with a girl, without inviting criticism or curiosity or lectures from adults.
Blouise:
In the federal courts, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a) (1) was amended in 2000 to allow for the admission of evidence of the defendant’s character once
the defendant has attacked the victim’s character as in this case. Not sure about Florida law.
Tony C:
That makes sense and the case even more tragic. “Suspicious” for being a teenager.
mespo,
Thanks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/23/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-apology?newsfeed=true
Take another listen through the WHOLE tape. Zimmerman isn’t even sure, without doubt, what Trayvon’s race is to begin with. There are a lot of things that you are all ASSUMING happened because of what you are hearing on the news on TV.
The Following statements are from the CCW law in Florida and everything in parentheses I am adding:
“Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are trying to protect yourself or another person from DEATH or SERIOUS BODILY HARM or trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary, or kidnapping.”
(Death COULD be caused by getting your head smashed into concrete. Serious bodily harm DEFINITELY can be caused by having your head smashed into concrete. I don’t know for a FACT that this DID happen but I THINK it’s possible due to Zimmermans injuries looking congruent to what he told police happened.)
“A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person, which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably
believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.”
(That one speaks for itself.)
He wasn’t found to be “suspicious” because he was a teenager. He was “suspicious” in the eyes of Zimmerman (I THINK) because he was walking around and “looking about.” You even hear Zimmerman state, “he has something in his hand” and “he has his hand in his waist band.” At night, when you can barely see anything anyway, you have NO IDEA what someone has on their person. How was he supposed to know what Trayvon was carrying?
@Matt: Mespo was responding to my conjecture; which you obviously did not read. I was explaining why I thought Trayvon was walking around and looking about, and what he had in his hand (an iced tea, perhaps a phone, unless he had a head set, because he was talking to his girlfriend on the phone).
As for this: How was he supposed to know what Trayvon was carrying?
What Trayvon was carrying was his phone, but why is that any of Zimmerman’s damn business? You do not have the right to know what is in my pockets, my waistband, my jacket or my shoe, no matter how suspicious you think I look. It doesn’t give you the right to confront me or question me.
TonyC. – I do aplogize, I didn’t read your statement before hand. I read it right after I posted my comment.
“What Trayvon was carrying was his phone, but why is that any of Zimmerman’s damn business?”
Zimmerman in his statements to dispatch were, “he has something in his hand” and “he has his hand in his waist band.” IF….IF he truly was attacked by trayvon, don’t you think that would be something that might run through your mind? I commented quite a few posts back, if you are in a life or death situation, you have no idea what the other person is carrying and IF they are on top of you attacking you, would you give that person the benefit of the doubt? I’m sorry, but myself personally, if I’m being attacked I “wouldn’t wait to see what the other person has” before I make my decision to shoot. Those are the precious seconds that COULD decide whether you live or die.
@Matt: By the time Zimmerman was attacked, he was already the aggressor. As for your hurry to shoot someone, maybe you will end up in prison too: Just as the law says that verbal threats are not enough to justify using deadly force, neither is your imagination of what somebody has.
Besides, Zimmerman was NOT under attack when he reported that to 911, and I personally doubt Zimmerman really believed Trayvon had a gun. Because I do not think Zimmerman would have tried to follow somebody he thought was running, and also thought was a criminal with a gun. I think Zimmerman knew before he started following Trayvon that Trayvon had no gun, that is why he felt safe following him. Of course, he wasn’t going to tell that to the 911 dispatcher, he wanted the cops to come roust the kid, which may be the reason he was alluding to a gun in the first place. I actually doubt Trayvon HAD his hand in his wasteband: He had an iced tea in one hand, skittles and a phone: Which is why I speculate he had a headset on; because he didn’t have an empty hand to put in his waistband.
What happened during the attack or how Zimmerman felt about it is ALMOST immaterial, he was the aggressor from the moment Trayvon felt threatened enough to run away from him (according to what Zimmerman said on the 911 call, but I think there is the chance he was lying about that to the dispatcher in order to get the cops out there), he was the aggressor when he confronted Trayvon and demanded to know what Trayvon was doing there, and as the aggressor he had very little leeway in the use of deadly force. I think he attacked Trayvon (based on the girlfriend testimony of the suddenness of their call disconnect), but even if Trayvon struck the first blow, Trayvon was justified in it, he was frightened, cornered and being threatened by bully Zimmerman.
Zimmerman gets no sympathy from me; if justice is served the rest of his life will be miserable, as it should be, and will serve as a lesson to other wannabe heroes.
As for your hypothetical about what you would do, you left out the part where you invited the attack and sought out the confrontation in the first place.
If Zimmerman felt a man walking alone in the dark with something in his clothing was suspicious and merited arming himself for battle, then why wouldn’t Trayvon be entitled to the same conclusion about a man he encountered in the dark with something in his clothing who stopped him for no reason?
Mespo, thank you, exactly. If a guy I did not know was following me on foot, after seeing me WHILE in his car, and that guy showed up again after I thought I lost him, I would fight with every ounce of my strength as soon as he got into range, and I would scream bloody murder. Why would I not do that? If he meant no harm, let him shout across at me, “Ma’am, I don’t mean you any harm, I just noticed that you dropped your wallet [or whatever]” — but just to come at me and keep advancing? If I were to wait to see what would happen, it might get to be too late to do anything about it. If I were to ask him politely what his business was, why would I imagine that I would get an equally polite answer without danger to me? Trayvon Martin had no reason to trust Zimmerman, even though he had not heard Zimmerman call him an asshole, a “punk” [or something] and suggest that he was on drugs. Martin had every reason to suspect trouble from Zimmerman; history has proven that point beyond cavil.
As to the question posted to Tony C, as follows: “based on what you had also said-”Zimmerman wasn’t afraid until he was getting his ass kicked,..” So you have spoken directly with Zimmerman?”
Really, we don’t have to rely on what Zimmerman said as the truth, the only truth or even the approximate truth. He had plenty of reason to lie. If I were to speak directly with him, it would NOT be to ask him any questions, because things attributed to him so far have damaged his credibility in my view. His first two lawyers, who leaped off the case like rats off a sinking ship, may have had a similar experience — remember the statements they were making as if they were gospel?
I think Tony C’s inference that Zimmerman was not afraid until he was “getting his ass kicked” — if he EVER was afraid (my guess is that he was never afraid, and there may have been two gunshots, not only one) is an inference that can be drawn from the available information so far.
There are many more facts to come out. I hope they do.
