Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Communications The Courts

Skype Overload Interrupts Zimmerman Trial 325

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This discussion has been archived.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 vux984 ( 928602 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @07:33PM (#44183595)

    If your son was not a THUG, he would be still be here.

    I didn't realize it was ok to seek out, confront, and then shoot someone, as long as that person is a THUG?

    Martin may well have been a THUG; I know i don't buy the media portrayal of him as a perfect angel showing a photo of him several years younger etc. But Zimmerman was armed and deliberately sought a confrontation with him, not the other way around.

    A murder trial is appropriate.

  • by mrlibertarian ( 1150979 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @08:39PM (#44184137)
    Zimmerman's claim is that he got out of the car and walked in the same direction to see the name of the street to phone it in. If true, that would explain why he didn't argue with the operator.

    So, unless he is lying, he didn't "chase down" Martin. I suppose you could argue that Martin felt threatened when Zimmerman reached into his pocket to get his cellphone. But that argument only makes sense if you start with the assumption that any civilian who shoots an unarmed teenager must be in the wrong and you reason backwards from there.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:10PM (#44184411)

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

    You can get out of your car, but if you shoot them, it'll be due to a confrontation you initiated through your actions, thereby destroying your claim to self-defense.

    Not that Martin was in a place where he was not supposed to be, which makes Zimmerman's actions even less justifiable.

    Why don't we just lock up the law abiding and let the criminals roam free, if we are going to let them dictate our lives like this.

    Would you rather somebody like George Zimmerman dictate to us? I wouldn't. There's a reason why the police are supposed to be trained, to clearly identify themselves, and not to use the threat of force except when it constitutes appropriate action.

    Random persons should know better than to act as a police officer, and not get a pass on their actions which results in somebody else's death. And any person with a gun should know better than to get into a situation where their actions are provocative and confrontational. Zimmerman failed to meet that standard, therefore his claim of self defense is not valid.

    Or should I have to live in fear of somebody like him?

    Just like most cases of self defense, nobody sets out to kill anybody (well, except for the criminals sometimes), but if somebody jumps you and starts bashing your head against the ground, you have the right to defend yourself.

    Not when you've provoked and threatened them. Which is exactly what Zimmerman did.

    It seems clear to me that case by case, the government is trying to take away our rights to defend ourselves. They hand out harsher sentences against people who kill an armed assailant, than they do to assailants who kill an unarmed victim. It's pretty clear the message they are trying to get across: Just let the criminals do whatever they want with no dear of reprisal.

    It seems clear to me that people like you want to create a culture of fear and intimidation, where the people who you support get to use force against others, and excuses are made for that regardless of the abuses, because we sure can't hold somebody accountable for a homicide that is a direct result of their willful and provocative actions.

    That way you can get us all intimidated by you, since you'll get away with whatever you do, while the rest of us have to knuckle under.

  • by Freddybear ( 1805256 ) on Wednesday July 03, 2013 @09:24PM (#44184517)

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

  • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Thursday July 04, 2013 @12:11AM (#44185505)

    When its your son or daughter that loses their life over an incident like this then I wonder on what side of the fence you'll stand.

    That depends, was my son or daughter beating someone's head against the sidewalk after jumping them? Did my son or daughter start the violence?

    So Martin is a "thug" for beating on someone but Zimmerman isn't for killing him?

    Right, because Martin, not Zimmerman, committed assault and was the one committing the actual violence. Zimmerman didn't commit violence, he stopped the person who was committing violence.

    So someone stalks you and confronts you and is armed, what do you do?

    Gee, I don't know, talk to them? What I wouldn't do would be to wait until the guy is walking back to his truck, then run up and sucker punch him, knock him down, and begin bashing his head into the sidewalk.

    Wait to get killed or fight for your life?

    Why are you asking that question? Those weren't the choices presented to Martin. He had all sorts of choices, including just walking into the house he had gotten to (according to his friend, the prosecution's witness). Instead, he turned around, and ran back to Zimmerman, who was walking back to his truck. And attacked him.

    You're not actually paying attention, are you?

Experience varies directly with equipment ruined.