Slashdot Mirror
Skype Overload Interrupts Zimmerman Trial
MouseTheLuckyDog writes "Today during the George Zimmerman trial, an ex-professor of Zimmerman's was allowed to testify via Skype while on vacation. When setting it up the prosecution didn't have the sense to blank the destination account. The result, according to The Smoking Gun, was a flood of callers to the destination account resulting in the connection being terminated and cross examination being done on a cell phone in the witness box." Also at CBS News.
omg... just wow... some audience this blog has.
If he was a THUG he would have just shot Zimmerman.
Both sources said the calls were being made to the witness. The courtroom was seeing the prosecutor's screen. I'm pretty sure the calls were being made to the prosecutor's account, not the witness's.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
What the fuck is a wirness box?
FFS timothy, why do you even bother logging in?
This is an obvious case of self defense
Yes, I too often "defend" myself by following and then chasing down my future assailant.
From what I've read, it corresponds to the 911 transcript. The operator tried to get him to back off.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Wow letting a witness "phone it in." He didn't even use Skype Audio, he used a land line for testimony.. funny.
I'm surprised that this case hasn't already been declared a mistrial...
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Skype has an option to "accept calls from contacts" that would have solved this problem.
--Sam
From what I've read, it corresponds to the 911 transcript. The operator tried to get him to back off.
From what I heard, you shouldn't make a 911 call over Skype. Apparently, talking about 911 calls over Skype is also a bad idea.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
If your son was not a THUG, he would be still be here.
I didn't realize it was ok to seek out, confront, and then shoot someone, as long as that person is a THUG?
Martin may well have been a THUG; I know i don't buy the media portrayal of him as a perfect angel showing a photo of him several years younger etc. But Zimmerman was armed and deliberately sought a confrontation with him, not the other way around.
A murder trial is appropriate.
He does not lose his right to self-defense because some 911 operator told him to back off. So he followed a guy walking around in the rain in an area that had recent burglaries. So perhaps he 'profiled' him because he wore a hoodie, perhaps because he was black. Perhaps he did a poor job as a neighborhood watchman, he got too zealous in protecting the neighborhood (not as much as some mall cops but whatever). None of this has any baring on the fact that once Martin jumped on him and started bashing his head against the pavement (as all evidence suggest he did) he had the RIGHT to defend himself with lethal force. A legal right, as in under the law in force at the time. Charge him for sucking as a neighborhood watchman, or for following the guy (whatever crime that is) but there is no rational reason to charge him with murder. It is pure mob justice of the worst kind.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I didn't realize it was ok to seek out, confront, and then shoot someone, as long as that person is a THUG?
Hey, everyone needs to let the inner Batman out once in a while.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Indeed, it's because his actions were confrontational that he loses his claim to self-defense to excuse his homicide, not because the 911 operator told him anything.
Trayvon Martin, if he did indeed confront Zimmerman, was the one engaging in lawful defense. Or would you try to charge Martin with homicide if he had killed Zimmerman?
Wow letting a witness "phone it in."
They wanted to make sure the NSA got a transcript of it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And if you were actually confident in your views you wouldn't be posting AC.
Just ask them if Trayvon Martin had shot Zimmerman with Zimmerman's gun, if they'd be asking for Martin to be put on trial, or declaring his actions self-defense.
Who is "them"?
As for me, I'd probably want a murder trial for that scenario too. He can plead self defense, and we'll see how it goes. Although self-defense seems pretty likely... or do you regularly imagine "unarmed thugs" confronting and then attacking people with guns, taking those guns by force, and then using them to shoot the owner?
How often does that happen?
So, if someone is walking around in a place where they should not be, you are not allowed to get out of your car? Why don't we just lock up the law abiding and let the criminals roam free, if we are going to let them dictate our lives like this. Instead he killed somebody.
Just like most cases of self defense, nobody sets out to kill anybody (well, except for the criminals sometimes), but if somebody jumps you and starts bashing your head against the ground, you have the right to defend yourself.
It seems clear to me that case by case, the government is trying to take away our rights to defend ourselves. They hand out harsher sentences against people who kill an armed assailant, than they do to assailants who kill an unarmed victim. It's pretty clear the message they are trying to get across: Just let the criminals do whatever they want with no dear of reprisal.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
and even if he had confronted Zimmerman with the threat of force, was justified in his actions
No, sir. That is called assault.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
How do you justify " if someone is walking around in a place where they should not be" with a young black teenager walking on a public street? Are you that much of an twit or just that good of a troll?
So, if someone is walking around in a place where they should not be, you are not allowed to get out of your car? Why don't we just lock up the law
MARTIN WAS NOT WALKING AROUND IN A PLACE WHERE HE SHOULD NOT BE.
So, if someone is walking around in a place where they should not be, you are not allowed to get out of your car?
It's called the neighborhood watch, not the neighborhood police - for a reason. Watchmen are told not to confront, but report suspicious activity, otherwise this kind of shit happens. Zimmerman had a history of this kind of behavior, and he was in the wrong place and did the wrong things. Bad things happened.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Except Martin's DNA was not on the holster or the gun.
The only thug here is Zimmerman. If Zimmerman was the aggressor, Martin can use equal force to defend himself. If Martin thought his life was in danger, the response can include deadly force. If Zimmerman showed Martin he had a gun, that is all that is required for Martin to incapacitate Zimmerman.
if someone is walking around in a place where they should not be
It was a public neighborhood, not a military base surrounded by signs saying "Trespassers will be shot".
If someone who is armed with a pistol is stalking me on a rainy dark night, you damn well better believe I'm going to defend myself in any way I can.
Lock that turd up and throw away the key.
once Martin jumped on him and started bashing his head against the pavement (as all evidence suggest he did)
I'm not sure where you got that from. The wikipedia article linked to in the summary mentions about the opening statement for the trial, and I quote, "The prosecution's statement focused on the lack of evidence of bodily harm to both Zimmerman and Martin (...)".
Actually, yes you do lose your right to self-defense if you're told to back off.
By your logic, I have the right to racially profile you, follow you anywhere you go and I can shoot-to-kill if/when you panic cause an unknown armed man is following you around at night.
You do not lose your right to self defense if "you're told to back off".
You do not lose your right to self defense if "you racially profile me" (whatever that means)
You do not lose your right to self defense if "you follow me anywhere I go"
None of that matters in the slightest.
If your are assaulted, you have a right to self defense. If you assault the other guy, you don't. Whoever escalated from words to violence is the criminal (and I have no idea who that is here, also IANAL yadda yadda).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Well, I just read the second paragraph of my quote, and the defense says the opposite of the prosecution. We'll have to wait until the trial goes on to know what evidence there is for either case, but a blind statement saying that "all evidence suggests he did" seems premature at best.
Sure, but Zimmerman thought he was, for whatever reason.
This is exactly how communities were expected to be, before we all became strangers to our neighbors. "Hey! You there! I don't know you - what are you doing here?" is a perfectly valid thing for a local to ask. Doesn't give the local any right to initiate violence, but certainly doesn't give the person asked the right to initiate violence either. Pretty much no words whatsoever give you the right to attack the person who said them.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
But in Bizzarro World, Zimmerman was supposedly OK to approach Martin ...
Not illegal.
... challenge him ...
Not illegal.
... provoke a fight ...
Not illegal.
... and shoot him dead.
Not illegal if Martin really gave Zimmerman a valid excuse to defend himself with deadly force under the terms and conditions of Florida's "stand your ground" law. On the other hand, if Martin was banging Zimmerman's head against the ground, that actually is illegal; it's called assault.
So, no, merely following someone and even provoking them is not enough cause to enact deadly force for defence, even under Florida's laws, so Martin would absolutely not have been justified in doing so. This case is just a big waste of money; undoubtedly the DA felt compelled to file it because of pressure from racially-motived social personalities and groups, but it's still a big waste.
Zimmerman's claim is that he got out of the car and walked in the same direction to see the name of the street to phone it in. If true, that would explain why he didn't argue with the operator.
So, unless he is lying, he didn't "chase down" Martin. I suppose you could argue that Martin felt threatened when Zimmerman reached into his pocket to get his cellphone. But that argument only makes sense if you start with the assumption that any civilian who shoots an unarmed teenager must be in the wrong and you reason backwards from there.
"Stand your ground" has nothing to do with this case. It's a pure case of self-defense.
"Within three generations we could weed virtually all aggressive genes out of the gene pool."
And within four generations the few aggressive ones left would rule the rest with an iron fist.
He absolutely was somewhere he shouldn't have been.
He was kneeling on top of a man beating his skull into the pavement.
And he got killed for it.
That's the full of it. He had every right to walk there. He had every right to pull out a cell and call the police and report a stalker. He had every right to flee. He had every right to stand his ground and to kill Zimmerman if he was actually physically assaulted -- up to and including if he was merely threatened and reasonably believed force might be used.
In some states he would have had the right to retreat to his home, and if followed -- to produce a firearm and shoot to kill without a moment's question.
He ambushed somebody, demonstrated lethal intent -- and died for it. That's all there is to it.
Even if the ambush and jump is a lie... that's all there is to it.
Any amount of profiling, racism, hate crime or whatever may be societally relevant, but it's not criminally relevant. He utilized lethal force ... even against a provacateur... it's a justified homicide. End of story.
Tired of me repeating myself? I'm sorry, I'm just stating the truth. Not as I see or believe it ... but as all anybody can possibly freaking tell and appropriately conclude from the available facts. No bullshit voice data, witnesses that didn't look, people that barely recall screamed voices. Not as someone who sits there and believes anybody deserved a killing or a beating or an ass-kicking or acted rightly, wrongly, or appropriately or not.
Two people were out at night. Two people behaved aggressively and failed to de-escalate. One of them died. One of them was on top of the other. One of them had head wounds, a broken nose, and lacerations. The other was shot.
This is what happens when you get in a fight. This is what happens when you get in a fight and use, threaten to use, or cause someone to believe you will use lethal force.
Martin may have been killed originally because Zimmerman pursued him, but ultimately and immediately he was blown away for presenting an immediate threat to life.
