George Zimmerman trial: Jury selected in Trayvon Martin shooting case
By Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel
3:05 p.m. EDT, June 20, 2013
SANFORD - A jury has been selected for the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, after more than a week of intensive jury selection in the high-profile case.
The lawyers have selected 10 Seminole County residents -- six jurors and four alternates -- to serve as jurors for a trial which is expected to last two to four weeks, and is sure to be closely watched across the nation.
Prosecutors say Zimmerman profiled, pursued and killed the unarmed teen Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford. Zimmerman says he fired in self-defense after he was attacked by Trayvon, a high school junior from Miami Gardens.
Here are some details about the jurors selected today, which were revealed during the jury selection process:
B-29: A Hispanic nurse on an Alzheimer's ward who has several children and lived in Chicago at the time of shooting. She’s married. She said she doesn't watch the news, preferring reality television: “Right when we got here, I got cable... I love my reality shows.” During jury selection, she said she was arrested once in Chicago.
B-76: A white, middle-aged woman who said Zimmerman had an “altercation with the young man. There was a struggle and the gun went off.” Has been married 30 years, and is unemployed. She formerly worked with her husband in his construction company. Her 28-year-old son is an attorney in Seminole County. She also has a daughter, 26, has been a victim of non-violent crime and rescues “a lot of pets.” The state tried to strike her, but was denied.
B-37: A middle-aged white woman who has worked for a chiropractor for 16 years and has many pets. She described protests in Sanford as “rioting.” Her husband is an attorney. She has two daughters: A 24-year-old dog groomer and a 27-year-old who attends the University of Central Florida. B-37 used to have concealed weapons permit, but let it lapse. Her husband also has one.
B-51: A retired white woman from Oviedo who has a dog and 20-year-old cat. She knew a good deal about the case, but said “I'm not rigid in my thinking.” She has been in Seminole County for nine years, is unmarried and has no kids. B-51 previously lived in Atlanta, and used to work in real estate. She also ran a call center in Brevard County which she said had 1,200 employees.
E-6: A young white woman and mother who used to work in financial services. She used this case as an example to her two adolescent children, warning them to not go out at night. She has lived in Seminole County for eight years, and is married to an engineer. E-6 was arrested in Brevard County, but said she “was treated completely fairly.” Her husband has guns. The state tried to strike her from the jury, but was denied.
E-40: A white woman in her 60s who lived in Iowa at the time of the shooting. She heard national news reports and recalls the shooting was in a gated community and a teenager was killed. She described herself as a safety officer, is married to a chemical engineer and loves football. She has a 28-year-old son who’s out of work. She said she’s very well versed in cell phone technology, and has been a victim of crime.
These are the alternates:
E-54: A middle-aged white man with a teenage stepson who wears hoodies. He recalled seeing photos of Zimmerman's head and face that show injuries. E-54 loves golf and genealogy, and said he’s been married for five years to a technical engineer. He grew up in Seminole County and has a teenage stepson.
B-72: A young, possibly Hispanic man who does maintenance at a school and competes in arm wrestling tournaments. He said he avoids the news because he does not want to be “brainwashed.” B-72 grew up in Chicago, is single and an alumni of Phi Beta Kappa. He is very physically active, having participated in high school football, track and weightlifting. Of arm-wrestling he said, “I could talk about it all day.”
E-13: A young white woman who goes to college and works two jobs, one of them as a surgical assistant. She heard the shooting was a “racial thing.” She said she could be a fair juror “just because I don't really know that much.” She is single, has lived in Seminole County for 17 years and attends church. She also owns and rides horses.
E-28: A middle-aged white woman who has worked as a nurse for 26 years. She knew little about the case and has no opinion about Zimmerman's guilt. She has lived in Seminole County since 1985, and has been married for 28 years; her husband is a teacher. Has two adult children: 27, 23 yo kids, theme park.
The all female thing surprised me. I'd imagine the women would be more inclined to go with the "victim child" bent that the prosecution is going to go on.
At this point, I don't really care what happens. My complaints stopped when he went to actual trial. I'll be fine with whatever result a fair trial produces.
djones520 wrote: The all female thing surprised me. I'd imagine the women would be more inclined to go with the "victim child" bent that the prosecution is going to go on.
Normally yes, but they could push - "evil doer in the dark attacking me" angle. Plus those three are a gift. We have to remember the jury can only be pulled from the jurisdiction (usually) and the available pool of that day. I think they went through something like 300 jurors to get 6. I wonder what the standard is. Self defense is usually an affirmative defense, and Captain Alzheimers can't remember what that does to the standard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mega_bassist wrote: Can they actually do that? I thought they were supposed more...diverse.
They are. Knocking down a female jury is difficult. Besides the defendant would want this jury.
Well the defense and the prosecution can only pick from whatever the jury pool is and even that is limited by who actually shows up when called for jury duty.
Usually both sides have a number of auto excludes, no questions asked. I have been called to jury duty three times but never selected, which is not an uncommon result since there are not a lot of trials going on. A couple of times I didnt even have to go to the court house.
JWhex wrote: Well the defense and the prosecution can only pick from whatever the jury pool is and even that is limited by who actually shows up when called for jury duty.
Sure, but statistically they should have had at least a few men available after burning some peremptories, right? It seems to me they must have decided that an entirely female jury was OK...or perhaps they blew all of their challenges early\poorly in bouncing other jurors they considered even more undesirable, I guess.
JWhex wrote: Well the defense and the prosecution can only pick from whatever the jury pool is and even that is limited by who actually shows up when called for jury duty.
Sure, but statistically they should have had at least a few men available after burning some peremptories, right? It seems to me they must have decided that an entirely female jury was OK...or perhaps they blew all of their challenges early\poorly in bouncing other jurors they considered even more undesirable, I guess.
No way of knowing unless you were in the room when potential jurors are being questioned and screened. Even then its not always obvious to a layman why someone was excluded. I dont think it is a big deal that the jury is all female.
Jihadin wrote: You know that's coming. More so if the defendant start winning.
Oh, it's here. Frequent the liberal blogosphere for amusement as I do, and you'll see plenty of it. Also a lot of claims that the two who have guns in the household should have been bounced because they clearly have mental disorders.
I'm reminded of the Menendez brothers' first trial. That ended deadlocked and at least one of the female jurors said she felt sorry for them because they lost their parents.
Well, we can't really have a meaningful conversation about the specifics of a thread that happened in a different multiverse. It's my opinion that a unisex jury for a case that's been followed as closely as this on Dakka would have been newsy enough to have gotten a thread either way, as would have either an all white or all black jury.
Maybe it was how the dice rolled on this on. That all primary jurors ended up being females. I can see the angle "mother with son" bit, "Mother who has a smiliar son" bit. Or "mother who has a son already playing in Martin lifestyle" NOtice all the pictures so far has been "good pics" and I'm sure there are bad pics of Martin posted already online as porping a "Gangbanger" life style.
Palindrome wrote: If the just was comprised of 10 men would a similar thread exist?
Oh, hell yes it would. And the sex of the jurors would be mentioned in the title as well. That thread might not exist on this website (then again, it might), but it would most definitely exist.
Jihadin wrote: NOtice all the pictures so far has been "good pics" and I'm sure there are bad pics of Martin posted already online as porping a "Gangbanger" life style.
I believe those were all ruled as inadmissible, yes?
In court yes but they already been exposed. I've only seen one positive pic of Zim and rest were bad on him. Unlike Trayvon flooding the internet market (news team). I wonder if Obama saying is inadmissible in court to about this case. Case was fudged from the Get go
Jihadin wrote: In court yes but they already been exposed. I've only seen one positive pic of Zim and rest were bad on him. Unlike Trayvon flooding the internet market (news team). I wonder if Obama saying is inadmissible in court to about this case. Case was fudged from the Get go
Unfortunately, a life of emulating gangsters and pretending to be a criminal (and at that young age, perhaps dabble in minor offenses) should not allow us to judge him for what happened that night. Only two people knew what happened; one is dead and now the rest of society has to decide if the living one is telling the truth.
djones520 wrote: I'd expect to hear screams about how no one on the jury is black.
I figured there'd be more hispanics... I thought that jurisdiction was where "little cuba" is at in Florida. o.O
Nope.
Remember the defense wouldn't want a jury of African Americans. A good jury is this one, law and order types, people who feel the government is all a conspiracy (ok that one is most of the US now), preppers, old people, and vatos.
JWhex wrote: Well the defense and the prosecution can only pick from whatever the jury pool is and even that is limited by who actually shows up when called for jury duty.
Sure, but statistically they should have had at least a few men available after burning some peremptories, right? It seems to me they must have decided that an entirely female jury was OK...or perhaps they blew all of their challenges early\poorly in bouncing other jurors they considered even more undesirable, I guess.
Note several of these wimminz were actuall;y challenged by the prosecution, but it was kicked out.
An all female jury can be just fine if played correctly. Women make up a lot of CHLers, play on that reason and OPA free at lasat free at last.
Absent surprise evidence or a total up Z be free.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote: If the just was comprised of 10 men would a similar thread exist?
You betcha. I would have posted anything with "Z jury picked," as this case is very interesting to me.
Jihadin wrote: NOtice all the pictures so far has been "good pics" and I'm sure there are bad pics of Martin posted already online as porping a "Gangbanger" life style.
I believe those were all ruled as inadmissible, yes?
Only for the moment. Prosecution puts sweet baby T pics guess what comes next...
Jihadin wrote: In court yes but they already been exposed. I've only seen one positive pic of Zim and rest were bad on him. Unlike Trayvon flooding the internet market (news team). I wonder if Obama saying is inadmissible in court to about this case. Case was fudged from the Get go
Unfortunately, a life of emulating gangsters and pretending to be a criminal (and at that young age, perhaps dabble in minor offenses) should not allow us to judge him for what happened that night. Only two people knew what happened; one is dead and now the rest of society has to decide if the living one is telling the truth.
1. Horse gak. Judge away. You are measured by the hive of villainy you hang with. 2. There were actual witnesses so thats incorrect.
What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!
It's supposed to be a secretive selection so that they can't be approached and compromised by parties with an interest in the verdict. They're also supposed to keep schtum about all details of the case - I realise this may seem moot in a publicised trial (which is all kinds of horribly wrong to begin with), but putting out details of where the jurors are from and what they do for a living only makes them even more targetable.
Super Ready wrote: What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!
It's supposed to be a secretive selection so that they can't be approached and compromised by parties with an interest in the verdict. They're also supposed to keep schtum about all details of the case - I realise this may seem moot in a publicised trial (which is all kinds of horribly wrong to begin with), but putting out details of where the jurors are from and what they do for a living only makes them even more targetable.
You're confusing 'merica with the United Kingdom. Easy mistake to make!
But I agree. Maybe somebody from America can answer this: is it easy to nobble an American jury? Nobble = influence a jury by criminal means
Super Ready wrote: What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!
It's supposed to be a secretive selection so that they can't be approached and compromised by parties with an interest in the verdict. They're also supposed to keep schtum about all details of the case - I realise this may seem moot in a publicised trial (which is all kinds of horribly wrong to begin with), but putting out details of where the jurors are from and what they do for a living only makes them even more targetable.
You're confusing 'merica with the United Kingdom. Easy mistake to make!
But I agree. Maybe somebody from America can answer this: is it easy to nobble an American jury? Nobble = influence a jury by criminal means
Juries in America aren't supposed to be in contact with ANYONE during the trial, because it could lead to bias, jury tampering, or fething up the case. But IANAL so perhaps someone can either give you better confirmation than I can.
Super Ready wrote: What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!
It's supposed to be a secretive selection so that they can't be approached and compromised by parties with an interest in the verdict. They're also supposed to keep schtum about all details of the case - I realise this may seem moot in a publicised trial (which is all kinds of horribly wrong to begin with), but putting out details of where the jurors are from and what they do for a living only makes them even more targetable.
Super Ready wrote: What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!
It's supposed to be a secretive selection so that they can't be approached and compromised by parties with an interest in the verdict. They're also supposed to keep schtum about all details of the case - I realise this may seem moot in a publicised trial (which is all kinds of horribly wrong to begin with), but putting out details of where the jurors are from and what they do for a living only makes them even more targetable.
You're confusing 'merica with the United Kingdom. Easy mistake to make!
But I agree. Maybe somebody from America can answer this: is it easy to nobble an American jury? Nobble = influence a jury by criminal means
Juries in America aren't supposed to be in contact with ANYONE during the trial, because it could lead to bias, jury tampering, or fething up the case. But IANAL so perhaps someone can either give you better confirmation than I can.
You're thinking Hollywood. In Florida its my understanding jurors can go home at night and weekends - much more civilized.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: But I agree. Maybe somebody from America can answer this: is it easy to nobble an American jury? Nobble = influence a jury by criminal means
Not really. The kinds of crimes that are likely to be worth the effort of committing the felonies needed to bribe or threaten a jury are also the crimes that are likely to have jurors sequestered. It happens, but it's pretty damn rare.
Super Ready wrote: What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!
It's supposed to be a secretive selection so that they can't be approached and compromised by parties with an interest in the verdict. They're also supposed to keep schtum about all details of the case - I realise this may seem moot in a publicised trial (which is all kinds of horribly wrong to begin with), but putting out details of where the jurors are from and what they do for a living only makes them even more targetable.
You're confusing 'merica with the United Kingdom. Easy mistake to make!
But I agree. Maybe somebody from America can answer this: is it easy to nobble an American jury? Nobble = influence a jury by criminal means
Juries in America aren't supposed to be in contact with ANYONE during the trial, because it could lead to bias, jury tampering, or fething up the case. But IANAL so perhaps someone can either give you better confirmation than I can.
I remember jurors of the OJ Simpson trial walking straight out of the courthouse and into a chat show. That struck me as odd. Then again, if it were the UK, you'd walk straight into the nearest pub!
You're thinking Hollywood. In Florida its my understanding jurors can go home at night and weekends - much more civilized.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that they were holed up in some lightless hotel, they are allowed to go home, but I had always been under the impression that Juries are not allowed to talk about the case they're a juror for.
You're thinking Hollywood. In Florida its my understanding jurors can go home at night and weekends - much more civilized.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that they were holed up in some lightless hotel, they are allowed to go home, but I had always been under the impression that Juries are not allowed to talk about the case they're a juror for.
Ah in turn then I must apologize. You are absolutely correct.
I'm sure thats never ever violated...
You're thinking Hollywood. In Florida its my understanding jurors can go home at night and weekends - much more civilized.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that they were holed up in some lightless hotel, they are allowed to go home, but I had always been under the impression that Juries are not allowed to talk about the case they're a juror for.
Ah in turn then I must apologize. You are absolutely correct.
I'm sure thats never ever violated...
no need to apologize prophet of the Great Wienie, I was the one that was unclear, and you're right it probably NEVER happens
I do know there was a case once where a juror was thrown off for looking up a phrase a lawyer had used in the court on the internetz to see what he meant.
Frazzled wrote: Only for the moment. Prosecution puts sweet baby T pics guess what comes next...
Yup, put the deceased's character forward and it's open season
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I do know there was a case once where a juror was thrown off for looking up a phrase a lawyer had used in the court on the internetz to see what he meant.
I remember hearing of a case being thrown out because the jury used a ouji board to decide if the accused was guilty or not
Super Ready wrote: What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!
There isn't enough information here to figure out a juror's actual name, address, whatever. All that's there is simple answers to questions the prosecution and defense posed to them.
That's far short of a biography. None of those descriptions would allow anyone to track down a juror and try to intimidate, bribe, or otherwise tamper with the juror or jury.
kronk wrote: There isn't enough information here to figure out a juror's actual name, address, whatever. All that's there is simple answers to questions the prosecution and defense posed to them.
That's far short of a biography. None of those descriptions would allow anyone to track down a juror and try to intimidate, bribe, or otherwise tamper with the juror or jury.
For us? No, of course not. But considering they've taken people from the area in question... there's always someone that knows someone that knows someone. And of course there's a chance that someone was the defendant or the victim.
Not to mention - if it's televised, if even locals can't figure out who they are yet, they soon will...!!
Be interesting to see how this goes, honestly I think the Prosecutor could nail Zimmerman to the wall for manslaughter but because they were pretty much forced to overcharge with murder two Z's got a solid chance of walking for this... right into some form of witness protection program, hell some poor lady almost got killed in Oklahoma for looking vaguely like (i.e. a caucasian brunette female) Casey Anthony while Anthony was still in prison in Florida. The mob mentality in this country fed by the 24 hour news cycle and evil *********************** like Nancy Freaking Grace is just disgusting.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Be interesting to see how this goes, honestly I think the Prosecutor could nail Zimmerman to the wall for manslaughter but because they were pretty much forced to overcharge with murder two Z's got a solid chance of walking for this... right into some form of witness protection program, hell some poor lady almost got killed in Oklahoma for looking vaguely like (i.e. a caucasian brunette female) Casey Anthony while Anthony was still in prison in Florida. The mob mentality in this country fed by the 24 hour news cycle and evil *********************** like Nancy Freaking Grace is just disgusting.
Nancy Grace is hilarious..... until you realise that she is deadly serious and that she has a significant following She really does sum up "trial by media"
More interesting now since Judge Whatshername ruled out "No Audio Expert" for even they are not consistent I can see by the writing that quite a bit of posters already convicted Z. Zimmermann most likely going to walk with the "Castle Law" on his side.
Zimmermann claim Castle Law. Florida has a law literally or probably name "Stand your Ground" where if you feel your life is threaten you can
'legally" kill someone to remove the threat. Hence he's more likely walking.
The Judge is not allowing Audio Experts into the trial for Prosecutions since they are half and half on who's voice is screaming or talking on the 911 call.
I would have thought that having a definitive answer over who said what on the 911 call was sort of important given that it's otherwise Zimmerman's word on what happened.
Jihadin wrote: Zimmermann claim Castle Law. Florida has a law literally or probably name "Stand your Ground" where if you feel your life is threaten you can
'legally" kill someone to remove the threat. Hence he's more likely walking.
The Judge is not allowing Audio Experts into the trial for Prosecutions since they are half and half on who's voice is screaming or talking on the 911 call.
Castle doctrine applies to your castle, ybut you're right on the "stand your ground" law. However he waived his hearing on that. I do not know if he can re-invoke at this point. Its not that relevant IIRC in this instance, unless the prosecutor is a dumb who starts impugning he should have done so. Of course Z has stated he was in fact leaving at the time of the incident.
