The judge in the murder trial of George Zimmerman has put the kibosh on the defense’s attempted plan to advance the “black thugs on drugs/bitch had it coming” defense:
Trayvon Martin’s familiarity with guns, his marijuana use, and fights he may have been in cannot be brought up in George Zimmerman’s murder trial, the judge overseeing the case ruled Tuesday.
At the hearing two weeks before the scheduled start of the trial, Judge Debra Nelson handed a series of victories to the prosecution when she barred the defense from introducing some information about Martin.
Defense attorneys argued that some of the evidence could prove crucial in backing up Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense, depending on what the prosecution argues.
They are also forbidden from using his text messages. Personally, I don’t have big enough balls to even attempt that kind of defense, because any prosecutor with half a brain could take five seconds and dispatch all of that by simply asking how it was possible for Zimmerman to have known about Martin’s drug use and text messages before gunning him down. But, I guess the defense has to try something.
El Caganer
His familiarity with guns? He wasn’t the one who had the fucking gun.
Amir Khalid
I was just looking at the ABC News story, which is carried on the Yahoo! News site. The pro-Zimmerman comments are something to behold.
Just Some Fuckhead
The kid was hepped up on goofballs, or skittlez as they call ’em in the hood, and he was wearing a menacing hoodie. Do we have to drug test every black person now before we shoot them down in the street?
aimai
But the reason they want to bring this stuff up isn’t because they are ever going to argue that Zimmerman knew any of it, but that because “its true! its true! he’s a black kid with text messages and gold teeth!” he was actually the agressor. The argument isn’t that Zimmerman had to know anything special about this particular black kid but that informaiton on this kid will demonstrate to the jury that all black kids are dangerous because they text and have gold teeth or whatever. It is merely being adduced to add versimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing tale.
Scott S.
Now the defense will have to use their fallback argument: “He was BLACK! Don’t you see?! HE WAS BLACK! BLAAAAACK!”
Actually, I’d bet good money that they’ll wait ’til the end of the trial, as it gets more and more clear that the jury’s going to return a Guilty As All Goddamn Sin verdict, then they’ll start screaming about guns and text messages in an attempt to get a mistrial…
Soprano2
I can’t believe they even thought that was evidence, how is stuff Zimmerman had no way of knowing even relevant? Obviously they think their only chance to win is to try the victim.
GregB
It’s funny how the political right sees Black people with guns as a sign of criminality not fealty to the Second Amendment.
pokeyblow
Zimmerman stalked and killed Trayvon Martin.
Law enforcement told him not to follow Martin. He initiated contact, he had the gun, and Martin would be alive had Zimmerman stayed home and commented on some blog that evening.
Nothing which has been disclosed since the original incident changes that quite clear interpretation.
Corner Stone
I’m glad to hear this Cole. This should make it all easier.
Just Some Fuckhead
When I’m smoking dope, I’m like a wild animal unleashed. Usually I’ll just keep snapping my gold teeth in the air at imaginary munchies.
EriktheRed
When the prosecutors in the Jeneane Nicarico murder case in my neck of the woods were themselves being prosecuted for allegedly railroading Rolondo Cruz (for those who don’t already know, they were acquitted), their defense tried to use the same argument against Cruz.
The basic argument was Cruz was a lowlife so he must have been guilty of something. The county where this is happened is predominantly Republican…surprise.
raven
It would account for him being a menace 2.
I was in a convenience store in a little town about 15 miles from Athens and there was a sign on the door saying “Take Your Hood Down Before You Enter”.
Jay
Zimmerman just makes my skin crawl. I don’t know if this was brought up around here, but a cousin of his accused him of molesting her while she was a pre-adolescent. Pot is legal in significant parts of the country now and lots of kids try it. Lots of kids tried it before states started legalizing it. Where’s the evidence that it turned them into monsters? The allegation by Zimmerman’s cousin, on the other hand, would strike me as relevant because it points to him being a physical guy. Zimmerman seems like someone who has an appetite for dangerous physical contact with people, and in the Martin case, he upped it to a lethal level.
Where, by the way, does the cousin’s allegation stand?
donnah
Welcome to post-racism, where no one is judged by his skin color or his clothing.
Blaming the victim, trying to influence the jury, sure, it’s a plan. Zimmerman killed Trayvon once, and now he’s trying to kill him again.
Leave Trayvon’s memory alone, you fuckers.
Bubblegum Tate
Man, Florida wingnuts are fucking pissed. And they’re pretty upset at this ruling by the judge, too.
Shakezula
Is this the same defense team that has asked for an anonymous jury since people might be afraid to acquit Zimmerman and then asked the judge to sequester the entire 500 member jury pool?
Yeah. Attempting to introduce information about Martin is the least incompetent thing I’ve seen from Team Clown Pants so far.
scav
@raven: KKK members notoriously pilfer the Werther’s Originals if one doesn’t take steps.
piratedan
@GregB: 2nd Amendment remedies for me, not for thee, because they obviously have engaged in voter fraud by voting and such.
Culture of Truth
Owning a gun is clear evidence someone is a thug who deserves to get shot.. That’s right up there on the NRA website.
Corner Stone
@Culture of Truth: Do you…own a gun?
*click*
Redshift
@Scott S.:
And he had somehow escaped from the inner city, which is the only place Those People live! Scary!
Corner Stone
@Culture of Truth: I’m pretty sure TM should not have owned a firearm. No matter what else you think about this case.
Tom_B
@pokeyblow: 100% agree; Z. was told NOT to pursue M. Open and shut, in my mind. But, if I were the prosecution, I’d have pushed to get it tried outside of Florida. I’m not sure you can find a jury of 12 there where there won’t be at least ONE racist/gun nut. That said, you never know; a conviction may happen.
burnspbesq
Criminal defense lawyers are ethically obligated to at least try to use anything that is arguably relevant. It’s not their job to decide what’s actually relevant; that’s the court’s job.
If you were the defendant, you would want your lawyers to do for you exactly what Zimmerman’s lawyers are trying to do for him. That’s how the system is designed to work.
Shakezula
@Jay: Where does it stand in relation to this case? Nowhere, I can’t imagine the prosecution trying to introduce anything like that as evidence. Especially since the judge is good and pissed off by the defense.
Mnemosyne
@EriktheRed:
Ugh. The Cruz case was particularly ugly because IIRC the asshole who had actually murdered Nicarico killed at least two other girls before he was caught, so the wrongful prosecution of Cruz actually delayed the apprehension of a child murderer and gave him an opportunity to kill again while Cruz was in custody.
How the prosecutors who fucked up that case can live with themselves, I have no idea.
pokeyblow
@Corner Stone: I agree that Trayvon shouldn’t have had a gun. I disagree with characterizing that fact/nonfact as something “about this case.”
Completely irrelevant to the circumstances of Martin’s murder.
El Cid
I suppose this PC judge will see it somehow as ‘improper’ for the Zimmerman defense to walk around the courtroom screaming “N*****” as loud as they can for several hours?
burnspbesq
@Tom_B:
Not possible. What other state’s courts have jurisdiction to try a case that arises under Florida law, where the plaintiff is the people of the state of Florida, the defendant is a Florida resident, and the criminal act of which the defendant is accused occurred in Florida?
rdldot
@Jay: He reminds me of a wanna-be cop. They’re usually just not hinged right.
pokeyblow
The right-wing celebration of Martin’s death and idolization of dirtbag cop wannabe Zimmerman has been one of the more revolting things to watch recently.
Trayvon Martin gun-range targets?
There sure are a lot of assholes in this country.
nellcote
At what point can the judge throw a gag order on the lawyers?
flukebucket
I heard on the radio that Martin had been suspended from school once because he possessed a plastic bag that could have at one time contained marijuana. Suspended from school due to an empty fucking sandwich baggie. As much as I loathe Zimmerman it is still ALEC that I want put on trial. Them and their damn Stand Your Ground laws.
Higgs Boson's Mate
I wonder if the defense will even put Zimmerman on the stand. IIRC he had a hard time keeping his story straight.
flukebucket
@Corner Stone:
What makes you think that? Can’t 5 year old girls own pink rifles? Was Martin a convicted felon or something? I admit I have not kept up with this very closely because it just makes me physically sick when I think about it.
EconWatcher
On this case, the defense lawyer will earn his pay, or fail to, during jury selection. How this one turns out is going to depend a whole lot on who ends up on that jury.
Warren Terra
Objection, your honor: blogger is assuming logical consideration of the facts by the jury.
The whole point of the disallowed Blackity-Black-Black Thug smear campaign wouldn’t have been to justify Zimmerman’s actions or explain his line of reasoning, but instead to make members of the jury secretly scared of Martin and glad they’d never meet him in some dark
suburballey.BruceFromOhio
That’s not the point. The objective is to cast doubt on the jury that Zimmerman really is a cold-blooded soulless murdering motherfucker.
Anna in PDX
Does anyone here follow this case on Talk Left? It seems to me like they are arguing about a different case, that is how weird their discussion looks to me. Maybe just because I am not a lawyer?
Amir Khalid
@Shakezula:
Given burnspbesq’s explanation of the defence lawyers’ ethical obligation to Zimmerman, I doubt the judge is mad at anybody. They were obligated to give it a go, introducing Trayvon’s history with drugs and guns; and she was obligated to reject the attempt because that stuff was irrelevant. The ref blows for a foul, gives the free kick, and the match goes on.
Warren Terra
@burnspbesq:
I seem to recall a federal court ruling on how Florida law should be interpreted (at least as regards the remedy available). Though, that ruling specifically said it should not be considered as a precedent in any future cases.
Chris
@BruceFromOhio:
Or rather, to confirm in the jury’s eyes that it doesn’t matter if he’s a cold-blooded soulless murdering motherfucker, because the person he murdered had it coming and Zimmerman shouldn’t be judged for what ended up being a public service.
cathyx
Zimmerman should have been drug tested right after this incident. But I don’t think he was.
pokeyblow
@Chris: That’s the game.
Roger Moore
@flukebucket:
Do they really need a trial? I think they’re kind of scary, so I should be within my rights to blow them away with a bazooka.
Culture of Truth
I’ve never heard of a victim’s gold teeth introduced as evidence. That would at least break new legal ground.
BruceFromOhio
@Chris: Oooh, nicely done.
This whole affair makes me want to puke my fucking guts out. Play the Gaia-damned 911 recording and fry this asshole already.
Ben Cisco
@El Cid: I’m stealing that shit, right now.
Cacti
I predict that regardless of the Judge’s decision, Zimmerman will get a hung jury or an outright acquittal.
Trayvon Martin was guilty of being a young black male. In America, that’s always been worthy of death.
Ben Cisco
@El Cid: Also, I have some internets to share with you.
pokeyblow
It’s a typical auro dentes case.
Tom Maguire
Martin and Zimmerman got in a fight. Who was the aggressor? Who knows?