Justice has nothing and everything to do with it. This isn't about justice for his killing. This is about justice (acquittal) for lawfully justified self defense. It's why you don't even see stand your ground being claimed -- it's wholly irrelevant and not needed.
That people demand justice for a killing may be appropriate -- but that only works if they actually attempt to retreat. Not once. Not the first time. Not initially. If you're on top of me beating my head into the ground it's a good shoot at that moment no matter what I did to deserve it.
Maybe that needs to change, but as of today... that's the only lawful outcome.
This murderer is going to walk on technicalities! The court itself should be setting up and Skype calls and hopefully have someone who knows what the hell they are doing!
*Think globally~Dream universally*
"Except Martin's DNA was not on the holster or the gun."
That was covered in the trial. Even under ideal conditions DNA doesn't stick 100% of the time, and it was raining.
Actually, it's a case of pure confrontation and aggression, which means neither stand your ground or self-defense applies.
Why?
Zimmerman got out of the car.
This is an obvious case of self defense, if the thug that attacked Zimmerman wasn't an African-American, there would be no trial. There was too much race baiting and fake charges of murder were trumped up to appease the Martin family.My message to the Martin family is clear. If your son was not a THUG, he would be still be here.
by Anonymous Coward ~~~~ says it all.
*Think globally~Dream universally*
So, if someone is walking around in a place where they should not be, you are not allowed to get out of your car?
You can get out of your car, but if you shoot them, it'll be due to a confrontation you initiated through your actions, thereby destroying your claim to self-defense.
Not that Martin was in a place where he was not supposed to be, which makes Zimmerman's actions even less justifiable.
Why don't we just lock up the law abiding and let the criminals roam free, if we are going to let them dictate our lives like this.
Would you rather somebody like George Zimmerman dictate to us? I wouldn't. There's a reason why the police are supposed to be trained, to clearly identify themselves, and not to use the threat of force except when it constitutes appropriate action.
Random persons should know better than to act as a police officer, and not get a pass on their actions which results in somebody else's death. And any person with a gun should know better than to get into a situation where their actions are provocative and confrontational. Zimmerman failed to meet that standard, therefore his claim of self defense is not valid.
Or should I have to live in fear of somebody like him?
Just like most cases of self defense, nobody sets out to kill anybody (well, except for the criminals sometimes), but if somebody jumps you and starts bashing your head against the ground, you have the right to defend yourself.
Not when you've provoked and threatened them. Which is exactly what Zimmerman did.
It seems clear to me that case by case, the government is trying to take away our rights to defend ourselves. They hand out harsher sentences against people who kill an armed assailant, than they do to assailants who kill an unarmed victim. It's pretty clear the message they are trying to get across: Just let the criminals do whatever they want with no dear of reprisal.
It seems clear to me that people like you want to create a culture of fear and intimidation, where the people who you support get to use force against others, and excuses are made for that regardless of the abuses, because we sure can't hold somebody accountable for a homicide that is a direct result of their willful and provocative actions.
That way you can get us all intimidated by you, since you'll get away with whatever you do, while the rest of us have to knuckle under.
That dispatcher was a witness earlier in the trial. He clarified that he was NOT giving an order. He also clarified that he is not allowed to give orders to callers.
The wording was that the police didn't NEED Zimmerman to follow. It didn't even imply that it might not be HELPFUL to the police. And, it certainly didn't even suggest that Zimmerman, if he wished to do so, shouldn't.
Anyway, according to Zimmerman, he stopped following when the dispatcher made that suggestion but that he was returning from trying to get the address for the police to meet him at when Martin accosted him. So far, I've seen no reason not to believe Zimmerman's version of the story.
From what I've read, it corresponds to the 911 transcript. The operator tried to get him to back off.
I think you need to reread that transcript again. Zimmerman had agreed to meet the police officers that had been dispatched to the site. Martin confronted and assaulted Zimmerman after that. Since he was ahead of Zimmerman and on his way home, if Marin had continued on his way he would have been home instead of assaulting Zimmerman, which led to his being shot.
Map and timeline of incident
Trayvon Martin shooting death -- initial police reports and '911' call transcript
Dispatcher: Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman: Yeah. [2:25]
Dispatcher:OK.We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman: OK. [2:28] (wind noises heard)
Dispatcher:Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]
Zimmerman:George. He ran.
Dispatcher:Alright, George, what’s your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman.
...
Dispatcher: Alright, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?
Zimmerman: Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then they go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]
...
Dispatcher: OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]
Zimmerman: Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43]
...
Dispatcher: OK, no problem. I’ll let them know to call you when they’re in the area. [4:02]
Zimmerman:Thanks.
Dispatcher: You’re welcome.
Call ends 4:07
The trial seems to be going strongly in Zimmerman's favor, of course juries are unpredictable.
Witness: Trayvon Called George Zimmerman A ‘Creepy-A**,’ ‘White, Kill-My-Neighbors Cracker’
Zimmerman trial blockbuster — Eyewitness says Trayvon on top punching Mixed Martial Arts style
Zimmerman Trial Day 5 – Analysis & Video – State’s own witnesses undercut theory of guilt
Zimmerman Trial Day 6 – Analysis & Video – State’s witness Chris Serino seriously undermines charge
Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 8 — State Wins Evidentiary Battle, Loses Testimony War
Has State Opened Door to Defense Introducing Martin Fight Video?
Zimmerman judge excludes Trayvon Martin fighting, social media and marijuana use
Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense
Lest we forget:
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Indeed, we have testimony that Martin was almost home when he decided to go back and attack Zimmerman.
Zimmerman trial blockbuster — Eyewitness says Trayvon on top punching Mixed Martial Arts style
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
This may come as a shock, but I never said the crime was getting out of the car, getting out of the car merely invalidates Zimmerman's claim to self-defense.
That's why it is a case of pure confrontation and aggression.
You can do things that are legal on their own, but that invalidate further conduct on your part.
There is no requirement that you already be dead or have suffered serious injury to before using deadly force to defend yourself (obviously, that would be a ridiculous requirement as those are the very conditions that your self-defense right exists to prevent).
When an attacker is on top of you after having sucker punched you and you have been unable to get free and the attacker is/has:
I think a reasonable person would feel that they were in danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death at the hands of said attacker.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home and its night time and you don't know who I am and I just got out of my car after following you several blocks.
In this scenario, I have a gun that you don't know about and I am following you home and its night time and you don't know who I am and I just got out of my car after following you several blocks and you lost me and I'm returning to my vehicle moving away from you, telling the 911 operator where I think I saw you last, and you follow me back to my vehicle and attack me, then I shoot you in self-defense.
But Zimmerman was armed and deliberately sought a confrontation with him, not the other way around.
No, what Zimmerman did was observe Martin from a distance and call the police, he didn't seek to confront Martin. It was Martin that described Zimmerman with a racial slur, confronted and attacked Zimmerman.
Witness: Trayvon Called George Zimmerman A ‘Creepy-A**,’ ‘White, Kill-My-Neighbors Cracker’
Zimmerman trial blockbuster — Eyewitness says Trayvon on top punching Mixed Martial Arts style
You're right, Martin wasn't a perfect angel.
Has State Opened Door to Defense Introducing Martin Fight Video?
Zimmerman judge excludes Trayvon Martin fighting, social media and marijuana use
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
MARTIN WAS NOT WALKING AROUND IN A PLACE WHERE HE SHOULD NOT BE.
Martin was behaving in a way that a neighborhood watch volunteer (Zimmerman) found to be suspicious, which caused him to call the police, and agreed to meet the dispatched officers when they arrived. Martin described Zimmerman with a racial slur, then confronted and attacked Zimmerman.
Witness: Trayvon Called George Zimmerman A ‘Creepy-A**,’ ‘White, Kill-My-Neighbors Cracker’
Zimmerman trial blockbuster — Eyewitness says Trayvon on top punching Mixed Martial Arts style
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
That is just utterly ridiculous. Getting out of the car makes no difference to the right to self defense.
Even "confrontation" makes no difference. The only thing that would negate the self-defense plea is if Zimmerman actually physically attacked Martin and then progressed from fighting to shooting.
And there is absolutely no evidence nor testimony that he did so.
It would be ever so refreshing if people made the slightest effort to understand the law before they started blathering about it.
I know, too much to ask.
Batman hates guns.
Did Dwight feel his life was in danger?
That's your problem, right there. It doesn't matter what Dwight feels. The question is whether a 'reasonable person' would conclude that Dwight's life was in immediate danger. That's what the law says. To me it seems obvious that this test does not pass in case of Martin (guy follows him) but does in case of Zimmerman (guy sitting on him and pounding him in the face)
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
When "confront his pursuer" means "knock him down and beat his head against the sidewalk" then I think there's possibly a minor flaw in your argument.
You can get out of your car, but if you shoot them, it'll be due to a confrontation you initiated through your actions, thereby destroying your claim to self-defense.
So, let me get this straight. If I get out of my car, and someone assaults me and I shoot them, then that is not self defense? Because my getting out of the car was "asking for it"?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
. If Zimmerman showed Martin he had a gun, that is all that is required for Martin to incapacitate Zimmerman.
Im pretty sure having an unconcealed firearm on your person is not justification for someone attacking you.
In fact I believe its a constitutional right to have one, I do believe I read that somewhere.
I suppose you could argue that Martin felt threatened when Zimmerman reached into his pocket to get his cellphone.
Seems to me that would qualify under the "stand your ground" law - Martin had a reasonable belief of an unlawful threat and that he did not have an obligation to retreat. Cops shoot people all the time for exactly the same reason, Martin would be justified in hitting Zimmerman first if the thought Zimmerman was in the process of drawing a weapon.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Actually, it's an obvious case of confrontation, because George Zimmerman chose to get out of his car, thereby putting Trayvon Martin at risk for his life.
Wait, what?
What sort of paranoid fantasy world do you live in?
So, if someone is walking around in a place where they should not be, you are not allowed to get out of your car? Why don't we just lock up the law
MARTIN WAS NOT WALKING AROUND IN A PLACE WHERE HE SHOULD NOT BE.