Its mostly the screaming the Audio Experts are confused on the 911 call. Since I'm not an expert on audio...only thing I know positive is when a AK47 or AK74 is fired on us...RPG...screaming obscenity at the enemy...actually been a couple times we pause in the firing when an individual so excited they scream
1. Something really really dumb and funny
2. Screaming uses a new set of vocal cords or something and someone with a manly voice sounds like a "Shirley"
3. Location of the Shooters.
4. Drawing attention to Number 2
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I would have thought that having a definitive answer over who said what on the 911 call was sort of important given that it's otherwise Zimmerman's word on what happened.
I think they are stuill admitting the call, or will when the witness proves the chain of it.
Its a simple situation, however with a lack of evidence.
1. Did Z physically attack or threaten to attack T?
-if yes, then I do not believe he can claim self defense at that point, without a further mitigating factor.
Evidence:
minimal. Z says no. This would be supported by intent if the location supports Z's argument he was leaving the scene as it supports a lack of mental state for such.
witness say T on top of Z, but could be he was winning an attack by Z. Thats more difficult though as I don't think there were injuries on T.
2. Did T physically attack are threaten to attack Z?
-if yes, absent #1 being affirmative then that sets up the right of self defense.
Evidence:
trauma to Z. Witness to event shows T on top attacking Z and there were no apparent injuries to T.
3. If #2 above, then was the attack or threat sufficient to meet the Florida statutes for reasonable belief or other standards?
Evidence: easier on this one. Injuries to Z. The screaming could be used to support but thats touch and go.
One simple fact seems really hard for people to understand, Trayvon Martin committed no crime. To be even more clear, he did no wrong. He was where he was supposed to be and wasn’t bothering anyone. So any attempt to try to create some history of a troubled youth, like so many in the conservative media have tried to do is really meaningless. It actually doesn’t matter, because on the day he was murdered, Trayvon was simply walking home.
Do you know the name of the person in the above picture? When I ask this question, most do not. A few kinda remember his face and mention the Newtown Massacare. The above photo is a picture of Adam Lanza, the 20 year old who shot and killed 20 children and 6 adults 6 months ago, and most of us can barley remember his name. What does this have to do with Trayvon? I would argue that Trayvon, who broke no laws and killed no one, had been demonized far more than mass murderer Adam Lanza. Just check out this Exclusive story in the New York Daily News.
That fact that far too many Americans can’t even stand with the family of a unarmed teenager who was murdered while walking from the store with a iced tea and a bag of skittles shows we have a long way to go when it comes to race relations in the good old US of A.
Actually, we have plenty of evidence he was committing battery to a level up to attempted murder. The question is, and its the same one facing Z now is, did the other guy attack him or did he attack the other guy.
You cannot just attack someone you think is following you (or as mom would say, finish the job and leave the evidence with the gators).
Inversely you cannot blast someone you think might get away (evidently unless its in Texas and it might be an escort leaving with your money WTF???).
You also cannot blast someone for politely or impolitely asking if you are following them.
Moral of the story. nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
The propaganda surrounding Trayvon Martin is thick and gak filled on both sides. Remember the first week or two of news coverage? Pretty sure they were exclusively using photos of Trayvon from Middle School, hell even calling him a child is careful information management, he was certainly well past the age where we call people children, and he (and I at that age) would probably give you a hell of a venomous look and some choice words if you called him one. That's just standard behavior for seventeen year olds.
Now on to Stand Your Ground laws, I'm sick of them being mischaracterized. It is NOT because of SYG that you have the right to legally defend yourself with lethal force if necessary. It simply removes the "Duty to Retreat". Which is to say, you have to attempt to run away first, then you can defend yourself. You can use lethal force when threatened in such a way to justify lethal force.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The propaganda surrounding Trayvon Martin is thick and gak filled on both sides. Remember the first week or two of news coverage? Pretty sure they were exclusively using photos of Trayvon from Middle School, hell even calling him a child is careful information management, he was certainly well past the age where we call people children, and he (and I at that age) would probably give you a hell of a venomous look and some choice words if you called him one. That's just standard behavior for seventeen year olds.
Yup, I remember that and wondering why when a 17 year old was shot they only had pictures of him from years before. I'm sure if he was 18-19 when the incident happened he would have still been referred to as a teenager
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Be interesting to see how this goes, honestly I think the Prosecutor could nail Zimmerman to the wall for manslaughter but because they were pretty much forced to overcharge with murder two Z's got a solid chance of walking for this... right into some form of witness protection program, hell some poor lady almost got killed in Oklahoma for looking vaguely like (i.e. a caucasian brunette female) Casey Anthony while Anthony was still in prison in Florida. The mob mentality in this country fed by the 24 hour news cycle and evil *********************** like Nancy Freaking Grace is just disgusting.
Nancy Grace is hilarious..... until you realise that she is deadly serious and that she has a significant following She really does sum up "trial by media"
I know Nancy grace exist, but what does she do that is so bad? Alll in all in think Zimmermen is getting majorly screwed with this jury, women are naturally sympathetic, and if his mother(Martins) or grandmother takes the stand then he is going to jail for along time.
In 2011 a New York Times article David Carr wrote “Since her show began in 2005, the presumption of innocence has found a willful enemy in the former prosecutor turned broadcast judge-and-jury". He criticized her handling of the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart, the Duke lacrosse case, the Melinda Duckett interview and suicide and the Caylee Anthony case. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told Carr that Grace, as an attorney and reporter, “has managed to demean both professions with her hype, rabid persona, and sensational analysis. Some part of the public takes her seriously, and her show erodes the respect for basic rights”.[16]
Elizabeth Smart kidnapping[edit]
During the 2002 Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case, when suspect Richard Ricci was arrested by police on the basis that he had a criminal record and had worked on the Smarts' home, Grace immediately and repeatedly proclaimed on CourtTV and CNN's Larry King that Ricci "was guilty," although there was little evidence to support this claim. She also suggested publicly that Ricci's girlfriend was involved in the cover-up of his alleged crime. Grace continued to accuse Ricci, though he died while in custody.[17]
It was later revealed that Smart was kidnapped by Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee, two individuals with whom Richard Ricci had no connection.[18]
When CourtTV confronted Grace seven months later to ask whether she was incorrect in her assertion that Ricci was guilty, and whether or not she felt bad about it in any way, she stated that Ricci was "a known ex-con, a known felon, and brought suspicion on himself, so who could blame anyone for claiming he was the perpetrator?" When Larry King asked her about the matter, she equated criticism of herself with criticism of the police in the case. She said: "I'm not letting you take the police with me on a guilt trip."[19]
In July 2006, Grace interviewed Smart, who was promoting a legislative bill. Grace repeatedly asked her for information regarding her abduction. Smart told her she didn't feel comfortable discussing it, despite Grace's persistence in the matter. Finally, Grace stopped when Smart said she "didn't appreciate you [Grace] bringing all this up."[20]
Danielle van Dam case[edit]
During the trial of David Westerfield in 2002 for the kidnap and murder of Danielle van Dam, Nancy Grace made it clear on CNN's Larry King Live that she thought he was guilty, but she got many facts wrong, and she also made some statements pointing to his possible innocence.
She accused him of steam-cleaning his RV, but Dr. Henry Lee pointed out that, had he done so, they wouldn’t have found the fingerprints and the bloodstain on the carpet.[21][22] In fact, very little cleaning had been done, as evidenced by the absence of the smell of cleaning products, and the fine layer of dust throughout the interior of the vehicle, and it was the van Dams, not Westerfield, who had a steam-cleaner.[23]
Grace argued that Westerfield’s black jacket was leather, so van Dam hairs and fibers would not have been transferred onto it by “dirty dancing” at the bar on Friday night.[24] But the jacket was open and his shirt wasn’t leather, so there could have been transfer. She also thought he kept his jacket on while taking a shower: “that must be some mighty tough DNA to stick to a leather jacket and live through a shower”. That statement shows she made another mistake: Danielle’s blood was not on the jacket he was wearing Friday night - no evidence was found on any of his Friday night clothing.[25]
The strongest evidence against Westerfield was in his RV, particularly a drop of Danielle’s blood and her handprint. All that small amount of evidence could be innocently explained if, at some previous time while it was parked unlocked in the streets outside her home, Danielle had entered that vehicle, perhaps to explore it out of curiosity. There was no testimony she had done so, but to her credit, Grace said she "can imagine a little girl wandering into a RV and playing in it, much as if they saw a swimming pool, they might jump in, or a playground, they might play on it".[21]
She also thought that the parents’ friend Barbara Easton (the one who “let the cat out of the bag” over the parents’ sexual activities), wasn’t called to testify because she “could go into further evidence of wife-swapping and swinging on the part of the victims' family”. So Grace didn’t think the whole truth had been revealed.[26]
Duke lacrosse allegations[edit]
Grace took a vehemently pro-prosecution position throughout the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, in which Crystal Gail Mangum, a stripper and North Carolina Central University student, falsely accused three members of Duke University's men's lacrosse team of raping her at a party. Prior to Duke suspending its men's lacrosse team's season, she sarcastically noted on the air, "I'm so glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!" and "Why would you go to a cop in an alleged gang rape case, say, and lie and give misleading information?"[27] After the disbarment of District Attorney Mike Nifong, Attorney General Roy Cooper pronounced all three players innocent of the rape charges made by Mangum and Nifong.[28] On the following broadcast of her show, Grace did not appear and a substitute reporter, Jane Velez-Mitchell, announced the removal of all charges.[29]
Suicide of interviewee Melinda Duckett[edit]
In September 2006, 22-year-old Melinda Duckett committed suicide following an interview conducted by Grace concerning the disappearance of Duckett's 2-year-old son Trenton.[30]
Grace interviewed Duckett less than two weeks after the child went missing, questioning her for her alleged lack of openness regarding her son's disappearance, asking Duckett "Where were you? Why aren't you telling us where you were that day?"[31] Duckett appeared confused and was unable to answer whether or not she had taken a polygraph test. When Grace asked her why she could not account for specific details, Duckett began to reply, "Because I was told not to," to which Grace responded, "Ms. Duckett, you are not telling us for a reason. What is the reason? You refuse to give even the simplest facts of where you were with your son before he went missing. It is day twelve." According to the CNN transcript, Duckett replied, "(INAUDIBLE) with all media. It's not just there, just all media. Period." Grace then moved on to a media psychologist who asserted that Duckett was "skirting around the issue."[30][32]
The next day, before the airing of the show, Duckett shot herself, a death that relatives claim was influenced by media scrutiny, particularly from Grace.[30][33] Speaking to The Orlando Sentinel, Duckett's grandfather Bill Eubank said, "Nancy Grace and the others, they just bashed her to the end. She was not one anyone ever would have thought of to do something like this."[30] CNN has also been criticized for allowing the show to air in the wake of Duckett's suicide.[34] Police investigating the case had not named Melinda Duckett as a suspect in the case at the time, but after her suicide the police did say that, as nearly all parents are in missing-child cases, she was a suspect from the beginning.[30]
In an interview on Good Morning America, Nancy Grace said in reaction to events that "If anything, I would suggest that guilt made her commit suicide. To suggest that a 15- or 20-minute interview can cause someone to commit suicide is focusing on the wrong thing."[35] She then said that, while she sympathized with the family, she knew from her own experience as a victim of crime that such people look for somebody else to blame.[36]
While describing it as an "extremely sad development," Janine Iamunno, a spokeswoman for Grace,[37] said that her program would continue to follow the case as they had a "responsibility to bring attention to this case in the hopes of helping find Trenton Duckett." Grace commented that "I do not feel that our show is to blame for what happened to Melinda Duckett. The truth is not always nice or polite or easy to go down. Sometimes it's harsh, and it hurts."[30]
On November 21, 2006, thesmokinggun.com exposed pending litigation on behalf of the estate of Melinda Duckett, asserting a wrongful death claim against CNN and Grace. The attorney for the estate alleges that, even if Duckett did kill her own son, Grace's aggressive questioning traumatized Duckett so much that she committed suicide. She also argues that CNN's decision to air the interview after Duckett's suicide traumatized her family. Trenton has never been found.[34][38]
On November 8, 2010, Grace reached a settlement with the estate of Melinda Duckett to create a $200,000 trust fund dedicated to locating Trenton. This settlement was reached a month before a jury trial was scheduled to start. According to the agreement, if the young boy is found alive before he turns 13, the remaining proceeds in the trust will be administered by a trustee – Trenton's great-aunt Kathleen Calvert – until he turns 18 and the funds are transferred for his use. If Trenton is not found by his 13th birthday, or if he is found but is not alive, the funds will be transferred immediately to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "We are pleased the lawsuit has been dismissed. The statement speaks for itself," a spokeswoman for CNN said.[39]
Caylee Anthony case[edit]
From 2008 to 2011 the Caylee Anthony disappearance and the prosecution, trial and acquittal of her mother Casey Anthony on charges of murder of the child were a regular feature of the Nancy Grace show. She would reveal every new detail of the story.[40] Her program is cited as having "almost single-handedly inflated the Anthony case from a routine local murder into a national obsession".[41] Nancy Grace referred to Casey Anthony as the "tot mom," a phrase Elizabeth Flock in the Washington Post described as “almost derisive-sounding.”[42]
The Nancy Grace audience more than doubled in the weeks after the start of the Anthony trial.[43] David Carr wrote that Grace took her show to the trial scene in Orlando, Florida in order to “hurl invective from a close, intimate distance.”[16] Grace expressed rage at Anthony's acquittal right after announcement of the verdict, saying: "Tot Mom's lies seem to have worked."[41]
In a press conference after the verdicts were read, Cheney Mason, one of Casey Anthony's defense attorneys, blamed the media for a "media assassination" which led to public hatred toward Casey Anthony. He also said: "I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases that they don't know a damn thing about, and don't have the experience to back up their words or the law to do it."[44]
Grace took it personally and responded, "What does he care about what pundits are saying?" Stating she had as much legal experience as Mason, she criticized the defense attorneys for taking on the media before mentioning Caylee's name in their news conference and stated that "[T]here is no way that this is a verdict that speaks the truth."[44]
Michelle Zierler, director of the Project in Law and Journalism at New York Law School said Grace "is always certain that the defendant is guilty and needs instant punishment" and this had affected her analysis of the case.[44] Howard Finkelstein, the Broward County, Florida public defender said "Nancy Grace should offend every journalist out there. These lawyers on TV during the Anthony trial only offered one side, everybody believed them, and now you've got a big chunk of the population that thinks the legal system let them down. Every time that happens, you lose part of the national community."[41]
On the day Casey Anthony was sentenced on misdemeanor counts of lying to investigators, a supporter held a sign reading: "Nancy Grace, stop trying to ruin innocent lives. The jury has spoken. P.S. Our legal system still works!"[45]
In a televised appearance with media expert Dan Abrams, Grace stated about Anthony’s being freed from jail that “No one wishes for vigilante justice; nobody advocates that. People who are opposed to the jury verdict, that think it was wrong, are really seeking justice, and I do not believe those people are interested in harming Tot Mom Casey Anthony.” Abrams commented that “There are too many people out there who love Nancy Grace, who watch Nancy Grace on a regular basis, who are going to see her (C.Anthony) out there somewhere and are going to give her a very, very hard time wherever she goes.”[46]
Whitney Houston death[edit]
Mainstream media have suggested that Grace made "wildly speculative" allegations on her program that the investigation into Whitney Houston's death should include the possibility that someone may have been responsible for drowning Houston. Some reporters have pointed out that Grace should have waited for the coroner's report before making this allegation.[47]
Toni Annette Medrano Suicide[edit]
Toni Annette Medrano committed suicide by setting herself on fire, after being condemned by Grace.[48] Following Melinda Duckett's suicide, this is the second suicide to which Grace has been linked.[49] On January 4, 2012, the case was settled, "I can tell you the case was settled in principle two weeks ago," said personal injury attorney Michael Padden of Lake Elmo. A lawsuit was never formally served but "we resolved the case just by negotiation," he said.[50]
Amanda Knox[edit]
Grace commented on the Amanda Knox case: "I was very disturbed, because I think it is a huge miscarriage of justice. I believe that while Amanda Knox did not wield the knife herself, I think that she was there, with her boyfriend, and that he did the deed, and that she egged him on. That’s what I think happened.....I just happen to know the facts...I’m not trying to get Amanda Knox’s first interview because… my show does not pay for interviews...Second, I don’t think she’s going to tell the truth anyway, so what’s the point?”
A New York Times story about jury selection in George Zimmerman's trial says the case is "spotlighting Florida's Stand Your Ground law." In the very next sentence, however, the Times concedes "that law has not been invoked in this case." As I have been saying since this story began attracting national press attention, Zimmerman's defense does not hinge on the right to stand your ground when you are attacked in a public place because he claims he shot Trayvon Martin during a violent struggle in which there was no opportunity to retreat. So why is "Florida's Stand Your Ground law" relevant? According to the Times, because it "was cited by the Sanford police as the reason officers did not initially arrest Mr. Zimmerman." But the provision cited by police, although it was included in the same 2005 bill that eliminated the duty to retreat, has nothing to do with the "stand your ground" principle.
The police said they did not charge Zimmerman right away because of a provision that prohibits a law enforcement agency from arresting someone who claims to have used deadly force in self-defense "unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful." In other words, the fact that Zimmerman killed Martin (which he has always admitted) was not enough; the police also needed reason to doubt his self-defense claim. We can argue about whether that is a reasonable requirement, but it is completely distinct from the right to stand your ground. Even a state that imposes a duty to retreat could still require police to meet this test before arresting someone who claims self-defense.
From the beginning press coverage of this case has routinely conflated these issues, implying that Florida's definition of self-defense is so broad that it gave Zimmerman a license to kill in circumstances that did not justify the use of deadly force. The New York Times has been one of the worst offenders in this respect, running one story after another that either obscured or misstated the legal issues while suggesting that both Martin's death and the delay in arresting Zimmerman somehow hinged on the absence of a duty to retreat. Now the Times is implicitly admitting that its reporting was based on a fundamentally mistaken premise.
Eric Adelson | The Lookout wrote:The lead defense attorney, Don West, declared early in his remarks that “sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying” and then ventured a joke. He confessed it was “a little bit weird” to do so and asked the jury to avoid holding the joke against the defendant.
Then he went ahead.
“Knock, knock,” West said, stunning both the jury and the assembled onlookers.
“Who’s there?” he answered himself.