@Malisha: Well, I say that taking the account of other eye witnesses at face value. If at some point Trayvon WAS on top of Zimmerman, as was reported to the media by one witness, then for that to be true and the girlfriend’s report to be true as well, I think Zimmerman attacked Trayvon after demanding “What are you doing here?” Like slapped the phone out of his hand (or his headset off) or something, and Trayvon fought back.
I think it is fair to say that whether or not Zimmerman was a racist, for a black being followed in an unfamiliar neighborhood on a dark night, the prospect of racially motivated violence could not have been far from his mind. If Trayvon was “cornered” as his girlfriend says, with flight precluded I would fully expect him to fight hard, and that probably surprised and scared Zimmerman. I wouldn’t doubt Zimmerman had already shown Trayvon he was armed, that would be consistent with his belligerent attitude of authority, and would have put Trayvon in fear of his life.
In the end Trayvon would not be dead if it weren’t for Zimmerman’s pursuit and confrontation, so Zimmerman brought the attack on himself and deserves the worst he can get at this point. He is a proven danger to others and should not be free.
Now this is an interesting picture. It is a screen grab of a video CBS posted earlier today. This comes from about the 2:02 mark in the video. The whole crime scene shot is brief, running from 1:59 to 2:04 in the video. First link is to the screen grab photo. This was apparently shot the night of the shooting. You can see officers standing on the sidewalk and what appears to be a body covered with a yellow tarp. Notice how far the body is from the sidewalk. Assuming the body was not moved, then how could the two men be having a scramble on the sidewalk at the time of the shooting with Martin pounding Zimmerman’s head on the sidewalk? More questions.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39658729@N07/6962092266/sizes/m/in/photostream/
Here is the CBS page with the full news video. There are several items on the story before the crime scene is shown.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7406352n&tag=strip
‘Scribe’s words- “Assuming the body was not moved, then how could the two men be having a scramble on the sidewalk at the time of the shooting with Martin pounding Zimmerman’s head on the sidewalk?”
(Ah, the ASSUMPTION word again, people here love to do just that). Actually I do understand your point Scribe. Lets say that IS a body under that yellow tarp.
Do we know whether or not once Martin was shot he immediately fell OR was his reaction was to get away ,then falling down in the grass?
I don’t assume all the reports we are getting are 100% factual, its sad that Trayvon Martin died but I wouldnt ‘convict’ Zimmerman in my mind until ive heard and seen all the facts to this case. . No matter how many times some people here offer other LOGICAL possibilities to what happened that night there are those that are set on convicting the guy. This thread is more like a playground for pessimism.
Bosco, I never said that photo answered any questions. It just raises more. The investigators have their work cut out for them. Like any investigator, I point out the obvious discrepancies and a few of the questions to explore. As for the body being moved, that is really unlikely unless EMT’s rolled him over to do chest compressions or examine him. The case will not be solved until every question is answered to within a reasonable certainty.
@Bosco: I don’t assume all the reports we are getting are 100% factual,
There is a difference between “reports” and recorded video and audio evidence. You seem to want to ignore or dismiss evidence.
No matter how many times some people here offer other LOGICAL possibilities to what happened that night there are those that are set on convicting the guy.
Back atcha. I do not think anybody here HAS offered a logical possibility that would clear Zimmerman and comports with the evidence and testimony we already have. Everything YOU offer to cast doubt on Zimmerman’s guilt ignores the testimony of people that have nothing to gain by lying (like Trayvon’s girlfriend), and trusts the testimony of Zimmerman, who has absolutely everything to gain by lying, and whose story clearly contradicts the earwitness testimony of the girlfriend about what was said between Trayvon and Zimmerman in the last few seconds of the call.
We aren’t pessimists, we are realists. A obsessive paranoid individual with delusions of grandeur stalked, terrorized, fought and then killed an innocent high school kid for walking around in “his” neighborhood. It makes no difference who ultimately threw the first punch, Trayvon Martin was clearly committing no crime and would be alive but for Zimmerman’s invasion of his privacy (by following him) and aggressive pursuit of him.
Here is what is logical: Put yourself in the position of a young black male walking a strange neighborhood at night, alone, in the rain, in the South. You have already had plenty of your own experience with racial discrimination, both explicit and subtle. You have seen the Internet stories of what has been done to your brothers of color, both in the past and recently. All of a sudden you realize some guy is following you slow in a car. And all of a sudden, you feel like prey. You walk fast, you run, but the guy is out of his car and coming after you.
It makes no difference exactly what happened next, Zimmerman terrorized an innocent kid and whatever happens next was the result of Zimmerman’s aggression, not Trayvon’s fear and fight for survival.
Otteray,
Have you been offering ILLOGICAL possibilities, huh?
Enjoy your little playground
Elaine, according to a certain contingent here, several of us are offering only illogical possiblites. It would be much better to imagine iPhones being hacked in a matter of seconds, photos showing what they don’t show and recordings magically not saying what they say. Makes sense.
OS, thank you for that information. The more I measure things, write things down, plot graphs, and so forth about the period of time between Z spotting Trayvon Martin and the final filing of the Officer Ayala report, the more I am convinced that the biggest piece of evidence is still being developed in the DOJ.
BTW, thank you for sending me to the DailyKos.
Right now I can’t find the thread about Dershowitz’s recent proclamations, but I’m gonna weigh in on Dershowitz, now, and why I don’t take him seriously when he tells us all whom we’re allowed to consider culpable and whom we’re not. OK?
Here goes. (Boys, sharpen your wits now, the silly bunt is starting up again.)
I don’t remember the name of the woman who was complaining witness in the rape case against William Kennedy Smith. She claimed WKS raped her; he claimed she wanted him so much she practically raped him. The jury acquitted. That NIGHT Dershowitz went on the evening news and announced that HE thought the woman who got WKS charged with rape should be indicted for perjury.
OK, now, let’s get real. Saying WKS was NOT GUILTY of rape was saying that there was NOT proof of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s very well known to Dershowitz from the courses he has taught at Harvard Law School, OK? So maybe that’s the same as 90% sure, OK?
If you’re NOT 90% sure a man raped a woman, you might be 25% sure that she PERJURED HERSELF about it, but would that make out a prima facie case for perjury? I don’t know a single prosecutor in this country — who has not already been utterly publicly humiliated and wiped out of office — who would step forward and suggest perjury charges for compaining witnesses simply because the defendants they accused were not convicted!
And we’re still LISTENING to that man?
Who is, who? NOT ME!!