No, clearly he was visiting his mother, his father, his father's fiance, a friend, etc, depending on which story you read.
If true, of course, he had every right to be there, and when asked by a security guard, he should have stated his business and thanked the security guard for keeping the neighborhood safe.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Martin had broken contact with Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on the phone to the police. Zimmerman had agreed to meet the police that were dispatched to the site and was on his way when Martin confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Martin had previous used a racial slur to describe Zimmerman. It was Martin's choice to confront Zimmerman. Since he was ahead of Zimmerman, Martin could have continued on his way to his house instead of confronting Zimmerman.
Witness: Trayvon Called George Zimmerman A ‘Creepy-A**,’ ‘White, Kill-My-Neighbors Cracker’
Zimmerman trial blockbuster — Eyewitness says Trayvon on top punching Mixed Martial Arts style
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
That's why it is a case of pure confrontation and aggression.
Absurd. Getting out of the car to see where someone suspicious is going is not a confrontation nor is it an act that requires that person to double back from just outside the house he was going to, jump the guy, and begin to administer a beat-down. You're a troll, or an idiot, or both.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
it's because his actions were confrontational
His actions were not confrontational. And Zimmerman was jumped while walking back to his truck. You know this, we all know this. So, you're just repeating your BS justification for the violence that Martin began. Seeing where someone out of place is going in your neighborhood is not violent. The only person who made the situation violent was Martin.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Actually, yes you do lose your right to self-defense if you're told to back off.
Not that that's actually true, but it doesn't matter. Because nobody told him to. The said that Zimmerman didn't need to keep following Martin. And even if you choose to interpret that as direction (the person who said it, the dispatcher, has already testified that it was not instruction to Zimmerman), a dispatcher has no authority whatsoever in such matters.
I have the right to racially profile you
Yes, you do! You can look right at me, and say, "I see that you're white: that probably means all sorts of bad things, by my standards." You can racially profile me all you want. Because doing so means nothing when it's a private citizen doing so. You can also behaviorally profile me ... you know, make personal conclusions all your own based on what you seem me doing as I hide my face cruising through your neighborhood. Why? Because doing so isn't a problem. Because that's not assault.
follow you anywhere you go
You have absolutely no expectation of privacy on a public street. Are you saying that Martin was followed into the house where he was staying? Because ... he wasn't. It was Martin that doubled back towards Zimmerman (who was walking the opposite direction), to attack him.
and I can shoot-to-kill if/when you panic cause an unknown armed man is following you around at night.
No, but you can shoot when someone jumps you and starts beating your head into the pavement, which is what happened. Day or night, doesn't really matter.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Not when you've provoked and threatened them. Which is exactly what Zimmerman did.
See, that's the thing. That didn't happen. You are lying. Why are you lying?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
At least half what you claimed happened is not even mentioned in those links. In fact, some of it seems to be contradicted by those links. I don't really know what happened, but when someone starts in with the citations that don't support their claims, I generally start to think their bias is an insurmountable barrier for them to find out the truth,
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
How do you justify " if someone is walking around in a place where they should not be" with a young black teenager walking on a public street? Are you that much of an twit or just that good of a troll?
Except it was not a public street but a walkway in a gated community. Private property.
Only handheld ones. His vehicles have all sorts of projectile launchers built in to them.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
This is an obvious case of self defense, if the thug that attacked Zimmerman wasn't an African-American, there would be no trial. There was too much race baiting and fake charges of murder were trumped up to appease the Martin family.My message to the Martin family is clear. If your son was not a THUG, he would be still be here.
by Anonymous Coward ~~~~ says it all.
And if the term for those not logged in was "Brave Whistleblower", would you have the same reaction.
It is just a label after all. One chosen by the site designers long ago.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Your view about "insurmountable barriers" is interesting. Sometimes one's political views form the basis for that, and no amount of evidence helps.
Here you go, knock yourself out. The police call transcript and map are helpful, as is various aspects of the other material.
Map and timeline of incident
Trayvon Martin shooting death -- initial police reports and '911' call transcript
Witness: Trayvon Called George Zimmerman A ‘Creepy-A**,’ ‘White, Kill-My-Neighbors Cracker’
Zimmerman trial blockbuster — Eyewitness says Trayvon on top punching Mixed Martial Arts style
Zimmerman Trial Day 5 – Analysis & Video – State’s own witnesses undercut theory of guilt
Zimmerman Trial Day 6 – Analysis & Video – State’s witness Chris Serino seriously undermines charge
Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 8 — State Wins Evidentiary Battle, Loses Testimony War
Zimmerman Case: Experts Call State’s Scream Claims “Absurd” “Ridiculous” and “Imaginary Stuff”
Zimmerman Prosecution’s Voice Expert admits: “This is not really good evidence”
GMA Shows Exclusive Images Of George Zimmerman’s Head Injuries From Night Of Trayvon’s Death
Autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles
Trayvon Martin's legal troubles reportedly covered up by police
Has State Opened Door to Defense Introducing Martin Fight Video?
Zimmerman judge excludes Trayvon Martin fighting, social media and marijuana use
Lest we forget: NBC News Apologizes for Editing George Zimmerman's 911 Call (Which falsely mad Zimmerman appear to be racist.)
Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Is that what happened? Well damn, let's just send everybody home then..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"Today during the George Zimmerman trial, an ex-professor of Zimmerman's was allowed to testify via Skype while on vacation. When setting it up"," the prosecution didn't have the sense to "obscure" the destination account. The result, according to The Smoking Gun, was a flood of callers to the des"t"ination account"." "This" result"ed" in the connection being terminated"," and cross examination being done on a cell phone in the wi"erd"ness box."
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
Interesting that you omitted the fact that after Zimmerman told the dispatcher he'd meet police at the mailboxes, he changed his mind and asked that the officers call him so he could tell them where he was.
Zimmerman: Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then they go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]
Dispatcher: Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]
Zimmerman: Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25]
Dispatcher: OK, do you live in the area?
Zimmerman: Yeah, yeah, I live here.
Dispatcher: OK, what’s your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]
Dispatcher: OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]
Zimmerman: Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43]
Dispatcher: Alright, George, I’ll let them know you’ll meet them at
Zimmerman: Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at? [3:49]
Dispatcher: OK, yeah that’s no problem.
Zimmerman:My number you’ve got it?
Why would he need to tell police in the future (when they arrived) where he was, if he just told the dispatcher to tell the police he'd meet them at the mailboxes? Because he wasn't going to be back at his vehicle by the mailboxes. He was going to lead them straight to Martin, and to do that, he needed to find Martin and possibly detain him until police arrived.
Again, please explain this: If I tell your friend to tell you I'll be waiting for you at the mailboxes, why then would I later ask you to tell your friend to call me when he arrived in the general vicinity, so I could tell him where I was? Don't they know I'm at the mailboxes, since I already said I'd be there?
It is about perceived threat. You don't have to wait until the gun is out of the holster. Plus, this was a case where Martin was being stalked. The gun coupled with Zimmerman going for something in his pocket and Martin being unarmed, if the same thing happened to me, I would would have attempted to kill Zimmerman, or at least knock him unconscious.
One was a female friend of Martin - the one that was on the phone with him during the incident, the other was a witness to the assault. You might be projecting. Ask yourself why you think they are biased? Is it just because the evidence looks bad for Martin?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
When its your son or daughter that loses their life over an incident like this then I wonder on what side of the fence you'll stand.
That depends, was my son or daughter beating someone's head against the sidewalk after jumping them? Did my son or daughter start the violence?
So Martin is a "thug" for beating on someone but Zimmerman isn't for killing him?
Right, because Martin, not Zimmerman, committed assault and was the one committing the actual violence. Zimmerman didn't commit violence, he stopped the person who was committing violence.
So someone stalks you and confronts you and is armed, what do you do?
Gee, I don't know, talk to them? What I wouldn't do would be to wait until the guy is walking back to his truck, then run up and sucker punch him, knock him down, and begin bashing his head into the sidewalk.
Wait to get killed or fight for your life?
Why are you asking that question? Those weren't the choices presented to Martin. He had all sorts of choices, including just walking into the house he had gotten to (according to his friend, the prosecution's witness). Instead, he turned around, and ran back to Zimmerman, who was walking back to his truck. And attacked him.
You're not actually paying attention, are you?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Also, the rest of us need to carry a gun to make us think our dick is as big as Batman's.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I didn't realize it was ok to seek out, confront, and then shoot someone, as long as that person is a THUG?
Who has said that's OK? Are you talking about some scenario other than the trial at hand? Because what you're describing didn't happen. You need to be more clear that you're not talking about the Zimmerman/Martin trial when you say that. Otherwise people might think that you're being deliberately misleading.
But Zimmerman was armed and deliberately sought a confrontation with him, not the other way around.
Ah, so you ARE being deliberately misleading. Why are you doing that? What's the point of lying about it?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Or would you try to charge Martin with homicide if he had killed Zimmerman?
Yes, because Martin was the one who committed the assault, not Zimmerman.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
and if you attempt to kill me (what ever the thought you have in your head), and I am armed, I will shoot you.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Why would he need to tell police in the future (when they arrived) where he was, if he just told the dispatcher to tell the police he'd meet them at the mailboxes? Because he wasn't going to be back at his vehicle by the mailboxes. He was going to lead them straight to Martin, and to do that, he needed to find Martin and possibly detain him until police arrived.
There are plenty of reasons why he might want to be contacted by the police when they were nearing the designated meeting place, such as the possibility of them arriving sooner than expected while Zimmerman was still traveling to that point. That way he could coordinate with them.
Do you have any actual evidence for Zimmerman intending to detain Martin? That didn't appear to be his intent during the call, nor with his behavior prior to the call. So far it looks like you have a pet theory not supported by evidence.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
In this scenario, I have a gun.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home and its night time.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home and its night time and you don't know who I am.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home and its night time and you don't know who I am and I just got out of my car after following you several blocks.
