By now, most following the Trayvon Martin case know that Judge Debra Nelson denied the defense motion to take the jury to the scene of the shooting. This is a significant decision, but one that the defense can largely overcome through clever graphics and analogies. Why would the defense want to take the jury there? People are poor judges of distance and velocity.
For instance, if I suggested a distance of 440 yards, at least some people would know that’s a quarter mile, but few apart from active runners would know that a reasonably fit adult could run that distance at a moderate pace in about 100 seconds. A fit teenager in a sprint could easily cover that distance in 20 seconds or so less, and most people know that a standard circular track like those at a high school football stadium is about 440 yards, but few understand that in a straight line, that’s a substantial distance.
Once beyond 200 yards, only expert rifle marksmen can hit a target with anything approaching precision. Even shorter distances like 100 yards are very difficult for most people to judge with any degree of accuracy. For the most part, people aren’t required to make uncommon distance and velocity judgements with any degree of regularity.
One of the things I had to teach new police officers when they were traveling fast with lights flashing and siren blaring is to watch out for people at stop signs at cross streets. People, you see, are used to vehicles on that street–a street they regularly travel–proceeding at or near the posted speed limit. That velocity/distance equation is their frame of reference. So they’ll look right at an approaching police car, not see the lights or hear the siren–particularly during the daytime–completely misjudge the velocity, and pull right out in front of the rapidly approaching police car. My trainees really didn’t believe me, until the first time a citizen did just that, forcing them to brake and maneuver to avoid a collision. That made believers out of them and taught a vital lesson about human nature.
It’s one thing for the defense to tell the jury that Trayvon Martin had–for example–a 50 second head start on George Zimmerman, and that once he turned the corner and Zimmerman could no longer see him, he only had to travel (again, I’m just using a random number to illustrate the point) 80 yards before he arrived at home, a distance he could have easily covered in that time, particularly considering that after traveling half that distance, he would have been invisible to Zimmerman due to darkness even if Zimmerman knew exactly where to look, and he did not.
At least some of the jurors wouldn’t understand the time and distance equation. They might think Martin didn’t have enough time to get away, or imagine that Zimmerman was much faster than he was, or to them, 80 yards is more like 150 yards because that’s the distance between their driveway and the nearest cross street, etc.
One way this might be dealt with would be to carry a video camera while running and timing the exact distance, which would easily prove that had Martin chosen to actually go straight home, he could easily have been indoors and have never seen Zimmerman again. But then again, who knows if Judge Nelson would allow even that?
Overall, the prosecution pretty much got what it wanted, with the exception of no additional gag order on the defense. This, even for Judge Nelson, likely would have been a step too far as the defense has done nothing outside ethical application of the rules and the law. There was nothing to gag.
Also learned today (Via NBC News):
(1) The defense can’t mention Martin’s past fights, his school suspensions, his drug use, his text messages and similar matters in its opening statement, though Nelson said that such matters might be allowed on a point by point basis during the trial. Such matters would be equally easily disallowed at trial.
(2) The amount of marijuana in Martin’s bloodstream might be admissible after Nelson hears expert testimony about it.
(3) O’Mara revealed he has video from Martin’s phone of three fights. In two, Martin was acting as a referee and in a third, two of his friends “were beating up a homeless guy,” presumably as Martin filmed the assault. A charming practice. O’Mara also spoke of Martin’s text messages relating to fighting (see Update 29).
UPDATE: 06-02-13 2030 CST: From the GZ Legal site:
CORRECTION AND APOLOGY REGARDING MISSTATED NATURE OF TRAYVON MARTIN VIDEO
ON 02 JUNE 2013.
During the Tuesday, May 28th hearing, Mr. O’Mara misstated the nature of video from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone which was included in the Defendant’s 3rd Supplemental Discovery. He stated that the video showed “two buddies of his beating up a homeless guy,” when what happened was Trayvon Martin, along with a buddy, was videotaping two homeless guys fighting each other over a bike. Though it was unintentional, it is a particular concern to us because we are and have been committed to disputing misinformation in every aspect of this case, not causing it. For that, Mr. O’Mara apologizes.
(4) There will be no continuance in the trial. However, as I wrote in Update 29, the appeals court may yet grant O’Mara’s request to depose Benjamin Crump. If that is granted, it’s hard to imagine how Nelson could refuse to grant a continuance.
(5) Martin tried to purchase pot while in Sanford.
(6) Martin has pictures of a 15-17 year old girl, naked on his phone (O’Mara noted this would likely not be relevant). Apparently her identity is unknown.
(7) The jury will not be sequestered. This will raise a number of reversible error issues.
Another potentially destructive witness was revealed at the hearing:
Zimmerman’s team put an outside lawyer on the stand, Wesley White, who testified that photos from Martin’s cellphone were never shared with them. White, who resigned as a state prosecutor in December and is now in private practice, represents the state attorney’s office’s information-technology director, Ben Kruidbos, who will be called to testify June 6 about the allegedly withheld images.
White told NBC News that Kruidbos was placed on administrative leave Tuesday and considers himself a ‘whistleblower’ under Florida law. Kruidbos was grilled by staff in the state attorney’s office twice, either to learn what he planned to testify about or possibly to ‘bully him,’ White told NBC.
The state attorney’s office has not responded to a request for comment from NBC News.
I’ll bet. Kruidbos is apparently ready to testify that the prosecutor’s office knowingly violated the law in denying discoverable evidence to the defense. As the former IT director, he would have had access to virtually everything the prosecution knew. It will be interesting indeed to find out what he knows. It could theoretically lead to a mistrial, and could surely lead to leaving the Florida bar no choice but to pursue disciplinary charges against Bernard de la Rionda, Angela Corey and potentially other members of the special prosecutor’s office. Criminal charges are not out of the question.
The folks at the Conservative Treehouse have a post regarding Scheme Team attorney Natalie Jackson, who is accusing the defense team of racism. Her tweet:
George Zimmerman’s Defense Team Releases Texts and Photos to Fit Their Racist Narrative.
It was in Update 5 roughly a year ago that I was accused of, and dealt with, a charge of racism. As I noted then, this Internet ATM doesn’t accept race cards. I suggest readers peruse Update 29 to see the texts and photos Jackson so blithely cites as evidence of racism. They are photos and communications Martin himself produced and obviously believed to project the public persona he coveted. One cannot exalt “thug” or criminal culture, and then cry “racism” when their practice of its outward manifestations is revealed as Martin himself preserved and revealed them to family and friends. I trust the reasonable person will find no evidence or racism in anything the defense has done. I certainly haven’t found any in their presentation of Trayvon Martin as he presented himself.
What is significant is that when members of the racial grievance industry are losing any argument, they play the race card as fervently and loudly as possible. But I’ve detected, in recent years, a great weariness in the public with this tactic. More and more, people no longer feel the need to defend themselves against the charge, and it does not put them on the defensive. Overuse and abuse of the charge has robbed it of much of its effectiveness. So it is here. Crying “racism” requires solid, unambiguous proof, and the burden of proof is on those making the charge.
Final Thoughts:
What’s going on here? Many of Judge Nelson’s decisions are on the razor edge of being obviously and grossly biased toward the prosecution. Her deference to the prosecution, and her inexplicable reluctance to sanction de la Rionda for repeated, indisputable and egregious misconduct, including lies to the court–a matter that usually draws the wrath of any judge–is very hard to understand.
O’Mara and West and building a predictable and competent record for appeal in case of conviction. Based only on Judge Nelson’s rulings thus far, there is substantial reversible error, and the court of appeals may begin that process at any day prior to trial.
Is Judge Nelson a true believer? Is she so invested in the narrative, a narrative that might coincide with her socio-political world view, that she is willing to risk her career to prop it up even as more and more evidence found by the defense shatters the foundation and facade of the prosecutor’s case?
