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.
Destination account? (Score:5, Informative)
Florida must be liberal when it comes to testimony (Score:3)
Wow letting a witness "phone it in." He didn't even use Skype Audio, he used a land line for testimony.. funny.
I'm surprised that this case hasn't already been declared a mistrial...
Re:Florida must be liberal when it comes to testim (Score:5, Funny)
Wow letting a witness "phone it in."
They wanted to make sure the NSA got a transcript of it.
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
This is an obvious case of self defense
Yes, I too often "defend" myself by following and then chasing down my future assailant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From what I've read, it corresponds to the 911 transcript. The operator tried to get him to back off.
Re: (Score:3)
From what I've read, it corresponds to the 911 transcript. The operator tried to get him to back off.
From what I heard, you shouldn't make a 911 call over Skype. Apparently, talking about 911 calls over Skype is also a bad idea.
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
once Martin jumped on him and started bashing his head against the pavement (as all evidence suggest he did)
I'm not sure where you got that from. The wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] linked to in the summary mentions about the opening statement for the trial, and I quote, "The prosecution's statement focused on the lack of evidence of bodily harm to both Zimmerman and Martin (...)".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I just read the second paragraph of my quote, and the defense says the opposite of the prosecution. We'll have to wait until the trial goes on to know what evidence there is for either case, but a blind statement saying that "all evidence suggests he did" seems premature at best.
Re: (Score:3)
Zimmerman trial blockbuster — Eyewitness says Trayvon on top punching Mixed Martial Arts style [legalinsurrection.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just be careful...
These parts are from Zimmerman's testimony.
Noticed you have a holstered gun and has attempted to grab it, and
Threatened you.
The beating was observed by an eyewitness and it was a world class beating with blows "raining" down on zimmerman in a "ground and pound" MMA type maneuver. The eye witness's story hasn't changed since the night of Martin's death (unlike some of the other witnesses) and he said then and now that Martin was on top of Zimmerman (specifically the guy in the hoodie was o
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Here's what we do know.
Martin was walking home in a way that made Zimmerman suspicious. Zimmerman then started following him and called the police, at the same time Martin called his friend and apparently told her about the guy that was following him.
The next thing we know is there was a fight that Martin was probably winning until Zimmerman drew his gun and shot Martin.
Zimmerman's attempt to fill in the blanks has Zimmerman walking back to his car, Martin coming up from behind, confront him, punching him (
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
In this scenario, I have a gun.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home and its night time.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home and its night time and you don't know who I am.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home and its night time and you don't know who I am and I just got out of my car after following you several blocks.
At NO point do I lose my right to self-defense despite repeated verbal warnings to back off? I'm sorry, but you're insane. You've just given stalkers a blank check to murder anyone they choose by simply claiming "self-defense" when their victims resist/fight back/attempt to run away.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home and its night time and you don't know who I am and I just got out of my car after following you several blocks, and I have just stopped following you and started back to my vehicle.
In this scenario, I have a gun and I am following you home and its night time and you don't know who I am and I just got out of my car after following you several blocks, and I have just stopped following you and started back to my vehicle when I am attacked from behind b
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting that all the people defending Martin are posting as an Anonymous Coward, and those that aren't actually put their name to their posts.
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting that all the people defending Martin are posting as an Anonymous Coward, and those that aren't actually put their name to their posts.
It seems more that, for the most part, and with exceptions, those who are more familiar with the known facts in the case are not posting AC, which in and of itself is not necessarily indicative of "taking a side".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you just have to "feel" your life is in danger to take defensive violent action.
I believe the usual standard is that a jury agrees that a reasonable person would feel and do the same in the same situation.
If you see someone coming at you with what you believe is a weapon then you can defend yourself from them under stand your ground law.
As noted by the other replier, this is not a "stand your ground" issue.
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, yes you do lose your right to self-defense if you're told to back off.