The defense will contend that Martin started it. As the jury assess that possibility, would it be at all relevant to them to know that Martin had an interest in fighting and had been involved in various scuffles? Does that really have no bearing on the gauging the plausibility of his starting a fight?
By way of contrast, the prosecution seems to be free to introduce evidence of Zimmerman’s domestic violence restraining order and of his disorderly arrest. Baffling – is the prosecution contending that Zimmerman mistook Martin for his ex-girlfriend, or a cop? Or, wait, maybe they just want to show he has a violent streak!
If the violence in one guy’s history is relevant, it ought to be in the other.
As to the drugs, my recollection is that the trace amount of marijuana was probably consistent with Martin *not* being high at the time, in which case I don’t see the relevance.
pokeyblow
@Tom Maguire: No one in law enforcement told Martin to stay away from Zimmerman. Zimmerman approached Martin in some unspecified menacing and hostile fashion.
No equivalence.
David Hunt
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
Form what I’ve read, in general, putting the defendant on the stand to testify in their own defense is a clear sign that the defense is desperate. If a defense lawyer thinks the trial is going their way, they won’t risk putting their client in the position of being cross-examined by the prosecution and maybe admitting to something being or confused into making some contradictory statements that the prosecution can call attention to.
Of course, it doesn’t look like the defense will be very confident when the time comes to make that decision. If they put Zimmerman on the stand, it will probably mean he’s in deep trouble.
Ted & Hellen
@Tom Maguire:
You’re not supposed to express logic regarding this case at BJ. Cole is feeding his BJ PC sycophants in this post, and Zimmerman is just, you know, guilty and that’s all there is to it.
We don’t need no stinkin’ defense for a person we ALLLLLLLL know already is a cold blooded murderer of this very innocent and naive young man who could not and would not ever hurt a flea.
Shakezula
@Amir Khalid: I disagree. The throw it at the wall and see if it sticks method is good drama but it isn’t good lawyering.
It can be a sign that you’re incompetent (which will piss off the judge) or you think you’re smarter than the judge (which will infuriate the judge). As I said earlier, attempting to introduce information about Martin is the only thing I’ve seen from these idiots that is remotely not stupid. The B.S. with the jury … yeah, this judge is bound to be pissed.
John Cole
I’m going to go with the guy with a gun who stalked the other one after expressly being told not to by the dispatcher.
Martin isn’t on trial here. Zimmerman is. Zimmerman’s past is relevant. Martin’s isn’t.
pokeyblow
@Ted & Hellen: Would Trayvon Martin be alive had Zimmerman stayed away, like law enforcement told him to do?
Would that be better than the situation we have now?
Joel
It’s really too bad we can’t try the defense attorneys as well.
Chyron HR
@Ted & Hellen:
So do all self-proclaimed True Progressives think suspected pot smokers should be summarily executed in the street, or did you come up with that one on your own?
John Cole
@Ted & Hellen:
Smearing the dead person isn’t a defense. It’s fundamentally no different than claiming a woman deserved to be raped because her skirt was too short, etc. That’s why the judge threw it out and smacked the defense on the nose with a newspaper.
Or was she just playing to the BJ sycophants?
Cacti
@Tom Maguire:
Do you have a link to that? I know Zimmerman’s history has been reported on the news, but reported on the news and admissible in court are not the same.
aimai
@Tom Maguire: Zimmerman stalked Martin. That’s the basis of the interaction. Under Florida’s “stand your ground laws” if Martin chose to “stand his ground” and shoot Zimmerman theoretically (barring the fact that he was a young black man) HE would have been in the right. The guy who stalks another one is the agressor, by definition. Zimmerman’s imaginary “block warden” and “friend of the police” shtick notwithstanding he was not authorized to follow or stalk or harrass anyone by any law. He was a vigilante and if he’d gotten himself shot he’d have no one to blame but himself.
He killed a defenseless child who he targeted and stalked because the child was black. He has admitted as much and everything else is just so much smoke and mirrors. I hope he fries, but given Florida’s crazy application of its own statutes so that women defending themselves get 20 years in prison while men get off scot free hunting down and shooting their enemies I doubt he will be convicted.
Quaker in a Basement
any prosecutor with half a brain could take five seconds and dispatch all of that by simply asking how it was possible for Zimmerman to have known about Martin’s drug use
In the recording of the 9-1-1 call, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher he thinks the menacing black youth is “on drugs.” So see? This just proves Zimmerman was right…and also proves he was totally stupid. If he really thought Martin was on drugs and potentially dangerous, why on earth would he follow him into a dark alley way? Either way, this line of questioning raises questions about Zimmerman’s credibility.
Just Some Fuckhead
@John Cole:
Can someone tell me why Martin isn’t on trial? Other than being oh-so-conveniently dead?
Darkrose
Help! Pie filter on Chrome has stopped working since the most recent update. I see the buttons and I get the “Add $NAME to pie filter?” but when I reload the page, I still see their inane drivel.
EconWatcher
@John Cole:
Have to disagree with you there. If the prosecution is being allowed to introduce Zimmerman’s past behavior to show a propensity for violence, that would be unfair and inconsistent with longstanding rules of evidence. However, I don’t know if that’s really happening here.
aimai
@Ted & Hellen: He’s getting both a trial and a defense–that doesn’t mean that kibbitzers have to keep their mouths shut. At any rate he has already admitted shooting the child. He is bound to claim some kind of self defense to turn it from murder to manslaughter or self defense. But that doesn’t change the fact that he killed that kid. We don’t have to assume an innocence as to that fact. its not alleged: he’s admitted it. I happen to think that its a pretty serious thing for a child to be shot by a busybody vigilante with an agressive streak and a big gun.
MikeJ
@burnspbesq:
Even if you could legally move it, where would you take it? Georgia? Alabama?
Culture of Truth
Yes but without Zimmerman’s testimony, there is no self defense claim, only a dead teenager.
Just Some Fuckhead
@MikeJ:
Based on the “he needed killing” defense being proffered, I’d recommend Texas.
Cacti
@EconWatcher:
Again does anyone have any proof to support the above? Arrest records absent a conviction are generally inadmissible, as are misdemeanor convictions. Felony convictions more than 10 years old, are also usually inadmissible.
Mike G
@Just Some Fuckhead:
When I’m smoking dope, I’m like a wild animal unleashed. Usually I’ll just keep snapping my gold teeth in the air at imaginary munchies.
I like to play the piano really fast with a maniacal look in my eyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1jB7RBGVGk
Forum Transmitted Disease
Well, FYWP, thanks for eating my comment.
Anyhow, it doesn’t really matter. Trayvon Martin was murdered and George Zimmerman, thanks to Florida law, is going to get away with it. He’ll be bankrupt at the end, but what matter? He’s still breathing.
Mr Stagger Lee
@Cacti: I suspect you’re right, considering what that jury would be made of,probably one of them will be that Papa John’s delivery guy who got fired for racist remarks on the phone. Then again I bet Martin’s family will have a civil suit ready for Mr. Zimmerman.
cathyx
I have faith in the jury system and they will find Zimmerman guilty.
scav
The second amemdment is totally about well-regulated self-appointed militiamen being able to blow away people who might have indulged in weed and handled firearms in the past. The Mighty Zimm was on his self-assembled Stand Your Beat rounds and clearly deserves a medal or something in FL (and might very well get one plus a parade there). In AZ he might have been the one getting pulled over automatically, but it’s a big nation.
David in NY
@Culture of Truth: Actually, gold teeth (or the absence thereof) were introduced in an old case in my office. Identification issue. I think we won on appeal, but I’m damned if I can remember the story.
Ted & Hellen
@John Cole:
Cole, you’re playing stupid and not very well.
You’re not a lawyer. Quit trying so hard to pretend to know what you’re talking about.
ruviana
@Jay: Perhaps off point but it was TWENTY-FIVE years ago that there was this kerfuffle about smoking dope. As I recall a bunch of folks (Newt?) said they’d done a little recreational dope smoking. And of course it’s still the big bogey man.
Roger Moore
@Culture of Truth:
I’m not sure that he has to get up on the stand to make the claim, or if his lawyers can make it for him in their opening and closing statements. Then all they need to do is to provide evidence that a reasonable person would see as cause for Zimmerman to be afraid, and he has a legal basis for using deadly force under SYG. If there’s eye witness evidence of a fight between the two, physical evidence of injuries, etc. that can be enough to make the defense without Zimmerman having to say a word.
Ted & Hellen
@aimai:
Wow. You are shameless.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Joel: Don’t even go there. Just don’t. This is a nation of laws. The alternative is warlordism or religious courts.
I know all too well that court cases can get really ugly, with out-and-out lies and worse taking the place of sober facts, but by God even Zimmerman deserves the very best trial and defense he can be given. Ideally, there would be a nice clean needle on a union-made execution table at the end of the process.
Trollhattan
@pokeyblow:
Right. I’ve yet to see a reason given why a volunteer community watch member was armed. Their task is to patrol, observe and call the police when they see something suspicious or clearly illegal occurring. They are NOT law enforcement and do not directly intervene, much less with deadly force. Period.
Ted & Hellen
@Darkrose:
You poor, defenseless child.
SatanicPanic
@Ted & Hellen: Are you auditioning for some more amoral Slate type of website and we just don’t know it?
Trollhattan
@Ted & Hellen:
Shut the fuck up, Donnie. Now score that zero.
Amir Khalid
@David in NY:
I think what Culture of Truth was getting at was, have gold teeth ever been offered as evidence of a person’s unsavoury character? Which, I suspect, would strike most people as absurd.
Roger Moore
@SatanicPanic:
Given his choice of subject matter, I’d assume he’s looking for a job at Epicurious.
TooManyJens
@Darkrose: Try Troll-B-Gone:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/167925
It hides trolls and the replies to them. Very handy for decluttering a thread.
David in NY
@Cacti: Well, Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rule of Evidence specifically prohibits propensity evidence: “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Law is pretty much the same elsewhere. There are lots of exceptions, admissible to show knowledge, admissible to show specific modus operandi, etc. And if Zimmerman took the stand, honesty related crimes could be brought in (usually with some time limit, as you note). But you asked about propensity. Not for that.
David in NY
@Amir Khalid: Sorry, I was just going off topic.
David in NY
@Forum Transmitted Disease: You were going so well until you got to the execution …
burnspbesq
@Joel:
On what charge?
Forum Transmitted Disease
@David in NY: Sorry to harsh your mellow, you fucking hippie. I want that murdering piece of shit dead.
David Hunt
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
I agree to everything that you wrote except the execution part. But aside from that, definitely on the same page. Denying even a loathsome human being a defense or punishing his legal defense is about five steps down the path to barbarism.
aimai
@Mr Stagger Lee: That was a fascinating situation. I recently was on a women’s forum where the subject of just how terrible “black people” are as tippers came up and a number of women insisted that they knew for a fact that “black people” don’t tip–women who represented themselves as waiters told us allthat with tremendous authority. But the Pizza story makes it clear that one server essentially stole a pretty big tip from the other by asserting that the black guy didn’t tip. Makes you wonder how often that happens and how often one (white person’s) peculations are pushed off on the innocent customer.