“George Zimmerman.”
“George Zimmerman who?”
“Congratulations. You’re on the jury.”
There was barely a reaction.
“Nothing?” West said, in genuine surprise.
This was met with some nervous laughter.
It was a deeply strange way to open a trial about a killing that has rattled and vexed an entire nation. The death of Martin, on his way home from buying candy at a local convenience store, has touched a national third rail, launching arguments and protests about race, gun laws and civil rights.
Later, after a lunch recess, West apologized. “I really thought it was funny,” he said. “Sorry if I offended anyone.”
This case just started today and people are already pulling race cards. This guy isn't even white, but Hispanic-American. It is completely possible that race COULD be an issue, just as it could in any other trial, but I don't get how people are already pulling the race card. They weren't even going to try him before, and now they are.
By the way, they pulled some texts and pictures off Martin's phone and found stuff about him being a "fighter" as well as a picture of a handgun and a marijuana plant. Oh and if anyone is wondering why he was even there that night, he had been suspended from school a week before after marijuana residue was found in his backpack.
I'm doing my best to watch this case closely, and I will not make my own decision until the end. The defendant was dumb for confronting him, but this kid sure isn't looking the innocent all-American boy he has been portrayed as in the past.
Doesn't matter who "wins". This is going over the top. From Obama mentioning something in Martin favor to the race card. I'm going to be niave enough to pull back on the race card bit due to Z being Hispanic without a Hispanic name. Like me. I'm Asian without a Asian last name and most people think I'm a damn big samoan minus the gut
Frazz. Its not all that great. I've no gut and NO ARSE. Wife says I have an old man arse....its sagging Major difference if I post a pic of me from a year ago to one of now. Its....heart breaking.......but good....since I can really see the top of my feet with somewhat of an obstruction
With an all-female jury seated (five white, one Hispanic) and opening arguments occurring today, understand that not only should the charge against George Zimmerman never have been filed, but that the case is remarkably backwards. The shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, was an unremarkable event — similar self-defense related shootings occur regularly. In virtually all of those cases, the local police do their work, local prosecutors review it, charges are filed or declined, and only local communities are aware of or care about it. Whereas the Trayvon Martin case is an anomaly that reverses all of the conventions and behaviors normally present in the criminal justice system.
With that in mind, a primer about what to expect may be useful.
The “Scheme Team”: Attorneys Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson, and Daryl Parks are not only closely aligned with the prosecution, but they have already negotiated one civil settlement with the insurance company representing the Retreat at Twin Lakes, the neighborhood where George Zimmerman lived and served as Neighborhood Watch captain. Crump has been instrumental in engaging the full might of prominent racial-grievance figures, and arguably caused Florida Governor Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi to appoint Special Prosecutor Angela Corey to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder. Crump was also pivotal in encouraging the FBI to investigate Zimmerman for hate crime or civil rights violations.
It was Crump who apparently discovered Witness Eight, “Dee Dee,” Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend who was supposedly on the phone with Martin before he was shot. Crump conducted an interview with her with ABC’s Matt Gutman present, and claimed that her testimony would obliterate Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. His claim would influence the prosecution to charge Zimmerman. He eventually arranged an interview with Dee Dee with deputy prosecutor Bernard0 de la Rionda. Not only was the “Scheme Team” present at that interview, but Martin’s mother was seated next to Dee Dee, an almost unimaginable violation of interview protocol.
The Scheme Team represents Trayvon Martin’s parents, ”those sweet parents” as Corey called them at her press conference in the style of a political victory rally announcing Zimmerman’s arrest. For the time being, they have contented themselves with conducting daily press conferences in the courtroom, but if the trial should not go their way, expect them to further inflame racial tensions.
The Prosecution: Without conducting any new investigation, Corey’s office produced an affidavit that not only failed to produce any probable cause that Zimmerman violated any of the three essential elements of the offense. It was also factually incorrect and withheld vital information of Zimmerman’s innocence. Any attorney or police officer filing an affidavit promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This one, filed by special prosecutor investigators T.C. O’Steen and Dale Gilbreath at the direction of de la Rionda and on behalf of Corey, fell far short of the most minimal requirements of the law. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, attorney and commentator Mark Levin, attorney John Hinderaker of Powerline, and other notables took it to task in the harshest terms.
In response, an enraged Corey called the dean of Harvard Law School and, speaking with a representative of the Office of Communications, ranted about Dershowitz for 40 minutes and threatened to sue him and Harvard. Harvard was apparently unimpressed; Dershowitz still teaches there.
Bernie de la Rionda has taken the lead in handling the case. De la Rionda learned no later than August 2, 2012, that Dee Dee committed perjury but, despite multiple requests from the defense over many months, withheld that information until the evening of March 4, 2013, only hours before the matter would be heard in court and he would be forced to divulge the information.
Defense attorney Mark O’Mara filed a motion for sanctions against de la Rionda for improperly withholding important evidence, and de la Rionda filed a petulant, angry, and unprofessional response that is a model of improper legal writing. He eventually admitted in court to withholding the evidence, with an excuse of: “I forgot about it.” Despite multiple defense requests, he forgot — for seven months — that his most important witness was a perjurer. Judge Nelson has yet to rule on O’Mara’s motion for sanctions despite de la Rionda’s admission.
Another example of de la Rionda’s malfeasance is his withholding — for many months — of digital color photographs of Zimmerman’s injuries taken immediately after Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin. It’s easy to see why de la Rionda would not want the defense to have those photos — they clearly depict Zimmerman’s badly broken and bleeding nose, and his bruised, lacerated, and bloody face, as well as multiple bloody cuts on the back of his head.
Recently, the IT director for the special prosecutor’s office blew the whistle on de la Rionda’s hiding of evidence from Martin’s cell phone, including photos of stolen jewelry, an image of Martin blowing what appears to be marijuana smoke, and an image of what appears to be Martin holding a handgun. Discovered in early January 2013, much of that and other evidence was not turned over to the defense until June.
The Defense: Mark O’Mara and Donald West are experienced attorneys who have demonstrated professionalism up until this point in the trial. Normally, it is the defense that tries its case in the court of public opinion, yet in this case it has been the prosecution relying on public opinion and political support to sustain their case.
The Media: The media wasted no time in working with the Scheme Team — their narrative was quickly born and disseminated: Trayvon Martin, 17, was actually a small, slight, innocent scholar with a bright future. On February 26, he was temporarily living with his father in Sanford and walked to a nearby 7-Eleven, where he bought iced tea and Skittles for his little brother. On the way home, he was spotted by Zimmerman, a huge, hulking “white-Hispanic” many times his size who “profiled” Martin and ruthlessly ran him down as Martin fled in fright, desperately trying to reach the safety of his temporary residence. Zimmerman pursued Martin because he was black and wearing a hoodie, and brutally murdered him without provocation.
For the media, the Zimmerman case fit well with their preferred narrative lines, and they embraced it fully as a too-good-to-check case. However, their bias and lack of professional skepticism quickly blew back at them.
NBC was caught doctoring the call Zimmerman made to the Sanford Police to make Zimmerman appear to be a racist (a civil suit against NBC is on temporary hold during the criminal trial). CNN’s attempt to brand Zimmerman a racist by claiming he called Martin a “word not allowed on dakka” during the same phone call also fell flat, and CNN had to retract their story (Zimmerman said that it was “cold”). ABC’s Matt Gutman, who worked closely with Crump, filed a variety of stories, including a story about Zimmerman walking in the halls of the Sanford Police Department without handcuffs. Gutman failed to inform readers that, at the time, Zimmerman was fully cooperating with the Sanford Police and was not under arrest, and like any citizen could enter and walk in the public access halls of any government building.
ABC also provided grainy police surveillance photos purporting to show that Zimmerman suffered no injuries. Clear and unmistakable photos of Zimmerman’s injuries forced them to retract that story as well.
Dee Dee: The young woman known as Dee Dee was represented by Crump and de la Rionda to the court to be a juvenile — a ploy to keep her identity hidden under juvenile privacy laws. However, it was eventually revealed that she was 18 when interviewed by de la Rionda on April 12, 2012. That interview revealed that Dee Dee did not have information that contradicted Zimmerman’s self-defense account, and that she would be a terrible witness. De la Rionda’s questioning of her was inept and appeared to indicate that he had tampered with her testimony, which in many respects made no sense. Dee Dee, by her own admission, knew Martin for many years and would know his habits, his social media posts, and have intimate knowledge of his criminal activities. These are absolutely not things the prosecution would want a jury to hear, yet putting her on the stand would open the door to that, as well as to her perjury regarding her age and her lie that she was so distraught by Martin’s death that she was hospitalized and could not attend his funeral.
The Facts: Normally, the prosecution is the natural ally of the police. Using their investigation — the facts — prosecutors are able to establish all of the elements of the offense and win a conviction. In the Zimmerman case, the prosecution must ignore, try to explain away, or try to construct reasonable doubt about the case of the police — a bizarre state of affairs.
The Sanford Police Department conducted an unbiased and competent investigation, and the local prosecutor, Norm Wolfinger, declined to press charges because all of the evidence supported Zimmerman’s self-defense claim under Florida law, and none contradicted it. Prosecutor investigator Dale Gilbreath admitted this on April 20, 2012.
However, that investigation and its results did not fit the narrative, and so Corey was tasked not with doing justice, but with charging and convicting Zimmerman regardless of the evidence. Corey’s office has never produced the slightest evidence proving that the Sanford Police failed in their duty or exhibited racial bias.
That being the case, what are the grounds for charging Zimmerman with any crime?
The facts of the case are simple. On a cold, rainy evening, George Zimmerman was leaving his neighborhood to shop for groceries when he spotted Trayvon Martin in the gated neighborhood, a neighborhood that had recently been plagued by thefts and burglaries, most committed by young black men. He did not recognize him as a resident. Because Martin was wearing a hoodie, Zimmerman only became aware of his race later when Martin approached his vehicle, and only mentioned his race in response to a dispatcher’s question.
Martin appeared to be under the influence of drugs to Zimmerman, and rather than walking with purpose to get out of the rain, Martin appeared to be casing the area. Zimmerman didn’t know it at the time, but Martin was under the influence of marijuana — it would be found in his blood. Zimmerman called the police and asked for officers to speak with Martin to see who he was and what he was doing, and the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to keep telling him what Martin was doing.
After approaching Zimmerman and circling his vehicle menacingly, Martin ran off between two long rows of homes. Zimmerman told the dispatcher Martin was running, and tried to get to a position where he could see Martin to direct the police he believed to be on the way and due to arrive at any minute. By the time he was able to leave his vehicle, Martin was long gone, and Zimmerman told the dispatcher he had lost him and was returning to his vehicle to meet the officers.
Zimmerman hung up, and within seconds was approached by Martin, who punched Zimmerman in the nose and took him to the ground. Martin repeatedly pounded his head into the concrete sidewalk while Zimmerman screamed for help. This was seen and heard by multiple witnesses, and recorded – poorly — by the police as a witness called 911.
Stunned, helpless, and afraid for his life, Zimmerman drew his 9mm handgun and fired one round into Martin’s torso at near-muzzle contact range. Martin sat up and Zimmerman was able to get away from him.
The police arrived within seconds and Zimmerman cooperated fully with them. Their photographs, observations, and collected evidence — recorded in their reports — fully supported Zimmerman’s account. Zimmerman continued to fully cooperate with the police, including taking and passing two-voice stress tests (a sort of lie detector), and participating in a videotaped walkthrough of the events of that night with them.
There is no question that if Martin wanted to be in his temporary home, out of the rain and out of sight of Zimmerman, he had more than enough time. However, he chose to hide and lay in wait for Zimmerman, a man who thought he had lost track of Martin. Martin was not a slight child, but a lean and muscular 5’11” and 158 pounds — substantially taller than Zimmerman.
But why would a young man like Martin attack Zimmerman? Martin was a teenager on a fast track to trouble. His social media presence shows a young man immersed in thug culture. He tried to obtain guns, and often wrote about drug use, which explains the narrative’s constant repetition that Martin was carrying tea and skittles when shot. He was not. He was carrying a watermelon-flavored drink and Skittles, two of the three ingredients, along with Robitussin cough syrup, of a drug concoction know as “Lean” or “Purple Drank.” Martin often wrote about using that concoction, and about smoking “blunts,” hollowed-out cheap cigars filled with marijuana. There is evidence that Martin bought a blunt at the 7-Eleven he visited about 45 minutes before his attack on Zimmerman. Martin was caught at school with stolen property — women’s jewelry — and had been suspended from school multiple times. The most recent suspension of ten days put Martin with his father in Sanford.
As for Zimmerman’s racism, the FBI’s investigation not only found no evidence of racism, but quite the opposite. When a relative of a Sanford Police officer beat a black homeless man, his tireless advocate was none other than George Zimmerman.
Judge Nelson: Judge Debra Nelson replaced the earlier judge, removed for obvious bias against Zimmerman. Judge Nelson would quickly prove herself no slouch at anti-Zimmerman bias. Her rulings have unmistakably favored the prosecution. Among the most egregious example of that bias has been her treatment of Crump.
Nelson initially allowed O’Mara to depose Crump, but before the deposition could be done, Crump submitted an affidavit instead, and Nelson accepted it over O’Mara’s objections and canceled the deposition. O’Mara was soon able to provide evidence that Crump was untruthful in the affidavit, but Nelson would not allow a deposition. O’Mara filed a motion with a higher court that overturned Nelson’s decision. Unfortunately, this occurred so late in the process that Crump has not yet been deposed and likely will not be before the trial begins.
Nelson has refused to rule on the multiple motions for sanctions against de la Rionda, saying only that she’ll handle them after the trial. This of course gives the prosecution the ability to continue to withhold discovery.
Nelson’s rulings, on balance, have hampered the defense and assisted the prosecution, and she shows no tendency toward balance as the case goes to trial.
What To Expect: As the trial begins, the defense will rely on the police and their investigation — on the facts — and the law. Expect them to move for dismissal at the beginning of the trial, and multiple times during the trial. In an unbiased court, this case would never have been filed. No rational judge would have issued an arrest warrant based on such a badly flawed and inadequate affidavit, and no professional judge would have allowed it to continue.
Zimmerman’s self-defense argument is supported by all the evidence and is not contradicted by any competent evidence. The prosecutor will be put in the unenviable position of arguing against the police, the evidence, and the law. Their case is the narrative, a provably false tale of race and hatred grounded only in a desire to inflame racial passions.
Do not expect Zimmerman to testify. The facts, including his videotaped reenactment of the events, will speak for him. Also expect the defense to produce highly qualified, impressive, and believable scientific witnesses. Expect the prosecution to produce poorly qualified, confusing, and easily impeachable scientific witnesses (particularly expect Judge Nelson to allow such incompetents to testify for the prosecution).
Expect the defense to be calm, steady, professional and trustworthy. Expect the prosecution to be angry, arrogant, and — if their pre-trial demeanor is any guide — to take considerable liberty with the facts and the truth. Expect them to defend the narrative with all their might; it is their case.
The narrative remains. Several prospective jurors expressed fear that a “not guilty” verdict would result in riots, or put their families and themselves in danger. Despite evidence of growing public boredom with the case, this is not an unreasonable fear.
Should Zimmerman be convicted, expect the case to be overturned on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct, and to multiple and egregious instances of reversible error by Judge Nelson. There is reason to believe that the appeals court is carefully watching this case. Even so, expect Judge Nelson to do all she can to assist the prosecution and to hamper the defense, and to help the Scheme Team.
Regardless of the outcome, there will be no winners at the conclusion.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The propaganda surrounding Trayvon Martin is thick and gak filled on both sides. Remember the first week or two of news coverage? Pretty sure they were exclusively using photos of Trayvon from Middle School, hell even calling him a child is careful information management, he was certainly well past the age where we call people children, and he (and I at that age) would probably give you a hell of a venomous look and some choice words if you called him one. That's just standard behavior for seventeen year olds.
Now on to Stand Your Ground laws, I'm sick of them being mischaracterized. It is NOT because of SYG that you have the right to legally defend yourself with lethal force if necessary. It simply removes the "Duty to Retreat". Which is to say, you have to attempt to run away first, then you can defend yourself. You can use lethal force when threatened in such a way to justify lethal force.
The shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, was an unremarkable event — similar self-defense related shootings occur regularly. In virtually all of those cases, the local police do their work, local prosecutors review it, charges are filed or declined, and only local communities are aware of or care about it.
What does that even have to do with anything?
The details of the case are far from straight forward and its almost like the author thinks judges are supposed to take turns with their rulings.
The shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, was an unremarkable event — similar self-defense related shootings occur regularly. In virtually all of those cases, the local police do their work, local prosecutors review it, charges are filed or declined, and only local communities are aware of or care about it.
What does that even have to do with anything?
The details of the case are far from straight forward and its almost like the author thinks judges are supposed to take turns with their rulings.
I think the point is that this case should have been no different. And it wasn't. The event occurred, local police investigated, local prosecutors declined to charge, and nobody cared for over a month until somebody from the national media heard about it and saw a ratings bonanza if they just slanted the story right. Then we got misleadingly edited 911 tapes, pictures of Martin as a fetus, and racist organizations putting bounties on Zimmerman, and here we are.
The details of the case are far from straight forward and its almost like the author thinks judges are supposed to take turns with their rulings.
Basically, the author has decided that inside their own head there's no case to answer and that this case is no different to some unknown & unstated number of other cases that weren't tried, and because that's their opinion it must be true and anyone acting like this shooting might warrant a trial or commentary in the media is in on some manipulative scam.
Which is bonkers crazy, of course, but unfortunately it's about par for the course in media commentary on trial cases these days. One side of the case or the other must be utterly bankrupt and completely wrong, and the final verdict must be an absolute outrage or a final, complete vindication of the power of truth. The idea of complex events that are in part unknowable and must be deduced by the court and jury in a very difficult process just isn't there.
Seaward wrote: Cute. Potentially hilariously inaccurate, but cute.
You think a sign by the highway that says "Trayvon Martin is a " is cute? I know you are trying to be glib but even for you that is a pretty odious sentiment.
Seaward wrote:
I think the point is that this case should have been no different. And it wasn't. The event occurred, local police investigated, local prosecutors declined to charge, and nobody cared for over a month until somebody from the national media heard about it and saw a ratings bonanza if they just slanted the story right. Then we got misleadingly edited 911 tapes, pictures of Martin as a fetus, and racist organizations putting bounties on Zimmerman, and here we are.
