# George Zmmerman trial begins...



## billc

The trial of George Zimmerman began today...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-backwards-trial-a-george-zimmerman-prosecution-primer/


> With an all-female jury seated (five white, one Hispanic) and opening  arguments occurring today, understand that not only should the charge  against George Zimmerman never have been filed, but that the case is  remarkably backwards.





> Defense attorney Mark OMara





> filed a motion  for sanctions against de la Rionda for improperly withholding important  evidence, and de la Rionda filed a petulant, angry and unprofessional  response that is a model of improper legal writing. He eventually admitted in court  to withholding the evidence, with an excuse of: I forgot about it.  Despite multiple defense requests, he forgot  for seven months  that  his most important witness was a perjurer. Judge Nelson has yet to rule  on OMaras motion for sanctions despite de la Riondas admission.





> Dee Dee: The young woman known as Dee Dee was represented by  Crump and de la Rionda to the court to be a juvenile  a ploy to keep  her identity hidden under juvenile privacy laws. However, it was  eventually revealed that she was 18 when interviewed by de la Rionda on  April 12, 2012. That interview  revealed that Dee Dee did not have information that contradicted  Zimmermans self-defense account, and that she would be a terrible  witness.



And a meet the jury article...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/meet-the-zimmerman-trial-jurors/comment-page-1/#comment-431758


----------



## arnisador

It's ridiculous how long it takes to get to trial these days.


----------



## Tames D

It's also ridiculous that this poor guy is even on trial.


----------



## Flying Crane

Tames D said:


> It's also ridiculous that this poor guy is even on trial.



why would that be?


----------



## billc

Apparently, the prosecution is using the tactic of putting Zimmerman's parents on their witness list to keep them out of the courtroom...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/24/Zimmerman-parents-courtroom




> [h=2]In an exclusive to Breitbart News, the family of George Zimmerman  has stated the Zimmermans parents have been barred from the courtroom  by the State of Florida, even though under Florida law, the alleged  victims family  the family of Trayvon Martin  has been allowed to  stay. The state claims that because the Zimmermans may be witnesses for  the state, they must be barred from the courtroom.
> [/h]



some of the posters at the article thing it is because his mother is Peruvian, and the prosectuion doesn't want her to be seen by the jury...they want to be able to portray Zimmerman as a racist...


----------



## Aiki Lee

The guy needs to be put on trial, but he deserves a fair trial. None of us knows all the details and in order for any justice to be done Zimmerman needs a fair shake at the process. Manipulation on either side is a mockery of the whole justice system.


----------



## billc

Day one...opening statements...an analysis...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-one-analysis-of-opening-statements/


----------



## billc

The prosecution didn't have a good day...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-2-analysis-of-states-witnesses/




> State witness, Ms. Dorival, NWP coordinator
> 
> Recall that one of the key elements of the State&#8217;s theory of the case  is that Zimmerman is a &#8220;wannabe cop&#8221; who &#8220;took the law into his own  hands.&#8221; The expectation was that this witness would define the limited  scope of the NWP, and the State could then illustrate how Zimmerman had  aggressively over-stepped these limitations in &#8220;profiling&#8221; and  &#8220;following&#8221; Martin.





> Defense Attorney West
> 
> He asked if she had any personal knowledge of the drivers behind Twin  Lakes starting a NWP,. Dorival confirmed that she had checked with the  Sanford Police Department&#8217;s crime statistics and confirmed that there  had been a spike in robberies and that the neighborhood&#8217;s concerns about  crime were genuine. She was also aware of the recent home invasion.





> Further, she thought it was great that Zimmerman was pursuing a degree  in criminal justice. In fact, she had been so impressed with him that  she had tried to recruit him for the Sanford PD&#8217;s &#8220;Citizen on Patrol&#8221;  program.





> &#8220;Citizens on Patrol?&#8221; asked West. &#8220;What&#8217;s that?&#8221;
> 
> It turns out that it&#8217;s a program in which the Sanford Police  Department would provide Zimmerman with a civilianized patrol car and a  uniform of sorts, and provide additional training that would allow him  to effectively conduct patrols of his neighborhood. In contrast, the NWP  program was far less pro-active, involving only observation and  reporting.
> Surely the Zimmerman described by the State as a &#8220;wannabe cop&#8221;  seeking to &#8220;take the law into his own hands&#8221; and &#8220;profile&#8221; and &#8220;chase&#8221;  unfamiliar black boys would fairly leap at such an opportunity. It was  as close to being a police officer as Zimmerman was ever likely to get,  the chance of a life time.
> Zimmerman declined the opportunity.
> This did not, however, spoil Dorival&#8217;s respect for Zimmerman. When  asked by West if there was anything about Zimmerman&#8217;s demeanor that  &#8220;raised any red flags&#8221; for her, she answered in the negative. George,  she said, struck her as very professional, perhaps a little meek, but a  man who was really committed to making his community better.



The head of the Home Owners Association goes sideways on the Prosecution as well...



> He also recounted an interesting story about a particular robbery in  the community. What made this burglary memorable to O&#8217;Brien was that he  had actually gotten into a conversation with the soon-to-be-burglar only  a short time before the crime occurred. The burglar&#8211;whom O&#8217;Brien  described as a 17-year-old black man&#8211;chatted with O&#8217;Brien a while, and  later was seen by some nearby construction workers leaving a townhouse  later discovered to have been burgled.
> 
> A few days later, these same workers observed the same 17-year-old  black man wandering through Twin Lakes again. They contacted the police,  and the burglar was successfully arrested.
> Then he made an astonishing statement, given that he was a State witness and given the State&#8217;s theory of the case.
> The arrest was made possible, he said, because the construction  workers followed the suspicious person from a distance. O&#8217;Brien was, he  said, so pleased with the successful arrest that he had sent the workers  a letter of commendation from the HOA.



The state's "Ear Witness," appears to have changed her testimony on the stand as well...not to the benefit of the State...



> O&#8217;Mara handled the cross-examination of Bahadoor, and it was very  quickly apparent that this person who had promised to be the State&#8217;s  star witness of the day&#8211;and perhaps of the entire trial&#8211;was about to be  have her testimony and credibility utterly, indeed humiliatingly,  crushed before the jury.



It seems that the prosecution had a bad day...


----------



## arnisador

I saw the video of Mr. West opening with a joke yesterday--sheesh!


----------



## billc

Apparently the "n" word was used prior to the encounter between Martin and Zimmerman...by Martin...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/26/m...ys-martin-called-zimmerman-creepy-***-cracka/

Another prosecution witness changes testimony...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/26/Star-prosecution-witness-Zimmerman-Trayvon-voice



> In her original testimony, she said, &#8220;It could be Trayvon &#8230;. It could be, like I said, I don&#8217;t know, but it could be. The dude sound kind of like Trayvon, Trayvon do got that soft voice, and that baby voice sometimes. So it could be, I don&#8217;t know, you know, it&#8217;s not.&#8221; Jeantel testified today that she believes it was Martin&#8217;s voice on the 911 call.



I have been watching some of the coverage of the trial on the formerly Court TV cable network.  The interesting thing is that they show pictures of Trayvon Martin and they are all him smiling, or with his family.  I have yet to see any of the pictures of Trayvon Martin with the gun in his waistband and smoking what seems to be pot.  I haven't heard mention of the video he filmed of his friends beating up the homless man.  Now in court, these pictures were excluded because the judge didn't think they were relevant...but on the cable show...it seems there is a bias in the coverage...

Scratch the video mention...the video was actually taken of two homeless men fighting over a bicycle...


----------



## billc

More prosection witnesses having trouble on the stand...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...es-tm-on-ground-when-shot-gz-on-top-in-fight/



> More objectively, however, were observation testimony by Sudyka that was clearly contrary to facts known and accepted by everyone else involved in the case. On at least three separate occasions Sudyka referred to the &#8220;three shots&#8221; fired by Zimmerman&#8211;&#8221;pop, pop, pop&#8221;. No one but her has ever suggested that there was more than a single shot fired.
> 
> 
> She testified that it was while she as on the 911 call with police that the shot was fired, sticking to that assertion vigorously. In fact, the 911 recording was played in court&#8211;yes, every single 16 minutes of it&#8211;and no shot was audible.
> 
> 
> She also described the relative positions of Zimmerman and Martin at the moment the shot was fired as being such that the bullet could only have struck Martin in the back (that is, she describes him as laying face down on the ground at that moment, with Zimmerman above him). We know, of course, that Martin was shot in the center chest area, right over the heart, and the bullet did not over-penetrate.
> 
> 
> Interestingly, Sudyka also stated several times that the rainfall at the time was quite heavy&#8211;&#8217;buckets of rain&#8221; was the phrase she used, so intense that she needed to close a window to prevent rain from entering her home. This observation favors the defense, which has suggested that the rain may have washed away the traces of blood that several witnesses have said was not evident at the scene. Indeed, so damaging were these statements to the State that Mr. de la Rionda rose on re-direct for the sole purpose of inducing Sudyka to make corrective statements downplaying the intensity of the rainfall.
> 
> 
> Sudyka also was insistent that she had heard two voices, one a loud, aggressive, confrontational, dominating voice and the other a softer, meeker voice. She attributed the confrontational voice to Zimmerman and the meeker voice to the &#8220;boy,&#8221; Martin. It emerged on cross, however, that she had never previously heard either Zimmerman or Martin&#8217;s voice, and was making her assignment based on assumptions of how they might sound, not on personal knowledge.



And another witness...



> O&#8217;Mara is handling the cross of Manaloo, and has hit on three key points of attack so far. First was how dark the scene was that night, and how difficult it was for Nanaloo to make out what was happening. He successfully managed her to agree that all she was really able to see at the time was shadows, and even those only from inside her townhome, as she had never stepped outside.
> 
> 
> The second line of attack is that her sudden ability to differentiate between the two people has emerged only today in court. In none of her prior statements, including one the evening of the attack, a later statement to investigators, and depositions to both the State and the defense, had she ever mentioned this ability to determine that it was Zimmerman who was on top. Her reason for not mentioning it previously? Nobody had ever asked her.
> 
> 
> The third line of attack, and the one currently on pause for lunch, is to better understand the basis on which she judged Martin&#8217;s size. She did not know Martin prior to the shooting, and obviously could not have seen him afterwards except in photos. We all know, of course, that many of the photos distributed after the event show Martin as a much younger person than the 17-year-old, 6-foot-plus young man he was at the time of his death.
> 
> O&#8217;Mara is midway through the process of pinning down which pictures she may have used for her assessment. Obviously pictures that showed only a portion of Martin&#8217;s body, such as just his face, and/or that showed him when much younger would result in a misleading perception on Manaloo&#8217;s part, effectively destroying the credibility of her testimony.


----------



## billc

Updates of the testimony...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...analysis-and-video-of-states-witnesses//#more

On Manaloo...



> In fact, asked O&#8217;Mara, you&#8217;re not certain as you sit here today who was where during that altercation, are you? She acknowledged that she was not. West had no more questions.



She also  acknowledged that her determination of who was the larger individual came from Trayvon Martin's pictures when he was younger or the pictures which only showed his face...she assumed he was smaller than Zimmerman...The pictures from court...















> He noted that in response to de la Rionda&#8217;s question, OK, so the guy on top to you appeared bigger, Manaloo had responded in the affirmative.
> There was, however, some additional context that would be helpful. He read more of the transcript. He had Manaloo read the two or three sentences immediately prior to the just quoted portion.Manaloo: How would you describe the physical of the guy on top or the guy on the bottom.
> O&#8217;Mara:  OK, and what was your answer?
> Manaloo:  I know after seeing the TV of what&#8217;s happening.  Then Mr. de la Rionda said OK, and I said comparing the pictures, I think Zimmerman is definitely on top because of his size.
> O&#8217;Mara:  But again, not becasue you ahv ethat independnt thought obut only becaue you coampared the picutres we just talked about, right?
> Manaloo:  Yes.
> O&#8217;Mara:  Your only basis for this is not because you though the was on top becasue he was on top, but only because of the comaprison with the picutre of a 12 year old child.
> Manaloo:  Yes.​



Hmmmm...


----------



## billc

Caught a little of Nancy Grace, and one of the other shows covering the trial...all support the Martin side of the story...


----------



## Tames D

Flying Crane said:


> why would that be?



Sorry for the late response FC. i just noticed this post. I don't have time right now to spend on all the obvious framing that has been done to Zimmerman. Read up on it and follow the trial. I think you'll understand.


----------



## Grenadier

arnisador said:


> I saw the video of Mr. West opening with a joke yesterday--sheesh!



This was actually a smart tactic.  

The prosecution basically opened up with what was an emotional plea, riling up the jury.  

The use of the poor joke helped blunt the emotional surge, and jolt them back to their senses.  



As for the prosecution, why the heck they would use Rachel Jeantel as their "star witness" is mind boggling.  She can't even keep her lies straight, despite all of the coaching by Benjamin Crump and co.  

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...wrote-shooting/story?id=19504826#.UcxJ05zJL5w



> A teenage friend of Trayvon Martin was forced to admit today in the George Zimmerman  murder trial that she did not write a letter that was sent to Martin's  mother describing what she allegedly heard on a phone call with Martin  moments before he was shot.
> 
> 
> In a painfully embarassing moment, Rachel Jeantel was asked to read the letter out loud in court.
> 
> 
> "Are you able to read that at all?" defense attorney Don West asked.
> 
> 
> Jeantel, head bowed, eyes averted whispered into the court microphone, "Some but not all. I don't read cursive."
> 
> 
> It sent a hush through the packed courtroom.
> 
> 
> Jeantel, 19, was unable to read any of the letter save for her name.





That was just one drop in the bucket that is essentially dooming the case for the prosecution.


----------



## billc

I found this unusual as well when I saw the coverage of the questioning...the mother of the victim sat in on the initial interview with this witness...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/27/Zimmerman-prosecution-star-witness-Fulton




> Rachel Jeantel, the prosecution&#8217;s star witness in the George  Zimmerman trial, said on Thursday on the stand that Sabryna Fulton, the  mother of Trayvon Martin, sat next to her during her first interview  with the state attorney and law enforcement. As Kathi Belich of WFTV  tweeted, &#8220;That is highly unusual. I have never heard of the alleged  victim&#8217;s family sitting in on a witness interview in 32 years.&#8221;



Anyone in law enforcement of criminal law know anything about letting the murder victims mother sit in on an initial interview...?


----------



## billc

Apparently they took the deposition of the witness...in the Trayvon Martin's mother's house...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...nalysis-video-of-states-witnesses/#more-56863



> In earlier statements&#8211;including a letter to Fulton and a recorded phone interview with family lawyer/advisor Crump&#8211;she had said that Martin had first asked Zimmerman, &#8220;Why you following me,&#8221; to which Zimmerman had responded, she said, &#8220;What are you talking about?&#8221; Such a response is clearly not confrontational, but rather defensive, in nature, the utterance of someone who is confused by a sudden act of confrontation.





> Jeantel&#8217;s revised statement, however, was much more in line with what the State need to support the arrest and prosecution of ZImmerrman. Indeed, Jeantel&#8217;s newly revealed testimony formed the very backbone of the State&#8217;s affidavit of probably cause, the legal document that drove Zimmerman&#8217;s arrest and prosecution. The credibility of the newly emerged information began to degrade rapidly as West explored the circumstances in which Mr. de la Rionda had taken her statement.





> They travelled together in this way to sit in the living room of the home of Sabrina Fulton, the very home in which Trayvon Martin had lived until his mother had recently sent the troubled and troublesome youth to go live with his father.





> Further, Wests deliberate questioning soon had Jeantel admitting without hesitation that she had molded her testimony to minimize any pain she might cause Sabrina Fulton, silently weeping beside her. In that room on that day Jeantel told not the truth and the whole truth, but a version of the truth customized to meet the perceived needs and interests of her audience.



The second prosecution witness who helped the defense today...



> On direct examination by de la Rionda, all of Lauer&#8217;s testimony was completely consistent with the defense&#8217;s theory of lawful self-defense, and to some degree even contrary to some of the State&#8217;s theory (for example, Lauer recounted that there was &#8220;pretty steady-paced rain,&#8221; when the State has consistently sought testimony that the rain was light or intermittent).





> She also noted in both direct and cross examination that she herself was uncertain of the street names in the neighborhood, and that there were no street signs anywhere near her townhouse, the same area where Zimmerman would have reported to the non-emergency dispatcher his difficulty in providing a specific address.




And the other witness today...only helped the defense...again...



> Here again the State had a witness who on direct provided testimony that was 100% consistent with the defense&#8217;s theory of lawful self-defense. The State spent considerable time having her testify to the effect that &#8220;the person who got up was the person who had been on top&#8221; when the two people were on the ground.





> Zimmerman has always maintain, since his first written statement to the police the night of the shooting, that after firing his single round he had positioned himself above Martin&#8217;s prone body to keep Martin&#8217;s arms away from his body and prevent a renewal by Martin of his attack (at the time Zimmerman could not, of course, know the full extent of Martin&#8217;s injuries). Or, to read it in the words of Zimmerman&#8217;s own hand-written statement taken at the Sanford Police Department the night of the shooting:
> 
> At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm and say, &#8220;Your gonna die tonight Mother ****er!&#8221; I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as he had assured he was going to kill me and fired one shot into his torso. The suspect sat back allowing me to sit up and said, &#8220;You got me!&#8221; At this point I slid out from underneath him and got on top of the suspect holding his hands away from his body.​


----------



## Big Don

What is the over/under for days of rioting after his acquittal?


----------



## billc

Despite the poor performance of the prosecution witnesses so far...it is still up to the jury.  There may not be a need for rioting if they convict Zimmerman despite the evidence.


----------



## billc

Wow, just Wow...does the prosectution even know what it is doing...the witness they call to the stand specifically states they saw with their own eyes...Martin on top of Zimmerman, pounding on him...I knew this guy was out there, but I thought his testimony wouldn't come out until the defense portion of the trial...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...punching-down-mixed-martial-arts-style//#more



> Indeed, as has become the pattern in this trial, the longer the State&#8217;s witness was in the stand, the more damage he did to the State&#8217;s theory of the case. The continually growing climax was realized at the very end of the testimony, when O&#8217;Mara held a copy of Good&#8217;s initial statement to then-lead Investigator Chris Serino (a transcript of is provided below):
> 
> *O&#8217;Mara:* Just to clarify what was actually talked about with Chris Serino, Investigator Serino, during this, we&#8217;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?
> &#8220;Yeah I pretty much heard somebody yelling outside. I wasn&#8217;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&#8217;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.&#8221;
> Is that the context in which that happened?
> 
> 
> *Good:* Yes.
> 
> 
> *O&#8217;Mara:* And then Investigator Serino said, a word that I have, and the transcripts may differ, ground, couldn&#8217;t figure it, maybe he said Ground-and-Pound, and then you said:
> 
> 
> &#8220;Yeah, like a Ground-and-Pound on the concrete at this point, so at this point...



Are all of the prosecution witnesses going to turn out to be hostile witnesses?


----------



## billc

This is found through legal insurrection but it is posted at the Greta van Susteren site...video of George Zimmerman before he had a lawyer, before he was arrested, at the scene of the shooting, from the point of first contact with Martin, to where the shooting took place.  He is with detectives from Sanford p.d. And he describes everything that he did.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com...he-had-a-lawyer-and-right-after-the-shooting/

This 





> re-enactment video will help you understand the scene of the shooting according to George Zimmerman and is in his words.    It is also a horrible video for the prosecution.
> 
> 
> Right after the shooting, Zimmerman took the police to the scene and talked to them&#8230;.walked them through the incident.    You will have to sit through a short ad to see the video &#8212; but this video is worth watching as it is George Zimmerman in his own words, showing you the scene and before he has a lawyer.   Of course at the time of the video, he (like anyone involved in a shooting) had a motive to slant the facts in his favor but it is noteworthy that the reenactment with the police was done right after the incident and before he had a lawyer.


----------



## billc

A look at the case so far...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/zimmerman-the-backwards-trial-resumes/




> But this is the George Zimmerman prosecution: a backwards case where the roles of the prosecution and defense are reversed.
> 
> 
> Normally, prosecutors are careful to fully question each prosecution  witness to obtain all of the evidence their testimony can produce. They  do this so that the defense is not able to reveal previously undisclosed  evidence, which tends to suggest prosecutorial concealment. But during  the first week of this case, the prosecution established a pattern of  asking only the bare minimum of their witnesses. In virtually every  case, defense cross-examination reveals a great deal the prosecutors  avoided bringing to light, and that information either fully supports  George&#8217;s Zimmerman&#8217;s unchanging account, casts doubt on the &#8220;narrative&#8221; &#8212; which is actually the prosecution&#8217;s case &#8212; or both.
> 
> 
> This bizarre turn of events has caused the prosecutors, particularly  Bernie de la Rionda, to engage in the spectacle of aggressively  cross-examining their own witnesses, trying to get them to  mischaracterize, ignore, disown, or soft-pedal their testimony.
> 
> 
> Another and disturbing pattern established by prosecution witnesses  is that of changing their testimony in significant and ethically  questionable ways. A number of prosecution witnesses have testified to  important changes in their prior testimony they never before mentioned &#8212;  not in multiple law enforcement interviews or depositions. This  directly suggests that they&#8217;ve not only been coached, but perhaps that  the subornation of perjury is involved.



Another thing this article reminds the reader about... Rachel Jeantel ...the "star," witness for the prosecution supported Zimmerman's story in that she specifically states that on the phone she heard Martin begin the encounter with Zimmerman...by asking him why he was following him.  This goes to Zimmerman's testimony that Martin approached him...


----------



## billc

Hmmm...another pretty horrible day for the Prosecution...the lead detective on the case ended the day admitting that he believed Zimmerman when he said it was self-defense...

When the lead Detective was pressured to conduct what they were calling a "challenge meeting," with Zimmerman, a meeting after having interviewed him several other times, but this time would be aggressive and try to pressure a change to his story...the tactic...tell Zimmerman they had a video of the encounter from a witness of the whole thing...On video, when Zimmerman heard that the police had "video," of the entire encounter his response...for the whole jury and courtroom to see..."Thank God."

They also showed the video that Greta van Susteren of Fox cable news showed on her site...the one that was the walk through with Zimmerman and the lead Detectives from the Sanford P.D. the day after the shooting. Not a good day for the prosecution...

From legal insurrection.com and the analysis of another dismal day for the prosecution...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...-challenges-very-foundation-of-states-charge/



> On the stand was Chris Serino, who was the lead investigator for the Sanford Police Department on the Trayyvon Martin shooting. Defense counsel Mark OMara led cross-examination with his usual consummate skill, obtaining responses from this witnessremember, the States witnessthat all but completely guts the States charge in this case.





> At one point Serino was pressured to initiate a challenge meeting with Zimmerman, in which he would try to goad Zimmerman to making substantive changes to his testimony or to admit to a substantive omission from his prior testimony. The purpose of the challenge meeting, it was explained, is to try to break the suspects story and get to the truth. Indeed, the investigator might even pretend that some piece of incriminating evidence existed, or otherwise exaggerate evidence contrary to the suspects narrative, to try to find a chink in the suspects story.





> The trouble, Serino recounted, is that he couldnt really do an effective challenge meeting for the simple reason that I just didnt have much to challenge him WITH. In this case, OMara asked, you didnt have much to hit him with? No sir, answered Serino, I did not.





> Nevertheless, the challenge meeting was held. In the absence of any real contrary evidence with which to challenge Serino, the Investigator pretended to have some ready to spring. They had discovered, he said, video footage of the events that evening. And what did Zimmerman say when you told him that? He said, Thank God, Serino answered.



And this is the capper to an all around bad day for the prosecution...



> The last OMara question of the day, the last words the jury heard to take with them into the evening recess, could only be characterized as catastrophic for the States theory of the case. Looking directly at the man who had been the chief investigator on the case, who had possessed access to ever bit of evidence of any sort, who had interviewed, and re-interviewed, and re-re-interviewedapplying increasing from each interview to the nextOMara asked him:
> 
> 
> Do YOU think George Zimmerman was telling you the truth?
> 
> 
> Serino succinct answer: Yes.


----------



## billc

Some discussion of the problems with the prosecution...and a serious breach of ethics?

http://pjmedia.com/blog/zimmerman-the-backwards-trial-resumes/2/



> West was able to elicit many stunning admissions. For example: the entire Scheme Team was present at Jeantel&#8217;s interview with de la Rionda, which was conducted in Sybrina Fulton&#8217;s living room with Fulton sitting next to Jeantel. This is a dumbfounding admission, as Fulton is Martin&#8217;s mother. No ethical prosecutor would conduct an interview himself; that&#8217;s what investigators are for, and one was present but asked not a single question. By conducting the interview, de la Rionda made himself a witness. No ethical prosecutor would allow private attorneys with a financial or political interest to have anything to do with a criminal case. No competent prosecutor would ever allow a victim&#8217;s relative to sit in on an interview, to say nothing of seating his most important witness next to the mother of the victim. All of these are incredible lapses of common sense, legal ethics, and professional protocol.





> Jeantel was far from finished. She testified that after Martin spotted Zimmerman, he described him as a &#8220;creepy-*** cracker,&#8221; and shortly thereafter, several times, as a &#8220;n****.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was astonishing for many reasons. Jeantel had never before &#8212; not in multiple interviews with law enforcement, not in her interview with Crump, not in her deposition &#8212; said those things.
> 
> 
> 
> However, her manner of saying them was so garbled and hard to understand, that she and de la Rionda engaged in several minutes of dialogue with the court reporter as she struggled to get the testimony right. Jeantel also said that she thought Zimmerman might be a rapist, something else she had never before offered.
Click to expand...




> Selene Bahadoor, a resident, was visibly reluctant to say anything favorable about Zimmerman. She came up with testimony of &#8220;left to right&#8221; running sounds &#8212;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a version of the narrative has Zimmerman pursuing Martin. Bahadoor had not offered this testimony in two previous police interviews and a deposition, which was exposed by the defense.
> 
> 
> 
> She claimed to have feelings of sympathy for the Zimmermans and for Martin&#8217;s family, implying that she was not at all biased &#8212; but O&#8217;Mara got her to admit that she &#8220;liked&#8221; Martin&#8217;s Facebook page. He asked why she didn&#8217;t like Zimmerman&#8217;s, and she replied that she never had the opportunity.
> He also confronted her with the fact that she signed a Change.org petition to &#8220;prosecute the killer of our son, Trayvon Martin.&#8221; She also admitted that, unlike her testimony that she did not want to be involved at all, she did a half-hour video with Matt Gutman of ABC News which may or may not have been aired.
Click to expand...


----------



## Big Don

[h=2]Zimmerman Update &#8212; How Much Injury Is Required Before Self-Defense is Justified?[/h]


----------



## billc

Apparently, the prosecution is trying to discredit the testimony of their own witness...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/02/Zimmerman-investigating-officer-Serino




> On Tuesday, the George Zimmerman trial continued with the  prosecution attempting to discredit its own witness, investigating  officer Chris Serino, after Serino testified that he found Zimmerman  credible in his story. Two police officers have already testified that  they found Zimmerman credible. The defense then asked Serino if his  questions changed Zimmerman&#8217;s story at all. Serino said no.*
> *
> 
> Serino further testified that the medical examiner&#8217;s report backed  Zimmerman&#8217;s contention that Trayvon Martin was on top during their  scuffle, not the state&#8217;s contention that Zimmerman was on top.



Once we get into the physical evidence, will it show that the knees of Martins jeans had mud and grass stains, but Zimmerman's clothes had grass and mud on the back?  Then what does the prosecution do?


----------



## billc

Well, in an attempt to limit the damage of "former detective," Serino's testimony, the Prosecution had his statement that he believed Zimmerman taken out of the offficial record...

Why do I say "former,' detective...because after he determined that a 2nd degree murder charge was too much...he was demoted to patrolman...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-update-exclusive-mid-day-7-serino-more-ambivalent-osterman-supports-self-defense/




> [h=3]Motion to Strike Key Serino Testimony Most Damaging to State
> [/h] The Court opened today with a request from Prosecutor Bernie de la  Rionda, before the jury was present, to ask Judge Nelson to strike  perhaps the most telling blow from yesterdays testimony from former  Investigator Chris Serino. You can see our analysis of that testimony  from yesterday here:
> [h=4]Zimmerman Trial Day 6  Analysis & Video  States witness Chris Serino seriously undermines charge[/h] I say former Investigator because it turns out that although Chris  Serino remains with the Sanford Police Department he was demoted from  Investigatory to Partrolman a few months after the shooting for the  apparent reason that he was willing to support a charge of manslaughter  but not second degree murder: see here for details:
> [h=4]Zimmerman Update  Investigator Chris Serino Demoted to Patrolman by Superiors[/h] BDLR argued that when OMara asked Serino if he believed Zimmerman to  be telling the truth, Serino responded that he did, that such a  testament of a law enforcement officer of a defendant was inappropriate  and must be struck. He ambushed the defense with a detailed motion the  States office had presumably spent much of the night preparing, and  Judge Nelson required the defense to evaluate and respond to the motion  while standing in court. OMara did the best he could under the  circumstances, but Nelson elected to side with the State. When the jury  was brought into the courtroom she played the audio of that part of  OMaras cross, and instructed the jury that the evidence was struck and  not to be considered by them.


----------



## Flying Crane

Tames D said:


> Sorry for the late response FC. i just noticed this post. I don't have time right now to spend on all the obvious framing that has been done to Zimmerman. Read up on it and follow the trial. I think you'll understand.



No, I don't think so.  I think it is just that Zimmerman goes to trial, and that the jury makes a decision.  It is certainly not obvious to me that any framing is going on.  Neither you nor I could make such a determination.  That's what prosecution, defense, and juries are for.


----------



## Tames D

Flying Crane said:


> No, I don't think so.  I think it is just that Zimmerman goes to trial, and that the jury makes a decision.  It is certainly not obvious to me that any framing is going on.  Neither you nor I could make such a determination.  *That's what prosecution, defense, and juries are for*.



Never mind.


