IT's really frustrating because it seems like the story keeps changing. I just don't know what to believe anymore(I know, that's what fooner said too).

My sense is part of the problem is when the news media, for whatever reason, ignores a story and someone involved wants to make noise you typically get the noisemaker's side of the story first. Once the first side has made enough noise then the other side will come out and you get the other side.

I don't know that we ever get the whole story at first (if ever). Especially when it takes the family to get the media ball rolling.

It's still good for T-Shirt sales.

»(I know, that's what fooner said too).«

JINX!

I miss the innocent days of "Balloon Boy"

---

"RE: Protests"
Posted by agman on 03-28-12 at 06:37 PM

*patiently waits for someone to say Agman!

---

"RE: Protests"
Posted by Estee on 03-27-12 at 01:48 PM

I'm sorry to say that with Jesse Jackson, I'm at the point where I have to make an active effort not to hold his involvement against the victims.

---

"Hoodies"
Posted by kingfish on 03-28-12 at 03:55 PM

Stand up and fight for the right to wear a Hoodie.

(Where do these people come from?)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/politics/congressman-hoodie/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Racial profiling? I get what He's trying to say, and it still sounds very ignorant stupid idiotic not very smart.

---

"RE: Hoodies"
Posted by dabo on 03-28-12 at 04:30 PM

And let's all thank Geraldo for sidetracking this story with this hoodie nonsense. But at least we've learned when in the House one should pull the hood back off the head, which is only common courtesy as hats are usually pointless when inside.

---

"RE: Hoodies"
Posted by AyaK on 03-29-12 at 02:38 PM

LAST EDITED ON 03-29-12 AT 02:39 PM (EST)

Yep, it's amazing that someone who is a complete joke (like Geraldo) has stayed on the air for so long. I still remember him for this fiasco:

The Mystery of Al Capone's Vaults

At the time, I figured Geraldo for a hired stooge. But now I know that stupid comes naturally to him.

---

"Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 03-29-12 at 08:11 AM

Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied

I'm still waiting on the investigation to be completed before jumping to anything but this don't look good.

sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by agman on 03-29-12 at 09:49 AM

Just keeps getting better all the time *sigh* I'm sure there will be more videos to come in this case.

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by Starshine on 03-29-12 at 02:27 PM

It's nice to know that I was a dangerous hoodlum in the 90's when I was wearing my James Hoodie!

Bringing styles of clothing into the discussion doesn't seem to be moving anything forward.

Lovely cheese Mooney

Just another Sleeperbloke

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by Estee on 03-29-12 at 02:41 PM

If having a warm head in winter makes you a criminal, then let me be a criminal.

Admittedly, a criminal who spends a lot of time rebrushing the style damage.

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by ginger on 03-29-12 at 04:11 PM

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by kingfish on 03-29-12 at 05:28 PM

I agree that Zimmerman is probably lying in this case and should be charged with something, Fl. laws not withstanding. But technically, about the grass and blood stains and the wounds, it was the police who initially investigated Zimmerman at the scene who reported that. At least according to CNN. And if that's accurate, that's not his lie.

It is very curious that there are no signs of trauma on Zimmerman in the video, but there are also conflicting reports about how long after the shooting that video was made. Given sufficient time, shirts and jackets can be changed and blood wiped from wounds. Light grass stains can be brushed off, unwise as it would be eliminate corroborating evidence.

Broken nose wounds, since they tend to bleed from the inside out would be hard to see after bleeding has stopped and the blood wiped away. Can't explain the apparent lack of a stitched head wound, except that the cap shown is fuzzy. However, if he has been to the hospital to get stitches, it that would have been easy enough to explain why all the other signs of a struggle aren't there any more.

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 03-29-12 at 08:35 PM

I've seen the original video, I've seen a tweaked up-close video, and I've personally tweaked a couple of photos up close in Photoshop. There's not a shred of evidence anywhere of an injury or mussed up clothing or grass stains or anything else. If the video was taken some time after (a day? four days?), there would have been stronger evidence of medical care as the redness/discoloration from stitches would be more apparent by then. If it was within a day, a bandage would have been present to cover up the stitches and/or facial injuries sustained in a scuffle.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then....

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by kingfish on 03-29-12 at 08:51 PM

No real argument, and I don't think it was a justified shooting, it's just that if he had been to the hospital as the poilice claim and where he would have had to go for stitches if indeed he had them, that would account for everything except the lack of head stitches. And to be honest, I have yet to see the claim that he had stitches anywhere except here.

And I have seen various reports that it was the police on the scene, not Zimmerman, that described his injuries and grass stains.

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by Snidget on 03-29-12 at 09:06 PM

I checked what the lawyer was quoted as, and they said laceration bad enough for stitches, but he didn't have time to go to the hospital.

You would think that the cops would have documented any injuries on him, and I'd have taken the time to get everything documented by a physician.

He must have had time to go shower and change as most scalp wounds that need stitches that I've seen bleed like crazy.

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by AyaK on 04-02-12 at 05:18 PM

>I agree that Zimmerman is probably
>lying in this case and
>should be charged with something,

You do?

Let's see, here's columnist Charles Blow in the Times on March 25:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/blow-a-mothers-grace-and-grieving.html?_r=1&scp=22&sq=trayvon+zimmerman&st=nyt

To believe Zimmerman’s scenario, you have to believe that Trayvon, an unarmed boy, a boy so thin that people called him Slimm, a boy whose mother said that he had not had a fight since he was a preschooler, chose that night and that man to attack. You have to believe that Trayvon chose to attack a man who outweighed him by 100 pounds and who, according to the Sanford police, was wearing his gun in a holster. You have to believe that Trayvon chose to attack even though he was less than a hundred yards from the safety of the home where he was staying.

Of course, then the Times had to admit that the gun was concealed and Trayvon wouldn't have seen it, but the size discrepancy was a strong argument against Zimmerman's story in the court of public opinion.

Ahh, but then the Times dropped this unexpected little nugget into a news story today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-prompts-a-review-of-ideals.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

However it started, witnesses described to the 911 dispatcher what resulted: the neighborhood watch coordinator, 5-foot-9 and 170 pounds, and the visitor, 6-foot-1 and 150, wrestling on the ground.

What happened to the slight little boy being menaced by big man who outweighed him by 100 pounds? Fiction. Trayvon was 4 inches taller and only 20 pounds lighter than Zimmerman.

So where did the false information that Zimmerman was 100 pounds heavier than Trayvon come from? Apparently from Trayvon's family, just like most of the other false information out there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/us/justice-department-investigation-is-sought-in-florida-teenagers-shooting-death.html

“Everybody is outraged,” said Tracy Martin, Trayvon’s father. “There is no justice in this. The public is outraged because my son only had snacks in his pocket, no weapon whatsoever, not even a fingernail file. For him to be murdered by someone who weighs more than 100 pounds than him, more than 10 years older than him, this is an outrage.”

Of course, the nondisclosure of the actual weight differential fits with the middle-school picture of Trayvon that's been used so much in the coverage. I had no idea that Trayvon was actually 6-1, not the little kid on the cover of People Magazine. Did you?

The only thing that a rush to judgment, like the one here, produces is injustice.

Just like all the quick posts, such as ones in this thread, contending that the police video showed Zimmerman was uninjured (again, fueled by Trayvon's parents). But even ABC News now admits. . . .

George Zimmerman Video Shows Injury to Back of His Head

Another "fail" for the original media narrative that this was an execution-style killing by a racist white man.

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by jbug on 04-02-12 at 06:28 PM

I've said many times
the media gets much too involved in cases where they should get the fact first.

What ever happened to
innocent until proven guilty?

not in the media

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by AyaK on 04-02-12 at 06:43 PM

The problem I have with this case is that I think Zimmerman should at least be tried on charges of involuntary (2nd-degree) manslaughter (and from what I believe he's probably guilty of that charge, because he followed Martin after being requested by police not to do so, and at some point left his truck to follow Martin on foot, and none of the rest of this crap comes down without him doing that), and yet I'm forced to defend him because the lynch mob is out for him for much more serious charges . . . without any evidence except for their preconceptions.

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by Snidget on 04-02-12 at 07:09 PM

It definitely is a case that has a lot of assumptions jumping all over it.

And on both sides. He wasn't walking in a gated community he had no business in at 3 am as some people who are backing Zimmerman claim. I mean the do actually let black people own homes in those places or visit people who live in them, and 7 at night is not an unusual time for an older teen to be going to the store to get something.

I do think on the "executed for no good reason" side you have a lot of people dumping their own experience of being suspected of something when they were just living their life like they thought they had a right to.

Heck, even in most studies people with darker skin tones are still more likely to assess a picture of a dark skinned person as up to no good compared to pictures of lighter skinned people.

So I think the "it just makes sense" the kid had to be shot for no reason and the cops are in on it (even after the fact) has taken over rather than the "something seems off about this" lets get more information to find out what really happened.

I do think it has raised some awareness of some of the subtle ways societal assumptions do effect people's lives. Even if this isn't a case of that. (but I do think the young black man wearing a hoodie has to be a criminal assumption has played some role in what happened).

---

"At The Rate"
Posted by foonermints on 04-02-12 at 07:03 PM

This is going we will find out that Trayvon was packing a Stinger missile.

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by kingfish on 04-02-12 at 06:54 PM

LAST EDITED ON 04-02-12 AT 06:57 PM (EST)

Based on what I've seen and read, and also based on the vagueness and discrepancies reported, I have no criticism of the police or the Fl. justice department. I assume that the Fl. DA's reversal of the decision by local police that Zimmerman should be arrested was based on competent advice. However, it could seem to be interference, and could lead one to wonder why.

But, since Zimmerman is at least a material witness and could possibly hit the road for foreign lands if an arrest warrant is issued, if not a prime suspect in a possible murder, the police should probably have detained him. But I admit that my reaction is based at least partially on gut reactions influenced by the media who are as you mention are putting out a lot of contradictory and presumptive information. And I can see that the FL. justice dept probably has wiser heads than mine, and that he'd probably just be freed on bail.

I hesitate to criticise the family whose idiotic statements are emotion driven, I'd probably be making a fool out of myself if every self aggrandizing "adviser" was whispering in my ear that there was a conspiracy and that I ought to be outraged. Latest I heard was that the family is demanding that the Fl. DA be investigated. One would have to strongly suspect that that kind of blustery BS is the result of those "advisers" interference.

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by Snidget on 04-02-12 at 07:22 PM

I just wonder how much faster the media would have jumped on a white kid in a private school blazer getting shot for daring to stand up to some Hispanic neighborhood watch dude.

And I wonder how long that white kids parents would wait to see if something would be done about it, even if it was just out on bail during the investigation.

I do think sometimes the hysteria that happens in some cases is because it takes some outlandishness to get attention in certain situations. If this were a pretty white girl we'd probably have had live feeds from a news helicopter before the coroner showed up rather than hearing about it weeks later. But I may be cynical.

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by AyaK on 04-02-12 at 07:54 PM

>I just wonder how much faster the media would have jumped
>on a white kid in a private school blazer getting
>shot for daring to stand up to some Hispanic neighborhood
>watch dude.

There's another one of the assumptions that make this case so problematic. According to the police report, Zimmerman said that he lost sight of Martin and left his truck to look around (Martin apparently was taking a shortcut through a shared backyard area). When he was out of his truck, according to Zimmerman, Martin came up from behind him and asked (politely or hostilely, we don't know) why Zimmerman was following him. Does that equate to "daring to stand up to some Hispanic neighborhood watch dude"? I don't know.

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by Snidget on 04-02-12 at 08:01 PM

I'm still not clear who came up to whom, but going with the story line that Trayvon may have at some point did something other than run for home.

What I don't know is who talked to whom first, what if any physical altercation happened, when or why the gun was pulled, but it does seem at some point the two did have some interaction before the bullet entered Trayvon's chest, and Zimmerman probably at some point reacted as if it was something other than a friendly hello to the neighborhood watch guy.

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by AyaK on 04-02-12 at 11:44 PM

But what's the difference between "standing up to" someone and aggression?

And another thing: there has been all kinds of discussion on this thread about the "stand your ground" law. Even I have sucked into it, because it's been part of the media narrative.

Now, I admit to not being an expert on Florida criminal law, but it seems to me that the "stand your ground" law was totally irrelevant to this case from the facts that we currently have. Instead, Zimmerman's defense on the use of force seems to come down to a common self-defense claim, and "stand your ground" is not even relevant.

And yet another thing: some self-proclaimed "audio expert" named Tom Owen claims to a "scientific certainty" that it wasn't Zimmerman screaming on the 911 call. I'd take him more seriously if his claims about the case weren't totally contradicted by his own website.

http://www.owlinvestigations.com/article1.html

III - THE METHOD OF VOICE IDENTIFICATION

. . . The first step is to evaluate the recording of the unknown voice, checking to make sure the recording has a sufficient amount of speech with which to work and that the quality of the recording is of sufficient clarity in the frequency range required for analysis. The volume of the recorded voice signal must be significantly higher than that of the environmental noise. The greater the number of obscuring events, such as noise, music, and other speakers, the longer the sample of speech must be. Some examiners report that they reject as many as sixty percent of the cases submitted to them with one of the main reasons for rejection being the poor quality of the recording of the unknown voice.

Once the unknown voice sample has been determined to be suitable for analysis, the examiner then turns his attention to the voice samples of the suspects. Here also, the recordings must be of sufficient clarity to allow comparison, although at this stage, the recording process is usually so closely controlled that the quality of recording is not a problem.

Once the unknown voice sample has been determined to be suitable for analysis, the examiner then turns his attention to the voice samples of the suspects. Here also, the recordings must be of sufficient clarity to allow comparison, although at this stage, the recording process is usually so closely controlled that the quality of recording is not a problem.

The examiner can only work with speech samples which are the same as the text of the unknown recording. Under the best of circumstances the suspects will repeat, several times, the text of the recording of the unknown speaker and these words will be recorded in a similar manner to the recording of the unknown speaker. For example, if the recording of the unknown speaker was a bomb threat made to a recorded telephone line then each of the suspects would repeat the threat, word for word, to a recorded telephone line. This will provide the examiner with not only the same speech sounds for comparison but also with valuable information about the way each speech sound completes the transition to the next sound.

There are those times when a voice sample must be obtained without the knowledge of the suspect. It is possible to make an identification from a surreptitious recording but the amount of speech necessary to do the comparison is usually much greater. If the suspect is being engaged in conversation for the purpose of obtaining a voice sample, the conversation must be manipulated in such a way so as to have the suspect repeat as many of the words and phrases found in the text of the unknown recording as possible.

The worst exemplar recordings with which an examiner must work are those of random speech. It is necessary to obtain a large sample of speech to improve the chances of obtaining a sufficient amount of comparable speech.

. . . which basically means that the description of what he does on his own website fatally impeaches his credibility, considering that he claimed to authenticate that the voice wasn't Zimmerman's using only the few seconds of poor-quality background screaming in the 911 call and only Zimmerman's own, much calmer 911 call as the reference.

But hey, anything for those 15 minutes of fame, right? No matter how outrageous?

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by Snidget on 04-03-12 at 08:02 AM

I dunno what happened, (or if there will ever be a proper description of what happened) but the implication from me is Trayvon didn't run away, assume the position or submit completely. I dunno if he just "stood his ground" or went on the attack, or what. I'm sure he didn't offer himself up for a citizen arrest in a submissive manner, but that's about all I can be sure of.

I don't really trust Zimmerman's side of the story, after all he has enough self-interest to say what he thinks will keep him out of jail. I don't really trust the eyewitnesses, I know the court system often does, but all too often people don't remember what they saw, and sometimes didn't even see (cognitively process) what they saw (light that hit their eyeballs) accurately. We don't really have Trayvon's side of the story, but his family has their own grief and self-interests that play a role in what they will say, so....a big mess all round.

There is enough conflicting information coming out I certainly couldn't say if things were verbal, physical, or who started what.

Seems most people who are involved in the writing of the law agree that the "stand your ground" law should not be applied in this case or at least one of the other cases where it has been the defense used when someone went to trial.

It does seem to be a DAW-paloosa all the way around and way too many people using it to get on TV with something they want to promote as fact/proof. So much "evidence" on the TV that will likely not be in any way admissible in court. I have a feeling if they ever do bring this to trial it is going to be one of those the jury decides on what was presented in court as they are supposed to, and the public can't understand why they didn't take evidence presented on TV by a hype-monster as the facts of the case.

---

"RE: Trayvon Martin's dad: Video of shooter at station proves he lied"
Posted by foonermints on 04-02-12 at 07:23 PM

LAST EDITED ON 04-02-12 AT 07:25 PM (EST)

Does Al Sharpton need to swoop in here?

Oops.

---

"Are riots next?"
Posted by AyaK on 04-10-12 at 09:33 AM

Now that the Trayvon Martin narrative has morphed from the original media-fueled story of "bad white guy murders angelic black child" into something much more complex and unknowable, it looks like violence may be the next step.

Police Car Shot Up in Trayvon Martin's Neighborhood

Note, though, that the first picture they use of Trayvon in the ABC News story is the child picture.

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by Snidget on 04-10-12 at 10:06 AM

Oh goody, add extremists from both sides to a volatile situation and stir!

Probably doesn't help the DA cancelled the grand jury on this. While they only need it for first degree murder and all it says is they probably won't charge him with that, it doesn't mean that there will be anything that can be done by the legal system, either.

I dunno if there is any good resolution to this. Don't arrest ever an wait until people get obsessed about something else doesn't seem to be likely to work. Arrest and you get a bunch of people up in arms as well. Do they ever put jurors into the witness protection program? I wouldn't want to be a juror, no matter what happens someone will be howling for your blood.

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by agman on 04-10-12 at 10:10 AM

This would be a time I would defenitely want to call in sick for Jury Duty!

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by jbug on 04-10-12 at 10:38 AM

Did this happen in Martin's neighborhood? or in the neighborhood where he was shot? or are the 2 neighborhoods the same?
Just another case of the media not getting it right.

Police Car Shot Up in Trayvon Martin's Neighborhood

Six shots were fired into an empty police cruiser early today in the Florida neighborhood where black teenager Trayvon Martin was shot and killed

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by Snidget on 04-10-12 at 11:03 AM

Based on looking at the map. He was staying at a house about a block from where he was shot. Not sure what other houses he may live at, but since it is the father's girlfriends house I assume there may be more than one.

The cop car sounds like it was across the street from the gated community by the elementary school so about 2 blocks from the house, and one block from the shooting.

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by dabo on 04-10-12 at 11:10 AM

LAST EDITED ON 04-10-12 AT 11:17 AM (EST)

The neighborhood where he was shot and killed. His dad's neighborhood where he was living (visiting) at the time he was shot and killed.

http://www.officer.com/news/10690628/fla-cruiser-shot-at-near-site-of-teens-slaying

Ayak's link goes to a report with a loop of vids about the case, vid of the police cruiser shooting has now apparently been removed.

)sigh(

Bottom line: An innocent teen in what was ostensibly his own neighborhood, just out to get some snacks, was shot and killed. Is this a case of an over-zelous neighborhood watch commando taking things too far? Is this a case of an innocent person being stalked, turning on the stalker, being killed as a result of that confrontation? Are hoodies to blame?

)sigh(

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by AyaK on 04-10-12 at 01:25 PM

OK, here's a site that still has the police car shooting footage up:

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Sanford-Police-car-shot-near-Trayvon-Martin-shooting/-/1637132/10396904/-/hmjsbvz/-/index.html

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by foonermints on 04-10-12 at 11:15 AM

Looks like everybody has a share!

»Electronic roadside signs had been used throughout Central Florida to alert people to the rallies.

And the New Black Panther Party offered a $10,000 bounty for Zimmerman.

In Detroit, far from the Florida town where Martin was shot and killed, drivers were shocked on Sunday to see an electronic highway sign with the word "Trayvon" followed by a racial slur.

At Ohio State University last week the words "Long Live Zimmerman" were scrawled across the side of the Frank W. Hale Jr. Black Cultural Center.

A group of armed neo-Nazis from the National Socialist Movement have descended upon the town, touting their intention to patrol the town to protect whites against a race riot.

The Rev. Terry Jones, the controversial pastor who once threatened to burn copies of the Koran, announced last week his plan to hold a rally on April 21 at the Seminole County Courthouse in support of Zimmerman and his constitutional rights.«

We just need The Weathermen and Earth First!

Milo Minderbinder? Still kicking.

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by Estee on 04-10-12 at 04:03 PM

Milo Minderbinder

He'd be bribing one group with $1000 to riot, then setting up first aid services nearby at $2000 per customer. And at that, he'd consider himself to be undercharging.

*knocks wood before next statement*

I'm surprised Westboro hasn't found a way to get involved.

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by zipperhead on 04-10-12 at 11:51 AM

If there's not a riot over this, there will be a riot over something. Soon.

Its pretty clear that there is a lot of tension, anger and fear just under the surface of the American psyche. There's a lot of uncertainty about the future of this country. So there are segments of society who want to stake a claim for the future of America, as they want it to be. Lots and lots of those people have guns.




There have been crazies advocating for a race war for a loooong time. They won't be satisfied until there is blood shed.

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by jbug on 04-10-12 at 01:00 PM

Media and advanced technology take news like this farther than ever before.
Think back to 1995& the OJ Simpson case.
We relied on radio & tv mostly.
Yes, there was internet but not near as many of us used it then as we do now; and we didn't have the fancy phones to keep everyone in constant touch with news - whether it is accurate or not.

I remember watching the verdict with a co-worker. She was ready to leave work to go march in protest if he had been found guilty.
I still to this day don't understand how she thought he was innocent. But that's just me.

If we had had the technology then that we have now, just think how much more protesting and scares of riots there would have been.

If OJ Simpson had been convicted, I believe there would have been riots.
If Zimmerman is not convicted, I believe there will be riots.

Doesn't matter the innocence or guilt.

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by Snidget on 04-10-12 at 01:26 PM

I dunno that the media is the only thing to blame for riots as there have been plenty of riots before the internet, and even before radio and TV.

That being said, this does seem like the kind of thing that would set off riots, but I think those prone to the rioting are always looking for something and have always found a way for the current technology to be the trigger.

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by foonermints on 04-10-12 at 02:06 PM

I agree. Maybe the internet adds a degree of "FlashMob" to the mix.

flashmobbiness?

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by jbug on 04-10-12 at 02:51 PM

I'm not saying technology is to blame for the riots; just instant access and constant bombardment about it - people might be excited & prone to riot more than if they weren't constantly having it thrown in front of them.
Maybe I'm saying things don't have a chance to calm down

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by Snidget on 04-10-12 at 03:50 PM

It might change which things get the riots, or how they recruit potential rioters, but I remember plenty of riots from my childhood. But then that was a rather contentious decade.

I do think this information overload goes both ways. These days we hear about a lot more riots than we used to. What might have been a local only story now gets nationwide attention as the 24 hour news cycle needs a lot more to fill it up than 30 minutes of national news every night thing used to.