And my point was that none of that is relevant to the question of Zimmerman's guilt. A lot can be said for the media's handling of the case and the extreme reactions that have resulted on all sides, but none if it is a vindication of Zimmerman or a reason not to prosecute him.
Seaward wrote: Cute. Potentially hilariously inaccurate, but cute.
You think a sign by the highway that says "Trayvon Martin is a " is cute? I know you are trying to be glib but even for you that is a pretty odious sentiment.
No, I think the apparently psychically-inferred statement that Martin committed no crime and did absolutely nothing wrong and it's all Zimmerman's fault and everyone should rally around Martin because HE HAD ICED TEA AND A BAG OF SKITTLES YOU GUYS is cute.
And my point was that none of that is relevant to the question of Zimmerman's guilt. A lot can be said for the media's handling of the case and the extreme reactions that have resulted on all sides, but none if it is a vindication of Zimmerman or a reason not to prosecute him.
I think if the local police and the local prosecutor didn't see enough to prosecute him, that's a pretty good reason not to prosecute him.
Seaward wrote: I think if the local police and the local prosecutor didn't see enough to prosecute him, that's a pretty good reason not to prosecute him.
And people do so love reminding me that the police aren't infallible. Local cops also didn't seem to initially feel the need to prosecute the Stubbenville rape case. Just because local authority didn't persue a case doesn't mean there isn't one.
They're very far from infallible. But this didn't wind up in a courtroom because a fresh investigation turned up new evidence that changed the apparent circumstances of the case, it wound up in a courtroom because media and interest groups started applying pressure. You might almost say it's political.
And if you're opening with Stuebenville, I'm raising you Duke lacrosse.
There's nothing left to be mad about with this case. There's a trial with a jury and everything. They were wrong not to charge him to begin with, but it's understandable that they were confused as to whether or not the overbroad stand your ground was in effect. Now that it's in a courtroom and stand your ground is not in play, the actual news story is over. The rest of this is just a dumb media circus. The jury will decide and we will move on.
Well might as well go ahead and commit. Two idioits off the street. One a future gangbanger that's setting up for the life and the trigger happy adult Hispanic that killed a teen that was kicking his adult ass.
Rented Tritium wrote: At this point, I don't really care what happens. My complaints stopped when he went to actual trial. I'll be fine with whatever result a fair trial produces.
The thing that bothers me is why didn't zimmerman just take down IDing infomation gave it to the 911 dispatcher and let the police do their work? Martin wasn't comiting a crime. This whole case is going to come down to who struck who first.
tigonesskay wrote: The thing that bothers me is why didn't zimmerman just take down IDing infomation gave it to the 911 dispatcher and let the police do their work? Martin wasn't comiting a crime. This whole case is going to come down to who struck who first.
Seaward wrote: They're very far from infallible. But this didn't wind up in a courtroom because a fresh investigation turned up new evidence that changed the apparent circumstances of the case, it wound up in a courtroom because media and interest groups started applying pressure. You might almost say it's political.
And yet, still irrelevant to whether or not a crime was committed. Just because a case was given special attention doesn't mean its baseless and just because politicians are involved doesn't mean there isn't a crime. Two different prosecutors can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions about whether charges are warranted, and just because a prosecutor is politically motivated doesn't mean the charges are fake or trumped up (they might be but when I see Zimmerman proponents I see lots of tinfoil hats and whining about stuff that doesn't really matter).
tigonesskay wrote: The thing that bothers me is why didn't zimmerman just take down IDing infomation gave it to the 911 dispatcher and let the police do their work? Martin wasn't comiting a crime. This whole case is going to come down to who struck who first.
This is like asking a hunter "Why didn't you just take a photograph of the deer?". He isn't out there to document stuff, he's out there to shoot.
LordofHats wrote: (they might be but when I see Zimmerman proponents I see lots of tinfoil hats and whining about stuff that doesn't really matter).
Fortunately the pro-Martin side isn't remotely composed of individuals making baseless, evidence-free claims about their personal knowledge of Zimmerman's private motivations as though they were absolute fact. Like the guy who posted right after you.
The rest of your post basically boils down to, "It's alright as long as it's a mob-motivated political prosecution, because as long as it gets a conviction, we'll know justice was served."
tigonesskay wrote: The thing that bothers me is why didn't zimmerman just take down IDing infomation gave it to the 911 dispatcher and let the police do their work? Martin wasn't comiting a crime. This whole case is going to come down to who struck who first.
I'm honestly not even sure it'll come down to that. Here's the irony of Zimmerman proponents citing stand your ground. Following Martin with no provocation and pursuing him as Zimmerman did is inherently threatening. Martin, had he killed Zimmerman, could have claimed the same defense especially when it would be revealed after the fact Zimmerman was armed and could have told whatever story he wanted much like Zimmerman can to justify his actions.
At the end of the day who struck who first should be irrelevant to the law (now what I don't know is if the law actually reflects this). From where I stand Zimmerman incited the incident by behaving recklessly, pursued another human being with no provocation and through whatever following events killed him. Had Zimmerman not chased Martin in the first place no one would have died and no crimes would likely have been committed. It all goes back to Zimmerman's questionable conduct and imo what he did was vigilantism and should be illegal by law and Martin's subsequent death should be some kind of murder or manslaughter charge.
I do not know if the law in Florida however actually considers what Zimmerman did a crime. If it isn't it should be, but that won't effect Zimmerman. Also, 911 dispatchers need some new regulations. That whole thing about how the operator can't issue orders to a caller is complete crap. The operator should have ordered Zimmerman to stay where he was and await police.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: The rest of your post basically boils down to, "It's alright as long as it's a mob-motivated political prosecution, because as long as it gets a conviction, we'll know justice was served."
No. My post is basically "The media and political motivations are irrelevant to whether or not a crime was committed and are not a valid defense against prosecution." Take the Bill Clinton sex scandal. That was all politics. But he did technically purger himself. That the Republicans were pursuing the President with zeal for political reasons had no baring on the fact he lied under oath which is a crime.
LordofHats wrote: Also, 911 dispatchers need some new regulations. That whole thing about how the operator can't issue orders to a caller is complete crap. The operator should have ordered Zimmerman to stay where he was and await police.
"911 Dispatcher sued and targeted after issuing an order to someone that led them to being shot"
Nope.
Edit: Also my whole stance on the thing will be decided by the jury. Just like Casey Anthony is innocent no matter what you say.
LordofHats wrote: Also, 911 dispatchers need some new regulations. That whole thing about how the operator can't issue orders to a caller is complete crap. The operator should have ordered Zimmerman to stay where he was and await police.
"911 Dispatcher sued and targeted after issuing an order to someone that led them to being shot"
Nope.
There was a recent federal case about this... from what I remember, it was ruled that 911 dispatcher (or police office) can't issue orders that can be punishable if refused over the phone to civilian. Which was a really weird case. Lemme see if I can find it.
Edit: Also my whole stance on the thing will be decided by the jury. Just like Casey Anthony is innocent no matter what you say.
Yup. Even further, not sure if you can convict Zimmerman beyond reasonable doubt.
LordofHats wrote: It all goes back to Zimmerman's questionable conduct and imo what he did was vigilantism and should be illegal by law and Martin's subsequent death should be some kind of murder or manslaughter charge.
Funny thing is? I can follow you around all day long if I want. I can even run up on you in my neighborhood and ask you what the hell you're doing in it. Neither gives you leeway to assault me.
No. My post is basically "The media and political motivations are irrelevant to whether or not a crime was committed and are not a valid defense against prosecution." Take the Bill Clinton sex scandal. That was all politics. But he did technically purger himself. That the Republicans were pursuing the President with zeal for political reasons had no baring on the fact he lied under oath which is a crime.
Not really an apt analogy, as he only lied under oath during the course of the investigation. He hadn't committed a crime before the investigation began, something we may wind up being able to say about Zimmerman also.
A prosecution that only occurs due to pressure from political groups after the agency with initial authority has declined to bring the case does not speak to serving justice. It speaks to satisfying biases.
Funny thing is? I can follow you around all day long if I want. I can even run up on you in my neighborhood and ask you what the hell you're doing in it. Neither gives you leeway to assault me.
But it does qualify as harassment which while not a criminal offense is threatening by its very nature. Stand Your Ground doesn't dictate that I feel someone is doing something illegal, merely that I fear for my safety. A big guy following me around in the middle of the night with a phone to his ear qualifies. EDIT: Also following people around and demanding they leave just because they don't live in your neighborhood is straight up douche territory.
Perhaps by irony had Zimmerman not pursued Martin, and the police arrived and stopped him they would have been wide open for a profiling lawsuit. There's no way of looking at the situation that Zimmerman's conduct is proper.
A prosecution that only occurs due to pressure from political groups after the agency with initial authority has declined to bring the case does not speak to serving justice. It speaks to satisfying biases.
LordofHats wrote:From where I stand Zimmerman incited the incident by behaving recklessly, pursued another human being with no provocation and through whatever following events killed him. Had Zimmerman not chased Martin in the first place no one would have died and no crimes would likely have been committed. It all goes back to Zimmerman's questionable conduct and imo what he did was vigilantism and should be illegal by law and Martin's subsequent death should be some kind of murder or manslaughter charge.
My sentiments exactly. I fail to understand how "stand your ground" / "no duty to retreat" can be extended to "pursue the offender".
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:Edit: Also my whole stance on the thing will be decided by the jury. Just like Casey Anthony is innocentnot guilty no matter what you say.
Fixed that for you. There is a significant difference there; never forget that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:
LordofHats wrote: It all goes back to Zimmerman's questionable conduct and imo what he did was vigilantism and should be illegal by law and Martin's subsequent death should be some kind of murder or manslaughter charge.
Funny thing is? I can follow you around all day long if I want. I can even run up on you in my neighborhood and ask you what the hell you're doing in it. Neither gives you leeway to assault me.
If you're open-carrying or making it known that you're concealed-carrying, there's a pretty solid argument that you're menacing LordofHats. Which, I believe, may even give LordofHats the legal right to shoot you dead under the Stand Your Ground law. Which I think just goes to show how poorly-written the Stand Your Ground law is. And why one should never mess with LordofHats.
LordofHats wrote: But it does qualify as harassment which while not a criminal offense is threatening by its very nature. Stand Your Ground doesn't dictate that I feel someone is doing something illegal, merely that I fear for my safety. A big guy following me around in the middle of the night with a phone to his ear qualifies. EDIT: Also following people around and demanding they leave just because they don't live in your neighborhood is straight up douche territory.
Perhaps by irony had Zimmerman not pursued Martin, and the police arrived and stopped him they would have been wide open for a profiling lawsuit. There's no way of looking at the situation that Zimmerman's conduct is proper.
"Proper" is irrelevant. I'm confused why you guys continue to try and determine the legality of something based on its perceived morality rather than the actual law. A private citizen can profile 'til the cows come home.
Similarly, "douche territory" is neither illegal, nor does it grant you the right to assault said douche.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:Edit: Also my whole stance on the thing will be decided by the jury. Just like Casey Anthony is innocentnot guilty no matter what you say.
Fixed that for you. There is a significant difference there; never forget that.
Seaward wrote: I'm confused why you guys continue to try and determine the legality of something based on its perceived morality rather than the actual law.
We're not. I even stated in a post that I wasn't sure what he did was illegal (merely that I felt it should be). However that doesn't mean that he can't be prosecuted under the current laws for his conduct. It's not unheard of for a person to be convicted while standing in 'gray' legal territory.
Similarly, "douche territory" is neither illegal, nor does it grant you the right to assault said douche.
Didn't say it was. But 'not being from the neighborhood' isn't a valid reason to harass someone.
LordofHats wrote: We're not. I even stated in a post that I wasn't sure what he did was illegal (merely that I felt it should be). However that doesn't mean that he can't be prosecuted under the current laws for his conduct. It's not unheard of for a person to be convicted while standing in 'gray' legal territory.
It very well might, actually, and the actual prosecutor seemed to think so before NBC started doctoring tapes.
Didn't say it was. But 'not being from the neighborhood' isn't a valid reason to harass someone.
You appear to have an extraordinarily liberal definition of harassment. Asking someone who they are and what they're doing in a given area isn't harassment.
In a public space a private citizen has no business or right to ask why I am anywhere let alone to call the cops on me or pursue me when all I am doing is walking down the street in a hoodie. That is disturbing behavior and if I were Martin I'd most definitely feel threatened.
And I can say this from personal experience as this has happened to me before. Someone following you down a street in the middle of the night with no one else around is an extremely dangerous situation to be in. I should have the right to defend myself in that situation if I feel threatened and the person following me should most definitely not have the right to then pull a gun and shoot me and proclaim self defense. That's twisted in so many ways.
djones520 wrote: A gated community is private property, it is not a public space.
Zimmerman is not the owner of the property and Martin was staying in that community at the time. He had every right to be there and Zimmerman had no grounds on which to suspect him of anything. EDIT: Martin on the other hand imo had a very reasonable and legally justifiable reason to fear Zimmerman.
In the end it really does come down to Zimmerman's questionable reaction toa guy just walking down the street.
Martin may have been very reasonably been within his rights to stand his ground against Zimmerman and defend himself against a guy that might have been meaning to do him harm. He has been following him down a dark alley after all. So Martin attacking Zimmerman to stand his ground could have been lawful.
LordofHats wrote:From where I stand Zimmerman incited the incident by behaving recklessly, pursued another human being with no provocation and through whatever following events killed him. Had Zimmerman not chased Martin in the first place no one would have died and no crimes would likely have been committed. It all goes back to Zimmerman's questionable conduct and imo what he did was vigilantism and should be illegal by law and Martin's subsequent death should be some kind of murder or manslaughter charge.
My sentiments exactly. I fail to understand how "stand your ground" / "no duty to retreat" can be extended to "pursue the offender".
It's not, SYG is not involved in this case nor is it relevant to Zimmerman's defense.
LordofHats wrote:From where I stand Zimmerman incited the incident by behaving recklessly, pursued another human being with no provocation and through whatever following events killed him. Had Zimmerman not chased Martin in the first place no one would have died and no crimes would likely have been committed. It all goes back to Zimmerman's questionable conduct and imo what he did was vigilantism and should be illegal by law and Martin's subsequent death should be some kind of murder or manslaughter charge.
My sentiments exactly. I fail to understand how "stand your ground" / "no duty to retreat" can be extended to "pursue the offender".
It's not, SYG is not involved in this case nor is it relevant to Zimmerman's defense.
SYG was his initial claim to innocence and continues to be touted about by his supporters despite its hollowness. Without it I'm not even really sure how he can justify his actions legally (the killing that is).
From a shooter point of view. Z is justified.
From the emotional side of me....what's little left....Martin is not a victim but "Bystander". Why didn't Martin call 911 but choose to confront...supposedly....Z.....Attacked Z...M supposedly went for the holster weapon....now...was the weapon out of the holster or was still in the holster when it happen when fired......
The LA Riots going to go "Domestic incident" status in a month either way the jury decide......I'm going with a "Hang Jury" or "Jury Deadlock"
and SYG was not his initial claim, nor was it the reason for his initial lack of arrest. SYG's invoking has been done by more by the papers then any one else and they are completely wrong.
djones520 wrote: A gated community is private property, it is not a public space.
Zimmerman is not the owner of the property and Martin was staying in that community at the time. He had every right to be there and Zimmerman had no grounds on which to suspect him of anything. EDIT: Martin on the other hand imo had a very reasonable and legally justifiable reason to fear Zimmerman.
In the end it really does come down to Zimmerman's questionable reaction toa guy just walking down the street.
No grounds? Zimmerman was a member of the community watch, he had been for a while. The community that owned the property recognized and accepted it, it was his duty to keep an eye out for "suspect activity". He also owned a house in the community, making him a part owner of it. Add to that dozens of break ins and attempted break ins in the previous couple of months, and a stranger who resembled someone who just a few days before he'd witnessed trying to break into one of the houses, and he had no ground to suspect him?
I'd hate to see your criteria of having any reason to have suspicion.
I just want to ask one question. Who here does not think that when your head is being repeatedly slammed into a concrete sidewalk, that you do not have reason to fear for your life?
How ever the altercation started, it does not matter. Martin elevated it to the point of Zimmerman feared for his life. Martin was a short run from the house he was staying in (he was shot 70 meters away). He could have easily avoided the confrontation. Instead he approached Zimmerman, a fight occured, and the end result was Zimmerman shooting him after being brutally beaten. Other then the gunshot wound, the only injuries the autopsy reported on Martins body was bloody knuckles, which indicates he was the only one doing any fighting.
So you can make whatever BS excuses you want about "profiling", but the facts of the matter were Martin had no reason at all to confront Zimmerman. He could have continued on his way to his house, and the matter would have ended there. He didn't though. He attacked Zimmerman, and ended up dead for his efforts.
Unless walking down the street while wearing a hoodie and 'looking' like you don't belong somewhere is grounds to believe someone is committing a crime, yes. He had no grounds for very irrational behavior.
Zimmerman was a member of the community watch, he had been for a while. The community that owned the property recognized and accepted it, it was his duty to keep an eye out for "suspect activity".
The head of the home owners association n has stated since the shooting and in court that the community never asked for or explicitly approved of the Neighborhood watch and that he personally didn't feel one was need. Zimmerman created the watch under his own initiative and had no explicit approval from anyone other than himself for it to exist. He has contradicted Zimmerman's own statements to others that he had gotten approval from the HOA to start a neighborhood watch.
a stranger who resembled someone who just a few days before he'd witnessed trying to break into one of the houses, and he had no ground to suspect him?
The head of the neighborhood watch training program offered by the Standford Police department has testified that Zimmerman's behavior and conduct was counter to what the neighborhood watch instructs its members to do. I'll take her word for it when she testifies under oath that she feels Martin did not constitute a threat and that Zimmerman's proper course of action was to call a non-emergency police line and wait.
I'd hate to see your criteria of having any reason to have suspicion.
Hindsight is a bitch. Say Martin had been the perpetrator of the break-ins? This probably would have just blown over in a few weeks. But he wasn't and really instead of saying I have some absurd criteria for reasonable suspicion you should question whether society should allow private citizens to single others out on flimsy grounds that would never stand up in a court and to operate on those grounds in an irrational manner.
d-usa wrote:You can have self defense without SYG.
My understanding is that Zimmerman finds himself in a position directly calls for it. His legal recourse to avoid a murder charge is to argue that he had a justifiable reason to kill Martin which is what SYG laws were written for.