Malisha, the woman came out and identified herself after the trial. It was (then) 29-year-old Patricia Bowman. Full story here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kennedy_Smith
Otteray Scribe, thanks, I knew she had identified herself but I couldn’t remember her name and didn’t stop to do the research. Listen, I have to both thank and apologize; I put things up on blogs regarding stuff I can’t exactly remember, and folks who know more than I do come in and provide all my research for me, and give me links and information, etc. And some folks even put up great music for me that I can’t figure out how to play by myself — all FREE!
The role Dershowitz played in that drama was the one that I remembered best. Guys allegedly raping women — old story. Alleged victims unable to convince their peers that it happened — old old story. But Harvard Professor of Constitutional Law spouting off that a failure to convict should be seen as a case of perjury on the part of a complaining witness? New and different — at least by that time in our sad judicial history.
Maybe not now. Maybe if Zimmerman DOES get convicted, they’ll go ahead and make new laws in Florida that the person killed is then postumously convicted of assault with intent to kill if the accused killer is acquitted! And I would expect Dershowitz to go on the evening news and argue that it should be made a RETROACTIVE LAW so that all the Trayvon Martins in the world can stand up and take notice: DO NOT TRY TO KILL GEORGE ZIMMERMAN-TYPES WHO THINK YOU’RE ASSHOLES! Think of the mandatory sentencing that would go with THAT one!
And think of what some of our co-commentators would be calling those of us who were trying to defend Trayvon Martin.
Scotty: BEAM ME UP!!!!!!!!!
Malisha, like making the koser in a med mal case pay all the costs. Blame the victim, hey, why not?
LeeJCaroll I hear you loud and clear. More than that, whenever there is court corruption, the victim of the corruption HAS TO PAY, and the reason is: THe loser has to be kept from doing anything effective about the corruption. Think of it: Were it not for Sharpton and lots of others lending free help to Trayvon Martin’s family, they would NEVER have been able to mount a campaign to get the corruption issue even INVESTIGATED after their kid was killed.
Losers tend to lose more and more if they both (a) were subjected to corruption in the original loss and (b) then try to do something about it, and try to bring attention to it.
IF THIS WERE NOT TRUE THERE WOULD BE MUCH LESS CORRUPTION IN THE COURTS.
That is why I have dug in my heels in fighting what would seem to be a useless vestigial (money only) part of my own experience with judicial corruption: because I have devoted the rest of my life to uncovering, identifying and DOING SOMETHING ABOUT the original corruption that caused the whole thing to happen. Fortunately, my kid did not get killed; but he did get HURT and I can’t change that but I can use my energy, going forward, to make a loud noise about it, money loss or money gain.
This Reuters article gives a more human picture of George Zimmerman in the lead up to the shooting.
It offers a reason as to why he chose to follow Martin.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425
It does not excuse him for doing so or for carrying a gun while doing so.
The article does explain the crazed logic behind his actions.
Sling T, I read that article, and I disagree with the conclusion, “The article does explain the crazed logic behind his actions.” It doesn’t even explain the actions we KNOW he took. It is simply a sympathetic article showing that “poor” Zimmerman had reasons to feel afraid and that he identified with people who felt afraid. But it sounds to me like those descriptions of Germans who came up with some sort of reason they were afraid of Jews in the 1930s. Some Jew or other had somehow insulted or dominated them; they knew someone who was victimized by some Jew or other, etc. etc. — there are a thousand stories like this to explain why every aggressor has done every abusive act to every victim from the beginning of recorded history. It is not only not an excuse, it is a non-excuse meant to engender sympathy for the ABUSER and the BULLY and it is amoral to assume that because we can find reasons to claim Zimmerman was fearful and defensive, we can understand what he did.
What we need is a society that says we will insist on a certain standard of behavior and if you cannot meet that standard, although we can understand you, you really have to deal with the consequences, and your boo hoo stories don’t count. After all, are we going to assume that Trayvon Martin did not have a collection of these “I have reason to feel afraid and defensive” stories? He could have had a whole boatload of them, and if he reacted with fear and defensiveness to Zimmerman that night, that could very well have “explained” anything HE DID. But we, as a society, must say that you can’t just activate your own scared-child stories or your own defensive-neighbor stories or your own ANYTHING STORIES to the point where you take the liberty of taking somebody else’s life.
Malisha, anyone care to count the reasons an African American male might have concern re being approached or questioned by a white male.
I don’t doubt that perceptions and race played a role in this incident. But I place major blame on the law which gives a clear basis for the involved parties to escalate the incident rather than back away.
I will admit that I do not hold Zimmerman in high regard. But I will bet that he was more than savvy regarding concealed carry. I would bet he could quote chapter and verse regarding concealed carry and self defense. Clearly I am stating my subjective impression and you are free to disagree.
The point I am leading to is that if the law required that Zimmerman attempt to retreat, my guess is that he would have done exactly that and both men would have come through unscathed.
The problem with this law is that it naturally leads two innocent parties, on the basis of nothing more than fear, to the worst possible outcome. Of course, a situation involving two innocent parties is likely to be the best possible case. When either or both parties are less reasonable or belligerent then it is even more certain that the outcome will be tragic.
In other areas of law there is a presumption that individuals have an obligation to mitigate damages. But in this area, where the possible outcome is final and irrevocable, there is nothing to suggest an obligation to find a less damaging outcome. Is that stark raving mad or what?
Some states require a drug test of welfare recipients. I would like to be the first to demand legislation that would require a sobriety test for legislators before they vote. A comprehension test to assure that they have actually read the legislation they are voting on would not hurt either.
@Melisha “Sling T, I read that article, and I disagree with the conclusion, “The article does explain the crazed logic behind his actions.””
Perhaps the word “explain” was a bad choice.
I thought that I had …eh.. explained the use of it by prepending it to “the crazed logic” and saying the information *did not excuse* Zimmerman.
The article gives us a picture of the man and his circumstances. It is a dangerous and reckless man responding inappropriately to those circumstances.
The Reuters has a very obvious pitch. It is sympathetic towards Zimmerman. It even had a slide show with photos of Zimmerman as a boy.
Such an article is interesting because even though written as a supportive piece for him, it does damage his case significantly.
It has Zimmerman as a vigilante. He’s just some guy who put himself forward in front of some of the neighbours.
It appears from the article that at least one neighbour referred to him as “our captain”. That’s fantasy. He’s a captain of nothing. He has no training relevant to dealing with suspects or criminals.
The only formal training that is significant are some anger management classes that he agreed to do as a price for escaping conviction for assaulting an officer.
He’s put himself forward as a local hero. He’s a fantasist – with a gun.
The article shows him as frustrated and angry. The punks keep getting away. He is actively hunting Martin. He sees Martin as one of the people who have been breaking into houses locally.
It would be interesting if Reuters had run a similarly sympathetic piece on Martin, side-by-side with the Zimmerman one.