Not that that's actually true, but it doesn't matter. Because nobody told him to. The said that Zimmerman didn't need to keep following Martin. And even if you choose to interpret that as direction (the person who said it, the dispatcher, has already testified that it was not instruction to Zimmerman), a dispatcher has no authority whatsoever in such matters.
I have the right to racially profile you
Yes, you do! You can look right at me, and say, "I see that you're white: that probably means all sorts of bad things, by my standards." You can racially profile me all you want. Because doing so means nothing when it's a private citizen doing so. You can also behaviorally profile me ... you know, make personal conclusions all your own based on what you seem me doing as I hide my face cruising through your neighborhood. Why? Because doing so isn't a problem. Because that's not assault.
follow you anywhere you go
You have absolutely no expectation of privacy on a public street. Are you saying that Martin was followed into the house where he was staying? Because ... he wasn't. It was Martin that doubled back towards Zimmerman (who was walking the opposite direction), to attack him.
and I can shoot-to-kill if/when you panic cause an unknown armed man is following you around at night.
No, but you can shoot when someone jumps you and starts beating your head into the pavement, which is what happened. Day or night, doesn't really matter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'll even put my butt into a puddle to make it believable.
Make sure you break your nose and have the guy you're going to kill, bash your head into concrete a few times to make it look good. Juries lap that shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
Next time I shoot someone in the dark
Are you making a reference to the Martin/Zimmerman case? Because it may have been dark when Martin attacked, but that really doesn't have much to do with the "being shot" part. He was shot while on top of Zimmerman, having already run up behind him to attack, punched him in the face and broken his nose, and was proceeding to bash his head into the sidewalk. He was shot while on top of him and throwing more punches. A six-foot guy, continuing to beat up the guy he'd turned around and gone back to attack.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, yes you do lose your right to self-defense if you're told to back off.
Read the transcript. Zimmerman wasn't actually told to back off.
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entranceâ¦fucking [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: Georgeâ¦He ran.
Dispatcher: Alright George what's your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman
Dispatcher: And George what's the phone number you're calling from?
See? I bolded the part in question. Zimmerman wasn't told to break off pursuit, but rather that the authorities didn't need him to do that. And I might add that a 911 dispatcher doesn't have a legally recognized authority.
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Right. Because he was tired of crime in his neighborhood. A perfectly normal reaction, and not only legal, but actively supported by law enforcement.
And Zimmerman choose to arm himself, despite the fact that the Watch Program discouraged its participants from doing so.
Right - such civic groups do not want to be sued into oblivion if a member has an accident while participating. So they take the policy stand that it's not them, but the members themselves that make that decision.
But at the time of the attack, Zimmerman wasn't on watch.
Which doesn't in any way reduce Martin's responsibility for doubling ba
Re: (Score:2)
Or would you try to charge Martin with homicide if he had killed Zimmerman?
Yes, because Martin was the one who committed the assault, not Zimmerman.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the skittles and iced tea he dropped off at his Dad's place before beating down the crazy-ass-cracker.
Leaving aside that it wasn't actually tea in that can, did the can and the bag of Skittles magically teleport themselves back into Martin's pocket?
Because that's where they were found by the authorities long before they had any clue that he was staying in the neighborhood.
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed, we have testimony that Martin was almost home when he decided to go back and attack Zimmerman.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, about 200' to travel in just under 3 minutes between when Zimmerman stopped and the fight started yet Martin ended back with Zimmerman.
We also have testimony (and a statement taken the night of the incident) from a neighbor who opened the door and observed Martin, on top of Zimmerman, doing a "ground and pound" on Zimmerman and "raining down blows" on him.
You have a right to walk around your neighborhood. Same right applies to both of them. I can follow you all over the neighborhood and your correct
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:4)
When "confront his pursuer" means "knock him down and beat his head against the sidewalk" then I think there's possibly a minor flaw in your argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Did Dwight feel his life was in danger?
That's your problem, right there. It doesn't matter what Dwight feels. The question is whether a 'reasonable person' would conclude that Dwight's life was in immediate danger. That's what the law says. To me it seems obvious that this test does not pass in case of Martin (guy follows him) but does in case of Zimmerman (guy sitting on him and pounding him in the face)
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you could argue that Martin felt threatened when Zimmerman reached into his pocket to get his cellphone.
Seems to me that would qualify under the "stand your ground" law - Martin had a reasonable belief of an unlawful threat and that he did not have an obligation to retreat. Cops shoot people all the time for exactly the same reason, Martin would be justified in hitting Zimmerman first if the thought Zimmerman was in the process of drawing a weapon.
Re: (Score:3)
Martin had broken contact with Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on the phone to the police. Zimmerman had agreed to meet the police that were dispatched to the site and was on his way when Martin confronted and assaulted Zimmerman. Martin had previous used a racial slur to describe Zimmerman. It was Martin's choice to confront Zimmerman. Since he was ahead of Zimmerman, Martin could have continued on his way to his house instead of confronting Zimmerman.
Witness: Trayvon Called George Zimmerman A ‘Cre [mediaite.com]
Re: (Score:2)
At least half what you claimed happened is not even mentioned in those links. In fact, some of it seems to be contradicted by those links. I don't really know what happened, but when someone starts in with the citations that don't support their claims, I generally start to think their bias is an insurmountable barrier for them to find out the truth,
Re: (Score:2)
Your view about "insurmountable barriers" is interesting. Sometimes one's political views form the basis for that, and no amount of evidence helps.
Here you go, knock yourself out. The police call transcript and map are helpful, as is various aspects of the other material.
Map and timeline of incident [cbsnews.com]
Trayvon Martin shooting death -- initial police reports and '911' call transcript [chicagotribune.com]
Witness: Trayvon Called George Zimmerman A ‘Creepy-A**,’ ‘White, Kill-My-Neighbors Cracker’ [mediaite.com]
Zimmerman tri [legalinsurrection.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Dumping a buttload of random citations is just as bad. Really, you see it all the time with scams like super-foods - they have a million citations, but they don't tell you what the citation is supposed to support about their claims, and in the rare case of when they do make specific claims about a specific citation, it often turns out that their citation is contradictory, or at least orthogonal I see the same sort of mode here with your two responses.
What is even more damning is that you responded to my or
Re: (Score:2)
Simple question, did I, or did I not write this?: "The police call transcript and map are helpful, as is various aspects of the other material.
The top two links in my second post to you make much of the previous post reasonably clear. My suggestion is to open the map in one web browser, and the transcript in another, and simply read.
The racial slur used by Martin? Shown in the third link which shows that it was testified to in open court by the woman he was speaking to on the phone during the incident.
Wit [mediaite.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Simple question, did I, or did I not write this?: "The police call transcript and map are helpful, as is various aspects of the other material.
If you think a couple of lines followed by, what, 10+ links, is meaningful, you are living in a bubble. The fact that you keep going on and on about this to someone who clearly barely gives a fuck shows you are a zealot.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it needs to be more specific.
We have testimony from an eye witness (mr. good) that martin was beating zimmerman in a "rain" of blows "MMA style" in a "ground and pound".
Agree?
We have a timeline from the 911 call that shows Zimmerman stopped and talked with the operator for close to 2 minutes.
Agree?
Martin's house was about 200' away from where he was last seen. A normal person walks that in under 60 seconds. It seems reasonable that Martin could have gotten to his house but didn't go there.
Agree?
I'
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you keep going on and on about this to someone who clearly barely gives a fuck shows you are a zealot.
I have a suggestion here. How about you change your mind from "barely give a fuck" to "don't give a fuck" and leave this debate to the grown-ups?
Re: (Score:2)
On the 911 call Zim did chase down Martin for about 20 seconds until the 911 operator said, "we don't need you to do that" and he stopped (and he's already winded- terrible shape).
Zim talks to the operator for about 2 minutes and then the call ends.
Then about a minute later the fight is being observed by witnesses with martin on top of zimmerman.
Zimmerman is likely lying about several things (i.e. what martin said while beating Zim). But the 911 data shows that martin had ample time to get home (about 200
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
From what I've read, it corresponds to the 911 transcript. The operator tried to get him to back off.
I think you need to reread that transcript again. Zimmerman had agreed to meet the police officers that had been dispatched to the site. Martin confronted and assaulted Zimmerman after that. Since he was ahead of Zimmerman and on his way home, if Marin had continued on his way he would have been home instead of assaulting Zimmerman, which led to his being shot.
Map and timeline of incident [cbsnews.com]
Trayvon Martin shooting death -- initial police reports and '911' call transcript [chicagotribune.com]
Dispatcher: Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman: Yeah. [2:25]
Dispatcher:OK.We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman: OK. [2:28] (wind noises heard)
Dispatcher:Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]
Zimmerman:George. He ran.
Dispatcher:Alright, George, what’s your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman.
...
Dispatcher: Alright, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?
Zimmerman: Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then they go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]
...
Dispatcher: OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]
Zimmerman: Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43]
...
Dispatcher: OK, no problem. I’ll let them know to call you when they’re in the area. [4:02]
Zimmerman:Thanks.
Dispatcher: You’re welcome.
Call ends 4:07
The trial seems to be going strongly in Zimmerman's favor, of course juries are unpredictable.
Witness: Trayvon Called George Zimmerman A ‘Creepy-A**,’ ‘White, Kill-My-Neighbors Cracker’ [mediaite.com]
Zimmerman trial blockbuster — Eyewitness says Trayvon on top punching Mixed Martial Arts style [legalinsurrection.com]
Zimmerman Trial Day 5 – Analysis & Video – State’s own witnesses undercut theory of guilt [legalinsurrection.com]
Zimmerman Trial Day 6 – Analysis & Video – State’s witness Chris Serino seriously undermines charge [legalinsurrection.com]
Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 8 — State Wins Evidentiary Battle, Loses Testimony War [legalinsurrection.com]
Has State Opened Door to Defense Introducing Martin Fight Video? [legalinsurrection.com]
Zimmerman judge excludes Trayvon Martin fighting, social media and marijuana use [legalinsurrection.com]
Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense [legalinsurrection.com]
Lest we forget:
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting that you omitted the fact that after Zimmerman told the dispatcher he'd meet police at the mailboxes, he changed his mind and asked that the officers call him so he could tell them where he was.
Zimmerman: Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then they go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]
Dispatcher: Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]
Zimmerman: Um, I don
Re: (Score:2)
Why would he need to tell police in the future (when they arrived) where he was, if he just told the dispatcher to tell the police he'd meet them at the mailboxes? Because he wasn't going to be back at his vehicle by the mailboxes. He was going to lead them straight to Martin, and to do that, he needed to find Martin and possibly detain him until police arrived.
There are plenty of reasons why he might want to be contacted by the police when they were nearing the designated meeting place, such as the possibility of them arriving sooner than expected while Zimmerman was still traveling to that point. That way he could coordinate with them.
Do you have any actual evidence for Zimmerman intending to detain Martin? That didn't appear to be his intent during the call, nor with his behavior prior to the call. So far it looks like you have a pet theory not supported by e
Re: (Score:2)
Note
[2:28] (Z stops)
Z Talks to operator
[4:07] (call ends)
--
Martin fails to cover the 200' to his house while running since M is back on scene about 3 minutes after Zim stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've read, it corresponds to the 911 transcript. The operator tried to get him to back off.
Then you've read the wrong thing, as Zimmerman did not call 911.
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, at least 10% of that wasn't in error.
But a whole bunch was.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the guy who doesn't even know that Zimmerman called the non-emergency number that night, and not 911.
Who does not know that there was no need for Martin to jump a wall to enter the neighborhood if he didn't utilize either of the gates.
Assuming you're the same AC as the one to which I responded.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realize it was ok to seek out, confront, and then shoot someone, as long as that person is a THUG?
Hey, everyone needs to let the inner Batman out once in a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only handheld ones. His vehicles have all sorts of projectile launchers built in to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the rest of us need to carry a gun to make us think our dick is as big as Batman's.
Re: (Score:2)
But Zimmerman was armed and deliberately sought a confrontation with him, not the other way around.
No, what Zimmerman did was observe Martin from a distance and call the police, he didn't seek to confront Martin. It was Martin that described Zimmerman with a racial slur, confronted and attacked Zimmerman.
Witness: Trayvon Called George Zimmerman A ‘Creepy-A**,’ ‘White, Kill-My-Neighbors Cracker’ [mediaite.com]
Zimmerman trial blockbuster — Eyewitness says Trayvon on top punching Mixed Martial Arts style [legalinsurrection.com]
You're right, Martin wasn't a perfect angel.
Has State Opened Door to Defense Introducing [legalinsurrection.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realize it was ok to seek out, confront, and then shoot someone, as long as that person is a THUG?
Who has said that's OK? Are you talking about some scenario other than the trial at hand? Because what you're describing didn't happen. You need to be more clear that you're not talking about the Zimmerman/Martin trial when you say that. Otherwise people might think that you're being deliberately misleading.
But Zimmerman was armed and deliberately sought a confrontation with him, not the other way around.
Ah, so you ARE being deliberately misleading. Why are you doing that? What's the point of lying about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Just ask them if Trayvon Martin had shot Zimmerman with Zimmerman's gun, if they'd be asking for Martin to be put on trial, or declaring his actions self-defense.
Who is "them"?
As for me, I'd probably want a murder trial for that scenario too. He can plead self defense, and we'll see how it goes. Although self-defense seems pretty likely... or do you regularly imagine "unarmed thugs" confronting and then attacking people with guns, taking those guns by force, and then using them to shoot the owner?
How often
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, sir. That is called assault.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Wait, what?
What sort of paranoid fantasy world do you live in?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Sure, but Zimmerman thought he was, for whatever reason.
This is exactly how communities were expected to be, before we all became strangers to our neighbors. "Hey! You there! I don't know you - what are you doing here?" is a perfectly valid thing for a local to ask. Doesn't give the local any right to initiate violence, but certainly doesn't give the person asked the right to initiate violence either. Pretty much no words whatsoever give you the right to attack the person who said them.
Re: (Score:2)
Spare me from your community.
Unless you live in isolation from any communities, you already live in such a community. People do not universally trust other people unless they have a medical condition or mental handicap. And it turns out that they have good reason not to trust other people unconditionally.
Re: (Score:2)
MARTIN WAS NOT WALKING AROUND IN A PLACE WHERE HE SHOULD NOT BE.
Martin was behaving in a way that a neighborhood watch volunteer (Zimmerman) found to be suspicious, which caused him to call the police, and agreed to meet the dispatched officers when they arrived. Martin described Zimmerman with a racial slur, then confronted and attacked Zimmerman.
Witness: Trayvon Called George Zimmerman A ‘Creepy-A**,’ ‘White, Kill-My-Neighbors Cracker’ [mediaite.com]
Zimmerman trial blockbuster — Eyewitness says Trayvon on top punching Mixed Martial Arts style [legalinsurrection.com]
Re: (Score:2)
One was a female friend of Martin - the one that was on the phone with him during the incident, the other was a witness to the assault. You might be projecting. Ask yourself why you think they are biased? Is it just because the evidence looks bad for Martin?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No, clearly he was visiting his mother, his father, his father's fiance, a friend, etc, depending on which story you read.
If true, of course, he had every right to be there, and when asked by a security guard, he should have stated his business and thanked the security guard for keeping the neighborhood safe.
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence submitted by the state shows ZImmerman had a history of this kind of thing.
i.e. calling the police and reporting suspicious circumstances to them and not being overly aggressive.
It was very strange that they would submit all those 911 calls but apparently they were trying to show Zimmerman had reached the breaking point.
To me, it felt like they were making the defense's case for them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 constitut
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So, let me get this straight. If I get out of my car, and someone assaults me and I shoot them, then that is not self defense? Because my getting out of the car was "asking for it"?
Re: (Score:2)
Not when you've provoked and threatened them. Which is exactly what Zimmerman did.
See, that's the thing. That didn't happen. You are lying. Why are you lying?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Except Martin's DNA was not on the holster or the gun."
That was covered in the trial. Even under ideal conditions DNA doesn't stick 100% of the time, and it was raining.
Re: (Score:2)
. If Zimmerman showed Martin he had a gun, that is all that is required for Martin to incapacitate Zimmerman.
Im pretty sure having an unconcealed firearm on your person is not justification for someone attacking you.
In fact I believe its a constitutional right to have one, I do believe I read that somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
and if you attempt to kill me (what ever the thought you have in your head), and I am armed, I will shoot you.
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
"Stand your ground" has nothing to do with this case. It's a pure case of self-defense.
"Within three generations we could weed virtually all aggressive genes out of the gene pool."
And within four generations the few aggressive ones left would rule the rest with an iron fist.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
That is just utterly ridiculous. Getting out of the car makes no difference to the right to self defense.
Even "confrontation" makes no difference. The only thing that would negate the self-defense plea is if Zimmerman actually physically attacked Martin and then progressed from fighting to shooting.
And there is absolutely no evidence nor testimony that he did so.
It would be ever so refreshing if people made the slightest effort to understand the law before they started blathering about it.
I know, too much to ask.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's why it is a case of pure confrontation and aggression.
Absurd. Getting out of the car to see where someone suspicious is going is not a confrontation nor is it an act that requires that person to double back from just outside the house he was going to, jump the guy, and begin to administer a beat-down. You're a troll, or an idiot, or both.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why it is a case of pure confrontation and aggression.
So why is getting out of a car "pure confrontation and aggression"?
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
For some reason, you seem to believe every word that Zimmerman says. You know, the guy who shot and killed another guy. Why is that? Are you so gullible you believe whatever anyone says?
Re: (Score:2)
Your ability to conjure up fantasies has nothing to do with the witnesses and the evidence in the trial.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Even if Martin did start the fight if Zimmerman was winning the fight (and it was Martin who was yelling for Zimmerman to get off of him) wouldn't that also negate the self-defense plea?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Even if Martin did start the fight if Zimmerman was winning the fight (and it was Martin who was yelling for Zimmerman to get off of him) wouldn't that also negate the self-defense plea?
If Martin started the fight, and Zimmerman was winning, and Martin attempted to withdraw, then Martin would have justification for using force, even deadly force, under Florida 776.041, which is a portion of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law (but NOT the SYG portion, 776.013 (3), or the immunity portion, 776.032), but it would probably take a few Supreme Court rulings to sort out whether, in that hypothetical, Zimmerman could keep on fighting and claim he felt that Martin's attempt to disengage was jus
Re: (Score:2)
Testimony from eye witness Mr. Good is that Martin "in the black hoodie" was on top of and winning while "raining" down blows on Zim "in the red sweatshirt" and that it was "probably" Zim who was calling for help. Wasn't sure since Martin was facing away from Mr. Good.
OTH, why would I be beating the hell out of someone and calling for help.
Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Stand your ground" has nothing to do with this case. It's a pure case of self-defense.
You sure about that? From the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] on "Stand Your Ground"....
Though you have been been awarded a +5 "informative" and speak from a point of authority, you seem to have a few facts incorrect.
In fact, what the trial here is about how to interpret "stand your ground". If one initiates a confrontation against and innocent individual who may himself feel threatened, are you standing your ground or are you starting a fight?