I’m editing this to add that it was incredibly obvious that the main woman pushing this story was an incredibly racist liar but there was simply no way to counter her arguments given the anonymity of the board and the rules about calling out another poster. But you could sort of see the urban myth being created before your eyes.
David in NY
@Forum Transmitted Disease: That makes you just like Zimmerman.
liberal
@Tom Maguire:
LOL.
Jack the Second
@Chris:
If the victim wasn’t really a person, than it couldn’t really have been murder.
aimai
@Ted & Hellen: Shameless? That’s the fact. Child. Unarmed. Unless you think skittles and iced tea constitute a deadly weapon.
liberal
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
Pretty much meaningless in FL, where you’re apparently allowed to execute people in cold blood now.
TooManyJens
@aimai:
Ma, I learned a new word today!
aimai
@David in NY: No it doesn’t. Wishes aren’t actions.
Cacti
@aimai:
I kid you not, on another discussion board a winger suggested that the skittles and iced tea were for making Purple Drank.
TR
@Ted & Hellen:
Why do you post here? No one cares. No one.
David Hunt
@David in NY:
Although I believe I’m in agreement with you on opposing capital punishment, I think your point is off. It is my understanding that FTD has stated his desire for the Zimmerman to get a fair trial with a skilled and competent defense that results in a lawful execution. Although, I’m against capital punishment, wanting Zimmerman to get the maximum punishment Florida law allows after a fair trial is vastly different from stalking a killing a teenage boy because you don’t like his looks.
StringOnAStick
@rdldot:
This.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
@Scott S.:
Now the defense will have to use their fallback argument: “He was BLACK! Don’t you see?! HE WAS BLACK! BLAAAAACK!”
Well, a defense team needs to use the defense that gives the greatest hope to their client.
And trying to fill the jury with bigots and scream about how BLAAAAACK Martin was may well be that defense.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@David in NY: Naw, I’m WAY better looking.
Kris Collins
@Warren Terra: Federal courts may apply state law in cases in which they otherwise have jurisdiction, but there is no Federal jurisdiction in this case. Also, the previous commenter is correct, since this involves acts that took place in Florida involving only Florida residents, only Florida has jurisdiction. (BTW, I am an attorney, so I’m not making this up.)
Cacti
@Phoenician in a time of Romans:
Nobody goes into criminal defense hoping that it will win them a lot of friends.
Your only duty is to give your client the best possible defense, within the law and the rules of professional conduct.
Odie Hugh Manatee
What made me laugh was that O’mara released all of this stuff to the public and then acts concerned about “infection” of the jury and asking for it to be sequestered. Then he asks that the Martin family be silenced from talking anymore about the case.
Slimy lawyer is slimier than snake shit.
El Cid
There are dozens of people who walk through my neighborhood every day and some of them look like the sort for whom I could come up with a story about feeling threatened et al, and I’m sure some of them might even turn and challenge or fight me if I followed them for a while and then somehow seemed to threaten or challenge them, particularly at night.
The best thing for everyone involved is if I shoot them at night with a rifle and night vision scope so that nobody gets hurt, I mean, I don’t get hurt, and these people who very well might in some way or other either real or hypothetically be dangerous can then properly be taken out, as the Good Lord and the 2nd Amendment intended.
I don’t know who these people are, but some of them walk awfully suspiciously. Not the gait of an innocent person, if you know what I mean.
Just Some Fuckhead
@aimai: Don’t Erudites start with a +18 on melee attacks?
aimai
@Just Some Fuckhead: I don’t get it. I have a perfectly ordinary vocabulary.
Todd
@Ted & Hellen:
Go get your shine box, Ted.
RevRick
Just imagine that the deceased in this case was Tracy Martin, a 17 year-old white girl. The whole nation would be screaming for the head of George Zimmerman, predatory stalker.
ranchandsyrup
@Odie Hugh Manatee: it’s always projection.
Amir Khalid
@David Hunt:
As I recall, George Zimmerman is not facing a charge of capital murder, but second-degree murder — which could mean a life sentence, I think.
Kristin
I feel like defending George Zimmerman is where the contrarian/concern troll shtick jumps the shark.
mai naem
Here’s a nice little story from the same town, Sanford:
http://gawker.com/papa-johns-employee-butt-dials-customer-leaves-racist-510109337
Chyron HR
@Todd:
Hey, Tim’s got a point. The authorities should bring Martin in and try him for allegedly smoking pot and sending menacing text messages.
Oh, wait, Zimmerman already decided Martin was “just, you know, guilty” of those things and shot him dead in the street. Never mind!
aimai
@Kristin:
I guess I think its sufficient to defend the proposition that someone like George Zimmerman get a fair trial and a good defense. After that? Its morally wrong to defend the proposition that a person who did what George Zimmerman did is entitled to exist in civil society without paying a steep price in terms of a jail sentence or even execution (if the state has execution).
Corner Stone
@Kristin: I agree. Let’s dunk that motherfucker til he confesses!!
Corner Stone
@aimai: Jesu de Cristo.
Kristin
@aimai: I guess I should have been more clear about what I meant about “defending.” By “defending,” I meant getting righteously indignant about people even simply stating facts about George Zimmerman just for the sake of being argumentative.
I absolutely agree he’s entitled to a fair trial and a competent defense. That’s a staple of our democracy and justice system.
Litlebritdifrnt
@RevRick:
THIS!
Cygil
@Anna in PDX: Does anyone here follow this case on Talk Left?
Jeralyn Meritt is a complete basket case and, despite the name, about as left wing as Mao Tse Tung’s chief torturer. Zimmerman is a saint to her because she drops her panties for mall ninjas and militia types. Don’t give the woman hits, is my advice.
aimai
@Corner Stone: I haven’t pied you yet but its only because of your entertainment value. You, or troll you, are almost the worst person I’ve ever encountered on the internet, other than Ted and Helen. Reading your posts is like entering into a black hole filled with bile and disgusting inhumanity. Come to think of it, I will pie you.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Anna in PDX:
Jeralyn is a Zimmerman supporter and is pretending to be running the case on their site and forum in a neutral manner, which makes for some convoluted discussions there as Zimmerman supporters try to slur and slam Martin and the prosecutors/judge and not get their posts deleted by her because they went too far.
It makes for some really weird reading, that’s for sure.
Jebediah
@burnspbesq:
I am not a lawyer, but I have had this argument with friends and acquaintances more times than I can count – an adversarial system requires both sides to do their best for their client. The results aren’t always perfect, of course. But what else have we got? BTW, have you ever seen Marilyn Vos Savant’s column? She supposedly has an IQ of a gazillion and a half, and answers readers’ questions. Many years ago, in her column, she espoused the idea that guilty people should not be afforded the best, most competent counsel. I have been unable to find an online version of that column- it was pre-Internet – but as I recall, she didn’t really have a good solution for the problem of knowing guilt pre-trial.
Corner Stone
@aimai: Hahaha. You coward. You’re a flaming sack of hypocrisy. You lose your shit regularly and blink out like the flaming buffoon you are.
You scare me to death that people think you’re a normative figure in society.
Unsympathetic
The bizarro assumption that Martin must be innocent just because – has to stop.
The conversation with DeeDee allegedly at the time of the incident really took place three hours earlier.. the call logs were in PST not EST.
The direct evidence on the crime scene indicated that GZ was legitimately defending himself against a physical threat upon his life. Unless, of course, you believe he punched himself in the eye (twice), he broke his own nose, and he pounded his own head against the concrete. Zimmerman’s neighbors also spoke to police about the signs of injury on Zimmerman’s head the day after the shooting.
The remaining question is whether those injuries, especially the means by which he sustained the injuries to the back of his head, gave him a reasonable objective belief that he was about to suffer either serious personal injury or death.
If so the shoot is legally permissible and no resort to “stand your ground” is necessary as you are always permitted to use deadly force to end a felony attack upon your person that is likely to result in serious personal injury or death.
Kristin
My favorite kind of internet trolls are the ones who are moral scolds while, at the same time, being complete assholes to total strangers for sport. Self-awareness, how does it work?
Phoenician in a time of Romans
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Can someone tell me why Martin isn’t on trial? Other than being oh-so-conveniently dead?
Surely “walking while black” is SOME form of crime?
Corner Stone
@Corner Stone: Shorter Comrade Aimai:
“He deserves a fair trial followed by a quick execution. Make sure to send the bill for the bullet to his family.”
Corner Stone
@Kristin: If aimai doesn’t pie you for asking her, that would still probably not be a very interesting answer.
Chyron HR
@Unsympathetic:
Whereas there was no evidence of any physical threat upon Martin’s life, and he clearly had no reason to assume that he was about to suffer either serious personal injury or death, so fuck him.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
@Cacti:
Nobody goes into criminal defense hoping that it will win them a lot of friends.
Your only duty is to give your client the best possible defense, within the law and the rules of professional conduct.
Oh, I’m not disagreeing. The simple reasoning behind that is that any one of us can find ourselves on trial against a State with overwhelming resources, and it is only a matter of self defense that any form of legal defense be allowed.
But that doesn’t stop it feeling slimy.
Unsympathetic
@Chyron HR:
Should Z have been there? No. Does it matter? NO. But keep spinning and deflecting, that’s all you’ve got.
Doesn’t matter how it started.. what matters is the situation. TM had mounted Z and was pounding his head into the pavement.
Open-and-shut.
Trollhattan
@Unsympathetic:
Fail. The only thing here “bizarro” is that Zimmerman felt the need to chase down Martin while carrying a gun. He had no right or obligation to do this. He was told, specifically, not to do this. Guess what, he did it anyway. Nobody wants this asshat loose in their neighborhood so he can do it again.
Chyron HR
@Unsympathetic:
I have a sincere question for you: Do you really think you’re fooling anyone?
Phoenician in a time of Romans
@Unsympathetic:
The bizarro assumption that Martin must be innocent just because – has to stop.
Remind me again where and when Martin was convicted?
Unsympathetic
@Chyron HR:
Show your case law, boy. You’re wrong.
Emma
@Unsympathetic: Let’s see if I understand you. You’re walking back to your father’s house carrying a soda and some candy. Some stranger in a car starts stalking you. This stranger was SPECIFICALLY TOLD BY THE COPS NOT TO DO THIS. Then he gets out of his car and threatens you. You defend yourself in a fight. But you’re a black teenager, so you’re the guilty one.
Gotcha.
Unsympathetic
@Trollhattan:
Assumptions don’t matter. What matters is the situation. Keep spinning, it’s all you’ve got.
Unsympathetic
@Emma:
You never have the right to MMA-mount someone and pound their head into the pavement – ever. Under any circumstances.
Doesn’t matter how it starts, what matters is how it ended. And you’re wrong.
joes527
@Kristin: And a presumption of innocence? And the requirement that he be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And acquittal if after “a fair trial and a competent defense” 12 angry men have just 1 reasonable doubt?