----------



## billc

And this is the medical examiner the prosecution called today...

http://www.fox30jax.com/content/top...-medical-examiner/fOK-GYLiMESM11Hjs5EpzQ.cspx



> Laurie Weinstein worked in the medical examiner's office for about two years under Dr. Valerie Rao.
> 
> "It was horrible. You never knew what she was going to say."
> 
> Weinstein says Rao was hostile, even verbally abusive about her weight. "At the time, I was very heavy, 300 pounds. She referred to me as a Big Mac," said Weinstein.
> 
> Weinstein's is just one of many complaints we found in new documents Tuesday. According to an internal memo from the city, Rao called an employee a "redneck" and violated city polices numerous times. In many cases, we found Rao was never disciplined. We even found the city looked at having Rao removed.
> 
> It all stems from years of complaints about Dr. Rao's unsanitary procedures, washing her feet in the autopsy sink, using bare hands during procedures, and even accusations of exposing doctors to deadly diseases.



http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...ttle-prepared-to-introduce-college-records-2/



> Wait a minute, the medical examienr who did the actual autopsy was Dr. Shiping Bao. Rao . . . Bao, close, but no cigar. Incidentally, if you&#8217;d like to see the actual autopsy report, you can find it here:
> So, who was this Rao. It turns out she&#8217;s a medical examiner from the district that includes Jacksonville, which just happens to be the home city of this team of Prosecutors&#8211;including Angela Corey, Bernie de la Rionda, and the others&#8211;who was brought in at the Governor&#8217;s orders to displace the existing local team of prosecutors that had failed to bring a second degree murder charge against Zimmerman.





> But Dr. Rao got a very lucky break, indeed, in the form of the favor of State Prosecutor Angela Corey, a powerful figure in State politics. Corey provided Dr. Rao with an interim appointment as Medical Examiner in Jacksonville, a position later changed to a permanent appointment by the Governor.
> Then Corey&#8217;s prosecution team asked Dr. Rao to testify in Florida v. Zimmerman. She couldn&#8217;t very well re-do the long-ago completed autopsy, and indeed they focus wasn&#8217;t on Trayvon Martin at all. Instead, they asked her if she could express an opinion on the severity of the injuries suffered by George Zimmerman at the hands of Trayvon Martin on the night of February 26, 2012. She would be constrained, they cautioned her, by not actually having access to the patient himself, but would have to work from photographs and written medical reports from doctors that had examined Zimmerman.
> As evidenced by her appearance as a State witness today, Dr. Rao was more than happy to help out.
> Before we get into her testimony it is worth noting that the whole line of discussion is profoundly irrelevant to this case. The defense&#8217;s theory of the case is that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in lawful self-defense. In order for this defensive use of deadly force to have been justified, Zimmerman must have been in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. He need NOT, however, have ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED death or grave bodily harm. Indeed, he need not have suffered so much as a scratch before he could use deadly force in self defense, so long as he reasonably perceived the force he was defending against as capable of causing death or grave bodily harm.



Again, not a real stellar day for the prosecution hoping to send Zimmerman to jail for 20 years...


----------



## billc

Is it possible the prosecution will call Martin's parent's to testify?  Seems like a dumb idea because then the defense gets to ask..."Why was you son in living with his father instead of his mother?"  Also..."What were his hobbies...?"


----------



## Tames D

billc said:


> Is it possible the prosecution will call Martin's parent's to testify?  Seems like a dumb idea because then the defense gets to ask..."Why was you son in living with his father instead of his mother?"  Also..."What were his hobbies...?"



Well, the way this prosecution dream team is working, they probably will. Then, after the defense is done with the witness, the dream team can do damage control again. 
This trial is a waste of tax payers hard earned money.


----------



## billc

I was catching a little of Greta van Susteren's show...from what I have seen she is the most neutral of all the coverage...and one of the defense attorney analyst brought out that the defense got the prosecution's medical examiner to point out that there were abrasions on Martins hands...not a great day for the prosecution...


----------



## Tames D

billc said:


> I was catching a little of Greta van Susteren's show...from what I have seen she is the most neutral of all the coverage...and one of the defense attorney analyst brought out that the defense got the prosecution's medical examiner to point out that there were abrasions on Martins hands...not a great day for the prosecution...



And this is a surprise?


----------



## billc

Another bad day for the prosecution???

The medical examiner who actually saw the body seems to be saying that the facts line up with Zimmerman...?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/03/Prosecution-Witness-Trayvon-shirt-body




> On Wednesday at the George Zimmerman trial, the prosecution called  yet another witness who ended up testifying for the defense: Florida  Department of Law Enforcement firearm analyst Amy Siewert. The  prosecution had contended that George Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon  Martin and pressed his gun into Martin&#8217;s chest before firing and killing  him. Siewert testified, however, that there was no forensic evidence  that Zimmerman had pressed the gun to Martin&#8217;s chest. In fact, the  gunpowder residue and other material evidence showed that the gun was  touched to Martin&#8217;s shirt, and that Martin&#8217;s shirt was not pressed to  his chest, implying that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and that his  shirt was hanging down when Zimmerman shot him.




ANd then the prosecution gets his college records admitted into the record...to have the defense use them to undermine the state's case...


http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-update-exclusive-mid-day-state-wins-evidentiary-battle-loses-testimony-war/



> In fact, the testimony of both Professors overwhelmingly favored the defense. Let&#8217;s consider each in turn.





> West&#8217;s cross-examination of Carter, however, was devastating for the  State. Carter described Zimmerman as &#8220;one of my best students,&#8221; and  asked what grade he had assigned he answered, &#8220;an A.&#8221; (Interestingly,  when Captain Carter had first entered the court room he had said, &#8220;Hi,&#8221;  to Zimmerman.) Then West led Carter through a lengthy discussion&#8211;a  lecture, really&#8211;of Florida&#8217;s self-defense law. It was like a legal  seminar for the jury, and West particularly emphasized that there was no  legal requirement to have actually incurred any injury whatever before  you can act in self-defense. Carter even opined that you definitely  would not want to wait to act in self-defense until you had been  seriously injured. As the State saw the narrative spinning against them  they repeatedly objected, constraining West&#8217;s cross. By then, however,  the damage had largely been done to the State&#8217;s theory of the case.



And the other professor...




> Professor Scott Pleasant, Part 3
> 
> Again on cross, however, things turned badly against the State. Under  O&#8217;Mara&#8217;s questioning it became clear that much of the content put into  evidence by the State may have been contained in the class textbook but  was never actually covered in class. The greatest blow, however, came  with O&#8217;Mara&#8217;s last question (as has happened before) when he asked  Pleasant what Zimmerman had told him about his career goals. Pleasant  answered,&#8221;he said he wanted to be an attorney, and eventually become a  Prosecutor.&#8221;



And they look at the forensic examiner about the gun shot wound...

With the case presented so far...has "beyond a reasonable doubt," been reached?


----------



## elder999

At the end of it all, this will be the moment that started the acquittal riots:



> It&#8217;s imminent injury,&#8221; Carter explained. &#8220;Or imminent fear. So the fact alone that there isn&#8217;t an injury doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean that the person did not have a real apprehension of fear. The fact that there were injuries have a tendency to show or support that that person had a reasonable apprehension of fear.&#8221; &#8220;You don&#8217;t have to wait until you&#8217;re almost dead until you can defend yourself?&#8221; West asked.
> &#8220;No, I would advise you probably don&#8217;t do that,&#8221; Carter replied.
> *That response prompted several seconds of laughter from the usually-emotionless Zimmerman before he was able to look downward to regain his composure. *


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> At the end of it all, this will be the moment that started the acquittal riots:



Why because he laughed at something that was funny?  No what will cause the riots are a bunch of punks that are already planning a riot just to riot.  They dont give a crap about the trial they just want an excuse


----------



## billc

considering the whole courtroom laughed at the response...only those determined to ignore what actually came out in the trial and are determined to use imagined racism as an excuse to riot.


----------



## billc

A look at the trial from liberal columnist Eric Zorn...the key witness...

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/trayvon-martin-case/



> Observations:
> 1. The fatal confrontation didn't take place anywhere near Martin's father's fiancee's house.  This badly undermines the "Martin was really scared of Zimmerman and so was hiding from him" narrative now favored by the presumed-guilty crowd. Unless....I know!  Martin was confused about where he was when he was talking to Jeantel.
> 
> 2. "Creepy-*** cracker" sounds like racial profiling to me.  And like the animus was mutual.
> 
> 3. Stitch this together with other witness testimony so far and you have a very murky story, at best. Zimmerman's own account is far from the only one with holes and contradictions in it. So far, it looks like the state's approach here is to tell the jury*--
> *
> This was a strange, sad and confrontation that had a tragic outcome.  Since you can't be sure what happened because these evolving, contradictory stories don't resolve into a clear narrative and are sometimes at odds with the known facts, you can't be sure that Zimmerman acted in self defense therefore you should find him guilty.
> 
> This certainly works for lots of folks, folks whose liberal inclinations might, in other circumstances, see the following pattern --
> 
> High profile crime
> 
> Sympathetic victim
> 
> Unsympathetic defendant
> 
> Evidence suggesting innocence or doubt minimized or explained away with farfetched theories.
> 
> Evidence suggesting guilt magnified and then stitched together with conjecture, surmise and supposition.
> 
> -- a recipe for wrongful conviction.
> 
> I've covered a lot of such cases. The blinders go on early.  The gaps and inconsistencies in the case are filled by sympathy for the victim and rage at the defendant.



A look at the distances involved, and the timing of events by liberal columnist Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._police-dispatcher-timeline-fatal-altercation


----------



## Steve

Quick question on the trial.  Everyone is presuming that Martin had Zimmerman mounted.  Can a lay person tell the difference between mount and guard?

I was listening to the autopsy information this morning, and it occurred to me that Martins and zimmermans injuries are what I'd expect from guard.  

Zimmerman was training "mma."  It's reasonable to presume he knew what guard is and how to recover guard from mount.

As experienced martial artists, we all know that this



Is a much more dominant and dangerous position that this.



Although both look bad for the guy on the bottom, the latter picture depicts what I would consider a neutral position.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## billc

The onlyy eyewitness to the encounter said the guy dressed in black was on top, punching or moving his arms in a downward motion toward the guy on the bottom, dressed in red.  if you go to the post with the site covering the trial you can get the video of the testimony...his last name is good.

Keep in mind Martin was also a fan of mma, and apparently got into fights with friends and others mma style.

Either way, the only witness to see the actual fight puts Maryin on top.  Also, Martins knuckles were abraded.


----------



## billc

Also, the eyewitness described what he saw as the guy on top looked like he was doing mma.


----------



## Steve

billc said:


> The onlyy eyewitness to the encounter said the guy dressed in black was on top, punching or moving his arms in a downward motion toward the guy on the bottom, dressed in red.  if you go to the post with the site covering the trial you can get the video of the testimony...his last name is good.
> 
> Keep in mind Martin was also a fan of mma, and apparently got into fights with friends and others mma style.
> 
> Either way, the only witness to see the actual fight puts Maryin on top.  Also, Martins knuckles were abraded.


I think that we, more than most, understand the difference between being a fan if mma and training in mma.  Zimmerman was training x3 per week.

Also, the question remains, would a lay person be able to tell the difference between the two pictures above?  I don't believe so.

Also, Martin's left hand had sine scrapes.  His dominant hand did not.  And none of Zimmerman blood was on Martin's knuckles.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc

The medical examiner acknowledged that no pictures of Martins hands were taken, and that no nail clippings were taken either.  So there is no way to tell if there was or wasn't blood on Martins hands because the evidence wasn't collected.  What the John Good the witness said was that Martin, the guy in black, was on top and was moving his arms downward, and it looked like mma fighting, he didn't say it looked like a trained mma fighter.  The important thing is that John Good, the only eyewitness to the encounter said that Martin was on top, Good told the two of them to knock it off, or something to that effect, and that when he went to call 911 the shot rang out.  I don't think strict technical terms are important to who was on top hitting who...



> Zimmerman was training x3 per week.



As to that, I don't think anyone said how long he had been training, you would have to go back through the testimony.  Was he training a month, 6 months or several years...that would be more meaningful to know...and the prosecution didn't bring that out...

The Defense attorney, O'mara, finally helped define the malice and spite aspect of the 2nd degree murder charge.  In those cases where that charge was proven, it happened between husband's and wives or between neighbors where there was a history of conflict and evidence of long standing problems where "malice," and "spite," could develop.  He cited a case of a mosh pit where a guy fell and bumped a guy in the groin, that guy picked up the bumper, and lifted him in a wrestling style move and slammed him into the ground on the side of his face.  The guy got up, walked outside and died.  The attorney said that in that case, they did not find "malice," or "spite," in the actions of the guy who tossed the other guy.   So by those and many other examples given, there wasn't time for their to be "malice," or "spite," and their was no prior relationship where "malice," or "spite," could have been developed.


----------



## billc

Also, to the best of John Good's ability to remember, it seemed like the guy on the bottom, in the red clothing, was the one calling out for help.

Another thing to keep in mind, was Zimmerman actually training in the mma or just going to class without actually practising at home?  Also, how good was he?  On top of that, it really doesn't make a difference to his self-defense claim.  There isn't a law that states you have to only  use empty hand technique in a situation where you think your life is at risk.  The Criminal Justice class teacher went through Florida self-defense law on the stand, you don't even have to be injured before you use lethat force.


----------



## billc

Well...Trayvon's mother said it was Trayvon screaming...Zimmerman's mother and uncle said it was Zimmerman.  Zimmerman's uncle is a retired Command Seargent Major, 26 years in the army, and is now a Deputy Sherriff in Florida.

At this point we have an eyewitness saying it was George Zimmerman calling for help and both his mother and uncle identifying him on the audio tape.  The "white," hispanic label from the media goes out the window since both his mother and uncle are obviously from another country...


----------



## Steve

Most mma training is unsuitable for practice at home. Most of the training done outside the gym is conditioning type stuff.  

And the question remains, would a lay person distinguish between mou t and guard?  I don't think so, particularly in the dark.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatal


----------



## Carol

A (recently retired) police officer that I work with was in the office today.  He got pretty steamed up when someone mentioned Zimmerman.  Apparantly Zimmerman's own relatives were on the stand testifying how Zimmerman abused them? And he was facing two felony charges of violence against a LEO that were pled down and dropped after he agreed to enter an alcohol program?  My colleague's take...Zimmerman is a violent nutter, and painting him as an innocent victim is not only improper, but also makes law-abiding LTC/CCW holders look like hell.

Discuss.


----------



## billc

Have to see an actual source on that.  The prosecution brought up one charge with the officer, and the restraining order was from a girlfriend or someone but he had one against her as well and both were eventually dropped.  they were brought up at some point during the prosecution. Considering the anal exam Zimmerman has gotten since this case started and the hostile media, you would think anything really damaging would have come out during the prosecution phase.


----------



## billc

Here is a link to the arrest and the restraining order...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite


> The three incidents took place in Orange County, Fla.
> 
> 
> In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with &#8220;resisting officer with violence&#8221; and &#8220;battery of law enforcement officer,&#8221; both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to &#8220;resisting officer without violence&#8221; and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.
> 
> 
> In August 2005, Zimmerman&#8217;s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders being granted.
> 
> 
> In December 2006, Zimmerman was charged with speeding. The case was dismissed when the officer failed to show up in court


----------



## billc

A look at the trial so far...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...ge-zimmerman-case-possibly-go-to-the-jury.php



> So the evidence in favor of Zimmerman&#8217;s claim of self-defense is powerful. What has the state mustered on the other side? 1) The testimony of a friend of Martin&#8217;s who was talking with him on the phone shortly before the fight started. That testimony, if anything, helped Zimmerman; in any event, she did not &#8220;witness&#8221; anything that bears directly on who started the fight. 2) DNA evidence which proved nothing, one way or the other. 3) Various irrelevancies about Zimmerman&#8217;s character and personality. 4) The testimony of Martin&#8217;s mother, who said the screams in the 911 tape came from Martin. Apart from the mother&#8217;s obvious and overwhelming bias, the foundation for her testimony approaches zero. Has she ever heard Trayvon scream, as though in fear for his life? Presumably rarely, if ever. But in any event, she certainly has never heard Zimmerman scream. For all she knows, the screams on the audio sounded exactly like Zimmerman. I am a little surprised, frankly, that the judge admitted such shaky testimony. 5) The testimony of Martin&#8217;s brother to the effect that it was Trayvon screaming on the 911 recording. His testimony suffers from all of the defects of his mother&#8217;s. In addition, he admitted that two weeks after the shooting, he said in a television interview that he couldn&#8217;t tell whether the screams were Trayvon&#8217;s.
> 
> 
> How could a jury rationally find that this meagre evidence&#8211;contradicted by eyewitness testimony, physical evidence and the fact that the police investigation was fully consistent with Zimmerman&#8217;s account&#8211;proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense? I don&#8217;t think a reasonable jury could so find, and if that is the case, the defense motion should have been granted, and the case should not have been allowed to proceed.


----------



## Carol

Here is a blog post regarding the abuse testimony.  Its from policy mic but references USA Today Et. Al.  

http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...ut-sex-abuse-allegations-show-he-is-dangerous


So...Zimmerman's own relatives were not on the stand in his case, and were instead testifying a year ago.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## billc

Well, If this is the case I hope they charge him and try him for this as well.  From what I have found he could still be charged in Virginia, but not in Florida.  It would be better if she actually came forward the entire way to make her case, maybe she will do it after this trial.  As to this trial...it doesn't change the facts so far, and the poor job the prosecution is doing.  With his mother and uncle testifying it is obvious that the defense end of the trial isn't going to go any better for the state than did their shot at the case.


----------



## Carol

Indeed, it doesn't change the facts of the case.  Plus TGace mentioned in Steve's thread that the state bringing a "try 'em high" with the Murder 2 charge will make prosecution even more difficult.

I do think my colleague has some valid concerns, the long term effects of this vase may very well prove tobe deleterious to some Castle and CCW rights.   And that is not a good thing.


----------



## Steve

billc said:


> As to that, I don't think anyone said how long he had been training, you would have to go back through the testimony.  Was he training a month, 6 months or several years...that would be more meaningful to know...and the prosecution didn't bring that out...


This is where I got the information:  http://www.cfnews13.com/content/new...icles/cfn/2013/6/28/first_week_of_testim.html

According to the article above, he had trained in "MMA" three times per week since at least August 2011, so about 6 or 7 months minimum.  I don't know how good of a student he was, or whether he trained at a legitimate gym, but the guys I know who train for 6 months x3 per week know the basics and should be reasonably fit.


----------



## granfire

Carol said:


> A (recently retired) police officer that I work with was in the office today.  He got pretty steamed up when someone mentioned Zimmerman.  Apparantly Zimmerman's own relatives were on the stand testifying how Zimmerman abused them? And he was facing two felony charges of violence against a LEO that were pled down and dropped after he agreed to enter an alcohol program?  My colleague's take...Zimmerman is a violent nutter, and painting him as an innocent victim is not only improper, but also makes law-abiding LTC/CCW holders look like hell.
> 
> Discuss.



I suppose it's no different than painting Martin as little angel...


----------



## billc

Why the Judge should have granted an acquital on Friday...the article goes into all the case law...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...for-acquittal-should-have-been-granted//#more



> Walker, Barwick:  Indirect Evidence Must Exclude Every Hypothesis of Innocence
> 
> The controlling case law on this issue in Florida is _Walker v. State_, 957 So.2d 560 (FL Supreme Court 2007), which in turn quotes favorably from _Barwick v. State_, 660 So.2d 685 (FL Supreme Court 1995). In Barwick, the Florida Supreme Court states:
> 
> 
> [A] judgment of acquittal is appropriate if the State fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.





> Zimmerman Used Deadly Force in Self-Defense Only _In Extremis_
> 
> But, O&#8217;Mara emphasized, he didn&#8217;t. Instead he screamed for help for 40 seconds, begging for someone to come to his assistance. Several people peered out their windows and heard noises but saw little. John Good, the only eye-witness, stepped outside onto his porch and observed the darker skinned man in the dark clothing on top of the lighter skinned man in the lighter clothing and demanded that he stop the apparent beating. The man on top in the darker clothes ignored him. John Good returned into his home to dial 911, as several other residents were also doing.
> 
> Even then, when any hope of immediate aid was lost, when the blows continued to rain down, when Martin pressed his hands over Zimmerman&#8217;s mouth and nose , cutting off his breath, when he feared the imminent loss of consciousness, even then Zimmerman did not yet resort to the use of deadly force in defense of his life.
> That decision came only after Zimmerman&#8217;s licensed concealed gun, still secure in its holster, emerged from concealment because of the displacement of jacket during the attack, was observed by Trayvon Martin. &#8220;You&#8217;re going to die, mother ****er,&#8221; Martin told him, reaching for the gun.





> You cannot look at that picture of my client&#8217;s nose and say that he wasn&#8217;t beaten in the face. You can&#8217;t look at the back of his head and say he wasn&#8217;t beaten in the back of the head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot look at the autopsy of Mr. Martin and not realize that my client never intended to nor landed one blow on Mr. Martin, all my client did was scream out for help.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Good, though he was questioned a lot about this area, did finally opine, though he didn&#8217;t see gasps escaping from my client&#8217;s mouth as he was the one scaring towards him, said it was his thought, his common sense, that it was in fact my client screaming out for help.
Click to expand...


----------



## billc

Yeah, the prosecution is about to get rolled by the defense...all day the defense has brought in witness after witness testifying that it is Zimmerman yelling for help...especially the last witness before lunch...



> *John Donnelly, Vietnam Combat Medic
> *
> 
> The most powerful of these witnesses was arguable the last one to testify before lunch, John Donnelly. A pleasant older man, Donnelly was introduced to the jurors as a physician&#8217;s assistant. It also soon emerged, however that he was a close personal friend of Zimmerman&#8217;s, and indeed admired the younger man considerably.
> The kicker, though, was when it was disclosed that John Donnelly had served as a combat medic during the Vietnam war. The importance of this historical piece of information was revealed as O&#8217;Mara progressed through his direct. Here, for the first time, was someone who could genuinely be said to possess personal expertise in being able to correlate a person&#8217;s normal speaking voice and their screams in extremis. And George Donnelly, firmly and without the slightest hesitation, identified George Zimmerman as the screamer.



If this is the way the defense is going to handle an item like who the screamer was, in the face of Martin's mother saying it was Martin...the prosecution is going to have a really rough week...

Apparently, Martin's father couldn't identify the voice...a long week for the prosecution...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/08/Trayvon-father-did-not-know




> On Monday, the George Zimmerman defense called Tracy Martin, the  father of Trayvon Martin. Tracy Martin testified that he said to police  that he couldn&#8217;t tell if the screaming voice on the 911 tape was his  son. That testimony was in direct conflict with Officers Christopher  Serino and Doris Singleton of the Sanford Police Department, who said  that Martin said that it was not the voice of his son on that tape. The  testimony was also in conflict with the case the prosecution attempted  to make that Tracy Martin had said &#8220;no&#8221; not in response to a question  about Trayvon&#8217;s voice, but with regard to his disbelief at Trayvon&#8217;s  death.


----------



## billc

They also called Zimmerman's trainer...I have to assume for now they mean his mma trainer...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/08/Zimmerman-trainer-athletic




> He said Zimmerman was sporting black eyes, bandages on his head.  According to Pollock, Zimmerman was &#8220;physically soft,&#8221; and didn&#8217;t have a  lot of strength, predominantly fat instead of muscle.



More testimony from Zimmerman's mma instructor...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/08/Zimmerman-trainer-not-good




> Pollock owned a gym in Seminole County, where he trained both  professionals and amateurs. He said that the term &#8220;ground and pound&#8221;  means taking someone to the ground, keeping them on the ground, and then  &#8220;striking them from on the top downwards.&#8221; Pollock demonstrated on  defense attorney Mark O&#8217;Mara what it means to mount someone who is down  to prevent them from fighting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Pollock said that Zimmerman came to his gym in order to get in shape.  He said they put Zimmerman on a diet and exercise routine. Pollock said  they began with grappling based on work and school schedule, and said  that Zimmerman trained two to three days per week, with each session  being two hours long. Pollock referred to Zimmerman as a &#8220;rank  beginner.&#8221; On a scale of one to ten, the defense asked, how would  Zimmerman rank as a grappler? &#8220;0.5,&#8221; said Pollock. Pollock said he  worked at the gym for about a year, and for some of that time, Zimmerman  had put his membership on hold. By the end of his training, Pollock  said he had moved from a 0.5 to a 1 or a 1.5.


----------



## arnisador

I think the prosecutor going for _pathological _liar was a mistake. I think they'd be willing to believe he'd lie to keep himself out of jail but not that he's a pathological liar, with all that language entails.


----------



## elder999

billc said:


> considering the whole courtroom laughed at the response...only those determined to ignore what actually came out in the trial and are determined to use imagined racism as an excuse to riot.



Not really. 

I can say-_as someone who has killed another person in self-defense_-that the expectation from many is that one be somber, as serious as a judge-that the mere fact of the act will have wiped all sense of humor from one's very soul, and you will never laugh at anything, ever again-that as an individual, one is reduced to merely being the gravity of that particular circumstance.  

People have found that out about me, and never talked to me again. Not let their children anywhere near me. I've had people ask me about it, not really wanting to hear my answer-I've manufactured several "pat" answers for when people do ask about it, so we can avoid the entire can of worms that my answers open up for some people..

He was seen laughing. Some people-non-racists, people who won't riot, _cops_, all sorts of other people, will see that as inflammatory, and indicative of "not taking his situation seriously enough." I mean, it *was* funny, but he's not supposed to laugh-possibly _ever_, and certainly not in court.....


----------



## Tames D

elder999 said:


> Not really.
> 
> I can say-_as someone who has killed another person in self-defense_-that the expectation from many is that one be somber, as serious as a judge-that the mere fact of the act will have wiped all sense of humor from one's very soul, and you will never laugh at anything, ever again-that as an individual, one is reduced to merely being the gravity of that particular circumstance.
> 
> People have found that out about me, and never talked to me again. Not let their children anywhere near me. I've had people ask me about it, not really wanting to hear my answer-I've manufactured several "pat" answers for when people do ask about it, so we can avoid the entire can of worms that my answers open up for some people..
> 
> He was seen laughing. Some people-non-racists, people who won't riot, _cops_, all sorts of other people, will see that as inflammatory, and indicative of "not taking his situation seriously enough." I mean, it *was* funny, but he's not supposed to laugh-possibly _ever_, and certainly not in court.....



That's pretty sad. I don't think every human being has the same response as you. I also don't think you can put a stamp on it. Everyone handles things in their own way.


----------



## granfire

Tames D said:


> That's pretty sad. I don't think every human being has the same response as you. I also don't think you can put a stamp on it. Everyone handles things in their own way.



I don't think it's about the laughing (elder certainly has his style of humor) but the perceptions others have about his situation. 
Somewhere between Dear Abby and what TV tells you, I am sure people believe that you should never ever be happy again....

The human psyche is fragile. That's why we have developed many coping mechanisms. Laughter/humor is one of them. 

And nothing gets you into hot water quicker than not reacting in a way other people believe you should. 

But the riots have been in the planning much earlier than this little (human) chuckle of Z.


----------



## elder999

Tames D said:


> That's pretty sad. I don't think every human being has the same response as you.



Statistically, damn few do. One of the cops who interviewed me, all those years ago, recognized it-wanted to make certain I was going to be a cop or a soldier.....I wasn't, but it worked out okay, and all these years later, I still appreciate him.....and his pizza....:lol: (best damn pizza I ever had! :lol: )



Tames D said:


> I also don't think you can put a stamp on it. Everyone handles things in their own way.



Not a question of that, but of other people's perceptions-they think you should be miserable; if you aren't, there's clearly something wrong with you, mostly because they're certain (without ever experiencing it) that that's how *they* would feel, so that's how you _should_ feel. To display behavior that says you feel otherwise, then, is wrong.....


----------



## Tames D

elder999 said:


> Statistically, damn few do. One of the cops who interviewed me, all those years ago, recognized it-wanted to make certain I was going to be a cop or a soldier.....I wasn't, but it worked out okay, and all these years later, I still appreciate him.....and his pizza....:lol: (best damn pizza I ever had! :lol: )
> 
> 
> 
> Not a question of that, but of other people's perceptions-they think you should be miserable; if you aren't, there's clearly something wrong with you, mostly because they're certain (without ever experiencing it) that that's how *they* would feel, so that's how you _should_ feel. To display behavior that says you feel otherwise, then, is wrong.....



I knew someone a long time ago that would always laugh at the strangest times. She laughed when I told her my buddy was killed in a car accident. She laughed when her mother died. I thought she was one uncaring mother ****er. I learned from her that those were the times when she was in the most pain. I still don't understand that behavior but I now know that people handle stress and pain in many different ways, despite what the standard practice is thought to be.


----------



## elder999

Tames D said:


> I knew someone a long time ago that would always laugh at the strangest times. She laughed when I told her my buddy was killed in a car accident. She laughed when her mother died. I thought she was one uncaring mother ****er. I learned from her that those were the times when she was in the most pain. I still don't understand that behavior but I now know that people handle stress and pain in many different ways, despite what the standard practice is thought to be.



You kinda miss the point.....

It's not that my reaction was "inappropriate." Some might characterize it as "no reaction at all." 

At the police station, after I got cleaned up-one eye was glued shut with the other guy's dried blood-all I really cared about was that it was 4 a.m., and I was hungry.

I was alive. The other guy was dead, and while I certainly hadn't left home planning on killing a 17 year old kid, I certainly wasn't about to be killed by one., and I was alive, and _hungry._ 

That was, at that point, all I really cared about. I never gave that kid a second thought. In the intervening years, if I've had nightmares about the incident: they're always of me being stabbed, instead of me stabbing him, and I can't remember the last time I had that particular dream at all.....not since my daughter was born in 1986, I think....maybe a little later. 

Mostly, I don't care. If I think about it....well, I think I _liked_ it, but that's one of the things I'm not supposed to say. Why wouldn't I like it? He's dead, and *I'm alive.* I should wish for the alternative? 