"Stand Your Ground" has to do with one not having a duty to retreat first, which they did under the previous wording of the law.
Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law is here [state.fl.us].
776.013 (3) is the SYG part
But according to Zimmerman's version, duty to retreat or lack thereof doesn't matter because he was unable to retreat.
776.032 is the immunity part.
That is the part which meant that the police were legally prohibited from arresting him if they could not offer any evidence to disprove his self-defense claim, an
Re: (Score:2)
This is an obvious case of self defense, if the thug that attacked Zimmerman wasn't an African-American, there would be no trial. There was too much race baiting and fake charges of murder were trumped up to appease the Martin family.My message to the Martin family is clear. If your son was not a THUG, he would be still be here.
by Anonymous Coward ~~~~ says it all.
And if the term for those not logged in was "Brave Whistleblower", would you have the same reaction.
It is just a label after all. One chosen by the site designers long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's where you are mistaken. You are thinking of this as a conventional criminal case where the state has to prove you did something.
In this case, Zimmerman can't rely on the benefit of the doubt. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Zimmerman was the person who shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Yes, the prosecutor is presenting that information, but that's a matter of court record, not because it's actually in dispute. Zimmerman is not going to argue he didn't do it. He would be a fool if he did. He has to make an affirmative defense. The jury should not be looking for evidence to convict him, the action he conducted is not denied by Zimmerman. He's looking to present evidence to exculpate his actions.
You should not be looking for doubt. You need to believe his story is true and genuine. Were he denying that he shot Trayvon Martin, that would be an issue for doubt.
This is a case of certainty. You need to be certain you believe his story enough that you excuse him. Otherwise you are saying that Trayvon Martin's life is of no merit to you.
That you're trying to reason things the wrong way only shows how you don't understand what is really happening, but are falling back on principles you've been taught in the past, which for their purposes are valid enough, but not applicable here.
Seriously you need to reverse your attitude towards this case. It's not innocent until proven guilty when your defense is affirmative, it's guilty unless you can show you are absolved within the boundaries of the law. For example, in regards your auto theft case, perhaps the alleged thief admitted having the car, but says they confused it for their own, or perhaps they had some emergency and had to get somewhere very quickly, so they took the car.
Do Trayvon the courtesy of respecting and valuing his life, make the person who undoubtedly shot and killed him prove that his actions were justifiable.
But while I think you are too racially biased to do that(due to your support for the grandparent), that is it a waste of time, still I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're merely ignorant of the legal duty of the juror here.
You really don't understand that whole "presumption of innocence, the burden is on the state to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt" thing, do you?
Whether you like it or not, that's how our system works.
This is a conventional criminal case where the state has to prove he did something.
That something is to have done what he did for a reason or reasons that make it murder and not self-defense.
The issue in dispute here is not whether Zimmerman fired the shot that killed Martin--everybody agrees there
Re: (Score:2)
It's a stupid-editors-don't-even-check-spelling box.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll only see those kinds of errors on Slqshdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Batshit crazy isn't limited to politicians. In fact I suspect that a lot of them are faking it, to win the votes of people like the one you quoted.
Re: (Score:2)
The rural right hates the EPA with the burning passion of a million suns, because the EPA will show up out of no where and tell you that the way your family has been earning a living for many generations is now illegal. That makes them a handy go-to villain for conspiracy theories, much like the US in certain parts of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
If "The Powers That Be" had a son, he'd look a lot more like Romney's kids than either Martin or Zimmerman.
And if Trayvon had been white, Zimmerman would have been Hispanic a lot sooner.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know it just wasn't the prosecutors friends playing a joke on him? In that case, they would already been in his contact list.
Re: WTH?? (Score:4)
This murderer is going to walk on technicalities!
No, you're confused. The person attempting murder was stopped in the act by his victim. The entire trial is a bad joke, and the Skype episode is just frosting on that bitter cake.
Re: (Score:2)
Which much improved the story.
Shhh!
You're giving away the plot of "Terminator 5".