Or is she, like some have suggested, actually trying to introduce reversible error because she knows she has to do all she can to enable a guilty verdict regardless of the evidence if she wishes to survive as a judge in the political climate of contemporary Florida? Does she truly hope that if Zimmerman is convicted, her malfeasance will allow the verdict to be overturned, thus relieving her of responsibility? “I did all I could; I got you a guilty verdict; it’s not my fault. Blame that racist appeals court!”
Criminal cases are virtually never like TV lawyer dramas where defense attorneys come up with dramatic evidence and expose the inherent corruption in the system. In most cases, the defendant really is a bad guy who did bad things, and the evidence against them is solid, carefully and ethically gathered. The defense is reduced to trying to make the police look bad. That’s not the case here.
The defense is defending not only George Zimmerman, but the Sanford Police Department. They are also coming up, on a daily basis, with more and more damning evidence that utterly destroys the narrative, particularly regarding Trayvon Martin’s behavior and character, and in these matters, his race means little. Drug use, violence, illegal guns, burglary, vandalism, and more are hallmarks of the “thug” lifestyle, commonly practiced by young blacks who might be more prone to a particular set of cultural behaviors, but they surely aren’t exclusive to blacks. They have painted a self-portrait of Trayvon Martin that does nothing but make George Zimmerman’s account even more likely and sympathetic.
All told, the outcome of this hearing is not at all surprising. That’s the tragedy. The trial promises to be farce.
“three fights. In two, Martin was acting as a referee and in a third, two of his friends “were beating up a homeless guy,” presumably as Martin filmed the assault. A charming practice. ” — Sure. Why not. There were also a few unsolved murders before Trayvon left Miami. Presumably committed by him as well.
The defense team went judge shopping. They were even granted a “bonus” on the matter, as the first judge offered recusal, and the defense accepted. After proverbially spitting in the face of the second, and getting a subsequent hike in the bail, they decided that judge wasn’t very receptive to their cause either, and decided for a new one. Buyers remorse, I guess.
Dear RuleofOrder:
You’re not really defending Martin’s apparent recording of an assault on a helpless victim, are you? Not the sort of thing about which one might brag to one’s mother, is it? The defense was granted a new judge–not a common matter–when the Florida justice system could not ignore the obvious and unethical bias of the initial judge. You’re arguing for bias from the bench?
Mike, a little typo on the 440yd, should be 60 or 70 sec.
Average HS 440 trackster runs about 53sec.
“You’re not really defending Martin’s apparent recording of an assault on a helpless victim, are you?” — your not really accusing him, are you? ‘apparent’ and ‘presumably’ are words used when an identity is not certain.
Actually, the Florida justice system -could-, that is why the intial judge offered to recuse herself, and no challange was needed by the defense. So, now we got a new judge, which apparently also demosntrated a bias… after smacking the defnse down. So, here we have yet -another- judge that is showing bias. I am notcing a pattern, here.
Mm. Retrospect, an explanation:
I am looking for something a little more real than the mouthpiece saying: “Here is a video of Trayvon reffing a fight. And here is another video of Trayvon reffing a fight. And here is a video of some of the same kids in the other video beatin up a random guy, but no Trayvon. Trayvon must have been filming.”
Oh my god, are you for real?! Notice Bernie didn’t complain when MOM referred to the video. That means it’s almost certainly true what MOM said: Your little, helpless, scared, naive “child” hero participated in the BEATING of a homeless person… HOMELESS PERSON! You got that? That is about as low on the moral totem pole as you can get…. way way WAY lower than shooting someone in self-defense. If this turns out to be true, then any sympathy any decent person ever had for little TrayTray will go right out the window. This will, in fact, make him scum.
Were it not ruled out by the judge, you might be right. Of course, if it was ruled out by the judge, there is no reason for the prosecution to refute it, or dwell on it.
” Your little, helpless, scared, naive “child” hero participated in the BEATING of a homeless person…” — Ah, that MUST have been the reason why Zimmerman led off his investigation then. I have heard about weed, Lean, gunz, and now a homeless guy. All of which are not even clued in on by Zimmerman. As I mentioned previously, Martin’s character is not something I canre about. Zimmerman deciding to act as he did while armed, on the other hand, is what I am concerned with. Honest Injun, would Zimmerman have left his car if he not toting his gun?
too bad little traytray never learned to keep his hands to hisself
And Zimmerman not to stick his nose in other people’s business.
When encountering a homeless person being assaulted, and that assault being covered up because the attacker was the son of a police officer, George Zimmerman single-handedly drummed up community support for justice for the homeless man – eventually resulting in the arrest and conviction of the attacker.
When encountering a homeless man, Trayvon Martin encouraged his friends to assault him, and video-recorded that assault.
The disparity speaks volumes about the two men, their choices, and their character.
Zimmerman had every legal and moral right to “stick his nose” in other people’s business.
Martin had no legal or moral right to assault Zimmerman.
“Zimmerman had every legal and moral right…”
Thanks Chip, for putting “moral” in there. I’ve been trying to do that every time I encounter one of these people. Some of them will be like, “Well, maybe Zimmerman isn’t technically guilty of murder, but he’s sure stupid, and it’s still his fault what happened” blah, blah, blah. NO! I absolutely do NOT concede that. George is no more morally or ethically culpable for what happened than he is legally culpable. Unless we’re gonna give George a crystal ball — “No, forget this. I can see what’s gonna happen. So I’m just gonna continue on to the grocery store.” — he did nothing wrong.
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman did anything unlawful that night? What evidence do you have that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor in the physical altercation that night? What evidence do you have that Martin was not the initial physical aggressor? What evidence do you have that Zimmerman so much as laid a hand on Martin? What evidence do you have that Zimmerman’s broken nose and other injuries were not caused by Martin?
Person A emerges from an altercation with a broken nose, lacerations to the back of the head, and a wet, grass-covered back. Person B emerges from that altercation with no injuries other than a fatal gunshot wound, and pants with grass-stained knees.
All witnesses who saw any part of the altercation saw Person B on top of Person A. One such witness indicates that Person B was straddling Person A “MMA-style” in a low-mount (straddling the legs) position, and was either hitting or forcibly restraining Person A.
Prior to the altercation, Person A called NEN to report a suspicious person, saying that he “looked like he was on drugs or something”. It later emerges that Person B bragged about his drug use, was suspended from school for drug use, had photos of his own drug use and pot plants on his phone, and as revealed by toxicology reports, was under the influence of drugs at the time of the altercation.
Police and investigators admit that they have no evidence regarding who started the physical altercation, and that they have no evidence to refute a self-defense claim by Person A.
It then later emerges that Person B had a propensity to engage in fights, by participating in, filming, and refereeing “fight club” fights, and also encouraged his friends to assault homeless man, which assault he also filmed.
Do you not realize how pathetic you sound with the “but Zimmerman shouldn’t have gotten out of his car” retort?
Jello, maybe trayvon and his child playmates thought the homeless guy was following them and they had to stand their ground while one of them films it. Hahaha
“Zimmerman had every legal and moral right to “stick his nose” in other people’s business.” — turned out well, too. Sort of. But not really.
“Martin had no legal or moral right to assault Zimmerman.” — he had no obligation to let Zimmerman pull his weapon, either. I think you and Zimmerman would both agree, after following a person around (even after a retreat), then reaching for concealed objects, there is no reason for Martin to assume a bouquet of flowers.
“Person A “MMA-style” in a low-mount (straddling the legs) position, and was either hitting or forcibly restraining Person A.” — This, right here, is a combination of old and new information, and a bit of putting words in the witnesses’ mouth. The dude decided not to mention blows being thrown, but by your retelling, he could tell a low mount from a high one. Which, also conflicts with George’s telling about where Trayvon was at on him, but semantics, right?