That would have photos of a smiling schoolboy, praise from teachers, etc.
It would also have Martin as a perfectly innocent teen, returning from the store and taking the opportunity to talk to his girlfriend on his cell phone.
He sees that some stranger is stalking him. He tries to get away.
The only person who is actually presenting a threat is Zimmerman.
Zimmermans’s fantasy and recklessness was the prime cause of Martin’s death. At the very minimum he should be charged with manslaughter.
We have to wait for a trial to see what forensics and ballistics show about the incident.
If it turns out that Zimmerman managed to shoot while Martin was on top of him and banging him on the ground, maybe it could be charged as manslaughter.
If it turns out that Martin was separated from Zimmerman, giving Zimmerman an opportunity to threaten use of the gun, fire a warning shot or shout that he would fire – then it’s definitely murder. Not premeditated, but still murder.
In truth though, there was an element of premeditation in Zimmerman’s overall approach.
He carried a gun. This should imply that he believed that he might use it. That *should* have made him more careful about not getting into situations in which he might shoot someone.
He wasn’t careful. That showed a disregard for the lives of others.
Sling Trebuchet, it does explain the schizophrenic component, I sense for some time now. Zimmerman doesn’t give the impression of a Rambo, macho if you like, in his phone call.
The problem I have is this. After i finished the story, one central meme arose from the article. So the gun was bought for an aggressive stray dog? …
And then there was something else. During a visit over here in Germany, an American relative told us about his ex-son-in-law, who kept kidnapping his grandchild, then went to another state to register himself as it’s father. That’s the way I remember it. He had to spend quite a bit of money to trace him down and get the girl back several times. At the end of his story he told us: If he ever enters my house, and tries to get the girl, I’ll shoot him, and after that I put some of my wife’s jewellery into his pocket, so he looks like a thief.
Now I wonder, is it an accident that a similar “jewellery story” surfaces in Martin’s case? If you turn Trayvon Martin into a thug, then you can argue it wasn’t more than a “preemptive strike”. You don’t need to touch the less fitting parts of the story. What is the motivation behind this? A refusal to look deeper? Why wasn’t Zimmerman’s neighbor hood watch registered. it feels.more bnot even the Stanford police considered this necessary. I am assuming this would have resulted in slightly more training, no?
**************************************************************************************
Since Malisha mentions it:
Growing up in post WWII Germany, I was obsessed with prejudice. But it definitively makes a different if it hits you. While studying (in 1977) I realized there still existed some kind of volunteer police helper network in a village outside town. I went there to meet a co-student. He had chosen the same mid-term exam subjects I had, and I wanted to talk with him about it. The next day I the German Federal Police call on and questioned me. A neighbors had pestered the student about me, after I had left. The guy didn’t know much about me, other than I studied one of his subjects, and had lived in England before. Highly suspicious the neighbor thought, and reported me as a terrorist suspect the same evening. I think it’s pretty safe to assume that no terrorists ever entered that village. The student wailed when I confronted him about it, what could he have told him? Well, I answered, you could have asked him, if he considered it realistic that there were semester break terrorists among the Bader Mainhoff gang? Even if I had been a secret supporter, how could the officers find out? My visit had been related to my studies, what could be suspicious about it? The whole experience reminded me of this: Blockleiter.
When I told a friend, a German police officer, about it much later, he rolled his eyes. nothing more annoying than to sieve through all the phone calls by concerned citizen or neighbors. The vast majority of these calls are a pure waste of time, he said.
I need a proofreader.
Why wasn’t Zimmerman’s neighbor hood watch registered,
. it feels.more bnot even the Stanford police considered this necessary?Does this tag still work or is it html 4? May I check it out?
@Malisha, Sling: I read it, I am still not sympathetic, in fact it makes me think Zimmerman is lying on a different front: He knows it was black teenagers that have been breaking into houses. He claims he thought Trayvon was a little younger than he (28). I don’t believe that, if you are actually expecting to find criminal black teens in your neighborhood, you do not mistake a seventeen year old, 150 lb black teen for a 25 year old adult.
On top of that, the criminal black teens he knew about were unarmed, and ran away from conflicts. Hence his muttered comment about “These [guys] always get away.” Which guys is he talking about, precisely? The teens that he knows have been burglarizing his neighborhood and running away before the police arrived.
I still believe Zimmerman profiled Trayvon as one of the black teenagers burglarizing his neighborhood, and left his car to stalk him and corner him and frighten him, probably by brandishing his gun.
His plan may well have been to just scare the crap out of the kid, so the kid would report to his criminal friends there was a big bad ass guarding the neighborhood now. It was still a race-and-age profiling murder, Zimmerman was the aggressor and Trayvon was innocent of any crime.
Tony C, Sling, Leander, Bigfatmike, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of this discussion and the research, the consideration, etc. Obviously events break into our consciousness at same time as they break into our co-consciousnesses (please do not call grammar police on me again!) and they reverberate, and they reverberate. To me, this is only a good thing; it can, obviously, turn bad at times. Been there, done that, and when I am defensive and even when I am OFFENSIVE, I am still realizing that we are, for better or worse, in this together. Zimmerman is a member of our community. Even if he goes to prison for what turns out to be the rest of MY conscious memory, he will be somebody. Seeing who he was and is can form part of what I need to know to inform what I think about it all.
What I have read does give me some pretty unshakeable impressions, and what you four have written here has helped me refine them. I believe Martin’s personality is irrelevant to this whole thing, because I don’t think he had a chance to react to what happened before he was killed, and no matter what his reaction would have been, I now think he would have ended up dead regardless, but that’s irrelevant. Only relevant if I intend to write, somehow, about this — and of course, this being a major event in my mental and emotional life, everything I write from here on out will incorporate my experience of this case.
BUT — I think this was all about Zimmerman.
About his frustration, his need to “get over,” his hero complex, his fear, his relatively unintelligent approach to dealing with problems, his belief that the world had to adjust to him and not vice versa.
O what a shame.
Malisha, they say karma is a bitch. I would love to be in the courtroom when the bond issue is revisited by the judge.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/27/1086910/-Zimmerman-Bond-Could-Be-Raised-or-Revoked
@Otteray: It says he raised over $200,000, but after spending some of the donated money on “living expenses” there is $150,000 left.
Who has “living expenses” of $50,000? What did Zimmerman do, pay off all his credit cards and student loans and buy a new car?