SYG was not his initial claim
My bad. I was under the impression he'd claimed it when the case first hit the news.
djones520 wrote: I just want to ask one question. Who here does not think that when your head is being repeatedly slammed into a concrete sidewalk, that you do not have reason to fear for your life?
It would have baring had Martin also not had reason to fear for his life and had Zimmerman not created the situation in the first place.
How ever the altercation started, it does not matter.
It does actually as it goes both to Zimmerman's reasonability in his actions and whether or not Martin could have had a justifiable reason to attack him.
Martin elevated it to the point of Zimmerman feared for his life.
Zimmerman did the same thing.
He could have easily avoided the confrontation.
So could ZImmerman.
Instead he approached Zimmerman.
And Zimmerman pursued Martin.
So you can make whatever BS excuses you want about "profiling", but the facts of the matter were Martin had no reason at all to confront Zimmerman.
Zimmerman had no reason at all to pursue Martin in the first place. You can make whatever BS excuse about self-defense but it's kind of bizarre to create a dangerous situation and then claim self-defense. Look at it from Martin's perspective. He's just walking down the street and there's a guy in a truck following him. The truck can outpace him easily, its the middle of the night, and he has no idea who Zimmerman is. He leaves the street and Zimmerman leaves his truck and pursues him. Martin had a cause to fear for his life.
That's kind of the problem here. The excuses given to justify Zimmerman can be reversed completely at will to equally apply to Martin. Had Zimmerman died instead I expect Martin would be standing in court today giving the same excuses.
Wendy Dorival, the former coordinator of the Sanford Police Department's neighborhood watch program, testified Tuesday how she had worked with Zimmerman to set up a watch program in his neighborhood, The Retreat at Twin Lakes.
When asked by prosecutor John Guy if neighborhood watch participants should either follow or engage with suspicious people, she answered "no."
"They are the eyes and ears of law enforcement," said Dorival. "They're not supposed to take matters into their own hands."
But Dorival said she was impressed with Zimmerman's professionalism and dedication to his community and asked him to join another program, Citizens on Patrol, which trained residents to patrol their neighborhoods. He declined.
"He seemed like he really wanted to make changes in his community, to make it better," Dorival said.
The president of Zimmerman's homeowners association also testified that Zimmerman was in charge of the neighborhood watch program started in his townhome complex. He said Zimmerman was the person who went through a class offered by Sanford police to get it started.
Hey there Lordofhats
Donald O'Brien said he also attended a neighborhood watch meeting led by Zimmerman and it was O'Brien's understanding that participating residents "were supposed to stay away" from suspicious activity and "call the police."
"Do not get close to anybody," O'Brien said of what he understood about neighborhood watch. "Stay at a safe distance and call 911. Let the police handle it."
The jury must decide whether Zimmerman shot and killed the 17-year-old African-American teen in self defense, or if he stalked the youth and provoked the deadly 2012 confrontation.
Zimmerman could face life in prison if convicted on the second-degree murder charges.
Wait....its from Fox so its unreliable. Did not Z say he was walking back to his vehicle after he lost M in the dark?
edit
Earlier Tuesday, prosecutors pushed to introduce recordings of non-emergency calls Zimmerman made to police over an eight-year period.
Zimmerman, 29, called the police close to 50 times over an eight-year period to report such things as slow vehicles, loitering strangers in the neighborhood and open garages.
Prosecutors want to introduce recordings of five of those calls, saying they are indicative of Zimmerman's overzealousness in pursuing people he considered to be suspicious - and of his state of mind on the night he shot unarmed teen.
Judge Debra Nelson delayed ruling on the matter.
5 of 50 calls in a eight year period....I'm banking "No Go"
Did not Z say he was walking back to his vehicle after he lost M in the dark?
As I understand it Martin went down a back road or alley off the main road. Zimmerman, afraid to lose the suspect left his vehicle and pursued him. He didn't find Martin when he did an initial search and was turning to leave when Martin attacked, having apparently having first walked past him.
Jihadin wrote: So that's a "yes" but not 110% yes being no other witness
Selene Bahadoor has testified to seeing an altercation from a door in her house but that she can't identify who was involved or what happened. I don't think her testimony has affirmed or disproven Zimmerman's version of events.
I know. I just read her part. Its going to come down to Z testamoney and the intitial police report I bet. He's going to walk. Either way we all lose. Even if he goes to prison.
djones520 wrote: I just want to ask one question. Who here does not think that when your head is being repeatedly slammed into a concrete sidewalk, that you do not have reason to fear for your life?
How ever the altercation started, it does not matter. .
Of course it matters. If Zimmerman started the fight, then Martin had every right to beat Zimmerman to death and then claim to to police that a strange man attacked him, he was in fear for his life, and that he had the legal right to use lethal force - that he was standing his ground. See how that works both ways?
Jihadin wrote: I know. I just read her part. Its going to come down to Z testamoney and the intitial police report I bet. He's going to walk. Either way we all lose. Even if he goes to prison.
I'm not so sure. I could see a jury convicting him simply out of fear or retaliation (I think there was a post a page or two back to that effect). Or they might not buy Zimmerman's story. Looking at his background I think he's a liar who thought he'd could bring in a criminal and be a hero and I imagine the prosecution wants to paint him that way.
Did Martin actually go for Z weapon while Z was on his back? Its not like Z walked up on Martin and put a round into him GP style. From the description of the wound M had a sucking chest wound FYI
edit
Its like everyone forgetting the "Fight" in which a shot was fired bit.
tigonesskay wrote: The thing that bothers me is why didn't zimmerman just take down IDing infomation gave it to the 911 dispatcher and let the police do their work? Martin wasn't comiting a crime. This whole case is going to come down to who struck who first.
This is like asking a hunter "Why didn't you just take a photograph of the deer?". He isn't out there to document stuff, he's out there to shoot.
Although the suspicion was already forming in my mind, I was initially drawn in and intrigued by your first sentence. "What kind of fascinating answer might he have to this rhetorical question?" I thought to myself, while fervently, honestly hoping for something that might sum up the situation and meaningfully deepen my understanding of this trial and the accompanying media circus in a short, easily digestible way. After reading the second sentence, my unfortunate suspicions were disappointingly confirmed: You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Now, my criticism of your post doesn't have anything to do with the trial really. I don't feel incredibly strongly one way or the other at this point, which is why I was reading this thread. It stems primarily from the grossly sweeping statement your post makes about both hunters and CCW holders.
Because really, we don't really know that much, at least in terms of facts, about Zimmerman's motivations, do we? It seems like there are plenty of people who have a lot of feelings about his motivations. We know he was a neighborhood watch member, and a CCW holder. That doesn't necessarily tell us much. It certainly doesn't tell us what your post seems to imply that it does.
Seaward wrote: No, I think the apparently psychically-inferred statement that Martin committed no crime and did absolutely nothing wrong and it's all Zimmerman's fault and everyone should rally around Martin because HE HAD ICED TEA AND A BAG OF SKITTLES YOU GUYS is cute.
Um, we don't know who did and didn't do anything wrong. That's why we're having a trial. You're the guy who's trying to claim that the very existance of a trial is a great injustice, based on nothing but what your own favourite media sources have told you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Yup. Even further, not sure if you can convict Zimmerman beyond reasonable doubt.
Sure, and I'm not sure either. But then, finding out if you can is kind of the point of the trial
All I know is that Zimmerman was told not to pursue by the 911 dispatcher. He did. And we don't execute thieves in the USA and now thief or not, Martin is dead.
Even if Florida law exhonerates Zimmerman for criminal charges, he should certainly have to pay big time in a civil "wrongful death" suit.
sebster wrote: Um, we don't know who did and didn't do anything wrong. That's why we're having a trial. You're the guy who's trying to claim that the very existance of a trial is a great injustice, based on nothing but what your own favourite media sources have told you.
Did you even bother to read what I was responding to? I'll use history as a guide and assume not. I suggest going back and reading the screed Ahtman posted that assures us Martin did absolutely nothing wrong and committed zero crimes. You know, based on nothing but what the author's own favorite media sources have said.
I've said from the start that Zimmerman may well be guilty, but that potential prosecution should proceed organically, rather than being the end result of the screaming mob.
Seaward wrote: Ahtman posted that assures us Martin did absolutely nothing wrong and committed zero crimes.
It seems a bit disingenuous to claim someone else hasn't read the article when you clearly show that you also have not, or it would be impossible to think that was what it said. At worst it gives Trayvon the same benefit of the doubt that you seem to only want to apply to Zimmerman, and at best it is showing incidents that don't happen in other cases of shooting are happening here, such as putting up highway signs that say "Trayvon Martin is a ".
Ahtman wrote: It seems a bit disingenuous to claim someone else hasn't read the article when you clearly show that you also have not, or it would be impossible to think that was what it said. At worst it gives Trayvon the same benefit of the doubt that you seem to only want to apply to Zimmerman, and at best it is showing incidents that don't happen in other cases of shooting are happening here, such as putting up highway signs that say "Trayvon Martin is a ".
Mind if I quote from it?
"One simple fact seems really hard for people to understand, Trayvon Martin committed no crime. To be even more clear, he did no wrong. He was where he was supposed to be and wasn’t bothering anyone."
Seaward wrote: "One simple fact seems really hard for people to understand, Trayvon Martin committed no crime.
But he didn't commit a crime.
Seaward wrote: To be even more clear, he did no wrong. He was where he was supposed to be and wasn’t bothering anyone."
Wearing a hoodie and carrying Skittles isn't wrong, and he wasn't bothering anyone, and really those facts haven't been up for debate. It is after he was confronted by Zimmerman where the problems arise, and is ambiguous. Up until that point he had not, in fact, done anything wrong or illegal.
You know for a fact that he didn't assault Zimmerman? Dude, you need to head down to Florida. They're going to want to talk to you.
Wearing a hoodie and carrying Skittles isn't wrong, and he wasn't bothering anyone, and really those facts haven't been up for debate. It is after he was confronted by Zimmerman where the problems arise, and is ambiguous. Up until that point he had not, in fact, done anything wrong or illegal.
Neither had Zimmerman. There's a good chance neither of them did anything illegal the day before the incident, either. Claiming that Martin absolutely did nothing wrong is potentially extremely inaccurate, because he very well may have initiated the physical altercation. He may not have, too. But claiming to know one way or the other is absurd.
You know for a fact that he didn't assault Zimmerman? Dude, you need to head down to Florida. They're going to want to talk to you.
As has been stated multiple times here and by legal experts, Zimmerman's self defense claim is undermined by his pursuit of Martin.
But claiming to know one way or the other is absurd.
Then why shouldn't we ask Sir Zimmerman with extreme skepticism why he was so sure that he needed to pursue Martin and initiate a completely unnecessary confrontation that resulted in a death? That sounds like an unusual situation that the courts really do need to look at, not just dismiss because a bunch of people cried 'racism.'
Breotan wrote: All I know is that Zimmerman was told not to pursue by the 911 dispatcher. He did. And we don't execute thieves in the USA and now thief or not, Martin is dead.
No, he wasn't. One of the first witnesses even testified 911 operators are NOT allowed to order a caller to do or not do anything. The 911 operator told Zimmerman he did not have to follow Martin. There is a difference
Breotan wrote: All I know is that Zimmerman was told not to pursue by the 911 dispatcher. He did. And we don't execute thieves in the USA and now thief or not, Martin is dead.
No, he wasn't. One of the first witnesses even testified 911 operators are NOT allowed to order a caller to do or not do anything. The 911 operator told Zimmerman he did not have to follow Martin. There is a difference
One created solely by you, of course; because Breotan used the world told, not "ordered". So congratulations on refuting that nonexistent argument there.
Anyway, the really tragic thing about this case is that it's possible no laws at all were broken, and that while a young man is now dead, neither one of the parties was "wrong" in the legal sense. Hell, maybe not even the other sense either.
The only thing that was clearly wrong, IMO, was for the police not to have made an arrest. Zimmerman may be innocent (or at least not guilty) but there was pretty clearly an indictable offense here to my thinking.
Breotan wrote: All I know is that Zimmerman was told not to pursue by the 911 dispatcher. He did. And we don't execute thieves in the USA and now thief or not, Martin is dead.
No, he wasn't. One of the first witnesses even testified 911 operators are NOT allowed to order a caller to do or not do anything. The 911 operator told Zimmerman he did not have to follow Martin. There is a difference
One created solely by you, of course; because Breotan used the world told, not "ordered". So congratulations on refuting that nonexistent argument there.
Telling him "we don't need you to" is different than saying "don't." One is a suggestion, the other is a command. According to the witness, a 911 operator, it is not within the purview of 911 operators to give orders to callers.
So it was phrased as a suggestion, and you can't really argue it was a command, because 911 operators aren't allowed to give commands.
Zimmerman pursued Martin. Zimmerman supposedly lost track of Martin and was returning to his truck. After evading a possible dangerous situation Martin supposedly initiated a physical confrontation with Zimmerman. Zimmerman, with documented photos showing damage to his nose and the back of his head, feared for his life and fired his weapon into the attacking Martin.
I'm failing to see, assuming Zimmerman was returning to his truck, how Martin should have been in fear for his life enough to initiate a physical altercation. And how, based on the damages Zimmerman took, he was wrong for fearing for his life.
But hey, I don't think this should have gone to trial in the first place. The more I hear the less I think it should have gone to trial. The way this has been handled by the media means that when Zimmerman is either let off for a hung jury or it's overturned at a higher level he's going to have a heck of a pay day coming.
You're saying that you don't see how Martin should have been in fear for his life while literally, 2 sentences ago, saying that Martin evaded a possibly dangerous situation.
If you use physical injuries as the basis for who was right, then would Martin have been legally allowed to kill Z if he would have survived the shot?
After all, if Z was right to fear M because he was beating him then M would have been right to fear Z because he was shooting him.
Being on the loosing end of a fight does not automatically give you a self defense excuse if there is still a legitimate question of whether you contributed to the cause of the fight.
Ouze wrote: You're saying that you don't see how Martin should have been in fear for his life while literally, 2 sentences ago, saying that Martin evaded a possibly dangerous situation.
Dude. It doesn't work that way. A man tracking and following you with a gun isn't a dangerous situation. Certainly when the person who has been stalking you with a weapon, gets back in their truck while you're on foot that is no threat to you. I mean like it's it's obvious how absolutely non-threatening having an armed man stalking you in his vehicle is! Some dude tracking you down in a truck with his gun, that.. that's harmless, nobody would have any reason to be worried about that.
Now, some random kid walking down street on the sidewalk. That my friends is some pants-gaking terrifying stuff right there.
Ouze wrote: You're saying that you don't see how Martin should have been in fear for his life while literally, 2 sentences ago, saying that Martin evaded a possibly dangerous situation.
Dude. It doesn't work that way. A man tracking and following you with a gun isn't a dangerous situation. Certainly when the person who has been stalking you with a weapon, gets back in their truck while you're on foot that is no threat. I mean like it's it's obvious. Dude tracking you down in a truck with his gun, that.. that's harmless have any reason to be worried about that.
Now, some random kid walking down street on the sidewalk. That my friends is some pants-gaking terrifying stuff right there.
My point was the situation had been avoided. It could also have been avoided if he just went to his house. He was no longer in fear of his life, or shouldn't have been reasonably if he was to begin with, and he then assaulted Zimmerman.
See one is potentially dangerous. The other is actually dangerous as it's a physical altercation. If you can't see the difference then I'm sorry.
Side question. Does the neighborhood have a Neighborhood Watch sign posted? Because at that point it would be reasonable to assume someone following you at a distance might be part of that group and Martin would have even less reason to feel threatened.
Hulksmash wrote: My point was the situation had been avoided. It could also have been avoided if he just went to his house. He was no longer in fear of his life, or shouldn't have been reasonably if he was to begin with, and he then assaulted Zimmerman.
It could also have been avoided if Zimmerman had taken every single bit of advice the neighborhood watch trainer gave (don't confront) or the advice the 911 Operator had given him (don't confront).
Hulksmash wrote: Does the neighborhood have a Neighborhood Watch sign posted?
Considering the Homeowners Association didn't want one to begin with I doubt they also paid to put signs up for it, but maybe.
Hulksmash wrote: My point was the situation had been avoided. It could also have been avoided if he just went to his house. He was no longer in fear of his life, or shouldn't have been reasonably if he was to begin with, and he then assaulted Zimmerman.
It could also have been avoided if Zimmerman had taken every single bit of advice the neighborhood watch trainer gave (don't confront) or the advice the 911 Operator had given him (don't confront).
Does the neighborhood have a Neighborhood Watch sign posted?
.
You are making an assumption that Zimmerman confronted Martin, and not the other way around. It very much looks like Martin came back to confront Zimmerman.
44 days till he arrested after the incident. Only after a "Special team" was created. Either Sanford Police are amateurs or it was a "legal" shooting. You know the 44 days coming up in court Already Defense debunked the Prosecutions witnesses. I can't make the reach on him looking to shoot someone on proof of five phone calls at of 50 over a span of eight years.
So all you wonderful people that have taken a CC course.
Don't even pretend to tell me that "somebody is following you in a car, then gets out of the car to follow you some more" would not be one of those scenarios that would raise a flag that something might be going down when talking about situation awareness?
What Zimmerman did is exactly the kind of behavior I was always told to watch out for in order to protect myself.
d-usa wrote: So all you wonderful people that have taken a CC course.
Don't even pretend to tell me that "somebody is following you in a car, then gets out of the car to follow you some more" would not be one of those scenarios that would raise a flag that something might be going down when talking about situation awareness?
What Zimmerman did is exactly the kind of behavior I was always told to watch out for in order to protect myself.
Absolutely true.
It's not advised against because it's illegal, though.
d-usa wrote: So all you wonderful people that have taken a CC course.
Don't even pretend to tell me that "somebody is following you in a car, then gets out of the car to follow you some more" would not be one of those scenarios that would raise a flag that something might be going down when talking about situation awareness?
What Zimmerman did is exactly the kind of behavior I was always told to watch out for in order to protect myself.
Absolutely true.
It's not advised against because it's illegal, though.
Not illegal, that is true.
But if Zimmerman would be walking home from the store and Martin would have followed him in a car and then gotten out of his car to follow him some more, then I would have expected Z to already be mentally prepared to draw on a potential assailant. If M acted the same way as Z did, Z should have suspected that he was up to something. But often, things that we would find suspicious don't seem suspicious when we are the ones doing them.