“Do you not realize how pathetic you sound with the “but Zimmerman shouldn’t have gotten out of his car” retort?” — do you not realize the premise of my argument? I am not giving a crap about how good or bad of a guy Zimmerman or Trayvon are. I have been stating this from the get go, but apparently, its not something you would like to face: Zimmerman acted REALLY frickin stupid. To further complicate that, he acted REALLY fricking stupid, then had to rely on his fire arm to bail him out of it. Fine, congrats, Trayvon Martin is dead after assaulting the guy… that followed him for the length of the apartment complex. If Trayvon was trouble, Zimmerman was -literally- looking for Trouble, and lo, its a shock when he finds it. Hey, Chip, got a question for you. Which travels faster to a back entrance, a vehicle, or a person on foot? If I think some one is running to a back entrance, wouldn’t it make sense to use the vehicle to get there, especially considering I just yammered about how the guy I am talking about has something that I can’t ID in his hands, looks likes he is on drugs, and is reaching for his waist? Why would I ever want to leave the one ton plus piece of machinery to track some one, if I believe they are trying to exit the premise? I am -sure- the piece on Zimmerman’s hip had NO weight in that decision.
Look, since Zimmerman decided to engage in his Keystone Capers, there was another shooting involving a guy invoking SYG from some kids playing their music too loud, and three or four committees regarding how SYG is used vs written, along with other attempts to possibly strike it down completely. Why?
Because a NWC (some one whom should know the guidelines for being NW) decided to investigate non crimes while packing, using his infinite wisdom in the rationale that its not legally binding, and really more of a guideline than a rule. Maybe, juuuuust maybe the folks that form up those “guidelines” at the Good ole N.W. did so because they realized exactly how boneheaded people walking around with guns and the desire to “protect their homes” could be.
Now, because of Mr. Zimmerman and his host of curious decisions on how to conduct himself, all the responsible CCers, and NW members whom KNOW BETTER get undo scrutiny. Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman. No good deed goes unpunished.
“Which travels faster to a back entrance, a vehicle, or a person on foot? If I think some one is running to a back entrance, wouldn’t it make sense to use the vehicle to get there…”
Hey, EXCELLENT point! And yes, I agree… if you were trying to catch up to that person, you’d be MUCH better off driving your truck around to cut him off at the pass. But George doesn’t do that. Hmm.. wonder why not? Oh wait, might it be because he was NOT trying to catch up to Trayvon? Hmm….
Your turn.
Houston to jello: It’s time to come back to earth. No more fellowship with the aliens. OK?
“In court Tuesday, defense attorney Mark O’Mara described it as Trayvon video-recording two friends beating up a homeless man.
But in today’s statement, O’Mara apologized and said it really shows Trayvon video-recording two homeless men fighting over a bicycle.” — from the Sentinel.
Yeah I saw that. Thanks. We’ll shortly know if the in-court comment was just a simple “misstatement”… or something more. The apology/explanation sounds, umm, somewhat incomplete to me… something being left unsaid. We shall see.
You and the State Attorney’s Office have this in common: when all else fails and all evidence refutes, resort to non sequitur and straw man arguments.
In a just world, the SAO will face sanctions – if not criminal charges – when all is said and done. You? You’ll just be left with your pathetic logical fallacy.
So, then we know for a fact Trayvon was filming?
“When encountering a homeless person being assaulted, and that assault being covered up because the attacker was the son of a police officer, George Zimmerman single-handedly drummed up community support for justice for the homeless man – eventually resulting in the arrest and conviction of the attacker.
When encountering a homeless man, Trayvon Martin encouraged his friends to assault him, and video-recorded that assault.
The disparity speaks volumes about the two men, their choices, and their character.”
In light of Mr. O’Mara’s current description of this event, would you like to revise any of this?
Sure, it paints Martin in a marginally less-negative light. I’ll leave it up to you, though, to parse the moral character differences between laughing while filming one’s friends assaulting a homeless man, and laughing while filming a fight between two homeless men.
“the moral character differences between laughing while filming one’s friends assaulting a homeless man, and laughing while filming a fight between two homeless men.”
Right on
Dear Jello333:
For everyone’s benefit: O’Mara has announced that he misspoke on this one. Martin filmed what appears to be two homeless men fighting over a bicycle, not an assault on a homeless man. I’ve updated 29.2 accordingly.
Hm. “Marginally”. I can find so many youtube hits filming a street fight/backyard brawl/playground fisticuffs… The morality of this specific event I think would paint Martin as any other 17 (or less) year old when confronted with some variety of spectacle.
Though I do wonder about how the margins will look pre and post summary and re-summary of the release of these videos. Specifically, Zimmerman’s defense fund donations. Sight unseen of the videos, do you think Mark O’ would announce to the world that Trayvon’s pals were beating up a homeless dude? That answered, do you think MOM could confuse 2 homeless dudes as some of Trayvon’s buddies? Do you find it coincidence that another announcement of Z’s legal kitty came out after the initial summary?
Has our society really degraded so quickly in my thirty-some years that we find it acceptable – or even the norm – to film and jeer at others’ distress, rather than trying to help, or finding appropriate authorities or help, to intervene?
I would consider other such people to to similarly morally depraved – though, perhaps excused as immaturity if it is a one-off event. (But uploading such a video to YouTube indicates something more than mere immaturity.) But as part of a body of evidence, that fight was but one of several that Martin filmed or participated in.
You’re asking questions that, quite bluntly, I really couldn’t care less about. I think O’Mara has gotten better over the months, but I am not an O’Mara supporter or apologist. For me, the landscape is exonerating a maliciously accused person: George Zimmerman. O’Mara could have simply “acted stupidly” by commenting on the video without having seen it, or he could have been using an intentional misstatement. Either way: O’Mara’s actions reflect only on himself, and don’t reflect, positively or negatively, on Zimmerman’s innocence or guilt.
Well, there’s another possibility. She knows there’s absolutely no case here. So, she knows she can rule with the prosecution, and when Z gets off, she can say, “See, I did everything I could, and he still got off.” That will cover her arse. Given that there really is no case here, I can see her thinking she is OK playing it safe, because there’s no way he will be convicted. Let’s hope she is right and the jury doesn’t play it safe thinking it’s OK to convict him because there’s no way he won’t get off on appeal.
I might agree that she has such intentions but how many instances of “wrong” decisions and reversible error rulings is she allowed before “someone” notices and decides to remove her for sheer incompetence?
This is just plain crazy.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they cannot remove her from the bench this close to trial. All I know is they should put Belvin up there
Actually, I had not considered her being removed before the trial ends. My point was she risks losing her career by being just plain stupid? I might be OK with one or two bad decisions but this is over the top.
Why do I sense something big is in the works? Maybe “someone else” will step up to the plate when MOM proves Bernie lied to Nelson. Boy, I would love to watch him pay.
The bottom line here, with her, is that she is NOT going to be the one to play HERO. She didn’t get him into this mess and she’s not going to get him out of it. That’s someone else’s job. She’s not going to be the one who puts her career, life, and her family’s life on the line.
My prediction: Just like with Obama, the mainstream media was just waiting for the opportunity to break from the heard and expose his many (obvious) flaws. The same holds true for Zimmerman. At some point, it will become obvious, or some event will happen, and at once, like dominoes falling, the media will all turn. It happened with the Tawana Brawley and Duke Lacrosee cases and I think it will happen with this case as well. The mainstream media are nothing, if not cowards, and they are just waiting for the right opportunity to flip.
Anyone paying attention should have already noticed the changes in the media.
Oh, yeah, the Duke Lacrosse case… that was the one where that girl was raped, then killed, but turned out she was lying about the rape, right?
Duke LaCrosse case is where Michael Nifong basically did his legal best to get some players accused of rape convicted of same. He ignored all exculpatory evidence and legal niceties such as due process. He spent one day in jail, but succeeded in destroying the boys’ reputations along the way.