I have nothing nice to say about Zimmerman, but it amazes me how so many people here have absolute knowledge of Zimmerman, Martin and what happened one rainy evening.
I guess I’m just not as omniscient as y’all.
Trollhattan
@Unsympathetic:
You’re the spinner here, grasshopper. You can begin by dwarf-splainin’ why he’s been charged and prosecuted in Way Liberal Suburban Florida. That you like to make up kewhl kid “facts” to support, well, nobody’s sure what is just a bonus. Do carry on.
Chyron HR
@Unsympathetic:
Ha ha, you do. You actually do. Let me guess, is “Nigvon” some sort of legal terminology with Latin roots?
El Cid
I’m sick and tired of all these people acting like Martin is innocent of what he was charged with. That’s what a trial is for.
Same is true for Zimmerman.
Trollhattan
@Emma:
“Stop making up what actually happened, and listen to the pretend ‘facts, libtard!'”
/wingnut
pokeyblow
Seems to me, if I go up to some random person, pick a fight, then shoot that person I’ve committed a murder.
Doesn’t matter whether that random person is a Ghandi or a Gacy.
Corner Stone
@El Cid: Absolutely.
Kristin
@joes527: I was giving the trolls a hard time, because I don’t even think they believe what they’re saying. They’re just being contrarians for the sake of it.
I’m sorry my comment was so unclear. I wish I hadn’t made it, because it’s being completely misunderstood (which I understand is my fault).
trex
@Unsympathetic
You never have the right to MMA-mount someone and pound their head into the pavement – ever. Under any circumstances
Really? But you have the right to kill them with guns? Interesting world you live in.
Also interesting how you know that Zimmerman didn’t trip and fall on his face, or tackle Martin and fall on his face, or was MMA pounding this teenager in the gut and the teen pushed him down and he fell on his face. You’ve woven quite the fantasy narrative there.
EDIT: let me just ass that it is indeed quite possible that the fight ended and Zimmerman shot Martin because he was frustrated and ashamed at having not controlled this situation like a real cop, or because his willy is too small, or for some other pedestrian reason that often moves people to violence
Cacti
@El Cid:
Martin wasn’t charged with anything. Dead people can’t be charged.
Ted & Hellen
@TR:
Because I want to.
Unlike you, I don’t limit my comments to hermetically sealed echo chambers where everyone agrees with me.
Douche.
pokeyblow
@joes527: Established facts:
Z was told not to follow M.
Z ignored that advice. Had he not, no confrontation, no death.
Z shot unarmed M dead.
Z fucked up, and someone died because of it. Manslaughter at least.
Unsympathetic
@Trollhattan:
Keep spinning, it’s all you’ve got. Never answer why you think it’s appropriate to allow people to mount someone MMA-style and pound their head into the pavement!
El Cid
@trex: Shooting someone with a gun is pure and unchallengeable if you’re the right type of person. Physically beating someone is morally dirty and questionable.
Only the gun has the purity of spirit needed to help us determine when violence is needed and when it isn’t.
If the right sort of person really, really believes that shooting someone with a firearm was necessary, we have to presume that spiritually they are correct.
On the other hand, someone punching someone sounds like someone who could be rash, or impulsive, capable of making bad decisions.
Shooting someone is a clean, pure act, whereas wrestling or beating someone is the sort of thing done by a primitive person driven by animal instincts.
Kristin
@Unsympathetic: Wow! Is the defense team aware that there was an eyewitness to the incident?
El Cid
@Cacti: Pffft. Minor details.
Cacti
@Unsympathetic:
False.
You have a right to self-defense that is proportional with the threat of harm. Like say if an unknown person has been tailing you, exits their car, and proceeds to draw a gun.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Unsympathetic:
“Boy”? Ahh, you’re one of those people.
Regarding your assumptions, I suppose that you would just stand there with some dude holding a gun on you for no reason in a dark alley if you saw that there was a chance that you could disarm and subdue the creep that is holding you at gunpoint? Of course this would require a fierce struggle, right? That the victim would have to injure the creep, probably significantly, right?
Or is the above scenario only acceptable when the victim is white? Martin was minding his own business that night and would still be alive if Zimmerman had done the same.
Cygil
Everyone is entitled to a defense, but lawyers — defense or prosecution — don’t have unlimited moral license to embrace sleazy tactics. “Every last anglo-saxon one of you has the courage to acquit these men” is disgustingly sleazy, even if the court permits it. Slandering of the victim is disgustingly sleazy, even if the court permits it — and the court hasn’t permitted it, which is why the defense is resorting to trying to pollute the jury pool.
So, the issue here is as follows:
Does the defense have an unlimited right to embrace sleazy tactics? No.
Are the defense tactics sleazy? Obviously.
pokeyblow
@Unsympathetic:
If some toucher-looking dude like Zimmerman pulls a gun on me and I have the chance to fight back, I certainly will.
Ted & Hellen
@Kristin:
BJ could use a lot more of this and a lot less of the predictable lynch mob thingie.
Mnemosyne
@pokeyblow:
Not in Florida, you haven’t. In Florida, you can take a gun to your ex-wife’s house, confront her new boyfriend, shoot him dead, and it’s all perfectly legal. But if you fire a warning shot at your abusive ex rather than killing him, you’ll go to prison for 20 years.
Because that’s exactly how fucked up Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law is — they have legalized murder and ensured that you face a less severe penalty if you kill someone than if you merely injure or threaten them.
Unsympathetic
@trex:
They’re called laws – you might want to look into them.
It’s not even a stand-your-ground issue.. he was being felony assaulted. Doesn’t matter how he got into that situation. As I said above, he wasn’t smart and clearly shouldn’t have been there.. but that doesn’t change the situation. He picked a fight with a boxer and could have been killed in one punch.
In any state, today: If you’re being felony assaulted with reasonable suspicion your life is in danger, you can kill and it’s a clean shoot — even if you started the fight. Now. Today.
Emma
@Unsympathetic: Wrong. I have the absolute right to defend myself if someone is threatening me. Especially if that person is carrying a gun. Someone stalks me in a car, then gets out of the car and threatens me, I have the right to stop him. Even if I use a concrete block to do it.
Under your scenario, it would have been better for Martin to kill Zimmerman rather than just fight him off.
Trollhattan
@Unsympathetic:
You keep repeating the same nonsensical thing while spinning around in a tiny orbit and telling people they’re “spinning.” Must be exhausting. Where have I seen this schtick before…hmmmm, must think.
O’Reilly, izzat really you? Don’t you have a broadcast or something?
lojasmo
@aimai:
LOL
Mnemosyne
@Unsympathetic:
If some weirdo has been following me in his car and then pulls a gun on me, you’d better believe I’d react like that to defend myself. What am I supposed to do, let him shoot me down while I have my hands raised because otherwise I’m not fighting fair?
Unsympathetic
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Good effort, troll!
Z is Hispanic. Nobody’s white. Your scenario fails.
El Cid
@Emma: No, concrete blocks are violent and threatening. Guns, on the other hand, can only be used by people correctly seeking to defend their lives from others who might be threatening.
JordanRules
@Unsympathetic: So if Martin was defending himself and ended up kicking the dudes ass (which is highly likely given that Zimmerman sounds like a big ass buster) then it’s not self-defense anymore? You’re so effing dense.
What if it wasn’t MMA style?? What if it was ‘Granny with her purse sitting on her attacker getting her licks in’ style?
Also too, asserting that it doesn’t matter how it started is so bassackwards that I think you might need to go live in a bubble.
Mnemosyne
@Unsympathetic:
Links, please. Concentrate on the “even if you started the fight” part when you show us your proof, because most states call that “homicide,” not “you’re free to go.”
Cacti
@Cygil:
Absolutely, yes.
Provided that they are neither: A. Illegal, or, B. Against the rules of professional conduct. The life and/or freedom of the accused hangs in the balance of a felony trial. Good sportsmanship by their counsel isn’t a mitigating factor at sentencing.
pokeyblow
@Mnemosyne: Yes. The law here is failing to correctly represent a common-sense concept. Viz.: “corporations are people” and “blacks are 3/5 persons.”
Also, “let’s look forward” and punish no one for killing 100,000+ Iraqis.
In the hypothetical I described, I committed a murder.
lojasmo
@Unsympathetic:
According to the killer.
PIGL
@Ted & Hellen: what, are you still here? I thought I told you to fuck off and die in a fire.
Unsympathetic
@Emma:
Congratulations!
That has no relation to the Zimmerman trial.
Nobody’s saying [except, perhaps, you?] that stand-your-ground is erroneous. The Z trial isn’t a stand-your-ground situation.. because stand-your-ground must have the ability to leave.
El Cid
@Mnemosyne: I think it’s under the “Not How You Start the Fight But How You Finish It” Amendment.
liberal
@Mnemosyne:
Agreed. The law in FL is now just mind-numbingly bad. There’s no reasonable conclusion other than “they have legalized murder.”
Unsympathetic
@lojasmo:
No, according to the police video of Z being taken into the police station. And zimmerman’s neighbors. And the EMT at the scene. And the police at the scene.
But aside from them, nobody.
burnspbesq
@Phoenician in a time of Romans:
That’s why God created showers. And bourbon.
Mnemosyne
@liberal:
It really is as bad as people say. The Tampa Bay Times database is horrifying. The whole “angry ex kills new boyfriend and then claims he felt threatened” scenario has happened multiple times.
Amir Khalid
@Unsympathetic:
Disregarding police advice, George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin and confronted him. Zimmerman could then have used his gun to keep Trayvon at bay. Yet, if we believe his version of events, he let Trayvon pounce on him, force him to the ground, and (with bare hands) begin pounding his head into the pavement. Only then did he finally remember to bring out his gun.
If they are to convince a jury of Zimmerman’s not-guilt, his lawyers will need a more plausible story.
Cygil
@Cacti: Well that’s where you’re wrong. And beliefs like this are precisely why lawyers have such disgusting reputations among ordinary people.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Mnemosyne:
Yes, because to do otherwise is to give him a legal frag. Why do you hate America?
Unsympathetic
@JordanRules:
You have the right not to like people not being able to commit felony assault, but them’s the laws. What they basically legalized is people having to stop fighting once the threat is neutralized.. eg, old-school ways of fighting. If you follow to the ground, now it’s on you.
Plantsmantx
@Anna in PDX:
No, it’s because TalkLeft has been pro-Zimmerman from the beginning.
Unsympathetic
@Amir Khalid:
Wrong. TM was over 6′ and was a boxing instructor.
TAPX486
@Quaker in a Basement: Or his sanity.
muddy
“it’s a clean shoot”
Who talks this way? So funny.
Cacti
@Cygil:
That’s true.
No, that’ where you fail to understand the role of defense counsel in an adversarial legal proceeding.