At NO point do I lose my right to self-defense despite repeated verbal warnings to back off? I'm sorry, but you're insane. You've just given stalkers a blank check to murder anyone they choose by simply claiming "self-defense" when their victims resist/fight back/attempt to run away.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home and its night time and you don't know who I am and I just got out of my car after following you several blocks, and I have just stopped following you and started back to my vehicle.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home and its night time and you don't know who I am and I just got out of my car after following you several blocks, and I have just stopped following you and started back to my vehicle when I am attacked from behind by the person I was following.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home and its night time and you don't know who I am and I just got out of my car after following you several blocks, and I have just stopped following you and started back to my vehicle when I am attacked from behind by the person I was following. I am now having my head smacked into the pavement repeatedly.
What was your point again?
You do not have one if the whole story is told?
Call NBC. They can fix that for you.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Hmmm. The way things are going maybe that because these are the same lawyers that represented Microsoft in "DOJ vs Microsoft".
Even "confrontation" makes no difference. The only thing that would negate the self-defense plea is if Zimmerman actually physically attacked Martin and then progressed from fighting to shooting.
And there is absolutely no evidence nor testimony that he did so.
Conveniently, the reason that there is no evidence or testimony that he did so is because the only other person that saw everything is now dead. To make it really clear: the only story we have about how everything unfolded is from the guy who shot the other guy. Pretty much everyone else has barely any idea what happened, could only sort of hear certain things, and could only sort of see what was going on. And we're left with one dead guy, and one guy somewhat hurt.
The moral of the story: in Florida, if you get into a fight, make sure you kill every witness.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
For some reason, you seem to believe every word that Zimmerman says. You know, the guy who shot and killed another guy. Why is that? Are you so gullible you believe whatever anyone says?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
No, but you can shoot when someone jumps you and starts beating your head into the pavement, which is what happened. Day or night, doesn't really matter.
Next time I shoot someone in the dark, I'll make sure to tell everyone the other guy jumped me. Maybe I'll even put my butt into a puddle to make it believable. I wonder what you'll think if the person I shot is your son.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Dumping a buttload of random citations is just as bad. Really, you see it all the time with scams like super-foods - they have a million citations, but they don't tell you what the citation is supposed to support about their claims, and in the rare case of when they do make specific claims about a specific citation, it often turns out that their citation is contradictory, or at least orthogonal I see the same sort of mode here with your two responses.
What is even more damning is that you responded to my original post with something that was only mildly related to what I wrote, it certainly didn't contradict it - a statement that was made to point out the irony of the original post. You've got vibe of a zealot.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It is interesting that all the people defending Martin are posting as an Anonymous Coward, and those that aren't actually put their name to their posts.
Simple question, did I, or did I not write this?: "The police call transcript and map are helpful, as is various aspects of the other material.
The top two links in my second post to you make much of the previous post reasonably clear. My suggestion is to open the map in one web browser, and the transcript in another, and simply read.
The racial slur used by Martin? Shown in the third link which shows that it was testified to in open court by the woman he was speaking to on the phone during the incident.
Witness: Trayvon Called George Zimmerman A ‘Creepy-A**,’ ‘White, Kill-My-Neighbors Cracker’
From the police call, Martin was ahead of Zimmerman and had disappeared. From the map it is clear that Martin could have continued to his home if he didn't want a confrontation. He didn't do that. Why? Maybe his interest in martial arts fighting, fight club like activities, drug use, burglaries, and other activities might indicate the trajectory he was on, figuratively which acted out literally?
The rest of the links tend to show the prosecution's case falling apart. Even their own witnesses are undermining it. Many of the witnesses are providing evidence in Zimmerman's favor, although not all. And that isn't addressing some of the prosecution's questionable behavior before the trial.
What the jury will do is the biggest mystery here.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Your ability to conjure up fantasies has nothing to do with the witnesses and the evidence in the trial.
Simple question, did I, or did I not write this?: "The police call transcript and map are helpful, as is various aspects of the other material.
If you think a couple of lines followed by, what, 10+ links, is meaningful, you are living in a bubble. The fact that you keep going on and on about this to someone who clearly barely gives a fuck shows you are a zealot.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
In addition, Zimmerman is half Latino and half Caucasian. Being multi-racial, he'd be the last person who would be racist.
Thats BS.
Everybody can be a racist. Being racist is neither limited to one race nor are people with mixed heritage excluded.
Even "confrontation" makes no difference. The only thing that would negate the self-defense plea is if Zimmerman actually physically attacked Martin and then progressed from fighting to shooting.
Even if Martin did start the fight if Zimmerman was winning the fight (and it was Martin who was yelling for Zimmerman to get off of him) wouldn't that also negate the self-defense plea?
I stole this Sig
"Stand your ground" has nothing to do with this case. It's a pure case of self-defense.
You sure about that? From the Wikipedia article on "Stand Your Ground"....
Though you have been been awarded a +5 "informative" and speak from a point of authority, you seem to have a few facts incorrect.
In fact, what the trial here is about how to interpret "stand your ground". If one initiates a confrontation against and innocent individual who may himself feel threatened, are you standing your ground or are you starting a fight?
"Stand Your Ground" has to do with one not having a duty to retreat first, which they did under the previous wording of the law.
Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law is here.
776.013 (3) is the SYG part
But according to Zimmerman's version, duty to retreat or lack thereof doesn't matter because he was unable to retreat.
776.032 is the immunity part.
That is the part which meant that the police were legally prohibited from arresting him if they could not offer any evidence to disprove his self-defense claim, and to begin with they could not. They were free to keep investigating, which they did.
776.041 deals with the exceptions that allow someone who was the initial aggressor or instigator to still use force in self-defense.
Basically if you're trying to withdraw from the fight and the other person won't let you, and you fear great injury or death, you can use force, including deadly force, to defend yourself against them regardless of who started it.
The only application of SYG here would be if Martin had survived and was being charged with something.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots who refer to the entirety of Fla. 776 as SYG, or the SYG law, and this creates confusion and makes people think Zimmerman was claiming to be "standing his ground" when all he was doing was claiming regular old self defense.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
He does not lose his right to self-defense because some 911 operator told him to back off. So he followed a guy walking around in the rain in an area that had recent burglaries. So perhaps he 'profiled' him because he wore a hoodie, perhaps because he was black. Perhaps he did a poor job as a neighborhood watchman, he got too zealous in protecting the neighborhood (not as much as some mall cops but whatever). None of this has any baring on the fact that once Martin jumped on him and started bashing his head against the pavement (as all evidence suggest he did) he had the RIGHT to defend himself with lethal force. A legal right, as in under the law in force at the time. Charge him for sucking as a neighborhood watchman, or for following the guy (whatever crime that is) but there is no rational reason to charge him with murder. It is pure mob justice of the worst kind.
Here's what we do know.
Martin was walking home in a way that made Zimmerman suspicious. Zimmerman then started following him and called the police, at the same time Martin called his friend and apparently told her about the guy that was following him.
The next thing we know is there was a fight that Martin was probably winning until Zimmerman drew his gun and shot Martin.
Zimmerman's attempt to fill in the blanks has Zimmerman walking back to his car, Martin coming up from behind, confront him, punching him (breaking his nose), knocking him down and bashing his head against the side walk, seeing the gun and saying either "You're gonna die now" or "You're gonna die tonight", at which point Zimmerman drew his gun and fired.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that story has a lot of BS.
Maybe the confrontation happened when ZImmerman was going back to the car, or while he was continuing to follow. But there was probably some sort of escalating discussion before it turned into a fight, Martin certainly gave a good shot to the nose but the marks on the head could just be scuff marks from struggling on the sidewalk. And Martin seeing the other guy has a gun, and responding with "You're gonna die now" or "You're gonna die tonight" is frankly a bit over the top.
Now I don't know what actually happened, and the true story might still be valid self defense, but I'm sure there's some embellishment since Zimmerman's current tale basically has Martin going nuts for no reason while he's a saint. And we know Zimmerman lied, he clearly told Hannity that he never ever heard of stand your ground, while this witness said he taught Zimmerman in a course where stand your ground was a main topic.
I stole this Sig
Even "confrontation" makes no difference. The only thing that would negate the self-defense plea is if Zimmerman actually physically attacked Martin and then progressed from fighting to shooting.
Even if Martin did start the fight if Zimmerman was winning the fight (and it was Martin who was yelling for Zimmerman to get off of him) wouldn't that also negate the self-defense plea?
If Martin started the fight, and Zimmerman was winning, and Martin attempted to withdraw, then Martin would have justification for using force, even deadly force, under Florida 776.041, which is a portion of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law (but NOT the SYG portion, 776.013 (3), or the immunity portion, 776.032), but it would probably take a few Supreme Court rulings to sort out whether, in that hypothetical, Zimmerman could keep on fighting and claim he felt that Martin's attempt to disengage was just a ruse.
But at some point Zimmerman would have to go from winning the fight to losing it to justify pulling out his gun and firing.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
From what I've read, it corresponds to the 911 transcript. The operator tried to get him to back off.
Then you've read the wrong thing, as Zimmerman did not call 911.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Congratulations, at least 10% of that wasn't in error.
But a whole bunch was.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Yes, the skittles and iced tea he dropped off at his Dad's place before beating down the crazy-ass-cracker.
Leaving aside that it wasn't actually tea in that can, did the can and the bag of Skittles magically teleport themselves back into Martin's pocket?
Because that's where they were found by the authorities long before they had any clue that he was staying in the neighborhood.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
It is interesting that all the people defending Martin are posting as an Anonymous Coward, and those that aren't actually put their name to their posts.
It seems more that, for the most part, and with exceptions, those who are more familiar with the known facts in the case are not posting AC, which in and of itself is not necessarily indicative of "taking a side".
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Yup, about 200' to travel in just under 3 minutes between when Zimmerman stopped and the fight started yet Martin ended back with Zimmerman.
We also have testimony (and a statement taken the night of the incident) from a neighbor who opened the door and observed Martin, on top of Zimmerman, doing a "ground and pound" on Zimmerman and "raining down blows" on him.
You have a right to walk around your neighborhood. Same right applies to both of them. I can follow you all over the neighborhood and your correct option is to call the police- not to start beating me.