Interesting fact, Crystal Mangum, the Duke LaCrosse rape accuser who changed her story daily, is now facing murder charges. Seems she got into a fight with her boyfriend and knifed him. He died later.
Remember, Crystal is considered innocent until convicted in a court of law.
And remove her not just from this case, but from the Bench altogether.
So… the “victim” lied in the Duke case. That must mean, for this parallel, Martin must be just -playing- dead.
Not exactly. Martin doesn’t have to lie. He has Crump do it for him. Now, granted Martin didn’t hire Crump, his family did, but that is just a technicality, don’t you think?
Only if you consider being alive a technicality. Rape vs No rape is the lie. Dead vs not dead would be pretty impressive at this stage in the game.
The lie here is Trayvon Martin being 12 years old and totally innocent babe in the woods (with a hood[ie] no less) was just sweetly walking through a crime ridden neighborhood carrying skittles and iced tea on the way to his father’s place when he was accosted by the big bad wannabe cop and was abruptly removed from this earth. Kinda sounds like Red Riding Hood with a basket for her ailing grandmother and the Big Bad Wolf.
The reality is quite different.
The last recorded words regarding Martin was that he was an asshole whom always gets away, and that indeed, he was being followed. As I asked previously, honest Injun, would George have left his car if he didn’t have a gun?
Now, regarding the story you portray, why would you listen to anyone other than Zimmerman, the tape, and the hard evidence found at the scene? Did you honestly expect Trayvon’s parents to march out and say Thanks for killing their kid?
Yes, I do think that George would leave his vehicle. He really had nothing to fear. It was his neighborhood. Don’t you feel safe in your neighborhood? It turns out that he had plenty to fear from Martin, only George didn’t know that. Good thing George did have a gun.
George didn’t know that Martin routinely beat up homeless people. George didn’t know that Martin liked a blunt now and then. George didn’t know that Martin fancied himself a MMA fighter. George didn’t know that Martin wasn’t even trusted by his mother. George didn’t know Martin was actually kicked out of his mother’s house because of the problems Martin was causing at his school. These are things that George didn’t know about Martin. If George had known about them, he would have pulled out his gun and called the cops. As it is, it nearly cost George his life.
I actually hoped that Martin’s parents would have come out and apologized for their son’s behavior.
You do not want to know what I think Trayvon’s parents should do but they could begin by having an honest “come to Jesus” moment.
You asked: “would George have left his car if he didn’t have a gun?”
I do not see the relevancy but the simple answer is YES.
He was in a NWP in which it is not uncommon for participants to carry guns in spite of the BS spewed by an informed media. I do not personally know anyone who doesn’t.
Often people automatically pack with no thoughts about it.. it is much the same as putting on one’s underwear, belt, socks and shoes. In a way the gun defines you and says who you are just like the clothes one wears. “Clothes Make the Man” ´.. .Esquire.
George even said at some point he did not even think about the gun. Do most folks consciously think about their belts?
Years ago. when our laws became more restrictive, it was not easy for me to remember where I could not carry it. It has been an automatic process prior to that to take it almost everywhere. I didn’t leave home without my American Express card or my weapon.
Why would the gun influence his decision to get out of his vehicle when he knew LE was on their way? I am curious as to when he or any others first heard sirens but I bet it was pretty soon after the fight started.
Please recall that George took his role seriously and when NEN wanted more information regarding Martin’s whereabouts and in particular said to let us know what he does, he felt duty bound to “keep his eyes” on Martin and briefly did follow Martin because he had to do that to comply with Sean without getting out of his vehicle. He was trying to do the “right thing” under those circumstances.
It was only afterwards that Sean sensed that he may have misspoken about his “instructions” to George. He then realized that George was following Martin but that he had to do that to be able to tell Sean where Martin was per Sean’s request.
Sean clarifies and confirms with a question: Are you following him? (this now means on foot and not in the car.) George replies affirmatively and then Sean realized that he probably should have said things differently so he says, “We don’t need you to do that.”
George says OK and does not argue or resist and immediately begins to retreat to his truck. However, he could justifiably have said, “Sean, why did you tell me to keep my eyes on this kid and abruptly change your mind?” If you listen closely to the call and do with an open mind, I trust you will see how George earnestly believed he was following Sean’s “instruction.”
I would have probably quizzed Sean in depth b/c, in one sense, he had just put George’s life on the line. I might even be pissed off.. Would you?
“Yes, I do think that George would leave his vehicle. He really had nothing to fear. It was his neighborhood. Don’t you feel safe in your neighborhood?” — With more than 40 calls to 911/NEO in under 5 years, clearly he didn’t. he felt so safe about his ‘hood, he took his gun to Target. And I agree, what George didn’t know could fill a book.
Color me skeptical, but I think George used his gun as a crutch. That little incenctive to do stuff he normally wouldn’t, because if thi
If what you say is true, we would have had numerous times where George had pulled out his gun and waved it around. You know, as a crutch to get by in dicey situations. There would have been witness after witness claiming George NEEDED that gun as a crutch. Yet, that didn’t happen. Very few people even knew George had a gun. George kept it concealed.
Would Trayvon have assaulted George if he was 5’4″ and 105 pounds like in his photo in the red shirt?
-cont- *the situation got dicey, he was armed.
The situation got dicey cuz little traytray was a thuggamuffin of large proprotions
“…out his gun and waved it around…” —- I am curious as to how you got there. I said a crutch, not a club. I didn’t say he was using it to bully people. I said he was using it proverbial ladder to a mental hurdle. In this instance, that hurdle being “don’t go after random strangers at night that run/skipped away from you”.
“The situation got dicey cuz little traytray was a thuggamuffin of large proprotions” — were George a random stranger on this night, I would believe you. He wasn’t.
Look, if I actively take steps to avoid you, an make use of some degree of speed to put distance between us, should I find you a few minutes later where I have retreated to, I have no reason to think you are asking me for the time, or are lost, etc. George skipped (CWIDT?) a LOT of steps that could have been helpful, but instead relied on his weapon rather than common sense to work the situation. Trayvon’s thuggishness notwithstanding, Zimmerman was the catalyst for this by declining Trayvon’s retreat. I mean, seriously, some one runs away from you, you have not seen this person doing anything wrong, and your first inclination is to leave your vehicle? The one ton plus armored shell with locks? C’mon.
Really your still serious about the gun???? Would we be having this conversation and thought of mind if trayvon got his gun and killed zimmerman since we all know those statistics
“Would we be having this conversation and thought of mind if trayvon got his gun and killed zimmerman since we all know those statistics” — to an extent. Trayvon’s words more than likely would be “He approached me and started going for his gun…”, which according to what Zimmerman said he did before Trayvon hit him wouldn’t be to far from the truth.
You really are Stuck On Stupid, aren’t you?
Crystal Gail Magnum, the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse rape case, is very much alive, and currently facing murder charges of her own.
Yes, that reasonably explains why he let himself get his nose broken, then get taken to ground and mounted, and then get wailed on, screaming in anguish for at least 40 seconds, before resorting to his “crutch”.
Chip: I want to make sure that you are not replying to me because I did not say this:
Color me skeptical, but I think George used his gun as a crutch. That little incenctive to do stuff he normally wouldn’t…
All boards get screwed up when fools rush in.
Nah, it’s like last night when I just went to the bottom of the page and replied to you there, since I had no “Reply” button by your comment. I’m sure the same thing is going on with Chip (and others) posting replies pretty much wherever they’ll fit. ;)
That does not happen with all web browsers so I switch a lot
If you guys subscribe to this blog, you can get your reply under the person’s comment from the email. Like I just did this one.Just hit the reply from the email not from the actual blog.