He didn't do anything "wrong" by following M, but it helped create the situation they found themselves in.
Don't even pretend to tell me that "somebody is following you in a car, then gets out of the car to follow you some more" would not be one of those scenarios that would raise a flag that something might be going down when talking about situation awareness?
We don't give them a chance. If a vehicle moves up to the rear of the convoy going pretty fast we do one of the following;
1. Shoot pen flares at the vehicle
2. Throw water bottles
3. Laser light the windshield
4. Shoot the engine block
5. Pray its not a VIED and do nothing
If "followed" on patrol we turn around and apprehend the "teenager". After we're reasonably sure he was following us a good way. Then we can chalk it up to "suspected insurgent"
No if your referring to the case. As in a legal or illegal shoot. DO NOT reach for my holster weapon to start off with because I will shoot the weapon while in holster because your knee cap is right freaking there even if I have to twist a bit to the left to get the knee within range
MrDwhitey wrote: No, he's making the assumption that Zimmerman pursued him.Which he did.
Until he lost track of Martin and went back towards his truck. Which he did, until confronted my a returned Martin.
The point is, Zimmerman should never have been there in the first place. The precipitating situation was created by Zimmerman and regardless of how the law winds up being interpreted, Martin is dead because of it. Let us not forget that Martin had broken NO law up to that point.
I'm a big gun rights guy but don't expect me to defend a person who buys himself a super-sized can of whoop-ass and then tries to claim self defense.
Ouze wrote: You're saying that you don't see how Martin should have been in fear for his life while literally, 2 sentences ago, saying that Martin evaded a possibly dangerous situation.
Its also possible Martin feared that Zimmerman was approaching him directly and had found him. We don't really know. Only Zimmerman's word exists for what happened and whatever was going through Martin's head is lost. It's possible Martin was replying in a stereotypical gangsta thug reaction, simply attacking a man who he believed to be chasing him, but we can't really know.
Ultimately it still goes back to Zimmerman initiating the situation on an irrational basis and whether his actions constitute recklessness.
A man tracking and following you with a gun isn't a dangerous situation
Reread your own sentence and think about that for a few seconds.
It's not advised against because it's illegal, though.
That's what I think the court needs to decide though. The specific circumstances of the shooting are abnormal. I feel that what Zimmerman did should be illegal because he shouldn't be able to create a dangerous situation and then claim self defense after the fact, but I don't think what he did is specifically illegal. Its useful though for society to run the case through the courts and see if the current statutes cover what happened and if they need to be changed as a result.
Though now that I think of it, who wants to be money that Zimmerman is gonna get sued OJ style if he's acquitted XD
Guys... given what we know, is it enough to convict him of 2nd degree murder?
Remember second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as:
1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or
2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
In Florida, state laws establish several types of homicide, the unlawful killing of a human being. The state prosecutes homicides as murders and manslaughters -- it may be helpful to know the multiple types of murders established by state law and understand the differences among them. In particular, second degree murder lacks the premeditation often required for the prosecution of a first degree murder.
To prove second degree murder, a prosecutor must show that the defendant acted according to a "depraved mind" without regard for human life. Florida state laws permit the prosecution of second degree murder when the killing lacked premeditation or planning, but the defendant acted with enmity toward the victim or the two had an ongoing interaction or relationship. Unlike first degree murder, second degree murder does not necessarily require proof of the defendant's intent to kill.
State law specifically requires a charge of second degree murder if the victim dies during the commission of one of the felony crimes specified by statute. These felonies include burglary, home-invasion robbery, kidnapping, sexual battery, and a number of other offenses. To establish second degree murder, the prosecutor must show that the victim died as a result of an act committed by a non-participant in the felony. If the defendant or another criminal participant in the felony caused the unlawful killing, state law requires a charge of first degree murder rather than second degree murder. Florida uses this law to deter and punish unintended deaths as a result of felonious activities.
Defenses to Second Degree Murder Charges
-Justifiable use of deadly force to defend against a felony committed against a person or property
-Excusable homicide committed by accident
-Spontaneous or negligent killing that might qualify as manslaughter instead of murder
Penalties and Sentences
A second degree murder prosecuted as a first degree felony may result in a sentence of imprisonment for a term lasting up to thirty years. Florida laws also permit the state to request a term of life imprisonment. If the defendant has a prior record of felony convictions or has committed other homicides, the state may request an increased sentence of imprisonment for life.
Florida Second Degree Murder Statute
Florida Statutes Sections 782.02-782.36
Zimmerman's conduct leading up to his confrontation with Martin can be interpreted as fitting the statute. It's all about whether the Prosecution can prove Zimmerman's conduct was dangerous/reckless/depraved when he began to pursue Martin. Hence why the Prosecution wants his history of calling 911 admitted into evidence.
As an update on the testimony of the case that I'm loosely following:
Jane Surdyka another neighbor has testified that she saw the confrontation from her upstairs window, vaguely. She says she saw one man on top of the other and then three popping sounds. One man stood up and the other stayed on the ground. She's testified that she believes the "boy" was calling for help. This would back up the Prosecutions claim that Trayvon Martin can be heard calling for help in phone calls (this evidence was not allowed I think as the judge barred audio experts from testifying because they could not reach consensus on whether Zimmerman or Martin were calling for help). She's testified to hearing a confrontation before the fight broke out but was very unspecific about the events simply describing the 'man' as an aggressive voice yelling and the 'boy' as responding meekly.
Jeannee Manalo another neighbor has also testified to hearing cries for help but did not identify either Martin or Zimmerman as the voice. She also testified to hearing a verbal confrontation but did not specify either Martin or Zimmerman in any way.
Witnesses seem to disagree on who was on top of who. Two neighbors have testified to believing Zimmerman was on top of Martin and another to Martin being on top of Zimmerman.
LordofHats wrote: Zimmerman's conduct leading up to his confrontation with Martin can be interpreted as fitting the statute. It's all about whether the Prosecution can prove Zimmerman's conduct was dangerous/reckless/depraved when he began to pursue Martin. Hence why the Prosecution wants his history of calling 911 admitted into evidence.
Jihadin wrote: Five 911 calls out of 50 over a span of eight years. That's a big leap
Not necessarily if those five bare a resemblance to Martin's case and the others do not as the prosecution has claimed (but of course as should be obvious by now I'm not a lawyer XD)
Jihadin wrote: Five 911 calls out of 50 over a span of eight years. That's a big leap
Not necessarily if those five bare a resemblance to Martin's case and the others do not as the prosecution has claimed (but of course as should be obvious by now I'm not a lawyer XD)
I think they were trying to build a pattern of "somebody is black, therefore they are breaking the law" for Zimmerman.
Jihadin wrote: Five 911 calls out of 50 over a span of eight years. That's a big leap
Not necessarily if those five bare a resemblance to Martin's case and the others do not as the prosecution has claimed (but of course as should be obvious by now I'm not a lawyer XD)
I think they were trying to build a pattern of "somebody is black, therefore they are breaking the law" for Zimmerman.
They're stated purpose I think is to show Zimmerman as having a history of being overzealous in handling his duties as a neighborhood watchmen to try and portray him as a reckless man who doesn't care about human beings he deems 'suspicious' and that his pattern of behavior shows him as being a loose cannon ready to blow.
Should have asked for all 50 to be played. Defense coming back with "Dedicated and motivated to protect his neighborhood" and what was the time frame of those five calls over a span of eight years. If it was the last five calls to 911 then Z needs to be hanged. Now if its one in 05, two in 06, one in 08, and one in 09 then that be a negative.
And there is a difference between 911 calls and legitimate 911 calls.
Over the last 5 years I have made the following:
1) Called 911 while following a drunk driver that was running stop signs and driving in the opposite lane.
2) Called 911 to report a fire.
3) Called 911 to report my neighbor cutting his wrist on our shared front porch.
4) Called 911 to report 2 car accidents.
LordofHats wrote: Stanford has an above average crime rate, so I wouldn't surprised in a good number people there have made at least one or even a few 911 calls.
I have no doubt, but I would still bet that 5 is outside the norm for an individual. I never said no one would ever make X number of 911 calls, just that I would guess that it would be unusual to go past 1 every so many years as a rule of thumb. I would not surprise me if that were wrong, nor would I deny any research showing otherwise.
Ahtman wrote: Almost everyone I know has made 0 calls to 911 over the course of 8 years; I imagine anything more than 1 call is getting into outlier status.
Uh... I call 911 just about every other month to report various things. Mostly things I pass while driving...
Last week, it was because a powerline fell in the middle of an intersection, popping sparks and all....
I forgot the 911 call I made while at the part with my brother late one night to report the woman that was driving in the grass drunk.
Of course I also reached in the car and stole her keys to keep her from driving away when she saw the lights from the cops. I was a bad boy that night.
d-usa wrote: I forgot the 911 call I made while at the part with my brother late one night to report the woman that was driving in the grass drunk.
Of course I also reached in the car and stole her keys to keep her from driving away when she saw the lights from the cops. I was a bad boy that night.
Ahtman wrote: It must be weird to be surrounded by so much disaster and drama on such a regular basis.
Big city as well as big country. Wrecks and house fires are common in a big place. It doesn't help that I used to work as an EMT and volunteered as a firefighter for 6 years, so I feel perfectly normal calling 911 for things and helping when I see something. I routinely climb into wrecks on the road to help people until the ambulance gets there . Drunk people are always driving around, and in the country it's not unusual to find a grass fire.
I think that most people probably don't call 911 enough, there is a certain mindset of "that's not my problem" and "somebody else probably called already" out there. We used to have people call the private line at the fire station and say things like "I think I heard an accident" or "I think there is a fire" and we would always call them that they needed to call 911 to report it or we couldn't do anything. At least half the people never called 911.
I've only ever called 911.. 3 times, I think. Once by accident - My last NY area code was 914, and when I moved here I fat fingered it once (dialling 1-9-1-4). A second time when I got attacked by a dog and thought I'd need emergency care (it turned out to be a lot less severe than it looked - a lot of blood, but not serious). And finally, when I had to report that someone had stolen my sweet, sweet electric smoker from my porch - turns out my locality doesn't have a non-emergency number for the county sheriff, which is kind of weird I guess. So I'm an outlier as well I think.
I think d-usa is correct that folks don't call 911 enough. I've had people tell me that they don't call because they're so sure that some else already did... what if that person thought the same thing?
whembly wrote: I think d-usa is correct that folks don't call 911 enough. I've had people tell me that they don't call because they're so sure that some else already did... what if that person thought the same thing?
whembly wrote: I think d-usa is correct that folks don't call 911 enough. I've had people tell me that they don't call because they're so sure that some else already did... what if that person thought the same thing?
One of the basic lessons in any CPR course:
Firmly instruct someone "YOU, call 911!".
Yup, this always. They teach this in basic first aid courses too. The one time I've ever had to call 911, I had just seen 3 vehicles racing down the highway, two of them crashed into each other and the third went off into the sunset. The two vehicles were wrecked, and when I called 911, we had pulled over to the shoulder of the highway and called 911. I explained everything based on questions (like, "where are you calling from" and then "what is the nature of your emergency" etc...). They had said they had fire and EMS en route due to a few others calling in, thanked me for alerting emergency services and told me to hang on the line until fire/ems arrived (I wasn't injured they just wanted to make sure everything was good).
Strange that I'm outlier but I guess I am. I've called around 2 dozen times in the last 4 years or so. More so now that I live in the midwest but quite a few of them were for car accidents in SoCal, seeing black smoke behind a hill when driving and stuff like that. One robbery when I was robbed at gun point. And then a couple here in MN when wind downs powerlines, several cars pile up after spinning out, general emergency stuff. Better safe than sorry.
If I was anal about safety or my neighborhood I could see having called 50 times in 5-8 years pretty easy.
Ahtman wrote: It must be weird to be surrounded by so much disaster and drama on such a regular basis.
Big city as well as big country.
Same here as well, and I've never had need to call 911. I see incidents and accidents all the time, but at the point where police/ambulance/firefighters are already there. You have the luck of getting there as they happen and I seem to always get there after it is under control. I have no trouble calling 911, I just haven't had to.
I understand Prosecution trying to establish a persona of "Killer" Z is before meeting M.
I understand Defense is using "Fear for his life"
I understand Prosecution....you know what. If it was me. I be hammering soon on the "one shot"
If you were afraid for your life and armed. You will not stop at one round. Maybe at most three rounds. What sux is my experience. My gut feeling. Z was embarrass he got his ass kicked by M. Z exposed the weapon while M was on top thrashing him. M hopped off while Z had barrel alignment on him. Z puts one round into him using a PoS 9mm. Z committed a illegal kill. That's what pissing me off.
Proof of stalking him. Z followed him into a darken area without a buddy and without comms. Common F'ing sense.
Proof of a physical altercation...well we have pics from the hospital. The extent of Z injuries going to come up in court. That's going to play into "fear of life" or not......
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — A friend who was on the phone with 17-year-old Trayvon Martin moments before he was fatally shot by George Zimmerman testified that she heard the Miami teen shout, "Get off! Get off!" before his telephone went dead.
Rachel Jeantel, 19, recounted to jurors in Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial how Martin told her he was being followed by a man as he walked through the Retreat at Twin Lakes townhome complex on his way back from a convenience store to the home of his father's fiancee.
Jeantel is considered one of the prosecution's most important witnesses because she was the last person to talk to Martin before his encounter with Zimmerman on Feb. 26, 2012.
She testified that Martin described the man following him as "a creepy-ass cracker" and he thought he had evaded him. But she said a short time later Martin let out a profanity.
Martin said Zimmerman was behind him and she heard Martin ask: "What are you following me for?"
She then heard what sounded like Martin's phone earpiece drop into the grass and she heard him say, "Get off! Get off!" The phone then went dead, she said.
Zimmerman, 29, could get life in prison if convicted of second-degree murder for killing Martin. Zimmerman followed him in his truck and called a police dispatch number before he and the teen got into a fight.
Zimmerman has claimed self-defense, saying he opened fire after the teenager jumped him and began slamming his head against the concrete sidewalk. Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic and has denied that his confrontation with the black teenager had anything to do with race, as Martin's family and its supporters have claimed.
Jeantel's testimony came after two former neighbors of Zimmerman testified Wednesday about hearing howls and shouts for help in the moments before the shooting.
Jayne Surdyka told the court that immediately before the shooting, she heard an aggressive voice and a softer voice exchanging words for several minutes in an area behind her townhome at the Retreat at Twin Lakes.
"It was someone being very aggressive and angry at someone," she said.
During the struggle, she said, she saw a person in dark clothes on top of the other person. Martin was wearing a dark sweatshirt and Zimmerman wore red clothing. Surdyka said she saw the person who was on top get off the body after the shot was fired.
Surdyka said she heard cries for help and then multiple gunshots: "pop, pop, pop." Only one shot was fired in the fatal encounter.
"I truly believe the second yell for help was a yelp," said Surdyka, who later dabbed away tears as prosecutors played her 911 call. "It was excruciating. I really felt it was a boy's voice."
During cross-examination, defense attorney Don West tried to show there was a lapse in what Surdyka saw. Defense attorneys contend Martin was on top of Zimmerman during the struggle, but after the neighborhood watch volunteer fired a shot, Zimmerman got on top of Martin.
West also challenged Surdyka about her belief that the cry for help was a boy's voice, saying she was making an assumption.
The other neighbor, Jeannee Manalo, testified that she believed Zimmerman was on top of Martin, saying he was the bigger of the two based on pictures she saw of Martin on television after the fight. Manalo also described hearing howling, but she couldn't tell who it was coming from, and then a "help sound" a short time later.
Under cross-examination, defense attorney Mark O'Mara asked why Manalo had never mentioned her belief that Zimmerman was on top in previous police interviews. He also got her to concede that her perception of Martin's size was based on five-year-old photos on television that showed a younger and smaller Martin.
Martin's parents have said they believe the cries for help heard by neighbors came from their son, while Zimmerman's father believes the cries belong to his son. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys believe they could show whether Zimmerman or Martin was the aggressor in the encounter. Defense attorneys successfully argued against allowing prosecution experts who claimed the cries belonged to Martin.
Jeantel on Wednesday testified that she believed the cries were Martin's because "Trayvon has kind of a baby voice." The defense attorney challenged that, claiming she was less certain in a previous deposition.
Jeantel, 19, also explained that she had initially lied about her age — she claimed to be 16 — to protect her privacy when she was initially contacted by an attorney for Martin's family to give a recorded statement over the telephone about what she knew about the few moments before Martin's encounter with Zimmerman. She was expected to finish her testimony on Thursday.
While being cross-examined, Jeantel had several testy exchange with West, including one moment when she prompted the defense attorney to ask his next question: "You can go. You can go."
Before the February 2012 shooting, Zimmerman had made about a half dozen calls to a nonemergency police number to report suspicious characters in his neighborhood. Judge Debra Nelson on Wednesday ruled that they could be played for jurors.
Prosecutors had argued that the police dispatch calls were central to their case that Zimmerman committed second-degree murder since they showed his state of mind. He was increasingly frustrated with repeated burglaries and had reached a breaking point the night he shot the unarmed teenager, prosecutors say.
Defense attorneys argued that the calls were irrelevant and that nothing matters but the seven or eight minutes before Zimmerman fired the deadly shot into Martin's chest.
Seven of the nine jurors and alternates scribbled attentively on their notepads as the calls were played.
From what the witness said it seems that there was some racism from one party.
Seaward wrote: Did you even bother to read what I was responding to? I'll use history as a guide and assume not. I suggest going back and reading the screed Ahtman posted that assures us Martin did absolutely nothing wrong and committed zero crimes. You know, based on nothing but what the author's own favorite media sources have said.
I've said from the start that Zimmerman may well be guilty, but that potential prosecution should proceed organically, rather than being the end result of the screaming mob.
I did read what you were responding to. And Ahtman's piece commented on the large number of people who have presumed guilt on the part of Martin, based almost entirely on a picture of him looking altogether a bit too much like a young black guy.
Which, of course, you ignore entirely, and focus entirely on people presuming Martin's innocence. It's fairly standard Seaward bs - pick up any error made by the other side, ignore your own side when it does the same.
And do all of that as part of a half baked complaint about the whole process, a hilariously naive argument that the process should be 'organic', as if police and state prosecution will by themselves always come to the best decision. Built around some freshly invented worldview that just ignores the long history of public outcry and media coverage being used to drive new efforts to bring about justice, to overcome local interests and local bias.