Not sure about riot stats, but I've seen stats on other things that show that even as the number went down overall, the number people know about went way up so it seems more common even when it is now less common.

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by jbug on 04-10-12 at 05:01 PM

good points

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by kidflash212 on 04-10-12 at 01:05 PM

With Neo-Nazis patrolling the neighborhood where Trayvon was shot (saying they are there to protect white people), riots seem to be a very real possibility. Interesting that a FOX news affiliate would refer to a neo-nazi group who idolize Hitler as a "civil rights group".

Capn2patch put me in motion!

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by AyaK on 04-10-12 at 01:16 PM

Sorry, the neo-Nazi story is a hoax springing from a false story in the Miami New Times (which has now been "updated" to include the information that, according to the Sanford PD, there are no such patrols).

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/04/heavily_armed_neo-nazis_patrol.php

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by Snidget on 04-10-12 at 01:27 PM

So just excessive DAWness.

After all why put your butt on the line if just making a few statements to someone likely to spread it will do.

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by AyaK on 04-10-12 at 04:31 PM

Right.

According to Poynter's debunking of this "story", the person making these claims about citizen patrols was in Detroit. If the New Times was actually "reporting", it might have wondered why someone in Detroit was coordinating patrols in Florida. But I guess getting Web hits on a fake story is better than providing a real story.

---

"RE: Are riots next?"
Posted by Estee on 04-10-12 at 04:06 PM

And in this case, the radicals are on all sides. On the plus part of the ledger, we currently have most of them in a small area.

I'm waiting for one or more of the parties to cross the line between hoping for a riot and actively staging one.

---

"Lawyer Drama"
Posted by Snidget on 04-10-12 at 09:14 PM

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/10/2741248/george-zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw.html

Apparently he isn't talking to his lawyers and saying they are just advisers anyway when he tried to talk to the prosecutor on his own. And the prosecutor's office was you bring your lawyers with you, we will talk.

---

"RE: Lawyer Drama"
Posted by AyaK on 04-10-12 at 09:30 PM

The last thing you'd want your client doing under these circumstances is what Zimmerman is doing: reaching out to the special prosecutor and the media.

The problem is that everything he says, if it isn't 100% accurate, can be used against him. Even if it's 95% accurate, it's a problem, because more people talk their way into prison than ever talk their way out of it.

---

"RE: Lawyer Drama"
Posted by Snidget on 04-10-12 at 09:38 PM

*nods*

Definitely not the wise choice. Knowing the biology of memory even the little bit I know every time you tell the story chances are you will make small changes to the memory. Even if the bits that change aren't the biggies or all that relevant to who is innocent or guilty every time they find a minor inconsistency they can use that against you.

I don't plan on ever being in trouble, but I like to think I have enough sense I wouldn't be causing myself even more trouble like this.

---

"Clams.."
Posted by foonermints on 04-10-12 at 09:42 PM

Smarter than they are letting on.

---

"RE: Lawyer Drama"
Posted by Estee on 04-10-12 at 09:55 PM

Thus continuing to demonstrate the kind of intellect which got him into this in the first place.

---

"RE: Lawyer Drama"
Posted by dabo on 04-10-12 at 10:45 PM

It shouldn't take much longer for him to call Bob Costas to set up his interview.

---

"RE: Lawyer Drama"
Posted by Snidget on 04-10-12 at 11:03 PM

All the cool kids are doing it when they get in trouble.

---

"SWOOP"
Posted by agman on 04-10-12 at 09:52 PM

---

"Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by AyaK on 04-11-12 at 06:21 PM

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/04/11/zimmerman_attorneys_no_longer_representing_him/

Unless the prosecution has some evidence that it hasn't revealed, there is no way that Zimmerman is convicted of this charge. But the political pressure will cool off now.

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by Estee on 04-11-12 at 06:48 PM

The Florida statute plus a definition of an important term in it:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/homicide/second-degree-murder.html

So the question here is: baring that miracle evidence, did the prosecutor's office do no more than postpone the riots? While a lesser charge might have set off something here and now, that outcry might be nothing compared to what would happen if Zimmerman is acquited of the charge they did bring. Would they have had more luck dealing with the grenade of an ultimately-successful manslaughter or aggravated assault instead of the nuke from Not Guilty?

I know there's politics here, but I still feel they should have charged on something they could prove. This may not be it.

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by jbug on 04-11-12 at 06:51 PM

I was listening to news tonite & a lawyer made a comment that said in part "to get justice for Trayvon Martin."
Maybe I don't understand the phrase, but when I hear that it sounds to me that that person is saying Zimmerman is guilty.

If Martin attacked Zimmerman, then who needs justice?

Not taking either side; just asking for clarification.

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by Estee on 04-11-12 at 07:06 PM

There's a question left out of yours. If the attack was initiated from that side, why was it launched? It's not as if there's only one reason to go for someone and all fights start spontaneously.

Beyond that, who needs justice? The wronged party. And there's a chance that could be everyone involved --

-- but Zimmerman remains an idiot.

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by dabo on 04-11-12 at 07:26 PM

Sounds about right since his own actions were reckless and it was his own gun he carried into the situation, whatever actually happened. I wouldn't think it impossible to get a conviction on this charge, but now they are going to have to go through an arduous jury selection to try to get as impartial a jury as possible to have a fair trial.

Unfortunately, no matter what they do, it is going to be another media circus of a trial.

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by foonermints on 04-11-12 at 09:47 PM

Bread and Circuses.
Rome isn't dead, and Balloon Boy wasn't cutting the mustard.

Maybe the Sharpton/Jackson bank accounts are running low.

I hear The Rolling Stones are going on tour, too.
_{foonermint: A sarcastic little monkey.}

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by AyaK on 04-11-12 at 10:33 PM

>Sounds about right since his own
>actions were reckless

Reckless has a special meaning in this situation, which can sometimes make it difficult for juries to get it right. Normally in law, reckless merely means negligent. But here, it goes way beyond negligent. Basically, it involves taking an action that is certain to end up in serious bodily injury to someone, such as starting a fistfight in a bar. So, to convict George Zimmerman of this charge, you have to prove that he went out looking for someone to seriously injure and was indifferent as to whom it might be.

Mere negligence (what we'd normally refer to as "reckless") is an element of manslaughter, not murder.

Honestly, unless the prosecution has some "mystery evidence" whose existence has never even been hinted at, the chances of convicting Zimmerman of this charge at a fair trial are nil. In all honesty, the judge shouldn't even let it go to trial without such evidence -- although any judge with the courage to stand up to the Trayvon mob probably wouldn't be found in Florida state court.

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by dabo on 04-11-12 at 11:07 PM

I was using reckless in the general sense, thanks for clearing up the legal distinctions.

Generally nowadays prosecutors are in the habit of charging suspects with the most they can, so a 2nd degree murder charge for what should be some form (aggravated, whatever) of manslaughter seems right. They couldn't have made a case for 1st degree murder although I'm sure they explored the possibility. Anyway, 95+% of all criminal cases result in some sort of plea bargain, hence the purpose of throwing the book at the suspect. In a media trial, though, the logic of that becomes an over-zelous prosecutor and more nonsense for the talking heads like Nancy Grace to go bombastic over.

As for more evidence, there is a rumor that there is another recording of some sort that hasn't been available to the public. I wouldn't be surprised if that rumor turns out to be more gelderfarb, of course. Anyway, they'll have to go through disclosure, arguments about what can and cannot be submitted as evidence, all the fun stuff of a real pre-trial.

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by AyaK on 04-12-12 at 08:53 AM

You're right in one regard: prosecutors overcharge as a matter of course. Basically, the ethical standard is that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, you as a prosecutor should be able to convict the defendant of that charge -- and prosecutors tend to view their evidence in a very, very favorable light.

One fact that I haven't heard discussed in any of the public discussion is the result of the gunshot residue test. Normally, it's possible to determine the distance between the shooter and the victim. If there were a significant distance between them, that would detract from Zimmerman's claim that he felt in imminent danger when he fired and serve to contradict Zimmerman's story and the witness testimony in a way that such a charge might fly. Or if there was some evidence that Martin was fleeing (trajectory and distance), that might justify the charge.

If they were close together, though, I'd be surprised if the charge survived even the preliminary hearing.

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 04-12-12 at 01:06 PM

But wouldn't it be reckless by disobeying the 911 operator?

And/or wouldn't it be reckless by disregarding his watch training to not get involved and not to be armed while on watch patrol?

sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by agman on 04-12-12 at 01:38 PM

>And/or wouldn't it be reckless by
>disregarding his watch training to
>not get involved and not
>to be armed while on
>watch patrol?

That's what I'm curious about!

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by dabo on 04-12-12 at 01:50 PM

State and local laws vary throughout the country, as for example neighborhood watch and guardian angel programs are legally restricted in terms of pepper spray and tazers in New York, but those are perfectly acceptible and readily available in California. Was Zimmerman in compliance with carrying a handgun per legislation in Florida? Despite the fact doing so is discouraged in national neighborhood watch and guardian angel programs, if he was in observance of state law he was in observance of state law.

Stand your ground law is just the tip of the iceburg, Florida's laws and regulations have barely been examined as yet.

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by AyaK on 04-12-12 at 02:59 PM

According to the NYT, Zimmerman was out of the car and following on foot already at the time that the 911 operator told him to stay in the car.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/us/justice-department-opens-inquiry-in-killing-of-trayvon-martin.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

In the 911 call, Mr. Zimmerman, using an expletive and speaking of Trayvon, said they “always get away.” The 911 dispatcher told him not to get out of the car and said the police were on their way. Mr. Zimmerman was already outside. A dispute began. Mr. Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon attacked him and that he fired in self-defense.

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 04-13-12 at 03:10 AM

Even if he was already out of the car he was disobeying the 911 operator when he continued right then and didn't turn right back around for the car. Reckless or not?

sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-13-12 at 08:24 AM

I'd say that depends on the length of time between the suggestion he return to his vehicle and the altercation that led to the shooting. Nothing I've seen has given any indication of that timeline, but I've not been following this very closely, either.

---

"RE: Indictment: second-degree murder"
Posted by Snidget on 04-13-12 at 08:35 AM

Yep, there is a lack of fine details of exact locations and timing information on this case. And I could see why they may be keeping that under wraps at this time.

I hope once the trial starts we get a good analysis of the timing and locations of everything, and which, if any versions, even make logistical sense.

---

"Trove of Evidence"
Posted by dabo on 05-17-12 at 08:44 PM

LAST EDITED ON 05-17-12 AT 08:45 PM (EST)

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/17/11748468-court-docs-trayvon-martin-shooting-ultimately-avoidable-by-zimmerman?lite

Lab tests by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Orlando operations center concluded that residue tests on Martin's sweatshirt were "consistent with a contact shot" — that is, one in which the muzzle of the weapon is physically touching the victim.

But the autopsy report from the Volusia County (Fla.) Medical Examiner's office reached a different conclusion based on examination of the wound itself, saying, "This wound is consistent with a wound of entrance of intermediate range."

The report doesn't define "intermediate range."

---

"RE: Trove of Evidence"
Posted by Snidget on 05-17-12 at 09:16 PM

Googled around, couldn't get a farthest distance but usually 10 mm or greater, but close enough there are marks on the skin from the gunpowder spray.

Closer than 10 mm to against the skin is "near contact".

So it seems these have forensic definitions.

---

"RE: Trove of Evidence"
Posted by AyaK on 05-17-12 at 11:01 PM

LAST EDITED ON 05-17-12 AT 11:02 PM (EST)

The forensic definition of "intermediate range" is between 1 and 18 inches.

The physical evidence described in the arraignment is consistent with the shorter range.

Basically, the Martin case is imploding, which should be a lesson to many of the posters in this thread. Zimmerman had clear head wounds. The witnesses saw Martin pounding Zimmerman MMA style. The evidence was that it was Zimmerman, not Martin, calling for help.

Frankly, unless the prosecution has some non-mitigating evidence against Zimmerman that it hasn't released yet, the prosecutor who brought these charges should be disbarred for gross incompetence. Prosecutors have a public duty not to bring charges for which the extant evidence, read in the light most favorable to the victim, do not support the charges. After reading this evidence, it's obviously insufficient to support a charge of second-degree murder, even read in the light most favorable to Martin. It's also obvious that the prosecutor chose not to go to a grand jury because no grand jury on earth would have brought the charges she did when shown all this evidence. In other words, she abandoned her responsibilities to seek praise from the likes of Obama and the NY Times and so chose to become a persecutor instead of a prosecutor. That should be sufficient for the state of Florida to pull her law license. For good.

Maybe she can go work for Obama's Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP).

For a review of the evidence, see this link:
Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman's Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting

---

"RE: Trove of Evidence"
Posted by dabo on 05-18-12 at 00:24 AM

Thanks for clearing up the definition of "intermediate range." That came from the medical examiner, the forensic conclusion was "contact shot". Given that definition, those two determinations really aren't far apart, both indicate close proximity, which is consistant with Zimmerman's version of events as well as the statements from eye witnesses.

I was kind of hoping you would find the smoking gun in all those pages, I looked through them and it was just puzzling.

---

"Zimmerman's Friend/Neighbor"
Posted by Snidget on 04-13-12 at 07:55 AM

I don't think this is helping..
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/zimmerman-neighbor-rash-robberies-young-black-men-trayvon-145647987.html

Seems to add to the "he was out looking for someone to shoot" mythos even if he is trying to defend his friend's actions as normal/justifiable.

---

"RE: Zimmerman's Friend/Neighbor"
Posted by AyaK on 04-13-12 at 09:00 AM

I disagree. He's presenting two points, and one of them very well. That point is that Zimmerman wasn't prone to violence (the "looking for someone to shoot" idea), because he called the police and just waited for them even while witnessing a robbery in progress. That rebuts the whole "Zimmerman shot Martin because he's a wannabe cop" idea that has permeated so much of the chattering about this case. If he wanted to draw his gun on someone because he was a wannabe cop, he would have done that with the burglars, whom he'd caught in the act.

The other point is that Zimmerman following a young black male was reasonable, as the perpetrators in the recent crimes were young black males. It would make sense that Zimmerman would want to see where he went in that scenario.

---

"RE: Zimmerman's Friend/Neighbor"
Posted by Snidget on 04-13-12 at 09:11 AM

LAST EDITED ON 04-13-12 AT 09:28 AM (EST)

I think some of my sense may be more from the vibe the guy gave during the interview. Kind of a why is anyone upset this boy got shot, you just have to assume that you will die for the sins of other people and it shouldn't be a problem for anyone when that happens.

Although maybe it is more evidence that the DAW going to the press is itching to shoot someone than Zimmerman.

ETA: Although how it effects the "they always get away with it" kind of statement on the "not-911" call. The guy made a big deal that his friend did not call 911 to report this, but used the other line to the non-emergency dispatcher. He was really upset people called those recordings 911 calls (even if a lot of the other bits recorded around that time were actual 911 calls).

I do think a lot will come down to how close were they when the shooting occurred and if they can determine who was on top of whom at what point or if there was evidence collected to determine who had defensive wounds, etc. Some of the "he was going for my gun" thing may play out several different ways depending on what, if any, physical evidence they have.

---

"RE: Zimmerman's Friend/Neighbor"
Posted by Estee on 04-13-12 at 10:31 AM

But as an attorney, do you want this man presenting these points in those words? Because in print, it's hard to see the text for the virtual hood. Imagine how much fun he's going to be for whoever has to put him on the witness stand -- especially on cross. And his odds of being called to testify aren't exactly zero.

---

"RE: Zimmerman's Friend/Neighbor"
Posted by AyaK on 05-17-12 at 11:05 PM

Based on what we've seen so far, I doubt if Zimmerman is even going to have to present a defense. He should be able to get a directed verdict of acquittal as soon as the state finishes presenting its case.

---

"The inevitable consequence"
Posted by AyaK on 04-25-12 at 00:37 AM

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/50/man-beaten-mob-critical-condition-ar-3659891/

Mobile police tell News 5 they still hope to make an arrest in the Matthew Owens case before the end of the night.

Owens was beaten Saturday night in front of his home on Delmar Drive. Witnesses, including Owens sister, say 20 black people attacked Owens with pipes, paint cans and chairs. Owens is still in ICU at USA Medical Center <in critical condition>. Weaving in and out of consciousness, Owens told his brother Lloyd, "Don't let me die."

Police continue to downplay the Trayvon Martin connection to the beating. But a neighbor confirms what his sister told News 5. The neighbor, too scared to go on camera, told News 5's Lauren Vargas that they heard one of the suspects say "This is justice for Trayvon" as she drove away.

---

"The oldest battlecry."
Posted by Estee on 04-25-12 at 05:55 AM

LAST EDITED ON 04-25-12 AT 06:13 AM (EST)

"Remember the atrocity committed against us the last time which will excuse the atrocity we're about to commit!"

And what happens when someone seeks their idea of justice for Matthew Owens?

ETA: Just read the latest update to the story. Admittedly, scaring kids away from your house by waving knives could be classified as 'begging for it' (assuming you believe neighbors who might be trying to justify this -- but his police record indicates at least a chance), but we're still talking about disproportionate retribution.

---

"Updates"
Posted by AyaK on 06-07-12 at 03:01 PM

LAST EDITED ON 06-07-12 AT 03:02 PM (EST)

Zimmerman had his bail revoked for failing to disclose the money being raised for his legal defense on his website during the bail hearing. We'll see where that goes.

But more interesting (to me, at least) was the meltdown by the special persecutor in the Zimmerman case (and, apparently, full-time lunatic) Angela Corey directed at Harvard Law School. As I said before, the fact that she has a license to practice law in Florida speaks poorly for the level of both legal knowledge and self-regulation in the Florida bar:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Zimmerman-Trayvon-Angela-Corey/2012/06/05/id/441305

She insisted that she is entitled to submit what, in effect, were half truths in an affidavit of probable cause, so long as she subsequently provides the defense with exculpatory evidence.

She should go back to law school, where she will learn that it is never appropriate to submit an affidavit that contains a half truth, because a half truth is regarded by the law as a lie, and anyone who submits an affidavit swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. . . .

In her motion to revoke <Zimmerman's> bail, Corey argued that Zimmerman “intentionally deceived the court” by making “false representations.” The same can be said about prosecutor Corey. She too misled and deceived the court by submitting an affidavit that relied on a review of photographs and other reports that showed injuries to Zimmerman, without disclosing the existence of these highly relevant injuries.

---

"RE: Updates"
Posted by Estee on 06-07-12 at 04:13 PM

"Because normally the attempted admission of half-truths is the realm of the defense?" is the cynical -- and wrong -- answer. Both sides are trying to get away with everything they can manage: that's standard policy. But the prosecution may have more to lose. Even if Zimmerman is innocent (for a really narrow definition of 'innocent'), the community is likely to go off the instant that verdict comes down -- and the career of anyone asked to put him in jail will self-destruct with it. It doesn't excuse her actions, but it might get a little closer to explaining them.

As for the level of legal knowledge in Florida -- well, we all know where that leads to by now.

---

"wife arrested"
Posted by dabo on 06-12-12 at 04:58 PM

This is becoming a wonderful example from both sides of how not to do it.

Shellie Zimmerman charged with perjury.

---

"Zimmerman's version of events."
Posted by Estee on 06-21-12 at 02:25 PM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97802972/George-Zimmerman-Written-Statement

---

"Zimmerman to be interviewed by Sean Hannity tonight."
Posted by Estee on 07-18-12 at 05:58 PM

Please explain to me any possible way where that could end well.

---

"RE: Zimmerman to be interviewed by Sean Hannity tonight."
Posted by Snidget on 07-18-12 at 06:12 PM

Their meeting creates a singularity that implodes the entire Fox News building?

I know, I'm so cute when I'm hopeful.

---

""It was all God's plan.""
Posted by Estee on 07-19-12 at 06:06 AM

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57475344-504083/george-zimmerman-to-sean-hannity-trayvon-martin-shooting-was-a-tragic-situation/

You don't get to take that one back. Your lawyer can speak to you between segments as much as possible and give marching orders to retreat from that position, but you can never take it back. You understood the question, it was your first response, and that's how you feel about things. And that makes you too dangerous to walk the streets with the sane.

What was the defense's goal in this interview? If it was to further poison any potential jury pool, mission accomplished. And if they were looking to get sympathy for the client, they found it -- but not from me. And some of those now rooting for Zimmerman are the ones they were best off without.

I doubt he'll take the stand in his own defense. But we have his testimony now. And more than that, we have his beliefs.

Wonder how much of it Hannity and Faux agreed with.

---

"But not a qualified instructor in Dude Not Funny."
Posted by Estee on 04-24-13 at 03:23 PM

Almost lost this one in the news shuffle -- but any glimpse into typical police empathy, even a belated one, is worth a quasi-megabump.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/14/travyon-martin-ron-king/2081467/

I realize it's a closed-off little world which does its best to keep outsiders from crossing the borders, but you'd still think one person would have proposed 'Hey, what if...?'

---

"The trial: jury selection in progress."
Posted by Estee on 06-17-13 at 02:21 PM

Just don't ask me how much progress they've actually made, because we're on Day Six. Ye gawds, how many challenges does each side get in Florida? Or have most of these been dismissals by the judge?

---

"RE: The trial: jury selection in progress."
Posted by Snidget on 06-17-13 at 03:00 PM

But they are just picking the pool from which they will pick the jurors from.

I believe they only need 6.

I think what is taking so long is they ask "what have you heard about this case" and they can't move on until the potential juror, of their own volition, stops talking.

I'm guessing if you are off the radar enough to avoid all coverage of the shooting, you are off the radar enough that the letters for jury notification also can't find you.

Once they have the pre-selection of some 40 or so, then they will move on to the actual jury selection.

---

"RE: The trial: jury selection in progress."
Posted by cahaya on 06-18-13 at 00:57 AM

Yup, as I recall it was from an original pool of about 200 culled from questionnaires, most of them tossed out, and now they're down to refinement of jurors who will eventually be sequestered.

Given that both the prosecution and defense have a say in this process, I'm going to give an early wild-card prediction of a hung jury.

---

"RE: The trial: jury selection in progress."
Posted by foonermints on 06-18-13 at 11:00 AM

I guess that shoots down my expectations.

---

"RE: The trial: jury selection in progress."
Posted by Snidget on 06-18-13 at 02:04 PM

My early wild-card prediction, from the jury we will get at least 4700 post trial interviews, 2 books, and one made for TV movie script.

---

"All woman jury"
Posted by cahaya on 06-20-13 at 06:44 PM

Wow. And all white except for one out of the six chosen.

I think the betting odds on an acquittal or hung jury just raised a notch.

---

"RE: All woman jury"
Posted by Estee on 06-20-13 at 07:11 PM

Beyond that, three things stood out: only six for a criminal case (which made the odds of all-anything a little lower), they already know who the alternates are, and no Afrimericans -- the defense must have been challenging darker skin tones out of the box on autopilot.

I agree with the decision to sequester here. I'd also throw in some bodyguards and have someone in the courtroom on constant picture patrol. It's easier to get images of jurors than ever and someone will try to make their identities public before this ends.