Trollhattan
@burnspbesq:
Couple of good friends are county public defenders and yes, they represent both the wrongly accused and serial felon with equal vigor. You can’t administer justice via popularity meter.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Unsympathetic: “Doesn’t matter how he got into that situation.”
Using your legal ‘logic’, a store clerk being robbed and in fear of losing their life would be guilty of felony assault if they were able to disarm and subdue the armed robber.
Are you really this stupid?
Plantsmantx
@Unsympathetic:
You’re telling us that they all testified to seeing Martin pounding Zimmerman’s head onto the pavement?
El Cid
I’m sick and tired of people trying to put all these rules on when I can and can’t legally shoot somebody. I think that should entirely be my decision.
Trollhattan
@muddy:
Reminds me of the Iraq helicopter video released by Wikileaks. The conversational banality while they considered then determined to shred civilians and journalists will haunt me always.
Unsympathetic
@Odie Hugh Manatee: Your trolling is fun and informative. Invent another one, please – because as you know none of them will be remotely relevant to the Zimmerman case!
Amir Khalid
@Unsympathetic:
Show me a boxer who can punch faster than a flying bullet.
Just Some Fuckhead
@El Cid:
Welcome to Obama’s America where you ain’t free no more.
lojasmo
@Unsympathetic:
Hipanic americans are considered to be white, jackass.
Hispanicity is independent of race, and designates ethnicity.
Ethnicity and race are independent concepts. Zimmerman was white.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Unsympathetic:
I should have said “if the assailant is black and the victim is not”.
El Cid
@Just Some Fuckhead: George Washington didn’t die on the cross so that you or I would have to think so damn much about whether or not we could shoot somebody when we thought they might need shootin’.
Mnemosyne
@Unsympathetic:
Actually, no. In Florida, the law is “survivor gets to walk free.” If you chase a guy down the street after he stole your car radio, stab him to death, and try to re-sell the stolen radios, it’s all perfectly legal, because you can claim you felt threatened during the final confrontation.
Cygil
Zimmerman’s race, listed on the initial police report, was “White.” He was white enough for the police and for the prosecutor’s office to decline to investigate further despite the lead investigator recommending that charges be laid. That’s all that’s important here.
DaveMN
It’s astonishing to me that at this date some people still believe “Z was told not to follow M.” Here’s the transcript as provided by someone at Mother Jones:
Dispatcher: “Are you following him?”
Zimmerman: “Yeah.”
Dispatcher: “Okay, we don’t need you to do that.”
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
The police did not tell, order, or even suggest that Zimmerman not follow Martin. They simply said they didn’t need him to do that.
At least get your facts straight.
El Cid
@Mnemosyne: How else do you breed an army of killers available when the supervillain offers a billion dollars to anyone who will kill the supervillain’s target?
Just Some Fuckhead
@El Cid:
Praise the baby Jesus, El Lucid. I fear for the future of America when lawbiding white folks cain’t defend themselves from thugs brandishing skittles and sodypop.
Trollhattan
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
This one is beginning to sound like “Ben Franklin.” There’s software what could figger that out, but not worth the bother, methinks. But any troll whose first reflex is to convey superior goodness upon the gun-fondler….
Quarks
@Unsympathetic: I shouldn’t feed the trolls, but —
What witnesses?
The entire reason why Florida is footing the bill for a trial, instead of ending this with a plea bargain of some sort or other, is because nobody saw what happened. We have Zimmerman’s 911 call. We have neighbors who heard gunshots and called the police. We have the police who arrived after Martin was dead.
We do not have video showing their confrontation. We can correctly assume (based on reports made to the press) that the neighbors weren’t paying attention until they started to hear screams and gunfire, which means that they don’t know how this got started either. We have reports that Zimmerman was injured, but we don’t have any video or other evidence saying how he got his injuries. We can GUESS, but that’s about it.
And that’s why we are having a trial, to let a jury decide if the situation justified Zimmerman’s feeling threatened enough to pull a gun on and shoot Martin. It’s not as fun or as cheap as drawing conclusions from things you’ve read on the internet, but it is more fair.
Culture of Truth
@Roger Moore: I had not heard of an eyewitness to their fight. Even so, this type of defense, given we already know GZ shot and killed TM, makes it much more likely that GZ will testify, otherwise I agree he should not testify.
Trollhattan
@Mnemosyne:
Wow, don’t anybody tell Issa about this.
Svensker
@El Cid:
Pretty much covers it.
liberal
@Mnemosyne:
The whole thing is sickening.
joes527
@pokeyblow:
Undeniable. Absolutely unassailable proof that Z is an asshat. Criminal? Ask a lawyer, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t. Negligent … something (maybe) Murder? no. Manslaughter? I doubt it. But like I said, ask a lawyer.
Z shot … M dead. Again undeniable. Unarmed? Yes, if we limit ourselves to the guns vs skittles count. But Was M doing violence to Z when he shot? Who threw the first punch? (was there even a punch?) Who crossed the line from 2 guys on the street to a physical altercation? When was the gun drawn? (was the brandishing of the gun the thing that precipitated a physical confrontation? (did M injure Z because Z had pulled a gun on him and he was fighting for his life?)) These are all questions that Z and M supporters will tell you are perfectly clear. But M is dead (so can’t tell his side) Z’s story has shifted, and seems on the surface to be completely self serving. And all the other witnesses that I’ve heard of saw a piece … at a distance … through the rain. The physical evidence as presented in the media is ambiguous.
So, yeah. Z shot unarmed M dead. But that’s far from the whole story.
Again, your gonna need a lawyer, but I suspect that if the whole case is “Z fucked up, and someone died because of it.” then it isn’t even manslaughter.
Personally I believe that Zimmerman was a danger to the community, and the shooting of Martin was the result of Zimmerman being a danger. But Zimmerman needs to be judged before the law, not before me. There I believe (strongly) in presumption of innocence. I don’t know what happened in those moments where an asshole following another guy on the street turned into a lethal encounter.
What amazes me is that I seem to be the only one who doesn’t know.
Just Some Fuckhead
How do we know Trayvon Martin wasn’t in the evil clutches of gangsta rap?
dmbeaster
@Tom Maguire:
Basically, past misconduct is not permitted to prove propensity to act in a certain way as to either Zimmerman or Martin. We all use such evidence in day to day life, but for policy reasons, the courts do not allow it (with a few exceptions which I don’t think apply here; the biggest exception is past felonies, which are allowed under a credibility rather than propensity theory, which is a fig leaf for how it is actually used). The reason is that you end up trying not one episode, but countless other episodes in a person’s life which are also going to be disputed. And there is huge potential for prejudice in trying to hash out a life history and “propensity” based on that.
There is also the fact that the defense is based on what a person in Zimmerman’s position would reasonably believe to justify self-defense. It is not based on some other metric, like what you believe after-the-fact about it. If you crossed paths with a black person who presented no objective indicia of violence, but who happened to turn out to be a gang leader, would gunning him down be justifiable based on that fact?
There is another related point I will make below.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Unsympathetic:
Yup, you really are that stupid. Talking about assault, Martin was assaulted and killed by Zimmerman for no reason other than he was where he was at that time.
Zimmerman went looking for trouble and created it. End of story.
Mnemosyne
@joes527:
Huh? Even in Florida, accidentally killing someone is a crime. That’s why Zimmerman’s lawyers are trying to claim that he deliberately shot and killed Martin while Zimmerman was in fear for his life, because an accidental shooting would mean at least a few months in jail on a manslaughter conviction.
Culture of Truth
@David in NY: I should have known. There’s nothing new under the sun.
But teeth as evidence as thuggery, and thence to self defense and killing? I bet that’s new, or at least not common.
Corner Stone
@Quarks:
I’m a little shocked. Where did you grow up that would make you think this is even close to a reasonable outcome?
TAPX486
Zimmerman, dispite being told not to, followed Martin. At some point there was a confrontation. It seems reasonable that Martin was in some fear for his safety after all he had no idea who Zimmerman was or what he was up to. The only weapon Martin had to defend himself were his fists and he used them. We only have Zimmerman’s word that Martin was trying to kill him. It is at least plausible that Martin kept punching Zimmerman because Zimmerman kept punching back.
It still gets back to the one fact that is not in dispute – Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin.
liberal
@joes527:
LOL. The amazing thing is that you seem to think that the only way someone can be convicted of murder is that a videotape of the event is released, with Jesus coming down from on high to vouch for its authenticity.
Mike Lamb
@Unsympathetic: Because the guy approaching him had a fucking gun?
Unsympathetic
@Quarks:
Not a witness to the fight – a witness to GZ’s head trauma.
If he had blood dripping out the back of his head — which the video of GZ going to the police station that day does show — then to believe TM is innocent, you have to believe GZ did that to himself.
The “fight” is over with the first or second punch.. TM was a boxer, that’s available on youtube.
Everything after that was TM choosing to assault GZ. And because TM easily layed out GZ, GZ couldn’t leave.. which means SYG doesn’t apply, it’s simple felony assault.
Which is what I’ve been saying the whole time.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Trollhattan: “But any troll whose first reflex is to convey superior goodness upon the gun-fondler….”
But only if that gun-fondler is not black. Details…
Corner Stone
@joes527:
This seems like as good a place as any to remind that this is not a liberal blog.
dmbeaster
It is worth remembering that the defense opted NOT to try the self-defense issue to the judge, which was their prerogative. And if they lost the issue, they would still try it to the jury anyway. Zimmerman is a free man if they cold prove to the judge that it was more likely than not that he acted in self-defense. And even if he lost that argument to the judge, he got a second shot at it before the jury. And then the proof standard is reasonable doubt as to whether or not there was self-defense – a lot easier.
So think about the significance of that – the defense decided to forego a freebie shot at the question, and all the attendant publicity they could generate. Of course, there is the negative publicity of losing the issue to the judge, but if you think your case is weak, and your goal is a mistrial by biasing jurors in advance by getting your story out there, why not go for it?
Here, the defense decided not to do so. Pretty revealing about what they think of their own chances on the “self-defense” bunk.
Cygil
@Unsympathetic: Not a witness to the fight – a witness to GZ’s head trauma.
Yeah, because that little scratch totally proves that TM went up to Zimmerman, said, “You got a problem? You do now” and cold cocked him, then began head slamming him into the pavement.
Stupid troll.
And BTW, that “broken”, bloody nose? Zimmerman refused to have it examined by a forensic examiner, went to his GP the next day who diagnosed it verbally, then he refused to have it looked at by an ENT specialist. You can fake a bloody nose by slicing the inside of your septum with your fingernail. It’s a trick known to lying, deceptive types who one day know they might need to fake an injury.
Mnemosyne
@Unsympathetic:
You really need to educate yourself on Florida’s SYG law, because it’s EXACTLY what you’re trying to claim is “simple felony assault.” Florida’s SYG law basically says you can kill anyone you get into a dispute with and claim afterwards that you felt that you were in fear for your life at any point in the confrontation.