Now, like you I don't know, and don't want to claim I know what the verdict in this case should be. But the idea that it going to trial is some great outrage just because it only got there through media and public interest is really stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Stanford has an above average crime rate, so I wouldn't surprised in a good number people there have made at least one or even a few 911 calls.
If you've bought in to a gated community and end having to call 911 50 times, then you've really, really picked the wrong gated community. Or you're a bit of a nut who goes looking for drama and sees it even when it isn't really there.
Not that being a bit of nut means a person is guilty of murder, but that's been one of the stranger parts of this whole thing - lots of people, deciding that Zimmerman had good reason to pull the trigger when he did, all of a sudden stop seeing the act of walking about your gated community with a gun, following 'suspicious people' as being a really weird way to spend your spare time.
Stanford has an above average crime rate, so I wouldn't surprised in a good number people there have made at least one or even a few 911 calls.
Soon as I saw that I remember the bold part in this article
The Constitution requires, via the Sixth Amendment, that “the accused shall enjoy a right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury” where the crime was committed. There is no constitutional requirement that the jury shall be made up of the defendant’s “peers.”
Jury selection was expected to take 2-3 weeks. It began with an initial pool of 211 people that filled out questionnaires. By the end of Day 7, only 58 of the 211 were questioned by attorneys about their knowledge of the case; additionally, the attorneys selected 40 of 58 to advance to the next round of more in-depth questioning. Of the final 40, with regard to gender: 24 were women, and 16 were men. With regard to race: 27 were white, 7 were black, 3 were of mixed race, and 3 were Hispanic.
In just two days, Days 8 and 9, both sides questioned all 40 potential jurors.
By the end of Day 9, 30 of the people were dismissed and the remaining 10 were selected as the primary and alternate members. Both sides moved way too quickly.
Both sides lost focus. As a result, the composition of the selected jury is guaranteed to reignite racial debates before the trial even begins.
All of the six members are women. Five are white, one is Hispanic. The four alternates include two women and two men, all of whom are white, but for one male Hispanic.
Seminole County, the area from which the jury pool was selected, is more than 81 percent white, between 9-11 percent African-American, and consists of more than 50 percent women, according to the Seminole County Government and U.S. Census. Sanford, the city where the incident occurred, is approximately 29 percent African-American. Zimmerman’s jury is 100 percent women and 0 percent African-American.
This jury needed at least one African-American jury member, and one male. The selected panel can certainly be “impartial,” but because previous racially charged trials focused on the jury, the Zimmerman trial attorneys should have been aware of how the make-up could impact responses outside of the courtroom and, potentially, to the safety of the jurors.
I did read what you were responding to. And Ahtman's piece commented on the large number of people who have presumed guilt on the part of Martin, based almost entirely on a picture of him looking altogether a bit too much like a young black guy.
Which, of course, you ignore entirely, and focus entirely on people presuming Martin's innocence.
Like the author. Thanks for proving my point, sebs.
And do all of that as part of a half baked complaint about the whole process, a hilariously naive argument that the process should be 'organic', as if police and state prosecution will by themselves always come to the best decision. Built around some freshly invented worldview that just ignores the long history of public outcry and media coverage being used to drive new efforts to bring about justice, to overcome local interests and local bias.
Now, like you I don't know, and don't want to claim I know what the verdict in this case should be. But the idea that it going to trial is some great outrage just because it only got there through media and public interest is really stupid.
Well, I can say I heard it here first. As long as people scream loudly enough and long enough, it doesn't actually matter whether or not there's reasonable evidence to charge someone with a crime, we should do it anyway.
The legal system isn't run by popular referendum. I'm sorry to see that you appear to think it should be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Saw this on youtube... yeesh, that ain't going well for the prosecution:
Yes, this young lady's testimony is a train wreck. I'm amused that we've already got our first meme of the trial, though, in the assertion that the witness can hear wet grass through a cell phone.
1. Yea thats pretty bad. Looks like the defense is picking her apart on inconsistencies between various stories she's put forth.
2. It also makes me sad. This person is 19 and a Junior in high school. That means at best she is 20 when she graduates (I don't see that in her future). I foresee my taxes being blown in copious quantities.
sourclams wrote: According to the defense' star witness, 'cracker' is not a racial term.
But she has also lied about a few things, so that might not be entirely accurate a statement, either.
as a cracker, I don't consider cracker a racial term...
To quote a comedian that used to do stand up in my college town, "Hey! You! You're a delicious baked good that goes well with peanut butter or cheese!"
Federal Government views the term cracker as racist. Same as the term oreo being used as a figure of speech of a black and white couple as another example. Jury much older I believe so the term "cracker" going to relate as racist term.
I think the heavy reliance on slang and ebonics, her illiteracy, and her amorphous testimony if not willingness to lie outright are all going to resonate strongly with the jury.
sourclams wrote: I think the heavy reliance on slang and ebonics, her illiteracy, and her amorphous testimony if not willingness to lie outright are all going to resonate strongly with the jury.
Aren't there schools that don't teach cursive anymore? Not being able to read cursive isn't the same as being illiterate, which was what was described earlier as the problem.
Seaward wrote: But the fact that the defense is (rightly, in my opinion) working her so hard on the inconsistencies may be seen as bullying.
There's a long way to go yet.
That's what a good defense lawyer is supposed to do. She obviously has issues with communication and affixing events to a simple timeline. All the defense has to do is show that her perception of events is not what actually happened.
Long way to go? Pffftttt Defense just blew through Prosecution Star Witness. Actually 50/50. Defense crushing her and "self inflected". Lets not forget the letter she her friend wrote.
"Why wasn't 'creepy-ass cracker' in prior interviews?" asked West, one of the attorneys for Zimmerman, who is facing a charge of second-degree murder.
"Nobody asked me," replied Jeantel, who said she can't read cursive, which the letter is written in.
The letter, in which Martin's name is spelled wrong, describes how Jeantel was speaking by cellphone with the 17-year-old Martin as he cut through a subdivision on his way to the home where he was staying. Jeantel has said she had the letter written for Martin's parents to give her account, but that she never intended for it to be made public.
I debate with myself later to remove this quote later......WTH is the American education system coming to.....
Ahtman wrote: Aren't there schools that don't teach cursive anymore? Not being able to read cursive isn't the same as being illiterate, which was what was described earlier as the problem.
There are. Cursive's a dying art.
Trouble is, she claimed she wrote the letter herself, and had to retract that on the stand when it turned out she couldn't read it due to not knowing cursive.
sourclams wrote: I think the heavy reliance on slang and ebonics, her illiteracy, and her amorphous testimony if not willingness to lie outright are all going to resonate strongly with the jury.
Aren't there schools that don't teach cursive anymore? Not being able to read cursive isn't the same as being illiterate, which was what was described earlier as the problem.
Yes. My brainiac boy doesn't do cursive neither do any of his nerd friends (one going to MIT way to go dude!!!). I don't think thats the issue. The issue is that
1. IIRC but at first she said she wrote.
2. now she didn't write it, but doesn't know what it says even though its supposedly written at least by a person writing for her.
3. She signed it.
That impugns your character pretty badly. Why did someone else write it for her? Can she in fact write?
Seaward wrote:But the fact that the defense is (rightly, in my opinion) working her so hard on the inconsistencies may be seen as bullying.
There's a long way to go yet.
I think the inconsistency will stand out more. Definitely a major train wreck for the prosecutions case.
Ahtman wrote:Aren't there schools that don't teach cursive anymore? Not being able to read cursive isn't the same as being illiterate, which was what was described earlier as the problem.
To my knowledge, most schools no longer teach cursive. It's been replaced with course work in word processing since that's how most formal communication is now executed.
Seaward wrote:Trouble is, she claimed she wrote the letter herself, and had to retract that on the stand when it turned out she couldn't read it due to not knowing cursive.
Definitely looks bad on her, though being honest I sometimes struggle to read my own hand writing years after the fact. I can look back at old notebooks and unless I remember really well what I was on about I have struggled to actually read what I wrote (of course my hand writing is also dead down atrocious).
LordofHats wrote: Definitely looks bad on her, though being honest I sometimes struggle to read my own hand writing years after the fact. I can look back at old notebooks and unless I remember really well what I was on about I have struggled to actually read what I wrote (of course my hand writing is also dead down atrocious).
But she did say she can't read cursive, not just that she couldn't read that. And I doubt she's a type of Hemingway who can write in cursive but not read it.
LordofHats wrote: I think the inconsistency will stand out more. Definitely a major train wreck for the prosecutions case.
It may well be. We'll see. I personally think that the inconsistencies aren't even as bad as the whole, "I know what happened because I heard Trayvon's earbuds falling on wet grass over the cellphone," thing, but mileage may vary.
Definitely looks bad on her, though being honest I sometimes struggle to read my own hand writing years after the fact. I can look back at old notebooks and unless I remember really well what I was on about I have struggled to actually read what I wrote (of course my hand writing is also dead down atrocious).
Sure, but if you're handed one of your old notebooks, you'd say, "My handwriting sucks, I can't read this," not, "I can't read cursive."
It may well be. We'll see. I personally think that the inconsistencies aren't even as bad as the whole, "I know what happened because I heard Trayvon's earbuds falling on wet grass over the cellphone," thing, but mileage may vary.
I think some of it is a mix of her nervousness, hindsight, and poor prep by the prosecution but the prosecutions entire handling of this witness is extremely bizarre since she first appeared. I don't think she's lying per se, but I think she's embellishing what she heard in an attempt to get back at Zimmerman.
Even if it is, does it really matter? No one is gonna think of the top of their head "I know what that sounds like" they think "wtf does that mean?" The second part is gonna matter a lot more than anything else... Unless people in Florida all know the sound of wet grass.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: a taco truck? Those exist? Man I'd chase that down like a lion taking down a zebra.
I've never tried the one that comes around where I work, but I've heard it's delicious.
Yep. Living in a new neighborhood in Houston, they drove around daily as houses were still being built during lunch time.
Some folks call them roach coaches as they have a reputation for never getting a health inspection and claims of people getting digestive problems from them.
I've had it a few times. Fair enough. Too many good Mexican restaurants here to justify eating from one.
But back on topic, I wish I could watch this at work. Or at least listen.
I've low crawled many times through wet grass.....for the life of me...most I remember is sweating, how one always have that "One" itch when your butt is wet, and whoever came up with "Grass PT" needs to die. I just can't tell you what "wet grass" sounds like. Be glad you can't listen to her. As from the recent posts. Please tell me cursive writing is not a dying art....I actually have written notes all the way back to 1990 up till now.....
It is. I learned it initially in third grade but moved to another school and never heard anything about it again. Now I only use cursive when signing something.
Hulksmash wrote: I still write in cursive but I don't write often......Man, cursive is so much faster than normal writing....so sad.
Not for me it's not
I got poor penmanship grades because we were only allowed to write in pen if we used an erasable pen. You know what happens when a left handed writer writes with an erasable pen? Yeah... I had streaks of blue, black, and red on my hand for 3 years until I finally got to high school and they were like, "cursive lolwut? Write however you want."
LordofHats wrote: It is. I learned it initially in third grade but moved to another school and never heard anything about it again. Now I only use cursive when signing something.
he's right. Its not required in many areas now. My boy can't do it. My daughter can, and in epic fashion, but you have to pry the phone and laptop out of her hands with a crowbar first. Note you have to do same if you want to talk to her as well.
Wonder how much an impact she made on the jurors when she said she can't read cursive. Granted not as big as admitting to lying three times on official documentation. Its just to me. Her credibility is damage more. Now she putting off the vibe the she sign anything in front of her....
Her credibility is pretty crap. Sad for the prosecution cause she probably did hear something but clearly she has not been prepped well at all. You'd think the prosecution would have caught these problems before putting her on the stand.
LordofHats wrote: Her credibility is pretty crap. Sad for the prosecution cause she probably did hear something but clearly she has not been prepped well at all. You'd think the prosecution would have caught these problems before putting her on the stand.
Just listening to her, I think she was prepped. I suspect that she may have been prepped to the point of having been coached, honestly.
She's just so much of a parody of an inner city future welfare recipient that it doesn't matter. She's like a self-satire.
At this point IMO. Game Over for the Prosecution unless Z takes the stand which we all know he won't do. So now we're down to the actual shooting. Prosecution best have McGyver on their side.
sourclams wrote: Just listening to her, I think she was prepped. I suspect that she may have been prepped to the point of having been coached, honestly.
I think she was too. Just not properly. Her testimony is terrible and some of the stuff she's being face with should have been dealt with (and could have been I'd think). EDIT: That letter, I mean seriously? Either she was super nervous or the prosecution did a job.
The prosecution's witnesses should be getting a chunk of the defense lawyer's attorney's fees because it's like they're doing the Defense's jobs for them. The defense is doing a killer job cross examining the witnesses so that makes it even better, but /still/ this is brutal.
Jihadin wrote: I've low crawled many times through wet grass.....for the life of me...most I remember is sweating, how one always have that "One" itch when your butt is wet, and whoever came up with "Grass PT" needs to die. I just can't tell you what "wet grass" sounds like. Be glad you can't listen to her. As from the recent posts. Please tell me cursive writing is not a dying art....I actually have written notes all the way back to 1990 up till now.....
I can read it still, but can't really write it anymore, with out some serious head crunching. I haven't had to use it since maybe 5th grade.
But yeah, I'd say her testimony was at best worthless. I am a bit surprised that the defense didn't attack her credibility a bit more based on her personal conduct. I read a lot of her tweets that got "deleted" and my god... what a drain on society she is going to turn out to be. I'm not boned up on trial stuff more then what I've seen in Law & Order. Is that something they could have attacked her on?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Not really unless they brought the tweets in on evidence to my knowledge.
For the record I can't write in cursive beyond my signature.
Makes sense I guess. After reading some of that crap though, it makes me wish they could have drug her threw the mud. Who the hell admits to drinking and driving on twitter?!?! WHILE DOING IT?!?!?!
Jihadin wrote: I've low crawled many times through wet grass.....for the life of me...most I remember is sweating, how one always have that "One" itch when your butt is wet, and whoever came up with "Grass PT" needs to die. I just can't tell you what "wet grass" sounds like.
One of my 'favorite' PT sessions was on a nice grassy area. Prior to PT, the in-ground sprinkler system had put over an inch of water onto the grass, and it was cold enough to freeze the top 1/4 inch of that. What a glorious morning that was.
I learned that wet grass sounds a lot like teeth chattering and cursing that morning.
I can read it still, but can't really write it anymore, with out some serious head crunching. I haven't had to use it since maybe 5th grade.
But yeah, I'd say her testimony was at best worthless. I am a bit surprised that the defense didn't attack her credibility a bit more based on her personal conduct. I read a lot of her tweets that got "deleted" and my god... what a drain on society she is going to turn out to be. I'm not boned up on trial stuff more then what I've seen in Law & Order. Is that something they could have attacked her on?
I can actually still write it, more legibly than my print is, though I suspect it's because I'm a lot slower at it than when I'm chicken-scratching notes.
The witness was pretty sad. Like, "one of the people I go to Walmart to observe when I'm wanting to feel good about myself" kinds of bad.
...Here is what is true about Jeantel. She has publicly admitted to underage drinking and getting high. She is a poor speller (at least on social media). Her way with words is not calculated to win favor – she has testified that Martin told her “a creepy-ass cracker” was following him. She has responded to the defense’s line of questioning with an icy “You got it?” and “That’s slowed, sir.” The Daily News describes her diction as “often difficult-to-understand” and says it’s “cringe-worthy” and “humiliating” that she couldn’t read a letter out loud on the stand because she says, “I don’t read cursive.” Jeantel has also admitted to law enforcement that she lied about her initial claim that she didn’t attend Martin’s funeral because she was hospitalized at the time; she now says that she felt too “guilty” to face his parents and “didn’t want to see the body.” She admits that at the beginning of the investigation, she said she was under 18, because she didn’t want to get involved. She is unpolished and emotional....
In the Daily New's defense, it is absolutely cringe worthy and humiliating that she cannot read a letter she said she wrote.
We finally got power back so I could watch the video (no audio in work) and all I can say was that I hope that the DA isn't looking for re-election soon.
Seaward wrote: Well, I can say I heard it here first. As long as people scream loudly enough and long enough, it doesn't actually matter whether or not there's reasonable evidence to charge someone with a crime, we should do it anyway.
The legal system isn't run by popular referendum. I'm sorry to see that you appear to think it should be.
But of course, that isn't what I said, and while its clear you were just reading it that way as a cheap debating trick, for a second I'm going to pretend that it was a genunine misunderstanding, because you're either a particularly dim child, or a reasonably intelligent golden retriever.
Anyhow, to explain it to you... popular outcry does not in fact drive the law. Action still requires individuals within the legal system. As such, popular outcry cannot drive the legal system, merely encourage action where otherwise none was being taken. And when that action is no more than having a fair trial, then there simply isn't, and cannot be unfairness.
sebster wrote: But of course, that isn't what I said, and while its clear you were just reading it that way as a cheap debating trick, for a second I'm going to pretend that it was a genunine misunderstanding, because you're either a particularly dim child, or a reasonably intelligent golden retriever.
Anyhow, to explain it to you... popular outcry does not in fact drive the law. Action still requires individuals within the legal system. As such, popular outcry cannot drive the legal system, merely encourage action where otherwise none was being taken. And when that action is no more than having a fair trial, then there simply isn't, and cannot be unfairness.
Did you follow that, this time?
So in sebsterville, everyone has the hundreds of thousands of dollars that adequate representation costs when you have to defend yourself in a case like this. And it's not unfair for someone whom the police and local prosecutor declined to charge to have to throw that cash out just because the public wants blood.
I suspect the typing fingers engaged long before the brain. At this point, I'd almost be disappointed if that wasn't the case.
I thought it was a compelling article. Most of the things being said about her (even here ITT) even have zero relevance to her credibility. How much of a "drain on society" you think someone is going to be has pretty much feth-all to do with how believable their account of events is, to my thinking. The letter with the cursive she claimed to write but then it was shown she didn't, that's more appropriate and effective in that it shows she isn't always truthful (not that she can't read cursive, who cares).
sebster wrote: But of course, that isn't what I said, and while its clear you were just reading it that way as a cheap debating trick, for a second I'm going to pretend that it was a genunine misunderstanding, because you're either a particularly dim child, or a reasonably intelligent golden retriever.