---

"Yes"
Posted by foonermints on 06-20-13 at 11:01 PM

An all white jury will never find him guilty.

Wonder if some of them practice Voodoo in their basement? Quakerism? Devil worship?

foonermints: Riding The Rails..

---

"RE: Yes"
Posted by cahaya on 06-20-13 at 11:41 PM

LAST EDITED ON 06-20-13 AT 11:55 PM (EST)

Did you actually say riding the rails?

Passengers on fooner's crazytrain

Tsk, tsk, shame on you!

---

"RE: Yes"
Posted by dabo on 06-21-13 at 00:00 AM

I expect there weren't very many people in the jury pool who hadn't been tainted about this case already by the media coverage. Seriously, I hope they also questioned people about whether they watch Faux News or listen to Hannity etc. on the radio.

---

"RE: Yes"
Posted by kingfish on 06-21-13 at 10:06 AM

LAST EDITED ON 06-21-13 AT 03:02 PM (EST)

Everyone's working off stereotypes, so I won't apologize for doing the same. From our perspective, it’s all we have. And in Florida, at least the racial stereotypes are certainly alive and well, and real. But how will that play out in this case, where a Latino shoots a black kid? Hard to say. There is a strong bias against Latinos (Cubans) in the minds of a lot of Floridians, as is there against black people in the minds of others.

There is also something to the stereotype that women are less prone to convict, especially if it means possibly putting anyone on death row. And maybe they can be swayed by emotional pleas from the shooter? Or maybe not, women can be pretty hard-nosed, too.

But I would expect an all-woman jury to be more sympathetic to the young unarmed kid who was shot dead than the shooter. So I think it's far from certain that an all women almost (5 out of 6) all-white jury will not convict Zimmerman.

We might actually have a fairly balanced jury; it might be as fair as could be reasonably been expected.

---

"No"
Posted by foonermints on 06-21-13 at 09:51 PM

Jury is truly fair without "Hang 'Em High" foonermints.

---

"No"
Posted by foonermints on 06-21-13 at 01:12 AM

I did not say "riding the rails." Just look it up, it's right there in black and white!

Anyway, what does it really mean? "Underground Railroad"? "Ridden out of Town on a Rail"?
A free ticket on the CrazyTrain?

Who am I? Midas?
_{Aside from that, the jury is women! Fickle, easily swayed 2^nd class citizens. That's what we pay them for! At least half.
Sorry girls, your "Rosy The Riveter" days are gone. NOW you are going back to the Ayatollah!}

---

"RE: No"
Posted by cahaya on 06-21-13 at 01:22 AM

I hear my train acoming.

Best acoustic ever.

---

"RE: No"
Posted by foonermints on 06-21-13 at 01:39 AM

I am going to steal that girl's sunglasses.

---

"Jury"
Posted by dabo on 06-21-13 at 10:24 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/who-are-the-jurors-deciding-george-zimmermans-fate-heres-a-look-at-the-panel-of-6-women/2013/06/20/5a5cb3cc-d9fb-11e2-b418-9dfa095e125d_story.html

B-51. Retired, not married, doesn’t have kids. She has lived in Seminole County for nine years. She has worked in real estate and run a call center where she said she had experience resolving conflicts. When asked if Zimmerman did something wrong by following Martin instead of waiting for police, she said: “Yeah, I guess he did do something wrong.”

B-29. Recently moved to central Florida from Chicago, enjoys watching the “Real Housewives” on television, works as a nurse on an Alzheimer’s section of a nursing home. She is married and has several children. A prosecutor described her as “black or Hispanic” during jury selection.

B-76. Has lived in central Florida for 18 years. She manages rental properties with her husband of 30 years. She has two adult children, including one who is an attorney. She is involved with rescuing animals in her free time. During jury selection, she said she had been the victim of a nonviolent crime. “Everyone deserves a fair trial,” she said.

B-37. Volunteers rescuing animals. She is married to an attorney and has two adult children. She said she and her husband used to have concealed weapons permits. During the last round of questioning, she said she had an issue with the type of weapons people are allowed to carry. She also thought weapons’ training was inadequate for people seeking permits. “It should become harder,” she said.

E-6. Married and has two children. She has worked in financial services and has lived in Seminole County for two years. She is active in her church and involved with her children’s school. During jury selection, she said she didn’t know the facts of the case well.

E-40. Works as a safety officer and recently moved to Seminole County from Iowa. She describes herself as a football fan. During jury selection, she said she had been the victim of a nonviolent crime.

---

"Junk science out"
Posted by AyaK on 06-22-13 at 07:57 PM

The prosecution's supposed audio experts failed the Frye test for scientific acceptance of method and thus will be excluded. Another victory for real science over legal junk science, even in a state that doesn't adopt the federal Daubert standard (which more severely limits the type of junk science that can be admitted as expert testimony).

One of the prosecution's audio "experts" claimed to have spent 700 hours working on the case. Talk about bilking the taxpayers. . . .

---

"RE: Junk science out"
Posted by cahaya on 06-22-13 at 08:59 PM

{Judge Debra} Nelson concluded that “there is no competent evidence that the scientific techniques used by Mr. Owen and Dr. Reich are generally accepted in the scientific field. There is no evidence to establish that their scientific techniques have been tested and found reliable.”

Nelson also confirmed that the order does not prevent the recordings from being played during the trial, and witnesses familiar with the voices of Zimmerman and Martin may still testify regarding the identity of the screams.

Foo dogs by tribe

Let the jury decide on what they hear.

---

"RE: Junk science out"
Posted by Georjanna on 06-23-13 at 11:51 AM

LAST EDITED ON 06-23-13 AT 04:42 PM (EST)

Law and Politics fascinate me. So, because I prefer to follow the political and/or judicial events that interest me with a minimum of filtering opinion, I watch a lot of C-Span and assorted Live Streams. And, for the Zimmerman Trial that has meant considerable time spent at WFTV and with the Video/Blog Archives of their trial coverage.

Note: Unfortunately, although they have streamed all of the proceeding’s pre-trial hearings, the site’s Archives do not contain the video of those hearings alongside its complete record of the (to-date) nine days of jury selection/trial and I haven’t been able to find archival video of the hearings (including the Frye testimony of Mr. Owens and Dr. Reich) anywhere else. I wish I could. Because, in my opinion, the testimony of both of the Prosecution’s experts (and particularly that of Dr. Reich) was embarrassingly painful to watch/hear and I’d really like to have a video/audio exhibit to back me up.

But, (Bravo! Don West, Irritante Extraordinaire) we do have a record of Judge Nelson’s Order Excluding The Opinion Testimony of Mr. Owens and Dr. Reich and on its face, it would seem that, in addition to excluding the testimony of the two Prosecution witnesses – but not that of the four Defense experts (Drs. Nakasone, French, Duddington and Wayman) whose opinions she embraced in her Ruling – she virtually invited the introduction of the 911 tape and the testimony of family members (Martin and Zimmerman) regarding the voice identification of the person heard screaming on it.

So, if the Prosecution calls Mr. Martin’s mother or another Martin family member – it is unlikely that they would call his father in view of the fact that he has recorded very different conclusions regarding his recognition of the voice as being/not being that of his son – does the Ruling’s embracing language ...

“None of the other witnesses were able to hear the words heard by Dr. Reich. The Court heard testimony about ‘listener bias' , where a listener with a biased outlook, often due to knowledge of underlying facts, makes conclusions to support his or her preconceived notions. It was hypothesized that Dr. Reich, who took up the case based upon personal interest, subconsciously heard identifiable words. The Court finds that Dr. Reich’s testimony regarding the amplified tapes would confuse issues, mislead the jury and, therefore, should be excluded from trial."

... also invite/encourage/allow the Defense to counter that familial testimony by calling one or more of its own experts to inform the Jury about “listener bias” and thereby avoid the trap of calling a competing Zimmerman to the stand to opine that the voice heard screaming was that of the defendant – perhaps opening the door for the Prosecution to demand that George Zimmerman scream for the jury’s edification?

Or, is the Prosecution going to be permitted to make that demand with no other prerequisite other than the 911 Tape’s introduction into evidence?

G

ETA:

One of the prosecution's audio "experts" claimed to have spent 700 hours working on the case. Talk about bilking the taxpayers ...

And, according to his testimony, he isn't done yet! But, to be fair, I think that the 700 hours included time spent while on his own dime or on the loose change of a newspaper. However, I would never swear that I understood Doctor Reich ... about anything.

---

"RE: Jury"
Posted by Georjanna on 06-23-13 at 04:36 PM

LAST EDITED ON 06-24-13 AT 08:24 AM (EST)

The individual Voir Dire of the Jurors (in order of their seating):

B-29 ~ http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/baynews9/video.html?clip=http://static.cfnews13.com/newsvideo/cfn/Featured/zimmerman-juror29-q-061013.flv&vtitle=Juror%20B-29%20questioning%20from%20June%2010

B-76 ~ http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/baynews9/video.html?clip=http://static.cfnews13.com/newsvideo/cfn/hurricane_center/zimmerman-juror-76-q-061013.f4v&vtitle=Juror%20B-76%20questioning%20from%20June%2010

B-37 ~ http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/baynews9/video.html?clip=http://static.cfnews13.com/newsvideo/cfn/Featured/zimmerman-juror37-q-061113.flv&vtitle=Juror%20B-37%20questioning%20from%20June%2011

B-51 ~ http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/baynews9/video.html?clip=http://static.cfnews13.com/newsvideo/cfn/Featured/zimmerman-juror51-q-061113.flv&vtitle=Juror%20B-51%20questioning%20from%20June%2011

E-6 ~ http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/baynews9/video.html?clip=http://static.cfnews13.com/newsvideo/cfn/Featured/zimmerman-juror-e6-q-061113.flv&vtitle=Juror%20E-6%20questioning%20from%20June%2011

E-40 ~ http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/baynews9/video.html?clip=http://static.cfnews13.com/newsvideo/cfn/Featured/zimmerman-juror-e40-q-061113.flv&vtitle=Juror%20E-40%20questioning%20from%20June%2011

The individual Voir Dire of the Alternate Jurors (in order of their seating):

E-54 ~ A white man who grew up in Central Florida, and has lived in Seminole County for 14 years. He is married with two stepchildren; one is 16, and the other is in his late 20s. He mentioned during initial questioning that one of his stepson wears hoodies, and (that he) had talked to him after the shooting about being "careful" and "cautious" of his actions ~ http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/baynews9/video.html?clip=http://static.cfnews13.com/newsvideo/cfn/Featured/zimmerman-juror-e54-q-061113.flv&vtitle=Alternate%20Juror%20E-54%20questioning%20from%20June%2011

B-72 ~ A mixed-race man in his 20s. He is a competitive arm wrestler who bragged about doing a one-armed pull-up the day he first heard about the shooting. He is single with no children, and works as a maintenance technician at a school. He has lived in Seminole County for nine years, and is previously from Chicago ~ http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/baynews9/video.html?clip=http://static.cfnews13.com/newsvideo/cfn/Featured/zimmerman-juror-b72-061213.flv&vtitle=Alternate%20Juror%20B-72%20questioning%20from%20June%2012

E-13 ~ A white woman who has lived in Seminole County for 17 years. (She) is a surgical assistant who owns and rides horses. She lives with her parents, and her brother is black ~ http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/baynews9/video.html?clip=http://static.cfnews13.com/newsvideo/cfn/Featured/zimmerman-juror-e13-061213.flv&vtitle=Alternate%20Juror%20E-13%20questioning%20from%20June%2012

E-28 ~ A white woman who works in a hospital operating room. She is married to a teacher, and has two children, ages 28 and 33. She is a member of a professional organization, and volunteers for Relay for Life ~ http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/baynews9/video.html?clip=http://static.cfnews13.com/newsvideo/cfn/Featured/zimmerman-juror-e28-061213.flv&vtitle=Alternate%20Juror%20E-28%20questioning%20from%20June%2012

Note: All of the Jurors and Alternates were individually questioned and "passed on" to the eventual pool of 40 on Days 1, 2 and 3 of the trial.

General Voir Dire (on the 8th and 9th day of Trial):

The Prosecution - Parts 1 thru 14

The Defense - Parts 1 thru 9

Jury Selection/Strikes (also on Day 9):

The Prosecution and The Defense - Parts 10,11 and 12

G

---

"RE: Jury"
Posted by foonermints on 06-23-13 at 06:55 PM

Cool. Like a transmutable Ayak. Very Cool.

---

"RE: Jury"
Posted by Georjanna on 06-23-13 at 07:14 PM

Well ...

I've waited an awfully long time to be proclaimed 'Cool'. And I must say that it has certainly been worth the wait.

Thank you.

May I?

---

"Certainly!"
Posted by foonermints on 06-23-13 at 07:37 PM

Of course, your sigpic is illegal. If you'd like to be law abiding..

Now you are just a bit sqashier. OR "squarshier" depending on the local slang.

I'm not always sure which side of the line the fun is on. Yep, you're cool.

---

"RE: Certainly!"
Posted by cahaya on 06-23-13 at 07:42 PM

You're busted for sigpic theft!

Passengers on fooner's crazytrain

---

"Warning: Cahaya"
Posted by foonermints on 06-23-13 at 08:36 PM

The Imperial foonermints must not be questioned!

---

"RE: Warning: Cahaya"
Posted by cahaya on 06-23-13 at 09:56 PM

You, my dear sir, are sequestered!

---

"Silver?"
Posted by foonermints on 06-23-13 at 10:58 PM

Those can't be legal. No no no..

---

"RE: Certainly!"
Posted by Georjanna on 06-23-13 at 08:34 PM

Law-abiding is a bit lofty. I aim a bit lower. I do my best to stay felony-free and airline-kosher. So, aware that excess girth may screw up those (and other) semi-important objectives both here and abroad, I've followed your nudge to the squasher side of our little boulevard.

Speaking of sides, the other side of the pool from the chosen ten - particularly my kinsman from West Virginia - we're all related, you know - was definitely the side that the fun was on in Sanford.

And so are you, of course. Cool.

---

"RE: Certainly!"
Posted by foonermints on 06-23-13 at 09:10 PM

*smoochie*

---

"Gun-totin' B-37"
Posted by dabo on 07-15-13 at 05:05 PM

has a book deal.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/15/19488815-zimmerman-juror-gets-book-agent

The woman, known only as Juror B37 under court order, will enlist her husband, an attorney who works in the aerospace industry, as her co-author, agent Sharlene Martin said in a statement Monday.

“My hope is that people will read Juror B37’s book … and understand the commitment it takes to serve and be sequestered on a jury in a highly publicized murder trial and how important, despite one’s personal viewpoints, it is to follow the letter of the law,” Martin said.

“It could open a whole new dialogue about laws that may need to be revised and revamped to suit a 21st century way of life,” she added. “The reader will also learn why the jurors had no option but to find Zimmerman not guilty due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions.”

---

"And here I thought the first thing they taught you in law school"
Posted by Snidget on 06-24-13 at 10:18 PM

was never open with a knock knock joke implying the jury are all know-nothing idiots.

---

"I like jokes"
Posted by foonermints on 06-24-13 at 11:17 PM

I couldn't get that one. Is there a link?

foonermints: a fascination with craziness..

---

"RE: I like jokes"
Posted by dabo on 06-24-13 at 11:23 PM

LAST EDITED ON 06-24-13 AT 11:26 PM (EST)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/06/24/George-Zimmermans-Attorney-Opens-Trial-With-Knock-Knock-Joke

Knock Knock
Who's there?
George Zimmerman.
George Zimmerman who?
Alright, good, you're on the jury.

---

"Arrrrgh!"
Posted by foonermints on 06-24-13 at 11:51 PM

*Runs away screaming at stupidity*
thanks, jumping bird

---

"RE: Arrrrgh!"
Posted by Snidget on 06-25-13 at 07:06 AM

Stop, drop and roll fooner.

The stupidity, it burns.

Stop drop and roll.

---

"Stop, drop and roll"
Posted by cahaya on 06-25-13 at 07:44 PM

I think we've got another country song in the making here.

---

"RE: And here I thought the first thing they taught you in law school"
Posted by Estee on 06-25-13 at 11:34 AM

*facepalm*

Maybe Zimmerman is trying to get a mistrial for incompetent counsel?

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Georjanna on 06-25-13 at 12:53 PM

If I were the Defense, I think that I would offer my next objection to a Prosecution line of questioning like so ...

'Objection! On the basis of Fill in the Blank.

So, may I suggest that the Court, once again, furnish to the Prosecution the same question in a format certain to be approved by the Bench. As observed, this novel approach by Your Honor to the defendant's right to a fair trial certainly saves a helluva lot of expensive air-conditioning and extraneous role-playing.'

---

"Zimmerman has gained 120lbs."
Posted by Estee on 06-27-13 at 10:48 AM

Imagine what US Weekly could do with that.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by dabo on 06-27-13 at 11:45 AM

As a rule I don't normally follow trials on live TV, just too time consuming. But DD got caught up in it yesterday. That kid in the witness stand was something else.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Georjanna on 06-28-13 at 08:03 PM

LAST EDITED ON 06-28-13 AT 08:21 PM (EST)

I was torn between an overwhelming desire to send her to her room without supper - or - a congratulatory message sprinkled with a generous helping of indecipherable Appalachian patois.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by cahaya on 06-28-13 at 09:28 PM

LAST EDITED ON 06-28-13 AT 10:09 PM (EST)

Hours and hours of unedited reality TV, without a late NFL game or golf tournament sudden-death playoff to delay it. All live and recorded to watch later or again.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, where people are being shot and killed almost every day, a new law allowing concealed carry of handguns soon comes into effect. "We just had a weekend where something like 48 people were shot, seven died..."

We can watch the minutiae of a single shooting court case with fascination along with the media, but somehow I think many people don't see the wider picture of what is really going on.

As far as the Trayvon Martin trial goes, the 'cracker' jury could possibly use a translator.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Georjanna on 06-29-13 at 07:05 AM

LAST EDITED ON 06-29-13 AT 12:56 PM (EST)

cahaya,

I admire and value - to the extent that they have survived - the mechanisms of freedom employed by the American legal/political system. So, admittedly, I watch trials because they interest me.

But, because it is important to me that our right to a trial by a jury of our peers outlive my generation - I have children and grandchildren - I don't watch them with a cavalier disregard for their solemnity or a lack of compassion for their participants. Too, it is equally important to me that our legal system safeguard our right to the peaceful enjoyment of our property, liberty and life by vigorously pursuing and prosecuting the criminals who would rob us of it.

So I can’t remember the time I last confused a trial court with a tribal council.

And I am very concerned that if we continue to cast our courts and juries as scapegoats for our abject failure as individuals, families and communities to govern our impulses and ambitions sensibly, both rights will become yet another of my generation's victims - by - default.

So, I do, occasionally, get up off my rump and act on that concern.

And I consider George Zimmerman's circumstance to be a facet of a wider picture that now, as you've noted, includes forty-eight (+/-) other individuals who also concluded that a pressing personal desire, greed or fear required the maiming or death of another human being and who will, as a result, appear in some number within Illinois courtrooms sooner rather than later. Then perhaps a lesson learned in Sanford (or Jacksonville) will take root and flourish in Chicago.

And Poof! One person's minutiae will become another's mural!

Here, of course, is where – if I had a lick of sense regarding my social assimilation – I would enthusiastically embrace all things anti-gun. But the inconvenient fact is that I don’t. I support some restrictions/conditions of their ownership. I am open to arguments for and against others. I will never endorse the ban of weapons designed for personal protection and/or sport.

And that is because I spent the first forty or so years of my life in an era, an area and a culture in which a law-abiding household without guns, a home with locked doors, a car with a northern plate on our streets and a year during which a murder was recorded in our valley were so rare as to be truly remarkable.

Now, law-abiding households without guns, homes with every door locked (day and night), black SUVs with heavy tint and New Jersey, Michigan and New York plates on our streets and murders in our communities are so common as to be truly unremarkable. And our courts are doing a booming business as the illicit drugs roll south and the illegal guns motor back north.

So, at seventy – small and slow and far more fearful of a thug’s fists than of a bullet – I am not inclined to encourage a progression of the unilateral disarmament of that small number of my neighbors still willing to accept the responsibilities and consequences of being lawfully armed. And my inventory of safe-places-to-be has shrunk quite enough – this valley is not getting any bigger.

Too, for me, the “wider picture” is much more about the why of Americans murdering each other than it is about the how of the fratricide. Perhaps the retention of a common language might have helped in some small way?

Juror E-6 was, according to Court observers, visibly
disapproving of Don West’s questioning of Ms. Jeantel.
The irony is that the Defense fought so hard to keep her
on the Jury when the Prosecution tried mightily – twice –
to strike her. I guess you just can’t trust any of those
creepy --- crackers!

---

"duty"
Posted by Graciela Mercedes on 06-30-13 at 04:17 AM

"willing to accept the responsibilities and consequences of being lawfully armed"

Georjanna, it has taken sixty-five years for me to understand and appreciate my fellow citizens who have taken on this responsibility. I am beginning to think it may be every citizen's duty to do likewise. Six years ago I would have laughed at the thought.

---

"RE: duty"
Posted by cahaya on 06-30-13 at 05:40 AM

Wow, two ladies, 65 and 70, packing pistols!

The same is true for my folks, now in their 80's, with lifetime conceal carry pistol permits, although they don't tote them around. My mom said (although she is trained on the range) that she wouldn't want to carry one around because she'd feel braver than she ought to be to intervene and do something in the event of an incident off-property.

I feel a lot more comfortable shooting a rifle than a pistol, just because I'm more confident that I'll hit who or what I'm shooting at without the stray bullets.

Welcome to the boards here, Graciela!

---

"RE: duty"
Posted by Georjanna on 06-30-13 at 09:00 AM

LAST EDITED ON 06-30-13 AT 11:09 AM (EST)

Wow, two ladies, 65 and 70, packing pistols!

Before my husband's death (at 75) in January of this year, our home contained a pistol, two shotguns and a rifle. And I am certainly more confident that I would be able to hit who or what I'm shooting at with a pattern of buckshot than with a bullet.

I have never shot a pistol. Anywhere. I have never carried one. Anywhere. And I have never shot at anything - with anything - other than at a paper target (with a rifle) or at a clay pigeon or grouse (with a shotgun).

Note: To the best of my knowledge all of the grouse enjoyed a long and amused life before dying a natural death.

---

"RE: duty"
Posted by kingfish on 06-30-13 at 11:23 AM

A tangent just for perspective, not criticism: The percentages are that those grouse were eaten alive by a predator. They probably (again, by those percentages) suffered being gutted and torn limb from limb before becoming unconscious. That's just the fate of almost all biota except humans and our protected pets. Very few plants or animals, from single celled on up, die a natural death.

So next time, you would be doing those grouse a favor by offering them a quick death, and honor their life by incorporating their flesh into your own. And BTW having an excellent dinner.

Sorry to hear about your husband.

