Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications The Courts

Skype Overload Interrupts Zimmerman Trial 325

Posted by timothy
from the do-you-have-prince-albert-in-a-can? dept.
MouseTheLuckyDog writes "Today during the George Zimmerman trial, an ex-professor of Zimmerman's was allowed to testify via Skype while on vacation. When setting it up the prosecution didn't have the sense to blank the destination account. The result, according to The Smoking Gun, was a flood of callers to the destination account resulting in the connection being terminated and cross examination being done on a cell phone in the witness box." Also at CBS News.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Skype Overload Interrupts Zimmerman Trial

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @07:09PM (#44183347)

    omg... just wow... some audience this blog has.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @07:27PM (#44183531)

    Actually, it's an obvious case of confrontation, because George Zimmerman chose to get out of his car, thereby putting Trayvon Martin at risk for his life.

    Therefore, Trayvon Martin, who was previously engaged in peaceable business returning to the place where he was staying, was perfectly within his rights to have felt threatened, and even if he had confronted Zimmerman with the threat of force, was justified in his actions. Zimmerman, by choosing to get out of the car, was not, as his express intent was directly involving Trayvon Martin, therefore making him guilty of a criminal action by provoking the conflict.

    Had Zimmerman had the sense to stay in the car, nothing would have happened.

    Instead he killed somebody.

  • by clarkkent09 (1104833) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @07:34PM (#44183603)

    He does not lose his right to self-defense because some 911 operator told him to back off. So he followed a guy walking around in the rain in an area that had recent burglaries. So perhaps he 'profiled' him because he wore a hoodie, perhaps because he was black. Perhaps he did a poor job as a neighborhood watchman, he got too zealous in protecting the neighborhood (not as much as some mall cops but whatever). None of this has any baring on the fact that once Martin jumped on him and started bashing his head against the pavement (as all evidence suggest he did) he had the RIGHT to defend himself with lethal force. A legal right, as in under the law in force at the time. Charge him for sucking as a neighborhood watchman, or for following the guy (whatever crime that is) but there is no rational reason to charge him with murder. It is pure mob justice of the worst kind.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @08:01PM (#44183825)

    How do you justify " if someone is walking around in a place where they should not be" with a young black teenager walking on a public street? Are you that much of an twit or just that good of a troll?

  • by Shavano (2541114) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @08:07PM (#44183875)

    So, if someone is walking around in a place where they should not be, you are not allowed to get out of your car? Why don't we just lock up the law

    MARTIN WAS NOT WALKING AROUND IN A PLACE WHERE HE SHOULD NOT BE.

  • by rsborg (111459) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @08:08PM (#44183883) Homepage

    So, if someone is walking around in a place where they should not be, you are not allowed to get out of your car?

    It's called the neighborhood watch, not the neighborhood police - for a reason. Watchmen are told not to confront, but report suspicious activity, otherwise this kind of shit happens. Zimmerman had a history of this kind of behavior, and he was in the wrong place and did the wrong things. Bad things happened.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @08:11PM (#44183915)

    Except Martin's DNA was not on the holster or the gun.

    The only thug here is Zimmerman. If Zimmerman was the aggressor, Martin can use equal force to defend himself. If Martin thought his life was in danger, the response can include deadly force. If Zimmerman showed Martin he had a gun, that is all that is required for Martin to incapacitate Zimmerman.

  • by lgw (121541) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @08:22PM (#44184023) Journal

    Actually, yes you do lose your right to self-defense if you're told to back off.

    By your logic, I have the right to racially profile you, follow you anywhere you go and I can shoot-to-kill if/when you panic cause an unknown armed man is following you around at night.

    You do not lose your right to self defense if "you're told to back off".

    You do not lose your right to self defense if "you racially profile me" (whatever that means)

    You do not lose your right to self defense if "you follow me anywhere I go"

    None of that matters in the slightest.

    If your are assaulted, you have a right to self defense. If you assault the other guy, you don't. Whoever escalated from words to violence is the criminal (and I have no idea who that is here, also IANAL yadda yadda).