We also have testimony from Deedee that she lied in her statement to protect the mother's feelings because the prosecution picked her up- took her to the mother's house and took her statement in front of the mother. In what world does the prosecution take witnesses to the victim's mother's house to make their official statements?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Here's where you are mistaken. You are thinking of this as a conventional criminal case where the state has to prove you did something.
In this case, Zimmerman can't rely on the benefit of the doubt. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Zimmerman was the person who shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Yes, the prosecutor is presenting that information, but that's a matter of court record, not because it's actually in dispute. Zimmerman is not going to argue he didn't do it. He would be a fool if he did. He has to make an affirmative defense. The jury should not be looking for evidence to convict him, the action he conducted is not denied by Zimmerman. He's looking to present evidence to exculpate his actions.
You should not be looking for doubt. You need to believe his story is true and genuine. Were he denying that he shot Trayvon Martin, that would be an issue for doubt.
This is a case of certainty. You need to be certain you believe his story enough that you excuse him. Otherwise you are saying that Trayvon Martin's life is of no merit to you.
That you're trying to reason things the wrong way only shows how you don't understand what is really happening, but are falling back on principles you've been taught in the past, which for their purposes are valid enough, but not applicable here.
Seriously you need to reverse your attitude towards this case. It's not innocent until proven guilty when your defense is affirmative, it's guilty unless you can show you are absolved within the boundaries of the law. For example, in regards your auto theft case, perhaps the alleged thief admitted having the car, but says they confused it for their own, or perhaps they had some emergency and had to get somewhere very quickly, so they took the car.
Do Trayvon the courtesy of respecting and valuing his life, make the person who undoubtedly shot and killed him prove that his actions were justifiable.
But while I think you are too racially biased to do that(due to your support for the grandparent), that is it a waste of time, still I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're merely ignorant of the legal duty of the juror here.
You really don't understand that whole "presumption of innocence, the burden is on the state to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt" thing, do you?
Whether you like it or not, that's how our system works.
This is a conventional criminal case where the state has to prove he did something.
That something is to have done what he did for a reason or reasons that make it murder and not self-defense.
The issue in dispute here is not whether Zimmerman fired the shot that killed Martin--everybody agrees there was a homicide (that's where a human ends the life of a human--if you kill yourself, it's still a homicide, if you get killed by a grizzly bear he may get shot but he doesn't get arrested and put on trial).
The question is whether the homicide was 2nd degree murder (or the lesser included charge of manslaughter), or whether Zimmerman engaged in a justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense.
Determining that is why a jury is hearing the evidence.
The defendent says self-defense.
The state says murder 2.
The burden is on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are right and the defendent is wrong.
If Zimmerman's use of deadly force was self-defense under various parts of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force act, then he is not guilty of murder or manslaughter, and until the state convinces the jury otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, that is the presumption to which he is entitled, which is why the burden of proof is on the state and not the defendent.
Don't like it?
Leave the country or get the law changed.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Which much improved the story.
Shhh!
You're giving away the plot of "Terminator 5".
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Just be careful...
These parts are from Zimmerman's testimony.
Noticed you have a holstered gun and has attempted to grab it, and
Threatened you.
The beating was observed by an eyewitness and it was a world class beating with blows "raining" down on zimmerman in a "ground and pound" MMA type maneuver. The eye witness's story hasn't changed since the night of Martin's death (unlike some of the other witnesses) and he said then and now that Martin was on top of Zimmerman (specifically the guy in the hoodie was on top of the guy in the red sweatshirt).
I don't trust zimmerman but I do trust that when in attempt to break him, he was told there was a video of the entire event he said, "thank god" and was relieved.
And I trust the 911 tape which shows that zimmerman stopped for close to 2 minutes after losing Martin. Martin had ample time to go home yet 3 minutes later he's on top of zimmerman delivering a beating.
Sounds to me like he got mad and went back to confront his follower.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Actually, yes you do lose your right to self-defense if you're told to back off.
Read the transcript. Zimmerman wasn't actually told to back off.
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entranceâ¦fucking [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: Georgeâ¦He ran.
Dispatcher: Alright George what's your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman
Dispatcher: And George what's the phone number you're calling from?
See? I bolded the part in question. Zimmerman wasn't told to break off pursuit, but rather that the authorities didn't need him to do that. And I might add that a 911 dispatcher doesn't have a legally recognized authority.
Says the guy who doesn't even know that Zimmerman called the non-emergency number that night, and not 911.
Who does not know that there was no need for Martin to jump a wall to enter the neighborhood if he didn't utilize either of the gates.
Assuming you're the same AC as the one to which I responded.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Actually you just have to "feel" your life is in danger to take defensive violent action.
I believe the usual standard is that a jury agrees that a reasonable person would feel and do the same in the same situation.
If you see someone coming at you with what you believe is a weapon then you can defend yourself from them under stand your ground law.
As noted by the other replier, this is not a "stand your ground" issue.
On the 911 call Zim did chase down Martin for about 20 seconds until the 911 operator said, "we don't need you to do that" and he stopped (and he's already winded- terrible shape).
Zim talks to the operator for about 2 minutes and then the call ends.
Then about a minute later the fight is being observed by witnesses with martin on top of zimmerman.
Zimmerman is likely lying about several things (i.e. what martin said while beating Zim). But the 911 data shows that martin had ample time to get home (about 200' -five houses away on the maps).
If I were on the jury, I would have reasonable doubt about whether Zim committed 2nd degree murder and vote not guilty.
---
My personal theory is that a 17 year old hot head with fighting experience went back to beat up the creepy guy following him.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Maybe I'll even put my butt into a puddle to make it believable.
Make sure you break your nose and have the guy you're going to kill, bash your head into concrete a few times to make it look good. Juries lap that shit up.
Perhaps it needs to be more specific.
We have testimony from an eye witness (mr. good) that martin was beating zimmerman in a "rain" of blows "MMA style" in a "ground and pound".
Agree?
We have a timeline from the 911 call that shows Zimmerman stopped and talked with the operator for close to 2 minutes.
Agree?
Martin's house was about 200' away from where he was last seen. A normal person walks that in under 60 seconds. It seems reasonable that Martin could have gotten to his house but didn't go there.
Agree?
I'd be unable to convict for 2nd degree murder if I were on the jury and I've been on several jurys.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The fact that you keep going on and on about this to someone who clearly barely gives a fuck shows you are a zealot.
I have a suggestion here. How about you change your mind from "barely give a fuck" to "don't give a fuck" and leave this debate to the grown-ups?
Note
[2:28] (Z stops)
Z Talks to operator
[4:07] (call ends)
--
Martin fails to cover the 200' to his house while running since M is back on scene about 3 minutes after Zim stopped.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Spare me from your community.
Unless you live in isolation from any communities, you already live in such a community. People do not universally trust other people unless they have a medical condition or mental handicap. And it turns out that they have good reason not to trust other people unconditionally.
Evidence submitted by the state shows ZImmerman had a history of this kind of thing.
i.e. calling the police and reporting suspicious circumstances to them and not being overly aggressive.
It was very strange that they would submit all those 911 calls but apparently they were trying to show Zimmerman had reached the breaking point.
To me, it felt like they were making the defense's case for them.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
That's why it is a case of pure confrontation and aggression.
So why is getting out of a car "pure confrontation and aggression"?
Testimony from eye witness Mr. Good is that Martin "in the black hoodie" was on top of and winning while "raining" down blows on Zim "in the red sweatshirt" and that it was "probably" Zim who was calling for help. Wasn't sure since Martin was facing away from Mr. Good.
OTH, why would I be beating the hell out of someone and calling for help.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Next time I shoot someone in the dark
Are you making a reference to the Martin/Zimmerman case? Because it may have been dark when Martin attacked, but that really doesn't have much to do with the "being shot" part. He was shot while on top of Zimmerman, having already run up behind him to attack, punched him in the face and broken his nose, and was proceeding to bash his head into the sidewalk. He was shot while on top of him and throwing more punches. A six-foot guy, continuing to beat up the guy he'd turned around and gone back to attack.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
For some reason, you seem to believe every word that Zimmerman says.
Come up with evidence that contradictions Zimmerman's testimony. Where's the reason not to believe Zimmerman?
We can't just jail people merely because it's in their interest to avoid jail. Otherwise everyone would be in jail aside from the occasional crazy looking for six months of free meals.
The only "witness" to how the fight started is Rachel Jeantel
And of course, she said that was not able to say anything about how the fight started, only that Martin was at his Dad's house. Which means that Martin turned around and ran back to do the assault.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
and the youth had the right to not be harassed by an adult in the middle of the night
No. He doesn't actually have that right.
Therein is the problem, laws should not be based on "feelings". So called "stand your ground" laws are bad policy.
Too bad reality got in the way of that sentiment. Sometimes, circumstances aren't optimal. In those cases, we may be forced to go on "feeling" rather than perfect information.
Funny thing is, if this were reversed, that is, if Zimmerman was being followed by Martin, and Zimmerman confronted Martin starting a confrontation which ended with Zimmerman shooting Martin, the same people defending Zimmerman now would still defend him. They'd just say, Stand Your Ground, Self defense "I'd feel threatened if someone were following me. Damn right I'd confront them!" But, in this case, Zimmerman followed Martin and shot him. Therefore Martin had no right to defend himself or confront his pursuer.
It's evident that you don't understand the issues here. Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete and Zimmerman had a reasonable expectation that his life was in danger. There are certain conditions where one forfeits a right to self-defense. Show they apply here. As has been repeated noted, merely following someone doesn't forfeit the right to self-defense.
When its your son or daughter that loses their life over an incident like this then I wonder on what side of the fence you'll stand.
Since you insist on playing this stupid game, let's wonder what you'd do if your son or daughter was Zimmerman. Sounds to me like you're someone who couldn't make a unbiased decision in that case.
how do you shoot someone who is beating your head to the ground? it should be obvious from the entry angles at least.
ever hit your head on pavement?