That trial is fascinating, the contradictory witnesses (so far) have made the a conviction of the guy who shot an provocative unarmed boy anything but certain.

---

"RE: duty"
Posted by Georjanna on 06-30-13 at 12:20 PM

So next time, you would be doing those grouse a favor by offering them a quick death, and honor their life by incorporating their flesh into your own. And BTW having an excellent dinner.

Believe me, kingfish, I tried. I really tried ...

One of the things that I most regret about aging is that so too are all of my family and friends. And one of the things that has meant is that all of the men who through all of my years provided me with (wild) pheasant, grouse and turkey no longer hunt them. And although we do still have several deer hunters in our circle, unfortunately, I don't care for venison.

But quite a few of us still fish. So, freshly-caught trout are still a delicious component of our spring, summer and fall
meals.

Thank you for your condolences.

---

"RE: duty"
Posted by kingfish on 07-02-13 at 09:06 AM

Trout's pretty good. Got a load of fresh trout in the freezer myself from a trip I took in May, going again in August.

---

"Probably"
Posted by foonermints on 07-02-13 at 01:39 PM

You can just order it on Amazon now.
Eliminate the middlefish!

If I want Salmon, do I have to walk to Oregon?

---

"RE: duty"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-05-13 at 07:26 PM

Got a load of fresh trout in the freezer myself from a trip I took in May, going again in August

The front yard of our family's fishing camp is a trout stream that until four or so years ago was stocked. Now, the population of native trout has increased to the point that it's possible to catch individual limits of the creek's smaller but absolutely delicious inhabitants in hours rather than in days.

Bravo, progress! ..

---

"RE: duty"
Posted by kingfish on 07-08-13 at 02:12 PM

Sounds great, and like a very pleasant place.

My trout are Speckled Sea trout, a salt water version which are also very delectable.

And they are also a thing to point to, progress wise. I got them fishing off of Cocodrie Louisiana, an area affected by the BP disaster. And the fishing is excellent, no obvious lingering effects from the disaster on the fishing. Crabbing is off, apparently the inhabitants of the transition zone (water to land) suffered the most, but fish and shrimp populations are booming. Which, means that given time, the crabs will return too.

And Fooner should walk to Oregon for his seaweed wine.

---

"RE: duty"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-05-13 at 07:13 PM

Graciela,

I've not responded to your remarks for several days because I'm not quite certain that I've yet reached the conclusion that the extent of the degeneration of our common civility requires that those of us who desire only to go about our lives safely and peacefully, and to safeguard the ability of the more vulnerable of our neighbors to enjoy that same safety and peace, arm ourselves as we move about our public spaces.

But, when I consider that, although I have reached an age and circumstance that afford me the luxury of judiciously picking and choosing where, when and with whom I'll walk, I am constantly reminded that so many of the people that I love (and millions more that I will never know) are not - if they are to function as self-sufficient, productive members of our society - that lucky.

So, if you don't consider the matter too personal to discuss in this setting, may I ask what caused you to reconsider your attitudes regarding the issue?

---

"RE: duty"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-05-13 at 08:22 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-05-13 AT 08:31 PM (EST)

PS:

I realize that with Judge Nelson on the bench, this is a moot point. However, given the affirmative nature/burden of his defense, I wonder why, if testimony can be introduced to advance the State's theory that George Zimmerman's historical behaviors and activities evidence

(1)The presence of depravity, ill will and spite within his psyche on that February night, or,
(2) That he did not have an imminent and reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury during Trayvon Martin's attack on his person, or,
(3) That he used excessive force during Trayvon Martin's attack on his person,

the Court does not consider countervailing testimony regarding the younger man's historical behaviors and activities offered to support the Defense's contention that throughout their encounter, Mr. Martin acted in a manner that would require a reasonable man to conclude that he was in the presence of depravity, ill will and spite intent upon, and capable of, causing him great bodily injury or death ... to be relevant.

Note: Whenever I hear that a Jury is being asked to render a verdict by first coming to a conclusion regarding a principal's state of mind, I cringe.

---

"RE: duty"
Posted by Snidget on 07-05-13 at 08:38 PM

I thought one analyst implied that both could have been kept out, but Zimmerman's lawyers could open the door and once it is open all that stuff can come in. Now that may not be the case, and they got it in despite his lawyers...

At least logically it seems to me that if you have a live person and you want to get into his motivations and past acts, at least he has some ability to convince the jury it isn't what it looks like. With a dead guy you usually only have his Mom to try to refute stuff, and it is hard to believe a Mom really knows every last thing about a teen's inner life.

---

"RE: duty"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-06-13 at 07:14 AM

LAST EDITED ON 07-06-13 AT 07:33 AM (EST)

I thought one analyst implied that both could have been kept out, but Zimmerman's lawyers could open the door and once it is open all that stuff can come in. Now that may not be the case, and they got it in despite his lawyers ...

I think that we may be talking about apples and oranges.

It’s my understanding that the Prosecution has claimed that Mr. O’Mara (via his solicitation of purportedly ‘good character’ testimony from the Zimmerman neighbor whose recorded 9-1-1 call contained the audible screams for help) opened the door to a counter by the State via its introduction of evidence purported to demonstrate his ‘bad character’:

Specifically, a restraining order granted a former girlfriend (subsequently duplicated by one granted Mr. Zimmerman) and a charge (later reduced and ultimately dismissed) alleging his forcible interference with a police office.

However, the Prosecution hasn’t yet presented that proposed testimony (but could, I think, offer it in a rebuttal case) and I’m not certain that Judge Nelson has even ruled on its admissibility.

But I was referring to the fact that the State, alleging that their intent was to produce evidence of the criminal nature of Mr. Zimmerman’s state of mind, motives and movements on that night – as opposed to an effort to place evidence of prior bad acts before the jury - was permitted to – and did – introduce five bits of testimony and/or exhibits that they claimed constituted a powerful insinuation of their theory of the case:

Specifically, that George Zimmerman was, by the early evening of February 26, 2012, a recklessly depraved man filled with ill will, hatred and spite who racially-profiled Trayvon Martin (a target of opportunity), menaced him, and then, relying upon his comprehensive knowledge of Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute and of the interrogation techniques of investigative law enforcement officers, murdered the youth with a confidence that he would be able to successfully (albeit it falsely) assert that his was a justifiable use of deadly force.

Testimony entered on July 3, 2013 / Parts 3 – 6

(1)Mr. Zimmerman’s request for a Bachelor’s (in Criminal Justice) from a Florida school.
(2)The rejection of Mr. Zimmerman’s application to a Prince William County (Virginia) police force.
(3)Mr. Zimmerman’s one ride-a-long with a ( Sanford or Seminole County) police officer.
(4)His enrollment and participation in a class that incorporated some textbook passages dedicated to The Castle Doctrine and some classroom discussions of Stand Your Ground … by another name.
(5)His enrollment and participation in an online course dedicated to investigative techniques.

I realize that this is a somber subject, but a great deal of this (referenced) testimony is hilarious.

At least logically it seems to me that if you have a live person and you want to get into his motivations and past acts, at least he has some ability to convince the jury it isn't what it looks like. With a dead guy you usually only have his Mom to try to refute stuff, and it is hard to believe a Mom really knows every last thing about a teen's inner life.

Ah, logic. And abilities. And appearances.

Well, Mr. Zimmerman is – having not yet been delivered into the Florida penal system by Judge Debra Nelson – for now, alive. But I think that most criminal defense attorneys would vigorously contend that, in all but the most rare of circumstances, it is not only illogical, but irresponsible, for his lawyer to endorse or encourage the notion that a much-too-intimately-threatened, and emotionally-invested, and irredeemably-biased witness – his client – has any sort of practical ‘ability’ to convince his jury that ‘it isn’t what it looks like’. And so, George Zimmerman will most probably rely upon Mr. O’Mara and Mr. West to, through the testimony of witnesses other than himself and in closing arguments, tend diligently to the continued cultivation and maintenance of his 'good character'. And to ‘refute stuff.’ Day and night.

Trayvon Martin – shot by George Zimmerman – is dead. And although we have – particularly in this case – all but abandoned the principle that provided each of us its protection against vindictive prosecution, the fact is that, still, as a matter of law, the State of Florida acting as the people in the criminal matter styled as The State of Florida v George Zimmerman owes no greater duty to the Floridian, Sybrina Fulton than it does to the Floridian, Gladys Zimmerman. And owes none at all to the deceased Floridian, Trayvon Benjamin Martin.

Because, although there are political jurisdictions throughout the world that do cast their police squads, armed forces and criminal courts in the role of avenging angels, neither the State of Florida or The United States of America is one of them. In this country, redress and retribution are only legitimately housed in civil courtrooms.

So, this trial is not only not of Trayvon Martin, it is not for Trayvon Martin. And, only to the degree that facts and/or circumstances personal to Mr. Martin are relevant to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Zimmerman, is it properly about Trayvon Martin.

This is George Zimmerman’s day in court.

But because, as a practical matter, convictions are much more easily secured and public personas more brightly burnished when the person who was robbed, injured or killed can be presented to the jury as a sympathetic figure absent any discernible fault or culpability, I think that Ms. Fulton can rely upon Mr. de la Rionda and Mr. Guy to zealously defend and enhance her son’s reputation. And to ‘refute stuff’ with a dedication known only to those with Benjamin Crump, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rick Scott and Barack Obama sitting second chair. Chair. Chair. Chair. Chair.

---

"RE: duty"
Posted by Snidget on 07-06-13 at 07:53 AM

It is one of those situations where I don't know that we will ever really get to the truth, especially since the defense has to blame the victim in every way they are allowed to make their case and the prosecution obviously has to blame the person they charged. I would hope it is about justice all the way around, but that is way too idealistic. I do know that it seems all too often the victim ends up on trial and no one seems to pay much attention to determining if the accused should be found guilty or not.

I mostly see this as a case where testosterone probably got out of hand and if it hadn't been for the gun we'd probably have two people able to testify about what happened. I don't think either is completely blameless.

Maybe it is the county I live in and I know how much even trained police officers who really should know better have been in hot water for profiling people (although here Zimmerman would be much more likely to be the person followed for walking with skittles). It is hard for me to hold Zimmerman blameless especially since one of the reasons most places insist that the neighborhood watch people to not be armed (even if they are armed at other times legally) and to not follow people and to just call the cops is that when they are armed and start following and confronting people the odds of someone ending up dead too soon goes way up. If Zimmerman hadn't shot Trayvon, I wouldn't be shocked if he eventually ended up being shot when he confronted someone who was really up to some serious no good. Cops at least have the training to know what they are doing when they confront potential bad guys and still end up shot on a regular basis. Amateurs are even more likely to get into trouble, I think.

It would be a comedy of errors (as Trayvon should have run home and called the cops rather than confront Zimmerman as well or just never left his Dad's house for any reason, ever) if some kid didn't end up dead. Maybe he was such an bad dude he would have been shot dead by someone in a year anyway, but that doesn't mean he deserved to be confronted for walking home that night.

So I don't think it is just malicious that they are prosecuting Zimmerman as there really does need to be some investigation and determination of what happened. If for no other reason than we need to keep a lid on vigilante justice and define where that line is between murder and self-defense. If we had a way to do it other than a trial and through the legal system we could do it there, but this is what I think a role the courts play in our society. I do sometimes fear we are getting to be too much of a "well I felt he just needed killing and we'd have to shoot him/her sooner or later" society that encourages people to put themselves in situations where confronting someone to death is what you are supposed to do rather than last resort.

---

"To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-09-13 at 02:13 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-10-13 AT 07:15 AM (EST)

‘The one place where a man ought to get a square deal is in a courtroom, be he any color of the rainbow, but people have a way of carrying their resentments right into a jury box.

I'm no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and in the jury system—that is no ideal to me, it is a living, working reality. Gentlemen, a court is no better than each man of you sitting before me on this jury. A court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sound as the men who make it up. I am confident that you gentlemen will review without passion the evidence you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this defendant to his family. In the name of God, do your duty.’ ~ The character, Atticus Finch, in the novel by Harper Lee.

Most often, when we think about Jury Nullification, the drama that we envision features a courageous jury or other trier of fact who – because they believe the applicable law governing the case to be evil and unjust – refuse(s) to convict the defendant despite the fact that he is, by virtue of that law, most certainly guilty of the crime charged. And, of course, since a jury or other trier of fact exercising that power – or right, depending upon your point of view – plays havoc with any judicial system, there has been a great deal written, spoken and yelled about the phenomenon. One consequence of all of that debate:

With Edward Gibbons’s observation in mind - “Whenever the offense inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigor of penal law is obliged to give way to the common feelings of mankind" - as part of their effort to minimize the instances of Jury Nullification in their jurisdictions, American courts continue to vigorously resist any requirement that juries be informed of the sentences attached to the crimes charged. For instance:

The maximum penalty for 2nd Degree Murder in Florida is life in prison. The maximum penalty for Manslaughter is thirty years in prison. And Judge Nelson is known for her propensity to impose maximum sentences. But George Zimmerman’s jury will not be told these things.

Mr. B. B. Underwood was at his most bitter, and he couldn’t have cared less who canceled advertising and subscriptions. (But Maycomb didn’t play that way: Mr. Underwood could holler till he sweated and write whatever he wanted to, he’d still get his advertising and subscriptions. If he wanted to make a fool of himself in his paper that was his business.)

Mr. Underwood didn’t talk about miscarriages of justice, he was writing so children could understand. Mr. Underwood simply figured it was a sin to kill cripples, be they standing, sitting, or escaping. He likened Tom’s death to the senseless slaughter of songbirds by hunters and children, and Maycomb thought he was trying to write an editorial poetical enough to be reprinted in The Montgomery Advertiser.

How could this be so, I wondered, as I read Mr. Underwood’s editorial. Senseless killing—Tom had been given due process of law to the day of his death; he had been tried openly and convicted by twelve good men and true; my father had fought for him all the way. Then Mr. Underwood’s meaning became clear: Atticus had used every tool available to free men to save Tom Robinson, but in the secret courts of men’s hearts Atticus had no case. Tom was a dead man the minute Mayella Ewell opened her mouth and screamed. ~ The character, Scout, in the novel by Harper Lee

But far less often do we hear the term, Jury Nullification, applied to what I believe to be its other face:

The pusillanimous jury who because of their hostility toward a law (or a body of law), or because of their bias against the person of the defendant, or because of a determination to appease the prejudices of the most vocal voices within their community – or because of all three – delivers a guilty verdict despite the clear and convincing presence of a mountain of reasonable doubt before them. And I’ve brought Ms. Harper Lee’s novel into the discussion because I have always thought of it as the most compelling exploration of that particular form of cowardice, mob mentality and racial bigotry that I’ve ever read. That said:

In the novel, the body of law that the community of Maycomb and Tom Robinson’s judge and jury found so abhorrent was all of those constitutional provisions and amendments and all of those statutes (principally, in that era and locale – federal) that cumulatively demanded that they accept, without reservation, Mr. Robinson’s equal standing before the law and his right to the equal protection of it - including his right to the presumption of innocence until and unless the State met its burden to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So, faced with the fact that they had failed in their efforts to make the constitutionally-appropriate bodies – Legislatures, Executives and Appellate Courts – see things their way, that community and judge and jury hijacked Tom Robinson’s right to be subjected to the rule of legitimately-constituted laws rather than to the extralegal mores of a gang of twelve self-righteous and self-anointed vigilantes – fair trial be damned.

“Atticus, you must be wrong...."

"How's that?"

"Well, most folks seem to think they're right and you're wrong”. ~ From the novel by Harper Lee

And in The State v George Zimmerman, the laws that the most strident members of a ‘community’ that now stretches ‘round the globe find so hateful are those Florida statutes that permit a resident of the state to carry - upon compliance with the statute’s conditional regulations - a concealed weapon on his person and the Florida statutes that permit its citizens to employ deadly force to counter an attack that they reasonably believe may result in their death or cause them great bodily harm.

And hateful or not.

Ill-conceived or not.

Unpopular or not.

The inconvenient fact is that the elected representatives of the people of the State of Florida in the form of its duly constituted Legislature, has - following public hearings, debates and majority votes - exercised its exclusive authority to define the difference between Self Defense and Murder - See 782.04(2) and Manslaughter- See 782.07 and that it has also published the statute regulating its License to carry a concealed weapon or firearm .

Also, inconvenient or not, it is a fact that an American trial court sitting in a criminal case exists for the sole purpose of affording the Defendant and The People due process of – existing - law. It has no legitimate legal authority to redefine, reinterpret, ignore, disavow, make or imagine law. It is not a justice laboratory, a social experiment or a compensatory body. Put bluntly: George Zimmerman’s judge and jury have no codified or moral license to change the rules of the game at the expense of his freedom for the remainder - or for the next thirty years - of his life.

And if it abandons its sworn duty to the Defendant by nullifying its reasonable doubt(s) of his guilt, then we have, I think, not come far from Maycomb, have we?

If you just learn a single trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view... Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it. ~ The character, Atticus Finch, in the novel by Harper Lee.

As for the elephant in the courtroom – racial bias:

I think that it might be more helpful in understanding the cultural/racial undertows of this trial and/or of the fictional trial of Tom Robinson (remembering that his jury was all male and all white) if, instead of asking ‘What if both principals, then and now, had been white?’, the question posed is ‘What if, then and now, both principals had been black?’.

You goin' to court this morning?" asked Jem.

"I am not. 't's morbid, watching a poor devil on trial for his life. Look at all those folks, it's like a Roman carnival."

"They hafta try him in public, Miss Maudie," I said. "Wouldn't be right if they didn't."

"I'm quite aware of that," she said. "Just because it's public, I don't have to go, do I?" ~ From the novel by Harper Lee

As for me:

Based upon the testimony/evidence that I’ve heard and seen streamed from the courtroom - and bearing in mind that we have not yet seen and heard the remainder of the Defense’s case, the Prosecution’s Rebuttal (if any) or the Defense’s Surrebutal (if any), or, most importantly, Judge Nelson’s instructions to the jury - I don't think that the State has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, its charge of 2nd Degree Murder. However (if some degree of Manslaughter then becomes the question), I am also not yet convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin as the result of a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. But, I will confess that, until we hear the jury instructions, I am far less than certain when the burden of proof shifts from the Prosecution to the Defense. Or, given the Defense’s assertion of self-defense, if it does.

So far, things were utterly dull: nobody had thundered,
there were no arguments between opposing counsel,
there was no drama; a grave disappointment to all present ~
The character, Scout, in the novel by Harper Lee

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Snidget on 07-09-13 at 03:21 PM

Unfortunately I do think race has a lot to do with it. Had Zimmerman been black, he'd have been arrested and there would be no interest in the trial and I suspect that had Trayvon been white he'd be easily convicted.

Unfortunately without issues coming up at trial and things going through the various appeals process I don't know how else we are really to define what is actual cases where stand your ground should apply and when they should not.

I do understand why people don't like the "duty to retreat" version where people believe it is difficult if not impossible to ever prove self defense even when there is an intruder in your house pointing a gun at you. I do think we need more restraint on the street or in situations where you actually do have an ability to retreat without abandoning one's own property.

I fear if Zimmerman gets off scot free we will have even more people shot because "I was a skeered for my life" in situations where they provoked someone or just got nervous because someone pulled a cell phone out of their pocket.

Sure the vast majority of people who walk around armed are not nervous nellies or just looking to shoot someone, but it only takes one to cause a tragedy.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-09-13 at 03:40 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-09-13 AT 03:56 PM (EST)

ETA: Unfortunately without issues coming up at trial and things going through the various appeals process I don't know how else we are really to define what is actual cases where stand your ground should apply and when they should not.

I fear if Zimmerman gets off scot free we will have even more people shot because "I was a skeered for my life" in situations where they provoked someone or just got nervous because someone pulled a cell phone out of their pocket.

Do you not think that (a minimum) of thirty years of a man's life is a bit much to ask him to contribute to a community's fear of its own laws? Laws that are subject to Legislative repeal or modification through a political process available to every one of Florida's citizens.

ETA: Assuming, of course, that reasonable doubt of his guilt - given the current state of the applicable laws - exists.

G

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Snidget on 07-09-13 at 09:43 PM

Well I don't know if second degree murder would be the appropriate charge, and I don't know he'd get anywhere near that for manslaughter. Unless I heard the likely sentences wrong.

I just worry that we are going to far in the as long as you can justify it you can kill whoever you want, well as long as they are black.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-09-13 at 11:57 PM

(1)The fact that Trayvon Martin was less than 18 years old

and/or

(2)The fact that Mr. Martin was killed with a firearm

Reclassifies the crime of manslaughter to a

Class 1 Felony and to a 30-year maximum sentence.

And, as I've said before, Judge Nelson is known for her imposition of maximum sentences.

And yes, when the killing of another human being, whatever their color, is justifiable, I do not think that the State can, justifiably, impose punishment for the action.

As far as 'too far':

I think that we've certainly reached that point when we are willing to compromise one of the most basic of our rights - the constitutional guarantee of due process - by endorsing the corruption of our juries simply because we have become too politically illiterate and civilly lazy to press our opposition to, or support of, the laws that we all must live by in our Legislatures and Executive offices.

Because I think that it's fairly obvious by now that encouraging the Judiciary to write, amend, interpret, implement, execute and administer our law hasn't, as Jefferson thought it probably wouldn't, worked out all that well.

G

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Snidget on 07-10-13 at 07:16 AM

So the judicial branch should not in any way act as a check or balance against the excesses of the legislature.

Hopefully someone will deal with the law they just passed in Florida that could be used to outlaw all computers and smart phones. I dunno if I trust the legislature to fix that one.

So it is OK if everyone always escalates every fist fight to a killing. Well, maybe people will stop punching other people if they know that it will almost always mean they will be shot to death and the shooter will always in every case be held blameless.

I think the question is how much he reasonably was in fear for his life, and how much he did to provoke the fist fight.

It wasn't like he was just walking down the street and got mugged. That feels more straight forward. Also would feel more straight forward self-defense if he announced he was from the neighborhood watch and he was just checking that everything was OK.

Sure the judge happens to have a tendency to be harsh, but you shouldn't, IMO, change your logic because of what you fear the judge may do. After all the appeals courts are there to be a check and balance, or so I thought.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-10-13 at 10:19 AM

LAST EDITED ON 07-10-13 AT 10:47 AM (EST)

So the judicial branch should not in any way act as a check or balance against the excesses of the legislature.

That is not what I said.

Hopefully someone will deal with the law they just passed in Florida that could be used to outlaw all computers and smart phones. I dunno if I trust the legislature to fix that one.

I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with your reference.

So it is OK if everyone always escalates every fist fight to a killing.

That is not what I said.

Well, maybe people will stop punching other people if they know that it will almost always mean they will be shot to death and the shooter will always in every case be held blameless.

Given your scenario, perhaps. Or, given another, and with George Zimmerman’s current and prospective quality of life as an example, perhaps people will conclude that the costs attached to self-defense are more onerous and certain than are the consequences of being beaten.