Yeah, thanks Joel. That’s how I usually do it (and I think Jordan does too), but for some reason I wasn’t doing it that way yesterday. ;)
Sometimes I forget to do it as well.
I have done that for over a year.. often getting 3 or 4 hundred each day and I read them all.
“You really are Stuck On Stupid, aren’t you?” — no, Chip. I can appreciate that sarcasm is a touch difficult to see in plain text, I was noting the GLARING difference between the two cases. Crystal you see, had to LIE for there to be a rape case. Trayvon, on the other hand, can’t pretend to be dead to cause a murder investigation. In one, there is no “victim”, in the other, there is a victim, dead of strange circumstance. Trayvon didn’t come back from the grave to say George shot him in cold blood.
“Yes, that reasonably explains why he let himself get his nose broken, then get taken to ground and mounted, and then get wailed on, screaming in anguish for at least 40 seconds, before resorting to his “crutch”.” — that is the nature of a crutch, Chip. Its more of a gray matter thing than a real life thing. Like people that touch their crucifix on their neck subconsciously while making a tough, though ultimately mundane decision in life. However, Zimmerman did say he was reaching for his waist before Martin hit him. As I recall, that was a move Zimmerman found particularly… engrossing during his call to the NEO. I wonder why? ;)
RuleofOrder, since I can’t reply directly to you, I’ll put this here and hope you see it. In the Duke case, Crystal Mangum did indeed lie in order for there to be a rape case. In this case, the lies emanated from Benjamin Crump, Tracy Martin, Sybrina Fulton, and Witness 8. Talk about someone being stuck on stupid.
Tell ya what. If this all turns out that Trayvon was -not- shot, and lied about the whole thing, I will owe each of you a Coke.
As much as you would like to equate the two, the Duke issue stemmed from a very much alive person constructing a yarn, a complete fabrication. Should she not have lied, there would be no case. Trayvon doesn’t have that particular luxury, that of lying about the extend of his involvement to spur an investigation. That was all act of Governor, Jesse and Co, and some other characters you would expect to show if race could be used as a credit card.
“Do most folks consciously think about their belts?” — only when they don’t have one on. ;)
“George says OK and does not argue or resist and immediately begins to retreat to his truck. However, he could justifiably have said, “Sean, why did you tell me to keep my eyes on this kid and abruptly change your mind?” If you listen closely to the call and do with an open mind, I trust you will see how George earnestly believed he was following Sean’s “instruction.”
I would have probably quizzed Sean in depth b/c, in one sense, he had just put George’s life on the line. I might even be pissed off.. Would you?” — No, he begins to find an addy to meet police at. The are you following comment came about 15 or so seconds after he left his truck, but 2.5 minutes later, Zimmerman is on walk about.
Regarding quizzing Sean, all his ‘instructions’ came from the probability that George was in his truck, or home, or other such secured structure. It wasn’t until it became obvious that George was now -out- of that structure and making use of some variety of speed to follow Martin, which is when Sean gave him the polite advice. I don’t have the convo committed to memory, but I thought I heard Zimmerman mention where he was calling from. I could be mistaken on that of course. In any case, the flow of their discourse stemmed from Martin being in plain sight. It would make sense to say “tell me what you see, and if he does anything else”, because Zimmerman made no reference to Trayvon being anywhere else. Once it got dicey, and Zimmerman began to engage, NEO halted it 12 seconds or so later.
Assuming George walked, and not ran, and as you stated went back to his vehicle, can you explain why he was not there… lets say…. 30 seconds later?
Lets say George used some degree of speed to leave his truck. Can you explain why he was not there… say…. 60 seconds later, if indeed he was heading back to his vehicle?
Can you explain why George, if heading back to his vehicle, didn’t tell Sean “Hey, look for my truck… I will meet police there”, rather than the option to have law enforcement call him (for his current location, which should have been his vehicle)?
Yes, Sean advised George not to follow. And George complied. I’ve stated in my other comments that George was NOT scared or worried about a confrontation when he got out of his truck. That’s because he had no intention of trying to “catch” Trayvon. But Sean may not have been so sure… hence his, “We don’t need you to do that.”
But here’s the important part, re. Sean. Notice what happens as soon as George says, “OK”, and clearly STOPS following… listen to what Sean says. Or more importantly, what he does NOT say. All he does is talk calmly to George for the next couple minutes. NOT ONCE does he even hint to George that he should go back to his truck. Sean seems not the least bit concerned that there’s any further risk of a confrontation. He knew George was just kinda standing there, he knew (or assumed) that Trayvon was “gone” (as did George).
Listen to it, closely, while looking at the map and keeping close track of the time. Neither George nor Sean expected for George & Trayvon to meet up again. It’s all right there. Just open your mind and look… listen.
I wonder if there ever will be justice for George.
justice is only for the racist blacks.
George can have all the death threats the racist blacks can come up with
You wrote:
“What’s going on here? Many of Judge Nelson’s decisions are on the razor edge of being obviously and grossly biased toward the prosecution. Her deference to the prosecution, and her inexplicable reluctance to sanction de la Rionda for repeated, indisputable and egregious misconduct, including lies to the court–a matter that usually draws the wrath of any judge–is very hard to understand.”
However, Don West’s little screw up. sure as hell drew her wrath and I sensed even more. Imagine that.
Nah!! She would not dare take revenge and/or punish the defense.
What I want to know now is why were they having a “secret” meeting to discuss sequestration of a jury? Is that really OK? If so, where, when and how does the sunshine enter into that meeting? If it’s part of the public record, where is the transcript?
Thanks as always for your insightful commentary.
In florida the sunshine law doesn’t cover in chamber or side bar meetings.
I don’t think John Galt comments here, but he brought up a good point: on what grounds did Nelson hold that hearing in camera? Without cause, such a private hearing violates Florida’s sunshine laws.
I thought the same after reading more.
P.S. Jordan: I lost your original comment, but just to let you know: in that one comment, I was replying to someone else, and not to you. :)
Yeah, I figured it out.
No smileys here ?
:D
As always love the read. I try and keep on top of all of your writings about this and the Eric Scott case. Keep up the excellent work Mike
Since this is my first post pardon the grammar because I do have disabilities I will try my best.
I have been following this case since it has started. I have lived in Florida all of my life and I am a proud CWP holder. Yes I am female and I do know how to use my weapon responsibly. I believe in the justice system in the U.S. and in Florida I am currently a student at FSU and my major is Computer Criminology after the Casey Anthony trial.
This case has been a center of a lot of my criminology classes, and I tried to watch some of this in one of my classes this morning. Judge Nelson is trying to cover her a** with all of the motions she has denied from the defense. It certainly looks bad when a judge can not give a continence in a high profile case such as this one. But another thing I can not just give up is the state of mind TM was in that night if he has been in previous fights as his text messages show, he just might have picked the wrong person to try to start a fight with. And with the evidence that he was trying to buy a gun is certainly also damning for the prosecution.
My criminal defense lawyer friend in Orlando thinks that after today’s ruling MOM and West should start appeal proceedings for 6th amendment violations.
Soon, the state will ask for and the judhe will allow w8 testimony in court to be submitted via text message with the help of sabrina over at matt guttmans hous.
Well said, as usual , mike
“…he just might have picked the wrong person to try to start a fight with.”
Yeah, as it turned out. But the only reason George was the “wrong” person was because he happened to have a gun. Nothing else would have changed that night if he did NOT have the gun… at least not up till the moment of the shot. In other words, if George didn’t have the gun, then Trayvon would have just kept right on attacking George, until either the cops arrived, or George was knocked out… maybe killed. So just from the physical disparities, George was the RIGHT guy to attack, at least from Trayvon’s perspective. The only thing that saved George was the gun. I’m not a huge fan of guns, but in some cases they really CAN save lives. This may very well have been one…. George’s life.
