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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.