I think the question is how much he reasonably was in fear for his life ...

It is my understanding that this is certainly one of the questions that the Judge will submit to the jury.

... and how much he did to provoke the fist fight.

It is my understanding that to the extent that the level of his provocation is indicative of Mr. Zimmerman's state of mind, it is properly a question for the jury to decide.

It wasn't like he was just walking down the street and got mugged. That feels more straight forward. Also would feel more straight forward self-defense if he announced he was from the neighborhood watch and he was just checking that everything was OK.

It is my understanding that if the totality of the evidence (including circumstantial evidence of Mr. Zimmerman’s state of mind) convinces a juror that, beyond any reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty of a crime or crimes charged, then that juror has a legal obligation - is sworn - to return that verdict as to the applicable charge/charges.

If, however, after carefully considering the totality of the evidence, a reasonable doubt remains, then that juror has a legal obligation – is sworn – to return a verdict of not guilty.

Sure the judge happens to have a tendency to be harsh, but you shouldn't, IMO, change your logic because of what you fear the judge may do. After all the appeals courts are there to be a check and balance, or so I thought.

I agree. And I trust that, despite the many times that you have used the word during this discussion, you would not permit - have not permitted - your logic to be impacted by - fear.

G

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Snidget on 07-10-13 at 10:50 AM

I think I just have a different threshold of when fear allows me to shoot people and feel I do not have to pay for my actions with jail time.

I may be a bit more of a pacifist than some on this board, so I find shifts to increase the ability to justify killing something to be cautious about.

I hope we can all agree we have too many people shot and killed in this country, even though I'm pretty sure a scary (to me) nmber of the elected officials seem to be acting as if they think there isn't nearly enough.

I guess I misunderstood when you seemed be heading in the direction of implying the court should never question the legislature and should merely enforce whatever laws the legislature of the moment has enacted. I may prefer more struggle between the branches as I think that helps keep us from straying too far in any given direction but allows for progress to be made sometimes in spite of those who would oppose any progress at all.

As for my reference.

There was a scandal in Florida with on-line gambling and bogus charities. The Lt. Governor ended up resigning over the flap and the legislature decided to try to ban internet cafes or web connected slot machines, but in the haste to make hay while the political sun was shining the vaguely worded law seems to be capable of banning any device in the state that can connect to the tubes of the interwebs.
link

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-10-13 at 12:12 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-10-13 AT 12:15 PM (EST)

I guess I misunderstood when you seemed be heading in the direction of implying the court should never question the legislature and should merely enforce whatever laws the legislature of the moment has enacted.

There are, of course, marked, fundamental, differences between the compositions, responsibilities and authorities of a trial court and appellate courts (of review). And rather than repeat so much of what I’ve already said about the concept of a jury’s nullification of the law and/or the facts in a criminal courtroom, here is the link to one of my earlier posts.

And I will add that if, as a juror, I became convinced during the course of a criminal trial that I could not fulfill my oath to afford either the People or the Defendant due process of the - existing, applicable - law, I would refuse to continue my service.

I may prefer more struggle between the branches as I think that helps keep us from straying too far in any given direction but allows for progress to be made sometimes in spite of those who would oppose any progress at all.

I think it would be safe to say that you and I would have very different opinions regarding the behaviors of our appellate courts vis a vis the other two branches of our state and federal governments. As to the existing frictions between our legislative and executive branches, I am not so certain that I would not prefer that the two more often attempt to reach common ground ...

G

"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is ‘boni judicis est ampliare juris-dictionem,’ (It is the part of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction) and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions or time and party, its members would become despots." — Thomas Jefferson

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Snidget on 07-10-13 at 01:13 PM

I really don't think I'm ever calling for juries to game the system or deliberately defy their oaths. I know that is what you seem to be thinking I am demanding, but really, I am not.

However, I don't find it a problem when a case that might be on the edges of the interpretations of the law goes to trial and almost inevitably goes to appeal, and so on up the various levels of courts we have. I don't see it as part of the problem, I think it is part of what has allowed our system to last as long as it has and adapt. But to each their own.

So I don't see this as malicious prosecution, or a miscarriage or hijacking of the legal system that it even went to trial. I have no problem with this case going to trial because I do think we need to review the consequences of the newly defined version of self-defense and get clarity on just what ground is really yours to stand on and what is a reasonable person's fear of imminent death.

I have seen people seem to argue (mostly some of Zimmerman's ardent supporters that love to be on TV) that if Trayvon had survived the night he probably should be jailed for life or put to death. There is no acknowledgment that a teenager died for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and made a bad decision. Really, did he deserve death for what he did? Unfortunately we really will never know who did what to whom as we only have one side of the story, and no one really saw or heard all that well what happened that night. All that doubt scores points for the defense and I do agree with that. I think sometimes we don't doubt the evidence nearly enough.

At least with a trial it gets worked out and at least someone weighs what information we do have. I don't see how that is such a bad thing.

I really wouldn't be comfortable if every stand your ground or self defense claim was generally always assumed to be justified without some airing of both sides, or as much of the dead person's side as we can get. It isn't like the gun knows who is the good guy and who is the bad guy and the bullets make sure they only hit the bad guy.

Most of the law is not black and white and is often written, IMO, to be deliberately vague by legislatures that either are trying to protect some part of their donor population or punish people they don't like, or some other reason that has nothing to do with justice, fairness, or constitutionality. It seems they rarely have any concern about how anyone is supposed to take those vague words and put it into something that is constitutional, just, fair, or even have any passing resemblance to logic or reality or even manages to set up clear guidelines for how or when to enforce it.

I think it comes down to who you trust less. Currently, I have no trust in my state legislature and next to no trust in congress, although I do think our governor did earn a tiny bit of trust with a recent decision (I'll have to read what that was all about, it just came across the news wire), but I fear he did it not because it benefits the people or he doesn't want those rights restricted, but because it somehow made this state less appealing to national or multinational businesses and their stock holders, but you know, strange bedfellows and all that. As much as I dislike some of the contentiousness between the branches I think it is better than they all get together for too many Kumbaya moments of agreement.

The sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a grid-locked do nothing government is one that efficiently picks a direction that all parts of it agree on.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-10-13 at 01:45 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-10-13 AT 03:19 PM (EST)

So I don't see this as malicious prosecution, or a miscarriage or hijacking of the legal system that it even went to trial. I have no problem with this case going to trial because I do think we need to review the consequences of the newly defined version of self-defense and get clarity on just what ground is really yours to stand on and what is a reasonable person's fear of imminent death.

I am almost-out-of-town (it's time for the beach come Saturday morning), so this will be brief and you may not see any posts from me for a week or so.

In the context of its particular circumstances, I do think that this is a malicious prosecution. But I do not consider it to be a legally inappropriate one.

However, only if the verdict in this case is 'Guilty' (to one or more charges) will it be appealed - ( eta ): will it be subject to review within our appellate courts. And that was the predicate for my remarks concerning the illegitimate, inexcusable cost to George Zimmerman if, under the terms of the existing law, he is 'Not Guilty', but becomes - nevertheless - the poster case for all that is adjudged to be so very wrong with our political (executive, legislative and/or judicial), social and cultural relationships.

G

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by kingfish on 07-10-13 at 03:54 PM

Have fun. And try some salt water trout fishing.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-10-13 at 04:11 PM

Thank you, kingfish.

Several years ago, my husband and I spent 18 months on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. And I could just never manage to make a decent job of fishing from the surf or from a charter. I still do both from time to time, though, just because it is so much fun.

But, since I've never developed a taste for salt water fish, if I ever catch one of your speckled trout, I promise that I will give it to someone who will appreciate just how delicious it is.

G

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by cahaya on 07-10-13 at 03:12 PM

The Lt. Governor ended up resigning over the flap and the legislature decided to try to ban internet cafes or web connected slot machines, but in the haste to make hay while the political sun was shining the vaguely worded law seems to be capable of banning any device in the state that can connect to the tubes of the interwebs.

Yeah, I read about that (on another site). But, oh wait! The device I am using to post this is illegal in Florida!

I'm a gamblin' man, not with the casinos, but with the Incredible Investments (LLC).

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by AyaK on 07-09-13 at 08:30 PM

>Unfortunately I do think race has a lot to do with
>it. Had Zimmerman been black, he'd have been arrested and
>there would be no interest in the trial and I
>suspect that had Trayvon been white he'd be easily convicted.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

The trial has only proved that there is no case. No sane DA would have prosecuted a case this week except for the lynch mob led by "President" Obama and his allies at MSNBC screaming for prosecution. Were Zimmerman brown, white, black, or yellow, there is no evidence of his guilt, only ludicrous conjecture. Prosecutors almost always flee from such cases. The case isn't even informative about the criminal justice system, because prosecutions like this just don't happen in the real world (i.e., the world that everybody except for MSNBC lives in).

The only reason the judge didn't grant the defense's motion for dismissal at the end of the prosecution's case is that judges generally would rather have the responsibility for acquittal in a high-profile case passed off to a jury.

Like everyone else, the judge understands how weak the state's case is. Had the prosecution introduced any actual evidence of mens rea -- Zimmerman's intent to commit a crime -- the fact that Trayvon Martin had marijuana in his system wouldn't have been admissible. But, because the prosecution's case is totally conjecture, the judge decided to let the defense show that Zimmerman's conjecture that Martin was "on drugs or something" wasn't off base.

Really, that's the final nail in the prosecution's coffin.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Snidget on 07-09-13 at 09:40 PM

I just feel that had the shooter been black there would have been an assumption he was out looking to kill someone that would have made them more likely to prosecute.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by cahaya on 07-09-13 at 09:42 PM

In part, I agree. No question there is "reasonable doubt" in this case, built upon conjecture and questionable and unreliable testimony.

However, to ascribe these court proceedings to a "lynch mob" led by President Obama and clueless pundits at MSNBC is vastly stretching the truth. Such a statement is pure nonsense.

Capn's temple lions

Reading between the lines, listening to the silence between the words.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Snidget on 07-09-13 at 09:51 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-09-13 AT 10:04 PM (EST)

Agree, I don't think anyone deserves the death penalty for punching a guy who is following him and not in anyway identifying himself as part of the neighborhood watch.

But I guess I'm wrong. Just shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

Arm the heck out of the neighborhood watch and have them shoot anyone they don't know. After all they must be up to criminal activity to go to a store at night in the rain.

And I thought the days of pot makes you violent were over, but based on some of the commentary we are right back to the reefer madness days.

Something about Zimmerman's story just doesn't quite ring true for me, but there isn't enough evidence to prove exactly what isn't quite right about it.

And I'd rather have it go to court and have the evidence weighed and judged than just dismissed without examination, but that is me.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by AyaK on 07-11-13 at 01:20 AM

LAST EDITED ON 07-11-13 AT 01:29 AM (EST)

However, to ascribe these court proceedings to a "lynch mob" led by President Obama and clueless pundits at MSNBC is vastly stretching the truth. Such a statement is pure nonsense.

Really?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/doj-sends-secret-peacekeepers-where-trayvon-martin-was-killed/

Calling them "peacekeepers" is a classic example of Newspeak.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-15/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-justice-departm-20120415_1_federal-workers-racial-tensions-peacekeepers

They arranged a police escort for college students to ensure safe passage for their 40-mile march from Daytona Beach to Sanford to demand justice. . . .

"They were there for us," said the Rev. Valarie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church, a focal point for the community after the unarmed teen's death. She met the peacekeepers there for the first time during a March 20 town-hall meeting. "We felt protected," she said. . . .

They helped set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police Chief Bill Lee, said Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. . . .

Thomas Battles, the Southern regional director for Community Relations Service, arranged a Thursday meeting between Special Prosecutor Angela Corey and a group of Sanford ministers, where Corey answered questions and shared her testimony of faith.

The visit came one day after Corey announced her office charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder. He is being held at Seminole County Jail and has a bond hearing scheduled for Friday.

However, I want to be careful discussing this too much with such strong Obama supporters, because I'm sure that my opinions represent thoughtcrime, and Big Brother is listening.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by dabo on 07-11-13 at 01:57 AM

LOL

Really, the only reason there needed to be a trial was because it was such a high profile media circus from the start. And -- seriousy -- Zimmerman's irresponsible activities, not taking his lawyer's advice and so on, just amounted to making matters worse and worse. The only way to settle things, if they even could be settled, was to go ahead and go to trial and have a jury hand down a decision.

Should he have been charged with something, would he have been if not for all the nonsense? I don't know, maybe. I do think he acted recklessly when he got out of the car to give chase, he did assume Martin was one of the bad guys and he just acted rashly, irresponsibly. Martin should have just kept running home, he certainly made a bad decision as well, fear drove him to do what he did.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by cahaya on 07-11-13 at 03:01 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-11-13 AT 03:26 PM (EST)

Really?

That was the initial reaction I had to your first post. Really? Are you kiddin' me? But thanks for the additional links which provide some insight to the Federal government reaction to the events in Sanflord, Florida. Okay, so the DOJ sent an CRS team down to Sanflord, and you have a valid point, at least according to the JW post you linked to:

Though CRS purports to spot and quell racial tensions nationwide before they arise, the documents obtained by Judicial Watch show the group actively worked to foment unrest, spending thousands of taxpayer dollars on travel and hotel rooms to train protestors throughout Florida. The peacekeepers also met with officials of the Republican National Convention, scheduled for several months later in Tampa, to warn them to expect protests in connection with Martin’s death.

And then we have the local Baptist vigilantes with a nine-point plan to oust the local police chief:

Judicial Watch also obtained an audio recording of a “community meeting” held at Second Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Sanford on April 19, 2012. The meeting, which opens with a gospel hymn and organ music, is reported to have led to the official ouster of Sanford’s Police Chief Bill Lee. A week earlier, a group calling themselves the “Dream Defenders” had barricaded the entrance to the police department demanding he be fired for failing to file murder charges against Zimmerman. The church meeting produced a nine-point plan, the main demand being the firing of Chief Lee.

But nowhere have I seen or read of any direct reference to President Obama in instigating these actions, a direct counterclaim to your statement. The Federal bureaucracy (including the DOJ bureaucracy) is so massive that it is hardly possible for a sitting President to significantly influence, much less manage, all of it.

Yes, I voted for Obama, because I felt the alternative (in both elections) was unacceptable. I am not a great supporter of his, but I am even less a supporter of our dysfunctional Congress and the runaway Federal bureaucracy that makes his job even harder to accomplish effectively.

I am not accusing you of "thoughtcrime", but let's just be honest with each other about the actual facts and then we can debate and either agree or disagree about the next advisable course of action. Meanwhile, "Big Brother" NSA continues to collect our e-mail and phone records and who knows what all else.

And kids are being shot and killed every day on the American city streets. So why is this case so important, apart from the media that puts a sensational spotlight on it?

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Snidget on 07-11-13 at 03:52 PM

That is always the question of why certain trials get the excessive coverage and others do not.

I just wonder what Zimmerman's media whore friend is going to do once the trial is over. He has been on a bazillion shows every night. I think if he really cared about Zimmerman as much as he claims he does he would tone it down or shut up a bit.

I know it isn't always fair to judge someone by their friends, but I'm shocked his friend hasn't shot someone live on camera during some of these shows. Luckily most of the people on the panels are all in different studios.

Although you never know if these friends are really all that close, or just someone who is willing to do anything to get on TV and have an opportunity to rant in public.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by cahaya on 07-11-13 at 04:11 PM

Although you never know if these friends are really all that close, or just someone who is willing to do anything to get on TV and have an opportunity to rant in public.

Yup, it's the classic case (pun intended as an afterthought) of a DAW whose "five minutes of fame" or maybe even five hours of media attention will pass and vanish into history as the world moves on.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by foonermints on 07-11-13 at 09:13 PM

Can't we all just get along?
/ Rodney

Handcrafted by RollDdice
Hey! Where's the famous quote? Where's ol' Hans nailing his complaints to the church door? Pah!
foonermints: the epitome of short-memory evil.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by cahaya on 07-11-13 at 10:02 PM

Can't we all just get along?

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by AyaK on 07-27-13 at 00:51 AM

But nowhere have I seen or read of any direct reference to President Obama in instigating these actions, a direct counterclaim to your statement. The Federal bureaucracy (including the DOJ bureaucracy) is so massive that it is hardly possible for a sitting President to significantly influence, much less manage, all of it.

Again, another reason that I stopped responding in this thread is comments like this. The federal bureaucracy wasn't any smaller when G.W. Bush was president, and it wasn't all that much smaller when Nixon was president. But somehow, no lefties have a problem blaming Bush or Nixon for anything. It's only when the topic turns to the now-defrocked man-king-God that the President is absolved from responsibility.

Baloney. Obama is certainly an incompetent, way more incompetent than Hillary or Romney (although probably not more than McCain), but the federal bureaucracy isn't that hard to manipulate. If you tell your IRS Chief Counsel appointee, "Let's get those Tea Partiers out of politics", he has the tools to do it. Similarly, if you tell your totally corrupt AG that you need a big issue to boost black turnout, he'll do . . . well, he'll do exactly what DOJ did in the Zimmerman case.

Remember, Nixon would have denied that he was responsible for any Watergate scandals, and his partisans would have defended him to the death, had he not been stupid enough to tape the conversations in the Oval Office, where he gave exactly that kind of general direction. I think Obama, despite being dumber than a box of rocks, was still smart enough not to repeat that mistake. But it doesn't make his complicity any less obvious.

---

"RE: To Kill a Mockingbird"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-27-13 at 10:30 AM

I imagine the extensive and thoughtful consultations between the White House and the Department of Justice regarding the Zimmerman/Martin case to have gone something like this:

March 23, 2012 ~

The President of the United States (to the world): 'If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon'.

The Department of Justice (in reply): 'Yes, sir! As we were saying over lunch just today, a remarkable resemblance - it's the eyes, we think - indeed!

And one that we feel confident in promising you will be duly memorialized in Florida at any moment.

Indeed, it will!'

July 19, 2013 ~

The President of the United States (to the world): 'Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago'.

The Department of Justice (in reply): ' Yes, sir! As we hope you've noticed, we've said it before and will say it again, spittin' images, indeed! A few lines here, a gray hair there, and the relationship is unmistakable. And we would also like to assure you that you need not say a word regarding the obvious. We have taken due notice of the fact that George Zimmerman looks nothing like you, sir. Nothing!

Of course, we do wish that things had gone a bit better in Florida. However, we will point out that there was an arrest and a trial. And who could have predicted that all six members of the jury would prove to be genealogically-blind?

But we will also point out that, with the blessings of a Supreme Court that has made double jeopardy a thing of the distant past, we aren't done with Mr. Zimmerman yet!

Because we do get it, sir:

Unfortunately, you may be his President, but you sure could never have been his Daddy!'

G

---

"PS"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-09-13 at 09:18 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-09-13 AT 09:20 PM (EST)

Unfortunately I do think race has a lot to do with it. Had Zimmerman been black, he'd have been arrested and there would be no interest in the trial and I suspect that had Trayvon been white he'd be easily convicted.

Here, we certainly agree. I think race had everything to do with it. But far less so to and/or with the two men involved than to and/or with the larger community. And that's why I suggested that perhaps it might shed more light on the prejudices in play (white and black) if we thought of George Zimmerman as:

A young, married African American with a stable employment and family history and an interest in law enforcement and/or the practice of law as a career. An undergraduate student who was interested and involved in the comity and security of his neighborhood and well-thought-of by his neighbors and co-workers. And who had complied with the provisions of Florida's statutes regarding responsible gun ownership and its 'concealed carry' licensing. In short, change nothing about George Zimmerman except the hue of his skin.

And change nothing about Trayvon Martin.

And I firmly believe that there would never have been an arrest. However, I don't think my conclusion is any less unfortunate than is yours.

G

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 06-30-13 at 08:17 AM

"And I am very concerned that if we continue to cast our courts and juries as scapegoats for our abject failure as individuals, families and communities to govern our impulses and ambitions sensibly, both rights will become yet another of my generation's victims - by - default. "

I agree that the fault doesn't all lie with the courts and juries, but I do feel that a lot of what is wrong with the jury/court system and how it works does sometimes make it more likely people won't govern their impulses and that people feel more and more that the only way to get justice at all of any kind is vigilante justice (which is what I see as part of the push to we gots to arm everyone because the courts won't do the job).

I, will likely never be on a jury. As a scientist I look at the forensic data with too much understanding of the nuances and will form my own opinion of the data rather than what either lawyers wants me to believe the data means. With a Ph.D. the other juries may look at me as an expert and may choose to agree with me rather than the hired experts. So I can't be trusted to do what the lawyer wants, I can't be on a jury.

I also follow the news so will fail any "don't no nothing about the case" standard.

Now occasionally one of my kind do get on juries, but seems more the Grand Jury where we only get one side and we are only asking is there enough data to go to trial, not is there reasonable doubt in what the data actually proves. After all scientists generally have pretty high standards for does this data actually prove what you want it to prove.

Although I'm sure launching into a discussion of exactly why eyewitness data is way less certain than the DNA (which is one of those geeky obsessions of mine, all the myriad ways our brains fool us into thinking we saw something that wasn't really there) probably won't make me more likely to be a juror if they ever ask anything that would get me started.

We get pissed off at what the juries decide, but how they are selected, IMO, all too often makes it almost impossible you will get wisdom out of them. So we set them up to fail and be scapegoats.

Add to that I'm shocked that some of the lawyers I see on the televised trials (I only hope the trials that aren't entertaining enough to get gavel-to-gavel coverage are better) scored well enough on the SAT to get to college much less scored well enough on the LSAT to get to law school. I would think that law firms hiring people for doing trial law would try to find someone with some tiny amount of emotional intelligence, but apparently they only want people who have no clue how people operate and mistake gimmicks for persuasion and confrontation for the sake of confrontation for reasoned argument.

Now it may be the only lawyers they can find for these televised trials are DAW's who are more concerned about getting on the evening news than the law or doing right by their client, or the people they are supposed to represent.

The problem I have is in the rush to arm everyone to the teeth (with how some of the laws are being rewritten in some areas) and the rush to make sure everyone knows that good guys with guns get to kill any bad guys they want without a chance of being prosecuted (all the stand your ground and the gun means you never have to retreat or do something other than shoot first), is not likely to reduce the number of people shot in this country.

Yep, most people are careful gun owners who keep them locked up so the kids can't get at them, or the dogs can't shoot them (way too many stories of dogs stepping on guns and shooting their owners) and would never use the thing when angry beyond reason. However, we aren't all that level-headed or wise and we have a lot of yahoos that I wouldn't trust to know when to use a water pistol getting people killed in some spectacularly stupid ways or because they were in a momentary snit.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Georjanna on 07-06-13 at 11:23 AM

LAST EDITED ON 07-06-13 AT 11:33 AM (EST)

So many juicy points! So I hope you won't mind if I tackle them a bit at a time or that I've rearranged your text a bit (keeping its context intact).