Under Florida law, if Trayvon Martin had managed to kill George Zimmerman during that confrontation, Martin could have claimed his SYG rights and walked away free, because he could have (rightly) argued that he was in fear for his life because an armed man was chasing him in his car. Would you defend Martin’s actions as vehemently as you’re defending Zimmerman’s if the tables had been turned and Martin had been the victor rather than Zimmerman?
Anya
@dmbeaster: What type of video games did he play? We know he was black but was he gay, also, too?
Quarks
@Unsympathetic: For all I know, Zimmerman DID do that to himself, after realizing that he had shot a person. I have seen people bang their heads and fists hard against walls and the ground when traumatized/upset, and realizing that you’ve killed someone might well cause that sort of trauma. I should point out that headwounds have a tendency to bleed a lot and look worse than they are, so just having blood around is not necessarily proof of anything.
Regarding Martin as a boxer — as many people on this thread have pointed out, the Florida law in question ALSO applies to Martin. If he felt threatened by Zimmerman, then, yes, he also had the right to stand his ground and fight back. Since by all accounts he was only armed with Skittles and his fists, it makes sense that he would use his fists. That’s all pure guesswork on my part, though.
Thing is, though, you have no evidence for things you are presenting as fact.
@Corner Stone — I have no idea if we’re going to get a reasonable outcome out of this. I’ve disagreed with the results of jury trials before this and will disagree again. But my opinion on Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence is not the point here, since I won’t be on the jury.
I do predict that someone somewhere will be unhappy with the result.
pokeyblow
@joes527: I never said Zimmerman shouldn’t get a trial. In an alternate reality, we might have read about multiple eyewitnesses, video footage, etc. in an alternate reality, Martin might have been armed, and might have followed Zimmerman around.
But in this reality, those things aren’t the case. So Zimmerman’s people want everyone to know how extra-black Martin was, and how much better off we are thanks to Zimmerman’s bullet.
Also, don’t forget Zimmerman’s fundraising teabagger websites, etc. Zimmerman is a dick, and based on what I know, I think he is a killer. But I absolutely want him to have a trial. It is also possible evidence will emerge which changes my mind (not that that matters). Hasn’t happened yet.
Corner Stone
@dmbeaster:
What else can you report to us?
Mike Lamb
@Unsympathetic: So if Martin had a gun, shoots and kills Zimmerman, it’s kosher. But if Martin punches Zimmerman (who remains conscious), continues punching the armed Zimmerman, it’s felony assault? Uh…what? The idea that the fight was over after 1 or 2 punches is clearly and unequivocally wrong.
Amir Khalid
@Unsympathetic:
A witness who had seen the injuries to George Zimmerman’s scalp (they went no deeper than that), but not any fisticuffs between Zimmerman and Trayvon, would be unable to swear under oath that it was Trayvon who inflicted those injuries.
Culture of Truth
I don’t think it’s productive to litigate a case on the internet. Although I do find some of the facts and claims quite interesting.
If GZ is acquitted, fine. But he should not ask me to join his fan club, either.
dmbeaster
@EconWatcher:
I have not seen that they have been allowed to do this, but the prosecution is always angling to find a legal way to bring in prior bad acts. Doing so on a theory of propensity is not allowed, but it can sometimes be done for other reasons (even though propensity is why the prosecution wants it in – and even then, they cannot openly argue propensity, but they know jurors will think it since we all do to some extent).
joes527
@Mnemosyne: Under the influence. Waving a gun around. Yeah, when bad shit happens, that’s gonna leave a mark.
Running around in the rain with a (presumably?) holstered weapon? Ignoring the 911 dispatcher’s instructions? Stupid, sure. Assholish, unquestionably. Racist? Most likely. But Manslaughter*? You’d know better than I, but it seems out of proportion to me.
* This assumes that the whole case is based on Zimmerman’s culpability due to his pursuing Martin. If other facts that are in dispute become clearer at trial, they could easily lead to Manslaughter or Murder conviction. (Prosecution is trying for Murder 2, right?)
Cygil
@Culture of Truth: I think we can all agree that trial-by-media and trial-by-leak sucks. And is the source of mucho sleaze from defense and prosecution these days — although the prosecution has remained stoically tight-lipped recently in this case.
muddy
I don’t know that I’d presume it was holstered. If I were to presume, I think I’d presume otherwise.
gwangung
@Unsympathetic: Boy, what a pack of untruths.
It’s easy to troll when you’re careless with the facts and the law. It takes artistry to do so when being truthful and accurate. Doesn’t seem you’re capable of even competence.
Roy G.
I look forward to the forensic recreation of the scene – it will be interesting to see where Z’s vehicle was in relation to where the assault and homicide took place. It may well turn out that he was returning to his vehicle in a less than straightforward fashion, and put the lie to his tale.
gbear
@Ted & Hellen:
You, on the other hand, are an absolutely consummate professional. Christ, you’re boring.
gwangung
@joes527:
No, that’s a fit. Reckless endangerment and indifference to consequences can fit into manslaughter quite easily. Whether it does so in this case is another question
Odie Hugh Manatee
@muddy:
I would too. A Deputy Dawg-type wouldn’t be chasing down a ‘criminal’ without his trusty sidearm in hand.
joes527
@liberal:
Why do you say that? Evidence would be nice though. An impartial witness with an unobstructed view of the whole thing … physical evidence as to who turned the encounter into a fight … something. Some combination of imperfect evidence that adds up to be unreasonable to doubt.
As far as I can make out from the media, Zimmerman got out of the truck, there was an encounter that no one saw all of, after which Martin was dead and Zimmerman had head injuries of unclear severity.
Zimmerman has a story that Martin was beating the shit out of him and he shot in self defense.
What evidence is there that is lying? (I’m not saying that he is/isn’t lying. I’m asking about evidence.)
What would a conviction hang on? From where I stand, it would either have to be some new piece of evidence (that none of us know about) or clarity established at trial about some fact that is currently muddied in press accounts/activism.
I, Floridian
@Chyron HR: Exactly.
Unsympathetic
Autopsy report showed TM’s hands were injured from beating GZ.
Court records show injuries on GZ consistent with GZ’s claims of being beaten by TM.
Zimmerman is not a racist. Also, Zimmerman’s father is a retired magistrate judge.
Is pinning a guy to the ground and beating the snot out of him an appropriate response for being followed? Perhaps TM should have been taught that if you use your boxing skill in a real fight, you run the risk of being shot.
The 6′ TM was a stranger in a gated community. The onus was upon him to explain his presence and understand that if he was being followed, it was for good reason. Incidentally, until a weapon is presented or a fist starts flying, sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
Here’s what the police report text says: “While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been lying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from his nose and the back of his head” – it’s in the public record. So why attempt to deny that Z was injured?
What we have is the first-level on-the-scene report (filed long before this all blew up into a big media circus) that says Zimmerman displayed (1) evidence of being pinned on his back and (2) evidence of being seriously assaulted on his head. There are also two witness statements corroborating these claims by two different, unrelated people — one a teen who was outdoors and the second a man who called 911 — the second’s call was recorded and thus there’s a record of contemporaneous witnessing of the events.
All are consistent with the physical evidence claimed to be present.
There is exactly one question relevant to whether the use of force was justified and it has nothing to do with the “Stand your ground” law. The question is simply this: “Was Martin on top of Zimmerman, pinning him and preventing his escape, bashing him on the head? If so was the weapon discharged during the assault?”
It’s two yes or no questions and they’re the only questions that matter, because at the point you are legitimately in fear of mayhem or death you have a natural law right to self-defense through the use of force sufficient to stop the assault.
Mnemosyne
@joes527:
It’s pretty much exactly the kind of thing that negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter laws are made for: you don’t set out to kill someone, but you make a lot of stupid mistakes and someone ends up dead.
You may think that punishing someone who has killed someone through their negligence is too severe and the killer should be allowed to walk free with a shake of the finger from a judge, but I disagree.
gbear
With any luck, this thread will be longer than the trial.
Mike Lamb
@Unsympathetic: The fact that he was able to shoot Martin certainly runs counter to the notion that Zimmerman was pinned.
And this:
Perhaps TM should have been taught that if you use your boxing skill in a real fight, you run the risk of being shot.
And this:
The onus was upon him to explain his presence and understand that if he was being followed, it was for good reason.
Are patent bullshit. Unless I’m trespassing, I don’t have to explain anything to anyone who isn’t showing me some kind of police credentials. I’m beginning to think that you are Geraldo Rivera.
muddy
I have slid on wet grass and wheeee landed flat on my back, injuring the back of my head. More than once, which doesn’t say much for my grace.
Mnemosyne
@Unsympathetic:
I’m still waiting for you to present your evidence that states other than Florida allow people to pick fights with others, kill them, and then walk away without penalty.
And, no, I feel zero sympathy for Zimmerman in your scenario, because in your scenario he obviously thought that his
pen1s substitutegun would make the kid cringe in fear while they heroically waited for the police, never realizing that Zimmerman’s own actions had made Martin so fearful that he managed to overpower Zimmerman.Sorry, why exactly am I supposed to feel sorry for the guy who got in over his head and ended up killing someone through his own stupid overconfidence in the power of having a gun? If we go with your scenario, he may be lucky that Martin didn’t kill him, but that doesn’t give Zimmerman a moral whitewash for killing the person that Zimmerman chose to confront in the first place.
jake the snake
We had a local incident with a confrontation ending with one man dead, leaving a widow and three young children and another man with a cloud over the rest of his life. All because two idiots had guns and neither would back down from a conflict.
Interestingly one was in law enforcement and the other had been.
http://www.bgdailynews.com/news/local/grand-jury-hears-testimony-no-indictment-in-bradshaw-shooting/article_b039f22c-03da-5f3a-9a6a-1d50e909f5cc.html
joes527
@Mnemosyne:
You know who picked the fight?
You clearly know more about what happened than any of the witnesses. I look forward to your testimony at trial that will put Zimmerman away.
Quarks
@Unsympathetic:
Did you actually read the articles you are trying to quote to us?
For instance, the first article says that Martin’s knuckles were injured. It also specifically goes on to say that this does not mean that Martin’s knuckles were injured because he hit Zimmerman and that the injuries could have resulted from something else. It does not say what you claim it is saying.
Omnes Omnibus
@Unsympathetic:
So what? George W. Bush’s dad is a retired president.
Dave C
Have there been reports indicating if TM sustained any wounds (bruises, cuts etc.) other than the gun shot wound? I don’t know if something like that would even be leaked to the press, but it would seem relevant for determining what kind of fight actually occurred (i.e., if Zimmerman was the only one who got “beat up” or not).
Mnemosyne
@joes527:
Tell you what — you try following someone around a darkened neighborhood in your car, then get out of your car and follow them. Do you think that the person being followed might be upset, or think that you are threatening them in some way?