Last night I was in an involuntary think-up on this case, and on the status of this case. What bothered me was that the feds are not coming up with anything while this weird thing with Lee is happening. Meanwhile, Dershowitz weighs in (while admitting that he hasn’t seen the evidence so he doesn’t know what the prosecutor knows unless he’s going from ACCURATE PRESS REPORTS, which is highly unlikely) saying it was irresponsible to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder and we even have a bevy of highly respected legal scholars predicting acquittal.
So I went back to basics.
What WOULD the prosecutor know, if there had been proper evidence collection and appropriate police work on 2/26/2012?
She would know:
1. The placement of not just the body, but the skittles and the iced tea, AND THE CELL PHONE AND THE EARPHONES, before 7:30 pm that night.
Now, this is very significant information. If you’re a young thug planning on jumping a somewhat older upstanding citizen from behind, as he is returning to his car to sulk impotently in the front seat before driving obediently to the grocery store to make a few purchases, but your hands are not going to be free because of the skittles, the iced tea, and that damned fool phone equipment, you have to tell your girlfriend, “let’s talk later, I gotta kill some ofay first,” and then you have to put down your iced tea, lay the headphones on top of it, put your cell phone in one pocket and the skittles in the other, and NOW you’re ready. OK?
If, however, the skittles are found over here and the can of iced tea some distance away, and the headphones and the cell phone hither and yon, and if the earphones are not neatly wrapped up and stashed, well then, quite a much different kinda thing coulda happened, I’m just sayin…
2. The amount of wet grass, mud, or debris on Trayvon Martin’s clothing, and all patterns of the same. In fact, we don’t know much about Trayvon Martin’s physical stats from 7:30 pm that night, do we? Dershowitz could not know much more than any other reader of the on-line and print and broadcast news reports have provided, and that means, obviously, no photographic evidence contemporaneous with the police discovery of the body. We have a funeral director’s information? What’s THAT about? If George Zimmerman’s head could have been all bloodied three minutes after the shooting but looking seemlessly fine a half hour later, how about a few nights in refrigeration and the possible cosmetic work of a team of cops covering up a murder? How ’bout THAT? ANd that picture that emerged in April by being “given to ABC” after allegedly having been taken by a passer-by’s cell phone in the rain? Here’s Zimmerman’s lawyer’s latest commentary about THAT:
“Speaking about the recently released image showing Zimmerman’s bloodied head, O’Mara said it is ‘very compelling to support that there was an altercation,’ but he is, for now, unsure where it’ll fit in his client’s defense.”
Well well. “There was an altercation” is an interesting grammatical AND contextual comment. It is not exactly ACTIVE VOICE. Zimmerman’s lawyer (who is a professional, much different from the other two bozos) is being very careful and very cagey here. Here’s the real lawyer who has some real information, measuring his words carefully. He KNOWS that he has to call this photograph “compelling” because it was snatched up by the media all over the place and by Professor Turley on this very thread as being compelling evidence of — imagine — SELF DEFENSE! But the lawyer won’t say that. He won’t open his mouth and say that.
He says it is evidence that “there was an altercation.”
Well, if I’m the prosecutor, I already KNOW there was an altercation unless of course one assumes that Trayvon Martin did not object to being killed.
* A little guesswork here. If the physical evidence, even that which was preserved (much less than what should have been preserved) doesn’t give the defense a clear shot at self-defense, if in fact a legal call is made that a person CAN kill in self-defense even after initiating an altercation with a stranger (and that determination by a judge would be subject to appeal and scrutinized carefully), then maybe where the defense will head next is that George Zimmerman was in great mental stress because of things having nothing to do with racism or Walter-Mitty-R-Us Syndrome (WMRU) and he meant well when he saw Martin and hoped to save his neighborhood, but when he actually got into it with Martin and realized that his world-view was being challenged, he flipped out and became “NCR” — not criminally responsible — because when his world view was challenged, he felt that his whole raison d’etre was under attack, and he snapped, and he flailed out in his misplaced infantile rage or whatever three words would look kinda “forensic” there — and accidentally, non-criminally, greatly-mentally-disturbedly, killed Martin, but really didn’t mean to and couldn’t understand what had really happened in that unfortunate emotionally charged moment. Or something.
3. I would also want to know — and perhaps the prosecutor DID know when she charged Zimmerman — what all the other 911 calls said, not just the ones that have been played on-line. I have heard (1) George Zimmerman’s original non-911 call to the police, (2) the “Oh my God Oh my God” call from the woman who felt anguished because she had not been able to help “this person” when he cried out for help, and (3) a third call that came in from a woman who was “upstairs” and who was calling out to her husband or son to stay away from windows while there was danger outside. There were many more calls to the police that night on 911 between 7 and 7:30; that was mentioned by the dispatcher who took the “Oh my God” call.
4. I would want to know exactly how many bullets had been fired from the gun and where the shell casings were found.
5. I would want to know all about the powder burns on the clothing and bodies of the killer and the killed.
6. I would want to know the approximate distance from each of the phones that were on the 911 calls between 7:00 and 7:30 pm that night, and how loud the background noise came through that can be identified on more than one of those phones. In other words, I would want some pretty good sound engineers to tell me by triangulation where the two “altercating” individuals were by measuring their relative voices, whether those voices were Zimmerman’s, Martin’s or anyone else’s.
7. I would want to know how fast a person Trayvon Martin’s size would bleed out from the actual wound(s) he had that night, and how much blood he had probably lost by the time he was pronounced dead (by subtracting the amount he still had from the approximate amount that he
should have had, absent extraordinary circumstances such as having been shot in the chest.
And see, Dershowitz wouldn’t have known these things at the time Corey came down with her charge.
Well, it may be that much more information can be had by extrapolation than by proper evidentiary techniques, and of course, there’s always something. But if you have what is already known, and the “reasonable doubt blood rivulets flick” is subjected to serious scrutiny (including, but not limited to, some standard, generally accepted forensic method of identifying the blood shown IN that photograph as Zimmerman’s and not, for instance, Martin’s), I would disagree with Dershowitz’s aggressive stance against the prosecutor in this case, and I would say to him, “this is not as easy as the William Kennedy Smith case where all you have to say is ‘naaa-annh.’
Tony C.: Good questions. Inquiring minds would like to know. There is a lot about this entire case that stinks to high heaven.
Malisha: The Feds generally keep their investigations close to the vest until it is time for the official press conference. Having worked with them in the past, I know a little bit about their style. They will not want to do anything that will interfere publicly with the state prosecution. Now, if the state drops the ball as they did in the Rodney King affair, look for a full frontal assault by the US Attorney.