Zimmerman wanted some vigilante action.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
(Zimmerman admitted on the 911 call that Martin ran away, and Zimmerman decided to follow him. Why would Martin run away from him, then turn around and jump Zimmerman without cause?)
Zimmerman also admitted on the phone to breaking off pursuit.
Zimmerman is likely lying about several things (i.e. what martin said while beating Zim).
What's your basis for that claim?
> Therein is the problem, laws should not be based on "feelings". So called "stand your ground" laws are bad policy.
It's not about "feelings". It's about "state of mind". And "state of mind" has EVERYTHING to do about the law.
Medical doctor touches a hotties ass in a clinical setting, that's therapeutic.
Pervert touches a hotties ass in a subway, and gets locked up.
Same action. Only difference is state of mind.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Damn, I was subpoenad to testify once and had to cancel a trip to Hawaii. I never heard of once's leisure time taking precedence over the court's schedule. While the theory of remote testimony might work, as evidenced by the problems they had, who can say if and how the jury was influenced? Will they remember what the guy was saying or all the popups and interruptions?
Nice circus, though, with the defense attorney telling lame jokes and laying on the floor one day and skype failures on another. This is a capital murder trial, right?
Well, those links do back his observations.
Along with saying a whole bunch of other shit. Note also they all come from the same site, a site with an overt bias.
I have a suggestion here. How about you change your mind from "barely give a fuck" to "don't give a fuck" and leave this debate to the grown-ups?
Don't want me to respond? Go have your debate as a response to someone else's posting.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
You know how to tell when someone is a nutter?
They have a prepared list of links to post - links that include titles and html-formatted href links, not just bare URLs.
They've put this list together so they can just dump it into any conversation with the utter faith that if people would just read all the articles on the other end of the links the conclusion would be completely self-evident. They have little to no commentary about what each link means, its just so obvious that it doesn't need any sort of editorial summarization. The readers are just supposed to knock themselves out proving whatever he thinks his points are for him. No work at all because it is so obvious. No chance of coming to alternate conclusions because it is all so obvious.
Or, there is always the chance that it wasn't prepared ahead of time, they just spent 30+ minutes assembling it on the fly as if the effort of cataloging it all proves it has a straight-forward and obvious meaning.
In either case it is a sign the poster is delusional.
This is an obvious advertisement for Skype. It's just as bad as some overly-dramatic crap show on network TV using Skype with a big logo on the screen to act all super high tech and impressive. In reality, a 10 year old can use it, it's been around forever, and it's just a paid ad placement. So whoever convinced (paid) them to use Skype obviously didn't bring in a Skype "expert" and I use that term loosely. I would have thought of not broadcasting the username over live TV after about 3 seconds of setting up that system. So I suggest that the court system:
Actually take this case seriously
Stop doing stupid gimmicky bullshit
Stop taking money from Microsoft
Bring in any single person who at least vaguely knows IT to set it up better
In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence.
Zimmerman's application to be a police officer had been rejected by a Virginia police department. Zimmerman wanted to do police ride alongs. He also chose to participate in the Neighborhood Watch Program. And Zimmerman choose to arm himself, despite the fact that the Watch Program discouraged its participants from doing so.
But at the time of the attack, Zimmerman wasn't on watch. He chose to follow Martin. He chose to disregard police instructions. He chose to get out of the car. As the one "trained" and armed with deadly force, it was his responsibility to see that the situation didn't escalate out of control. It did.
Personally, I'd characterize Zimmerman as a police officer wannabe. He wanted to be a cop and was rejected. So he armed himself and continually went out on "patrol", looking for trouble and a chance to be a hero.
That night he found it. And he allowed the situation to escalate totally out of control. Faced with an actual confrontation, he panicked and resorted to using deadly force. Result? One dead kid.
Zimmerman carries complete and total responsibility for the shooting.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
"Zimmerman had never been in trouble with the law."
In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
"He had all sorts of choices."
Choices? Zimmerman chose to participate in the Neighborhood Watch Program. And Zimmerman choose to arm himself, despite the fact that the Watch Program discouraged its participants from doing so.
But at the time of the attack, Zimmerman wasn't on watch. He chose to follow Martin that night. He chose to disregard police instructions. He chose to get out of the car. As the one "trained" and armed with deadly force, it was his responsibility to see that the situation didn't escalate out of control. It did.
Personally, I'd characterize Zimmerman as a police officer wannabe. He'd wanted to be a cop and was rejected. So he armed himself and continually went out on "patrol", looking for trouble and a chance to be a hero.
That night he found it. And he allowed the situation to escalate totally out of control. Faced with an actual confrontation, he panicked and resorted to using deadly force. End result of Zimmerman's choices? One dead kid.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
but common sense suggests that Zimmerman's account is bullshit
Other than the part where his account is completely consistent with the evidence, and with actual eyewitness accounts. Other than that part.
Why would Martin run away from him, then turn around and jump Zimmerman without cause?
For the same reason he was thrown out of his house (for being violent)? For the same reason he tweeted about hitting people, showing off a gun and drugs, and generally cultivating his gangster/thug persona? For the same reason that he was the only person involved who used a racial epithet to describe someone? His friend on the phone (the prosecution's witness) was the one that provided the evidence that Martin was already back the house when he turned around to go and assault the "cracker" he was beating on.
oddly enough, she disputes Zimmerman's claims
No, she didn't dispute any of his claiims. When asked, she admitted that she had no idea what happened because Martin ended his phone call before he started beating on Zimmerman.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No, what Zimmerman did was observe Martin from a distance and call the police,
By which you mean he followed him.
he didn't seek to confront Martin.
Who was following who? Oh, right.
It was Martin that described Zimmerman with a racial slur, confronted and attacked Zimmerman.
Wasn't Zimmerman in his car when he called 911? ... checks transcript... yes... yes he was. So, why didn't he just drive away?
Your theory is the guy with the gun sitting in is car, somehow got attacked by an unarmed man and had to shoot him to save his own life?
Yeah, maybe. But I'm glad we're having a trial.
Ah, so you ARE being deliberately misleading. Why are you doing that? What's the point of lying about it?
Zimmerman was armed, and in his car and Zimmerman was following Martin, not the other way around.
Your scenario amounts to:
"The armed man in a car following an unarmed man on foot was unable to avoid a confrontation in which he shoots the unarmed guy."
Yeah, sure, maybe. I'm glad there's a trial.
I suppose you think all blacks are thugs unless proven otherwise.
What difference does it make whether someone is black or not? He was wearing a hoodie in summertime. How would you know it was someone black or just some punk ass white kid trying to be gangsta? Either way, he wasn't recognized as being someone who should belong in the neighborhood. This is a case where I wish Trayvon would have been white, we wouldn't even be having this trial. Another punk white kid jumps somebody and got killed for it. Moving along.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
"he turned himself into the police"
I just changed my view of this trial. No Mighty Morphing Power Ranger could ever be guilty of cold-blooded murder.
I hate printers.
"a dispatcher has no authority whatsoever in such matters."
A dispatcher is an officer of the law as much as the street police. Ever been inside a dispatch office? They all have badges.
That means they are indeed allowed to give orders. I've had dispatch give me orders to begin CPR and instructed me on timing and breathing when my friend's aunt died in-home.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If I'm being pursued by a strange man with a gun, you can bet your ass I'll try to knock him down and get his gun away from him. I'm not going to sit there passively, hoping that it's just an overzealous neighborhood watchman. Trayvon was trying to save his own life. Trayvon was exercising his right to self defense. Being chased by a man with a gun absolutely gives him a reasonable expectation that his life was in danger.
What if an armed person tells you they're going to shoot you? I'd consider that a pretty good reason to try to get their weapon away from them (attack them).
Snarl.
In fact I believe its a constitutional right to have one, I do believe I read that somewhere.
The constitutional right is to keep and bear arms.
There's not a constitutional right to transport around on one's person a ready-to-go firearm holstered in public or around someone else's property, such that a person could fear for their life.
You see a random stranger walking up to your place of residence with a gun prominently displayed, holstered or not, --- that is a direct threat, and an indication that you are in immediate danger.
I'm betting you'd get a bullet between the eyes before you could piss your pants and run away.
And that's why one should be wearing a bullet-proof facemask, helmet; kevlar bodysuit, and leggings at all times.
Sorry but that fantasy of yours is not supported by either evidence or testimony. Stick to the facts as known.
In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.
With the way charges are trumped up this could mean anything from saliva, to merely brushing up against the officer and not immediately complying. If you haven't already seen videos of police running up to someone saying stop resisting, there are plenty on youtube. In fact there is a story about a girl thrown in jail for buying water. "...Nevertheless, Daly was charged with two felony counts of assaulting a law enforcement officer after she grazed two agents with her SUV trying to flee, and one felony count of eluding police..." which sounds really bad until you read that they're plain clothes, have guns drawn, and tried breaking her windows. Where do they find these tools, have you ever mistaken packaged bottled water for booze? Ridiculous!
He chose to disregard police instructions
Dispatcher != police. Why am I pointing this out? Because you're implying that dispatchers are police officers. Dispatchers can tell you something, but it isn't a lawful order. It carries about as much weight as me telling you not to put salt on your food or to shut up. Maybe a car analogy will work, it's like the warning light coming on to check your engine. It's a good suggestion, but it is not a command.
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
Martin's autopsy is publicly available (PDF). Now tell me: in the autopsy report, how many wounds did Martin have at the time of death? What was the cause of the wound(s)? Does this support or refute the assertion that Zimmerman attacked Martin first?
There are also publicly available photos of Zimmerman immediately after the encounter. Given the location of Zimmerman's wounds, does this support or refute the position of the prosecution or the defense? Further, are you aware that strikes to the back of the head are illegal in sport fighting because they carry a risk of serious injury or death?
Your scenario amounts to:
"The armed man in a car following an unarmed man on foot was unable to avoid a confrontation in which he shoots the unarmed guy."
What? How does his being armed as he walked back to his truck have any bearing on the fact that Martin - who had already made it to his destination - doubled back, and ran up behind Zimmerman to sucker punch him and begin the physical assault from which Zimmerman had to defend himself? Carrying a pistol doesn't magically control people who are sneaking up behind you to attack you.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
And Martin was a wannabe gangbanger. They were destined for each other, and the resolution was the right one.