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:29PM (#44184557)

    This may come as a shock, but I never said the crime was getting out of the car, getting out of the car merely invalidates Zimmerman's claim to self-defense.

    That's why it is a case of pure confrontation and aggression.

    You can do things that are legal on their own, but that invalidate further conduct on your part.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:46PM (#44184659)

    Martin could have just left the area instead of acting tough.

    Is that your take on Stand Your Ground laws? I'm pretty sure Stand Your Ground laws say you don't have any duty to flee an area you are lawfully in. That means if Martin felt threatened he had no duty to leave as you say he should have. He can stay and stand his ground.

    Funny thing is, if this were reversed, that is, if Zimmerman was being followed by Martin, and Zimmerman confronted Martin starting a confrontation which ended with Zimmerman shooting Martin, the same people defending Zimmerman now would still defend him. They'd just say, Stand Your Ground, Self defense "I'd feel threatened if someone were following me. Damn right I'd confront them!" But, in this case, Zimmerman followed Martin and shot him. Therefore Martin had no right to defend himself or confront his pursuer.

  • by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @10:44PM (#44185051)

    it's because his actions were confrontational

    His actions were not confrontational. And Zimmerman was jumped while walking back to his truck. You know this, we all know this. So, you're just repeating your BS justification for the violence that Martin began. Seeing where someone out of place is going in your neighborhood is not violent. The only person who made the situation violent was Martin.

  • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Thursday July 04, 2013 @12:44AM (#44185655)

    Even "confrontation" makes no difference. The only thing that would negate the self-defense plea is if Zimmerman actually physically attacked Martin and then progressed from fighting to shooting.
    And there is absolutely no evidence nor testimony that he did so.

    Conveniently, the reason that there is no evidence or testimony that he did so is because the only other person that saw everything is now dead. To make it really clear: the only story we have about how everything unfolded is from the guy who shot the other guy. Pretty much everyone else has barely any idea what happened, could only sort of hear certain things, and could only sort of see what was going on. And we're left with one dead guy, and one guy somewhat hurt.

    The moral of the story: in Florida, if you get into a fight, make sure you kill every witness.

  • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Thursday July 04, 2013 @12:48AM (#44185681)

    No, but you can shoot when someone jumps you and starts beating your head into the pavement, which is what happened. Day or night, doesn't really matter.

    Next time I shoot someone in the dark, I'll make sure to tell everyone the other guy jumped me. Maybe I'll even put my butt into a puddle to make it believable. I wonder what you'll think if the person I shot is your son.

  • by moronoxyd (1000371) on Thursday July 04, 2013 @04:35AM (#44186441)

    In addition, Zimmerman is half Latino and half Caucasian. Being multi-racial, he'd be the last person who would be racist.

    Thats BS.
    Everybody can be a racist. Being racist is neither limited to one race nor are people with mixed heritage excluded.

  • by shmlco (594907) on Thursday July 04, 2013 @10:25AM (#44187885) Homepage

    In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence.

    Zimmerman's application to be a police officer had been rejected by a Virginia police department. Zimmerman wanted to do police ride alongs. He also chose to participate in the Neighborhood Watch Program. And Zimmerman choose to arm himself, despite the fact that the Watch Program discouraged its participants from doing so.

    But at the time of the attack, Zimmerman wasn't on watch. He chose to follow Martin. He chose to disregard police instructions. He chose to get out of the car. As the one "trained" and armed with deadly force, it was his responsibility to see that the situation didn't escalate out of control. It did.

    Personally, I'd characterize Zimmerman as a police officer wannabe. He wanted to be a cop and was rejected. So he armed himself and continually went out on "patrol", looking for trouble and a chance to be a hero.

    That night he found it. And he allowed the situation to escalate totally out of control. Faced with an actual confrontation, he panicked and resorted to using deadly force. Result? One dead kid.

    Zimmerman carries complete and total responsibility for the shooting.

Never invest your money in anything that eats or needs repainting. -- Billy Rose

Working...