Jello, I agree with you on this matter. I do not possess a gun, and in fact most Aussies are gun shy. In this case, I agree it is the gun that saved George’s life.
On top of that, considering how dangerous it is becoming in Australia, I am also having some conflicted change of mind about gun possession by the householder.
“MOM and West should start appeal proceedings for 6th amendment violations.”
Yep, I don’t think the DCA has heard the last from MOM/West. In fact, don’t be surprised if they take it on unsolicited, and their upcoming ruling goes beyond just the Crump depo. I’m certain the judges on the Court have been watching this closely — watching NELSON closely — and are none too happy with what they’re seeing.
You said: don’t be surprised if they take it on unsolicited
Do they have the authority to actully step in? What are the limits of what they can do? I would like a similar case in which that was done.
“Nothing else would have changed that night if he did NOT have the gun… ” — if you feel he would have left his car without it.
I love my “scroll down” button. Sure comes in handy and saves time by avoiding serial time-wasters easily identifiable by cute avatars & too-cute-by-half monikers.
Yes, I absolutely do. It’s true that when Trayvon circled the truck, George was very uneasy, and wanted no part of a confrontation that TRAYVON was trying to bring about. But by the time Trayvon walked away, and then “ran”, George never expected to get anywhere near him again. He only wanted to try to determine which direction he went, and maybe get a glimpse of him in the distance. He had NO desire to come face-to-face with him again, and definitely wanted no part of a confrontation… either verbal or physical. Which is one reason George never left the vicinity of the ‘T’ and the east-west little sidewalk. He NEVER ventured to the south on that long sidewalk heading toward the back entrance and Brandi’s house. Once the GPS logs are released, they will confirm this (as if the distances and times involved don’t already confirm it). Oh, and they will also confirm that it was TRAYVON who went hunting for someone… he either hid somewhere between the buildings, and waited to ambush George after he hung up with NEN, or more likely he made it clear down to Brandi’s house, dropped off whatever, and then proceeded back to the ‘T’ so he could confront George.
From everything we now know about Trayvon and how he seemed to really enjoy violence… why should any of this come as a surprise to you?
“Yes, I absolutely do. It’s true that when Trayvon circled the truck” —- George was literally on the phone when he later said this was happening. Don’t you think he might have happened to mention it while talking with the NEO?
“George was very uneasy, and wanted no part of a confrontation that TRAYVON was trying to bring about. But by the time Trayvon walked away, and then “ran”,” — clearly trying to bring about.
“George never expected to get anywhere near him again. He only wanted to try to determine which direction he went, and maybe get a glimpse of him in the distance.” — So drive.
” He had NO desire to come face-to-face with him again” — more reason to stay in the vehicle, if he felt his safety was at risk
“and definitely wanted no part of a confrontation… either verbal or physical. Which is one reason George never left the vicinity of the ‘T’ and the east-west little sidewalk. He NEVER ventured to the south on that long sidewalk heading toward the back entrance and Brandi’s house” — even though that is where he believes Trayvon was heading.
“Once the GPS logs are released, they will confirm this (as if the distances and times involved don’t already confirm it). Oh, and they will also confirm that it was TRAYVON who went hunting for someone… he either hid somewhere between the buildings, and waited to ambush George after he hung up with NEN, or more likely he made it clear down to Brandi’s house, dropped off whatever, and then proceeded back to the ‘T’ so he could confront George.” — dropped off whatever, but not everything, the rest of the stuff being dropped off being a large can, or his cell, etc.
From everything we now know about Trayvon and how he seemed to really enjoy violence… why should any of this come as a surprise to you?
the gun was concealed. How many times do you need to be told the facts. The gun was not in the glove box of the car. It was in a holster on the person. It was so light that George forgot that he had the gun.
Jello you are spot on with that analysis.
“the gun was concealed. How many times do you need to be told the facts.” — So Zimmerman hopes. And the only witness that might be able to refute that is dead. Congratulations, Aussie. No concealed weapon EVER accidentally comes into view, right? And I probably won’t even find an article anywhere on this blog in which a concealed weapon WASN’T concealed, and how well that played out.
These are excellent points, and well stated too.
Thanks Mike, great read as always, I agree with you Judge Nelson rulings are very strict interpretations and when in doubt she sides with the prosecution. She is giving me the impression that unless it is black letter law, she will rule against the defense, but hopefully she will rule correctly on the rest.
During one exchange with MOM, during which she told MOM that the rules of evidence were against him, I actually saw her smirk or smile. The impression I got is that she sees herself still as a prosecutor and enjoyed putting the Defense attorney in its place. Hopefully my impression is wrong, but it looked very telling.
She sure as hell better be thinking clearly if MOM proves conclusively that Bernie lied to her and intentionally withheld discovery. I believe that it is going to happen.
Do not be surprised to see intervention by other outside “interested” parties.
Jordan, not just withheld but may have disposed of some discovery. She might have to disqualify BDLR and Guy, that is as far as I see her going, though.
That may be as far as you see Nelson going but someone else will step in.
This is NOT a simple matter of slapping Bernie’s behind. There will be demands for criminal prosecution.
Do you really believe that no one will pursue charges when it is 100 percent clear that he is a criminal “conspiring” to send an innocent man to prison for life. No way we Floridians will allow that. If so, we deserve this.
As much as I would like to believe so, Florida has not inspired in me the confidence to go that far. Call me a skeptic, I think if there is any small crack for the participants to wiggle through they will.
This is over the top. Our elected officials will have to step in.
I cannot remember all of the details of the Nifong case but wasn’t it them who got involved?
That is a good question, I would have to research it, as I don’t recall either. There is one major difference here, the whole enchilada was started at the behest of the elected officials. This is their mess.
And they damn sure need to clean up their own mess if they want to keep their jobs. I am thinking the folks who started this can also end it.
They can get off the hook by blaming someone else. It’s easy stuff for politicians.
What will Bernie do if he is indicted? He could become the key to exposing the entire scheme including Crump et al.
Do I hear dominoes falling?
Wouldn’t that be something, we always assume it would come from someone in Crumps camp, but it appears the cracks are in Corey’s camp, Wow.
Whoa! You guys are speculating beyond the call of duty.
Interesting fact about Nifong, he asked the attorney general of North Carolina to step in. Roy Cooper agreed and two months later the charges against the LaCrosse guys were dropped. I don’t see Angela Corey stepping in to stop this.
I actually see this going all the way through to the jury. As to what the jury decides…that is anybody’s guess.
I think you mean Pam Bondi, but your right. The Governor has already done his Pilate impersonation when he said that it was in the hands of the Special Prosecutor and that he could not do anything else.
I have wondered what Bondi would do is she realized the game was over. IDK but she has been exposed to not be the conservative she claimed to be and being a conservative is how she got the job in the first place;
Remember both Bondi and Scott will face great resistance in the next election. I do not see Scott getting reelected unless he spends even more of his bucks than he did last time. Even that may not work.
They choose a side and made their beds, now they have to sleep in them and hope for the best.
Let’s wait to first see if Bernie is charged. Didn’t he act a bit different today?
The first to talk usually has the best chance to be the last man standing.
There are several ways this can end but I now think the best way to do it and still maintain some judicial integrity is for the state itself, to fess up and blame the most vulnerable and disposable target.
You can see already how the legal process has been broken and it must be repaired for the next George Zimmerman. The rest of the world (that would include you) are surely mocking us and laughing at our ineptitude. No Floridian wants another blemish after Casey.
By “state,” I meant anyone in the government, of course all the way up to Scott.
Notice we already have a self proclaimed whistle blower stepping up to the plate. That opens the door and could scare the hell out of others who participated in the scheme.
Yep, for those that don’t understand you do not accuse another lawyer of lying in this magnitude unless you can back it up. You could face sanctions yourself, otherwise.
