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.
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
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"
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This murderer is going to walk on technicalities!
No, you're confused. The person attempting murder was stopped in the act by his victim. The entire trial is a bad joke, and the Skype episode is just frosting on that bitter cake.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.