Anyhow, to explain it to you... popular outcry does not in fact drive the law. Action still requires individuals within the legal system. As such, popular outcry cannot drive the legal system, merely encourage action where otherwise none was being taken. And when that action is no more than having a fair trial, then there simply isn't, and cannot be unfairness.
Did you follow that, this time?
So in sebsterville, everyone has the hundreds of thousands of dollars that adequate representation costs when you have to defend yourself in a case like this.
I wonder if you would raise this concern for the 17% of state prisoners who declared an Alford Plea.
I would post the age of the jurors instead I read their profile. All are professional and of my age and beyond. All are in a profession that requires handwritten notes. I'm sure they were floored as I was when she said she could not read cursive. The letter her friend wrote was in cursive. She just gave the perception that she will do/say whatever that needed to be done.
azazel the cat wrote: I wonder if you would raise this concern for the 17% of state prisoners who declared an Alford Plea.
Probably not, but if you can link me to any of their cases that showed the local boys with jurisdiction didn't want to file charges and got overruled after a media circus demanding a trial, I might.
Though Alford pleas don't have a lot of relevance in this scenario.
Seaward wrote: So in sebsterville, everyone has the hundreds of thousands of dollars that adequate representation costs when you have to defend yourself in a case like this. And it's not unfair for someone whom the police and local prosecutor declined to charge to have to throw that cash out just because the public wants blood.
In sebsterville, otherwise known as the planet inhabited by all people except apparently Seaward, its completely fething ridiculous to claim that just because a police investigation came to a conclusion, then there is no scope to question or challenge that decision through whatever means available... because police investigations aren't flawless. To the extent that the media can play a role in that, well then good.
And yeah, that means that when they shoot someone, there's a fair chance that a person will have to find the legal fees to properly argue their case in a court of law. If that's a problem, well then it's probably a good idea not to follow people around your neighbourhood, if you're just going to end up moaning about the legal fees it costs you to shoot them.
edit
Trial underway so it really doesn't matter how it started
Yeah, there's a trial, and it doesn't really matter how it started. I agree.
It's Seaward who's claiming because an initial police investigation said there was no case to answer, then the trial is some kind of manifest unfairness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Probably not, but if you can link me to any of their cases that showed the local boys with jurisdiction didn't want to file charges and got overruled after a media circus demanding a trial, I might.
I'm sorry, what? Are you honest to God, hand on your heart claiming that media pressure has never played an important role in bringing to trial cases that otherwise wouldn't have been?
sebster wrote: In sebsterville, otherwise known as the planet inhabited by all people except apparently Seaward, its completely fething ridiculous to claim that just because a police investigation came to a conclusion, then there is no scope to question or challenge that decision through whatever means available... because police investigations aren't flawless. To the extent that the media can play a role in that, well then good.
Whereas, clearly, with bang-up witnesses like we saw today, there was a great deal left to be discovered. The sound grass makes when earbuds fall on it, for example. I bet those lousy Sanford cops never even asked if the earbuds could be heard falling!
And hey, we all know the media never gets things wrong for the sake of telling a sensational story.
I'm sorry, what? Are you honest to God, hand on your heart claiming that media pressure has never played an important role in bringing to trial cases that otherwise wouldn't have been?
Because, you know...
You're claiming a case where the investigation was ongoing and the prosecutor had yet to decide on charges when a media outcry blew up (Steubenville) is the same as a case where the investigation was concluded and the prosecutor declined to charge them (Martin)?
Amazing.
And just to point out the problem with your magical "media solves everything!" scenario, a lot of the idiots who got involved, such as Anonymous, did nothing but taint potential evidence. It harmed more than it helped. But hey, it made sure people knew about it, and at least provided the illusion that your bizarro-world version of justice by referendum became reality.
There should have been a trial or a damn good investigation when the incident happen. A life was taken and it does appear casual connect the dart investigation was done. That it went down that ways says a lot on the quality of the police dept.
I don't even know how any other authority was able to decide that Zimmerman should be charged with anything after the local guys decided not to charge him.
It's almost like that means that there is a system already in place that allows for something like that to happen. Are you saying that at some point in time there were people that decided we should have a system that allows a higher level of authority to charge someone in case a lower level of authority made a mistake?
Jihadin wrote: There should have been a trial or a damn good investigation when the incident happen. A life was taken and it does appear casual connect the dart investigation was done. That it went down that ways says a lot on the quality of the police dept.
Florida's fairly weird with the SYG thing, as I understand it. With zero motive, a SYG claim, no real eye witnesses, obvious and evident injuries to Zimmerman, etc. it's pretty easy to understand how there wasn't a lot they figured they could do.
I helped in a investigation of an illegal kill. Its no joke. Our investigation appears more.......Nazi like in gathering info compare to Sanford police twinkle toe perception of an investigation.
Jihadin wrote: I helped in a investigation of an illegal kill. Its no joke. Our investigation appears more.......Nazi like in gathering info compare to Sanford police twinkle toe perception of an investigation.
Perhaps so.
So far, though, the prosecution doesn't appear to have much of a case.
This whole weird tangent about how, "well, local law enforcement did a cursory investigation and brought no charges so shucks, guess we're done here" is quite possibly the most intellectually vacuous concept I've ever seen espoused on dakka. I mean, seriously? How many hundreds of cases were brought by the federal government due to public pressure during the civil rights movement alone over uninvestigated-by-local-law-enforcement lynchings, voter intimidations, and so forth? This whole concept is just bizarre in how divorced from history and hell, common sense it is.
tl;dr sometimes local police don't always make the right call. This is not novel or newsworthy
Jihadin wrote: There should have been a trial or a damn good investigation when the incident happen. A life was taken and it does appear casual connect the dart investigation was done. That it went down that ways says a lot on the quality of the police dept.
Florida's fairly weird with the SYG thing, as I understand it. With zero motive, a SYG claim, no real eye witnesses, obvious and evident injuries to Zimmerman, etc. it's pretty easy to understand how there wasn't a lot they figured they could do.
It has NOTHING to do with SYG. It has everything to do with police not being able to arrest an individual who claims self defense without due cause. Zimmerman was still going to have face at least a grand jury at some point.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It has NOTHING to do with SYG. It has everything to do with police not being able to arrest an individual who claims self defense without due cause. Zimmerman was still going to have face at least a grand jury at some point.
Only if the prosecutor wanted to go after first-degree murder.
And the SYG law was why police initially didn't hold him. The chief (who's since been forced out) said as much at the time.
Seaward wrote: Whereas, clearly, with bang-up witnesses like we saw today, there was a great deal left to be discovered. The sound grass makes when earbuds fall on it, for example. I bet those lousy Sanford cops never even asked if the earbuds could be heard falling!
A dodgy witness automatically means that a case is so terrible that a trial should never have happened?
Wow. Moments like this I'm glad we're all over here on Planet Earth, and you're over there in your own little reality.
You're claiming a case where the investigation was ongoing and the prosecutor had yet to decide on charges when a media outcry blew up (Steubenville) is the same as a case where the investigation was concluded and the prosecutor declined to charge them (Martin)?
So you're just going to sit there and pretend that the investigation went smoothly, with the full co-operation of every person in the town, and that national media pressure played no part in finally getting a full and honest picture of the events that night. And just pretend that it hasn't led to a grand jury investigation in to cover up. Okay then.
And just to point out the problem with your magical "media solves everything!" scenario,
See, there you go again, misinterpreting my position so badly that I'm left to conclude that you're either doing it deliberately because you can't actually handle an honest argument, or that you're either a particularly dim child, or a reasonably intelligent golden retriever.
I'll be generous, again, and assume you're either a dim child or a particularly intelligent golden retriever and there's no dishonesty on your part... and spend the time explaining why your summary 'the media solves everything' has nothing to do with what I actually said.
The media's role in crime and trials is a complex one, and while by no means always perfect, it simply cannot be denied that media pressure hasn't historically played a role in getting police and the legal system to respond where they might, for a whole host of reasons, simply move an issue under the carpet. As such, your claim that because this trial has come about in large part through media pressure and despite an initial police ruling, is completely ridiculous.
See, while you have taken an absolute position, that media pressure leading to a trial is always unjust, that doesn't mean I have taken an equally absolute, opposing position. Instead I can say that media is an important, though not always useful component, and establish that your absolute position is wrong in that way.
Now, can you just understand, accept that your earlier claim was lazy, and not make me type all this out again. Because explaining very simple things to you, over and over again really isn't very much fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: This whole weird tangent about how, "well, local law enforcement did a cursory investigation and brought no charges so shucks, guess we're done here" is quite possibly the most intellectually vacuous concept I've ever seen espoused on dakka.
You think so? I mean, yeah, it's vacuous, but one of the most vacuous we've seen on dakka? I'm not even convinced its the most vacuous thing Seaward has claimed this week.
Ouze wrote: This whole weird tangent about how, "well, local law enforcement did a cursory investigation and brought no charges so shucks, guess we're done here" is quite possibly the most intellectually vacuous concept I've ever seen espoused on dakka. I mean, seriously? How many hundreds of cases were brought by the federal government due to public pressure during the civil rights movement alone over uninvestigated-by-local-law-enforcement lynchings, voter intimidations, and so forth? This whole concept is just bizarre in how divorced from history and hell, common sense it is.
tl;dr sometimes local police don't always make the right call. This is not novel or newsworthy
I think the point you're missing is that the decision to try wasn't made on the basis of new evidence turned up in a fresh investigation and that the public outcry was largely engineered. You really want to compare a civil rights case with one where national media outlets were aggressively - and falsely - pushing their own narrative version of events in order to whip up ratings? I mean, Christ, NBC actually had to fire people for doctoring 911 calls to make it seem like Zimmerman was doing things he didn't, but by the time that came out, it was way too late.
The entire tone of the whole case, long after its disposition had been decided locally, changed once some producers got the bright idea that it might sell. The scenario you paint involves a wide range of people simply deciding not to do their jobs for the hell of it, and the media riding in as white knights to save the day and force justice to be served. Please tell me you're not that naive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: A dodgy witness automatically means that a case is so terrible that a trial should never have happened?
Wow. Moments like this I'm glad we're all over here on Planet Earth, and you're over there in your own little reality.
When the star witness is that bad, it lends credence to the initial findings of, "We're not going to get any charges to stick."
So you're just going to sit there and pretend that the investigation went smoothly, with the full co-operation of every person in the town, and that national media pressure played no part in finally getting a full and honest picture of the events that night. And just pretend that it hasn't led to a grand jury investigation in to cover up. Okay then.
Fortunately, I don't have to pretend. That's actually the case. What national media pressure managed to do, indirectly, was get some dumbass Anonymous dude to commit a felony that's going to see him go away for longer than the actual rapists. It didn't help anybody.
See, there you go again, misinterpreting my position so badly that I'm left to conclude that you're either doing it deliberately because you can't actually handle an honest argument, or that you're either a particularly dim child, or a reasonably intelligent golden retriever.
I'll be generous, again, and assume you're either a dim child or a particularly intelligent golden retriever and there's no dishonesty on your part... and spend the time explaining why your summary 'the media solves everything' has nothing to do with what I actually said.
The media's role in crime and trials is a complex one, and while by no means always perfect, it simply cannot be denied that media pressure hasn't historically played a role in getting police and the legal system to respond where they might, for a whole host of reasons, simply move an issue under the carpet. As such, your claim that because this trial has come about in large part through media pressure and despite an initial police ruling, is completely ridiculous.
See, while you have taken an absolute position, that media pressure leading to a trial is always unjust, that doesn't mean I have taken an equally absolute, opposing position. Instead I can say that media is an important, though not always useful component, and establish that your absolute position is wrong in that way.
It's an absolute position only in cases where the media manipulates perception to not only drum up a false narrative, but actually create false facts. I understand that I'm going to have to explain this another seven or eight times before you finally get a warning and go away for a while, but c'est la vie.
Now, can you just understand, accept that your earlier claim was lazy, and not make me type all this out again. Because explaining very simple things to you, over and over again really isn't very much fun.
It'd probably help if you actually started addressing what I was saying rather than the strawmen you always craft to argue against.
Seaward wrote: Fortunately, I don't have to pretend. That's actually the case. What national media pressure managed to do, indirectly, was get some dumbass Anonymous dude to commit a felony that's going to see him go away for longer than the actual rapists. It didn't help anybody.
You're talking about anonymous, but not Prinniefied?
Okay, so the problem is you haven't really followed how the issue broke through the media. Well, go read, learn, and then we can talk.
It's an absolute position only in cases where the media manipulates perception to not only drum up a false narrative, but actually create false facts. I understand that I'm going to have to explain this another seven or eight times before you finally get a warning and go away for a while, but c'est la vie.
Well, that's the first time you've mentioned that new line of thinking, and one is a lot less than seven, so that's weird.
Anyhow, it's good to know that you've worked this case as a professional agent, and come to realise there is clearly no case for Zimmerman to answer. There I was thinking this was a contraversial thing, when all this time you had God's knowledge that it's all a media beat up. Good to know. Nothing more to talk about. Now you just need to tell this to everyone else, and we can all get back to arguing about Obamacare.
This trial is going to be going for a minute, not counting the appeals or possibility of mistrial. We need need to pace ourselves or we'll be worn out before it is over.
I thought it was a compelling article. Most of the things being said about her (even here ITT) even have zero relevance to her credibility. How much of a "drain on society" you think someone is going to be has pretty much feth-all to do with how believable their account of events is, to my thinking. The letter with the cursive she claimed to write but then it was shown she didn't, that's more appropriate and effective in that it shows she isn't always truthful (not that she can't read cursive, who cares).
Here's what impacts her credibility:
1. multiple stories about what happened with important changing points to the direct issue - who physically attacked who.
2. multiple stories including those that she supposedly wrote but can't herself read. OK you don't write in cursive but you said you wrote. If you wrote it then said someone else wrote it for you -WHY?
3. making claims about it being hard being the last person yet when the phone clicked off SHE DID HER HAIR AND DID NOTHING. She was stoned or lying about a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: This whole weird tangent about how, "well, local law enforcement did a cursory investigation and brought no charges so shucks, guess we're done here" is quite possibly the most intellectually vacuous concept I've ever seen espoused on dakka. I mean, seriously? How many hundreds of cases were brought by the federal government due to public pressure during the civil rights movement alone over uninvestigated-by-local-law-enforcement lynchings, voter intimidations, and so forth? This whole concept is just bizarre in how divorced from history and hell, common sense it is.
tl;dr sometimes local police don't always make the right call. This is not novel or newsworthy
Thats the problem. THIS ISN"T A CIVIL RIGHTS CASE. The MsM, Obama, and the usual hucksters tried to make it so when it was a black kid and someone with a German name. They even doctored evidence to make it so.
Then it turned out the defendant was actually hispanic with "black" relatives. Ooops time to invent a new term: "light hispanic" wink wink nudge nudge.
Frazzled wrote: Thats the problem. THIS ISN"T A CIVIL RIGHTS CASE. The MsM, Obama, and the usual hucksters tried to make it so when it was a black kid and someone with a German name. They even doctored evidence to make it so.
Then it turned out the defendant was actually hispanic with "black" relatives. Ooops time to invent a new term: "light hispanic" wink wink nudge nudge.
I wonder does Obama regret the "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon" comment yet?
Frazzled wrote: Thats the problem. THIS ISN"T A CIVIL RIGHTS CASE. The MsM, Obama, and the usual hucksters tried to make it so when it was a black kid and someone with a German name. They even doctored evidence to make it so.
Then it turned out the defendant was actually hispanic with "black" relatives. Ooops time to invent a new term: "light hispanic" wink wink nudge nudge.
I wonder does Obama regret the "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon" comment yet?
Can they preempt that kind of thing or do they have to wait for gak to kick off? I wonder if a preemptive activation could potentially make things worse than waiting. Not like we can really know, I guess.
Can they preempt that kind of thing or do they have to wait for gak to kick off? I wonder if a preemptive activation could potentially make things worse than waiting. Not like we can really know, I guess.
I doubt they will. Thats a major big deal for what is efectively a minor case.
We should also remember, this isn't LA or Detroit, this is the South. You take your life into your hands rioting in the South. Warning shots here are to the center torso.
Can they preempt that kind of thing or do they have to wait for gak to kick off? I wonder if a preemptive activation could potentially make things worse than waiting. Not like we can really know, I guess.
Gov can call up the NG at any time.
I would be hesitant to do that though... seems sorta inflammatory to be.
Can they preempt that kind of thing or do they have to wait for gak to kick off? I wonder if a preemptive activation could potentially make things worse than waiting. Not like we can really know, I guess.
Gov can call up the NG at any time.
I would be hesitant to do that though... seems sorta inflammatory to be.
Edit... I saw this on my twitter feed and it points out one of the problems I have about Martin:
..."Martin was running for his life and made a phone call"...WHAT?? a phone call to this girl? Not the cops? Not his father? this girl was Martin's savior? He might as well have called for pizza. He didn't [c]are about Zimmerman...he laughed at him...and wanted his girl hear him deal with the "creepy assed cracker"...
That bothered me... if Martin as truly afraid for his life, the way it evidently transpired just doesn't quite line up...
Anyhoo, we'll never know what truly happened. It's up to the court/jury now.
Hulksmash wrote: Yeah, I don't see rioting as super likely in FL. It's a good thing the trial is being held there than in some other, more energetic locations
Granted places like Los Angeles could just take it as an excuse to riot, they're always looking for one
Florida has had race riots. The Liberty City and Overtown riots are a couple examples.
And in '89, and in the 90s, and as recently as 2003 (but that one was not race related.)
It is honestly amazing to me that many of you dismiss the possibility of riots in Florida, especially when the press and professional race baiters and social media can (and seem to be) pushing race as an issue for this.
Wasn't total dismissal. Probably sounded that way but the way this trial is already going I would think it would be harder to stir the pot than it was before. But hey, maybe I underestimate the race baiters and social media abilities. People are pretty stupid as a whole so....
Key witness neighbor John Good dismantled the state’s case against George Zimmerman this morning...
Good said he saw Trayvon on top of George Zimmerman wailing on the neighborhood watchman with a barrage of punches...
Good also heard George Zimmerman screaming for help.
up Z be free. 
She really does sum up "trial by media"
Major difference if I post a pic of me from a year ago to one of now. Its....heart breaking.......but good....since I can really see the top of my feet with somewhat of an obstruction 