This is what West has wanted all along. I still remember his comment about Bernie not being deposed YET. Do you recall that?
If you read any of my discussions with jello quite a while ago, then you may also recall that we both agreed that the defense was carefully and methodically laying a step by step foundation for prosecutorial misconduct while also trying to trap and expose Crump in a court of law.
Crying time again?
It will be, it will be…
A fit teenager in a sprint could easily cover a quater mile in 70 secs not 20.
One other point to Mike re. distances and stuff: The distance from the ‘T’ to Brandi’s house is a little over 120 yards (370′). (I know because Chip and I did some recalc’s awhile back ;) )
(and by the way, Mike, I realize you said you were just using random numbers, but I can’t help myself…. math Nazi, I guess…)
I’d have to go back to some old comments to get exact numbers, but the ballpark numbers are:
380 feet from the sidewalk “T” to Brandi Green’s back porch
90 seconds from the time Zimmerman lost sight of Martin to the time that Zimmerman reached the sidewalk “T”.
Jello is that the same as been a spelling Nazi :)
;)
oops that is “being”
For “spectator1 (with no “reply” button) and you, freegz (great handle): what Mike McDaniel wrote was:
“. . . a reasonably fit adult could run that distance at a moderate pace in about 100 seconds. A fit teenager in a sprint could easily cover that distance in 20 seconds or so less. . . ”
20 seconds or so less than 100 seconds = 80 seconds or so
“or so” = +/-
Oh wow, thanks… I misread that too! ;) I was thinking, whoa… Usain Bolt to the max.
As always Mike, a terrific read. Thanks for helping me to understand what is going on in Sanford.
Thomas Hearns fought Marvin Hagler in one of the best 3 rounds of boxing violence ever recorded. Hearns weighed 160 pounds. He was tall and skinny and had a variety of punches that could stop or stun boxers like Hagler, Duran, Leonard with one shot.
Just saying.
http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/articles-frontpage/13409-thomas-hearns-hall-of-famer-you-better-believe-itlotierzo
whenever faced with facts I cannot refute, I just scream ‘racism’ as loud as I can while looking wildly about to and fro frothing at the mouth (most white people then cower and run away or give me money and run away)
Hey Jordan, I have no “Reply” buttons under your comments, but just wanted to say… In that thread with you and Bori talking, I just wanted to say I agree with everything you said. Obviously after a full year going at this, you and I are still on the same wave-length. Imagine that. ;)
That’s our story and we are sticking with it. LOL
We actually agree on quite a few issues when others do NOT.
That makes three of us in total agreement. Both of you rock in what you are saying.
Ain’t it strange how like minds find each other without even trying? Actually, it is not strange at all. The truth finds all of us out.
It is because we believe in truth and real justice.
Great stuff. I am nodding off (up since 4:30 am) and will comment tomorrow.
For now I’ll say that IMO things went quite well for MOM West on May 28, 2012. It was a devastating day for the State. I conclude this because:
– MOM West painted prosecutors in a corner or pushed them off the cliff (choose whatever metaphor you like). The State is in the sewers of Paris, plain and simple.
What gives me sinister-sounding LOL moments is knowing that Bernie, Angela, Crump, Jackson, and Parks know the emperor has no clothes. They are naked and sitting in the middle of the courtroom. To be sure, all these folks got the message. They are not deaf and blind.
They all read, viewed or heard in May 2012 the esteemed Harvard Law School professor and world famous lawyer Alan Dershowitz when he went on his “Corey You Are A Criminal, and a Dumb Ass – You Better Get A Lawyer” tour on ALL major media. He tells the world that the State has no case, that Zimmerman should have not been charged, that a Judge should immediately dismiss the case, and that Corey should not be a prosecutor.
Needing More Time
MOM West asking for a continuance is these two salty dog lawyers using tried and true disinformation tactics. Disinformation tactics worked in WWII, it is working against the corrupt Berangela de la Nifongs.
MOM West don’t need a continuance. Asking for one is a ruse to throw Bernie off (there’s a big benefit to the opposition thinking you are not ready for trial or don’t know what you are doing).
Remember, between the two of them, MOM West have 60+ years experience. These guys can try a simple case like this if it came in the door last week, especially if the client is bearing title certificates to split level homes, Mercedes, and a BMW.
(Judge Nelson is wise to MOM West tactics, that’s why she refuses to continue the trial date.)
This Is Now A Simple Case To Try
The net effect of Judge Nelson’s rulings is that the case has been made even simpler to try. The focus will be what happened that night. By restricting the issues to events of Feb 26, the Judge has eviscerated the prosecutor’s case. To be sure, it does not take too long to put on no case.
(By the way, Judge Nelson is using a common technique federal Judges employ to keep cases moving along, and to not take up unnecessary days for trial. They reduce the issues, streamline procedures, and try to get the lawyers to stipulate to facts eliminating time needed for presentation of each side’s case.)
Anyway, think about it. What evidence does the prosecutor have to prove each element of the charge? Very little, to NOTHING. For example, Judge Nelson made it quite clear today that Bernie should not put Sybrina and Tracy on the stand, lest he risk opening the impeachment door. So that limits what they will talk about, if they now even take the stand.
Where up until now Bernie thought he was going to be able to have them was poetic about Trayvon, the Judge has ruled “do so at your peril.”
A Picture Is Worth A Motion To Dismiss… Granted
Devastating for the State, prosecutors are NOT going to get into evidence any of those angelic pics of Trayvon. Why? Because they are irrelevant to the case. Judge Nelson has ruled that only evidence pertaining to events that occurred on Feb. 26 will be allowed into the case.
A Feb 2010 pic of little Trayvon in his red Hollister T is totally unrelated to events two years later (even though I’m sure Crump would like confuse the jury subliminally into thinking maybe Trayvon was wearing his red T that night and Tray was the guy in red, on his back, getting beaten by George on top. :)
The pic that will be allowed, and it is the only pic of Trayvon the jury will have in evidence, is a still of the 7-Eleven video. (And the video will also be admitted.)
We all know how sinister Trayvon Martin looks in that video, but the state will not be able to keep it out because in that video the jury will be able to see what George Zimmerman saw. (And there’s no objection to it coming in.)
Trial Strategy B Gone
So just how screwed are the Berangela de la Nifongs?
Reflect on what has been the State’s trial strategy over the past 15 months (as communicated by Crump). Trayvon Martin was NOT the aggressor that night because he was a nice guy, respectful of authority, got along well with everyone, would never take on someone bigger than he, an adult, did not fight, never has been arrested, Oy vey! What else is in that bottomless bucket of horse sheet?!
Reduced to its pathetic essence, the sum and substance of the Berangela de la Nifong’s argument (again, as communicated by Crump over the past 15 months) is :
“Trayvon Martin was a nice guy, help old ladies across the street nice = Therefore, it is a legal and factual impossibility that he was the aggressor on February 26, 2012.”
The Judge in her rulings told the State if they use THAT strategy (which they are certainly free to do), that the defense will be allowed to bring in all the dirt. The State will have opened the proverbial impeachment door. Net result of the Court’s rulings on the Motions in Limine: “Let’s wait and see if the State stupidly opens that door.” If the prosecutors don’t do that, then MOM West do not get to dip into the buckets of mud at counsel table and hurl it at the testifying witness.”
So Bernie as the old saying goes, is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The Trial
MOM West are ready for trial. And the Judge knows they are ready, that’s why she won’t give them the requested continuance.
Fact is, as complicated as this case may appear, it is actually bonehead simple to try. As the saying goes, competent, experienced trial counsel can defend this case in his or her sleep.
Experienced counsel could walk into court, be comfortable and at ease, and talk to the jury as if they are neighbors meeting at a local restaurant for pizza. Yeah, there’s logistics to deal with (trial books; exhibit lists; premarking exhibits; getting foundations in order; authentication issues; evidentiary objections; sidebars; issuing subpoenas; pre trial, trial, and post trial motions; instructions, and verdict form) but that’s all mechanical tasks that staff can handle.