I, will likely never be on a jury. As a scientist I look at the forensic data with too much understanding of the nuances and will form my own opinion of the data rather than what either lawyers wants me to believe the data means. With a Ph.D. the other juries may look at me as an expert and may choose to agree with me rather than the hired experts. So I can't be trusted to do what the lawyer wants, I can't be on a jury …

Now occasionally one of my kind do get on juries, but seems more the Grand Jury where … we are only asking is there enough data to go to trial, not is there reasonable doubt … After all scientists generally have pretty high standards for does this data actually prove what you want it to prove.

… As evidenced by the fact that I’ve twice served as a juror in a criminal matter, I am obviously not one of your kind. Too, the fact that I’ve known too many nincompoops with PHDs in my lifetime virtually guarantees that I wouldn’t be the first of the group on the bandwagon. But with that modest – two-trial – foundation as my frame of reference:

One of the first instructions that the jurist sitting in a criminal matter would give you, a juror, is that the opening statements and closing arguments presented by the lawyers representing the State and the Defense – the two opportunities that those attorneys are given to attempt to persuade you to adopt one or the other of their opposed conclusions regarding the testimonies of both the trial’s ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ witnesses – are not evidence. So, while you are sworn to carefully receive, consider and weigh the testimony promulgated from the courtroom’s witness stand and from its exhibits, you are perfectly free to ignore the statements and arguments of the lawyers trying the case. Entirely. But don’t snore.

And, in charging you with the duty to carefully consider and weigh the evidence placed before you, the trial judge will encourage you to bring your own life experiences to bear as you decide what degree of credence and what relative importance to attach to the individual testimonies of the witnesses. To both the evidence offered as fact and the evidence offered as expert opinion.

So, after carefully receiving, considering and weighing the evidence presented to you by the trial’s – usually opposed – expert witnesses, you are free to accept/adopt or to disregard/discard any or all of their assertions and/or conclusions. And you are perfectly free to announce your decisions regarding expert testimony during deliberations with your fellow jurors and to argue the case for those decisions: so long as you and your fellow jurors confine your discussions to the parameters of the testimony that you – and they – heard from the stand.

However, your oath would require that neither you, nor any other juror, conduct undocumented, independent experiments and/or interject unsworn, independent specialized information or opinion into your deliberations.

If you can’t, you can’t, of course. But the only person whose ‘wants’ are properly the concern of a sworn or potential juror is the trial judge. And if you believe that you can faithfully execute the bench’s mandates, there is no reason why you can’t be an excellent juror. You would certainly be a welcome addition to any jury panel. Provided, of course, that you survive the competing pleas (strikes for cause) and preferences (peremptory strikes) of the Prosecution and Defense during voir dire.

But that, given this, might be difficult:

I'm sure launching into a discussion of exactly why eyewitness data is way less certain than the DNA … probably won't make me more likely to be a juror.

However, if I were a trial attorney opposed by a Prosecution or Defense armed with really compelling eyewitness testimony and I had only far less than compelling – adequate but not transparently conclusive – DNA results with which to counter it, I would move heaven and earth to seat you.

Note: It is amazing how easy it becomes, in the insular world of a courtroom, to honor your pledge to follow the trial judge’s instructions to the letter.

Note: The source of extracurricular ‘expert testimony’ can be surprising. For instance:

In one of the two trials in which I served as a juror, the question was whether or not the admittedly-inebriated and ultimately-beaten-to-a-pulp defendant was guilty of resisting arrest and/or of assaulting two very substantial WV State Troopers. And, for reasons too convoluted to summarize here, the pivotal testimony improperly submitted to the jury during its deliberations was the thoroughly convincing observations and opinions of a thoroughly professional tow truck operator.

Voila! Mistrial!

And as far as I know, not one of the eleven other members of the jury panel, or the trial judge, or the defendant, or the prosecution or defense attorneys, or the numerous witnesses – all pretty impressed but also all pretty pissed – inquired, before or after the fact of our wasted days (or months), about his academic
credentials ...

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-06-13 at 12:06 PM

I've just know a few people (usually in the counties surrounding a island of experts) who have basically given their name as Dr. Blahdy blah, and field of expertise and gotten immediately dismissed.

Usually when I've known scientists on juries either the county has so many of them you run out of opportunities to toss them off the jury before you run out of scientists, or like I said they get on Grand Juries where you only really see one side and the "they have some reasonably compelling evidence" is a lot different than "beyond reasonable doubt".

And generally a Ph.D. just means you don't have the good sense God gave a turnip to know when to up and quit.

I do understand the concern that my opinion of the science of a case may hold more weight with some people than it might if I had a different profession. Even if I don't add any evidence to it and just say who I think is a misguided idiot or torturing the data to give a predetermined result. (and I've seen enough trial coverage that I'm sure I'll have that opinion of at least one of the scientific experts, possibly all of them.).

I think the other problem with scientists even when we don't have specific knowledge of the testing procedures. We do have a reputation of being opinionated and hard to persuade if we think we have the data on our side. I agree it can depend on if one side or the other thinks we will agree with their expert, and thinks the other people might follow our lead.

I do agree that expert testimony on the jury can come from some surprising places. Most everyone has something where they have a depth of knowledge that could effect the results.

Back to this trial, I think it is interesting how much what seems to me to be rather sketchy eye/ear witness testimony that is being presented (of course that is about all they have and they do have to present something). I do wonder if either of them had any clue about what to do/say to manipulate the eye witness testimony. It is fairly well known in some of the self-defense/martial arts circles I've taken classes with that if you do decide that the best defense is a good offense there are things you can yell before you sucker punch the person you are eventually going to have to beat up that will have at least half the people swear they saw him on top of you punching you in the face first. Just avoid having to testify about what happened in the moment before everyone turned around to look.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by cahaya on 07-06-13 at 12:24 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-06-13 AT 12:27 PM (EST)

And eyewitness testimony has proven to be highly unreliable. Sometimes people's memories change, consciously or subconsciously, often with internal biases or external influences.

Here we have, in trial testimony, two moms who both claim the recorded call for help comes from their own son, and yet the voice can only come from one of them.

You would think that voice recognition software (developed by PhD's themselves) would settle the issue. Surely the voice patterns of the defendant and the victim vary enough to make a clear distinction between the two.

Sherlocked by agman.

Help!

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Georjanna on 07-06-13 at 12:54 PM

Straight from the Bench

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-06-13 at 12:59 PM

I believe the issue with the science on the voice data, is there wasn't some very well established proven technique for doing it. And once you have one side or the other paying the bills for the analysis there is always a concern about the data torture thing I mentioned.

I thought that was why they didn't let it in. A lot of the comparing this to that and how many points of comparison has to match isn't all that well studied for a lot of things. I think that the one Ph.D. had a serious number of hours trying to figure it out could add to the appearance of data torture vs just running a routine, well-established protocol.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by AyaK on 07-26-13 at 07:38 PM

For the most part, I decided to sit this thread out once the trial started. But from my viewpoint, the debate over the scientific evidence was the most significant part of the trial.

After a number of high-profile but ridiculous verdicts beased on fanciful "scientific testimony" (best exemplified by the "link" between silicone breast implants and autoimmune disease -- despite the fact that autoimmune disease occurred in similar proportions among women who HAD silicone breast implants and women who DID BOT HAVE silicone breast implants), the federal courts adopted a new standard for the admission of scientific testimony, referred to as the Daubert standard. The Daubert standard basically required that scientific information introduced in expert testimony had to be falsifiable and backed by established scientific research, not just a theory of a paid partisan.

For years in fiction, from James Bond to science fiction, we've seen people get admission into locked rooms by saying their names and having their voices recognized by a computer. But it's not true and has never been true. "Voice print recognition" is one of the absolute hardest areas of scientific advancement. (I have a friend who is a research scientist at Nuance, the company that makes Dragon voice-recognition software for computers, who would totally agree with that statement.) Under current technology, the idea that someone could definitively identify a speaker based on a small voice sample taken under stress is simply preposterous, which is what the court ultimately concluded (even though Florida has never officially adopted the Daubert standard).

Frankly, once the judge agreed to keep the pseudoscience out, I expected nothing other than the result that the jury reached.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-27-13 at 10:51 AM

Something about my voice seems to be unrecognizable by most of the voice recognition, or at least the phone tree versions of it.

Please just let me punch a damn button on the phone the first time and not have to try to say yes in a way you actually understand fifteen different times before you say allow me to press one for yes. Of course getting frustrated and gritting my teeth while I grunt at the phone after the 4th failed attempt makes me so much easier to understand.

Unfortunately we decide that people can listen and make a decision about who it is, even if they aren't falsifiable and prone to bias testify as to who they think a voice that no science can distinguish.

Now I know some things humans are better at than machines (why we use human noses in blind smelling tests and not just machine sniffers) but at least in science we blind the person doing the smelling becasue we know that if they think something is a particular something that will change their answer as well as if they think the researcher wants to hear that the something is a particular something that will also change their answer.

But that is my whole we assume humans on the stand have perfect recall and no biases and their testimony is the absolute truth. With science at least we can quantify most of the biases and uncertainties, or at least document the settings and show how they repeatably effect the results.

I'd really love to see them do a sound booth randomization of 6 different people recorded under similar conditions screaming the same thing and see who picks out the actual 911 call as the person they said it was when they just have one recording to listen to. But then I think we often rely more than we should on the memories of eye/ear witnesses.

---

"hah!"
Posted by foonermints on 07-28-13 at 09:43 AM

! Ayak said "beased BOT"

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by cahaya on 07-29-13 at 05:46 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-29-13 AT 05:48 PM (EST)

What is amazing to me is the fact that we as human beings with our brain learning can easily recognize the voice of another person. For example, if you replayed the voice of my best friend, I would recognize it instantly. I think this ingrained into us from early childhood, perhaps even in the womb beginning with our mother's voice.

It is obviously a major challenge to replicate this voice learning process in computer software, because our (brain) software is so different in structure and process in recognizing voice, having evolved for so many generations.

Thus, I do agree with Ayak's assertion that computer software alone cannot make a distinction between two people who a human's voice is, even while another human easily can. The problem in this case is that two people both assert that they know whose voice they heard, and one of them is clearly, and possibly intentionally, incorrect. This is part of what the jury had to decide upon.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-29-13 at 06:05 PM

And sometimes even when you are very familiar with a voice it can be hard to be certain, especially when it isn't live and may not be recorded with anything approaching good sound equipment.

My best friend had a brother and on the phone it was impossible for a long time to tell who was whom.

At least until he hit the age where his voice changed, then it was easy to tell him apart from his sister. I don't know which embarrassed him more. All the times I called him by his sister's name or how happy I sounded when his voice finally dropped down to it's adult pitch.

Humans are notoriously unreliable under a lot of situations even for things most of us know that under other circumstances we can do a good job of sorting things out. I'd still feel better if they had them listen to 6 recordings and have to pick out which one was the person they know than just listen to one they know is the person they want to be innocent. Even though when they do it with pictures they can alter your memory to the point you can't see any face but the one that you end up pointing out in court. Even when years later the DNA sets that guy free and you know the face of the person who did the bad thing to you.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by dabo on 07-29-13 at 06:26 PM

Humans are notoriously unreliable under a lot of situations ...

For example, both mothers could honestly believe it was their son yelling for help, both are telling the truth about what they believe.

Even eye witnesses can get details wrong, and sometimes worse things happen. From what I read one of the 911 callers that night was a teenager who was out walking his dog. He was pressured under questioning to decide whether the person on top had on a red or a dark top, even though it was dark and he couldn't tell (some reds and black can look the same in the dark). His parents eventually felt compelled to object to him being called to the stand.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Georjanna on 07-06-13 at 04:02 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-07-13 AT 12:41 PM (EST)

Back to this trial, I think it is interesting how much what seems to me to be rather sketchy eye/ear witness testimony that is being presented (of course that is about all they have and they do have to present something). I do wonder if either of them had any clue about what to do/say to manipulate the eye witness testimony. It is fairly well known in some of the self-defense/martial arts circles I've taken classes with that if you do decide that the best defense is a good offense there are things you can yell before you sucker punch the person you are eventually going to have to beat up that will have at least half the people swear they saw him on top of you punching you in the face first. Just avoid having to testify about what happened in the moment before everyone turned around to look.

Mark O'Mara refers to this portion of the State's scattershot theory of the case as (and I'm paraphrasing) 'George, The Master Murderer'. And what you suggest is pretty much what the State contends:

That his (Pre-Law) Criminal Justice coursework, keen interest in Law/Law Enforcement as a career path - and the fact that his medical records (then current - February/March, 2012) revealed that he was participating in (or had participated in) an 'Aerobic' MMA program in an effort to address his clinical obesity - worked together to afford him the expertise to successfully stage the evening's very fluid and (of course) murderous events - this is, after all, one of the State's stories - to make it appear as though he was defending himself against an aggressive Trayvon Martin (as opposed to the other way 'round) and to game the subsequent police interviews. Including:

His seemingly spontaneous 'Thank God!' - the police interviewer said under oath that he appeared to be genuinely elated - when he was told - falsely - that the entire altercation had been captured in video on Trayvon Martin's mobile phone.

And although the result will not be introduced in the trial, he also passed a voice stress test administered by the Sanford PD a few hours after the altercation.

Note: It is my understanding that Mr. Martin had also participated in MMA. ETA: But I do not know that to be fact.

---

"Some good places to find the facts."
Posted by Graciela Mercedes on 06-28-13 at 03:59 PM

Not to be rude or anything, but there are some good blogs that have much better info than what i see here.

You might try

talkleft.com or legalinsurrection.com.

For example, today Andrew Branca reports at
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-blockbuster-transcript-eyewitness-good-black-guy-in-black-hoodie-on-top-punching-down-mixed-martial-arts-style//#more

that "Indeed, as has become the pattern in this trial, the longer the State’s witness was in the stand, the more damage he did to the State’s theory of the case. The continually growing climax was realized at the very end of the testimony, when O’Mara held a copy of Good’s initial statement to then-lead Investigator Chris Serino (a transcript of is provided below):

O’Mara: Just to clarify what was actually talked about with Chris Serino, Investigator Serino, during this, we’re going to call it for the moment the Ground-and-Pound conversation. We have a rule called completeness, so what I want to do is put it in context for you, ask you if this is what you said to Chris Serino. OK?

“Yeah I pretty much heard somebody yelling outside. I wasn’t sure if it was, you know, a fight or something going wrong. So I opened my blinds and I see kind of like a person out there. I didn’t know if it was a dog attack or something. So I open my door. It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other, either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help! And I tried to tell them, get out of here, you know, stop or whatever, and then one guy on top in the black hoodie was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”

Is that the context in which that happened?

Good: Yes.

O’Mara: And then Investigator Serino said, a word that I have, and the transcripts may differ, ground, couldn’t figure it, maybe he said Ground-and-Pound, and then you said:

“Yeah, like a Ground-and-Pound on the concrete at this point, so at this point I told him I’m calling 911.”

BDLR: Objection. Improper bolstering.

O’Mara: I’m at the end of it. Is that–

Judge: There’s an objection and the objection is . . .

BDLR: Hearsay and improper bolstering

O’Mara: I would suggest that rule 108, which is the rule of completeness, suggests that because they brought in part of it . . . and iI’m speaking, I apologize.

Judge: The objection as to hearsay is overruled. Bolstering is not the right objection either, so that’s OK.

BDLR: Beyond the scope of cross-examination to that point

Judge: I overrule on that objection, also, so go ahead.

O’Mara: That’s what you said.

Good: The whole thing, yes

O’Mara: And that was the context in which the words Ground-and-Pound came out.

Good: Yes, for more clarification.

O’Mara: OK. And do you stand by that today, that what you saw is was a Ground-and-Pound event?

Good: It looked like that position was a Ground-and-Pound type of position, but I couldn’t tell 100% that there were actually fists hitting faces.

O’Mara: But you did see “the guy in the top in the black hoodie pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”

Good: Meaning arm motions going down on the person on the bottom. Correct.

O’Mara: You’re’ not going to tell the jury here today that you saw fists hit flesh or face if you didn’t actually see it, right?

Good: I wouldn’t tell them that anyway, because i didn’t actually see it.

O’Mara: Great, thanks very much , no further questions.

BDLR: Not to elaborate but the thing that Mr. O’Mara said from the transcript, the bottom line, you needed to clarify after that to make sure that everybody understood that you did not hear or see fists the guy on the top hitting the guy on the bottom.

Good: Both sides made me clarify.

BDLR: Is that correct?

Good: That’s correct.

BDLR: You did not see blows on the guy on the bottom, correct?

Good: Correct

BDLR: Thank you, no further questions.

---

"RE: Some good places to find the facts."
Posted by Graciela Mercedes on 06-28-13 at 04:01 PM

BTW, I'm a long-time lurker. Just never had cause to come out of the shadows.

---

"RE: Some good places to find the facts."
Posted by dabo on 06-28-13 at 06:14 PM

Welcome aboard.

---

"RE: Some good places to find the facts."
Posted by Graciela Mercedes on 06-28-13 at 06:53 PM

Gracias.

---

"RE: Some good places to find the facts."
Posted by Georjanna on 06-28-13 at 07:48 PM

LAST EDITED ON 06-29-13 AT 00:23 AM (EST)

Welcome! I appreciate your contribution and I am so glad that you've decided to join us.

I have already admitted to an increasingly rare quirk: I actually watch trials. Unedited. And I find it increasingly disturbing that both the formal and social media coverage of those trials is often far removed from the truth of what happened in the courtroom - from what information and instruction a Jury actually had and what experiences its members actually encountered as they examined evidence and formed a verdict.

Not just because of the dishonesty that the disconnect evidences, but because so many more casual observers now jump to conclusions of bias, prejudice, ill will, undue haste or ignorance where those things did not exist - where, in fact, there were only six (or twelve) good men and women doing their dead-level best to perform an honest and honorable service to their community.

And I am very afraid that, no matter the verdict, The State of Florida v George Zimmerman will be one of those trials.

So, I'll remind everyone that by clicking here, you can access literal and complete coverage of the proceedings in an archived format - current within hours of the Court's recess each day - that allows the viewer to watch the trial from a Juror's perspective. But in his or her own good time.

Hopefully, we'll all finish the last installment before deciding whether to applaud - or excoriate - this Jury.

Note: There is a Fast Forward feature to deal with bench conferences and other tedium ...

---

"y,know"
Posted by foonermints on 06-29-13 at 01:59 AM

Graciela seems pretty nice.

btw: Do you intern for Ayak? I sure hope it is for 90K a year.

---

"RE: y,know"
Posted by Georjanna on 06-29-13 at 07:29 AM

I think you're right.

I don't really know Ayak. But if a $90,000 internship
is at stake, I'm, for sure, the woman for the job.

: Benefits not required. Entitlement funding.

---

"Double swoop block!"
Posted by cahaya on 07-05-13 at 07:40 PM

An aye for an aye!

Piracy on the high seas and flying of the Jolly Roger by agman

---

"RE: Double swoop block!"
Posted by Georjanna on 07-05-13 at 08:24 PM

Durn!

---

"RE: Double swoop block!"
Posted by Snidget on 07-05-13 at 08:39 PM

Just don't wear your hood up in the rain and carry a pack of skittles when you try to pull that kind of stunt!

---

"Defense Rests"
Posted by dabo on 07-10-13 at 07:12 PM

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/10/19395261-defense-rests-in-zimmerman-trial-zimmerman-doesnt-take-the-stand?lite>1=43001

George does not take the stand in his own defense.

---

"RE: Defense Rests"
Posted by cahaya on 07-10-13 at 07:31 PM

Based on everything that has reported in the trial so far, I think this jury is going to have a very difficult time reaching a consensus for a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" for voluntary manslaughter. The case would be much stronger for involuntary manslaughter, but that's not what is on the docket.

Perhaps Zimmerman was overzealous in his actions (with his obvious desire to be a wannabe cop), particularly against a minority youth who apparently did not belong in the neighborhood, who in fact had reason to be there.

It still does not take away from the tragedy of an altercation and a killing, with a loss of life that was completely unnecessary.

Foo dogs by tribe

---

"RE: Defense Rests"
Posted by Snidget on 07-10-13 at 07:45 PM

I heard some of the discussion about the jury instructions. They may also be trying to include aggravated assault and some discharge of a firearm type of charge.

Don't know if they will get to include all of them. Sounded like they did the stuff they can easily agree on today and will battle out the things that they object to in the morning.

---

"RE: Defense Rests"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 07-11-13 at 01:23 PM

I didn't have time to watch at all but what I was wondering is what happen in the 17 minutes after he hung up with 911 and the beginning of the residents 911 calls. I think it was 21 minutes after the 911 operator said he didn't have to follow him and he said ok. I would have liked to see a map of where he was at that time and where they ended up.

I understand now there was no "formal" neighborhood watch program so him carrying his weapon then was not against the cops neighborhood watch training.

Now that they added the possibility of manslaughter or aggregated assault I think they'll get him on the manslaughter charge as the state did a horrible job in showing 2nd degree murder not that the defense did a great job defending him either. I think both sides sucked.

sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

---

"RE: Defense Rests"
Posted by Snidget on 07-11-13 at 02:03 PM

From this information it was more like 5 minutes from the OK to the Resident's calls

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

* 7:11:59 — In reply to the dispatcher's question, "Are you following him?" Zimmerman says, "Yes." Dispatcher states, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replies, "OK."

* 7:16:11 — First 911 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.<18>

* 7:16:55 — Gunshot heard on 911 call.<19>

at 7:30 is about the time Trayvon was pronounced dead at the scene.

---

"RE: Defense Rests"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 07-11-13 at 03:00 PM

Maybe wiki is off....but the little that I saw the other day was Z's lawyer say it was 17 minutes.....maybe I miss heard it. Still that's a lot of time and would like to see where he said he was then vs. where it all went down. I think he continued to look for him thus again I can see manslaughter voted on by the jury.

sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

---

"RE: Defense Rests"
Posted by cahaya on 07-11-13 at 03:33 PM

Latest from CNN:

Judge Debra Nelson ruled Thursday that jurors will be allowed to consider manslaughter instead of the original second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman. But she denied prosecutors' request to let the jurors also consider third-degree felony murder in their deliberations.

So it looks like the jury has the option to revert the murder charge to manslaughter. Wow, how would you want to sit on this jury, national media attention and choice of charges to bring to the defendant?

---

"RE: Defense Rests"
Posted by dabo on 07-11-13 at 04:10 PM

SOP, the lesser option of manslaughter was going to be allowed if the prosecution requested it. The other option, 3rd degree felony murder, was a longshot.

---

"RE: Defense Rests"
Posted by AyaK on 07-26-13 at 07:49 PM

The case would be much stronger for involuntary manslaughter, but that's not what is on the docket.

Actually, it wouldn't. Involuntary manslaughter requires an unintentional act. Voluntary manslaughter is the correct charge for an intentional act. If the prosecution had tried to charge Zimmerman with involuntary manslaughter, the judge would have directed a verdict of acquittal.