Actually, you should be saying that to Unsympathetic, because he’s the one who cooked up the scenario where poor George Zimmerman had to defend himself from boxer Trayvon Martin. I’m only responding to his claims, not making any of my own.
liberal
@joes527:
How often are there such witnesses? (Not to mention the notorious unreliability of eyewitness testimony.) Physical evidence as to who turned the encounter into a fight—what physical evidence would that be in most cases?
The facts are that (1) Zimmerman clearly intended to initiate what most people would consider a hostile confrontation—he didn’t go looking for Martin to tell him he dropped his keys on the sidewalk—(2) Zimmerman used lethal force, (3) Martin didn’t possess a weapon, (4) there’s no evidence that Martin attempted to use lethal force (e.g., kicking someone in the head repeatedly with a boot).
If you want to claim that Zimmerman ought to get off under SYG, but that that’s an unfortunate side effect of an ugly, sick law that essentially legalizes murder, that’s reasonable. If you think, in contrast, that under any reasonable system of law that Zimmerman ought to receive anything less than a manslaughter conviction, you need to get your head examined.
El Cid
If I see a young black man in my neighborhood, and he hasn’t checked in with me or my trusted allies to identify himself and justify his presence, what?
Am I supposed to risk my life and hope that he’s not a boxer?
Or do you people now just want me to believe that it’s wrong to shoot young male potential boxer blacks in pre-emptive defense?
Amir Khalid
@Unsympathetic:
Trayvon Martin was staying with his father, so he was at worst a visitor rather than a “stranger”. He was under no onus, beyond politeness, to explain his presence to anyone. George Zimmerman, who was not a policeman, would have had no right to demand such an explanation from him.
If a person starts to follow you around for no apparent reason, are you to presume that they do in fact have good reason to do so? George Zimmerman had no good reason; a police dispatcher had just told him that.
Trayvon was followed and then confronted by an unknown person, from which he might reasonably conclude he was in danger. If Zimmerman made a threatening gesture, as may well have happened, should Trayvon have refrained from defending himself? Should Trayvon have just lain down and let Zimmerman do whatever?
Faux News
@Ted & Hellen: Go felch George Zimmerman’s dirty asshole
Faux News
@Corner Stone: Eat a bag of salted dog dicks you fascist asshole.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@El Cid:
Don’t overlook the possibility that they could be a wrestler, or even worse, a football player.
Omnes Omnibus
@Amir Khalid: He was walking around being 6′ tall. I don’t do that. Do you? Seems hinky to me.
El Cid
@Amir Khalid: George Zimmerman had a gated community halo floating above his head identifying himself as a legitimate questioning authority, if that had not been immediately obvious from his careful following of the young teenage boxing thug monster Martin in the dark both in car and on foot.
What possible justification could some threatening figure like Trayvon Martin, who in no way looked like the kind of person who should be in the gated community, conceivably offer to choose not presume not just the rightness but the righteousness of 2nd Amendment Deputy Zimmerman? Such residential areas are widely known for their continual reporting to all residents about the authorized persons about and their locations.
muddy
@Odie Hugh Manatee: Get real, the real hoodlums obviously play basketball. Just look at the president!
Amir Khalid
@Omnes Omnibus:
I only wish I could do that. I’m 5’9″ and I don’t own three-inch heels.
Omnes Omnibus
@Unsympathetic:
No, Meursault was the Stranger, and he is the one who killed the Arab. I don’t think your analogy holds up.
Corner Stone
@Faux News: Wow. That’s kind of uncalled for, don’t you think? Are you just trying to hurt my feelings?
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: He is really trying to hurt you. He is really trying to make you cry.
David in NY
@David Hunt: I understand you. But I think FTD’s desire to punish Zimmerman is exactly what Zimmerman was feeling when he shot Trayvon. And I thing both feelings are uncivilized. Sorry, but until we overcome this desire to punish the other, the bad one, things are not getting better here.
David in NY
@Forum Transmitted Disease: OK. All’s forgiven.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: But, why? Does he really want to hurt me? Why does he want to make me cry?
I’m getting the sense he doesn’t like my garish makeup.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: Which one of them was waiting for Godot? Or GWB?
David in NY
@Culture of Truth: You are right. I found the case, by the way, we won a habeas in the district court and on appeal to the Circuit — the judge wouldn’t allow the defendant to show his bright-shiny gold-caps to the jury to indicate that anybody identifying him would surely have remembered them. Constitutional error.
Emma
@joes527: There were NO WITNESSES, moron. That’s why the whole thing wasn’t pleabargained down. Everyone heard the shot then ran to see what had happened.
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone:
No one does. Deal with it.
@Corner Stone:
It has something to do with nausea. Or the absurd.
Amir Khalid
@Corner Stone:
You’re Boy George?
joes527
@liberal:
I thought that Zimmerman claimed that he was trying to keep him under surveillance. What is the evidence that he intended a confrontation?
ah-yep.
true but see …
It all hinges on the head injuries that are so disputed. Sandbox re-constructionists have dismissed them, but the severity and nature of the injuries are significant. If evidence shows that it is reasonable to believe that Martin was repeatedly slamming Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk, then that would be potentially lethal force.
Nope. No one has been slamming it into the pavement. I think that it is reasonable to start from a presumption of innocence and require proof beyond a reasonable doubt to move away from that default position. As for your points, some are agreed to by all, but the key ones (who confronted whom? what was the nature of the confrontation? who was in fear of their life?) are in dispute. Choosing sides is not a good way to resolve this.
I doubted above that Zimmerman’s dumbfuckery of getting out of the truck with a gun was manslaughter, but folks who know more of the law than I disagree. Not that I think that it was innocent, but that the act of getting out of the truck seems too far removed from the result to rise to the level of manslaughter. The lawyers say I’m wrong, so yeah, manslaughter on those grounds may be achievable.
David in NY
OK. Zimmerman’s going to be acquitted. (I am not justifying this; I am predicting). So we can all go quarrel about something else.
Central Planning
@Kristin:
Which blog do you think you’re reading?
Omnes Omnibus
@Central Planning: Pandagon?
Phoenician in a time of Romans
@Cygil:
Everyone is entitled to a defense, but lawyers — defense or prosecution — don’t have unlimited moral license to embrace sleazy tactics.
Uh-huh – but when YOU are hauled before a jury for a capital crime, how would YOU feel about your defense being limited because it was “too sleazy” based on some random yahoo’s opinion?
They have a right and, arguably, a duty to haul out whatever sleazy defense they can. And the judge and a jury have a right and a duty to assess and ignore it.
Mike Lamb
@joes527:
“I thought that Zimmerman claimed that he was trying to keep him under surveillance. What is the evidence that he intended a confrontation?”
You mean other than getting out of his car and, you know, confronting him? Or let’s put it this way–if Martin walked over to Zimmerman’s car, pulled Zimmerman out of said car, and started punching him, Zimmerman wouldn’t be on trial.
Omnes Omnibus
@Phoenician in a time of Romans:
As long as it it is not barred by law or the Rules of Professional Conduct for the jurisdiction, I would say that defense counsel has an obligation to present any defense that he/she thinks would be effective.
Corner Stone
@Amir Khalid: No, Paul Stanley.
El Cid
@Mike Lamb: Well, yeah, I mean, if you’re going to suddenly start calling “confronting” someone a “confrontation,” but that seems kind of a stretch.
Mnemosyne
@Omnes Omnibus:
I would need stilts to walk around 6′ tall, which would probably draw some attention right there.
@David in NY:
After reading about Florida’s extremely fucked-up SYG law when this case first hit the news, I have reluctantly come to the same conclusion, because it seems to be perfectly legal under Florida law to stalk and kill someone and then claim you felt threatened by them.
The fun part is another provision of the Florida law that lets someone who is prosecuted despite meeting the requirements of SYG to sue the state for wrongful prosecution. That’s when the comments will get really interesting since I can’t imagine Zimmerman (or at least his lawyers) passing up that cash cow opportunity.
fuckwit
Had it coming? They all forget: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lYVggyHRkY
El Caganer
@Omnes Omnibus: But since it was dark, his pistol didn’t gleam in the sun. So what was his motivation?
Omnes Omnibus
@El Caganer: Ennui.
Corner Stone
THIS.IS.SPARTA!
Phoenician in a time of Romans
@Mnemosyne:
Would you defend Martin’s actions as vehemently as you’re defending Zimmerman’s if the tables had been turned and Martin had been the victor rather than Zimmerman?
Better still, if Martin, a black teenager, had stalked Zimmerman, a white adult, with a gun and shot him, do you think these people would be contorting themselves so hard to paint Zimmerman as a thug who sprang on Martin and inflicted a MMA beatdown before Martin heroically shot him in self defense?
Or do you think some other factor is coloring their perspective on the case?
Corner Stone
Personally, I think those we don’t really like very much, the truly icky, if you will, should be forced to put on their best t-shirt before the magistrate, tug their forelocks and plead for mercy for their sins.
Fuck a bunch of that fair trial bullshit. Who needs it, anyway?
Corner Stone
@Phoenician in a time of Romans: Can’t speak for all my fellow Romans, but I, for one, am ok with letting the justice system work.
I’m also ok with stamping out all the Phoenician’s. But that’s a separate issue.
Bubba Dave
@aimai:
+1 for the Mikado reference.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
@joes527:
You know who picked the fight?
Well, let’s see – would there have been a fight if Zimmerman had done what he was told, hadn’t left the car, and hadn’t gone following a stranger while waving a gun around?
I suppose it’s possible Martin would have crashed through the windscreen and attacked Zimmerman like a black Terminator – but it seems unlikely…
El Cid
The existence of a fair trial for Zimmerman depends upon the comments made in this very blog section of the public sphere. You people better watch yourselves, or soon enough, there will be no criminal trials nor defenses any more.
If, on the other hand, you behaved yourselves and commented better, public officials would remain committed to following their Constitutional, legislative, and precedent mandates.
Honus
@Amir Khalid: excellent, and correct, analysis. Zimmerman had no right to confront Martin, had a duty to withdraw, and by initiating the conflict instead of withdrawing, he forfeits the right to self defense. Even given his version of the facts, and allowing for relatively severe injuries, Under the common law he is at least guilty of voluntary manslaughter. (you only have the right to use enough force to remove yourself from danger) Yo have to believe he was under some unprovoked and relentless attack and that he couldn’t escape from a younger man who weighed 40 lbs less.
Only under some twisted and very liberal reading of SYG does he walk.
Cygil
@Omnes Omnibus: As long as it it is not barred by law or the Rules of Professional Conduct for the jurisdiction
Well, that’s an open question. Do the rules of professional conduct in Florida allow dumping excluded evidence into the media in an attempt to prejudice the jury pool? Because that’s what we’re talking about here.
Definitely scummy, even if it isn’t disallowed.
joes527
@Phoenician in a time of Romans:
a) “wouldn’t have happened if …” isn’t the same as picking a fight. Like it or not, Zimmerman had a right to be on the sidewalk. Zimmerman’s presence is not by itself “picking a fight” It would depend on who said what to whom and other challenging/threatening actions.
b) Is there evidence that Zimmerman went “following a stranger while waving a gun around?” because that would be pretty clearly threatening (even from a distance) It would be impossible to argue that Martin threatened Zimmerman first because bullets have way more range than fists.