Just stumbled upon this pg. this morning while looking for injury pic of GZ. I’m from the southern most part of Mo.App. 99.9% of my life I was never exposed to ppl of color. Hope that’s the politically correct phrase. Can’t keep up with it. Later on in my life I developed life long friends that were/are colored. Never mattered to me what color someone was. But I have developed a deep prejudiced towards african americans. They have made me that way and this case is the perfect example of why. I am frankly, sick to death of the so called race issue that is constantly thrown in my face. Many, many times white ppl, and I’m as white as they come, could shout racism, but I’m proud that my white race are not whiners, nor do we point the finger at others of color and use skin as an excuse for evrything/anything that involves ppl of different color. Al and Jesse would be an embarassment to me if I were colored. Now, on to the case, and I opologize if this is long.
Eye witness testimony is the most unreliable evidence, statistically that is. Many ppl have been imprisoned for life/death because of this. Look up the facts. I was utterly shocked when the detective was questioned about G.Z’s medical records. The ‘special’ prosecutor’s investigators had not even bothered to look at them, nor make an effort to obtain them. Not even aware they existed. Mr. O’mara offered to provide a copy to the detective while he was on the stand. Injuries of any kind, no matter how slight, should be very relevand evidence in this case. Also stippling from gun/gun powder. not sure of the spelling. I watched side by side comparison of the two subjects in the case on court-tv. Everyone should be aware that Mr. Martin was FOUR inches taller then Mr. Z. although Mr. Z weighed a whopping ten lbs. more then Martin. I think if u can listen to the whole conversation on 911 recording, Mr. Z told the dispatcher that he was headed back to his car, AFTER going forward to look at a street sign/no. Mr. M. was rather big compared to G.Z. As far as the gashes in Z’s head, it’s always been a thought of mine, from day one it popped into my head, the Mr. Martin hit Z. with his cell phone. Also, the father stated that he thought Trayvon was with his 20 yr. old cousin. I’ve only heard that once and not since. I agree with the other poster, Mr. M. had no right to attack, and I DO think he was the agressor with a sucker punch. It’s my opinion that he was also trying to impress his little girlfriend while on the phone. The portrayl of Martin by the media caused a lot of the problem. Hell, I didn’t realize how big/broad Mr. Martin was for at least a week because they showed Mr. Zimmerman’s real age pic and one of Martin that was taken five, six, seven yrs earlier. I could go on and on. But I want to leave with a thought I know u will really find offensive. Where I come from, the stand your ground law is null and void. It’s just understood here, we don’t have to have no law. Threaten me or mine, and we Will stand our ground. No matter the color.
Malisha. I think you just made the defenses case. He did fight like hell, would have been scared for my life too if a man that was a lot bigger and broader then me was hurting me and I had no idea who he was. I would like to know if Mr. Martins fingerprints were on that gun and I would also like to find out any toxicology results on Martin. After all, he was sent to his father’s after being suspended [third suspension] from school after marajuana was found in his gym bag. Might have just been residue but that only means that at one time mj was present. I think the police should ask his classmates how much was origionally in that bag. After all, why carry a baggie for only one joint. hhh…mmmm. Here we go again with the RACE RACE RACE thing. Take that out and see how you feel about the case then. PPPPPPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLLLLease, this was no racial frofiling, Mr. Z mentored two black teens for yrs. Even after funding was cut for the mentoring program George Zimmerman spent his own time/money to help these boys. Even told his mother that if he didn’t go, they would have noone. In no way was this a race issue. There is solid proof that Z. wasn’t racist. But some ppl seem to think they can’t make a case without it.
sorry, just can’t resist this subject.
THERE ARE TWO GLARING THINGS THAT STAND OUT TO ME.
NO.1 George Zimmerman DIDNT even have to call the police that night. But he did.
NO. 2 State prosecutor refused to charge Zimmerman BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED ZIMMERMANS account of the event. Please, I’m wanting to hear anyones thoughts on these facts.
There is so much ad hominem in this thread that I can’t scan it all, let alone read it. As to the photo that started this thread, I had questions about who took the photo and gave it to ABC. I also wondered who was actually pictured. It turns out that it is Zimmerman in the photo and it’s an enhanced still from the police station video we’ve seen before. A google search of ABC and Zimmerman turned up several “hits”.
“Enhanced video of George Zimmerman being led into a Florida police station appears to show possible injuries to the back of his head, lending credence to his claim he was in a struggle with Trayvon Martin when he shot the teen.
“ABC News initially released video of Zimmerman that did not clearly show marks on his scalp, but had the video enhanced digitally and released a new clip on Monday. That clip appears to show a gash. Zimmerman’s father claims his son was being beaten by the 17-year-old teen when he shot Martin in self-defense. Martin’s supporters say Zimmerman shot the unarmed teen on Feb. 26 after racially profiling him and stalking the youth through his neighborhood.”
“The enhanced version of that video was sent to ABC News from ForensicProtection.com, and zooms in on the back of Zimmerman’s head. There is a visible line, reddish pink, on his skull, though it is unclear how deep it is from the video. Of course, as many facts in this case, nothing is concrete, as the hospital records and much of what went on that night have yet to surface. The enhancement and potential injury do make the original video– in which Zimmerman appears in much better condition than those speaking up for him have claimed he was– much less of a smoking gun than many originally thought. And while it does help Zimmerman’s case, it does not speak all that much on the procedure legal authorities used in this case.”
It’s possible, may I say probable?, that Zimmerman was treated by EMTs at the scene, the bleeding stopped, and then the bleeding started again on the way to the police station.
enhanced video
Betty Kath, you are mixing things up. Above is the enhanced video. It shows a peculiar cross shaped wound/scar. The photo in Jonathan Turley’s article above surfaced later.
Otteray Scribe has the relevant information about this photo on another thread. This is not an enhanced photo of the police video, but a photo that was taken about two minutes after the shot at the crime scene. At least that is what the time stamp tells us, and if we assume that the time wasn’t manipulated.
I do not see the cross shaped wound in this photo, do you?
lot bigger and broader then me was hurting
southernbelle/Brenda Henson, if you have relevant information that Trayvon Martin wasn’t only taller but also broader and ideally heavier than George Zimmerman, you should contact Mark O’Mara. He may in fact overlook these relevant information in the autopsy or the may have forgotten to measure and weigh the corpse.
Concerning your question about the 911 call, what do you want to hear? You think, if he hadn’t called 911, there would be no discussion or less evidence? Well, you can of course keep that in mind, if you or your southernbeaux profiles a young guy that looks like he had it coming.
If you haven’t contributed yet, save the link to: The George Zimmerman Defense Fund
So, no need to mask worry with spite.
Leander, I accept that the two photos are not the same. Thanks for the correction.