The problem with the voluntary manslaughter charge is that provocation is a mitigating and potentially exculpatory factor, and having a gash in the back of your skull is a very effective way of showing provocation.

Also note that, despite Obama's incompetent mewing otherwise, "stand your ground" was never a part of the defense as presented by Zimmerman's lawyers.

---

"Jury Question on Manslaughter"
Posted by Snidget on 07-13-13 at 06:56 PM

So the thinking is that they have decided probably not 2nd degree murder.

But the court basically just said we need a specific question. They are going to send the note back and see what happens.

---

"RE: Jury Question on Manslaughter"
Posted by dabo on 07-13-13 at 08:48 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-13-13 AT 09:57 PM (EST)

Meanwhile, Geraldo has weighed in again with some more of his patended brand of madness, saying any of the women on the jury would have shot the tall, dark, hoodied Treyvon quicker than Zimmerman did. Can't decide whether he is genuinely hoodiephobic or is that a cover because he's pro-Hispanic no matter what.

---

"RE: Jury Question on Manslaughter"
Posted by Snidget on 07-13-13 at 09:13 PM

He's nuts. They wouldn't have shot him. They would have stayed in their car and ran him over if need be.

---

"Verdict in"
Posted by Snidget on 07-13-13 at 10:00 PM

16 hours of deliberation.

George Zimmerman Not Guilty.

Poll the jury. yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes

---

"RE: Verdict in"
Posted by cahaya on 07-13-13 at 10:38 PM

Story here.

The jurors deliberated for 16½ hours total, including 13 on Saturday alone, before delivering their verdict...

Earlier in the day, the jury had asked the court for clarification on its instructions regarding manslaughter. The jury couldn't have even posed such a query a few days ago: Judge Debra Nelson ruled Thursday, over the defense's vehement objection, to include manslaughter as an option for jurors, in addition to a second-degree murder charge.

To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the jurors would have had to believe that he "intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin."

---

"RE: Verdict in"
Posted by Brownroach on 07-13-13 at 10:43 PM

I'm not sure which outcome would have been better for Zimmerman.

---

"RE: Verdict in"
Posted by dabo on 07-13-13 at 10:46 PM

I hope the trial put him through hell, at any rate. He deserved that hell.

---

"RE: Verdict in"
Posted by AyaK on 07-14-13 at 00:48 AM

Why? Certainly not based on the facts. Maybe based on your prejudices?

---

"RE: Verdict in"
Posted by cahaya on 07-14-13 at 00:55 AM

Another side to the story of the prosecution's handling of this case, with the firing of director of information technology for the State Attorney's Office.

An employee of the Florida State Attorney's Office who testified that prosecutors withheld evidence from George Zimmerman's defense team has been fired.

Kruidbos said that, when he printed a 900-page Florida Department of Law Enforcement report from Martin's cell phone in late 2012 or early 2013, he noticed information was missing. Concerned that attorneys did not have all the information they needed to prepare the case, he said, he reported his concerns to a State Attorney's Office investigator and later to prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.

Kruidbos said he generated a report that was more than three times the size of the one that had been handed over. For example, Kruidbos said that 2,958 photos were in the report given to the defense but that his report contained 4,275 photos. Kruidbos also said that he has been told to not put specific case-identifying information into internal e-mails.

Through his attorney, Wesley White, Kruidbos informed Zimmerman's defense team that the information existed. In court, Kruidbos testified that he was concerned that he could be held liable if all information wasn't shared. "All the information is important in the process to ensure it's a fair trial," he said.

---

"RE: Verdict in"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 07-14-13 at 07:51 AM

Maybe because Z is the only one who knows what really went down and the Prosecution did a horrible job presenting this case. As I've said I would have wanted to know what happen and where he went during that 5 minutes he was told not to follow T. Plus I guess I'm too into forensics from TV showing that can find an explanation of even a magic bullet but they couldn't tell us where everyone was when the shot was fired here.

I do think manslaughter might have been the right conviction but I don't think the Prosecution even proved that.

I'm sure there will be a civil trail (if allowed under Fla law) and Z's life will be hell for the rest of his life.

sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

---

"NAACP call for civil trial"
Posted by cahaya on 07-14-13 at 09:06 AM

I'm sure there will be a civil trail (if allowed under Fla law) and Z's life will be hell for the rest of his life.

Yup, the NAACP is calling for the feds (DOJ) to file civil rights charges. And the DOJ has already been involved prior to the trial (see Ayak's post 236 above).

The NAACP site seems to be down or way overloaded at the moment, but the NAACP statement reads:

The Department of Justice has closely monitored the State of Florida’s prosecution of the case against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin murder since it began. Today, with the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is time for the Department of Justice to act.

The most fundamental of civil rights—the right to life—was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin. We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation.

Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today.

---

"RE: NAACP call for civil trial"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 07-14-13 at 10:36 AM

What really sticks out the most to me is the five (or seventeen, depending on which source you believe) minutes that lapsed in between Zimmerman being told not to follow Martin any more and the actual shooting. I cannot believe that Zimmerman was not being held culpable in any way at all in that regard.

I find it plausible that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense and felt threatened in his mind in some manner, but he was specifically told not to follow Martin any more and he acknowledged that. Why isn't he being held responsible in some manner for that? Bottom line, I think Martin is still alive today if Zimmerman respected what the operator told him.

I will be interested in seeing how the civil trial unfolds - will it be O.J. part II?

---

"Brother's comment..."
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 07-14-13 at 11:18 AM

Zimmerman's brother on those who disagree with the verdict:

"There are people that would want to take the law into their own hands...be vigilantes."

Uhhh, okay.

---

"RE: Brother's comment..."
Posted by foonermints on 07-14-13 at 12:41 PM

Replying to your own post: a sure sign of sanity.

---

"Follow Authourity?"
Posted by foonermints on 07-14-13 at 11:51 AM

»I think Martin is still alive today if Zimmerman respected what the operator told him.<«>

Remember:
In the United States it's like herding cats.

---

"RE: NAACP call for civil trial"
Posted by kingfish on 07-14-13 at 02:33 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-14-13 AT 02:40 PM (EST)

Nope. I'm willing to bet that there will be a lot of talk and millions spent on bother and blather within the DOJ, but no DOJ civil rights case will go to court.

I think it's disgusting that an unarmed young man can go to the store at night in his neighborhood and be killed by an overzealous self-important gun toting neighborhood watcher.

I think it's disgusting that that isn't some kind of crime in and of itself.

I think it's disgusting that there are self important members of the black community that try to advance this as a race crime, and as further evidence that this country still is prejudiced against them.

And I think it's disgusting that we can't accept that this case was tried in a fair and legal court with the prosecutions case on the specific legal issues being found wanting, and the defendant being found innocent.

---

"RE: NAACP call for civil trial"
Posted by foonermints on 07-15-13 at 12:36 PM

I'm adding my disgust just on general principle.
And what's with the disgusting NAACP with the attitude of "Keep tryin' 'em until you can fry 'em?"

As a fish, you must be even more disgusted with that attitude!

disgusting!
"Hang 'Em High" foonermints

---

"RE: Verdict in"
Posted by foonermints on 07-14-13 at 09:37 AM

Here comes another south central LA riot!

We riot about everything!

---

"RE: Verdict in"
Posted by dabo on 07-14-13 at 02:36 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-15-13 AT 01:16 PM (EST)

>Why? Certainly not based on
>the facts. Maybe based
>on your prejudices?

Yes, my prejudice against stupidity, but based in fact.

Zimmerman acted irresponsibly. Had he not been packing he would probably have acted with more rationality. His own words recorded on his call to the police and in statements afterward -- before Trayvon had been identified and it was known he was just walking home from the store -- do prove that Zimmerman did profile him. Not racial profiling, "a-hole" profiling, he in his head tried and convicted Trayvon of being up to no good.

Had either party tried talking to each other before the altercation none of this stuff would ever have gone the way it did and it certainly wouldn't have been newsworthy. George yells out, "Hey, neighborhood watch here, can I help you find an address or something?" or Trayvon calls out, "Listen, creepy stalker, I'm on the phone to someone, you keep following me I'm going to start yelling RAPE!" -- no one ends up dead.

So, best case scenario out of all this, George has been put through hell and learned his lesson and this is treated by everyone as an object lesson in don't be stupid.

---

"RE: Verdict in"
Posted by Snidget on 07-14-13 at 03:13 PM

One of my concerns about the everyone should be packing heat all the time and no one ever has to back down or retreat ever for any reason, is that it does change how people in general may approach a confrontation.

Too many of us don't do confrontation all that well to start with, and we don't do good with assessing risk and most of us probably could stand to be more cautious, not less cautious when it comes to interactions with others.

And sure, plenty of people are cautious and careful and unlikely to shoot first, but there are enough hot heads that shouldn't be running around with lethal means on them most of the time.

If the two guys in the "other cases" post I made get off, I think we may have to worry more about a free for all.

and I may need to rethink my responses to people who tailgate and flash their lights. Pulled out in front of one person in the hole in traffic I finally got and guess they didn't like that so came up on my bumper than flashed their lights at me. So I start looking for the first place to pull off and get out of their way, but they back off quite a distance behind and we go past several good pull offs and a few good passing zones. Then they pull up on my bumper again and start flashing lights at me. It wasn't a good place to pull over, but I could without going in the ditch so pulled over as quickly as was safe. Instead of passing me they came to a dead stop.

I'm guessing I'm lucky they didn't shoot me. I rolled down the window than waved them past and they didn't seem to want to pass me, but I didn't want to be in front of them annoying them any more. So they finally pulled past. Drove the exact same speed I was going the entire time I was in front of them and then turned off the road about 2 miles down the road.

Usually that is my response, to get the heck out of your way if you are so disturbed by me to keep flashing lights and acting like that. But does that just make it easier for them to shoot me. I'm not going to drive 80 mph or more on wet roads to get away from them. I figure that just gets them to chase me.

*sigh*

---

"RE: Verdict in"
Posted by kingfish on 07-14-13 at 11:00 PM

Same thing happened to me Friday morning. Except that the hole in traffic was a little smaller than my car and the guy was forced to back off. He was upset, but it's a time honored maneuver, and I had him.

I just ignored his horn and tailgating, and he finally went away.

---

"Beware tailgating Rabbis"
Posted by kingfish on 07-15-13 at 10:53 AM

LAST EDITED ON 07-15-13 AT 10:53 AM (EST)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/15/ny-rabbi-accused-impersonating-police-officer/?test=latestnews

Calling 911 is a good option, but one would think that pulling off to do so would be a mistake. First, you should give him/her time to cool off, and second, police need time to respond, and if the road rager is actually dangerous allowing him/her to stop and confront you is a bad idea.

But beware those Road Raging Rabbis, they could be armed with knives, and might attempt a roadside Bris on a man or a woman.

---

"RE: Beware tailgating Rabbis"
Posted by cahaya on 07-15-13 at 05:18 PM

About 30 years or so (early 80's) while I was working in Indy downtown, I had to cross a not-so-pleasant neighborhood during evening rush hour back home. Well, I made a slight driver error in switching lanes in front of a classic Delta 88, mint condition, done up in style with chrome rims and bumpers and mirros. My fault, yes, definitely my fault, sorry about that, buddy, my mistake. But then the 88 swept up to the left of me in the dual lane road and the passenger dude pulls out what looks like a .38 revolver. He's got a clean shot, just feet away.

Woah! I stepped on the gas and they high-tailed me the whole way, with the guy with the gun hanging it out the window, them on the left, me on the right, with the gunner having a clear line-of-sight to take a shot.

Without even thinking about it, almost instinctively, just a step ahead of them, I crossed over the double yellow line into the empty on-coming traffic lanes (it being evening rush hour) to put myself to the left of them, with the guy having the gun having to fire across his own vehicle. They chased me at about 70 in a 40 zone, and I didn't give a damn about a cop spotting us (and giving me a ticket for going 70 in 40 in the wrong lane), in fact, I was hoping so.

Increasing speed, already on the wrong side of the double yellow line, I picked up about 30 yards on them and blazed through a newly lit red light across a major intersection (the notorious 38th Street light at MLK Road), and they were screwed because cross traffic was already moving into their left turn lights, oblivious of the high-speed chase coming into the intersection. Due to split second timing of the lights, I managed to break them off, seeing them very suddenly stopped at the intersection fast-disappearing behind me in the rear-view mirror.

Now if you really want to profile, who'd be driving a shiny, classic Delta 88 back then?

---

"RE: Beware tailgating Rabbis"
Posted by foonermints on 07-15-13 at 05:35 PM

We are still looking for you, Cahaya.

signed: Lucky Luciano

---

"RE: Verdict in"
Posted by dabo on 07-15-13 at 02:53 PM

In Florida I could see him being able to go to the Cuban communities if he would need to for his own safety. Mexican or Puerto Rican communities elsewhere. But he's a minority even amongst most Hispanics in the US, his father is white and his mother Peruvian.

---

"Failure of law."
Posted by Estee on 07-14-13 at 11:24 AM

In the sense that ultimately, there is no Florida statue allowing a jury to convict George Zimmerman of being an willful idiot.

---

"RE: Failure of law."
Posted by foonermints on 07-14-13 at 12:13 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-14-13 AT 12:35 PM (EST)

untrained willful idiot. Good thing he didn't get on the police force.

I've met a few LAPD who slipped through the cracks. Scary!

I've decided I like cowgirls

---

"RE: Failure of law."
Posted by kingfish on 07-14-13 at 02:24 PM

Murderous, overzealous, bigoted, untrained willful idiot.

---

"RE: Failure of law."
Posted by foonermints on 07-14-13 at 02:38 PM

He could have just whacked him with bear spray. Done it myself.

What would I do? Tear some idiot in half with an A4? Rules of engagement are different.

It's all about discipline. _{nevermind the tequila .}

---

"Other Stand your Ground Cases In FL."
Posted by Snidget on 07-14-13 at 01:27 PM

Just for compare and contrast.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/324906/19/Fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots

They felt stand her ground didn't count when firing a warning shot at allegedly abusive husband.

Cases pending.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/justice/florida-music-shootinghttp://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/justice/florida-music-shooting

He heard threats over the loud music and thought he saw a gun. We will see how this plays out when it goes to trial.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/michael-jock-pizza-shop-shooting-case-randall-white-shot-during-little-caesars-pizza-shop-argument

Two Guys, a Gun and a Pizza Place?

---

"RE: Other Stand your Ground Cases In FL."
Posted by newsomewayne on 07-24-13 at 12:34 PM

Your use of "other" seems to indicate that "stand-your-ground" is what this case was based on.

Unless you meant his trial-by-media, it wasn't.

---

"Failure of law -- B29"
Posted by dabo on 07-25-13 at 05:56 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-25-13 AT 08:24 PM (EST)

Juror B29 is talking now, she says Zimmerman got away with murder but there wasn't enough evidence to convict him under Florida law.

http://news.msn.com/us/zimmerman-juror-b29-i-owe-martins-parents-an-apology

)sigh(

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with. But the law couldn't prove it."

When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so. I felt like this was a publicity stunt."

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Estee on 07-15-13 at 07:10 AM

I had a several-minute pause during whodunnit when my local ABC station broke in to cover an extremely peaceful verdict protest in Times Square, with most of the story dedicated to how just very peaceful that protest was while still managing to destroy traffic on most of the island anyway.

If I missed a vital clue because of this, I'm joining a civil class action suit.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by dabo on 07-15-13 at 10:47 AM

LAST EDITED ON 07-15-13 AT 11:48 AM (EST)

I'm just glad the protests have been peaceful. Part of it has been that they are blaming the system, which is understandable. The burdon of proof was on the prosecution, the case they presented was a lot of conjecture and little proof, benefit of the doubt goes to the defense. (I don't think the system is inherently racist, it's just an adversarial process in which one side will win and the other side will lose.)

I think we can also thank social media, because counter-protests seem to have taken to the internet rather than the streets. From what I've read there are some truly outrageous things being tweeted. (And, of course, the WBC didn't have sufficient time to mobilize.)

Not that all of Zimmerman's supporters are racist (most are not), just that the racists (white supremacy division) naturally gravitated to being Zimmerman supporters (and probably don't really care for him either).

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-15-13 at 01:50 PM

I was thinking this when they were talking about where he could go and disappear into a community. I was thinking a lot of the communities that might welcome him because he shot a black teen probably also won't accept him because he's Hispanic.

I disagree about some of the systemic problems in the system regarding race. They may not have been a big part of this trial, but it is hard to believe the system really all that race-blind given some of the statistics out there.

I had thought an affirmative defense usually put the burden back on the defense to prove there is no other reasonable reason for the actions taken. With this law it seems like it may be that the prosecution has to prove there is no possible way the person could have felt threatened in any way when they reacted.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by kingfish on 07-15-13 at 02:16 PM

The racial bias here (as I see it) is that the trial was forced upon the local government by the black community because Trevon was black. The city originally declined to indict but the state forced it. The verdict was by a jury of six women who were non-black, but it's pretty unreasonable to suppose that the jury members arrived at that verdict based on his race, with the evidence that was presented.

So if there was a racial bias, I would think that it was in favor of the victim.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-15-13 at 03:03 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-15-13 AT 03:03 PM (EST)

You really think that if he'd shot some blond-haired, blue-eye dude name Travis or a Cubano named Tavio Zimmerman would have been seen as a hero to the community and no one would dare to prosecute him?

Sure, would have been different people being outraged, but I don't know of any teenager he could shoot without someone getting a bit huffy about it. No community really wants to see it's kids shot for walking home with Skittles.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by kingfish on 07-15-13 at 03:39 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-15-13 AT 03:41 PM (EST)

That's irrelevant. The reality is that they weren't going to prosecute him until his family and supporters in the black community raised a stink, the police chief who refused to charge him resigned, and the state attorney forced the indictment. The political nature of this case, exacerbated becasue he was black, is patently obvious.

I do think if he hadn't been black and the incident hadn't been publicized by the black community, that this would have been just another senseless murder, one of thousands that go barely noticed by the media all the time. The fact that Trevon was a teenager might have raised the heat a little, but do you really think that there would be riots in LA and protests nation-wide if it had been a non-black kid?

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-15-13 at 05:59 PM

I just don't know if they'd be so quick to buy I was in fear for my life if the kid had been white. Hispanic, maybe.

I think that it got more press because of the way the races were, but if that kid was white and his parents had any money or position, they would have without their community been able to raise a stink about their kid being killed and nothing at all being done about. That part of Florida a Cuban family may have had as much pull.

Lots of cases get political when people don't feel the local cops are doing their job. Just I think when it happens in other communities it doesn't play out in public. Just a few phone calls and a donation or two and the police chief takes early retirement and the state takes over. You really think no white person has ever gotten the politcal machine involved to get the justice they think they deserve?

If it had been a Hispanic kid the protests would be in a different area. I do think the long history of white people killing black people at will with no redress does play into it. I don't know of many cases where a black person kills a white person and walks free without even an arrest when they know who did it before the body is even taken away.

I also think that it was an early application of a new stand your ground law made it more likely to make the news. Before the law at least there would have been an arrest and a grand jury or something. Not a local cop being told they would be the one in legal trouble if the shooter even suggests it was self defense. I don't blame the local cops for following a law that prevents them from doing anything if someone claims self defense. I just think we need more than a hey, I was scared, send me home from the legal system. Sooner or later someone was going to get killed and their family and community wasn't going to just take it with a shrug and a oh well, thems the breaks. Gotta expect at least one of your kids will get shot and killed.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-15-13 at 06:04 PM

Although I am surprised that the big case that made people aware of this stand your ground law involved a black kid.

I figured it would take some cute young blond co-ed to get killed before the media or political machine would take notice. I mean we hardly ever notice other people die unless they look like Aaryn's twin.

---

"!"
Posted by foonermints on 07-15-13 at 06:17 PM

Snidget: A shocking lack of faith in our judicial system. Maybe in the future things like this can be tried in Can'tada?

Can't blame you at all. Sure, Florida bungled it. It's hard to try a case of double stupidity.

If my house burns to the ground tonight, whom do I sue? Obama?

---

"RE: !"
Posted by Snidget on 07-15-13 at 06:36 PM

Well, you know, when your state looks like the country's dangly bits sometimes they do seem to act like they can't think with their big brain.

Still, I'd rather someone, for whatever reason, make a stink about this legislation so they can take a look at it.

Waiting to see if the loud music is as threatening as getting punched or as non-threatening as a man who has physically abused all of his baby-mamas. She got 20 years for shooting a wall. The jury? deliberated for 12 minutes.

---

"Florida has a Big Brain?"
Posted by foonermints on 07-15-13 at 06:50 PM

Hell if I knew.

Dangly bits? You scare me sometimes. *covers dangly bits*

---

"RE: Florida has a Big Brain?"
Posted by cahaya on 07-15-13 at 08:17 PM

That was your picture on the wall that she was shootin' at, and she scored where it counts.

Your reproductive rights just took a hit.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by kingfish on 07-17-13 at 10:13 AM

LAST EDITED ON 07-17-13 AT 10:14 AM (EST)

Well, let's see what happens here. Obviously a different set of circumstances, but it is a case of an adult who is on trial protecting his property by killing an unarmed kid.

Presumably a white kid with mental problems.

So let's test your theory.

I predict that there won't be a biased community of white people or mental health advocates rising in defense of the kid. And I bet that this story gets very little media notice at all.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/17/video-shows-milwaukee-man-shoot-13-year-old-teen-neighbor/?test=latestnews

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-17-13 at 11:13 AM

So is the lesson we should never, no matter the circumstance, ever, for any reason, give any press to any of our children who are killed because really, none of them matter and it is no biggie, or that we should be outraged about a heck of a lot more of them?

Some murders and and other assorted crimes will always get a lot more press than others. Some because of the story line, some because the parents and family of the child have the time, money, energy, or DAW-ness to keep making a fuss until someone notices. Some because they have a good photo to show on the TV.

I think the article says the old guy who did the shooting had the mental problems, not the kid.

How photogenic is the teen that died, thirteen can be a bad age for that.

Couldn't tell if the guy followed the kid around and provoked him before finding the spot to shoot him or not from the story.

Why would a pregnant woman in California killed by the baby's father dominate the local news in NC but a local pregnant woman killed by the baby's father barely gets a couple of inches in the newspaper, and then only because she was found wrapped in a tarp and bound with duct tape and there was a high profile murder with a missing body a couple of counties over where they knew there was a tarp and bunch of duct tape that had been purchased that couldn't be accounted for?

Does it really matter which community says enough is enough when yet another youth from their community is gunned down? Especially since a lot of communities historically have very few of their deaths deemed newsworthy?

I'd like to get all politics out of the justice system, but as long as people can buy congress critters and DA's or have an advocate that will bleat to the press until someone listens that ain't going to happen. Sometimes what you cant do with campaign contributions you have to do with noise.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by dabo on 07-18-13 at 00:08 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/john-henry-spooner-video-darius-simmons_n_3612378.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

John Henry Spooner has been found guilty of first-degree intentional homicide in the fatal shooting of Darius Simmons.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by kingfish on 07-18-13 at 08:14 AM

LAST EDITED ON 07-18-13 AT 08:27 AM (EST)

No. Not trying to put out that there was lesson at all, just reinforcing my contention that, as I originally stated;

"The racial bias here (as I see it) is that the trial was forced upon the local government by the black community because Trevon was black."

