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.
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.
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.
"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.
Indeed, we have testimony that Martin was almost home when he decided to go back and attack Zimmerman.
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.
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.