Right. Because he was tired of crime in his neighborhood. A perfectly normal reaction, and not only legal, but actively supported by law enforcement.
And Zimmerman choose to arm himself, despite the fact that the Watch Program discouraged its participants from doing so.
Right - such civic groups do not want to be sued into oblivion if a member has an accident while participating. So they take the policy stand that it's not them, but the members themselves that make that decision.
But at the time of the attack, Zimmerman wasn't on watch.
Which doesn't in any way reduce Martin's responsibility for doubling back from his dad's house in order to attack Zimmerman, and then actually committing that assault.
He chose to follow Martin that night.
Right. Because he didn't recognize the person taking an unusual route through the private community while hiding his face. Thought he'd call the police to report it, and take a moment to see where the person was going. Again, a perfectly reasonable response, and in no way illegal.
He chose to disregard police instructions.
See, now you're just lying. Why? The only time he spoke to police was once they arrived on the scene. On his phone call, he was talking to a dispatcher. A dispatcher has no authority to tell anyone to do (or not do) anything, and the dispatcher in question has already testified that no such instructions were given. You've obviously heard the transcript, so you know that the dispatcher remarked that they didn't "need" Zimmerman to follow the suspicious person. The transcript shows no instruction, the dispatcher - who has no authority either way - said that no instructions were given or intended as such.
He chose to get out of the car.
Right - to see where the person was going. Which he did, and then he turned around and walked back towards his truck.
As the one "trained" and armed with deadly force, it was his responsibility to see that the situation didn't escalate out of control.
And it did not get out of control. He observed, he talked to the dispatch on the phone, and he walked back to his truck. Do you consider that to be out of control? The next situation had nothing to do with him - because it involved Martin leaving his destination, and deliberately coming up from behind, having decided he wanted to dish out a beating. That situation had nothing to do with Zimmerman, who was walking the opposite direction.
Personally, I'd characterize Zimmerman as a police officer wannabe.
Which in what way caused Martin to run up behind him and start beating on him?
So he armed himself and continually went out on "patrol", looking for trouble and a chance to be a hero.
Which is you characterization, and appears to be false (in terms of his motivation) by all reports. Regardless, how did his interest in slowing down the rate of crimes in his neighborhood cause Martin to run up behind him and start beating on him?
he allowed the situation to escalate totally out of control
By turning his back on they guy and walking back to his truck?
Faced with an actual confrontation, he panicked and resorted to using deadly force.
No, faced with a punch in the face, a broken nose, and having his head pounded against the sidewalk and being told he was going to die, use his gun once. I supposed you'd have preferred that he allowed Martin to continued bashing his head against the pavement?
End result of Zimmerman's choices? One dead kid.
No, that was the end result of Martin's choice to - having already made it to his dad's house - turn around, make his way back to Zimmerman, and begin a physical assault.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
that doesn't change the reality that he got out of the car because of Trayvon Martin.
What are you talking about? Your lie is that doing so is a confrontation. Zimmerman was walking peacefully back to his truck, and Martin had made it to his dad's house. You are clear on that, right? Because if you say you're not, you're lying. Martin, instead of going into the house, decided to turn around, and run back to dish out a beating on the "cracker" in question. What's your agenda, in leaving out the most important detail, here?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
A dispatcher is an officer of the law as much as the street police.
This is not true. The dispatcher testified to the fact that mentioning to Zimmerman on the call that they didn't "need" him to follow Martin was not instruction to Zimmerman.
I've had dispatch give me orders to begin CPR and instructed me on timing and breathing when my friend's aunt died in-home.
You're very confused about this, aren't you? When you call 911 and ask them for help with a medical emergency, their advice to you to do CPR is not the same as being told by a police officer what to do. Are you really that obtuse?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
They seem implausible to me then and now. Some of it sounded like something out of a cheap dime store novel. I couldn't see martin making the leap to killing someone because they were carrying a gun to I could see him beating someone like he was observed doing.
Look up "King hit" and you can see how easy it is to kill or severely damage someone with one blow.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
For some reason, you seem to believe every word that Zimmerman says
No need to. The prosecution's own witness established that Martin had already returned to his dad's girlfriend's house. For him to have been beating on Zimmerman where the attack occurred, he would have to have turned around and chosen to go back and go at him. The evidence backs this up exactly, even the evidence provided by a witness the prosecution chose.
You know, the guy who shot and killed another guy.
You mean the guy who stopped his own murder from happening? That guy?
Are you so gullible you believe whatever anyone says?
No, otherwise I'd have to believe some of the nonsense that the prosecution tried to trot out (like the BS voice analysis the judge very rightly kept out of the trial).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Look up "King hit" and you can see how easy it is to kill or severely damage someone with one blow.
Look up "multiple stab wounds" and you'll see how hard it can be to kill someone via multiple stab wounds.
Sure, one blow expertly placed might have disabled or killed Zimmerman, but where's the evidence that Martin has any knowledge of dealing such "king hits"?
Further, why isn't shooting Martin a justified response to how Martin was beating up Zimmerman? Even if he didn't have intent to kill, I see a reasonable expectation of grievous bodily harm, which probably meets the criteria for self-defense.
How does his being armed as he walked back to his truck have any bearing on the fact that Martin
Why did he get out of his truck in the first place? To follow Martin.
How does his being armed as he walked back to his truck have any bearing on the fact that Martin - who had already made it to his destination - doubled back, and ran up behind Zimmerman to sucker punch him and begin the physical assault from which Zimmerman had to defend himself?
Yeah, that's one version of the story.
So your saying Zimmerman's been following this guy who he views as a dangerous threat, then he even testifies the guy notices he's being followed, and then a few minutes later he's walking along with his guard down and gets jumped from behind?
Carrying a pistol doesn't magically control people who are sneaking up behind you to attack you.
He wouldn't be doubling back and sneaking up behind you if you weren't sneaking around following him around in the first place.
Does following someone around somehow justify being attacked? Of course not, but it robs you of credibility when you say "I was just minding my own business, walking back to my truck, when he jumped me." I have a reasonable doubt about the truth of that claim. Maybe its true. Maybe its not.
We need a trial to sort it out. I'm not saying Zimmerman is guilty and I'll assume the jury makes the right decision based on the evidence presented at trial, regardless of whether they acquit or convict.
One concern about fear for life, if Zimmerman seemed to be displaying the gun to Martin after following him around, then Martin had reason to believe his life was threatened.
Martin, instead of going into the house, decided to turn around, and run back to dish out a beating on the "cracker" in question.
See, that's the thing. That didn't happen. You are lying. Why are you lying?
Um, you still don't understand, so I'll leave it at this. Resuscitation order by wish of the patient. A dispatcher has EVERY AUTHORITY to order you to help that person in that circumstance, and is an order given by a officer of the law. The only thing a dispatcher is powerless to do is arrest you, and that's actually by law.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
That didn't happen
Which part? The part where he was at his dad's girlfriend's house? The prosecution's star witness quoted Martin himself as saying he was. Are you saying that the prosecution and their witness are lying? Interesting.
Or are you referring to the part where he referred to him as a "cracker?" That's the prosecution and their witness saying that.
Or are you referring to the part where Martin was beating on Zimmerman? Because there are eye-witness reports of that. He was seen doing so.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The only thing a dispatcher is powerless to do is arrest you, and that's actually by law.
Nonsense. Dispatchers - in almost every jurisdiction - are civilians trained in handling such calls and performing dispatch duties. Union rules and contracts very often prevent even injured cops from booking time as dispatchers, as those are not law enforcement positions.
I know people in this line of work in half a dozen local jurisdictions surrounding a major metro area. In no cases do dispatch employees have any legal authority of any kind, and cannot direct people to do anything - medical or otherwise. In fact they are required to ask people if they would do this or that to help an injured person, and always say "please" because the are, essentially, asking a favor of the caller. They can't make them provide CPR (or anything else) and people who can't or won't do what a dispatch employee suggests face no consequences because they absolutely are not acting with legal authority of any kind.
All of which you know, so it's kind of mysterious that you're pretending it's otherwise, unless your understanding is limited to your own county or city where they perhaps don't do what they do most everywhere else. Regardless, the Martin/Zimmerman case does not involve a copy giving orders to Zimmerman. The dispatcher said, "OK. We don't need you to do that." And testified that it wasn't an order, meant to me one, or coming from anyone who could give one.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Martin didn't "decide to go back and dish out a beating on the 'cracker.'" He encountered Zimmerman while Zimmerman was in his car (possibly exchanging a few words at this point). At some time shortly thereafter, Martin ran away from Zimmerman, running back in the direction he came from.* This means that in order for Martin to continue home, he needed to turn around and return to where he first saw Zimmerman. A few minutes later, Zimmerman and Martin met each other a second time, leading to the fatal shooting.
You have absolutely no basis to declare that Martin returned with the intention of starting a fight, no explanation of why Martin would run away and *then* decide to ambush or attack Zimmerman, and absolutely no evidence (except Zimmerman's own word) that Martin was the one who started the altercation.
*This is a reasonable thing to do when being followed by a potentially dangerous stranger. If Martin had simply run towards his house, and Zimmerman followed him, Zimmerman would have discovered where Martin was staying, potentially putting Martin in danger. Zimmerman understood this as well, which is why he didn't give the 911 dispatcher his home address when he was asked.
OK, so you ARE saying that the prosecution and their star witness are lying about Martin's return to and arrival at dad's girlfriend's house. Thanks for clearing that up.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11. Literally no one who matters claims that he did. What nonsense and drivel have you been reading?
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
He never went in the house. But he was talking on the phone as he walked up to the back of the house (the same conversation during which he used the racist epithet). This according to his friend, who testified to that. The "drivel" part is you really, really wishing that he hadn't, because that takes all the fun out of your narrative.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You misunderstood Rachel Jeantel's testimony as badly as you've misunderstood every other part of this case.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
We will say this as many times as it takes to sink in.