Or be quiet. It's best to be quiet-and certainly don't laugh at anything (never mind laugh at *everything*, the way I do....:lfao:....) better to let the world think that I'm heartsick and damaged from what was a really, really good day, rather than let them think for a moment that I think of it as a really, really good day-where I went on breathing, and pizza never tasted finer, and I was never more glad to see my father, or sleep between the clean sheets on my bed.....better to let most people think that I recognize my "pariah" status: I've killed, and nothing will ever taste good again, nothing will ever feel good again, and certainly, nothing will ever be funny again, because, *dammit*, taking life is serious business, and it's all I'm supposed to think about for the rest of my life. 

Get it? Probably not.....that's okay, really. It's a hell of a thing to find out about yourself, at 20 odd years of age, and hard to articulate to anyone else. Pray you never understand, lest you have to come up with "pat" answers yourself.

_I deeply regret what happened on the subway platform that morning. That was someone's baby, once....._ all in all, I'd really much rather that I'd gone to have breakfast with those chicks from Manhattan, rather than trying to get to the last train home......*really*....but, all told, I'm *really, really, REALLY* glad I got to go home-whatever it took.

I should cry for some kid who was gonna cut me down so he could be in a gang? I don't think so. I should lose sleep over it? Not likely. 

I should admit that I liked the way it felt when I stabbed him with my pen-that I enjoyed watching whatever was going on behind those eyes go away, even as his blood spurted onto my face? That it was all I could do *not* to laugh at his pathetic last words, _What did you do that for?_  That there was no stress, nor pain for me to handle? 

Well, how does that last bit make you feel, Tames? It doesn't bother me at all, really-I've lived with it for more than 30 years, now, and gotten quite used to it. However you feel, just be glad that I haven't killed anyone else, just to feel like I did that morning.....and no, that's not a joke at all.....

If I'd wound up in court, though, I'd have had the good sense and self-composure *not to laugh*, because that's what people expect.....


----------



## MJS

Haven't really been following this as close as I was initially, but I do catch clips on the early news in the AM and some articles in the paper.  Looks like Martins father is saying the voice that was heard on the tape was not his son.  And of course, each side is pointing fingers at the other, to attempt to determine who instigated the confrontation, which in itself is a task, IMO, due to the fact that we have only 1 side.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

I've followed it enough to know that I don't have much regard for either the prosecution or the defense.  I've heard the recordings of the 911 operator telling him not to go after Martin.  He opted not to follow this instruction.  Stupidity.

Martin's picture from when he was twelve was all over the media.  Very dishonest.  Zimmerman was portrayed as white, but he isn't.  Dishonest.

I don't know what actually happened, but I do know that I have little trust in the people trying to paint Zimmerman as some kind of hero or Martin as a tween kid of about twelve.  By all accounts, an armed man pursued another man, accosted him (either verbally or physically; who knows?) which promted a scuffle that ended when the armed man shot the other man, who so far as I know, was unarmed.  

I will cry no tears for Zimmerman if he is found guilty.  Nor will I raise cheers for Martin's family.  Should he be acquitted, I will not be gnashing my teeth in frustration nor will I be mourning the miscarriage of justice with Martin's family.  Both sides seem happy to slant the truth or obscure it all together.  So I'm happy to let them fight it out in their own little sand box.


----------



## elder999

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Zimmerman was portrayed as white, but he isn't. Dishonest.



How is it that he "isn't *white?*"

I keep hearing this, _Oh, he's Hispanic_ and yet...oh, here. From the EEOC fact page:



> The White category is defined by the White not Hispanic or Latino category, i.e., from the above-presented Race and Ethnicity for Other than Hawaii specifications, this is (1A) White, Not Hispanic or Latino.
> The Black or African American category is created by combining the Black or African American not Hispanic or Latino category with the Black or African American _and_ White not Hispanic or Latino category, i.e., combine (2) Black or African American not Hispanic or Latino with (6) Black or African American _and_ White not Hispanic or Latino, from the above-cited specifications.
> The Hispanic or Latino category is created by combining all Hispanics, as was done in previous versions of the EEO File, i.e., from the above-mentioned specifications, add (1B)White, Hispanic or Latino to (11) Other Hispanic or Latino.
> The American Indian or Alaska Native category is created by combining the American Indian or Alaska Native not Hispanic or Latino category with the American Indian or Alaska Native _and_ White not Hispanic or Latino category, i.e., from above-cited specifications, add (5) American Indian or Alaska Native not Hispanic or Latino to (8) American Indian or Alaska Native _and_ White not Hispanic or Latino.



Or, if you prefer:



> Race and Ethnicity for Other than Hawaii (12)
> 
> 
> *White *
> Not Hispanic or Latino
> 
> *Hispanic or Latino*
> 
> 
> Black or African American not Hispanic or Latino
> Asian not Hispanic or Latino
> Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander not Hispanic or Latino
> American Indian or Alaska Native not Hispanic or Latino
> Black or African American _and_ White not Hispanic or Latino
> Asian _and_ White not Hispanic or Latino
> American Indian or Alaska Native _and_ White not Hispanic or Latino
> American Indian or Alaska Native _and_ Black or African American not Hispanic or Latino
> Balance of individuals reporting more than one race not Hispanic or Latino plus individuals reporting some other race not Hispanic or Latino
> Other Hispanic or Latino






I'd submit that George Zimmerrman is a 19B0, WHite-hispanic or latino.

"Not white." :lfao:


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> How is it that he "isn't *white?*"
> 
> I keep hearing this, _Oh, he's Hispanic_ and yet...oh, here. From the EEOC fact page:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, if you prefer:
> 
> [/LIST]
> 
> 
> I'd submit that George Zimmerrman is a 19B0, WHite-hispanic or latino.
> 
> "Not white." :lfao:



But he's got a white _name!!_ 
Zimmermann - can't get any whiter than that!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

I know what he looks like.  He's not white.


----------



## elder999

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I know what he looks like. He's not white.



Oh, and of course *this* is the ultimate arbiter of racial origin. 






"_I know what he looks like._" :lfao: :lfao: "_He's not white._" :lfao: :lfao: :lfao:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

I'd have said something more in depth, but it isn't worth the effort here.


----------



## elder999

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'd have said something more in depth, but it isn't worth the effort here.



There is.......






nothing......






you can.......






*say!*


----------



## elder999

And for those who think I'm merely being argumentative for its own sake, I'd point out that race has been at the center of this case from the onset-and there are those who simply say that Zimmerman isn't "white" because he's "hispanic," two things that are *not* mutually exclusive. As for, "I know what he looks like," well.....he looks kinda _Italian_ to me.....:lfao:

View attachment $th.jpgView attachment $91cf8e0b-8f70-3945-8d7f-d1f6b5cec1f3.jpgView attachment $1334092957-george-zimmerman-mug-shot-660x815.jpg


----------



## arnisador

Italian was my take the first time I saw him, and his side seemed to emphasize Hispanic more as the media spoke more and more of it as a racial matter.


----------



## Big Don

The media and the race baiting a holes are the only ones making race a factor in this. 
I am reminded of Chris Rock's bit about the OJ verdict: 
"Black people too happy, White people too mad" reverse that and there you go...
The chance of rioting after the verdict (guilty or acquittal) is pretty damn certain, but, morons riot after their teams win in sports. A soccer ref got BEHEADED. Morons will do as they do, and there are an awful lot of you out there.


----------



## Tames D

Big Don said:


> The media and the race baiting a holes are the only ones making race a factor in this.
> I am reminded of Chris Rock's bit about the OJ verdict:
> "Black people too happy, White people too mad" reverse that and there you go...
> The chance of rioting after the verdict (guilty or acquittal) is pretty damn certain, but, morons riot after their teams win in sports. A soccer ref got BEHEADED. Morons will do as they do, and there are an awful lot of you out there.



No doubt there will be a riot if Zimmerman walks. Why would this be any different from any other trial where a "white person" is aquited and riots ensue. Just got to get the guns out to protect our property. Oh wait, they want to take our guns away. Hopefully there are enough law enforcement officers to protect us. Oh wait, their not obigated to protect us... We're ****ed


----------



## billc

The medical examiner brought in by the defense pretty much ended the prosecutions case today...he explained why Martin's hands weren't swollen, his blood had stopped moving when he died which prevented swelling, and the reason no blood was on Martin's hands...the body wasn't handled properly at the medical examiners office and at the crime scene...they didn't put bags over the hands and they may have washed the body before the autopsy...He also went through the extent of Zimmerman's injuries pointing out that even though there were only two cuts to the head, it doesn't negate the seriousness of the damage that could have been done to Zimmerman.  He pointed out that bleeding in the skull is always possible in head trauma and doesn't always show immediately after the head is injured...you should watch his testimony...this guy is the go to guy for police detectives and forensic evidence...

He also said Martin was on top when he was shot, as per the gun shot wound and how it showed on the body...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...tent-with-evidence-as-defense-case-nears-end/



> *Dr. Vincent Di Maio, Forensic Pathologist*
> 
> It seemed to take the entire first hour of Dr. Di Maio&#8217;s testimony simply to work though his background and credentials.  He has spent on the order of 40 years working as a forensic pathologist, having personally conducted some 9,000 autopsies and overseen tens of thousands more.  Defense attorney stepped through these qualifications in his usual deliberative manner.
> In addition to his work conducting autopsies, Dr. Di Maio had also served in the military in a capacity in which he was able to study terminal ballistics and gun shot wounds.  He stepped through the process by which a gun fires a cartridge, focusing particularly on the matter ejected from the muzzle, including the hot expanding gases, the bullet, and unburned gun powder.
> *Zimmerman&#8217;s Muzzle Not Pressed Into Martin&#8217;s Body*
> 
> He noted that the autopsy report noted a 2&#8243; x 2&#8243; area of gun powder tattooing (from unburnt gun powder) around the gun shot wound on Trayvon Martin&#8217;s chest.  He was able to determine from this that them muzzle of the Mr. Zimmerman&#8217;s Kel-Tech PF9 had been between 2&#8243; and 4&#8243; from Mr. Martin&#8217;s chest.  He was also able to definitely exclude the State&#8217;s claim that the muzzle of the gun had been pressed against Martin&#8217;s chest, because in that case the unburnt gun powder would have ended up in the wound rather than on Mr. Martin&#8217;s skin.
> *ME Bao&#8217;s Collection and Preservation of Evidence Disastrously Flawed*
> 
> West also had Dr. Di Maio testify as to matters of evidence collection and preservation, particularly the wet clothes that had been stored in plastic bags (thus degrading any DNA that might have otherwise been detectable), the failure to bag Trayvon Martin&#8217;s hands in order to properly preserve any evidence there (such as Mr. Zimmerman&#8217;s DNA on Martin&#8217;s knuckles),
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the fact that the photos taken by Medical Examiner Bao were only taken after Martin&#8217;s body had already been washed.  This undercuts a variety of State claims, including that the lack of Zimmerman&#8217;s DNA on Martin&#8217;s hands suggests that Martin did not, in fact beat Zimmerman around the head.
> 
> 
> 
> In essence, this line of questioning should have destroyed whatever little remaining confidence the jury might have still held in the testimony of Dr. Bao.
Click to expand...




> *Martin Would Have Been Able to Pull Hands Under Body After Shooting*
> 
> Dr. Di Maio further testified as to how long Mr. Martin might have been able to have controlled movements considering the injuries caused to his heart by Mr. Zimmerman&#8217;s bullet, indicating a minimum period of 10 to 15 seconds.  This would have been more than enough time for Martin to pull his hands in under his body.  This undercuts the State&#8217;s argument that Zimmerman must be lying when he said he moved Martin&#8217;s hands away from his body.
> *Injuries to Zimmerman&#8217;s Head Were Potentially Life Threatening*
> 
> Further testimony from Dr. Di Maio emphasized the life-threatening danger of blows to the head.  He noted that intracranial bleeding is hidden, and often does not cause death until some hours after the injury that caused it.  He also noted that axonal injury can occur even besides bleeding, causing brain damage.  This undermines the State&#8217;s arguments that the blows to Zimmermans&#8217; head were inconsequential and could  not h ave represented the reasonable threat of death or grave bodily harm necessary to justify Zimmerman&#8217;s use of deadly force in self-defense.



The defense also undermined the "Zimmerman is a racist," line of attack...The last witness helped in this regard...


----------



## elder999

billc said:


> The medical examiner brought in by the defense pretty much ended the prosecutions case today...he explained why Martin's hands weren't swollen, his blood had stopped moving when he died which prevented swelling, and the reason no blood was on Martin's hands...the body wasn't handled properly at the medical examiners office and at the crime scene...they didn't put bags over the hands and they may have washed the body before the autopsy...He also went through the extent of Zimmerman's injuries pointing out that even though there were only two cuts to the head, it doesn't negate the seriousness of the damage that could have been done to Zimmerman.  He pointed out that bleeding in the skull is always possible in head trauma and doesn't always show immediately after the head is injured...you should watch his testimony...this guy is the go to guy for police detectives and forensic evidence...
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10736761
> He also said Martin was on top when he was shot, as per the gun shot wound and how it showed on the body...
> 
> http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...tent-with-evidence-as-defense-case-nears-end/



Don't really have a dog in this hunt, but: bruising can occur post-mortem.:



> It is not sufficiently emphasized in our country that bruising can also appear post-mortem. We report two cases in which we observed discolorations which looked like ante-mortem bruising



And if bruising can occur post-mortem, that negates his argument. 

I mean, there was no swelling or bruising because the _kid was used to hitting things, *maybe*_??

And as for "being on top," if someone pulled a gun on me and I responded with empty hands, I might just "be on top" right up until I was shot, too....

It doesn't matter, though-the prosecution never wanted this case, and their handling of it demonstrates as much.....


----------



## billc

> It is not sufficiently emphasized in our country that bruising can also appear post-mortem. We report two cases in which we observed discolorations which looked like ante-mortem bruising



This type of bruising is different than what would have occurred in Martin's hands.



> Case 1: A 37-year-old man was found prone on a river shore and taken out of the water by a rescuer by grasping at the right upper arm approximately one hour and 30 minutes after death. At inspection, two thumb-sized discolorations resembling ante-mortem bruising were observed on the lateral and frontal surfaces of the right upper arm. Case 2: A 40-year-old woman was found prone immersed in a moat and taken out of the water in the above-mentioned manner approximately one hour and 45 minutes after death. At inspection, two thumb-sized discolorations appearing to be ante-mortem bruising were observed on the inner surface of the right upper arm. The cause of death in both instances was drowning. Bibliographic investigation revealed that bruising of significant size can appear after death



If someone had pressed on Martin's hands with the same pressure needed to lift  those bodies, it may have left a bruise, but I think the point the Forensic expert was making is that no blood movement...no swelling in the hands after death due to hitting someone, the way it would happen for a living person.



> Additionally, we believe that post-mortem bruising should be sufficiently considered, because it can be important whether a person was grasped when he or she was alive or dead.






 You would have to watch the actual testimony to see exactly what he said about the hands...


----------



## elder999

billc said:


> This type of bruising is different than what would have occurred in Martin's hands.



Well, of course it is, bill-it still negates his argument. There likely was no bruising apparent to Martin's hands because of his "6 months of MMA training," as much as  anything. Who really cares? At the end of the day, a virtually unarmed kid who was minding his own business was shot for no good reason-he was _followed_ for no good reason-by someone who has no business carrying a firearm, imnsho as someone who has had to carry professionally, and has carried regularly as a civilian for *years*

. Some-like yourself-have had to paint that kid as some sort of "thug" from the outset.(And you *did*, bill-in the very first Zimmerman/Martin thread here "on the Study" your very first post on the subject was wondering about a dead kid's criminal record-don't make me find it and quote it...:lfao: ) 

Fact is, though, there was never enough evidence for 2nd degree murder-it was manslaughter at best- in part because of a poorly written Florida law that will also wind up on trial someday, in part because of the prosecution's reluctance, and in part because there's only one side of the story that can be told, and that's Zimmerman's.


----------



## Big Don

elder999 said:


> And as for "being on top," if someone pulled a gun on me and I responded with empty hands, I might just "be on top" right up until I was shot, too....


 Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence...





> It doesn't matter, though-the prosecution never wanted this case, and their handling of it demonstrates as much.....


So, you agree this is a media/politically co-opted kangaroo courtish show trial?


----------



## Big Don

Steve said:


> View attachment 18156
> 
> Is a much more dominant and dangerous position that this.
> 
> View attachment 18157



If you aren't a fighter, and don't know the difference, and someone is beating the crap out of you, either one would be pretty GD scary...


----------



## elder999

Big Don said:


> Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence...
> So, you agree this is a media/politically co-opted kangaroo courtish show trial?



Well, no-we know T.Martin was armed with a can of ice tea and a bag of skittles, and Zimmerman had a gun. One doesn't need to assume anything else-none of Martin's DNA was found on the gun. 

And yes, the trial is just the media fueled prelude to Zimmerman's eventual evisceration in civil court.

Oh, and btw, I'll do it anyway :lfao:



billc said:


> Does the victim have a police record?  I ask because all too often, the "my son never did anything wrong," turns out to be a long criminal record.  I would like to know all the facts, and not just the spike lee facts, before we determine what may have actually happened.  An attacker doesn't have to be armed to kill you.  Do we know the victim was unarmed yet?  Or is that just what people are saying?



At least back then you still knew who "the victim" was.  .


----------



## Tames D

elder999 said:


> Well, of course it is, bill-it still negates his argument. There likely was no bruising apparent to Martin's hands because of his "6 months of MMA training," as much as  anything. Who really cares? *At the end of the day, a virtually unarmed kid who was minding his own business was shot for no good reason-he was followed for no good reason-by someone who has no business carrying a firearm,* imnsho as someone who has had to carry professionally, and has carried regularly as a civilian for years
> 
> . Some-like yourself-have had to paint that kid as some sort of "thug" from the outset.(And you *did*, bill-in the very first Zimmerman/Martin thread here "on the Study" your very first post on the subject was wondering about a dead kid's criminal record-don't make me find it and quote it...:lfao: )
> 
> Fact is, though, there was never enough evidence for 2nd degree murder-it was manslaughter at best- in part because of a poorly written Florida law that will also wind up on trial someday, in part because of the prosecution's reluctance, and in part because there's only one side of the story that can be told, and that's Zimmerman's.



Really? Seriously? I'll take your word for it because I wasn't there. And you were apparently.


----------



## elder999

Tames D said:


> Really? Seriously? I'll take your word for it because I wasn't there. And you were apparently.



These are facts of the case presented in court. Kid was walking home from the store with a bag of skittles and an ice tea. He wasn't armed. Sure, he might have turned on Martin for following him.

I *would* have. 

So yeah, really-seriously. Trayvon Martin didn't have a gun-or a knife. Trayvon Martin hadn't committed a crime. Trayvon Martin was less than a hundred yards from home, and was followed by a man whose intentions we can only guess at. So yeah, really, and seriously-Zimmerman doesn't follow, and this event doesn't take place. That is all we need to know, really-seriously. The fact that he was followed, and *shot*, is enough to tell me that Zimmerman had no business carrying a gun.


I mean, you do recognize that these are the facts that will likely cost Zimmerman every dime he ever makes again for the rest of his life? This has never been about the criminal trial, and was always about the civil suit-if Martin's parents get a different lawyer, they'll win a "wrongful death" suit easily, _because this *was* a wrongful death._


----------



## Tames D

elder999 said:


> These are facts of the case presented in court. Kid was walking home from the store with a bag of skittles and an ice tea. He wasn't armed. Sure, he might have turned on Martin for following him.
> 
> I *would* have.
> 
> So yeah, really-seriously. Trayvon Martin didn't have a gun-or a knife. Trayvon Martin hadn't committed a crime. Trayvon Martin was less than a hundred yards from home, and was followed by a man whose intentions we can only guess at. So yeah, really, and seriously-Zimmerman doesn't follow, and this event doesn't take place. That is all we need to know, really-seriously. The fact that he was followed, and *shot*, is enough to tell me that Zimmerman had no business carrying a gun.



I think the question is, why was he shot? Perhaps because he wasn't an innocent tween that they want us to believe he was. He was  full grown, probably bigger than Zimmerman. Perhaps because he was beating the living hell out of Zimmerman? Look behind the facade, he wasn't momma's little angel you think he was. Do the research. Seriously.


----------



## elder999

Tames D said:


> I think the question was, why was he shot? Perhaps because he wasn't an innocent tween that they want us to belive he was. Perhaps because he was beating the living hell out of Zimmerman? Look behind the facade, he wasn't momma's little angel you think he was. Do the research. Seriously.



I don't think he was "momma's little angel." I don't know one way or the other.

It's irrelevant: he was walking home; he was unarmed. He could have been the Butcher of Buchenwald, Ed Gein, Osama bin Laden and Karl Rove rolled into one brown ball of evil, and it doesn't justify Zimmerman's actions.

I mean, it's dark, you're being followed by someone, they have a gun, and your 16 years old-maybe not "momma's little angel." Maybe you're a dope-smoking, street-fighting, MMA trained bully-wannabe. 

_You're being followed by an older man with a *gun*, in the dark of night._

Like I said-I might just have done the same thing as Trayvon Martin, under the circumstances.....and "beat the living hell out of Zimmerman."


----------



## Tames D

elder999 said:


> I don't think he was "momma's little angel." I don't know one way or the other.
> 
> It's irrelevant: he was walking home; he was unarmed. He could have been the Butcher of Buchenwald, Ed Gein, Osama bin Laden and Karl Rove rolled into one brown ball of evil, and it doesn't justify Zimmerman's actions.
> 
> I mean, it's dark, you're being followed by someone, they have a gun, and your 16 years old-maybe not "momma's little angel." Maybe you're a dope-smoking, street-fighting, MMA trained bully-wannabe.
> 
> _You're being followed by an older man with a *gun*, in the dark of night._
> 
> Like I said-I might just have done the same thing as Trayvon Martin, under the circumstances.....and "beat the living hell out of Zimmerman."



Actually, it's very relevant. And he didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until he was beating the living hell out of him. He found out the hard way.


----------



## billc

A nice recap of the trial so far...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/zimmermans_pointless_trial.html




> Eight  simple facts make it very easy to understand the now-famous murder  trial of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin  unfolding in Sanford, Florida. Finding the truth doesn't require all the  subjective testimony and opinion dominating the trial:
> 
> (1) It had been raining, so the grass was wet. The shooting occurred at the edge of the sidewalk on the grass.
> 
> (2) The back of George Zimmerman's clothes were wet and "flecked" with grass, a police officer who investigated at the scene testified, as if he had been lying on his back in wet grass.
> 
> (3) The knees in Trayvon Martin's jeans were stained, Medical Examiner Shiping Bao testified, as if Martin had been kneeling in the wet grass.



​


----------



## billc

Last minute problems with the Judge...on top of all the other problems with the judge during the trial...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-judge-needs-to-read-this-case-on-authentication-of-text-messages/




> In my post last night  I noted a near shouting match between defense attorney Don West and  Judge Debra Nelson over whether text messages on Trayvon Martin&#8217;s phone  regarding fighting were &#8220;authenticated.&#8221;
> 
> 
> Judge Nelson stated that there was no evidence that Trayvon typed the  texts even though the messages were on his phone and stored in  double-password protected format using phone apps.  Judge Nelson read  from the bench from what appeared to be a treatise on evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> The defense countered that its computer forensic expert, who  testified, was able to track hundreds if not thousand of text messages  on the phone and that the flow of conversations indicated it was Trayvon  in context.  The defense also vigorously complained that because the  State held back evidence and the defense&#8217;s request to postpone the trial  was denied, the defense did not have the time to track down and call as  witnesses the people with whom Trayvon was texting to personally  authenticate the conversations.
> 
> 
> Although we will not get her ruling until after court starts this  morning, it appears that Judge Nelson is on the verge of reversible  error if she excludes the text messages on authentication grounds (there  may be other grounds to exclude them, I&#8217;m just dealing with  authentication).
> 
> 
> 
> A reader forwarded to me the case of State v. Lumarque,  44 So.3d 171, Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2010, in which a Florida appeals court  reversed a trial court&#8217;s decision to exclude text messages on  authentication grounds.  Here&#8217;s the pertinent part of the holding  (emphasis mine):


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> These are facts of the case presented in court. Kid was walking home from the store with a bag of skittles and an ice tea. He wasn't armed. Sure, he might have turned on Martin for following him.
> 
> I *would* have.
> 
> So yeah, really-seriously. Trayvon Martin didn't have a gun-or a knife. Trayvon Martin hadn't committed a crime. Trayvon Martin was less than a hundred yards from home, and was followed by a man whose intentions we can only guess at. So yeah, really, and seriously-Zimmerman doesn't follow, and this event doesn't take place. That is all we need to know, really-seriously. The fact that he was followed, and *shot*, is enough to tell me that Zimmerman had no business carrying a gun.
> 
> 
> I mean, you do recognize that these are the facts that will likely cost Zimmerman every dime he ever makes again for the rest of his life? This has never been about the criminal trial, and was always about the civil suit-if Martin's parents get a different lawyer, they'll win a "wrongful death" suit easily, _because this *was* a wrongful death._





elder999 said:


> I don't think he was "momma's little angel." I don't know one way or the other.
> 
> It's irrelevant: he was walking home; he was unarmed. He could have been the Butcher of Buchenwald, Ed Gein, Osama bin Laden and Karl Rove rolled into one brown ball of evil, and it doesn't justify Zimmerman's actions.
> 
> I mean, it's dark, you're being followed by someone, they have a gun, and your 16 years old-maybe not "momma's little angel." Maybe you're a dope-smoking, street-fighting, MMA trained bully-wannabe.
> 
> _You're being followed by an older man with a *gun*, in the dark of night._
> 
> Like I said-I might just have done the same thing as Trayvon Martin, under the circumstances.....and "beat the living hell out of Zimmerman."




Me thinks you are jumping to conclusions.
Much in the same way others do the other way around.

Truth usually being somewhere in the middle. 

But you certainly are blowing the argument for CCW as form of self defense right out of the water, single handedly! :lol:

There is much to say about this, developing the scenario from either side...again, somewhere in the middle they meet.


And speaking as a woman....when you are being followed, walking down a dark path is generally not considered smart...you stay where the light is. 

two people made poor choices. One got to go home. 

If the victim would have been of different ethnic background, would we have even heard of the incident?
I know there was enough inflammatory rhetoric going around right after, from the usual sources....the parents embarking on an odd tour through the country to speak on this matter...only to fall silent as the halo became duller with every stone unturned....


----------



## James Kovacich

I think the fact he was so close to being home, he was young and being followed by an armed adult speaks loudly. I think it doesn't matter who was on the bottom. Zimmerman is going to be seen as the aggressor/shooter.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

Tames D said:


> Actually, it's very relevant. And he didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until he was beating the living hell out of him. He found out the hard way.


Whoa.  Beating the hell out of him?  I don't think any of the hyperbole being used throughout this thread is helping the discussion at all.

If we're predicting the outcome of the trial, I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd Degree Murder, and it was a poor choice on the part of the prosecution to pursue that charge.  My opinion is that he is guilty of manslaughter and that would have been an appropriate charge.  I don't believe Zimmerman intended to kill anyone.  I believe it was a combination of adrenaline, incompetence and fear of a minority group that caused him to over-react and exacerbate the situation, and that it was his situation to control.  He could have de-escalated the situation, and instead chose to escalate.  But it wasn't murder.


----------



## MJS

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I've followed it enough to know that I don't have much regard for either the prosecution or the defense.  I've heard the recordings of the 911 operator telling him not to go after Martin.  He opted not to follow this instruction.  Stupidity.
> 
> Martin's picture from when he was twelve was all over the media.  Very dishonest.  Zimmerman was portrayed as white, but he isn't.  Dishonest.
> 
> I don't know what actually happened, but I do know that I have little trust in the people trying to paint Zimmerman as some kind of hero or Martin as a tween kid of about twelve.  By all accounts, an armed man pursued another man, accosted him (either verbally or physically; who knows?) which promted a scuffle that ended when the armed man shot the other man, who so far as I know, was unarmed.
> 
> I will cry no tears for Zimmerman if he is found guilty.  Nor will I raise cheers for Martin's family.  Should he be acquitted, I will not be gnashing my teeth in frustration nor will I be mourning the miscarriage of justice with Martin's family.  Both sides seem happy to slant the truth or obscure it all together.  So I'm happy to let them fight it out in their own little sand box.



My take today, is the same as it was when this first happened, that being, we will most likely, never get the real story, due to 1 person being dead.  Furthermore, I still maintain that Zimmerman, unless his position as a neighborhood watch person, entails chasing, detaining, restraining, etc, a suspicious person, then he should not be pretending that he's a cop.  There're men and women out there who do that job daily...let them do it!  

Seems like both sides are trying to determine whether or not Zimmerman used the stand your ground law to his favor.  I mean, IMO, if GZ intentionally provoked TM into a confrontation, well.....if that was the case, then I'd say GZ is certainly in the wrong.  

And if GZ is found not guilty, we can only hope (yeah, I know I'm asking for A LOT here) that the citizens don't riot to prove a point, but like I said, I might be asking for a lot here.


----------



## James Kovacich

Something that is completely overlooked is that Travon being on top really means nothing. There's no way to prove who attacked who. Anyone who knows anything about real fights knows that it could of been just as likely as any other scenario that Zimmerman tackeled Travon and they rolled around with Travon landing on top and Georges injuries could be a result of rolling around. 

That's my point. For every point the defense makes, there's other scenarios that "could of " happened. In my opinion, the defense has an uphill battle.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> If you aren't a fighter, and don't know the difference, and someone is beating the crap out of you, either one would be pretty GD scary...


After a week of BJJ/Submission Grappling training, it would make a difference.  Zimmerman had some "MMA" training.  If it was actual MMA training, I am 100% confident he understood the difference and could better protect himself from guard than from under mount.  How much better is up in the air, but having trained in BJJ for going on 8 years now, I've seen a LOT of people come through the door.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone who trains regularly to fail to achieve blue belt level skill within about 2 years.  It's just impossible.  Even the most physically challenged, uncoordinated person will develop rudimentary proficiency just through exposure and repitition.

And the point remains that to an untrained, lay person observing the fight in the dark, these two very different positions would be indistinguishable, even though we (who train in martial arts) understand that there is a profound difference between mount and guard.


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> These are facts of the case presented in court. Kid was walking home from the store with a bag of skittles and an ice tea. He wasn't armed. Sure, he might have turned on Martin for following him.
> 
> I *would* have.
> 
> So yeah, really-seriously. Trayvon Martin didn't have a gun-or a knife. Trayvon Martin hadn't committed a crime. Trayvon Martin was less than a hundred yards from home, and was followed by a man whose intentions we can only guess at. So yeah, really, and seriously-Zimmerman doesn't follow, and this event doesn't take place. That is all we need to know, really-seriously. The fact that he was followed, and *shot*, is enough to tell me that Zimmerman had no business carrying a gun.
> 
> 
> I mean, you do recognize that these are the facts that will likely cost Zimmerman every dime he ever makes again for the rest of his life? This has never been about the criminal trial, and was always about the civil suit-if Martin's parents get a different lawyer, they'll win a "wrongful death" suit easily, _because this *was* a wrongful death._





elder999 said:


> I don't think he was "momma's little angel." I don't know one way or the other.
> 
> It's irrelevant: he was walking home; he was unarmed. He could have been the Butcher of Buchenwald, Ed Gein, Osama bin Laden and Karl Rove rolled into one brown ball of evil, and it doesn't justify Zimmerman's actions.
> 
> I mean, it's dark, you're being followed by someone, they have a gun, and your 16 years old-maybe not "momma's little angel." Maybe you're a dope-smoking, street-fighting, MMA trained bully-wannabe.
> 
> _You're being followed by an older man with a *gun*, in the dark of night._
> 
> Like I said-I might just have done the same thing as Trayvon Martin, under the circumstances.....and "beat the living hell out of Zimmerman."





James Kovacich said:


> Something that is completely overlooked is that Travon being on top really means nothing. There's no way to prove who attacked who. Anyone who knows anything about real fights knows that it could of been just as likely as any other scenario that Zimmerman tackeled Travon and they rolled around with Travon landing on top and Georges injuries could be a result of rolling around.
> 
> That's my point. For every point the defense makes, there's other scenarios that "could of " happened. In my opinion, the defense has an uphill battle.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



well, under normal circumstance, it's innocent until proven guilty.
There are a million ways either could have been the aggressor. I don't see how yet another scenario will make it harder on the defense...


----------



## James Kovacich

granfire said:


> well, under normal circumstance, it's innocent until proven guilty.
> There are a million ways either could have been the aggressor. I don't see how yet another scenario will make it harder on the defense...



I wasn't poviding another scenario in the respect I'm thinking you see. I was just showing neither side can prove what happened and it's harder for the defense because Zimmerman followed Martin and that alone shows his action as "initiating" whatever followed.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire

James Kovacich said:


> I wasn't poviding another scenario in the respect I'm thinking you see. I was just showing neither side can prove what happened and it's harder for the defense because Zimmerman followed Martin and that alone shows his action as "initiating" whatever followed.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



true.

But under normal circumstance it would also come into play that the formerly upscaleish neighborhood had been plagued by a string of crimes...prompting Z to follow this unknown figure only to find himself attacked...goes both ways.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out.


----------



## MJS

Texts from TMs phone not allowed:
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-against-zimmerman-evidence-132354666.html



> SANFORD, Fla. (AP) &#8212; A central Florida judge ruled Wednesday that Trayvon Martin's cellphone texts on fighting and a defense animation depicting the fight between Martin and George Zimmerman won't be introduced as evidence at Zimmerman's trial.
> Judge Debra Nelson made her ruling Wednesday, a day after she heard arguments on the matter. Prosecutors had claimed the texts were irrelevant and taken out of context. They also objected to the computer animation, questioning its accuracy and saying it would mislead jurors.


----------



## billc

> being followed by an armed adult



There is no way to know if Martin knew Zimmerman was armed.  He had the pistol under his jacket and it was very dark out.  If Martin knew Zimmerman was armed, he might have gone straight home instead of sticking around...


----------



## billc

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/breaking-jury-will-not-get-to-see-trayvon-fighting-texts/



> The Judge in the Zimmerman trial just ruled that the jury will not get to see numerous text messages
> 
> 
> 
> on Trayvon Martin&#8217;s phone regarding his prowess at fighting, including  texts as to how to punch someone in the nose and make them bleed.
> 
> 
> 
> West: #TrayvonMartin texted on "how he was able to hit the person in the nose & make their nose bleed." #ZimmermanTrial #GeorgeZimmerman
> &#8212; Jeff Weiner (@JeffWeinerOS) July 10, 2013
> ​The Judge did not give an explanation for her ruling other than to stand by her prior ruling as to social media evidence.
> It is not clear if the Judge found a lack of authentication, which  was one of the arguments last night.  The Judge did indicate she  reviewed the Lumarque case in which a trial court was reversed for failing to allow text messages.
Click to expand...

...


----------



## arnisador

Tames D said:


> Really? Seriously? I'll take your word for it because I wasn't there. And you were apparently.



We're either discussing this online or we're not. If the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, shut the site down--I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that [martial art name deleted] is of any value in self-defense.


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:


> He could have been the Butcher of Buchenwald, Ed Gein, Osama bin Laden and Karl Rove rolled into one brown ball of evil, and it doesn't justify Zimmerman's actions.



I guarantee you could've shot OBL. They'd have given you a $50M reward.



> _You're being followed by an older man with a *gun*, in the dark of night._
> 
> Like I said-I might just have done the same thing as Trayvon Martin, under the circumstances.....and "beat the living hell out of Zimmerman."



He knew he was being followed by someone with a gun? (I haven't been following the case that closely, though I'll be interested to hear the result.) Or just that he was being followed? Anyway, by your own logic, your actions in such a case would surely have been unjustified too--initiating an assault for being followed (itself a sometimes erroneous conclusion).


----------



## arnisador

MJS said:


> And if GZ is found not guilty, we can only hope (yeah, I know I'm asking for A LOT here) that the citizens don't riot



I expect there'll be a riot for any number of reasons if this happens, and it's looking that way to me. I think the law there allows for and possibly encourages this reckless behavior that has a kid dead and the state spending absurd amounts of money on a single case rather than on other crime-related matters. No duty to retreat makes great sense in your home or business but in the street it just encourages vigilantism and machismo.


----------



## arnisador

James Kovacich said:


> Something that is completely overlooked is that Travon being on top really means nothing. There's no way to prove who attacked who. Anyone who knows anything about real fights knows that it could of been just as likely as any other scenario that Zimmerman tackeled Travon and they rolled around with Travon landing on top and Georges injuries could be a result of rolling around.
> 
> That's my point. For every point the defense makes, there's other scenarios that "could of " happened. In my opinion, the defense has an uphill battle.



No, that is to the defense's advantage because of the presumption of evidence--every open question is reasonable doubt.


----------



## arnisador

James Kovacich said:


> I wasn't poviding another scenario in the respect I'm thinking you see. I was just showing neither side can prove what happened



Automatic win for the defense if so--even if the jury voted to convict, the judge would have to set it aside if the state doesn't prove its case.


----------



## MJS

arnisador said:


> I expect there'll be a riot for any number of reasons if this happens, and it's looking that way to me. I think the law there allows for and possibly encourages this reckless behavior that has a kid dead and the state spending absurd amounts of money on a single case rather than on other crime-related matters. No duty to retreat makes great sense in your home or business but in the street it just encourages vigilantism and machismo.



If someone wants to peacefully protest, fine, I've got no issues with that.  When people start acting like complete, total *******s, rioting, acting like an animal!  NO need for any of that.  I say that, because what is it proving?  What is accomplished? NOTHING!  Not a damn thing!  

As for the SYG law...yup, I agree with you on that one.  And IMHO, I can't help but think that this is what GM was playing on.  I'm not saying TM was an angel, but I feel that GZ could've used this to his advantage.  If he was following this kid, and the kid turns around and confronts him, asking why he's following, well, there ya go...instant SYG.


----------



## granfire

MJS said:


> If someone wants to peacefully protest, fine, I've got no issues with that.  When people start acting like complete, total *******s, rioting, acting like an animal!  NO need for any of that.  I say that, because what is it proving?  What is accomplished? NOTHING!  Not a damn thing!
> 
> As for the SYG law...yup, I agree with you on that one.  And IMHO, I can't help but think that this is what GM was playing on.  I'm not saying TM was an angel, but I feel that GZ could've used this to his advantage.  If he was following this kid, and the kid turns around and confronts him, asking why he's following, well, there ya go...instant SYG.




But where does SYG start?
"Hey mate, what's up, never seen you around here before"
are you at fault when you can't get out of the way of a punch quick enough?

Can you accost somebody for saying hello?


----------



## MJS

granfire said:


> But where does SYG start?
> "Hey mate, what's up, never seen you around here before"
> are you at fault when you can't get out of the way of a punch quick enough?
> 
> Can you accost somebody for saying hello?



Good point...where does it start?  No, IMO, I don't feel you should KO someone for saying hello.   But that was the point I was trying to make.  I have to wonder if GZ didn't use the SYG law in his favor, when in reality, he was in the wrong, all along.  If someone intentionally sets out to look for trouble, and then turns around and tries to play the victim, that's not right.  How can they get away with playing that card, when they were the ones who initiated the trouble to being with?

GZ didn't have to follow TM.  IMO, on face value, to me, GZ was playing wanna be cop.  He could've just as easily have hung back and been a good witness to the cops.  Let them confront TM.  So instead, GZ engages TM, and who knows what happened from there.  GZ is obviously, right or wrong, going to play the SYG card.  


I hope that made sense.


----------



## arnisador

MJS said:


> If someone wants to peacefully protest, fine, I've got no issues with that.  When people start acting like complete, total *******s, rioting, acting like an animal!  NO need for any of that.  I say that, because what is it proving?  What is accomplished? NOTHING!  Not a damn thing!
> 
> As for the SYG law...yup, I agree with you on that one.  And IMHO, I can't help but think that this is what GM was playing on.  I'm not saying TM was an angel, but I feel that GZ could've used this to his advantage.  If he was following this kid, and the kid turns around and confronts him, asking why he's following, well, there ya go...instant SYG.



Agreed all around--I think GZ knew the law and was hoping to use it in just a way as this (which I assume he now realizes wasn't worth the hassle to him). I expect there'll be a riot because some people will just be happy to have an excuse to riot, loot, etc., beyond those who are truly morally outraged. It's almost _de rigeur_ now to have a riot, sadly.


----------



## granfire

MJS said:


> Good point...where does it start?  No, IMO, I don't feel you should KO someone for saying hello.   But that was the point I was trying to make.  I have to wonder if GZ didn't use the SYG law in his favor, when in reality, he was in the wrong, all along.  If someone intentionally sets out to look for trouble, and then turns around and tries to play the victim, that's not right.  How can they get away with playing that card, when they were the ones who initiated the trouble to being with?
> 
> GZ didn't have to follow TM.  IMO, on face value, to me, GZ was playing wanna be cop.  He could've just as easily have hung back and been a good witness to the cops.  Let them confront TM.  So instead, GZ engages TM, and who knows what happened from there.  GZ is obviously, right or wrong, going to play the SYG card.
> 
> 
> I hope that made sense.



makes complete sense...

on the other hand, TM could have also called the cops, let them deal with the 'stalker'


----------



## arnisador

Expected this--he won't testify:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...l?Post+generic=?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost


----------



## billc

There was a use of force expert questioned today...the prosecution again took the opportunity to undermine it's own case, and this last witness...She revealed the environment that made Martin look suspiciuos...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...ests-closing-statements-start-tomorrow//#more



> *Olivia Bertalan, former Twin Lakes resident*
> 
> The next defense witness was Olivia Bertalan, a former resident of Twin Lakes.  On direct by O&#8217;Mara she recounted an absolutely horrific story of a home invasion, in which two black men in their late teens broke into her home and began ransacking it.  She and her 9-month-old son ran up to his bedroom, locked the door, and huddled in a corner.  The 911 dispatcher told her to grab any weapon she could and be ready to use it&#8211;the best weapon at hand was a rusty pair of scissors.  Moments later one of the intruders was rattling the doorknob on the bedroom door.
> Just listening to it was horrifying, but it got worse.





> Some time later one of the invaders was identified and arrested.  He was, however, a minor and was released from arrest on that basis.  And, unimaginably, he himself was a resident of Twin Lakes, living in the neighborhood only a short distance from Bertalan&#8217;s own home.





> It was very plain that this was still a deeply traumatized woman, even now almost 18 months after the invasion.
> O&#8217;Mara then asked her about her interactions with Zimmerman in the aftermath of these events. Bertalan responded that they were terrified, and just so appreciative of George&#8217;s offers to help them, to make sure that they were OK.  He even arranged for Bertalan to spend some time with his wife Shellie, as she was too frightened to stay at home alone.
> The testimony of Bertalan was reminiscent of the compelling testimony of Elouise Dilligard the day before, also a Zimmerman neighbor.  The Zimmerman these people described, this kind, caring neighbor, could not be further from the evil, seething, racist murdered of young black boys that the State continues to try to sell to the jury.


----------



## ballen0351

I was in Sanford Fla today it looked like a nice town.  Its a shame it will be burned down when the trial is over


----------



## Tames D

ballen0351 said:


> I was in Sanford Fla today it looked like a nice town.  Its a shame it will be burned down when the trial is over



No doubt about it. And how many people will have to die?


----------



## crushing

There are some interesting theories and opinions as to what happened and  what may have been going on in the minds of Martin and Zimmerman as  this incident unfolded and escalated.



ballen0351 said:


> I was in Sanford Fla today it looked like a nice town.  Its a shame it will be burned down when the trial is over



The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street


----------



## billc

Contributing factor to the possible upcoming unrest in Sanford...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/10/Trayvongate




> Judicial Watch revealed  documents today that proved what Breitbart News reported in April,  2012: that Eric Holder's Department of Justice took an active role in  racially charged rallies in Sanford, Florida and that the Community  Relations Service helped force the temporary resignation of Sheriff Bill  Lee. That resignation made it appear that Sanford authorities were  suspect and possibly complicit in covering up something.
> 
> 
> Some of my reporting at the time was based on interviews with  numerous public officials in Sanford who wanted to remain anonymous out  of fear of retribution from the Obama administration. They described a  situation where the CRS team took over and forced decisions while  clearing a path for protests and rallies that heightened the appearence  of racial tensions.
> The CRS is a small unit within the Department of Justice and  ostensibly it serves a legitimate purpose; attempting to cool down tense  situation. As its website says:
> The Community Relations Service is the Department's "peacemaker" for  community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race,  color, and national origin. Created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS  is the only Federal agency dedicated to assist State and local units of  government, private and public organizations, and community groups with  preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and  civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.​ However, under the highly politicized Holder Department of Justice,  the CRS has acted as 'spies and muscle' according to a source familiar  with the unit. In the Zimmerman case, they ended up as doing nothing to  facilitate 'racial stability and harmony ', instead acting a heavy thumb  on the scales of justice and helping to force events that gave the  nation an impression that Martin's death was racially motivated.


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> After a week of BJJ/Submission Grappling training, it would make a difference.  Zimmerman had some "MMA" training.  If it was actual MMA training, I am 100% confident he understood the difference and could better protect himself from guard than from under mount.  How much better is up in the air, but having trained in BJJ for going on 8 years now, I've seen a LOT of people come through the door.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone who trains regularly to fail to achieve blue belt level skill within about 2 years.  It's just impossible.  Even the most physically challenged, uncoordinated person will develop rudimentary proficiency just through exposure and repitition.
> 
> And the point remains that to an untrained, lay person observing the fight in the dark, these two very different positions would be indistinguishable, even though we (who train in martial arts) understand that there is a profound difference between mount and guard.



Yes! Furthermore, many grappling courses that're geared towards LEOs, (at least the ones I've seen) focus on weapon retention and getting back to a safe position, where the weapon can be used, if need be. 

We had the trial on yesterday at work, and just as I was leaving for the day, they were going to start talking about his MMA training, but I left before I was able to see that segment.  Can anyone shed any light on that?


----------



## MJS

granfire said:


> makes complete sense...
> 
> on the other hand, TM could have also called the cops, let them deal with the 'stalker'



Exactly!  Unless it changed, last I knew, TM was talking to a girl, I believe his girlfriend and IIRC, she told him to call the cops, though I could be wrong on that.  

But yes, he'd have been better off calling the police.


----------



## MJS

arnisador said:


> Expected this--he won't testify:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...l?Post+generic=?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost



I was reading a discussion on FB about the judge and how everyone feels she's doing some rather shady things.

I'm no legal expert, but I have to wonder....why wouldn't GZ testify?  I mean, if he's deemed competent to stand trial, shouldn't the jury hear his side out of his mouth, rather than the mouth of his lawyer?


----------



## Steve

It will be interesting to see whether the judge allows the jury to consider a lesser charge.  That the prosecution is expected to ask for this is telling.


----------



## billc

A long article on the trial and the problem with trying to make it a case about race...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/president_obama_vs_george_zimmerman_america_loses.html


----------



## billc

The prosecution wants manslaughter and 3rd degree murder as options for the jury.  They sprang the 3rd degree murder (child abuse) on the defense at the last minute...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/breaking-state-moves-to-charge-zimmerman-with-3d-degree-murder-based-on-aggravated-child-abuse/




> As expected, the Judge in the George Zimmerman case ruled that in  addition to Second Degree Murder, she will instruct the jury on the  lesser included offense of Manslaughter, as required by Florida case  law.
> 
> 
> In a surprise move this morning, the prosecution asked the Judge to  drop the Aggravated Assault charge and to instruct the jury on Third Degree Murder, which is murder in the course of committing a felony.
> 
> 
> 
> The felony the State wanted as the predicate was Aggravated Child Abuse (Jury Instruction) because Trayvon Martin was 17 at the time of the shooting.
> According to Don West, the defense was not notified until 7:30 a.m. this morning.
> 
> 
> 
> This surprise is important because the defense did not have time to  research the law, while the State presented numerous cases.  Generally  it is not a defense to child abuse that the perpetrator did not know the  age of the victim.  This is an unusual circumstance, however, where  Zimmerman was punched in the nose and the child was on top punching  him  to say that excessive use of force in defense of an attack by a  child is child abuse certainly requires some time to research and  argue.  I dont know the answer to that legal question, but the court  should give the defense time to research and argue it.  (_Update 11:35 a.m._  Judge just indicated she will give defense time to research, but didnt indicate how long until 1 p.m.)


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> It will be interesting to see whether the judge allows the jury to consider a lesser charge.  That the prosecution is expected to ask for this is telling.


The news this morning they are allowed to consider manslaughter.


----------



## arnisador

It's always seemed unfair to me to give multiple options--charge a person with the crime you claimed he committed.


----------



## Steve

arnisador said:


> It's always seemed unfair to me to give multiple options--charge a person with the crime you claimed he committed.


I agree to an extent.  But at the same time, there are cases (not necessarily this one) where a person is clearly guilty of something.  From what I've read, the request to consider lesser charges is typically a defense strategy where the defendant is obviously guilty of wrong doing, but the defense is hoping for a compromise verdict.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> It's always seemed unfair to me to give multiple options--charge a person with the crime you claimed he committed.



According to the Former Chief thats all they wanted to charge him with in the first place.  According to him The politicians are the ones that forced the murder charge.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> According to the Former Chief thats all they wanted to charge him with in the first place.  According to him The politicians are the ones that forced the murder charge.



I suppose that's to ensure he will be going away:
Throw the big thing out, have them all go 'hmm, yeah, he did something wrong but not that wrong' so they accept the lesser charge...I could imagine when you start with the lesser one, they might be more inclined to acquit 
outright...

Just going by what I know about people...


----------



## Steve

granfire said:


> I suppose that's to ensure he will be going away:
> Throw the big thing out, have them all go 'hmm, yeah, he did something wrong but not that wrong' so they accept the lesser charge...I could imagine when you start with the lesser one, they might be more inclined to acquit
> outright...
> 
> Just going by what I know about people...


From what I've read, I don't get the impression that this is the case.  Pushing for charges out of proportion to the crime is not just unethical (in my opinion), but also has a very real chance of backfiring.  The judge didn't have to allow the consideration of lesser charges, and I think we all agree that the prosecution didn't make a very strong case for 2nd Degree Murder.  If lesser charges weren't allowed, the jury would likely have no choice but to acquit.  As usual, the involvement of politicians made things worse, not better.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> From what I've read, I don't get the impression that this is the case.  Pushing for charges out of proportion to the crime is not just unethical (in my opinion), but also has a very real chance of backfiring.  The judge didn't have to allow the consideration of lesser charges, and I think we all agree that the prosecution didn't make a very strong case for 2nd Degree Murder.  If lesser charges weren't allowed, the jury would likely have no choice but to acquit.  As usual, the involvement of politicians made things worse, not better.


Besides unethical in my opinion charging someone with a crime you know they didn't do just to get them to agree to lesser charge is down right illegal in my opinion.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Besides unethical in my opinion charging someone with a crime you know they didn't do just to get them to agree to lesser charge is down right illegal in my opinion.



Throw some against the wall, see what sticks. 
Fishing I suppose.


----------



## Big Don

Steve said:


> I agree to an extent.  But at the same time, there  are cases (not necessarily this one) where a person is clearly guilty of  something.  From what I've read, the request to consider lesser charges  is typically a defense strategy where the defendant is obviously guilty  of wrong doing, but the defense is hoping for a compromise  verdict.





granfire said:


> Throw some against the wall, see what sticks.
> Fishing I suppose.


What she said.


----------



## billc

Thoughts on why the prosecutors should be disbarred...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/why_the_zimmerman_prosecutors_should_be_disbarred.html




> One  substantial block of evidence that it kept to itself until a  whistleblower alerted the defense was the content of Martin's cell  phone.  On Tuesday night of this week, phone expert Richard Connor made a  detailed presentation.  Although the jury was not present, the  respective attorneys were, as were the media.
> 
> 
> For  dubious and probably reversible reasons, Judge Debra Nelson disallowed  Connor's testimony, but prosecutors have known for many months about the  downward spiral of Martin's life.  In the course of his close, de la  Rionda called Martin an "innocent young boy" and made several other  allusions to that effect.  He was intentionally deceiving the jury.   Martin was neither little nor innocent


.

​


----------



## billc

Part of the Defens's closing arguments was to show the size difference between the Martin and Zimmerman.  This is to show that the "child," that the prosecution kept referring to in their close was bigger than Zimmerman and in better shape.  They weren't allowed to show the text messages where Martin talked about fighting and how to make a nose bleed with a punch, so this was a way to introduce something that showed the reality of their sizes to the jury...


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> Part of the Defens's closing arguments was to show the size difference between the Martin and Zimmerman.  This is to show that the "child," that the prosecution kept referring to in their close was bigger than Zimmerman



Haven't been following all that closely but I didn't realize this.


----------



## billc

Zimmerman is 5' 7" and Martin was 5' 11".  Keep in mind That was Martin's height without shoes and without taking into account the extra inches the hoodie gave to his height in the dark.   It doesn't surprise me that most people don't know about the size difference, because the only pictures most people are shown are when Martin was a kid.


----------



## billc

One of Zimmerman's attorney's had an interview with CNN now that the jury has the case...he talks about the way the case was brought to trial...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...influence-of-race-politics-in-zimmerman-case/


----------



## Steve

billc said:


> Zimmerman is 5' 7" and Martin was 5' 11".  Keep in mind That was Martin's height without shoes and without taking into account the extra inches the hoodie gave to his height in the dark.   It doesn't surprise me that most people don't know about the size difference, because the only pictures most people are shown are when Martin was a kid.



He was average height at 5' 11" but skinny.  Zimmerman is short but stocky and had 40 lbs on Martin.  

Size is subjective.  More accurate to say that z was shorter but thicker.  

Another thing to consider, and the grapplers here will understand I think.  There is something. To the idea of "man strength."  I've rolled with 190 lbs high school wrestlers the same size as me and much more fit.  I was much stronger than them.  Hard to explain why.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## billc

There is also the matter of your heart being in the fight.  From testimony, we know that Martin initiated face to face contact with Zimmerman when he could have just gone back to his father's girlfriend's home.   We know from an eye witness to the fight just before the gun shot, that Zimmerman was on the bottom getting hit "mma style" by Martin, and Zimmerman was yelling for help to the witness.   Martin did not stop the attack when the witness yelled at the two to stop doing what they were doing.   It was immediately after the witness went to get a phone that the shot rang out, so however the difference in size, Martin was apparently winning the fight. 

What I don't think a  lot of people thinking about the fight take into account is that it wasn't a fist fight, but a criminal assault.  Dr. Baden, famed coroner, and Bob Beckel of the Fox cable news show both talked about in their "neighborhoods," when two guys got into a fight they never pulled guns and shot the other guy.  This wasn't a bar fight, it wasn't at a party.  If what Zimmerman says is true, and we have a partial account from a sworn witness, Martin initiated the conversation (as per the person he was on the phone with ) and from Zimmerman, Martin punched him in the face.  This was in the dark, with Zimmerman following someone he had called 911 about, and he was getting a real beating.  How did Zimmerman know that Martin didn't have a weapon?  Say a knife?  One of my past instructors was an M.P. in the air force for 22 years.  He was stabbed once while breaking up a fight.  He told us he just thought the guy had hit him in the back, until one of his fellow M.P.'s said, "Hey, you were stabbed."  Punched by surprise, the attacker following him  to the ground, in the dark, being beaten on by someone who looked larger than himself, the only help having seemingly left the scene...?   How did he know how the attack would end?  The adrenaline rush affecting his senses?  It really isn't a stretch to think that shooting his larger, more violent attacker was the only thing left.


----------



## billc

Not Guity........


----------



## Tgace

billc said:


> Not Guity........



As I expected.....a murder charge? That's prosecutorial misconduct in my book. Manslaughter? I think that could have been argued. Even if the judge allowed a conviction on a lesser included offense, the jury likely didn't take kindly to a throw it against the wall and see what sticks prosecution.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire

I am amazed...I would have figured since they asked, manslaughter it would be....

and Florida isn't burning yet....


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> As I expected.....a murder charge? That's prosecutorial misconduct in my book. Manslaughter? I think that could have been argued. Even if the judge allowed a conviction on a lesser included offense, the jury likely didn't take kindly to a throw it against the wall and see what sticks prosecution.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


I agree.  I think an initial charge of manslaughter and a case built toward that would have stuck.



Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Carol

Tgace said:


> As I expected.....a murder charge? That's prosecutorial misconduct in my book.



Aye, but "try 'em high" happens often enough in less-publicized trials, eh?


----------



## Carol

In other news, a black woman from Florida gets 20 years for firing warning shots.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/


----------



## Big Don

https://twitter.com/RobertWargas/status/356240447733108736


----------



## Tgace

Carol said:


> Aye, but "try 'em high" happens often enough in less-publicized trials, eh?



Sure... but how do you plan to run a case of Murder 2 in a case like this? Most try em high cases at least meet the elements of the charge.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador

The overbroad stand your ground law is the problem. The verdict itself was undoubtedly correct under that law.


----------



## billc

The woman got a  bad decision.  I would think that she might get her case thrown out on appeal.  At least I hope so.  I would like to get the details of the case, like who the judge was and what kind  of dumb people may have been on the jury.

The stand your ground law is meant to keep innocent people from getting sued by criminals, when the victim defends themselves from attack.  I think it is necessary or you see victims getting arrested after they are attacked and the criminal goes free.  You see it over seas in Britian where a victim uses a weapon to defend themselves and then they are arrested just because they used a weapon to protect against the attack.

http://www.naturalnews.com/037166_self_defense_homeowners_violent_criminals.html

(





> NaturalNews) There is a saying - in the U.S., anyway - that a "man's house is his castle." That saying can carry a host of meanings, not the least of which is that a man's home is his sacred sanctuary and it cannot be violated by anyone.
> 
> 
> But that's here in the United States, where political correctness in the legal system hasn't quite reached the level it has in our cousin country, Great Britain.





> In one recent incident, a farm tenant and his wife, both of whom had suffered a number of break-ins already, were arrested and jailed after using a legally-owned firearm (not an easy thing to obtain in the gun-free zone of England) to shoot at and wound one of two burglars who surprised the couple in the night.





> In 2009, millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back against a knife-wielding intruder with a metal pole and cricket bat; the burglar had tied up his family at their Buckinghamshire home.
> 
> 
> For daring to defend himself and his family, Hussain was jailed for more than two years, though his attacker was spared prison.
> 
> 
> Lucky for Hussain he eventually got an understanding judge who reduced his sentence to one year in jail, which was suspended.


----------



## granfire

and of course the usual suspects are striring the pot again....


----------



## Master Dan

Well let's see what happens when the family files a Civil wrongful death suit. George is not out of the woods yet


----------



## Tgace

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/d...utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1



> Dershowitz said not only should Zimmerman have not been charged with second-degree murder, but prosecutors should not have pushed to have manslaughter and child abuse added to the list of possible jury verdicts.
> 
> "[It's] utterly irresponsible.  The idea that the prosecution can try the case on a murder theory and then, at the last minute, substitute manslaughter, even though it seems to be permitted generally under Florida law  it's a big mistake to allow it in a case like this, he said.
> 
> "And then the very idea of even suggesting child abuse in a case like this is so irresponsible."
> 
> Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/d...idget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1#ixzz2Z2e8mscz
> Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!


----------



## arnisador

Master Dan said:


> Well let's see what happens when the family files a Civil wrongful death suit. George is not out of the woods yet



Does the stand your ground law provide him with any civil protection also?


----------



## Big Don

arnisador said:


> Does the stand your ground law provide him with any civil protection also?



One would hope the fact that the police did not want to prosecute would provide him some.


----------



## billc

more on the scandal that brought Zimmerman to trial...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...-over-misleading-affidavit-of-probable-cause/



> There should be a special prosecutor appointed to investigate this special prosecution.
> 
> 
> In early April 2012, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey decided not to take the George Zimmerman case to a Grand Jury, opting for the filing of a Criminal Information which then was presented along with an Affidavit of Probable Cause.  The Court found probable cause for the charges.
> It turned out, once pre-trial discovery was exchanged, that the affidavit upon which probable cause was found had not disclosed a lot of significant exculpatory details.  There was no mention of the significant injuries to Zimmerman, or of John Good&#8217;s eyewitness account that Martin was on top of Zimmerman hitting him Mixed Martial Arts style.  All the Affidavit said on the subject of the physical confrontation was that there was &#8220;a struggle.&#8221;
> The Affidavit identified the voice screaming for help as that of Martin based on an interview with his mother, but did not reveal what we now know, that Martin&#8217;s father initially denied it was his son.
> The Affidavit also was inaccurate, such as alleging that the 911 operator &#8220;instructed Zimmerman not&#8221; to follow Martin &#8212; a false fact which lives on in the media mythology of the case.
> Alan Dershowitz was livid.
> From the post, If Angela Corey threatened suit against Dershowitz and Harvard, she needs to step down from Zimmerman case, June 7,2012, Dershowitz was prophetic:


----------



## billc

This is a point that I made in another thread on the Zimmerman trial...Everyone said that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and just dialed 911.  Well...this is exactly what everyone else in the community did...and Martin was shot and killed.  If anyone of those witnesses had gone out that night and pulled Martin off of Zimmerman, or at least gone out there and let Zimmerman know people were there to help...he wouldn't have felt the need to use deadly force.  However, John Good, Mrs. Sydeka, and the Minaloos...they did what everyone says Zimmerman should have done...they stayed in their homes and called 911...and Martin died.  John Good for example saw the two fighting.  He called out for the two of them to stop, and when Martin continued beating Zimmerman, as per Good's account, Good stayed inside, closed his door and went to retrieve his phone...and then the gun shot rang out.  If anyone had stepped out and perhaps at least tried to intervene...instead of doing what a lot of people advised Zimmerman should have done...Martin would probably be alive today...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I think Zimmerman is in real trouble in his civil case!  The burden of proof is totally different!


----------



## ballen0351

4 people were murdered over the weekend in Baltimore.  Nobody cares.  One 17 year old get killed in Fla and 500 people show up in Baltimore to protest the verdict.  People are stupid.


----------



## Tgace

ballen0351 said:


> 4 people were murdered over the weekend in Baltimore.  Nobody cares.  One 17 year old get killed in Fla and 500 people show up in Baltimore to protest the verdict.  People are stupid.



No ****....this whole meme of cherry picked cases that get spun up by the press does little but widen the divide between us.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador

Agreed. This is media-driven--selling outrage to sell ads.


----------



## Carol

Situation getting tense in LA.   After a standoff with the police, protesters are mobbing the W hotel on Hollywood Blvd


----------



## Carol

LAPD calling it a riot now...sounds of breaking glass from the hotel.  The rioters are possibly heading to the CNN building.


----------



## billc

Why the Stand Your Ground law didn't apply to this case...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/in-zimmerman-post-mortems-confusion-reigns.php



> But, as has been explained here and many other places, Florida&#8217;s stand your ground law played no part in the Zimmerman prosecution. Under traditional principles of self-defense, if you are threatened or assaulted somewhere other than in your home, you have to flee, if you can, rather than using deadly force in self-defense. That is the principle that is amended by stand your ground laws. Under such statutes, if you are attacked in a public place and you reasonably fear that you may be killed or incur great bodily injury, you don&#8217;t have to run away. You can stand your ground and fight back, including the use of deadly force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This principle, obviously, comes into play only if you can run away.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can&#8217;t retreat&#8211;if, like George Zimmerman, you are lying on your back with an adversary sitting on top of you and beating on you&#8211;you have always been entitled to use deadly force in self-defense, if you reasonably fear death or great bodily injury. Zimmerman&#8217;s lawyers did not invoke Florida&#8217;s stand your ground law. They did not rely on it; they did not argue it to the jury; they did not ask for a &#8220;stand your ground&#8221; pretrial hearing, which, in cases where the statute applies, can lead to dismissal of the charges against the defendant. There is no reason why anyone should ever mention Florida&#8217;s stand your ground law in connection with the Zimmerman case.
Click to expand...


----------



## Big Don

Carol said:


> LAPD calling it a riot now...sounds of breaking glass from the hotel.  The rioters are possibly heading to the CNN building.





Damn those republicans! Oh wait...


----------



## Carol

Big Don said:


> Damn those republicans! Oh wait...



I know, right? :lol:

I think the LAPD and the NYPD each did an excellent job.  The protesters were given a lot of latitude to march and have their say and they largely kept it civil, aside from from a few idiots.


----------



## MJS

Carol said:


> Situation getting tense in LA.   After a standoff with the police, protesters are mobbing the W hotel on Hollywood Blvd



Yeah, I saw the animals in action this morning on the news.  What I don't understand is....what does any of that solve?  Some kid that most likely NONE of these *******s knew on a personal level, other than what they 'knew' of him from TV, gets killed, and it sparks them to riot.  And that's solving what exactly?

I swear, some people are ****ing stupid!


----------



## Carol

MJS said:


> Yeah, I saw the animals in action this morning on the news.  What I don't understand is....what does any of that solve?  Some kid that most likely NONE of these *******s knew on a personal level, other than what they 'knew' of him from TV, gets killed, and it sparks them to riot.  And that's solving what exactly?
> 
> I swear, some people are ****ing stupid!



Exactly! 

And a good lot of the protesters wanted nothing to do with it either.  My cable went haywire last evening so I was watching a couple of live streamers that were uploaded from NYC and LA protesters as they walked with the crowd with their smartphones.  There was a young lady in particular that was trying to get part of the crowd organized and was imploring everyone to not go the route of property damage.  She was the only one that I saw on the streams that was actually bringing up the point that the police were trying to protect the protesters from harm.

There was a fair amount of scuttlebutt going around talking about how bean bag rounds can cause injuries, so can rubber bullets.....well, yeah, they can injure -- but neither were deployed until the whack jobs started throwing rocks or D cell batteries at the police!


----------



## arnisador

This is exactly what I've been saying:

*With Zimmerman, the Scandal Is Whats Legal*




> Although the verdict in the Trayvon Martin trial disappointed many  people and angered and outraged some, its hard to argue, under Florida  law and considering Judge Debra Nelsons instructions to the jury, that  the jurors were wrong in finding Mr. Zimmerman not guilty.
> 
> Judge Nelson specified in her instructions, as Ta-Nehisi Coates pointed out,  that if Mr. Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was  attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to  retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force,  including deadly force.
> 
> And therein lies the problem. As Michael Kinsley said in another context, the scandal is whats legal.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> This is exactly what I've been saying:
> 
> *With Zimmerman, the Scandal Is What&#8217;s Legal*



Im not seeing the problem.  If your attacked then you should be allowed to defend yourself.  As long as you dont go around attacking people you dont need to fear stand your ground laws.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Im not seeing the problem.  If your attacked then you should be allowed to defend yourself.



If you harass someone to the point where he feels threatened then you no longer have 'clean hands'.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> If you harass someone to the point where he feels threatened then you no longer have 'clean hands'.



whos being harrassed? But even if I were Harrassing you as long as im not a threat you have no right to attack me


----------



## arnisador

Would you advise self-defense students that if a man with a gun follows them around at night it's not threatening?


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Would you advise self-defense students that if a man with a gun follows them around at night it's not threatening?



1st you assume you know the person has a gun. I carry a gun everywhere and nobody knows Im armed. 2nd If that were the situation and you do know a man with a gun is following you Id advise my students to use their Cell phone to call 911 or run to the nearest house with lights on and ask them to call.  At no point ever would I tell a student or ANYONE to confront a known armed person unless it was a last resort.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> whos being harrassed? But even if I were Harrassing you as long as im not a threat you have no right to attack me


If you're following me overtly in your vehicle and then on foot, in the dark, in the rain while talking on a cell phone, I'd feel a little harassed.  Gun or not, let's be reasonable here and at least acknowledge that there is a side of the story that has not (and cannot) been told.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> If you're following me overtly in your vehicle and then on foot, in the dark, in the rain while talking on a cell phone, I'd feel a little harassed.  Gun or not, let's be reasonable here and at least acknowledge that there is a side of the story that has not (and cannot) been told.


But its not revelvent.  I can follow you anywhere I want as close as I want as long as I have a legal right to be there.  It gives you no excuse to attack me.  When you start the physical confrontation you crossed the line.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I mentioned earlier that I thought Zimmerman would be in trouble in a civil suit.  After looking at the Florida Stand Your Ground Law they have an immunity clause in there against civil suits.  So now I doubt Zimmerman will be affected in a civil suit.  He may still have to deal with a Federal Civil Rights case but even that is probably not going to happen.


Florida Stand Your Ground Law as explained here by attorneys: http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.html


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> But its not revelvent.  I can follow you anywhere I want as close as I want as long as I have a legal right to be there.  It gives you no excuse to attack me.  When you start the physical confrontation you crossed the line.


I thought we were talking about being harassed.  If you're following me in the dark, in the rain, and making it clear that you're doing so, I'm going to likely feel threatened.  

And, again, while I understand that Zimmerman has been acquitted of 2nd degree murder, can't we all acknowledge that there is a side of the story that cannot be told?  We don't know for sure that Martin initiated the physical contact.  We only know that Zimmerman alleges it and no one can refute his story beyond a reasonable doubt.  Martin said, "Why are you following me?"  Zimmerman replied, "What are you doing here?"  And then the S hit the fan, one life is ended and another functionally destroyed.  

In the end, it's all regrettable, and I pity Zimmerman.  I think he made egregious errors of judgement, but I haven't seen any evidence that he is a killer who woke up itching to end a life.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> But its not revelvent.  I can follow you anywhere I want as close as I want as long as I have a legal right to be there.  It gives you no excuse to attack me.  When you start the physical confrontation you crossed the line.



It's not relevant_ if GZ told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth_. Otherwise, it's very relevant. It's only from GZ's statement that we have the image of TM attacking him from the the rear/side. Other scenarios are compatible with the physical evidence, and in my experience the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Tgace

arnisador said:


> It's not relevant_ if GZ told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth_. Otherwise, it's very relevant. It's only from GZ's statement that we have the image of TM attacking him from the the rear/side. Other scenarios are compatible with the physical evidence, and in my experience the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.




You can't convict with "somewhere in the middle".....


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> It's not relevant_ if GZ told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth_. Otherwise, it's very relevant. It's only from GZ's statement that we have the image of TM attacking him from the the rear/side. Other scenarios are compatible with the physical evidence, and in my experience the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.


I thought we were talking about stand your ground not this case in particular.  In Stand your ground I can follow you or do anything I want as long as I dont violate the law.  As soon as you touch me you crossed the line.  In this case the Jury sided with him so hes innocent.


----------



## MJS

See, this was another fine line.  1st, while we know that GZ had a CCW, do we know if in fact he physically had the gun out?  2nd, if TM was feeling harassed, then why was he talking to that girl, rather than the police?  3rd, where do we draw the line on harassing behavior?  Perhaps one of our LE members on here (paging Ballen ) can clarify.  Let's assume I'm in a shopping mall.  I see an attractive girl and begin to follow her everywhere she goes, in the mall.  I have a right, just as she does, to be in that mall and go into any store in that mall.  Can she turn around and ask me why I'm following her?  Can she complain to the cops or security?  Can I be made to stop following her?


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> I thought we were talking about stand your ground not this case in particular.  In Stand your ground I can follow you or do anything I want as long as I dont violate the law.  As soon as you touch me you crossed the line.  In this case the Jury sided with him so hes innocent.



So, in a nutshell, GZ had every right to do what he did, ie: follow TM? If that's the case, which it appears to be, then technically GZ did nothing wrong.


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> So, in a nutshell, GZ had every right to do what he did, ie: follow TM? If that's the case, which it appears to be, then technically GZ did nothing wrong.


Yes he was a concerned neighbor checking on someone he thought was suspicious.  People do it every day.  When he was then attacked he defended himself just like anyone else would


----------



## Big Don

Steve said:


> If you're following me overtly in your vehicle and then on foot, in the dark, in the rain while talking on a cell phone, I'd feel a little harassed.  Gun or not, let's be reasonable here and at least acknowledge that there is a side of the story that has not (and cannot) been told.


If you were following me overtly or covertly and I noticed, I would calmly ask if I could help you, you might be lost, for all I know.
I certainly wouldn't jump you and start beating your head into the pavement.


----------



## James Kovacich

He's also looking at street justice. He's hated and will have to watch his back. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc

> It's only from GZ's statement that we have the image of TM attacking him from the the rear/side.



Actually, that's not true...We have sworn testimony from Rachel Jeantel, Martin's female friend who was on the phone with him that night.  She stated under oath that she heard Martin address Zimmerman first.  We also have this from what Zimmerman said on the video and also during the police interviews.  It was after this initial statement that Zimmerman says Martin punched him in the face, in particular the nose.  Since Martin had punching injuries on him other than his knuckles, it tends to make Zimmerman more credible...


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:


> You can't convict with "somewhere in the middle".....



I agree with the verdict. That doesn't mean we heard the whole truth.


----------



## billc

> That doesn't mean we heard the whole truth.



Yes, all of Martin's history, including his hobby of fighting and claims of an ability to make the other guys nose bleed, was kept out of the trial.  The history of a young man, not child, who was slowly becoming a criminal because he came from a broken home, and was following all the bad influences in life was left out of the trial.  I wonder if the jury had access to Martin's cell phone text messages if they would have had to deliberate for 16 hours before they came back with not guilty...


----------



## billc

The worst lesson to come from this trial...ignore crime...don't help your neighbors...

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/2...se-teach-americans-to-mind-their-own-business



> Zimmerman's neighborhood had experienced a rash of burglaries and break-ins. He chose to head up a neighborhood watch group. I would probably have gotten a better security system. Or moved. But that sort of voting with your feet is cowardly and escapist.
> At some point, we outsourced caring to the police and the government, and in so doing, abdicated our own responsibility. At most, you are supposed to call the police (which Zimmerman did), but that's not exactly a heroic way to go about life. Is snitching the extent of our neighborly duties?





> This is an obvious takeaway from the case: Your life will be a whole lot easier if you retreat inward. Don't worry about the community.



This is what the witnesses did that night...and Martin was killed.  Who wants to take the chance that they might end up like Martin?  What if Martin had started the confrontation earlier...when he had seen Zimmerman looking at him from his car?  Everyone keeps saying Zimmerman should have stayed in his car...but how about Zimmerman should have never have stopped in the first place, even if he did have concerns about the stranger walking in the neighborhood?  Sure, a woman who testified said two guys broke into her home, in broad daylight and ransacked the place while she hid in the bedroom with her infant hoping 911 would get the police there in time...isn't that really her problem?  So the two guys lived in the community and were released...isn't that the next victims problem...as long as it isn't you?

Who wants to have to go to court as a witness anyway?  That can be a real pain in the a**, just ask Rachel Jeantel...she really had a problem with it.  Just don't call 911, and your problems wont escalate.  Ignore the crime, move if you can, or suffer in silence...the police will be along to clear up the mess anyway...


----------



## Carol

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire....



> The number of Greater Nashua residents applying for concealed carry  permits has nearly doubled in December and January compared with a year  ago, local police said.



http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/992540-469/more-granite-staters-buying-guns-looking-to.html


----------



## billc

> The number of Greater Nashua residents applying for concealed carry permits has nearly doubled in December and January compared with a year ago, local police said.



A good thing all around.  More people carrying will help reduce crime, and it will expose more people to firearms and help to reduce the fear of them...


----------



## billc

Again, a look at what actually happened during the 911 call...as opposed to what the media keeps misrepresenting about it...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...in_stream_media_about_the_zimmerman_case.html



> The first paragraph of the editorial then repeats the lie that Zimmerman was told not to leave his car. In fact what the transcript of the call shows is that just prior to this exchange, the dispatcher tells Zimmerman "just let me know if this guy does anything else. A few seconds later after Zimmerman says that Martin is running the dispatcher asks him "which way is he running."  It is sometime in this period that Zimmerman sounds like he has gotten out of his truck. For the next five or ten seconds there is a sound of wind that is followed by the exchange in which the dispatcher advises him he doesn't need to follow Martin.  At no time anywhere on the call does the dispatcher ever tell him not to leave his car or return to it. These five to ten seconds are the only time in the whole encounter in which there is any evidence of Zimmerman following Martin on foot.  And since there is so much misinformation about what happened it bears repeating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was never told to stay in his car and was never asked to return to it!
> 
> No evidence at all is ever produced that Zimmerman followed Martin after the above exchange with the dispatcher. In fact, towards the end of the call, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that he has lost sight of Martin. Clearly Zimmerman could not follow Martin if he couldn't see him. Further evidence of this is that Rachel Jaentel's testimony indicates that Martin had likewise lost sight of Zimmerman until shortly before the start of the confrontation.  In other words, after telling the dispatcher "ok", Zimmerman did not follow Martin nor did Martin perceive he was being followed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that Zimmerman was at fault because he pursued Martin after being told not to has absolutely no basis in fact. It is a made up assumption that has been repeated so many times by the media that people actually believe that is what happened.
> 
> The 911 call that was placed by Zimmerman is on the web in both audio  and written transcript form. It was played numerous times at the trial. There is no excuse for continuing to lie about the evidence. The Chicago Tribune should know better than to continue to perpetuate lies that have fueled so much anger over this case.
Click to expand...


----------



## Big Don

Would Martin have been more or less likely to attack Zimmerman if he KNEW Zimmerman was armed?


----------



## Steve

While it's indisputable that Martin spoke first, it's unknown whether he initiated physical confrontation.  We have one side if a very confused story.  As arnisador said, I agree with the verdict.  I don't, however, believe we have heard the truth of it.  At least, not the whole truth.  I wish Zimmerman no ill and don't envy him the infamy.  But my opinion is that he benefited legally from the media circus.  Had the prosecutor charged him with manslaughter, I believe we'd be having a berry different discussion

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Carol

billc said:


> A good thing all around.  More people carrying will help reduce crime, and it will expose more people to firearms and help to reduce the fear of them...



Indeed.  There's a big spike in women getting their permits as well -- which is also consistent to what we've been seeing with the rise in attendance at the 2nd Amendment sisters shoot.

But, Matt Lewis' article makes it sound like he needs to cry himself to sleep.   He's right, retreating inwards is easier.  I think it was Bill Mattocks who said a few times that no one's life gets easier with police involvement.  

I just don't see the Zimmerman case as affecting much.  It hasn't stopped my neighbors -- in a state where open, loaded carry is legal -- from wanting a CCW, for example.  If you're motivated to do something, you'll find a way to do it, and probably find that you do it well.  If you're not motivated to do something, then anything can serve as an excuse...whether its the Zimmerman case or what's on TV.


----------



## Carol

Well...things are starting to go to south on the West Coast.


----------



## Big Don

Carol said:


> Well...things are starting to go to south on the West Coast.



Come to CA, see our wide variety of morons, idiots and asses


----------



## crushing

Steve said:


> While it's indisputable that Martin spoke first, it's unknown whether he initiated physical confrontation.  We have one side if a very confused story.  As arnisador said, I agree with the verdict.  I don't, however, believe we have heard the truth of it.  At least, not the whole truth.  I wish Zimmerman no ill and don't envy him the infamy.  *But my opinion is that he benefited legally from the media circus.*  Had the prosecutor charged him with manslaughter, I believe we'd be having a berry different discussion
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2



If it weren't for the manufactured media circus we would not have heard of these two men and and the case likely wouldn't have made it past the grand jury that was bypassed.  I don't see a legal benefit for GZ in there being a criminal trial over there not being one.


----------



## MJS

billc said:


> Again, a look at what actually happened during the 911 call...as opposed to what the media keeps misrepresenting about it...
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...in_stream_media_about_the_zimmerman_case.html



Ahh.....well, this sheds a entirely new light on this for me then, because like the vast majority, I was under the impression that the dispatcher did in fact tell GZ not to follow.  So going on this then, IMO, it appears that TM, NOT GZ, was the aggressor.  If GZ lost sight and was in fact returning to his car, and TM confronted him, well.....

Amazing how these tidbits of key info seem to be overlooked by the protestors and those that're encouraging protests.


----------



## MJS

Big Don said:


> Would Martin have been more or less likely to attack Zimmerman if he KNEW Zimmerman was armed?



Good question.  We see people fighting with cops all the time, and they have more tools available to them than GZ did at that time.


----------



## Tgace

Let me approach this delicately...

There has been a lot of mention in the media of what we can do to "honor" T. Martin...including words from the president.

While Im not saying that we should be trashing Martins name, or that expressions of regret over the whole situation are uncalled for, I can't think of any reason either of these guys deserve "honor" for their actions or lives. We seem to have a tendency to turn people into Saints simply because they are dead in this culture. While Im not encouraging speaking ill of the dead, I don't think that not telling the truth is a better idea.


----------



## Steve

crushing said:


> If it weren't for the manufactured media circus we would not have heard of these two men and and the case likely wouldn't have made it past the grand jury that was bypassed.  I don't see a legal benefit for GZ in there being a criminal trial over there not being one.


You're right.  In the land of make believe, anything is possible.  My opinion is what it is, but it's just conjecture.  GZ benefited from the overcharging and it worked to his favor, whatever else might have happened.  It's possible that under different circumstances, he would not have been charged at all.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Let me approach this delicately...
> 
> There has been a lot of mention in the media of what we can do to "honor" T. Martin...including words from the president.
> 
> While Im not saying that we should be trashing Martins name, or that expressions of regret over the whole situation are uncalled for, I can't think of any reason either of these guys deserve "honor" for their actions or lives. We seem to have a tendency to turn people into Saints simply because they are dead in this culture. While Im not encouraging speaking ill of the dead, I don't think that not telling the truth is a better idea.


I agree wholeheartedly.  As I and several others have said all along, the truth is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Grenadier

Interesting, I always thought that the term "Cracka" was a racist term used to describe white people.  

According to the star witness for the pro-Trayvon Martin side, Rachel Jeantel, apparently I must be misinformed.  

Here's her interview from yesterday's Piers Morgan show:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...people_we_in_a_new_school_our_generation.html



> PIERS MORGAN: Let's talk about 'creepy *** cracka.' People have said  that that is a phrase used by black people, cracka, to describe a white  person. Is that true?
> 
> JEANTEL: No! Like I said --
> 
> MORGAN: How do you spell it, first of all?
> 
> JEANTEL: Cracka.
> 
> MORGAN: There's no 'e-r,' right?
> 
> JEANTEL: No, it's an 'a' at the end.
> 
> MORGAN: C-r-a-c-k-a.
> 
> JEANTEL: Yeah. And that's a person who act like they're a police  [officer], who, like a security guard who acting like -- that's what I  said to them. Trayvon said creepy *** cracka.
> 
> MORGAN: It means he thought it was a police or a security guard?
> 
> JEANTEL: Yeah, he acting like the police. And then he keep telling me  that the man is still watching him. So, if it was a security guard or a  policeman, they would come up to Trayvon and say, 'Do you have a  problem? Do you need help?' You know, like normal people.


----------



## crushing

Steve said:


> You're right.  In the land of make believe, anything is possible.  My opinion is what it is, but it's just conjecture.  GZ benefited from the overcharging and it worked to his favor, whatever else might have happened.  It's possible that under different circumstances, he would not have been charged at all.



Is the unimaginable possible in the land of make believe?

Yes, I understood that's where you were coming from.  I thought it was obvious that we were running through 'what if' scenarios and second guessing the various actions that were taken and decisions that were made.

Eventually the judge allowed a lesser charge to help increase the chance of a guilty verdict.


----------



## MJS

Grenadier said:


> Interesting, I always thought that the term "Cracka" was a racist term used to describe white people.
> 
> According to the star witness for the pro-Trayvon Martin side, Rachel Jeantel, apparently I must be misinformed.
> 
> Here's her interview from yesterday's Piers Morgan show:
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...people_we_in_a_new_school_our_generation.html



Yeah, I thought the same thing as you.  Oh look:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cracka

Apparently Rachel isn't getting her facts straight.

Edit:  I stand corrected.  #14 clarifies what Rachel is saying.


----------



## MJS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vidence-Trayvon-Martins-cell-phone-fired.html

Hmmmmm..........


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I think we all need to look carefully at this case from a legal perspective, social perspective, the perspective of a self defense practitioner, the perspective as a ccw holder, how race applied to this case, etc.  This case has some very wildly interesting components to it.  Which is just one reason why it has taken the media by storm.  Hopefully, everyone on this board can learn from this and avoid mistakes made either by Martin or Zimmerman!


----------



## granfire

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think we all need to look carefully at this case from a legal perspective, social perspective, the perspective of a self defense practitioner, the perspective as a ccw holder, how race applied to this case, etc.  This case has some very wildly interesting components to it.  Which is just one reason why it has taken the media by storm.  Hopefully, everyone on this board can learn from this and avoid mistakes made either by Martin or Zimmerman!



without the racial aspect, even the gun involved would have made the story barely a blurb in the media....

But the layers of issues are of interest for our little community.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I think there is a lot to look at.  

As a CCW holder I think you can  learn from this situation.

As someone who practices the martial arts we can learn from this by scrutinizing the law and then our own states law's.

As a martial practitioner we can also look at the Ground and Pound aspect in this case.

As a US citizen we can surely see there is a difference of opinion with some just based on the race components of this case.

We can look also closely to the "Stand Your Ground Law".  

Plus there is more..... 

There is a lot to learn from this case!  Tragic as this situation is!!!


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think there is a lot to look at.
> 
> As a CCW holder I think you can  learn from this situation.
> 
> As someone who practices the martial arts we can learn from this by scrutinizing the law and then our own states law's.
> 
> As a martial practitioner we can also look at the Ground and Pound aspect in this case.
> 
> As a US citizen we can surely see there is a difference of opinion with some just based on the race components of this case.
> 
> We can look also closely to the "Stand Your Ground Law".
> 
> Plus there is more.....
> 
> There is a lot to learn from this case!  Tragic as this situation is!!!



Exactly, Brian.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

Where did "Stand your ground" come into play here?


----------



## Grenadier

"Stand Your Ground" had zero bearing on this case.  All that the laws state, is that if you are attacked, you are not obligated to retreat from the area, even if you are able to retreat.  

Since he was getting his head bashed on the concrete after being knocked down by a sucker punch, George Zimmerman had no ability to retreat from a hostile engagement.  Hence, this was a matter of simple self-defense, nothing more, nothing less.

Either his self-defense was justified, or it wasn't.  The severity of the charge really doesn't matter here, whether it would have been murder 2 or manslaughter.  If he had a valid claim to self-defense (and he certainly did), then it's equally applicable to defeating either charge.


----------



## arnisador

Grenadier said:


> The severity of the charge really doesn't matter here, whether it would have been murder 2 or manslaughter.  If he had a valid claim to self-defense (and he certainly did), then it's equally applicable to defeating either charge.



I would hope it would've mattered for manslaughter, if that had been the main charge presented--it was GZ who caused the situation and some blame should accrue if you start a confrontation that you end up losing. Regardless, given the testimony and the absence of any other witnesses, I think Not Guilty would've been the right legal verdict for either charge. The legal result was correct--but to my mind GZ was still wrong to follow TM then leave the car and go after him.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> I would hope it would've mattered for manslaughter, if that had been the main charge presented--it was GZ who caused the situation and some blame should accrue if you start a confrontation that you end up losing. Regardless, given the testimony and the absence of any other witnesses, I think Not Guilty would've been the right legal verdict for either charge. The legal result was correct--but to my mind GZ was still wrong to follow TM then leave the car and go after him.



So should anyone or any neighborhood be allowed to have a neighborhood watch program?


----------



## Big Don

ballen0351 said:


> So should anyone or any neighborhood be allowed to have a neighborhood watch program?



Shouldn't they be registered with every level of government?


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> So should anyone or any neighborhood be allowed to have a neighborhood watch program?



Yes. Per the National Sheriff's Assoc., which sponsors the actual Neighborhood Watch program, they shouldn't follow or engage--just report.


----------



## Steve

arnisador said:


> Yes. Per the National Sheriff's Assoc., which sponsors the actual Neighborhood Watch program, they shouldn't follow or engage--just report.


Following and engaging was a legal choice he made, whether or not it was the wisest choice.


----------



## Big Don

Steve said:


> Following and engaging was a legal choice he made, whether or not it was the wisest choice.


Where is there any evidence Zimmerman engaged Martin?
Getting jumped isn't engaging...


----------



## Tgace

Big Don said:


> Where is there any evidence Zimmerman engaged Martin?
> Getting jumped isn't engaging...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Background_of_the_shooting



> Zimmerman said he left his truck to find a street sign so he would be able to tell the police dispatcher where he was. He told investigators that he was not following Martin but was "just going in the same direction he was" to find an address, but admitted that he had also left his truck to try to see in which direction Martin had gone.[171] The altercation began, he said, when Martin suddenly appeared while Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle. He described Martin at different points in the interviews as appearing "out of nowhere," "from the darkness," and as "jump[ing] out of the bushes."[171][172] Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a ****ing problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, then Martin said "You got a problem now" and punched Zimmerman.[175] As they struggled on the ground, Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top of him, Zimmerman yelled for help "probably 50 times." (See Background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls) Martin told him to "Shut the **** up," as he hit him in the face and pounded his head on a concrete sidewalk.[172] When Zimmerman tried to move off the concrete, Martin saw his gun and said "You're going to die tonight mother****er!" Martin grabbed for the gun, but Zimmerman grabbed it first. He said after firing his weapon at Martin, he wasn't sure at first that he had hit him, so he got on top of him in order to subdue him.[171][171][172]Bystanders and police arrived shortly after Martin was shot.[176][177]


----------



## arnisador

If it happened like that then the shooting was justified _but _when TM is shouting "You got a ****ing problem, homie?" it clearly indicates that he felt threatened too. GM can be not guilty and still bear some of the blame.


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> Where is there any evidence Zimmerman engaged Martin?
> Getting jumped isn't engaging...



How often are you overtly followed?  Hasn't happened to me since high school, and I ended up in a fight with a guy I knew was a gang member.  

 In the dark, in the rain, if someone were obviously following you, you don't consider that engaged?  I'm asking for clarity, because maybe we are using the term differently.  I might be using it incorrectly.

So, in the interest of being clear, if you were following me, making it clear that you were following me, on the phone, in the dark, in the rain, in a place I'm not completely familiar with, I would feel as though you were engaging me.  I would feel threatened.  

That's what I mean by engaged, and no one disputes that Zimmerman did all of those things.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Yes. Per the National Sheriff's Assoc., which sponsors the actual Neighborhood Watch program, they shouldn't follow or engage--just report.



And when did Zimmerman engage?


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> How often are you overtly followed?  Hasn't happened to me since high school, and I ended up in a fight with a guy I knew was a gang member.
> 
> In the dark, in the rain, if someone were obviously following you, you don't consider that engaged?  I'm asking for clarity, because maybe we are using the term differently.  I might be using it incorrectly.
> 
> So, in the interest of being clear, if you were following me, making it clear that you were following me, on the phone, in the dark, in the rain, in a place I'm not completely familiar with, I would feel as though you were engaging me.  I would feel threatened.
> 
> That's what I mean by engaged, and no ken disputes that Zimmerman did all of those things.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


So if you felt threatened and made it with in 2 houses of your residence and the person following you turned around what would you do?  
Id go home lock the door and call the police.


----------



## granfire

arnisador said:


> If it happened like that then the shooting was justified _but _when TM is shouting "You got a ****ing problem, homie?" it clearly indicates that he felt threatened too. GM can be not guilty and still bear some of the blame.



threatened?
seems to me more indicative of an attitude problem. 

You know, running your mouth when you think you can intimidate the other person without repercussions....


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So if you felt threatened and made it with in 2 houses of your residence and the person following you turned around what would you do?
> Id go home lock the door and call the police.



I'd like to think I would have had better judgement.  But that doesn't mean I'm not feeling nervous as hell. 

 At 17, not sure how I would have handled it, honestly.  I went to school in a pretty rough area, and there were times that the smart thing to do was fight.  I don't know what the 17 year old Steve would do, but its probably not the same thing I'd so now.  

As the father of a 17 year old man child (6'2", 240 lbs) I know for sure that he is wise beyond his years one minute and a child with appalling judgement the next.    I was the same, and tend to view all teenagers through this lens (right or wrong).  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

granfire said:


> threatened?
> seems to me more indicative of an attitude problem.
> 
> You know, running your mouth when you think you can intimidate the other person without repercussions....



Having an attitude isn't illegal, granfire.  Certainly not a capital offense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Having an attitude isn't illegal, granfire.  Certainly not a capital offense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


No but attacking someone is


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I'd like to think I would have had better judgement.  But that doesn't mean I'm not feeling nervous as hell.
> 
> At 17, not sure how I would have handled it, honestly.  I went to school in a pretty rough area, and there were times that the smart thing to do was fight.  I don't know what the 17 year old Steve would do, but its probably not the same thing I'd so now.
> 
> As the father of a 17 year old man child (6'2", 240 lbs) I know for sure that he is wise beyond his years one minute and a child with appalling judgement the next.    I was the same, and tend to view all teenagers through this lens (right or wrong).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Yes which is what makes Zimmermans story even more believeable knowing that 17 year old kids do stupid stuff.  He lost it sucks but he brought it on himself. Its a sad situation but sometimes bad things happen.  I just don't understand everyone that's defending Martins actions.  I dont get the disconnect between the facts presented not just by Zimmermans side but Martins own GF an whats being said here.  I guess if you ignore the facts and make up the story however you want then Sure Zimmerman was wrong.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> No but attacking someone is



Ballen, we don't know that Martin attacked first.  It is only fact that it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman attacked first.  You believe that Martin attacked first, but that doesn't make it fact.  We don't know and have only heard one side of the story.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Yes which is what makes Zimmermans story even more believeable knowing that 17 year old kids do stupid stuff.  He lost it sucks but he brought it on himself. Its a sad situation but sometimes bad things happen.  I just don't understand everyone that's defending Martins actions.  I dont get the disconnect between the facts presented not just by Zimmermans side but Martins own GF an whats being said here.  I guess if you ignore the facts and make up the story however you want then Sure Zimmerman was wrong.



If you would take a breath and read what people are actually writing, you would know that this isn't what is happening.  You've got a filter on.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace

But it does fit a pattern of behavior..Martin reportedly attacked a bus driver....


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> But it does fit a pattern of behavior..Martin reportedly attacked a bus driver....



And it may have happened.   Not saying it didn't.  Only saying that we don't know.  Building an argument presuming that conjecture is fact is shaky and its causing misunderstandings in this thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> If you would take a breath and read what people are actually writing, you would know that this isn't what is happening.  You've got a filter on.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


I dont need to take a breath im not upset.  I read everything you have posted and your ignoring several of the facts that were presented.  You either dont like them because they dont fit your version of what happened or for some reason think everyone involved n the case but Martins lawyers are lying


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> And it may have happened.   Not saying it didn't.  Only saying that we don't know.  Building an argument presuming that conjecture is fact is shaky and its causing misunderstandings in this thread.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


So you think the school Lied when they suspended him?


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> And it may have happened.   Not saying it didn't.  Only saying that we don't know.  Building an argument presuming that conjecture is fact is shaky and its causing misunderstandings in this thread.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD




Is it that much different from presuming that Zimmerman is lying?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I dont need to take a breath im not upset.  I read everything you have posted and your ignoring several of the facts that were presented.  You either dont like them because they dont fit your version of what happened or for some reason think everyone involved n the case but Martins lawyers are lying



Yeah?  Has to be one of those things, eh?  You are so blind right now, you think I'm anti-Zimmerman.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So you think the school Lied when they suspended him?



I was suspended in high school.  I did drugs and did some bad things, too.  I got into fights, and spent two years straight at summer school and night school so I could graduate on time.  But I would like to think I turned out okay.  You're a cynical dude.  I wouldn't attack someone unless I felt I had no choice, and I am very glad I survived high school to enlist and eventually go to college.  As I said, there's no doubt Martin could have done things differently.  But that is does not exclude the possibility that Zimmerman could also have done things differently.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Is it that much different from presuming that Zimmerman is lying?



Serious question, Tgace.  Do you believe that's what I'm doing?  If so, I sincerely apologize, because that isn't what I want to be doing.  

I do believe that there are two sides to every story, and that its human nature to view a situation in the light most favorable to oneself.  We have heard one side of the story.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I was suspended in high school.  I did drugs and did some bad things, too.  I got into fights, and spent two years straight at summer school and night school so I could graduate on time.  But I would like to think I turned out okay.  You're a cynical dude.  I wouldn't attack someone unless I felt I had no choice, and I am very glad I survived high school to enlist and eventually go to college.  As I said, there's no doubt Martin could have done things differently.  But that is does not exclude the possibility that Zimmerman could also have done things differently.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


In your opinion what should Zimmerman have done?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> In your opinion what should Zimmerman have done?



Well, that's a conversation I tried to have a while back.  Jks started a new thread.  Why don't you check it out.  Your perspective as a cop would be very interesting.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## granfire

Steve said:


> Having an attitude isn't illegal, granfire.  Certainly not a capital offense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



you missed the point.

That is not behavior of somebody who is scared, but somebody who is spoiling for a fight (and probably assuming he'll be the victor because he's badass and/or the other guy backs down) 

People don't get in your face when they think you can kick their behinds....

You know, the old MASH proverb: He who lives by the mouth gets punch in it....


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> threatened?
> seems to me more indicative of an attitude problem.
> 
> You know, running your mouth when you think you can intimidate the other person without repercussions....


New thing going on around here.  Large groups of teens walk around our downtown waterfront area and walk up to the people eating in the outdoor tables and grab your food and throw it in your lap.  What do you do?  10 to 15 teens you cant fight them all by the time the cops get there the kids are gone.  When we do catch them and arrest them nothing happens to them.  This attitude I dont know if its a modern thing or if its always been like this but Its getting out of hand.


----------



## crushing

Steve said:


> Ballen, we don't know that Martin attacked first.  It is only fact that it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman attacked first.  You believe that Martin attacked first, but that doesn't make it fact.  *We don't know and have only heard one side of the story.*



Actually, we have heard a few different sides.   Zimmerman's, Martin's girlfriend's, the eyewitness, etc., and the side of the story the forensic evidence tells.

It's too bad that the surveillance video that the police claimed caught the whole incident was just a ruse during the interrogation of Zimmerman (upon hearing of the existence of such a video, GZ's immediate response was "Thank God.")  It would have been nice to have the story such a video would tell too, but it likely still wouldn't have been enough.


----------



## MJS

arnisador said:


> Yes. Per the National Sheriff's Assoc., which sponsors the actual Neighborhood Watch program, they shouldn't follow or engage--just report.



I have to wonder though...how many neighborhoods that have signs that mention 'neighborhood watch' actually have someone like a GZ, patrolling the area, either on foot or in a car?  I think in the majority of the cases, it's simply everyone in the neighborhood just looking after each other.  

Personally, I'd rather see the local PD be in charge of the NW, if in fact, someone is going to actually be patrolling in a car, on foot, with a weapon, etc.


----------



## MJS

arnisador said:


> If it happened like that then the shooting was justified _but _when TM is shouting "You got a ****ing problem, homie?" it clearly indicates that he felt threatened too. GM can be not guilty and still bear some of the blame.



I'd be willing to bet that TM is the kind of kid who'd say that even if you glanced at him while you passed by on the street.


----------



## MJS

In the other thread, I asked a question that was probably missed, but I'd like some clarification, as I think it may clear some things up.  On the matter of following someone.  Its been said that as long as you have a right to be there, you can follow someone.  When does it become stalking or harassing behavior?  

If I'm in the local mall, and I see an attractive girl, I can technically follow her around the entire mall, into any store, etc.  At what point can she complain, accuse me of stalking or harassing?

And for the record, I'm using myself as an example.  No, I don't follow women around the mall....other than my wife, as I'm the designated bag carrier.


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> In the other thread, I asked a question that was probably missed, but I'd like some clarification, as I think it may clear some things up.  On the matter of following someone.  Its been said that as long as you have a right to be there, you can follow someone.  When does it become stalking or harassing behavior?
> 
> If I'm in the local mall, and I see an attractive girl, I can technically follow her around the entire mall, into any store, etc.  At what point can she complain, accuse me of stalking or harassing?
> 
> And for the record, I'm using myself as an example.  No, I don't follow women around the mall....other than my wife, as I'm the designated bag carrier.



Every state is different but here for a stalking charge it must be a continuing course of conduct.  Meaning it can't be a one time thing.  So yes you can follow the girl around the mall.   Its also not a crime until you tell the person to stop.  Even then however its not a crime as long as your allowed to be where you are unless there is some type of protective order in place.  Also just following isn't enough the victim must be in fear of serious injury or death.   The suspect must show a desire to injure kill or rape the victim just following someone isn't enough to show an intent .

The key to all of it is a continuing course of conduct.


----------



## ballen0351

The harassment laws here are slightly different.  It can be a single event but it is not a crime until the victim tells the suspect to stop.  But again just following someone isn't enough the victim must be able to show a reason they are harassed.  Also there is a political exception so if your expressing a political belief you can't be charged with harassment


----------



## Steve

granfire said:


> you missed the point.
> 
> That is not behavior of somebody who is scared, but somebody who is spoiling for a fight (and probably assuming he'll be the victor because he's badass and/or the other guy backs down)
> 
> People don't get in your face when they think you can kick their behinds....
> 
> You know, the old MASH proverb: He who lives by the mouth gets punch in it....


That's a whole lot of assumption, granfire.  This post reads to me like you have specific, personal history in mind and you're overlaying it onto this situation.


----------



## arnisador

granfire said:


> threatened?
> seems to me more indicative of an attitude problem.
> 
> You know, running your mouth when you think you can intimidate the other person without repercussions....



It seems to me he was feeling intimidated himself. Going to his house and staying there would've been best but if he thought this had happened before and would again he may have felt confronting it at some point was best. (It wasn't, obviously.) Not liking to be followed as though you're a criminal right in your own neighborhood isn't an attitude problem. He had as much right to be there as GZ.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> Yes which is what makes Zimmermans story even more believeable knowing that 17 year old kids do stupid stuff.  He lost it sucks but he brought it on himself. Its a sad situation but sometimes bad things happen.  I just don't understand everyone that's defending Martins actions.



I'm not defending his actions--I'm saying that there's reason to understand why he may have felt driven to do what he did. If he threw the first punch, as seems most likely, then he was in the wrong. But that doesn't mean he's all in the wrong and GZ was a saint--the hero of his community. It isn't that simple, Javert.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> I dont need to take a breath im not upset.  I read everything you have posted and your ignoring several of the facts that were presented.  You either dont like them because they dont fit your version of what happened or for some reason think everyone involved n the case but Martins lawyers are lying



You don't have to think people are lying to recognize that two people can see the same event very differently. As my arnis instructor likes to say, there's three sides to every story--yours, mine, and the truth. That GZ was found not guilty indicates only that the prosecutor's case wasn't proven. I agree it's most likely that TM threw the first blow--of course we don't know if there might've been a shoving match first, but suppose not--and that GZ was entitled to defend himself then. I agree with the verdict for both the murder and manslaughter charges (though I wonder if a smarter prosecutor could've made the lower charge stick) but I think GZ bears some blame for instigating the fight. In another state he'd lose the civil suit, I'd wager.


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:


> Is it that much different from presuming that Zimmerman is lying?



He was on trial for murder. I would expect him to describe events in the most favorable light for himself. And we couldn't hear the other side, but we can imagine what it's like to be a 17 y.o. kid being followed by an adult for no reason.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> In your opinion what should Zimmerman have done?



Called the police. Waited and watched. It looks like he would've seen TM go into his own home and stay there.


----------



## arnisador

crushing said:


> It's too bad that the surveillance video that the police claimed caught the whole incident was just a ruse during the interrogation of Zimmerman



I know the police are allowed to lie to you and I am also not so crazy about that.


----------



## Steve

arnisador said:


> It seems to me he was feeling intimidated himself. Going to his house and staying there would've been best but if he thought this had happened before and would again he may have felt confronting it at some point was best. (It wasn't, obviously.) Not liking to be followed as though you're a criminal right in your own neighborhood isn't an attitude problem. He had as much right to be there as GZ.


Carol brought out a great point in another thread.  If you're being followed and believe that there is ill intent, showing the "bad guy" where you live might not be a great idea.  Not to say that Martin was thinking this rationally, but there are legitimate reasons that just going home isn't necessarily the best idea.


----------



## arnisador

Good point. I also wonder if this is the first time neighborhood watchers were watching him.

This neighborhood watch needed prof. training and supervision by a local rep. of the P.D. or Sheriff's Dept. _Quis custodiet ipsos custodes_?


----------



## Tgace

arnisador said:


> He was on trial for murder. I would expect him to describe events in the most favorable light for himself. And we couldn't hear the other side, but we can imagine what it's like to be a 17 y.o. kid being followed by an adult for no reason.



You are assuming that the end result means there's no reason to be suspicious. Are you implying you shouldn't report a suspicious person unless the end result is that he was actually up to something illegal??

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Carol

MJS said:


> In the other thread, I asked a question that was probably missed, but I'd like some clarification, as I think it may clear some things up.  On the matter of following someone.  Its been said that as long as you have a right to be there, you can follow someone.  When does it become stalking or harassing behavior?
> 
> If I'm in the local mall, and I see an attractive girl, I can technically follow her around the entire mall, into any store, etc.  At what point can she complain, accuse me of stalking or harassing?
> 
> And for the record, I'm using myself as an example.  No, I don't follow women around the mall....other than my wife, as I'm the designated bag carrier.



Good man, Mr. Bag Carrier 

Well, if I were in a mall and I thought I was being followed, I would make an attempt to lose that person, whether by walking in a loop, or futzing with my phone, or whatever.   If the person was still following me...then I think I have pretty good reason to believe that I am indeed being followed and this isn't just a coincidence.  At that point, I'd likely take more direct action, such as alerting mall security, or leaving -- I generally park by the entrance that has the police substation.  If the presence of the substation isn't enough to make the creeper go away, then I have no qualms about knocking on the door and saying that I think there is a weirdo following me.

As a contrast, take a look at this thread, as it relates to following someone around specifically a shopping mall:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...ke-a-photo-with-Santa-now-you-re-under-arrest

The story seems to be gone from the link embedded in the thread, but it has been rehosted here:
https://nppa.org/news/399


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> Every state is different but here for a stalking charge it must be a continuing course of conduct.  Meaning it can't be a one time thing.  So yes you can follow the girl around the mall.   Its also not a crime until you tell the person to stop.  Even then however its not a crime as long as your allowed to be where you are unless there is some type of protective order in place.  Also just following isn't enough the victim must be in fear of serious injury or death.   The suspect must show a desire to injure kill or rape the victim just following someone isn't enough to show an intent .
> 
> The key to all of it is a continuing course of conduct.





ballen0351 said:


> The harassment laws here are slightly different.  It can be a single event but it is not a crime until the victim tells the suspect to stop.  But again just following someone isn't enough the victim must be able to show a reason they are harassed.  Also there is a political exception so if your expressing a political belief you can't be charged with harassment



Thank you.

I did a quick search, and came up with this:
http://www.ctdefenselawyer.com/harassment-stalking/

Of course, I suppose everyone's idea of what is reasonable, could vary, although one would think that common sense would prevail.


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:


> You are assuming that the end result means there's no reason to be suspicious. Are you implying you shouldn't report a suspicious person unless the end result is that he was actually up to something illegal??



There's no evidence that TM was doing anything but coming home from the store. I believe that GZ found him suspicious but if TM knew that TM was not causing any trouble he'd feel he was being followed for no well-grounded reason. Two sides to the story--two personal points of view.


----------



## arnisador

People perceive being followed as threatening. I don't know why this seems inapplicable to the GZ/TM case to some here.


----------



## MJS

arnisador said:


> Called the police. Waited and watched. It looks like he would've seen TM go into his own home and stay there.



Which is something that way back, when this incident first happened, is something that I said.  Of course, as more details come out, well, it's only natural, I think, to change ones view.  

Speaking for myself only, and I've said this many times on here, but when it comes to physically getting involved, unless it's a family member or close friend, I'd rather not get involved, but instead, be a good witness and call the cops.  

This is why I've said that, again, for me, I feel its important to know exactly what GZ was/was not allowed to do.


----------



## MJS

arnisador said:


> People perceive being followed as threatening. I don't know why this seems inapplicable to the GZ/TM case to some here.



The land of the sheeple and paranoid...LOL!  Like I said earlier, how everyone views that is up for debate, though common sense should prevail, but we know how that goes...LOL.  

I've 'followed' people many times...we all follow someone, be it in the store, a large venue, etc.  The actions of the follower should be a key part in deciding whether or not there are signs of a threat.


----------



## MJS

arnisador said:


> There's no evidence that TM was doing anything but coming home from the store. I believe that GZ found him suspicious but if TM knew that TM was not causing any trouble he'd feel he was being followed for no well-grounded reason. Two sides to the story--two personal points of view.



LOL...yeah, I take calls like this on a weekly basis.  Sad isnt it?  Goes something like this:

Me: Dispatch, can I help you?

Caller: Yes,  I want to report a susp. person.

Me: Ok.  What're they doing?

Caller: They're standing on the corner near a car.  I think it's a drug deal.

Me: Ok.  How many people?  Are they white, black or hispanic?  What're they wearing and can I get a desc. of the car?

Caller:  They're all black, I dont know what kind of car it is, but its red, and I'm not sure what they're wearing.

At this point, I'm face palming myself because of the utter stupidity of this whole call.  Some how, a few black guys, standing near a car is a drug deal?  These people are watching too much CSI. LOL!

My point is...despite the stupidity of these types of calls, they happen...A LOT!  I've taken calls for a susp. car.  Now, I see cars drive thru my condo complex, that I don't recognize and I don't call the cops.  99.9% of the time, the cop checks it out and says everything is fine...they were lost, they were pulled over to make a phone call, etc, etc.

GZ didn't recognize this kid, I assume there may've been past break ins, etc, or something to warrant his curiosity, so why not check the kid out?  Did TZ have to stop for someone who's not a cop?  Probably not.  But whats done is done.  GZ did what he felt was in his capacity as a NW person, and the rest is history.  OTOH, TM couldve just as easily been a polite child and explained who he was, why he was there, etc.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Called the police. Waited and watched. It looks like he would've seen TM go into his own home and stay there.



That's what he did and Martin had that chance and didn't do it.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Good point. I also wonder if this is the first time neighborhood watchers were watching him.
> 
> This neighborhood watch needed prof. training and supervision by a local rep. of the P.D. or Sheriff's Dept. _Quis custodiet ipsos custodes_?



You dont need police permission to take an interest in your neighborhoods security.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> You dont need police permission to take an interest in your neighborhoods security.



True. But if you're going out following people while carrying a firearm, a little advice from the experts couldn't hurt. We're not talking about someone in their living room with binoculars just making a phone call.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> True. But if you're going out following people while carrying a firearm, a little advice from the experts couldn't hurt. We're not talking about someone in their living room with binoculars just making a phone call.



My advise to Zimmerman would have been exactly what he did.  Follow from a safe distance call 911 keep us posted on the suspects location until we get there.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> My advise to Zimmerman would have been exactly what he did.  Follow from a safe distance



In retrospect, did he follow from a safe distance?


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> In retrospect, did he follow from a safe distance?



Safe enough that he lost Martin. Martin is the one that then closed the distance


----------



## Big Don

arnisador said:


> He was on trial for murder. I would expect him to describe events in the most favorable light for himself. And we couldn't hear the other side, but we can imagine what it's like to be a 17 y.o. kid being followed by an adult for no reason.



There is no proof, that Martin was being followed for "no reason".


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> There is no proof, that Martin was being followed for "no reason".



No proof either way.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Big Don

Steve said:


> No proof either way.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Then why keep attacking Zimmerman's actions?
He was acquitted...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Tgace said:


> Where did "Stand your ground" come into play here?



I think Zimmerman's defense team plans to use the immunity clause from the Stand Your Ground law if any civil suits are brought to bear. (I remember hearing one of his lawyer's say exactly that)  So in a way even if it was not brought forward and made an integral part of the defense's argument it may be brought forward to stop a civil suit.  If I am also correct during one part of the trial they talked about Zimmerman not having a duty to retreat to defend himself from the Stand Your Ground law.  I could be wrong on this because unlike most of America I followed just the headlines of this case.  

Where not the juror's in this case given Florida's stand your ground law during their deliberations?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

In regards to my post before.  I think that we on this forum can learn a lot from this case!


----------



## ballen0351

Leo Terrell goes bat crap crazy


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Did the Sanford police initially use Stand Your Ground law in their decision not to arrest Zimmerman?


----------



## Tgace

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Did the Sanford police initially use Stand Your Ground law in their decision not to arrest Zimmerman?



An initial arrest at the scene doesn't really mean much SYG or otherwise...even here in NY its not clear that under these circumstances that Zimmerman would have been charged that night. That's what investigations and grand juries are for.



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> Then why keep attacking Zimmerman's actions?
> He was acquitted...



What are you talking about, don?  You're not making sense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> An initial arrest at the scene doesn't really mean much SYG or otherwise...even here in NY its not clear that under these circumstances that Zimmerman would have been charged that night. That's what investigations and grand juries are for.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



That's my understanding, too.  For what that's worth.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Big Don

ballen0351 said:


> Leo Terrell goes bat crap crazy


Goes?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

ballen0351 said:


> Safe enough that he lost Martin. Martin is the one that then closed the distance



Is that what actually happened?  Zimmerman can say whatever he wants to; Martin is dead and cannot rebut and so far as I know, there were no reliable witnesses who actually saw the whole thing from beginning to end.  

Maybe it is what happened, maybe it isn't.  Doesn't matter now.  Trial's done, Zimmerman is free, and people who are upset by the verdict are going to be upset regardless.


----------



## ballen0351

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Is that what actually happened?  Zimmerman can say whatever he wants to; Martin is dead and cannot rebut and so far as I know, there were no reliable witnesses who actually saw the whole thing from beginning to end.
> 
> Maybe it is what happened, maybe it isn't.  Doesn't matter now.  Trial's done, Zimmerman is free, and people who are upset by the verdict are going to be upset regardless.


According to Martins girlfriend who was on the phone with Martin that's what happened


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> According to Martins girlfriend who was on the phone with Martin that's what happened



Not actually a witness. I think everyone is agreeing the murder charge was off-base and the manslaughter charge at the very least wasn't proven, but the only surviving eyewitness to the events was biased to one side. It may well have been as simple as he said--but one can imagine other scenarios, including even just a fuller understanding of TM's mindset at the time, that would change one's views of each side's degree of moral culpability.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Big Don said:


> There is no proof, that Martin was being followed for "no reason".


Of course Zimmerman had a reason.  A deranged guy stalking a woman is stalking her for a reason; she's his intended victim.  Phrasing it as you do implies that Martin was actually doing something suspecious, and I have yet to read or hear a convincing argument to support.  Most of his actions sound consistent with someone finding that they're being followed by someone they don't know. 

So I'm sure Zimmerman had a reason.  What that reason was or whether or not it was a good reason is anyone's guess, as we only have his side to go on and as Arnisador said, "He was on trial for murder. I would expect him to describe events in the most favorable light for himself."


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

arnisador said:


> Not actually a witness.* I think everyone is agreeing the murder charge was off-base and the manslaughter charge at the very least wasn't proven, but the only surviving eyewitness to the events was biased to one side.* It may well have been as simple as he said--but one can imagine other scenarios, including even just a fuller understanding of TM's mindset at the time, that would change one's views of each side's degree of moral culpability.


Great post!  I find it disturbing that people want to line up behind Zimmerman and treat him like some kind of SD hero.  He isn't.  It's just as inaccurate as the portrayal of Martin as daddy's little angel.  

The only thing that we know for certain is that Zimmerman decided to follow Martin for some nebulous reason, against advice from the 911 operator if I recall, and that he had a vehicle and was armed with a pistol while Martin was unarmed.  There was a scuffle and blows were traded, and Zimmerman discharged his firearm killing Martin.  Everything else is speculation.


----------



## Tgace

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Of course Zimmerman had a reason.  A deranged guy stalking a woman is stalking her for a reason; she's his intended victim.  Phrasing it as you do implies that Martin was actually doing something suspecious, and I have yet to read or hear a convincing argument to support.  Most of his actions sound consistent with someone finding that they're being followed by someone they don't know.
> 
> So I'm sure Zimmerman had a reason.  What that reason was or whether or not it was a good reason is anyone's guess, as we only have his side to go on and as Arnisador said, "He was on trial for murder. I would expect him to describe events in the most favorable light for himself."



Don't confuse "reason" with "reasonable". Stalking a woman is an illegitimate and unreasonable act. Following someone in your gated community who you don't recognize, who is walking through areas not usual (then running), and in light of recent vandalism/property crimes...is not "unreasonable". 

This is why self-defense and LE shoots are judged based on a persons "reasonableness" at the moment of the incident, not on facts discovered long after the fact.


----------



## billc

> So I'm sure Zimmerman had a reason. What that reason was or whether or not it was a good reason is anyone's guess, as we only have his side to go on and as Arnisador said, "He was on trial for murder. I would expect him to describe events in the most favorable light for himself."



Actually, the one witness, John Good, saw the last part of the fight before the gunshot.  He didn't see the gunshot, but he did state under oath that Martin was on top and beating Zimmerman.  When Good yelled at the two of them to knock it off, or something to that effect, Martin continued hitting Zimmerman.  He then closed his door to get his phone, as he was walking to get it he heard the gun shot.  So the last moments of the fight had Martin pounding on Zimmerman and he didn't stop.

As to the wether Zimmerman is immune to a civil suit, this article looks at the issue.  This guy called the trial each step of the way, even saying that if the jury returned a verdict Saturday it would be not guilty, and if it went past Saturday the jury would be looking at giving him a manslaughter conviction...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/floridas-self-defense-immunity-law-how-it-really-works/



> In 2005 the Florida legislator enacted statute 776.032. &#8220;Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.&#8221; This immunity statute is often erroneously referred to as Florida&#8217;s Stand-Your-Ground (SYG) law, even by lawyers, judges, and law professors who ought to know better (MSM journalists I forgive for such errors, as their profession fairly demands ignorance). In fact, SYG is a different statute entirely, 776.013(3).





> The Bottom Line
> 
> _The bottom line, then, is that in Florida a defendant&#8217;s motion for self-defense immunity can be made at any time in a hearing before the relevant court, and the standard of evidence for acknowledging immunity is that of a preponderance of the evidence&#8211;if it is more likely than not that the use of defensive force was lawful, immunity attaches._
> In the case of George Zimmerman, Mark O&#8217;Mara clearly understood this criteria for attaching immunity, and similarly would have been well aware that the facts in evidence overwhelming supported a finding of immunity. His decision to forego the pre-trial immunity (_not_ &#8221;Stand-your-Ground&#8221 hearing was strategic, not legal, in nature, and a consequence of the massive disinformation campaign and political wars being waged around the trial.



The rest of the article cites the actual cases that went into the immunity aspect of the law...


----------



## billc

There is a myth starting up in this case.  The prosecutors were going to try to say that Zimmerman followed Martin with the gun in his hand...unfortunately, I am hearing more and more people stating this as fact in some of the threads and conversations I follow.  This was never presented in court, and was never mentioned anywhere else by the prosecutor until after the trial when they began talking to the media...it is however beginning to be a part of the anti-Zimmerman mythology.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Tgace said:


> Don't confuse "reason" with "reasonable". Stalking a woman is an illegitimate and unreasonable act.


I don't. 



Tgace said:


> Following someone in your gated community who you don't recognize, who is walking through areas not usual (then running), and in light of recent vandalism/property crimes...is not "unreasonable".



My point was that he had a reason.  The media made his reason out to be racially motivated, which I don't buy.  But without any reliable witnesses (Zimmerman doesn't count), it's hard to say whether or not his reasoning was justified.  

Some people are bullies who like to push people around and who obtain positions that enable them to do that.  Some people are busybodies who see threats in non threatening things and act accordingly, be it calling the cops everytime a neighbor puts the trash out on the wrong day or confronting people because they don't act the way you think they should.  These people never take into account how their own behavior influences the behavior of those they deal with.  

While it is very possible that everything happened as Zimmerman described, reasonable suspicion on Zimmerman's part doesn't address how Zimmerman's action may have actually caused the conflict to escalate.  According to the transcript, he ignored the 911 operator's instructions:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

So we know for fact that he was told not to follow, but he did.  If his desciption of Martin and Martin's actions is accurate (no eyewitnesses to corroborate), then he was reasonably suspicious.  

However, this is entirely filtered through Zimmerman's perceptions as relayed via telephone to an operator.  Given that Zimmerman had initiated following Martin, apparently not stealthily, Martin was (based on Zimmerman's phone call) reacting/responding to Zimmerman's actions.  Zimmerman's actions up to that point were probably reasonable.  It is his actions after the call that are questionable.  

At this point, as has been observed, his case went to trial and he was acquitted (not surprising).    



Tgace said:


> This is why self-defense and LE shoots are judged based on a persons "reasonableness" at the moment of the incident, not on facts discovered long after the fact.


 Yes, reasonableness that cannot be established due to no eye witnesses.  Martin's actions against Zimmerman may have been reasonable too.  I'm not implying that they are; only that his account of his actions and his reasoning behind them are unavailable due to his not surviving the conflict.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

billc said:


> There is a myth starting up in this case.  The prosecutors were going to try to say that Zimmerman followed Martin with the gun in his hand...unfortunately, I am hearing more and more people stating this as fact in some of the threads and conversations I follow.  This was never presented in court, and was never mentioned anywhere else by the prosecutor until after the trial when they began talking to the media...it is however beginning to be a part of the anti-Zimmerman mythology.


The whole thing is mythology.  Nobody saw anything prior to Martin and Zimmerman fighting.  How Zimmerman was following Martin is unknowable unless Zimmerman gave some indication as to what he was actually doing.

Honestly, there shouldn't be any anti or pro Zimmerman.  He didn't go out looking for people to lynch and he isn't some SD hero.  He and Martin both made a series of decisions that ended with Martin dead and Zimmerman on trial.  

There's no side to take here: one combatant lost his life, the other now has a large group of people who hate his guts and may want him dead.  Not a happy outcome.


----------



## Steve

Could any google-fu black belts or anyone tell me the conviction rates for self defense cases where the alleged attacker survived vs where the alleged attacker did not survive.

I know I'm not alone in the idea that we are hearing really one half of the story.  As others have said, there are three sides to every story: your side, my side and the truth.  I agree with that.

So, I wonder how that tends to play out in court.  I would bet (were I a betting man) that the acquittal rate for self defense claims, including SYG defenses, is much higher when the alleged aggressor is dead and only one half of the story is told in court.  But I could be wrong.  In other words, all things being equal in the zimmerman/martin case other than the death of martin, I would guess that an acquittal would be much less likely.


----------



## Tgace

Daniel Sullivan said:


> According to the transcript, he ignored the 911 operator's instructions.



I don't read "We don't need you to do that" as an instruction. Or "Ok" as a refusal......


----------



## billc

Here is a look at Stand Your Ground laws.  Did anyone know that California has an even more aggressive stand your ground law?

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/attorney-andrew-branca-participates-on-npr-panel/



> Andrew Branca: Well, I certainly agree with that, and Id like to talk to that. But before we do , Ive been listening to the show on hold while its been going on, and I hear a lot of discussion about how Florida has this crazy stand-your-ground law that creates these unique legal scenarios. The fact is Floridas stand-your-ground law is quite common, 33 states are effectively SYG states and have very similar provisions.  In fact there is one state that not only lets you to stand your ground, it explicitly allows you to pursue your assailant if necessary for your safety.  And that state is California [where the station is located].


----------



## crushing

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The only thing that we know for certain is that Zimmerman decided to follow Martin for some nebulous reason, against advice from the 911 operator* if I recall*, and that he had a vehicle and was armed with a pistol while Martin was unarmed.  There was a scuffle and blows were traded, and Zimmerman discharged his firearm killing Martin.  Everything else is speculation.



I've found that it isn't easy to overcome various early memes established by the media about what happened, even after the evidence has been presented and runs quite contrary to some of those memes that were created in a rush to judgement.  As the facts have been laid out again and again we have found that there was a specific reason Zimmerman was keeping an eye on Martin, and that the non-emergency operator stated that they didn't need Zimmerman to keep an eye on Martin.  Of course in hindsight "we don't need you to do that" turns in to an obvious ominous warning.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Tgace said:


> I don't read "We don't need you to do that" as an instruction. Or "Ok" as a refusal......


Read it however you want.  He didn't follow it.  At some point, he chose not to.


----------



## billc

Well, from his statements Zimmerman says he was going back to his truck.  from Rachel jeantel we know that Martin initiated face to face contact.  We also know, from the 911 call that the police were on the way.  so it is just as hard to know if Zimmerman was or wasn't following the suggestion not to continue following Martin.  again, even if he followed Martin, it doesn't rise to the level of causing manslaughter to occur.  Just following someone doesn't reach that point.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

crushing said:


> I've found that it isn't easy to overcome various early memes established by the media about what happened, even after the evidence has been presented and runs quite contrary to some of those memes that were created in a rush to judgement.  As the facts have been laid out again and again we have found that there was a specific reason Zimmerman was keeping an eye on Martin, and that the non-emergency operator stated that they didn't need Zimmerman to keep an eye on Martin.  Of course in hindsight "we don't need you to do that" turns in to an obvious ominous warning.


I'd hardly consider it to have turned into an ominous warning.  You don't need to do that means he didn't need to do that.  He opted to do it for whatever reason, and unfortunately, the ramifications were far greater than he expected.  It could have gone any number of other possible ways.  

As I said, each participant made a series of choices that led to the final outcome.  Zimmerman's choosing to ignore the operator's advice (something his fans seem to want to downplay) was one of those decisions but not the only one.

Martin chose to move through a gated community where he didn't live with a hood up; bad decision #1, regardless of his right to do so.  Zimmerman chose to follow him.  Martin, when observed, chose to approach Zimmerman; bad decision #2.  Zimmerman called 911 and reported what was happenning.  Martin ran during the call.  Zimmerman then ignored what he was told and pursued Martin; bad decision #3.  Whether he caught up with Martin and confronted him or Martin jumped him unexpectedly or some other permutation, the two eventually ended up in a fight that Zimmerman apparently was losing, prompting him to escalate it further by drawing a pistol.  I suspect that both men made a few bad decisions between #3 and Martin's death.  I won't speculate as to what they might have been; there's been enough speculation about that already.

I worked retail for many years and there was a reason that we were told not to pursue shoplifters out of the store; you could get shot, stabbed, beaten, or end up in court having to defend yourself against charges of assault & battery.  I understand the desire to not let someone you perceive as a criminal get away.  Unfortunately, up to that point, there was no evidence that Martin was a criminal at all.  People can say what they want about reasonable assumption, but the fact remains that Zimmerman drew his own conclusions.  There were probably dozens of people in that neighborhood that he didn't know on sight.

As far as the verdict goes, it is what it is.  It isn't my place to be satisfied or dissatisfied with it.  The prosecution didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of what he was charged with and the defense made a case that the jurors found reasonable enough in light of the evidence and therefore chose not to convict.  People need to get over their feelings on the trial and look at the lessons that can be learned from this.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

billc said:


> Well, from his statements Zimmerman says he was going back to his truck.  from Rachel jeantel we know that Martin initiated face to face contact.  We also know, from the 911 call that the police were on the way.  so it is just as hard to know if Zimmerman was or wasn't following the suggestion not to continue following Martin.  again, even if he followed Martin, it doesn't rise to the level of causing manslaughter to occur.  Just following someone doesn't reach that point.


Initiating face to face contact doesn't either.  It's what occurred after contact and prior to them fighting that would make the difference.

As for brushing off following someone,  I think Steve phrased it very well: 



Steve said:


> If you're following me overtly in your vehicle and then on foot, in the dark, in the rain while talking on a cell phone, I'd feel a little harassed.  Gun or not, let's be reasonable here and at least acknowledge that there is a side of the story that has not (and cannot) been told.



Don't pretend that Zimmerman didn't add fuel to the fire by his actions.  If the account that Zimmerman gave is true and accurate, even if it is slanted in his favor, then both men escalated the conflict at various points.


----------



## Tgace

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Zimmerman apparently was losing, prompting him to escalate it further by drawing a pistol.



If Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of death or serious physical injury at the hands of Martin; drawing a gun would not have been an escalation since Martin would have been the first to raise the confrontation to the level of DPF.


Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc

the trouble I have with this is considering someone following me in a neighborhood an escalation to the point that it is considered worthy of a factor in a charge of manslaughter.  wether or not Martin was told not to follow ,and he wasn't told not to follow, in my mind that doesn't reach anything near contributing to manslaughter.  whoever initiated physical contact is where manslaughter starts, not simply getting out of a vehicle and walking through your own neighborhood.  After all, Martin didn't know if Zimmerman lived in the direction that Martin was traveling in,  when he initiated contact with Zimmerman.  

Technically, Martin was living in the community.  He was staying with his father's fiancé at the time of the killing.

One important lesson...don't initiate combat with strangers who aren't attacking you...that goes either way in this case.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

billc said:


> the trouble I have with this is considering someone following me in a neighborhood an escalation to the point that it is considered worthy of a factor in a charge of manslaughter.


I didn't actually say that.  I said that there were several points where b*oth m*en escalated the conflict.


----------



## Tgace

Well Said.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Tgace said:


> If Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of death or serious physical injury at the hands of Martin; drawing a gun would not have been an escalation since Martin would have been the first to raise the confrontation to the level of DPF.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


Martin being first is speculation.  Zimmerman drawing the gun is fact.  I stuck with facts that are actually known.  Since we don't know who actually started the fight (that pesky lack of witnesses thing), I didn't include that.  

It seems likely that Martin initiated the physical conflict, but Zimmerman's willingness to pursue Martin on foot, even after being advised not to, raises the possiblity that Martin may have tried to escape and Zimmerman tried to restrain him (remember, Zimmerman was very preoccupied in the transcript with keeping Martin from getting away), thus initiating the conflict.

If Martin had killed Zimmerman by slaming his head against the curb, he could have just been acquitted on the same grounds.  It could have just as easily played out as follows: 

_A strange man was overtly following him, causing him to fear for his life.  A confrontation ensued when Martin tried to escape, and while fighting off his attacker, he saw the attacker go for his gun, prompting him to strike the assailant's head as hard as he could.  

Zimmerman's motives would by unclear, as he would be dead.  Who actually started the confrontation would be unclear, as Zimmerman would be dead, leaving Martin as the only one who could give a full account of what led up to the scuffle.  Zimmerman's position as a neighborhood watchman would probably come up, but Martin's defense would no doubt have exploited the line about those a - holes always getting away_.  

Obviously, it didn't go that way.  But you should be able to reasonably see how the SD argument could have been made by Martin.  

As I said previously, I have no side to align with, no party to back.  This was preventable.  The decisions of both parties led to the death of one and the derailment of the life of the other.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Tgace said:


> Well Said.


I agree.  Aside from the statement about profiling (I didn't get into that) he said pretty much what I just said.


----------



## Tgace

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Martin being first is speculation.  Zimmerman drawing the gun is fact.  I stuck with facts that are actually known.  Since we don't know who actually started the fight (that pesky lack of witnesses thing), I didn't include that.



Implying that Zimmerman "escalated" by drawing a gun sorta means that you think Zimmerman wasn't justified in drawing it....which is a "fact that is not actually known" either. 

I'm just saying that drawing of a weapon MAY escalate a confrontation if it's drawn without a good reason...but drawing in defense of your life means that the other party, armed or not, escalated the confrontation to DPF first.

Of course there is only one side to this story. Agreed.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Tgace said:


> Implying that Zimmerman "escalated" by drawing a gun sorta means that you think Zimmerman wasn't justified in drawing it....which is a "fact that is not actually known" either.


 No.  That is not what it means, sorta or otherwise.  Please refrain from speculating about what "I" actually think.  If that is what I thought, I would have said so.  I honestly don't know if he was or not, so I will refrain from speculation.



Tgace said:


> I'm just saying that drawing of a weapon MAY escalate a confrontation if it's drawn without a good reason...but drawing in defense of your life means that the other party, armed or not, escalated the confrontation to DPF first.


Drawing a gun on an unarmed opponent is always an escalation.  It may be justified, but it is still an escalation.  If you'd actually take the time to read my post, you'd see that I did indicate a prior escalation on Martin's part, assuming Zimmerman's account in the 911 transcript is accurate.  Please also note that I said the following:

_*It seems likely that Martin initiated the physical conflict*, but Zimmerman's willingness to pursue Martin on foot, even after being advised not to, raises the possiblity that Martin may have tried to escape and Zimmerman tried to restrain him (remember, Zimmerman was very preoccupied in the transcript with keeping Martin from getting away), thus initiating the conflict.
_
Since we don't have an eyewitness account of who started the physical conflict, I didn't include it in the chain of events.

Since all of us are not lawers or policemen, please share what DPF stands for.



Tgace said:


> Of course there is only one side to this story. Agreed.


That's what I've been saying.


----------



## Tgace

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Drawing a gun on an unarmed opponent is always an escalation.  It may be justified, but it is still an escalation.



No....it is not. 

The level of force used is what escalates a confrontation, not the tool used. If you are kicking my head in you are using deadly physical force (DPF)....my drawing a gun won't escalate the situation to "Really Deadly Physical Force". 

Once someone is putting your life in danger THEY have pushed the encounter to to top....armed or not. 

Of course this presumes that Zimmerman did indeed use DPF in response to DPF. Which of course we only have HIS word on. Throughout most of this thread my only intent is to refute some inaccurate armchair policing/lawyering (like the "stalking" and "refusal to obey 911" memes).


Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador

Within the use-of-force continuum as usually taught, and as embodied in the law, OK--but you can't tell me that things don't jump up a level when a gun is tossed into the mix. Everyone's adrenaline level goes up then. Everyone knows you _can _be killed with fists but you _will _be killed by bullets.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Within the use-of-force continuum as usually taught, and as embodied in the law, OK--but you can't tell me that things don't jump up a level when a gun is tossed into the mix. Everyone's adrenaline level goes up then. Everyone knows you _can _be killed with fists but you _will _be killed by bullets.



The way it looks martin never knew there was a gun until he was shot. Looking at the autopsy evedience with shot placement and that martins **** was several inches away from his body at the time of shooting I doubt Martin knew there was a gun until he was shot


----------



## ballen0351

Daniel did you watch the trial?  Your basically saying all the evidence presented can't be used to form an opinion.  You come across as Z shot M and we don't know anything else.  Its not speculation to use the evidence to form a picture of what happened.  While we can never be 100% sure what happened using evidence we can get pretty close to the truth


----------



## Big Don

Sure funny how all the pro gun control fascists er posters are also Pro Martin...


----------



## granfire

hey! No profiling!

I am pro gun control, but sheesh...do not call me pro Martin!


----------



## arnisador

Big Don said:


> Sure funny how all the pro gun control fascists er posters are also Pro Martin...



No one has been pro-Martin--some of us believe that GZ bears some moral responsibility here. It's not an all-good vs. all-bad situation. There's some grey.


----------



## jks9199

Folks, 
I've been quite pleasantly surprised at how well this thread has held up, without shots and without nastiness.  Let's not start it now.  Keep things courteous and polite, if you can't manage friendly.

Not quite a warning... consider this a strong word to the wise.


----------



## billc

In light of the protests today here is a look at the reality of Martin and Zimmerman by Bill Whittle, a favorite video commentator...

He brings up in the embedded video the fact that the prosecution kept referring to the can that Martin had as Iced Tea, when in fact it was a watermelon flavored drink.   He points out that many think they said Iced Tea due to the "racial," conotations of the watermelon drink but a more accurate reason would be that Scittles (also found with Martin ) and this watermelon drink are 2/3 of the ingredients for the drug based drink "lean."  Also, he points out that the autopsy of Martin revealed liver damage, in his teenager body, that is consistent with prolonged "lean," use.  What are some of the problems associated with "lean," use...paranoia and aggression...

The video is a good look at the individuals...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/bill-whittles-backgrounder.php


----------



## elder999

billc said:


> In light of the protests today here is a look at the reality of Martin and Zimmerman by Bill Whittle, a favorite video commentator...
> 
> He brings up in the embedded video the fact that the prosecution kept referring to the can that Martin had as Iced Tea, when in fact it was a watermelon flavored drink.   He points out that many think they said Iced Tea due to the "racial," conotations of the watermelon drink but a more accurate reason would be that Scittles (also found with Martin ) and this watermelon drink are 2/3 of the ingredients for the drug based drink "lean."  Also, he points out that the autopsy of Martin revealed liver damage, in his teenager body, that is consistent with prolonged "lean," use.  What are some of the problems associated with "lean," use...paranoia and aggression...
> 
> The video is a good look at the individuals...
> 
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/bill-whittles-backgrounder.php



Oh my. I don't know where to begin.....

First off, though, Arizona and Snapple both make watermelon flavored _iced tea._

Secondly, the recipe for "lean" calls for codeine (or cough syrup),Jolly Ranchers, sprite and purple syrup-no skittles, no ice tea.

Otherwise, whatever: he had a WATERMELON DRINK and CANDY. Clearly, he was up to no good, and deserved to be shot: let the post lynching-lynching continue.......


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:


> he had a WATERMELON DRINK.



Look, can we all agree that that _is _a little weird?


----------



## Makalakumu

Matin may not have been up to no good, but he made a poor choice in assaulting Zimmerman. It cost him his life, sadly. Also, sadly, young men often make decisions that cost them their lives.


----------



## Big Don

arnisador said:


> Look, can we all agree that that _is _a little weird?



Some people eat snails...
The only tea I drink is named after Long Island...


----------



## granfire

Makalakumu said:


> Matin may not have been up to no good, but he made a poor choice in assaulting Zimmerman. It cost him his life, sadly. Also, sadly, young men often make decisions that cost them their lives.



We call this Darwin Award...if they do it early enough without having sewn their wild oats.
Where I live it's usually not preceded by swagger on the cell phone but by 'Hey y'all. looky here!' or 'Dude, hold my beer'

It don't take many guys to keep the species going.....


----------



## billc

Author Brad Thor has offered to buy George Zimmerman an new pistol since the Dept. of Justice has prevented him from getting his old pistol back.  He stated that since Zimmerman was found not guilty, and since an F.B.I. investigation that interviewed over 30 people who know Zimmerman declared he isn't a racist, and therefore could not have violated Martin's civil rights as a racist, there is no reason for the Dept. of Justice to keep hounding him.

He was on a morning show in Chicago where he explained why he was going to not only buy him a new pistol but also the ammunition he needs for it...the video is below.

http://www.examiner.com/video/brad-thor-offers-to-buy-george-zimmerman-new-gun


----------



## arnisador

granfire said:


> We call this Darwin Award



I'm finding that a bit harsh. We're talking about a scared kid being followed at night by a stranger.



billc said:


> Author Brad Thor has offered to buy George Zimmerman an new pistol[...]he explained why he was going to not only buy him a new pistol but also the ammunition he needs for it



I'm finding that a bit masturbatory. He deserves to get his gun back but no one should be slavering at the thought of him being armed again.


----------



## Big Don

arnisador said:


> I'm finding that a bit masturbatory. He deserves to get his gun back but no one should be slavering at the thought of him being armed again.



Just because a bunch of a holes have threatened his life and his family, there is no reason anyone should want him capable of defending himself.
Your anti-gun nuttiness is showing...


----------



## elder999

Big Don said:


> Just because a bunch of a holes have threatened his life and his family, there is no reason anyone should want him capable of defending himself.
> Your anti-gun nuttiness is showing...




Actually, I'm the last person anyone could call "anti-gun," but I agree with arni here.

George Zimmerman has proven that he shouldn't be carrying a gun-carrying a gun isn't just a right, it's also a responsibility-one that assumes that the bearer can act with prudence and good judgment. Guilty or not-guilty, George Zimmerman demonstrated amply that he is neither prudent, nor capable of good judgment, and should not be going about armed. Anywhere. *Ever.*


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Tgace said:


> No....it is not.
> 
> The level of force used is what escalates a confrontation, not the tool used. If you are kicking my head in you are using deadly physical force (DPF)....my drawing a gun won't escalate the situation to "Really Deadly Physical Force".
> 
> Once someone is putting your life in danger THEY have pushed the encounter to to top....armed or not.
> 
> Of course this presumes that Zimmerman did indeed use DPF in response to DPF. Which of course we only have HIS word on. Throughout most of this thread my only intent is to refute some inaccurate armchair policing/lawyering (like the "stalking" and "refusal to obey 911" memes).
> 
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



Those weren't memes.  That was my impression. As for armchair lawyering, this entire thread is armchair lawyering.


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> Actually, I'm the last person anyone could call "anti-gun," but I agree with arni here.
> 
> George Zimmerman has proven that he shouldn't be carrying a gun-carrying a gun isn't just a right, it's also a responsibility-one that assumes that the bearer can act with prudence and good judgment. Guilty or not-guilty, George Zimmerman demonstrated amply that he is neither prudent, nor capable of good judgment, and should not be going about armed. Anywhere. *Ever.*



Considering that nobody except him really knows what went down....
how do you arrive at that judgement?

Just curious....


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

ballen0351 said:


> Daniel did you watch the trial?  Your basically saying all the evidence presented can't be used to form an opinion.  You come across as Z shot M and we don't know anything else.


That actually isn't what I'm saying.  Not even close.


----------



## granfire

arnisador said:


> I'm finding that a bit harsh. We're talking about a scared kid being followed at night by a stranger.



No, we were in this case talking about young men making wrong decisions that sometimes eliminate them from the gene pool. That's the Darwin Award.
And no, I do not buy that the 'kid' was scared, frightened or otherwise intimidated by the 'creepy a$$ cracka' following him. He wasn't wearing high heels...he could have run home - that's what scared kids do! Or call the cops. 


Seems there is that one little problem in the story:
Zimmermann loses him and next thing they are in a scuffle and Zimmermann is at the bottom.


----------



## Tgace

> _We're talking about a scared kid being followed at night by a stranger._



Talk about assumptions not in evidence...and even contradicted by the apparent sequence of events. A "scared kid" doesn't take a four minute flanking run on his pursuer and confront him with a "whats your problem homie ?".


----------



## elder999

granfire said:


> Considering that nobody except him really knows what went down....
> how do you arrive at that judgement?
> 
> Just curious....



I carry a gun.

I wouldn't have followed him. I wouldn't have gotten out of my vehicle. I'd have called 911, and continued to observe him from my vehicle. 

I wouldn't have gotten lost in my own neighborhood. I wouldn't have had to get out of the vehicle to "see what street I was on" in my own neighborhood.

I probably wouldn't have carried my pistol-it's against the guidelines for most neighborhood watches-just as I don't carry it into establishments that serve alcohol in the state of NM, as it's against the law (so I don't carry everywhere, only "almost everywhere.")

If I'd followed him, I wouldn't have gotten close enough for him to identify me in a phone call-he wouldn't have known I was following him, but I wouldn't have followed him on foot in the first place.

I wouldn't have followed him. I'd have done the _prudent thing_ and heeded the advice of the 911 dispatcher, rather than my frustration at how _these @#$^As always get away with it._

So, how do I know George Zimmerman is an incompetent, imprudent idiot who should never carry a firearm again? He shot someone whom he wouldn't have had to shoot, if not for his own foolish, reckless and imprudent actions. They were neither measured, well judged or prudent. This is all I've ever really had to say about this case from the very beginning-that the wannabe cop was off the rez on this one. 

Should. Never.Carry. A. Gun. Again.

(But is within his legal rights to do so, and so he shall....and so he shall....)


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Tgace said:


> No....it is not.
> 
> The level of force used is what escalates a confrontation, not the tool used. If you are kicking my head in you are using deadly physical force (DPF)....my drawing a gun won't escalate the situation to "Really Deadly Physical Force".
> 
> Once someone is putting your life in danger THEY have pushed the encounter to to top....armed or not.
> 
> Of course this presumes that Zimmerman did indeed use DPF in response to DPF. Which of course we only have HIS word on. Throughout most of this thread my only intent is to refute some inaccurate armchair policing/lawyering (like the "stalking" and "refusal to obey 911" memes).
> 
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


This...



arnisador said:


> Within the use-of-force continuum as usually taught, and as embodied in the law, OK--but you can't tell me that things don't jump up a level when a gun is tossed into the mix. Everyone's adrenaline level goes up then. Everyone knows you _can _be killed with fists but you _will _be killed by bullets.



...is exactly what I meant.  Whether or not Martin knew Zimmerman was armed is up for debate, though I agree with Ballen0351; Martin probably wasn't aware that Zimmerman was armed.  I suspect his strategy would have been very different if he had.

However, when you use a firearm against a person unarmed, you are escalating the level of force.  This isn't lawyering, by the way.  I never once said Zimmerman's use of deadly force wasn't justified.  Only that his use of a gun was an escalation to a greater level of force.  

I don't form my opinion from memes, by the way.  Nor am I debating the legality of what Zimmerman did.  He was acquitted by a jury in a trial that, as far as I could tell, was fair.  It isn't my place to say he was or was not justified.  What I am saying is that the actions of both participants led to the eventual outcome.

If you want argue legalese over the words "stalking," "refusal" or "escalation", you're barking up the wrong tree.  This isn't a legal scholar site and I'm not a lawyer and I'm not questioning the outcome of the trial.  If I were debating the outcome of the trial, it would be different, but I'm neither lawyer nor a cop, so please don't expect me to speak or write like a lawyer or a cop in what is a casual discussion about a current event.


----------



## Tgace

> However, when you use a firearm against a person unarmed, you are escalating the level of force.



Sorry..no. Legally you are not. Not if the person attacking you is using DPF.

Im not claiming that I know 100% that Martin was using DPF on Zimmerman at the time. But IF he was, drawing a gun in response to DPF doesn't escalate the force any higher. DPF is the top. If Martin used it first Zimmerman wasn't raising it any higher.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Tgace said:


> Sorry..no. Legally you are not. Not if the person attacking you is using DPF.



You apparently missed the part of my post where I said I wasn't discussing the legality of it and wasn't debating the verdict.


----------



## Tgace

Discussing escalation of force levels is all about the legality of it.....


----------



## Tgace

> If you want argue legalese over the words "stalking," "refusal" or "escalation", you're barking up the wrong tree. This isn't a legal scholar site and I'm not a lawyer and I'm not questioning the outcome of the trial. If I were debating the outcome of the trial, it would be different, but I'm neither lawyer nor a cop, so please don't expect me to speak or write like a lawyer or a cop in what is a casual discussion about a current event.



In this context words mean something. If someone is going to "casually discuss" this case and say that Martin may have been justified in using force on Zimmerman because Zimmerman was "stalking" him...implying Zimmerman was doing something illegal...you are using a term that is inaccurate and skews the discussion.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Tgace said:


> Discussing escalation of force levels is all about the legality of it.....



I get where you're coming from.  I really do.  I have no idea if you get where I'm coming from, though it doesn't seem that you do.  I've responded with several posts spelling out exactly what I mean, and I cannot think of any way to communicate it to you more clearly.  I also don't have any more observations of this subject (the Martin shooting/Zimmerman trial) than what I've already put forward, nor am I intent on getting others to come around to my way of thinking.

So I'm going to respectfully bow out and unsubscribe from this thread.

For what it's worth, I appreciate your responses.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> I carry a gun.
> 
> I wouldn't have followed him. I wouldn't have gotten out of my vehicle. I'd have called 911, and continued to observe him from my vehicle.
> 
> I wouldn't have gotten lost in my own neighborhood. I wouldn't have had to get out of the vehicle to "see what street I was on" in my own neighborhood.
> 
> I probably wouldn't have carried my pistol-it's against the guidelines for most neighborhood watches-just as I don't carry it into establishments that serve alcohol in the state of NM, as it's against the law (so I don't carry everywhere, only "almost everywhere.")
> 
> If I'd followed him, I wouldn't have gotten close enough for him to identify me in a phone call-he wouldn't have known I was following him, but I wouldn't have followed him on foot in the first place.
> 
> I wouldn't have followed him. I'd have done the _prudent thing_ and heeded the advice of the 911 dispatcher, rather than my frustration at how _these @#$^As always get away with it._
> 
> So, how do I know George Zimmerman is an incompetent, imprudent idiot who should never carry a firearm again? He shot someone whom he wouldn't have had to shoot, if not for his own foolish, reckless and imprudent actions. They were neither measured, well judged or prudent. This is all I've ever really had to say about this case from the very beginning-that the wannabe cop was off the rez on this one.
> 
> Should. Never.Carry. A. Gun. Again.
> 
> (But is within his legal rights to do so, and so he shall....and so he shall....)



And I also carry a gun and had I seen a strange teen in my gated neighborhood at night in the rain I would follow him.  In fact Id do more then follow Id walk up and ask him who he is and what he's doing.  So guess I shouldn't carry a gun by your standards either.  The guys done it many times in the past and nobody got hurt.  Sometimes things just happen.  I've been to 100s of 911 hang up calls yet only once have I shot anyone.  Sometimes things just happen.


----------



## ballen0351

Daniel Sullivan said:


> That actually isn't what I'm saying.  Not even close.



I guess I'm reading it wrong or misunderstand your point.  Sorry I will reread it


----------



## arnisador

granfire said:


> And no, I do not buy that the 'kid' was scared, frightened or otherwise intimidated by the 'creepy a$$ cracka' following him. He wasn't wearing high heels...he could have run home - that's what scared kids do! Or call the cops.



I'm not at all sure that that's what scared kids do.



> Seems there is that one little problem in the story:
> Zimmermann loses him and next thing they are in a scuffle and Zimmermann is at the bottom.



Even if GZ told a fully accurate story, who knows what was in TM's mind? As someone else pointed out, maybe he didn't want this guy following him to his house, fearing GZ was the criminal in this story.


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:


> So, how do I know George Zimmerman is an incompetent, imprudent idiot who should never carry a firearm again? He shot someone whom he wouldn't have had to shoot, if not for his own foolish, reckless and imprudent actions. They were neither measured, well judged or prudent. This is all I've ever really had to say about this case from the very beginning-that the wannabe cop was off the rez on this one.
> 
> Should. Never.Carry. A. Gun. Again.
> 
> (But is within his legal rights to do so, and so he shall....and so he shall....)



Agreed all around--I feel less safe knowing someone reckless like this is armed, but under current law his gun should be returned.


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:


> Discussing escalation of force levels is all about the legality of it.....



If you're coming at me with a boxcutter and I draw a katana, nothing may have changed legally but I'd sure as heck say the situation just changed. If you drop your boxcutter and draw a pistol and I drop my katana and pull out an assault rifle, again, I'd say it's changed again...even if all 4 weapons represent deadly physical force.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> And I also carry a gun and had I seen a strange teen in my gated neighborhood at night in the rain I would follow him.  In fact Id do more then follow Id walk up and ask him who he is and what he's doing.



You're a LEO--trained and authorized for this. No problem.


----------



## billc

> Even if GZ told a fully accurate story, who knows what was in TM's mind? As someone else pointed out, maybe he didn't want this guy following him to his house, fearing GZ was the criminal in this story.



Then he keeps walking, gets off the phone with his friend, and calls 911 to get the police.  

I am still interested that people are hung up with Zimmerman getting out of his car.  In his own neighborhood, on the phone with 911 with the police on the way.  Apparently not initiating actual contact with Martin.  If what Zimmerman says is true, he didn't even initiate face to face contact.   Considering how long the fight went on, from witness testimony, he didn't even shoot first, he got pummeled, a lot, before the shot was fired, and only when the only person he could see who could have helped him did what everyone else said Zimmerman should do, stayed in his house and went to call 911...when the guy didn't help but closed his door on Zimmerman, that is when the weapon was pulled and the shot fired.  Go to legalinsurrection, they have all the witness testimony, and you can see how long Zimmerman struggled with Martin before the shot was fired, so no, he didn't just shoot this large teenager.  There was a prolonged struggle, as fights go, and the only help on the scene didn't help but stayed inside his home and called 911.  Perhaps, if one of the witnesses had stepped outside, Martin would be alive.


----------



## Big Don

arnisador said:


> You're a LEO--trained and authorized for this. No problem.



Here is a LEO firearms instructor 



Zimmerman is authorized as well, he has a valid Florida concealed weapons permit and, then there is that Second Amendment thing...


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> You're a LEO--trained and authorized for this. No problem.



It doesn't matter if down tnif I wasn't a cop is do it because I give a crap about my neighbors and its the right thing to do.  Hell my mom has done that very thing several times she has chased teens down the street after watching then do something wrong.  Some people still care.


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> It doesn't matter if down tnif I wasn't a cop is do it because I give a crap about my neighbors and its the right thing to do.  Hell my mom has done that very thing several times she has chased teens down the street after watching then do something wrong.  Some people still care.



A lot of people still care--most of them are not ending up shooting kids who live in their neighborhood. We could do with less of GZ's macho form of caring. This is not the only way to care about your neighborhood. If GZ had taken the much more time-consuming approach of trying to be a Big Brother to local kids at risk, how much more could've been accomplished?


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> Then he keeps walking, gets off the phone with his friend, and calls 911 to get the police



...as a typical teenager would, of course. Good advice but let's remember that kids are kids.



> I am still interested that people are hung up with Zimmerman getting out of his car.  In his own neighborhood, on the phone with 911 with the police on the way.



Well, the answer is: For the reasons you just mentioned. He was there and on the phone with 911 with the police on the way. Good time to wait for the pros to handle it.

Incidentally, is it so that the police were truly directly en route there, or had they just been told by the dispatcher to check it out at some time that night or something?


----------



## Big Don

arnisador said:


> ...as a typical teenager would, of course. Good advice but let's remember that kids are kids.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the answer is: For the reasons you just mentioned. He was there and on the phone with 911 with the police on the way. Good time to wait for the pros to handle it.
> 
> Incidentally, is it so that the police were truly directly en route there, or had they just been told by the dispatcher to check it out at some time that night or something?



When seconds count the police are only minutes away


----------



## arnisador

Big Don said:


> When seconds count the police are only minutes away



Did seconds count in the GZ/TM case? Are you saying that's why he had to leave his car?


----------



## billc

The reason Martin died is he attacked Zimmerman.  That is the truth.  He had the bad luck to pin Zimmerman to the ground.  Had they both been standing, throwing punches, he would still be alive today.  By pinning Zimmerman on the edge of that sidewalk and pounding on him he forced Zimmerman to use his gun.

Zimmerman wasn't a macho guy that night and had no intention of confronting Martin, face to face.  How  do I know?  Because if he had no background of confronting people he called 911 on.  As people have made fun of him for calling 911 so often, never before, in all those calls had he confronted those he called on and he never approached the others in any way, not to question them or to hold them for the police.  On the phone with 911 he said, and it is recorded, that he lost Martin and couldn't find him...encounter over, everyone safe and sound...until Martin came back.  Leaving the car didn't cause the problem.  A drug using and violent prone teenager caused the problem.  

Another thing, Martin approached Zimmerman in his car, circled it and then walked off.  If Zimmerman had intended to confront Martin, he would have done it there and then, and not let Martin get so far ahead of him that he lost sight of him.  The verbal confrontation would have been started then.  The problem started when Martin, a drug user and violent teen, decided to start a confrontation with Zimmerman...that is what led to his death.



> If GZ had taken the much more time-consuming approach of trying to be a Big Brother to local kids at risk,



You do know he was mentoring two kids, he checked on his neighbors, in particular the woman who had to teenagers rob her house while she was barricaded in her bedroom, and apparently was helpful to others as well.  He called out the police for beating a black homeless man, and did other things to help people.  So helpful the Neighborhood watch liason offered him a spot on the civillian patrol, where they would have given him his own car and a uniform...which he turned down.

You can find out all of this stuff by watching the coverage of all the prosecution witnesses...who pretty much said he was a helpful guy in the community.  Then you can watch the defense for the people the prosecution didn't call to see everyone else say he was a helpful guy...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

This is just such an interesting situation.


I wouldn't have gotten out of my vehicle to follow Martin.  I would have followed in the vehicle from a distance and maintained contact with the dispatcher until the police arrived.  I probably would have circled around several times in my vehicle if needed.  I know this is what I would have done because I have done the same thing in the past 0n more than a few occcasions.  I think that Zimmerman from a surveillance and personal safety point really screwed up and the situation escalated thus ending with Martin's death.  Having said that from the evidence it would appear with what we know that Zimmerman did act within the accordance of the law and as such was found *not guilty* by the jury.  Still that does not mean that he isn't and idiot or that I would want him on my neighborhood watch. (I wouldn't)  Nor do I think he is a great person to be carrying around a gun based on his past history before the Martin incident and of course with the Martin death.  However, legally he is going to get his gun back and be able to carry and as Elder999 pointed out he shall carry a gun in the future.  Which brings me at least to a point that while I am a strong advocate for CCW's and the ability to carry there are however some people that should never be allowed to carry a gun or for that matter breed!  We all know that this is true!!!


----------



## arnisador

billc said:


> You do know he was mentoring two kids, he checked on his neighbors, in particular the woman who had to teenagers rob her house while she was barricaded in her bedroom, and apparently was helpful to others as well.  He called out the police for beating a black homeless man, and did other things to help people.



That's good.



> You can find out all of this stuff by watching the coverage of all the prosecution witnesses...



I'm employed.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> A lot of people still care--most ofhappennding up shooting kids who live in their neighborhood. We could do with less of GZ's macho form of caring. This is not the only way to care about your neighborhood. If GZ had taken the much more time-consuming approach of trying to be a Big Brother to local kids at risk, how much more could've been accomplished?



He did mentor kids...............and again sometimes things happen.  I dont go to work planning to shoot anyone but sometimes it happens.  I don't go to work planning on getting shot but things happen


----------



## ballen0351

Brian R. VanCise said:


> This is just such an interesting situation.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have gotten out of my vehicle to follow Martin.  I would have followed in the vehicle from a distance and maintained contact with the dispatcher until the police arrived.  I probably would have circled around several times in my vehicle if needed.  I know this is what I would have done because I have done the same thing in the past 0n more than a few occcasions.  I think that Zimmerman from a surveillance and personal safety point really screwed up and the situation escalated thus ending with Martin's death.  Having said that from the evidence it would appear with what we know that Zimmerman did act within the accordance of the law and as such was found *not guilty* by the jury.  Still that does not mean that he isn't and idiot or that I would want him on my neighborhood watch. (I wouldn't)  Nor do I think he is a great person to be carrying around a gun based on his past history before the Martin incident and of course with the Martin death.  However, legally he is going to get his gun back and be able to carry and as Elder999 pointed out he shall carry a gun in the future.  Which brings me at least to a point that while I am a strong advocate for CCW's and the ability to carry there are however some people that should never be allowed to carry a gun or for that matter breed!  We all know that this is true!!!


And I would follow and get out of the car?   What's your point there's lots of ways to do things.  99% of the time nothing bad happens


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I think from a safety perspective for a citizen doing a neighborhood watch that they probably shouldn't get out of there car because they are not trained like you to do more.  Whereas you or I have had advanced training. (ie. police academy, specific training, etc.)  Your average neighborhood watch person has more than likely had no training and just endangers themselves by getting out of the car.  Just a perspective on my part!


----------



## billc

A little more background on Zimmerman...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...dia_lies_have_distorted_a_tragedy_119311.html



> This narrative has transformed Zimmerman, a man of racially mixed heritage that included white, Hispanic and black roots (a grandmother who helped raise him had an Afro-Peruvian father), into an honorary white male steeped in white privilege. It has cast him as a virulent racist even though he once had a black business partner, mentored African-American kids, lived in a neighborhood about 20 percent black, and participated in complaints about a white police lieutenant&#8217;s son getting away with beating a homeless black man.





> This narrative has perpetuated the lie that Zimmerman&#8217;s history of calls to the police indicates obsessive racial paranoia. Thus, discussing the verdict on the PBS NewsHour, University of Connecticut professor and New Yorker contributor Jelani Cobb asserted that &#8220;Zimmerman had called the police 46 times in previous six years, only for African-Americans, only for African-American men.&#8221; Actually, only six calls&#8212;two of them about Trayvon Martin&#8212;had to do with African-American men. At least three involved complaints about whites; others were about such issues as a fire alarm going off, a reckless driver of unknown race, or an aggressive dog.
> In this narrative, even Zimmerman&#8217;s concern for a black child&#8212;a 2011 call to report a young African-American boy walking unsupervised on a busy street, on which the police record notes, &#8220;compl[ainant] concerned for well-being&#8221;&#8212;has been twisted into crazed racism. Writing on the website of The New Republic, Stanford University law professor Richard Thompson Ford describes Zimmerman as &#8220;an edgy basket case&#8221; who called 911 about &#8220;the suspicious activities of a _seven year old_ black boy.&#8221; This slander turns up in other left-of-center sources, such as ThinkProgress.org.





> The false narrative also makes it axiomatic that a black man in Zimmerman&#8217;s shoes wouldn&#8217;t stand a chance&#8212;especially if he had shot someone white. Never mind examples to the contrary, such as a 2009 case in Rochester, New York in which a black man, Roderick Scott, shot and killed an unarmed white teenager and was acquitted. Scott, who had caught 17-year-old Christopher Cervini and two other boys breaking into a car, said that the boy charged him and he feared for his life.


----------



## ballen0351

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think from a safety perspective for a citizen doing a neighborhood watch that they probably shouldn't get out of there car because they are not trained like you to do more.  Whereas you or I have had advanced training. (ie. police academy, specific training, etc.)  Your average neighborhood watch person has more than likely had no training and just endangers themselves by getting out of the car.  Just a perspective on my part!



Most of our watch programs the people dont even use cars.  They walk the neighborhoods.  Its hard to see and hear things when your inside a car.


----------



## arnisador

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/6-decisions-trayvon_n_3600690.html

This is a piece favorable to TM. I had heard of some of this but not all at once:



> Zimmerman had a long history of violence, including a restraining order for domestic violence, felony charges of resisting arrest, and assaulting an officer (the charge was pled down to a misdemeanor and then closed; Zimmerman's dad was a magistrate at the time). He was bounced from a job as a bouncer for being too aggressive with patrons, the New York Daily News reported. And a family member accused him of a pattern of sexual molestation.


----------



## arnisador

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...rman-trayvon-martin?google_editors_picks=true

The wanna-be cop thing is part of what concerns me about his behavior:



> As witnesses testified  during the trial, Zimmerman had for years pursued an interest in a law  enforcement career. At a Florida college in 2010, he earned an A in a  criminal-justice class taught by an Army prosecutor whose course work  included the state's Stand Your Ground law. That same year, Zimmerman  applied to participate in a police ride-along, writing that his  motivation was "solidifying my chances for a career in law enforcement."  (However, Zimmerman's ability to retain certain law enforcement  knowledge apparently vanished after he killed Martin; the self-styled  neighborhood watchman, who obsessively called 911 to report suspicious activity, told Fox News' Sean Hannity last summer that he'd never heard of Stand Your Ground.)



The point of the article is that SYG did indeed matter here:



> Just because Zimmerman's defense team didn't bring up Stand Your  Ground in the trial (more on that below), that doesn't mean the law was  irrelevant to the jury's decision. To the contrary, Judge Debra Nelson  made clear in the jury instructions that they should consider the law:
> 
> If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was  attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to  retreat and had the right to* stand his ground* and meet force with force,  including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary  to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or  to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
> 
> ​And consider it they did. According to the most outspoken juror,  known only as Juror B-37, Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their  verdict. She told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview  that neither second-degree murder nor manslaughter applied in  Zimmerman's case "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your  ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that  his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have  bodily harm, he had a right."



(*Emphasis *added).


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

ballen0351 said:


> Most of our watch programs the people dont even use cars.  They walk the neighborhoods.  Its hard to see and hear things when your inside a car.



I think from the perspective of the watcher that they are less safe in that environment unless of course they are in a group.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Where I live we have armed security patrol and a neighborhood watch.  However, the neighborhood watch is just everyone in the community.  People just on the lookout in general no designations, etc.  Nothing official!  I would venture that most neighborhood watches are fairly unofficial with a sign posted and that is about it!


----------



## billc

Actually, the author didn't quite get it right.  She may have said that in the instructions, but the defense never claimed the right to a SYG pre-trial hearing and only relied on regular self-defense in their defense of Zimmerman.  Besides, since Zimmerman was pinned on the ground, SYG did not apply.


----------



## arnisador

The judge seems to have thought differently and she did bring it up, so it did play a role regardless.


----------



## MJS

elder999 said:


> Actually, I'm the last person anyone could call "anti-gun," but I agree with arni here.
> 
> George Zimmerman has proven that he shouldn't be carrying a gun-carrying a gun isn't just a right, it's also a responsibility-one that assumes that the bearer can act with prudence and good judgment. Guilty or not-guilty, George Zimmerman demonstrated amply that he is neither prudent, nor capable of good judgment, and should not be going about armed. Anywhere. *Ever.*



I've been away from this party for a few days, so forgive me in advance if you already answered this, but how did you come to this conclusion?


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> The judge seems to have thought differently and she did bring it up, so it did play a role regardless.



If your pinned to the groung getting pounded in the face every state in the Union would consider that self defense stand your ground or not.


----------



## MJS

granfire said:


> No, we were in this case talking about young men making wrong decisions that sometimes eliminate them from the gene pool. That's the Darwin Award.
> And no, I do not buy that the 'kid' was scared, frightened or otherwise intimidated by the 'creepy a$$ cracka' following him. He wasn't wearing high heels...he could have run home - that's what scared kids do! Or call the cops.
> 
> 
> Seems there is that one little problem in the story:
> Zimmermann loses him and next thing they are in a scuffle and Zimmermann is at the bottom.



Exactly!  Let's eliminate the middle man here.  If TM was that nervous of who was following him, why the hell was he talking to a girl, rather than the cops?  Furthermore, if he was that scared, why did he double back and confront GZ?  Hell, if he was that scared, one would assume that if he realized that GZ was no longer behind him, that he'd have kept walking in the direction that he was, not turn around, and find out why GZ was behind him.


----------



## MJS

arnisador said:


> You're a LEO--trained and authorized for this. No problem.



I may be wrong here, but this implies that unless you're a LEO, that nobody should be carrying.  OTOH, my personal feeling is, is you're going to carry, then you should be going thru all the required courses, safety, use of force, etc.  Thus, in a nutshell, you should be trained.


----------



## MJS

Brian R. VanCise said:


> This is just such an interesting situation.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have gotten out of my vehicle to follow Martin.  I would have followed in the vehicle from a distance and maintained contact with the dispatcher until the police arrived.  I probably would have circled around several times in my vehicle if needed.  I know this is what I would have done because I have done the same thing in the past 0n more than a few occcasions.  I think that Zimmerman from a surveillance and personal safety point really screwed up and the situation escalated thus ending with Martin's death.  Having said that from the evidence it would appear with what we know that Zimmerman did act within the accordance of the law and as such was found *not guilty* by the jury.  Still that does not mean that he isn't and idiot or that I would want him on my neighborhood watch. (I wouldn't)  Nor do I think he is a great person to be carrying around a gun based on his past history before the Martin incident and of course with the Martin death.  However, legally he is going to get his gun back and be able to carry and as Elder999 pointed out he shall carry a gun in the future.  Which brings me at least to a point that while I am a strong advocate for CCW's and the ability to carry there are however some people that should never be allowed to carry a gun or for that matter breed!  We all know that this is true!!!



Nice post Brian, and this is just the reason why I don't get involved in situations.  Sure, many times, I've called the cops to report things and I've been a good witness, but unless it's a friend or family member, I'm not going to take the risk of getting involved, and instead, have the parties suddenly turn on me.  This is why I've been saying through out this thread, that I feel its important to know exactly what a neighborhood watch person can/cannot do.


----------



## MJS

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think from the perspective of the watcher that they are less safe in that environment unless of course they are in a group.



Yup, and as I said earlier, in my area, I've seen signs in various neighborhoods that say they're part of a NW program, but I've never seen anyone physically walking.  I think instead, it's a matter of everyone in the neighborhood just looking out for each other.  Everyone doing their part from the confines of their home, but not actually patrolling the area.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

MJS said:


> I may be wrong here, but this implies that unless you're a LEO, that nobody should be carrying.  OTOH, my personal feeling is, is you're going to carry, then you should be going thru all the required courses, safety, use of force, etc.  Thus, in a nutshell, you should be trained.


 
Very true.  Yet some States training is sorely lacking.  So badly in fact that their might not be any training at all.  However, most States due have some minimal standard!  Probably should be more though!


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> Yup, and as I said earlier, in my area, I've seen signs in various neighborhoods that say they're part of a NW program, but I've never seen anyone physically walking.  I think instead, it's a matter of everyone in the neighborhood just looking out for each other.  Everyone doing their part from the confines of their home, but not actually patrolling the area.


Just depends where you are I guess.  Here they walk.  Not so much now when its still 90 degrees at midnight and not so much in winter when it's freezing but they do walk around.  They usually carry a cell phone and video camera  also.  Sad thing is that's the good neighborhoods where nothing happens.  In the bad neighborhoods nobody cares.  We had a running gun battle yesterday broad daylight tons of people were out and we got no witnesses willing to come forward.  The whole thing was on tape from our security cameras so we know it happened and we know everyone saw it but "I didn't see s@&t". Is the name of the game.   Go figure.


----------



## MJS

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Very true.  Yet some States training is sorely lacking.  So badly in fact that their might not be any training at all.  However, most States due have some minimal standard!  Probably should be more though!



Wow.  Well, if that is the case, that's pretty scary, since that means we have a lot of people out there, carrying, and they don't have the proper training or any at all.  I can't speak for other states, but here in CT, especially after Sandy Hook, things seem much more strict than before.


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> Wow.  Well, if that is the case, that's pretty scary, since that means we have a lot of people out there, carrying, and they don't have the proper training or any at all.  I can't speak for other states, but here in CT, especially after Sandy Hook, things seem much more strict than before.


Why is it scary?  The people legally carrying guns are not the ones commiting crimes.  As a cop I wish more people would carry guns.  Its your right so exercise it.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> Just depends where you are I guess.  Here they walk.  Not so much now when its still 90 degrees at midnight and not so much in winter when it's freezing but they do walk around.  They usually carry a cell phone and video camera  also.  Sad thing is that's the good neighborhoods where nothing happens.  In the bad neighborhoods nobody cares.  We had a running gun battle yesterday broad daylight tons of people were out and we got no witnesses willing to come forward.  The whole thing was on tape from our security cameras so we know it happened and we know everyone saw it but "I didn't see s@&t". Is the name of the game.   Go figure.



I envision (and I might be a bit off) the average NW, to be just as you describe, or similar to the Guardian Angels.  

As for the other....sad isn't it?  People are paralyzed by fear from the bad guys, that they could be standing 2 feet away from the guy who got shot, but somehow, they didn't see ****.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

ballen0351 said:


> Why is it scary?  The people legally carrying guns are not the ones commiting crimes.  As a cop I wish more people would carry guns.  Its your right so exercise it.



I for one would rather that people who are carrying handguns and allowed to do so with a ccw, cpl, etc. have some decent training and knowledge of the law.  I am for more training rather than less.  I personally know a few knuckle heads who have minimal to no training and legally carry and their knowledge of firearms and the law is horrendous to say the least.  They are an accident waiting to happen.  I have of course gone out of my way to try and help them to improve their skills and knowledge but unfortunately they already know everything!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I have also been in a ccw class where the instructor was terrible, students did not learn much and god help them if they ever have to use their firearms!  So even if someone has some training it still might be crap training!


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> If your pinned to the groung getting pounded in the face every state in the Union would consider that self defense stand your ground or not.



The point is that the judge instructed the jury about his right to stand his ground, so it did indeed make an appearance in the trial whether it needed to have been brought in or not.


----------



## arnisador

MJS said:


> Exactly!  Let's eliminate the middle man here.  If TM was that nervous of who was following him, why the hell was he talking to a girl, rather than the cops?



Some people distrust the cops. This is unfortunate but it's true.


----------



## arnisador

MJS said:


> I may be wrong here, but this implies that unless you're a LEO, that nobody should be carrying.  OTOH, my personal feeling is, is you're going to carry, then you should be going thru all the required courses, safety, use of force, etc.  Thus, in a nutshell, you should be trained.



I'm for CCW and I am very much for your version of it. My point is that there's a difference between a cop stopping and questioning a person and a guy on the street doing so.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> Why is it scary?  The people legally carrying guns are not the ones commiting crimes.  As a cop I wish more people would carry guns.  Its your right so exercise it.



I was replying to what Brian said here:

"Very true.  Yet some States training is sorely lacking.  So badly in fact that their might not be any training at all.  However, most States due have some minimal standard!  Probably should be more though!"

I stand by what I said...if someone doesn't have training, and they're able to own a gun...sorry, but not only is that scary, its also sad and pathetic.  I'm not against someone owning a gun either, but if they don't have a clue how to use it.....


----------



## MJS

arnisador said:


> Some people distrust the cops. This is unfortunate but it's true.



True.  OTOH, people shouldn't paint all cops with the same broad brush.  Oddly enough, who is it that these people call when they need help?  Oh yeah, the cops.  LOL!



arnisador said:


> I'm for CCW and I am very much for your version of it. My point is that there's a difference between a cop stopping and questioning a person and a guy on the street doing so.



I agree.  Once again, I can't help but to keep stressing why I feel it'd be beneficial to this discussion, if we knew exactly what GZ, as a neighborhood watchman, was allowed/not allowed, to do.  Just like security in a bar, club, shopping mall, etc.  I'm sure they have a policy in place that dictates exactly what can be done.  GZ did call the cops, that much I'll give him.  I know it's been up for debate as to whether or not he should've followed him on foot, with some saying no, and others saying he has the right to walk wherever he wants as long as he's legally allowed to be there.


----------



## arnisador

The National Sheriff's Association, which sponsors the official Neighborhood Watch program, has denounced GZ. But it may be that "neighborhood watch" is being used loosely here.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> The National Sheriff's Association, which sponsors the official Neighborhood Watch program, has denounced GZ. But it may be that "neighborhood watch" is being used loosely here.


Funny you keep bringing them up but they have nothing to do with neighborhood watch programs here.  In fact here a sheriff isn't even a law enforcement officer.  They are civil process, court security, and warrant servers. We have a county police department that does the police work.  I know some places still have full service sheriff departments but not everywhere so I guess the NW programs we run are not good enough since we're not endorsed by this national sheriff organization.


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> The point is that the judge instructed the jury about his right to stand his ground, so it did indeed make an appearance in the trial whether it needed to have been brought in or not.



And my point still stands even without stand your ground laws you would be justified in shooting someone in almost every state if they mounted you and were pounding your face.  Even here in my state we have a duty to escape first before you can defend yourself once your pinned down you can't escape anymore


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> And my point still stands even without stand your ground laws you would be justified in shooting someone in almost every state if they mounted you and were pounding your face.



Agreed. People keep saying SYG was not relevant to the trial. That's wrong. The judge thought is was important enough to instruct the jury about it. That's the point.


----------



## Big Don

ballen0351 said:


> Why is it scary?  The people legally carrying guns are not the ones commiting crimes.  As a cop I wish more people would carry guns.  Its your right so exercise it.



That is what my county Sheriff says.


----------



## Big Don

arnisador said:


> Some people distrust the cops. This is unfortunate but it's true.



I've noticed a lot of those who do tend to have criminal histories or criminal friends and family...


----------



## Big Don

arnisador said:


> Agreed. People keep saying SYG was not relevant to the trial. That's wrong. The judge thought is was important enough to instruct the jury about it. That's the point.



The judge thought it was OK to throw Manslaughter into the mix with jury instructions as well...


----------



## arnisador

Big Don said:


> I've noticed a lot of those who do tend to have criminal histories or criminal friends and family...



Look harder. There's more to it than that.


----------



## Big Don

arnisador said:


> Look harder. There's more to it than that.


Not always, not even frequently.


----------



## Grenadier

Big Don said:


> The judge thought it was OK to throw Manslaughter into the mix with jury instructions as well...



This isn't unheard of, and quite a few judges will give such instructions to the jury that lesser charges can be considered.  I don't consider it appropriate, since the prosecution generally decides what charge they want to pursue, and it's up to them to pursue that in front of the jury.  You prepare for your case against the initial charges, and that's the way it should be, unless making a deal with the defendant on a lesser charge.  

Thankfully, the jury here made the correct call, that simple, justified self-defense is justified self-defense, regardless of whether it were for manslaughter or murder charges.  

Where the judge did screw up is in bringing Stand Your Ground into the argument, since the duty to retreat was NEVER an option for Zimmerman.  He was unable to retreat, and was in the process of getting his head split open by Trayvon Martin's repeated bashing of his head into the concrete.


----------



## billc

> As for the other....sad isn't it? People are paralyzed by fear from the bad guys, that they could be standing 2 feet away from the guy who got shot, but somehow, they didn't see ****.



It is sad but keep in mind...these people have to live in those neighborhoods and probably can't uproot their lives and move out of state with hidden identities.  It is one thing to lament that they won't testify, but can anyone really blame them when you look at the reality these people face?

Would you be willing to die to try to put a criminal in jail, knowing that there was a good chance that even with your testimony the guy still might go free...or get out of jail a few years later...or get his freinds to deal with you...or your wife...or your children?

If they testify is it possible that the friends (possibly gang affiliated friends ) will retaliate?  If so, what will the response of the police be?  will the police go out and kill those responsible for the death of the witness or his family member?  Probably not, so the guys killing the witness or his family members will only face an arrest...if the next witness is willing to take the chance that the friends of this killer won't kill them.

I often point out to people the reality of the police position.  The detectives walk up to the scene where the key witness has been found murdered.  The one says to the other..."That guy sure was brave, and without his testimony, the killer goes free..."  The other detective says..." Yeah, well...there is always next time...want to get a beer..."  My point is not, I repeat NOT, to condemn the police.  I am not, NOT saying that they would make light the death of a witness trying to help them.  

I am pointing out that the police can only do so much to help the witness, and that doesn't include killing those who threaten the witness, which may be the only real way to send a message that witnesses are off limits to friends and family of the criminal.  The police will continue to go about their lives while the witness could very well end up dead.  So really, can you blame the witnesses?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

In another thread on the subject of George Zimmerman, I decided to fact check myself and at this point, I am going to change my perspective somewhat. 

 I reread Zimmerman's account and according to the transcript, he was asked if he was pursuing and when he said yes, they told him he didn't need to, at which point, he broke it off.  Martin then (according to Zimmerman) confronted him on the way back to his vehicle.

To those of you with whom I have engaged in debate on the point of Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin, my apologies.  I was mistaken in my info and must change my position in light of what is actually known.  

Though we do not have an eyewitness account of the entire event from beginning to end, I believe that there is enough based on the transcript and Zimmerman's account for me to conclude that he broke off pursuit after being told "you don't need to do that" rather than engaging in pursuit after the fact.  This of course, significantly alters how one views the physical conflict.


----------



## billc

If more people looked at the testimony, and what was actually said by the various people, there would be less uproar over the verdict.


----------



## granfire

billc said:


> If more people looked at the testimony, and what was actually said by the various people, there would be less uproar over the verdict.



Oh, come on, kid! Where would be the fun in that?!
Let a perfectly good chance to riot go to waste?!

I am sure the usual suspects are laughing all the way to the bank, having yet once more poisoned the social landscape of this country....


----------



## Big Don

granfire said:


> I am sure the usual suspects are laughing all the way to the bank, having yet once more poisoned the social landscape of this country....



Of course you couldn't be referring to Senior member of the Grievance Industry Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton...


----------



## granfire

Big Don said:


> Of course you couldn't be referring to Senior member of the Grievance Industry Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton...



:lol:

Me?
Never
:angel:

you think he's skipping or doing the jig?


----------