But as far as I can tell, the image of Zimmerman waving the gun around as he followed Martin exists only in your imagination. What do you base this claim on other than what you pre-judge to have happened?
Corner Stone
@El Cid: You’re a hard motherfucker. It’s strange somehow that political “advice” for the WH/admin is disdained on the same level as the citizens’ discourse of their duty.
If, for example, one were to offer free advice, or even unsolicited advice at practical steps to move through an issue that reaches through politics.
And, for example, one were to propose how a citizen may, or may not, decide to view the justice system.
Those, somehow, are the same? Neither should be held to account, to matter, and neither should be judged equivalent?
I, for one, and I only speak this as an individual citizen, have never felt reticent at supporting my cause, giving advice, suggesting activities or thrusts that benefited my cause(s).
But I have always felt circumspect on casting judgement on others accused of crimes.
For some reason the govt apparatus has availed itself in such a way that it deems my angst, scrutiny and insistent scorn.
Individual citizens, to my mind, and take that as you will, deserve every benefit we can avail them. In all cases. Charged with the worst of the worst or the bread/banana missing from the fruit stand. Once the system is set against you it seems to me, at least, that all paths should be open to you.
Mike Lamb
@El Cid: That you believe you are making a meaningful distinction is laughable.
ruemara
@Mike Lamb: S/he is snarking. Heavily.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
@joes527:
a) “wouldn’t have happened if …” isn’t the same as picking a fight. Like it or not, Zimmerman had a right to be on the sidewalk.
Remind me again why Zimmerman believed Martin lacked this right?
Narcissus
Well geez why don’t we just ask Trayvon Martin what happened
I mean he could clear this all up lickety-split
Mike Lamb
@ruemara: didn’t notice that it wasn’t joes527 that I was responding too.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Phoenician in a time of Romans: “Or do you think some other factor is coloring their perspective on the case?”
I see what you did there.
I approve.
@El Cid:
Hey, don’t bogart that joint. That’s some good shit! ;)
Nutella
@Honus:
The idea that Zimmerman’s defense might claim that he had reasonable cause to be afraid of Martin is particularly ridiculous when you remember that he was inside a car, on the phone to the police, and armed with a gun. Of course in those circumstances he was frightened of a skinny kid passing by on the sidewalk.
You’d think a reasonable person in a car who was terrified of a pedestrian might reasonably try driving away rather than getting out of the car and confronting him.
El Cid
@Mike Lamb: the point was to be laughable
El Cid
@Corner Stone: I’m making none but the most base, obvious point, via parody of course: there are root distinctions between private discourse, the public sphere, and criminal law and trial.
There have always been the possibilities of crossover and interactive effects of one upon the other.
But the right to a free and fair trial do not, in fact, depend upon blog commenters’ refraining from discussing publicly available information and coming to whatever conclusion–sensible or ass-hatted–said person feels motivated to express as long as all understand this to be the bloviating it is which should and will have no effect on the trial itself.
Innocent or guilty in criminal court is a very specific category; Henry Kissinger need never face criminal charge nor trial to be argued in the public sphere to be guilty of callous murder, whether or not this or any legal system so categorized his acts.
If you wish to present any arguments that such blog comment arguments restrict the ability of, say, George Zimmerman, to receive a fair trial, do so.
Likewise, if one wishes to argue that this subject is merely the subject of a particular criminal charge and has no connections of interest with public policy or larger publicly common attitudes, she or he can.
There’s not the tiniest, teensiest bit hard or cruel about this view–just the opposite.
I do not mistakenly adopt the particular and contextual logic of courts of law for the public sphere, nor do I for a moment think that my opinions (if I were to consistently hold any) on the charges facing Zimmerman will or should have any effect.
If someone comes to the conclusion that, say, OJ Simpson ‘murdered’ his wife but was not guty of the actual crime of murder as determined by trial, there is neither a contradiction nor an undermining of the right to trial in so concluding. Wording can become a legal issue, but outside that, one isn’t the other.
nemerinys
Zimmerman (1) sat in his truck for a few minutes, engine running and headlights on, and continuously stared at Martin; (2) said “these assholes, they always get away;” (3) turned his truck around and drove behind Martin; (4) muttered “fucking punks;” (5) exclaimed, “Shit, he ran;” (6) exited his truck and jogged along the same path after Martin; and (7) remained in the area for nearly four minutes. This behavior, in toto meets the legal definition of assault, and also appears to meet the legal definition of stalking. It also addresses his state of mind.
There are three witnesses who stated they heard loud voices, as though at least two men were arguing. Only one witness stated he saw a few seconds of “wrestling,” watching two males lying perpendicular to his patio before rolling up an incline to a parallel position on the sidewalk before, presumably, rolling back down to the point where Zimmerman killed Martin (the witness did not see the latter movement and Zimmerman shooting Martin). This same witness retracted his initial statement that he saw punching, later twice attesting that he never saw anyone’s hands, much less any punching or head bashing.
At least other three witnesses stated that, immediately after the shot, they saw Zimmerman sitting or lying on top of Martin; a fourth witness, the 13-year-old, attested that he saw only one person on the ground, a person wearing a red jacket – indicating that Martin was not visible and, therefore, not on top.
The rolling around, the ability to shift his weight to retrieve his gun, the ability to control Martin’s wrist and, from forensic evidence, hold onto Martin’s clothing, the ability to aim his gun and worry about not shooting his own hand – all indicate Zimmerman had physical control of Martin and, indeed, control of the situation.
According to the autopsy, Martin was 5’11” tall and weighed 158 lbs. He had a slender build and, as an adolescent, didn’t have the developed musculature of an adult male. He died three weeks after his 17th birthday, and was a junior in high school, a year-and-a-half from high school graduation. According to his physician’s report, Zimmerman was 5’7.5” tall and weighed 204 lbs. Although medically obese, the photos taken that night depict a stocky and compact build. He was 28 years old, married, a full-time employee and a part-time college student, having graduated high school ten years before.
Martin, as a resident’s guest, had every right to be in the community. He was not obliged to explain his presence to anyone not a law enforcement officer. This is moot, of course, since Zimmerman never bothered to ask him any questions; indeed Zimmerman failed to identify himself and his purpose altogether.
nemerinys
I apologize for the length of my previous comment – and in advance for this second one.
The text messages and photos released by the defense are non-contextual and unauthenticated, as are any Youtube videos purporting to show Martin fighting or refereeing a fight. Even if proven to be Martin, sparring matches are not street fights. There is no evidence that Martin took boxing lessons, or taught any manner of fighting, boxing, or wrestling. The photo of someone holding a gun – low and parallel to the table surface, not even pointed at the camera – is irrelevant; we don’t know if it’s Martin holding the gun, we don’t know if Martin had possession of or access to a gun, and we do know that Martin didn’t have a gun the night he was killed.
Smoking pot doesn’t usually make someone aggressive, but if Martin was an exception to the rule (and there’s no evidence he was “under the influence”), his behavior that night belies such conjecture. He walked past the truck without engaging Zimmerman verbally or physically; he ran away into an area where no vehicle could follow; if we were to believe Zimmerman’s story, he hid from Zimmerman before allegedly attacking him. Of course, prior to this alleged attack, Martin called attention to his presence, asking, according to Zimmerman, “Do you have a problem?” and only allegedly punched Zimmerman when Zimmerman responded with a lie (“No, I don’t have a problem”) before patting his pockets in search of his cell phone – a rather abnormal thing to do under the circumstances, and not one that Martin could expect. IF he did punch Zimmerman, he responded as any reasonable person would do in that situation, and he had every legal right to do so.
There’s no evidence that Martin laid a hand on Zimmerman. No blood on his hands (and, no, it wouldn’t have washed away; see photos of Zimmerman’s head to put that idea to rest), no Zimmerman blood or DNA from fingernail clippings, and no Zimmerman blood or DNA on his sleeves or sleeve cuffs. According to the autopsy, there were no scrapes or bruising of Martin’s knuckles, just one small (1/4 x 1/8 inch) abrasion on the fourth finger of his left hand (Martin was right-handed).
Zimmerman’s injuries were a “likely” broken nose (closed fracture), and two scalp lacerations measuring 2cm (0.79 inch or 25/32 inch) and 0.5cm (0.19 inch or 13/64 inch) that required no sutures and a mere cleaning with soap and water. Thirty minutes after he killed Martin, Zimmerman’s physical stats were utterly normal, with his injuries noted as minor by the paramedic. No rapid pulse or heavy breathing, no perspiration, no symptoms or affect of head trauma that would indicate “repeated head bashing against concrete.” He didn’t seek medical attention that evening, and did not appear at his physician’s office until late the following morning – after he went to his workplace.
dmbeaster
@joes527:
There is a fallacy here being repeated endlessly by Zimmerman sympathizers. If Zimmerman provoked the fight, he cannot claim self-defense when he then starts to lose the fight and shoots Martin. Whether or not the fight ended up with Martin knocking Zimmerman’s head on the concrete, Zimmerman does not get to legally kill him.
My own view is that Zimmerman was the aggressor, and that seems clear beyond reasonable doubt from the best we can know. “Aggressor” means the one provoking fear and a self-defense reaction in the other. Martin did absolutely nothing to provoke such concerns in Zimmerman (except for being a black teenager, which seems to be enough for a lot of people, and is the real underlying issue in this case). Zimmerman was stalking the guy with a loaded gun and acting out his vigilante fantasies. It is not a close question, unless like a lot of gun nuts, you think we should be packing and stalking suspicious types, like black teenagers.
All of the details are going to be explored with the jury by skilled trial lawyers, so I am letting the system decide the question, and if the outcome is different from my own limited perception of it — well, that happens all the time because we did not sit through the trial and hear the evidence.
rea
What evidence is there that is lying?
Zimmerman lied to the judge about his assets in connection with bond. If he places his credibility at issue by testifying, that will be admissible. For that reason, I doubt he will testify. But his defense is going to be difficult if he can’t testify . . .
Mike Lamb
@dmbeaster: It’s not true that starting a fight precludes a claim of self-defense. If I start a fist fight, and the other guy then pulls out a tire iron, it changes the equation. If I shoot the other guy (having had no intention to use lethal force when the fight started) I could, even though I started as the aggressor, raise a claim for self-defense.
Now, Zimmerman being armed makes it far, far more difficult to claim self-defense. If Martin believed that Zimmerman intended to use lethal force against me, he has to right to defend himself with lethal force if necessary–even if he’s only “armed” with his fists.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
@dmbeaster: It’s not true that starting a fight precludes a claim of self-defense. If I start a fist fight, and the other guy then pulls out a tire iron, it changes the equation.
Given that Zimmerman is medically obese, it’ll be difficult for him to claim he was frightened for his life by a soda and Skittles. Sucks for him.