In the above photo I see a T gash on the left and an I gash on the right. No idea how the two photos match up since I can’t see the video shot well enough to compare them.
The photo above has an abc news on it. Why isn’t it part of an abc news story, or am I missing something else? So I’m back to my original questions: who is it really a picture of and who took the picture. And a new question why can’t I find it related to abc news except here?
No answer required. I intend to leave this topic alone until the trial, if there is one. Already spent too much time on it.
The photo above has an abc news on it. Why isn’t it part of an abc news story, or am I missing something else? No answer required. I intend to leave this topic alone until the trial, if there is one. Already spent too much time on it.
Maybe Jonathan Turley should close the thread? I can’t help doing it, anyway:
ABC video: Zimmerman Injuries Seen in Exclusive Photo
Released in connection with the bond hearing it seems.
Brenda, one reason you are always aware are of race in news stories about crime is because they never (or very rarely, I don’t recall hearing it.) describe someone who is “white” as being white. It is presumed that it his (her) color, in good stories and in bad,.
“They” have not made you prejudiced (unless it is within your personal realm of experience, say being assaulted by an african american. Your racism is of our own making, and belief in the media when they always point out when a burglar, shooter, etc is black.
These black ‘lifelong’ friends of yours; are they still your friends?
Because of the recent discussion of the various photos and what they prove or fail to prove, let me start with “prosecution points” about the photos.
1. They do not show us anything about how Zimmerman got his injuries IF he got injuries. Only Zimmerman’s own word about how he got them is available since NOBODY else STILL ALIVE actually saw that part of it. Zimmerman’s credibility, weighed against many other factors, would provide the only “evidence” of how he got any injuries he got. The police did not have any eyewitnesses, that night, other than Zimmerman.
2. The photos are not in evidence yet because there has been no trial yet. There are many questions about the photos themselves; Mr. O’Mara, a skillful and diligent defense attorney, has already said he is not sure how or if he is going to use the photograph that started this thread. If I were Zimmerman’s defense attorney, I might not want to use it at all, because it might make his credibility go DOWN rather than UP. See, no smudges, no bashes, just clean lines of red liquid that a forensic physiologist might really go to town on.
But on to what brought me back to this subject. Brenda Henson did. I address Brenda Henson now.
I was most interested in what motivated you to feel and write the way you have, which is a really interesting subject for me right now (because I keep wondering what is making me continue to write as I have): WHAT MOVED YOU TO WRITE?
Your fear, Ms. Brenda Henson. Your fear.
First, you say you “can’t keep up with” the politically correct phrase to use for people of color. But then you developed life-long friends “that were/are colored.” So for starters, let’s just say you have a hard time understanding things that don’t particularly interest you. I don’t know your colored friends. But perhaps they TOLD you, if you asked, what words to use.
Then, interestingly, you say you have developed “a deep prejudiced [sic] towards african americans [sic]” but you justify this “prejudiced” because it is their fault: “They have made me that way…”
Ms. Henson, the notion that “african americans” have made you “prejudiced” is what some sociologists call “victim blaming.” But for the moment, I just want to go forward with more of your detailed explanation.
Yu go on to become the sociologists dream by pointing out to me that “this case is a perfect example of why.”
Then you show some signs of feeling defensive, saying, “I am frankly sick to death of the so called race issue that is constantly thrown in my face.”
Well there we have it, Ms. Henson. YOU admit prejudice, but you say that it is the fault of the folks against whom you FEEL it because they are always reminding you of the prejudice!
Hello, Hello! I am white — perhaps not as white as you describe yourself, but I identify as a “White American” on all official forms I need to fill out. And yes, I feel some prejudices against other people, and I admit that, but I don’t feel that when such prejudices are identified, they are being “thrown in my face.” If someone said to me, “OK, Malisha, you’re prejudiced against lawyers,” I would respond, “Yes that’s true. I have had some terrible experiences with some terrible lawyers and I do sometimes generalize that unfairly,” but I would not say, “It is their own damn fault I have this prejudice becasue they have done so much to deserve my scorn and contempt.” AND I wouldn’t insist that, if a man shot a lawyer to death for no reason, he should not be charged with a crime! AND I would not insist that if the lawyer faught for his life in the last minutes, that absolved his killer.
Your problem, I think, is that you are afraid that our country has come to the point where a man is going to be held accountable legally even though HE still believes he was within his rights, and YOU believe he was within his rights, to kill an AFRICAN AMERICAN person against whom his, or your, prejudice was justifiable.
What Malisha said. Well done!
sorry, just can’t resist this subject.
THERE ARE TWO GLARING THINGS THAT STAND OUT TO ME.
NO.1 George Zimmerman DIDNT even have to call the police that night. But he did.
NO. 2 State prosecutor refused to charge Zimmerman BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED ZIMMERMANS account of the event. Please, I’m wanting to hear anyones thoughts on these facts.
Southernbelle:
GZ had a history of calling the police on black kids, he called 911 about a 7 to 9 year old black kid! Tell me, would YOU call the cops on any 7 to 9 year old? These kids have the exact same rights to be walking about the neighborhood as GZ or anyone else who lives in the neighborhood. Trayvon had as much right to be in that neighborhood as GZ, exactly the same rights in fact!
THE GLARING THINGS THAT STAND OUT TO ME: GZ was told by the police dispatcher not to follow Trayvon, and if he had followed the advice from the police, Trayvon would still be alive. TELL ME, what was Trayvon doing that was against the law? What law was TM breaking that would give anyone the idea that he should be stopped or confronted?
The detective who documented the case thought that GZ should be charged with 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. The detective was overruled by the Chief of Police who has since received a ‘vote of no confidence’ from the Sanford city council and has tried to resign. He is on administrative leave right now.
Brenda Henson: TRAYVON MARTIN WAS AN HONOR STUDENT.
I was an honor student in high school too, and my friends and I smoked marijuana occasionally. We still got good grades, eventually got good jobs, and made careers for ourselves.
Continued, to Brenda Henson:
Your justification for the feelings you have just expressed is offered next:
Now, you’re coming up with what lawyers call “conclusory allegations.” You say that white people are “not whiners” and enhance that boast with, “nor do we point the finger at others of color and use skin as an excuse for everything/anything that involves ppl of different color.”
From this, I gather that you think the folks who pointed the finger at Zimmerman, claiming that he committed a crime when he shot Martin, were just doing that as “an excuse” and/or were just “whining.” It is not hard to see that you really think the killing of Trayvon Martin was essentially his own fault, or the fault of whoever taught him that he might not expect to be attacked or shot when he was just walking around with candy or talking on a cell phone. Do you not see how prejudiced that attitude is, and how essentially unAmerican it is to believe that some people are not entitled to “whine” and “point fingers” when one of their kids is shot to death?
Then you begin to talk about evidence of this or that offered at the televised bond hearing. Those things are not decided, yet, Ms. Henson; this was a hearing to find out only one thing: was it safe for the court to set and allow a bond for the pre-trial period for George Zimmerman? If it could be proven that he MIGHT have a defense that would work for him at trial, and that he did not therefore have to go out on bond with the clear understanding that there was NO way for him to win his case, then there was cause to let him go pending trial. Very limited fact-finding, done only by a judge, and done quickly. None of that is relevant to how the rest of this case will proceed. I even believe that there is a good prosecution reason to passively allow a low bond and a supervised release before trial: they know there will be appeal after appeal after appeal if they convict Zimmerman; they don’t want any little glimmer of anti-Zimmerman prejudice to float by and attract appellate upset.
But then you say, “I could go on and on.” Ms. Henson, we call could go on and on but there is already history that has recognized, world-wide, that certain things have happened. Among them are: White American Southerners were expossed to widespread cultural and educational conditions that caused many if not most of them to: harbor one or another degree of racial prejudice; experience feelings of resentment and defensiveness towards African Americans, particularly with respect to their ongoing quest for equal rights in America; suffer from feelings of injured “identity” having to do with the general understanding that their ancestors had improperly, imorally and unjustly instituted, defended and profited from slavery on our continent; and have anger management problems sometimes attributable to their feelings of helplessness when public attention is paid to these unfortunate situations and their sequelae.
I could say, “Hey Brenda Henson, get over it,” but that just doesn’t work. You are “sick to death” with having things “thrown in your face” when they arise in our common landscape. OK, I get that. That doesn’t mean that Zimmerman, who was “fed up” with the fact that “these assholes always get away” did not commit second-degree murder on 2/26/2012. It doesn’t mean he DID. But you’re in it, same as I’m in it, and I would ask you as a fellow American to examine how much of your attitude is informed by your personal prejudice, animosity, and fear. I do that work for myself on a daily basis. Sometimes it comes out OK.
You say: “I could go on and on. But I want to leave with a thought I know u will really find offensive. Where I come from, the stand your ground law is null and void. It’s just understood here, we don’t have to have no law. Threaten me or mine, and we Will stand our ground. No matter the color.”
That’s fine, Brenda Henson. That’s fine. I believe that is what you agree (with me, in this case) makes you a responsible human being.
Shakespeare said it once very well, “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” Yes indeed. I go for it. And let me tell you something I think YOU will really find offensive. Where Trayvon Martin came from (the deep South, same as you), he understood the very same thing. IF in fact he injured George Zimmerman that night, it was not because he had a few inches on him, and it was not because he was “colored” or even “african american.” It was because he felt that this guy the Police Chief described as “tailing him” was dangerous to him, and was threatening to him. Martin stood his ground. No matter the color.
“what was Trayvon doing that was against the law?”
What was Trayvon doing that was so suspicious – I mean aside from being black?
And since when does any citizen have the right to stop and question any other citizen?
Citizen Watch are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the police, not the point of the spear. It is my understanding that Citizen Watch are specifically directed to call police and not attempt to intervene.
As I have stated before, I am confident that this incident could have and should have been avoided.
Leaving aside legal liability for a moment. I am convinced that the facts already show personal culpability for Zimmerman. Zimmerman, through his own actions, took a simple situation that could have been easily resolved and turned it into a situation where a person lost their life. Is there anything more tragic or wasteful?
But that is not at all the same as legal guilt. Zimmerman might escape legal guilt due to the irrational ‘stand your ground’ laws of Florida, or because of a lack of evidence.
Southern Belle, you apparently believe the defense case is built on the idea that there was a fight and Zimmerman felt he was losing the fight at some point. The facts, assuming THAT to be true, could come out either one of the two following ways:
1. Zimmerman saw, profiled (“asshole”) and followed Martin.
2. Martin, a bad kid, sucker punched the guy who came up to him in the dark, beat him pretty badly and then got shot to death by him.
3. The police failed to send the shooter to the emergency room for treatment or for collection of evidence.
4. The police failed to charge the shooter with any crime, even involuntary manslaughter.
OR
1. Zimmerman saw, profiled (“asshole”) and followed Martin.
2. Martin, a good kid, asked, “why are you following me?” and then got an answer that either scared him or that put him on the physical and mental defensive; he faught defensively and/or offensively and he got shot to death.
3. The police failed to send the shooter to the emergency room for treatment or for collection of evidence.
4. The police failed to charge the shooter with any crime, even involuntary manslaughter.
The difference is in the #2. The FACT that Zimmerman got hurt (or did not get hurt) in the fight is not even relevant. In MY opinion, who shoved or punched first is not relevant either, in light of Florida’s SYG law. Martin had a right to feel threatened — he WAS being threatened, as can be amply proven by his subsequent death — and he could have done real damage, and he could even have thrown the first punch, within his rights as a Floridian.
So, no, I didn’t make the defene’s case for them, and guess what, no amount of blood or boo hoo on Zimmerman’s part would really get him past the “intent” barrier if I were on the prosecutor’s team and if the jury was not made up of Brenda Hensons and Southern Belles.
Frankly, if you subscribe to the idea that Zimmerman was ENTITLED to profile, follow and accost Martin and that, if he was unsatisfied with the asshole’s responses he was also entitled to kill him, you may not belong on the Zimmerman jury but you may belong in Florida.
As to the “proof” that Zimmerman was not a racist, you may subscribe to it; it won’t do much at trial and it won’t be relevant to anything, since he is not charged with a hate crime anyway. You cannot prove that Zimmerman was helping Trayvon Martin when he shot him, can you? But the real racism problem came in (and the feds are still evaluating it) when the police decided that all that fuss and bother with the criminal code was not necessary because only some unidentified dead Black kid could possibly object to what happened that night.
Malisha, you are on a roll. Way to go. These past few comments of yours sums up the case most succinctly. My patience has run out with those who engage in such logical gymnastics in trying to find a way to excuse killing a kid armed only with candy and tea, and who was literally in his own neighborhood, almost making it to his own doorstep when he was killed.
Otteray Scribe, I really appreciate that, it means a lot to me.
Shano, Congratulations for being an honor student. I am really glad you were never shot! The whole “Trayvon Martin was not a good kid” assault was distasteful, inappropriate, irrelevant, outrageous, essentially horrifying. Much worse than “Nicole Brown was promiscuous and deserved domestic violence from her blameless husband,”