You have repeatedly claimed that Rachel Jeantel testified that Martin returned home after the first encounter with Zimmerman, but you've provided no citation, transcript, source or quotation to back you up. Don't worry, though; the Emperor has done the research for you, and tracked your claim back to this tweet. The tweet, in turn, cites a blog post, but unfortunately the blog post doesn't corroborate the tweet.
Obviously numerous other sources have reported on Jeantel's testimony, and absolutely none of them make any mention of Martin returning home. The same can be said of the numerous timelines and maps that have been drawn about the shooting. Now, which of these two scenarios do you think is more likely: that a single Twitter user picked out a key piece of Rachel's testimony that was somehow missed by every credible news source, or that the single Twitter user was simply mistaken?
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
Your mighty self-defense defense is worthless if Zimmerman was committing a crime, like, say, stalking, or even private investigating without a license, when Martin was killed. If the crime is a felony, it doesn't matter how Martin died, it's an automatic murder conviction (no trial or nothing!)
Where's the evidence for such a crime? It's kind of like saying that Martin would have been justified in assaulting Zimmerman because Zimmerman was firing his death ray at Miami and speaking in a fake German accent. If the scenario didn't happen and/or there isn't any evidence for such a scenario, then it's not very relevant to what actually did happen.
Correct.
However, I've been a juror multiple times and you don't have to have evidence.
In 2 of my 3 juror trials, one or more people lied and we had to decide who was telling the truth.
You asked if I thought zimmerman was telling the truth when he said that martin said those things and I said that i don't. If I were on the juror, I would not believe martin said those things to Zimmerman. As a juror, I don't NEED evidence to decide someone is lying under oath. They look at the person testifying and make a gut check and a comparison of the testimony to the hard facts (video, 911 call, physical locations).
Martin was an experienced fighter (there is video evidence for that).
And an eye witness (mr good) saw Martin at extremely short range on top of Zim and "raining" blows down on Zim MMF "Ground and pound" style. Mr Good's statement and testimony match. I just it as a result. He has no incentive to lie and certainly didn't the night of the shooting.
As a juror, I don't have to justify shooting Martin for beating Zimmerman. All I have to do is have a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder. And I do. So I would vote not guilty.
However, Any hit to the face (not just a "King hit") can be instantly fatal. If someone is hitting you in the face, they can kill you each time they hit you in several places on the face (either temple and the nose-- plus very likely to shatter your the fragile bones around your eyes, break your jaw, etc.) There was substantial damage to Zimmerman's face (including what looked like a broken nose) and the only damage Martin had were a couple scrapes on one finger.
Given that Martin had ample time to get away (close to three minutes) and the calm language Zimmerman was using on the 911 call- it seems like Martin came back in the mood to confront Zim for following Martin.
---
Anyway, i think we are in violent agreement that Zimmerman is not guilty of 2nd degree murder of Martin.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
No because deedee testified that she lied on her statement on the stand and two of the other witnesses admitted under cross examination that they had changed their story between when they made statements and the testimony they were giving. And one of the witnesses was contradicting the live 911 call and hard physical evidence (saying she heard Zim shoot Martin three times from behind) (martin was shot 1 time from the front- there were not shots on the 911 call she was on).
Meanwhile Mr Good's statement taken the night of the shooting and testifying on the stand were the same.
Also, Mr. Good was very close to the incident (it was apparently right out side his house).
Also Mr. Good had no incentive to lie the night of the shooting.
Also Mr. Good was an EYE witness- not an "EAR" witness. He saw the person "in the black hoodie" on top of and beating the person in the "red sweatshirt" in a "ground and pound" fashion.
It's clear to me you are not listening to the testimony of the case or you would know how terrible the other witnesses are proving to be for the state.
Almost every state witness has either turned out to think Zim was a polite, great guy or was caught lying or exaggerating or changing their story right on the stand by the defense attorney on cross.
I've been a juror three times. I could not convict Zim on 2nd degree murder. I have a reasonable doubt.
In fact, after the testimony, it's much stronger than doubt about 2nd degree murder and I'm pretty convinced it was a good self defense shooting and if he hadn't shot Martin, we would have been reading about a hunt for a person in a black hoodie who beat a neighborhood watch guy to death or shot him to death with his own gun.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Yea... the same racist who lead protests against the police (and got the disciplined) for kicking a black homeless guy.
And the same racist who helped underprivileged black kids.
And the same racist who called 911 to tell them what was going on right before he shot someone. Real bright, hunting people to kill them but calling the police in right before you shoot them.
I rarely call anyone an ignorant moron. In fact, I may have never done so.
But you-- are an ignorant moron.
Go read the testimony. Then... you'll just be moron.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program.
Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted.[67][68] The incidents were raised by prosecutors at Zimmerman's initial bond hearing. The judge described the incidents as "run of the mill" and "somewhat mild" and rejected the prosecution's claim that the incidents demonstrated that Zimmerman was violent or a threat to the community.[3][69][70]
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
2:23 Dispatcher: Are you following him? Maybe the Dispatcher interprets the background noises as Zimmerman running.
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
2:28 Zimmerman: Ok.
Zimmerman has stopped and talks to the dispatcher for 1m:38s.
4:06 Click and the call ends.
---
A running Martin had close to 2 minutes to get to his house 200'-300' away (5 houses away) before the end of the call.
It's almost another minute before the calls about the fight start- not near martin's house.
Obvious conclusion- Martin decided to confront Zim and did not go to his house but came back to confront Zim.
Within seconds the state's only eyewitness, Mr. Good, (the rest are just 'earwitnesses) saw Martin (guy in the black hoodie) on top of Zim (the guy in the red sweatshirt) and Martin was beating Zim so badly that Mr. Good immediately called 911.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Oh yea and Zim has multiple injuries and a broken nose while Martin only has cuts on his hands and a bullet wound.
If Zim hadn't shot Martin, we would be reading how a mysterious person in a dark hoodie killed a guy on neighborhood watch by beating him to death or shooting him with his own gun.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
However, I've been a juror multiple times and you don't have to have evidence. In 2 of my 3 juror trials, one or more people lied and we had to decide who was telling the truth.
No evidence? What did you do? Flip a coin to decide who was lying? When I was did a stint of jury duty, we still had such things as the person's demeanor in court and being able to compare how someone's narrative evolved over time (and it happened to be a case similar to the Zimmerman case where someone killed someone allegedly in self-defense without witnesses present. The defendant's consistent and forward testimony both to law enforcement and in court did a great deal to convince us that he wasn't guilty of second degree murder). I consider those just as much evidence as a coroner's report.
Anyway, i think we are in violent agreement that Zimmerman is not guilty of 2nd degree murder of Martin.
Agreed.
Uh, witnesses' testimony?
I asked for testimony that contradicts Zimmerman's claims.
BTW, Zimmerman has not testified.
Yet. He has given extensive statements to the police. I considered that (incorrectly) to be testimony.
Why would I be tried for manslaughter if you tried to kill me?
Public education is destroying our future.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Thats silly. If a guy rushes at me with a knife i should be able to kill him and not go to jail. All i did was protect my own life after all. Im ok with dueling.
Just a suggestion- You'll be a lot harder to shoot if you are running away than if you are sitting on the guy. You know- in case this situation ever comes up.
Some people would say that Proxima Centauri is "right next to" us,because it's only about four lightyears away. Presumably Martin was within four lightyears of his home, so that statement is true even if rather ambiguous.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
We will say it as many times as it takes to sink in.
When someone else keeps dragging you into the conversation you aren't a troll.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
What do you think "bearing arms" means if not carrying it around on you?
Do people really think that the second amendment is so we can have, but never use or carry (except for hunting purposes), fire arms? I really fear for the state of education and our country's future, if so. Heres a hint: the second amendment is explicitly for the purpose of defense-- whether personal, or societal. It is explicit that we have the right to carry ("bear") arms. It is implicit that we have the right to use said arms when the situation calls for it.
Its notable that the supreme court has repeatedly struck down state laws attempting to curb the right to carry firearms, and its depressing that people keep calling for further attempts.
You see a random stranger walking up to your place of residence with a gun prominently displayed, holstered or not, --- that is a direct threat, and an indication that you are in immediate danger.
I would recommend that you acquaint yourself with the law surrounding the second amendment before you go attacking someone carrying a holstered gun; you will save yourself a lot of trouble.
You don't have to wait until the gun is out of the holster.
Yes, you do.
Remember kids, its CONCEALED weapons that require a permit, not unconcealed ones. As I recall, the second amendment is quite explicit about our right to BEAR arms, and the courts have repeatedly upheld this right. It can be abridged in certain locations (ie, courthouses), but thats about it.
So sure, attack someone carrying an unconcealed firearm; if he doesnt shoot you, you'll probably be arrested on assault charges.
hopefully you will be tried for manslaughter.
Luckily for all of us, hopeful thinking doesnt change the law, and what slashdotters think the law says doesnt change how judges rule / have ruled.
When both people are saying opposite things and are equally credible, you really have to go on slim pickings. Mostly gut feel or it may be as simple as having a motive to lie while the other has no apparent motive to lie.
One had one older criminals testifying against the other criminal and we based that on the fact that his testimony was impossible (i.e. you couldn't see the location he said he saw from his porch). After the trial, the court appointed defense attorney said we had probably chosen correctly since the two had had bad blood before the incident.
I would consider hard evidence over any human testimony if they conflicted because I know how unreliable even well meaning humans are.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
He told three different versions to police.
Of course, he did. He was questioned more than once. In the adversarial language of the courts, that's three different versions no matter how consist they happen to be. So are those differences substantial enough to count as contradicting his own statements to police?
Hm. I mostly agree with you. I am curious though, did Martin attack Zimmerman because he felt threatened? For myself, I would be utterly creeped out by some guy following me around while I am minding my own business. I would also feel threatened. If I would have had a phone, I would have called the police to report the situation.
Honestly, it seems that Zimmerman bears some responsibility for causing the situation to occur in the first place. Should it be murder in the first or second degree? I doubt it, but I do not know enough about the case to say for sure.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen