Prosecutors in the George Zimmerman trial are facing a collapsing case and renewed question over whether Angela Corey succumbed to the political pressure and overcharged the case. The prosecution’s case has thus far been a disaster and many are now questioning whether charges should have been brought at all, let alone charged as second degree murder. For some inexplicable reason, the prosecutors led with Rachel Jeantel, who was one of the least compelling witnesses that they could have called from earlier perjury to ever-changing testimony. Now Angela Corey (right) and her office appear to be turning toward alternative areas of prosecution involving the daughter of one of the defense counsel.
Don West, who took apart Jeantel’s conflicted testimony on the stand, took his daughter out for ice cream and she posted on Instagram a picture with the caption: “We beat stupidity celebration cones #zimmerman #defense #dadkilledit.”
Prosecutors have asked for an inquiry on the basis that witnesses should be treated with respect. However, such rules apply to counsel not their progeny. West insists that he was not aware of the message.
The photo was actually taken the day before the cross examination.
I fail to see why the prosecutors would not accept the word of opposing counsel, particularly given the fact that this is his daughter.
Given the earlier allegations of withholding evidence in the case, the prosecutors should show a bit more judgment in my view. Of course, they have been busy presenting what appears a case for acquittal.
I have long been critical of Corey’s charging of the case as second degree murder and concerned that this was a case where public pressure influenced the prosecution. The video of Zimmerman’s account and the supporting testimony of these prosecution witnesses were known to Corey before the charges. Yet, she pursued second degree murder in what would be viewed as a difficult case even for manslaughter. I would leave counsel’s daughter alone and focus on the disaster unfolding in court.
Source: ABA Journal
……is simply inconceivable to me….
I will never understand how a fully grown adult can not be moved by an unarmed,unoffending child on his way home being gunned down by a vigilante adult whose biases, preconceptions, misconceptions and whatever other baggage clouded his judgment to the extent his impulses about Trayvon were unequivocally, factually wrong, leading to his next horrible decision to follow Trayvon. Zimmerman’s initial abysmal lack of judgment set everything else in motion.
Trayvon was NOT a suspect, and never was one, and to simply gloss over Zimmerman’s lack of judgment in profiling and following an innocent child
PollyAnna – I actually agree with you concerning Zimmerman’s reporting on his neighbor the way that he did. I don’t like that, so do not think that I gloss over it. Nevertheless, I do not consider it such a problem that I think it should be made illegal to call the police or to keep an eye on someone who you think is scoping out homes to rob. The line right now in terms of legality is drawn at physical altercation. From a legal standpoint, Zimmerman could have walked up to Trayvon Martin and cussed him out and told him to go home and get out of the area. What would be illegal is threatening bodily harm and actually committing bodily harm. The evidence has been put forward to the jury that Martin crossed that line, physically attacking Zimmerman. He put Zimmerman into a position where Zimmerman could not retreat, and he threatened him that he was going to take his life. At that point, Zimmerman was justified to use lethal force to protect his own life. It was not only his right, but his duty to do so. We should commend George Zimmerman for his actions, not punish him.
It is a tragedy because this 17 year old boy had his entire life before him. We should learn from this to teach our children not to embrace violence like Trayvon Martin did, but to seek for peaceful ways to resolve conflict. Dialogue is better than fisticuffs. I wish our public schools taught these values as well, for those children whose parents have failed to teach them. Unfortunately, so many secular progressives have fought against the teaching of value systems in our public schools that most young people today lack respect for others and pretty much think only about themselves.
Mr. davidm2575;
You are obtuse to the facts and incongruous in a large percentage of your banter. We need not discuss “IF”s that will never become facts in evidence.
All that matters is an unarmed man was “Stalked” by an armed man who was told (and confessed to this already – to Stand Down.
As a result of gun carrying George Zimmerman’s unwarranted, unlawful and totally unnecessary (Stalking) pursuit of someone walking back with a bag of Skittles from the local convenience store;
Trayvon Martin is dead and George Zimmerman confessed he killed him.
Justice demands culpability meets equally with accountability.
It is a distortion to say that Trayvon committed a crime.
Supposition at best – and more likely biased skullduggery obtuse to the lose of life, consideration for the family – and possibly worse.
laserhaas – *IF* Trayvon Martin threw the first punch, he committed a crime. Do you believe that there was any battery committed in this altercation between Martin and Zimmerman, prior to Trayvon Martin being shot?
davidm;
lay off the pipe man — your verbatim;
David your interpretation of the ‘facts’ as you have presented them have been discounted by others here using direct transcript quoting. No point in revisiting what you don’t want to see.
leejcaroll wrote: “No point in revisiting what you don’t want to see.”
You and others here seem to weave a story that wanders far from the facts of this case. When called upon to focus in a reductionist manner upon any such facts from which you deviate, you claim others are too biased to make it worth your while and resort to all manner of emotional name calling to make your case. I perceive such rhetoric as sophistry.
Based upon what you just said, it sounds like you agree with laserhaas saying:
Unequivocally and undeniable is the evidence that the 911 operator told GZ to “stand down and await the arrival of the police”.
Please take note of his quote marks and his reference to a 911 operator. Previous dialogue in this forum indicated that this was not a 911 operator, and that this quote is fallacious. The actual statement was, “we don’t need you to do that.”
Find the transcript of the call here:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/326700/full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf
You claim that my interpretation of the ‘facts’ as you have presented them have been discounted by others here using direct transcript quoting. I disagree and have proven you wrong. Those who take time to read both sides will see the truth for themselves.
Otay – Otteray….
A conviction in this case will send a very good message to society. You cannot decide that someone who is not committing a crime, or appearing to be looking to commit a crime is in fact up to no good because they look out of place to you. That if the police dispatcher says essentially let the police take care of it you decide you are a policeman and can use your gun. And btw using deadly force is in fact a crime when your life is not in jeopardy There was, at least as it looks so far, no reason to use deadly force. Or his gun or to follow Zimmerman. That’s why we have police forces. There was no cause for Zimmerman to use self help or to follow/engage Martin.
(Thanks Laserhaas. I needed that verbal hug. ((*_*)) )
LH,
We may not want to discuss this here. I will shoot you a PM at the Big Orange Place. Check your mail, but give me an hour or so. At the moment I am trying to drain a swamp, but am up to my a$$ in alligators, if you know what I mean. 😉
Hey Otteray – the other day when you made note on DK for me to slow down, I was miffed at you. A venerate upon high (B) called for my banning often and made a totally erroneous statement that I had no evidence.
Being that you are so good at instructing (and there are NO instruction manuals for victim/ whistleblowers) – how do you suggest I go about battling their bad faith quest to;
leejcarroll;
You have already warmed my heart with your Profile notes of your personal plight.
Now you go and give me additional reasons to adore you more. The remarks (as Otteray can tell you) – to davidm of;
is so apropos to the babbling banter B.S. I’m forced to endure (often) in my personal plight of being Mitt Romney’s direct nemesis.
Keep rocking on leejcarroll. You, Malisha and other good persons here give a peace loving soul hope renewed that there are good caring people still walking among U.S.
Otay Otteray – I sincerely appreciate the guidance.
laserhaas,
No harm in an occasional well-placed asterisk, and if you feel the need to explain the edit, just post a note at the end of the quote, that you modified a word or two to keep it out of the filter.
I didn’t know if it was “proper” to edit an actual quote by the press.
Gotcha….. Thanks…..
laserhaas,
Some editing to remove the f-word will keep your comments out of moderation.
George Zimmerman’s story always changes (as pathological liars do) – to fit the current moment/ need of the time.
GZ’s initial statement was he headed back to his truck after being told to stand down (but that’s not how the 911 tape recording details it).
GZ “claimed” that Trayvon came back after him (but we have Trayvon’s girl testimony that he lost the guy and then the guy [GZ] showed up again.
Furthermore GZ gave a false testimony to the police that;
Here’s a 911 recording about the scuffle – AS IT OCCURS.
Obviously – George Zimmerman LIED on most of the actual accounts.
http://youtu.be/bCO1Av5KarI
BTW – your premise is bogus that “no one needs ‘probable cause’ to follow someone on the street”
that’s because such is Against the Law –
its called “Stalking”
DavidM— (for mudder fud prker) – MAN, you simply don’t care about FACTS!
That’s the difference between you and I.
Never would I call someone a liar – without having facts in evidence. George Zimmerman already confessed in his own “statement” that he was told to stand down. He then “lied” and said that Trayvon Martin came at him (the 911 tape tells a whole different story).
As reported from TPM
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/george_zimmerman_statement_dispatcher_stop_trayvon_martin.php
laserhaas – I did not call you a liar. I asked you for evidence for your quote. I said that I thought you were lying, to press upon you the importance of substantiating your claim.
You said: Unequivocally and undeniable is the evidence that the 911 operator told GZ to “stand down and await the arrival of the police”.
Now you provided links which do not substantiate your quote. No 911 operator told GZ any such thing. The closest we have is a police dispatcher telling GZ that they did not need Zimmerman to do that [to follow Martin]. Telling him that they don’t need him to do that is not the same thing as ordering him to stand down and wait for police. It is standardly worded this way so the police could avoid liability if the person complies and something negative happens as a result. Liberty still exists for Zimmerman to do what he thinks is best. Nevertheless, Zimmerman says that he stopped following Martin at that point, and I believe him. Based upon your response, I conclude that your quote was false and the fact that you continue to stand behind what you said suggests that you are intentionally giving us this false information rather than simply being a case of misspeaking.
Most of what you claim are lies by Zimmerman are based upon misinterpretations of what was said and what was meant by certain comments. People say things with a certain context and meaning.
Furthermore, you take the prosecutor’s position that Zimmerman was the aggressor as fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor. That is begging the question. The prosecutor is trying desperately to prove this was the case, but in my opinion, the prosecutor has failed miserably. The prosecutor is just plain wrong. The facts are not on her side. Zimmerman was concerned about recent burglaries and how the punks committing the crimes were always getting away. So he called the police about a man seemingly out of place in the rain. Martin didn’t like that and decided to show Zimmerman that he had bit off more than he could handle.
As for your assertion that watching someone and following someone is stalking, you are wrong again. According to Florida Stalking laws 748.048 – “Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person … ” Exactly where is the malice? Harass is defined here as “to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.” Zimmerman had a legitimate purpose and a Constitutionally protected right to be there. Statute 748.048 (1)(b) says that course of conduct means, “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.”
The fact is that Zimmerman did not break the law by following Martin and calling the police to come check him out. Martin did break the law when he punched Zimmerman. Now we have an innocent law abiding man Zimmerman being beaten up by a criminal named Trayvon Martin. The law says that Zimmerman can defend himself in such a fight, even using lethal force if he believed his own life was in danger. Unfortunately, the criminal here (Trayvon Martin) was killed in self defense.
A conviction in this case will send a very bad message to society, that they should hide in their homes whenever it looks like someone is committing a crime, and a message that people should not get involved to help their neighbor, and a message that using deadly force in self defense is a crime. I am ready to rise up in protest regarding any conviction in this case. Zimmerman should be freed immediately.
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — The mother and brother of Trayvon Martin testified Friday that screams for help captured on audio of a 911 call came from the 17-year-old.
Sybrina Fulton and Jahvaris Fulton took the witness stand during the trial of George Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch volunteer charged with second-degree murder in Martin’s shooting death. Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty and says he shot the teen in self-defense during a fight.
After the audio was played, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asked Sybrina Fulton, “Who do you recognize that to be?” She replied, “Trayvon Benjamin Martin.”
Identifying the screams on the 911 call could be critical to the case because it may help determine who was the aggressor during the scuffle between Zimmerman and Martin.
Under cross-examination, defense attorney Mark O’Mara suggested that Sybrina Fulton may have been influenced by others who listened to the 911 call, including relatives and her former husband.
O’Mara also asked Fulton hypothetically whether she would have to accept it was Zimmerman yelling for help if the screams did not come from her son. He also asked if she hoped Martin didn’t do anything that led to his death.
“I heard my son screaming,” Fulton said. “I would hope for this to never have happened and he would still be here.”
Jahvaris Fulton, Martin’s brother, also testified the screaming voice was that of Martin.
But O’Mara asked him why last year he had told a reporter that he wasn’t sure if the voice belonged to Martin. Jahvaris Fulton, in explaining his comment to the reporter, told O’Mara he was “shocked” when he heard it.
“I didn’t want to believe it was him,” Jahvaris Fulton said.
O’Mara asked to play the television interview for jurors, but Judge Debra Nelson denied his request for the time being.
Jahvaris Fulton’s testimony was broken up by efforts to unlock the evidence room adjacent to the courtroom. Unable to open it, court officials called a locksmith with a drill to help them out.
Before testifying, Sybrina Fulton posted on Twitter “I pray that God gives me the strength to properly represent my Angel Trayvon.”