In this case the social pressure was lacking, resulting in no media or community outrage. Zimmerman would have never been put on trial except that there was racial bias in favor of Trevon that forced the authorities to indict him.

I can't contend that there was no racial bias against Trevon (although privately I don't think there actually was) because I can't see into the minds of the jury to read their thoughts, but racial bias in his favor by the community is evident.

BTW, I stand corrected on two points (thanks Dabo), it was Spooner that is suspected of haveing mental problems (as you mention), and Simmons ws a black kid.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-18-13 at 09:08 AM

So, who gets to advocate for their dead children? Do we get upset when a white Mom or Dad goes to the press, makes a huge fuss when their kid disappears in Aruba or Utah or is killed in California?

Why should black, or other minority, communities just sit on their hands when their kids are killed or harmed, but white parents and white communities that have money or time are allowed to use the media and the government at much as possible? We don't say it is racial, and only racial, when white parents do the exact same thing.

Sure, some fusses will be made of cases where the killing/harming is one that should not have a fuss made over it, but I think that Trayvon's parents weren't going to shut up about it isn't really any different than any of the pretty white girl's parents not shutting up about it, either.

Who do you think has the right to make a fuss over their dead kid? Who is allowed to rally their community around them? Is it bad when the Mormons get all the other Mormons to rally around them? Or is it just black people who should never get other black people on their side? You can only rally the troops if they are not your troops, only if some group you have no connection with decides to rally behind you? And if your own troops rally behind you, shut them down, immediately. Do not under any circumstances accept or encourage their help or outrage.

Do you think they would have been just content and happy if some black neighborhood watch guy apparently targeted their kid? Really? They would have clapped him on the back and told him good job? If that black guy had a myspace page bragging about how he got two felony with violence charges dropped down to misdemeanors and said some things that indicated he was willing to say biased things against certain types of people in public? (GZ's lawyer confirmed it was his page)

It is hard for the system to get rid of all racial (or other) biases and profiling as a lot of it is institutionalized and reinforced by a lot of other parts of society and I'm not sure there is a deliberate act by people consciously and specifically saying this one black kid's death may not be prosecuted, etc. But it is very hard for people to avoid going along with institutional biases as sometimes it doesn't even seem that there is anything that bad going on when you look at just any one case. You really only see the magnitude of the problem when you look at the bigger picture. I don't think this case was completely free of some of the biases that are prevalent in very small ways every day in every society that has ever been and ever will be. I really hope we can get to the point where all men and women are treated as if they really are created equal and we see each case for its unique situation and never use judgments, biases, generalizations, or assessments from other situations to color what we are doing in this case. But we are human, we love to stick this new thing in an old box.

It is like the stats from one school district I saw recently where black males caught with a cell phone in school on a first offense are probably going to get suspended where other kids caught for the same thing generally only get a warning. You can't say in any one case that it is a deliberate and specific racially motivated act, but when you look at the overall situation it is clear there are some biases in the system and some people are routinely more likely to get punished severely than others. Even a small difference in who you think they are texting can make a difference in how they get punished. And yes, sometimes one small portion of a group is doing something that tends to need more severe punishment, but it ends up being everyone who is anything like that identifiable group gets caught in the same net rather than each case being checked to see if they just were worried because their Mom was sick vs they needed to keep track of when the dealer was dropping off the drugs at the school. If they assume a reasonable reasons for people in this box and assume an illegal reason for the people in that box you can get a big difference in how often one box gets screwed over. If your kid was suspended because a another kid with the same hair style once was dealing drugs would you be happy? Would you say the system is unbiased if only kids with that hair style got suspended?

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by kingfish on 07-18-13 at 09:24 AM

Maybe you're right, maybe not. But those aren't points that I was addressing. I'm not going to respond to them here, nor am I going to get into what would make me happy to see or to not see.

I merely contend that there was racial bias by the black community that forced the indictment. An indictment that wouldn't have otherwise occured in this city in Florida. Thus racial bias in this case wasn't one sided.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-18-13 at 09:51 AM

I see it as more of "one of our own" got done wrong, than we only care if black people die and only care if they are killed by non-black people.

But I can understand how it could seem to be only motivated by racial tension and they wouldn't care at all about all the other black teens in their community that die, or if any teen from any other church or community was killed.

I still do want to know who is allowed to fuss over their dead kids and under what circumstances. I wouldn't want to get it wrong if it is some kid I know.

Kind of reminds me of some of the concern that Candice's (on BB) Mom got her church all riled up. There was an immediate reaction in the comment sections on some news sites that here we go again another black woman getting her black church all upset over some racial carp, again.

That it was Candice's adoptive mother, who is white...

surprisingly didn't stop some of the commentators from ranting. Apparently it is not possible for a black person to have a white mom, adopted or otherwise. *boggle*

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Starshine on 07-18-13 at 10:44 AM

I can't find any record of the coroners examination here, Surely the trial or no trial decision should have been left to them?

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-18-13 at 10:54 AM

All I know is the guy who did the autopsy didn't recall anything about it when he was called to testify.

He basically said I'd have to read my notes at you because I can't remember doing this autopsy but I must have since my name is on the report.

The District Attorney is the one that decides about the trial, but the coroner does determine cause of death and if there was foul play involved.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by dabo on 07-18-13 at 11:44 AM

The District Attorney is the one that decides about the trial, but the coroner does determine cause of death and if there was foul play involved.

Yes, the investigators investigate, the police can either make an arrest or not based on what evidence they discover, the lawyers determine whether to officially file charges. But in this case it wasn't the DA's office that filed charges; it was a special prosecutor, State Attorney Angela Corey appointed by the governor to investigate the case, who brought the case to court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Corey

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-18-13 at 12:32 PM

Yeah, sometimes they go up the food chain from the DA, but usually never go down the chain and let the police or medical examiner decide if they have a case that is trial worth.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by kingfish on 07-18-13 at 12:39 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-18-13 AT 12:43 PM (EST)

Originally, the police chief declined to arrest Zimmerman because he didn't think that Zimmerman had committed a crime. After the state intervened and forced the indictment because of the public (basically, begun by the black community) protests, he resigned.

And...the police chief's first decision was exonerated in the trial.

It was a tragedy, and there ought to be a law against overzealous neighborhood watchers shooting unarmed kids at night who weren't breaking any laws, but there isn't in Florida.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by newsomewayne on 07-24-13 at 01:27 PM

...unarmed kids at night who weren't breaking any laws...

Other than assault with a deadly weapon, of course.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Snidget on 07-24-13 at 01:48 PM

But then aren't we all armed with a deadly weapon at all times? I mean I always have my hands on me, and other than in the woods I'm quite often within a few feet of some kind of pavement.

Well off to go brandish a deadly weapon by walking down the driveway to get the mail.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by newsomewayne on 07-24-13 at 02:17 PM

"armed with" and "use of" are completely different statuses.

---

"Cool"
Posted by foonermints on 07-25-13 at 08:52 PM

"Kwai-Chang Snidget!" ..of the Purple Moon..

~The Army of foonermints!

..err, either that or poor Snidget lives in a rubble heap. Kind of like me. Broken shards of concrete always ready to *whack* the beer skittles right out of your hand!
Cr@p. How did I get here?

---

"RE: Cool"
Posted by Snidget on 07-25-13 at 10:52 PM

*makes loud fuss so everyone in the vicinity turns to look and is certain Fooner messed with me first*

WHACK!

Sexting Alterego by Pepe LePew

---

"OW!l"
Posted by foonermints on 07-26-13 at 01:19 AM

That's kind of rough, "Ricardo"

Or, shouldn't I say "Ricardarita?"

Foonermintado de Gamble.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by cahaya on 07-25-13 at 10:38 PM

But then aren't we all armed with a deadly weapon at all times? I mean I always have my hands on me...

That's all I had, was my hands and my high-school wrestling experience when two guys on a motorbike, one of them brandishing a brand-new hunting knife, held me and my wife up in front of the gate to our house in Kuala Lumpur. I managed to wrestle down the guy with with knife after drawing him away from my wife, and my wife whacked the motorbike driver with a hot bag of noodle soup (from the restaurant where we ate) after he rushed to aid his partner.

I could have killed him if I wanted to, I had my hands on his throat, but I just wanted to knock him out, my hands black and blue for a week afterward from punching his face in my attempt to knock him unconscious, locked in a wrestling move with him under me after him chasing me and me taking him down with his own weight and momentum. I posted about this earlier, years ago, and I am thankful that my wife and I and our children are still safe.

Most of all, I do not have the conscience of having killed anyone on my mind and in my heart.

A royal agman creation

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by dabo on 07-18-13 at 11:21 AM

http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID6/37406.shtml#128

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by Starshine on 07-18-13 at 06:29 PM

Thank you, it seems that the British and US meaning of Coroner are rather different

One of ours would have had to decide if this was Lawful or Unlawful killing

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by dabo on 07-18-13 at 07:18 PM

In the US it varies, coroners and medical examiners have different duties and authority from state to state, and from county to county.

---

"RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
Posted by cahaya on 07-18-13 at 07:25 PM

This reminds me of this guy...

---

"LA Riot!"
Posted by foonermints on 07-15-13 at 01:32 PM

Kind of a watered-down riot. Not like the good old days.
Maybe people have figured out that burning down their own neighborhoods isn't a pro active way to make a complaint?

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Protesters-Shut-Down-10-Freeway-215462921.html

---

"RE: LA Riot!"
Posted by kingfish on 07-15-13 at 02:18 PM

It's difficult to see how the police in LA were responsible in any way for the events in FL.

Los Angelers just like to throw things at cops.

---

"RE: LA Riot!"
Posted by foonermints on 07-15-13 at 02:28 PM

We just like stuff to b!tch at.
It's the whole "bread and circuses" thing.

*flings cow at cops*

The Legend: Hey, if it works in Brazil..

---

"RE: LA Riot!"
Posted by foonermints on 07-15-13 at 05:14 PM

The crazies are toning it up for tonight. Full tactical alert for LAPD. Be interesting to see if they go Berserko at Leimart Park after dark.

Outside of blowing off steam (which is good) it's going to cost the city a heck of a lot in overtime (which is good for the police officers).

Who is paying? Well, me. I live here.

What a waste. *sigh*

---

"RE: LA Riot!"
Posted by cahaya on 07-15-13 at 06:26 PM

So, who will be the next Rodney King?

---

"Me!"
Posted by foonermints on 07-15-13 at 06:33 PM

I'm going to paint myself purple and pee on a cop. That's after I crash my flying saucer into the new Bradley terminal at LAX.

---

"RE: Me!"
Posted by Snidget on 07-15-13 at 06:53 PM

Just don't jump out at Zimmerman like that, he's getting his gun back and you wouldn't want to scare him with your dangly bits out.

---

"RE: Me!"
Posted by foonermints on 07-15-13 at 07:12 PM

Mine's bigger than his. /straightface

---

"Dangly boink!"
Posted by cahaya on 07-15-13 at 08:26 PM

Go for the triple, baby!

Passengers on fooner's crazytrain

---

"RE: LA Riot!"
Posted by agman on 07-15-13 at 08:27 PM

Can't we all just get along?

---

"RE: LA Riot!"
Posted by foonermints on 07-15-13 at 08:54 PM

*smack* to be reserved for Moley. Not to be used on Agman. No no no.

The Legend: showing legendary patience with his bits..

---

"RE: LA Riot!"
Posted by cahaya on 07-15-13 at 09:34 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-16-13 AT 05:43 PM (EST)

Beware the Agman!

Smurfed by Icey.

---

"Let's See"
Posted by foonermints on 07-16-13 at 12:12 PM

What that crazy Bob thinks..

Another forbidden foonerlink©

---

"Coming full circle..."
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 07-16-13 at 07:57 PM

---

"RE: Coming full circle..."
Posted by Snidget on 07-16-13 at 08:29 PM

LOL!

---

"Sure!"
Posted by foonermints on 07-16-13 at 09:09 PM

But OJ is still in the can.
Of course, Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida.
Al Sharpton has chimed in. Blarf.

Won't Can'tada take these refugees?

---

"RE: Sure!"
Posted by cahaya on 07-16-13 at 09:17 PM

Won't Can'tada take these refugees?

Probably not, but Venezuela and Ecuador are open possibilities, with Snowden joining them.

---

"Besides the Qui"
Posted by foonermints on 07-16-13 at 09:45 PM

I'm very disappointed in "Mitad del Mundo" for changing over their national currency, the "sucre" for the American dollar.

I like the idea of money being called "sweet".
Is this the hidden Jackie Gleason of the foonerbrain© ?

---

"RE: Sure!"
Posted by Brownroach on 07-18-13 at 11:47 PM

Al Sharpton lives for these media opportunities.

---

"RE: Sure!"
Posted by foonermints on 07-19-13 at 00:15 AM

He isn't looking too good these days.
Bile.
I bet it's Bile.
A lifetime of Bile-enhanced b!tchhiness.

That can't be good for yourself. No no no.

*waits for Al to drop off-planet*

---

"RE: Sure!"
Posted by Brownroach on 07-19-13 at 00:48 AM

Nonetheless he's managed to attract a hot young(er) thing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/al-sharpton-finds-new-love-decades-younger-article-1.1400703

---

"Well.."
Posted by foonermints on 07-19-13 at 01:04 AM

Maybe she needed a dose of that old time religion?

Charlatan Money!

---

"Jimmy Carter"
Posted by dabo on 07-18-13 at 00:01 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/jimmy-carter-george-zimmerman_n_3609912.html

George Zimmerman Jury 'Made The Right Decision'

"I think the jury made the right decision based in the evidence presented because the prosecution inadvertently set the standard so high that the jury had to be convinced that it was a deliberate act by Zimmerman and that he was not defending himself and so forth. It's not a moral question, it's a legal question and the American law requires that the jury listens to the evidence presented."

Carter said he agreed with President Barack Obama regarding the trial. On Sunday, the president released a statement saying that despite personal disagreements over the verdict, "we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken."

And then there are a multitude of comments, something for everyone to roll eyes at. I did enjoy this one, though:

I thought the jury got it right, but if that's Carter's position, I may have to rethink things.

In the same vein:

Even a good cracker gets it wrong when it comes to race.

The word is "cracka".

---

"Barack Obama"
Posted by dabo on 07-19-13 at 06:40 PM

LAST EDITED ON 07-19-13 AT 08:22 PM (EST)

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-trayvon-martin-could-have-been-me

Barack Obama said Friday that "Trayvon Martin could have been me" and that few African-American men in the United States haven't experienced racial profiling.

African-Americans view the case through "a set of experiences and a history that doesn't go away," Obama said. He said that black men in particular are used to being feared and blacks see a disparity in the way they are treated under the law. He said he understands the feeling among African-Americans "that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that, from top to bottom, that both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

)sigh( I get that he's saying a lot of people think things would have been different had Martin been white, not that they absolutely would have been different but that's what many think. You would think a president would have learned by now to choose his words with exacting care.

The president also called for the case to be thoroughly investigated and for Americans to "do some soul-searching to figure out how something like this has happened."

Obama recalled hearing drivers lock their doors and has seen women clutch their purses tighter when he walked by, before he was elected to public office.

We aren't living in a "post-racial" society, Obama said, but "things are getting better."

---

"Charles Barkley"
Posted by dabo on 07-19-13 at 06:44 PM

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/charles-barkley-says-he-agrees-with-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-not-guilty-verdict-071813?gt1=39001

Charles Barkley finally spoke publicly on the Trayvon Martin verdict, .. "I agreed with the verdict."

"Something clearly went wrong that night. Clearly, something went wrong and I feel bad for anybody that loses a kid. But if you look at the case, and you don't make it ... there was some racial profiling, no question about it. Something happened to change the dynamic of that night. And that's probably not a popular opinion among most people but just looking at the evidence, I agreed with the verdict."

Barkley said what upset him was not the verdict, but the racist attitudes expressed by many people who commented on the case.

"It gives every white person and black person, who's racist, a platform to vent their ignorance. .. A lot of these people have a hidden agenda ... The bias comes out."

---

"RE: Barack Obama"
Posted by foonermints on 07-19-13 at 08:48 PM

»Trayvon Martin Could Have been Me!«*

Whoo Hoo! Now we have "Bash Mobs for Trayvon..

http://www.examiner.com/article/bash-mob-long-beach-police-warn-that-trayvon-martin-rally-could-turn-violent

* Gee.. what is foonermints thinking?

---

"RE: Barack Obama"
Posted by cahaya on 07-19-13 at 10:17 PM

I'll take the triple-three swoop block here, thank you very much!

Ragtop Ride by foonermints

Bash mobs? Dude, I'm bashed already.

---

": Barack Obama 666!"
Posted by foonermints on 07-20-13 at 03:12 AM

Is This Where This Thread is Heading?

Handcrafted by RollDdice

---

"Forbes"
Posted by dabo on 07-24-13 at 01:10 PM

good article

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2013/07/23/the-single-most-important-lesson-gun-owners-should-learn-from-the-george-zimmerman-case/

And the most important lesson I’ve learned from the George Zimmerman case is, “Don’t go looking for trouble.”

Part of the ethos of responsible concealed weapons permit holders is to avoid getting into dicey situations whenever possible. .. If some jerk gets angry because he thinks we stole his spot in the grocery store parking lot, we should back down or remove ourselves from the situation — precisely because we recognize the deadly consequences if things escalate out of control.

Anyone exercising his right to carry a firearm for self-defense has corresponding responsibility to exert greater — not lesser — control over his emotions.

My instructors also emphasized that armed civilians should not attempt to function as the police. .. If we’re not in immediate peril, we shouldn’t pursue real (or potential) criminals.

According to the transcript of the call between Zimmerman and the Sanford PD before the shooting, Zimmerman was doing precisely that.

The jury has ruled that Zimmerman acted in self-defense according to Florida law. But to the extent the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin was avoidable, it’s tragic. Trayvon Martin’s life is over and George Zimmerman’s life will never be the same.

---

"No issues whatsoever."
Posted by Estee on 09-13-13 at 11:57 AM

LAST EDITED ON 09-13-13 AT 12:10 PM (EST)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/zimmerman-domestic-dispute-wifes-flying-lawyer/story?id=20227863

Not a single visible one.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/09/george-zimmermans-local-police-chief-agrees-hes-sandy-hookwaiting-happen/69368/

Nothing anyone would ever worry about.

---

"I wonder if "
Posted by moonbaby on 09-13-13 at 01:30 PM

the people that were on the jury have been reading these stories and are wishing they could change the outcome of the trial now.

Also? If I lived near him I would take extreme care to avoid him.

---

"RE: I wonder if "
Posted by newsomewayne on 09-15-13 at 07:41 PM

You mean, do they wish they could do what the press whore corps and scum-bag race-baiters wanted - giving a conviction based on conjecture, bias, uncorroborated stories and, essentially, anything but factual evidence presented in court?

Tebow Time is over. We prefer to win games in the 1st quarter.
Trade managed by GM Agman, 2012

---

"Just can't stay out of trouble, can he"
Posted by Snidget on 11-18-13 at 03:12 PM

"He was arrested near the intersection of Topfield Court and Bonnie Drive in Apopka, reportedly at his girlfriend's home. Chopper 2 video showed several Seminole County Sheriff's vehicles at the home.

Deputies plan to release the arrest report and 911 call.

WESH link

---

"He probably has a few"
Posted by foonermints on 11-18-13 at 04:58 PM

stress issues.

---

"RE: Just can't stay out of trouble, can he"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 11-20-13 at 11:27 AM

I'd be interested in knowing if the jury would reconsider their verdict now that they've seen how Zimmerman conducted himself over the past few months, or if it would have made the prosecution's case easier if the Trayvon Martin proceedings didn't take place until now.

Meanwhile, what a lovely surprise Zimmerman got while sitting in jail yesterday ... got served with divorce papers. Things just get more and more fun for George, huh?

---

"RE: Just can't stay out of trouble, can he"
Posted by Snidget on 11-20-13 at 11:59 AM

http://www.tmz.com/2013/11/19/trayvon-martin-juror-george-zimmerman-prison-domestic-violence-arrest/

But this is from one that really didn't want to acquit him anyway.

---

"He's learned a valuable life lesson."
Posted by Estee on 11-19-13 at 09:35 AM

Always call someone to set up your state-of-mind alibi first.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-arrested-florida-report-article-1.1520840

And thus fortified, Not Guilty he goes into the night.

---

"RE: He's learned a valuable life lesson."
Posted by Snidget on 11-19-13 at 10:21 AM

911: Hey Dude, the cops are already there, why are you calling us now?
Suspect: Because you record and release the 911 calls and this is all about making sure the public gets my side of the story before anyone else has the chance to be interviewed.

---

"RE: He's learned a valuable life lesson."
Posted by Estee on 11-19-13 at 11:13 AM

Bingo. I can picture the day when this action becomes known as a Zimmerman Defense. 'I can't have been X because the transcript clearly shows me in Y.' What better alibi than one recorded by the police?

Recently, we had a shooting in NYC where people were shot -- multiple hits, one victim paralyzed -- because a kid wouldn't give up his jacket to the eventual shooter. Said shooter being a teen who then went home and, while waiting for the inevitable, posted numerous status updates on his I Will Take Everyone With Me desires to his social media.

A Zimmerman Defense is kind of the reverse of that.

---

"RE: He's learned a valuable life lesson."
Posted by newsomewayne on 11-19-13 at 12:23 PM

Still a better love story than Twilight.

---

"RE: He's learned a valuable life lesson."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 11-19-13 at 04:44 PM

*****pppppppppppppfffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttttt*

Sharky wipe please and you need to clean my monitor now.

sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

---

"Addict."
Posted by Estee on 07-29-14 at 04:40 PM

http://www.mediaite.com/online/george-zimmerman-is-voluntarily-patrolling-a-florida-gun-store-now/

---

"RE: Addict."
Posted by snidget on 07-30-14 at 01:35 PM

What, they won't pay GZ because...

Is this so no one can sue the gun shop's insurance if his security guard shoots someone?

Doesn't GZ have anything better to do with his time?

---

"RE: Addict."
Posted by kingfish on 07-30-14 at 01:49 PM

That is what he likes to do in his free time. Hang out after dark in alleys with a gun and maybe shoot someone.

---

"RE: Addict."
Posted by snidget on 07-30-14 at 03:45 PM

Based on what I've seen at other retail stores it seems that some thieves are adept at picking out who the Loss Prevention guys/security is and being really good at figuring out the schedule and hitting hard whenever they aren't working (as a lot of stores don't have full time around the clock people with coverage for vacations, etc).

I'd think it would be worse if you have some guy who had a couple of spare hours here or there and that is all you've got. It isn't like Zimmerman's anonymous or anything.

---