I’m falling asleep, I’ll be back… Hope this makes sense. Mike, delete it if I said something crazy. I’m pressing the “post comment” with reckless abandon. Hope I don’t get sanctions.
Pleasant dreams MOM West, it was a good day. (As further indicated by Crump, Parks, Jackson, Sybrina, et al. having scowls on their faces at the presser following the hearing, and their fleeing reporters while they were asking questions):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjHmBuDIoQc
One question that’s been pretty much overlooked… the judge’s jury questionnaire. She seemed none too happy that MOM and West wanted to see it. Why? Is it common for a judge to keep that secret? Seems pretty odd, not to mention suspicious, to me.
Mike,
From your point of view, MOM and West have been playing Bernie like a fiddle, and that request for the higher court to intervene is really a shot across the bow to Nelson basically saying play fair or the upper management will stop you.
ItsMichealNotMike,
Well said, sir.
A Feb 2010 pic of little Trayvon in his red Hollister T is totally unrelated to events two years later (even though I’m sure Crump would like confuse the jury subliminally into thinking maybe Trayvon was wearing his red T that night and Tray was the guy in red, on his back, getting beaten by George on top.
I may be wrong but I really do think that picture was chosen b/c the shirt was red.
A true Michaelism-
“It doesn’t take too long to put on no case.”
LOL
You have made a point that I missed about the red t-shirt. I had not thought about the implication of using that particular picture.
Too bad that the pants TM was wearing that night have stains on the knees.
MichaelNotMike, I was so delighted to find your post here. Love reading your summations. In fact, I’d missed your name on the header and scrolled back up to see who it was that read like you.
Just a fan… and wonder if some day, in your spare time or retirement, you’ll launch a second equally successful career as a legal thriller writer. .
I’m more on the It’sMichael side. I think some perspective is needed on where we are in the trial.
None of these thing have been ruled inadmissible. They’ve been ruled out under a motion in limine. That means that there is insufficient reason to get into them now. The procedure for a limine item is to wait until there is a reason other than it’s prejudicial nature to bring the subject up, and then approach the bench with that reason.
Essentially, the judge ruled that the defense can’t start the character v. character argument. However, if the prosecution brings up Martin’s character, at any point, I think that opens the door wide open to cross-examine his character.
The defense can’t start out with “Martin had fights all the time.” However, if the state says something like, “this was a good kid that never hurt anyone” then all of that comes in to refute the state’s assertion. The defense can’t start out with “Martin was a pothead.” However, if the state brings up anything about drug use (like this BS about Zimmerman being on prescription meds) then I think the marijuana issue comes in. (It seems like that one is coming in anyways, but the judge has ruled that an expert has to testify to impairment first, which is no big deal.)
If someone makes some kind of statement like “Trayvon was an angel and never did anything wrong” then it is likely that anything “wrong” comes in to refute that.
All in all, I think that the defense didn’t do too badly. If anything, the state has been painted into a corner. There are so many landmines out there for them — especially when they have witnesses like DeeDee who aren’t bright enough to realize when they might say something that opens this sort of cross-examination up — that they aren’t skilled enough to navigate the shoals. They will bust limine item after limine item, directly and indirectly.
It’s all coming in. It’s just going to come in piece by piece as the state makes mistake after mistake.
Also, if it’s DeeDee in the photos, I think that fact (if not the pics) comes in after they establish that it is her. Creating child porn is a felony and crime of moral turpitude, and it’s proper impeachment to bring in evidence of that sort of felony.
Mmmm . . . I think that’s quite a stretch there, Phelps, though I admire the way you play Hardball. I especially appreciate the time-honored “moral turpitude.”
DeeDee is 19 y/o now, right? In some states it’s a misdemeanor to possess hornball pix of those under 14 y/o; don’t know the deal in Florida. So if it IS DeeDee, it’s hard to see an issue of “creating CP” at all, unless you know something nobody else does, and you actually could, I guess.
What was referenced to in court was an “underage girl.” Some anon somewhere said that he had it on good authority that a gal sexted (sent a sexy text) to TM of a self-shot with her top pulled up. But indeed there may be more, much more, where that came from. If so, you could be right.
Meanwhile:
Perspiring heavily, the State is checking GZ Legal Site every 5 minutes waiting for the other shoe to drop: either “DEFENDANT’S 4th SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY” or the Opinion from 5th DCA. THUDDDD !!
Agreed. And just one more point: Courts have declared that “simple nudity” (if that’s all we’re talking about) is NOT the same thing as “child porn”. And of course the whole idea that a 16- or 17-yr-old girl posting pics of herself naked is “child porn” is pretty ridiculous, IMO.
Moral Turpitude is a specific legal term that opens up impeachment. Some crimes aren’t crimes of moral turpitude (like manslaughter) because they don’t involve mens rae, or a specific intent to commit a crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude
If it’s indecent exposure of an “underage girl” in a photo, it’s creation of child porn. The end. The state has been particularly aggressive in prosecuting teens who sext each other.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-6552438.html
I don’t know anything other than what I’ve read in the media, but it’s not a huge leap. DeeDee was texting and talking to him regularly. They are said to have a long-standing relationship. It’s not unreasonable to speculate that if he had an underage girl sending him indecent pictures, that she’s a prime candidate for the sender, and it could have been sent years ago.
Sexting precludes simple nudity by definition. The prurient interest is the point.
It would seem very odd and unlikely that the state wouldn’t call any of the Trayvon family members to the stand. Tracy, Sybrina, Alicia, Brandy, Chad, aunts, uncles, cousins et al. None of them were in the area at the time of the incident, except Chad who was supposedly waiting for his snack. What ever would they have to say except to speak to Trayvon’s character? Bingo, the door is open for the defense. On the other hand, the defense would be wise not to put any of George’s family on the stand for similar reasons.
The defense can call DD to the stand even if the state does not, as she was the basis for the charging document, and was in fact referred to in that document as the earwitness supposedly on the phone with Trayvon up until the last few minutes of his life. DD has already given up much information to the defense, and what is destructive to the prosecution. I’m not sure that DD would even take much prodding to continue to destroy the state’s case. I would think her deposition with BDLR would be fair game, and she said in that interview that Trayvon wouldn’t fight, yet she exchanges texts with Trayvon about his habit of fighting.
I agree Phelps, much of the negative character traits of Trayvon will in fact be brought out in trial. I’m sure O’Mara/West will be smart enough to not open any doors into GZ’s character. The state really did paint themselves into a corner.
Phelps, your point about the timing of introducing Martins character as a rebuttal to the ‘good boy’ meme, made me think just how risky it might be to put the parents on the stand, especially the mother. No matter how carefully coached, it’s all to easy to let something slip as to his ‘sterling’ character, which would open the door wide open for MOM/West.
I am reminded of Ms Fulton’s unforced error when she let it slip last year that all ‘they’ needed was for ‘George to be arrested[charged]’ Telling the careful listener exactly what the priority was: creating a more positive environment for a civil suit.
Crump foolishly continues to state absurdities such as this is the ‘civil rights’ case of our time. Yet, it isn’t and he’s no civil rights attorney. He is a victim’s rights attorney. Cha-ching… Oddly, though, it appears that the DoJ CRS is following or possibly involved in this case in some way.
The one hope I have, beyond George being completely cleared, is that he’ll have loads of opportunities for civil suits of his own. This whole process has been such an abuse of the courts and his civil rights. I must say, when I heard Obama remark, ‘if I had a son’, I cringed at the targeting of yet another citizen by this President. And the case is even more absurd than the Sgt. Crowley/Gates ‘racial’ claims.
I’m not sure if readers recall, but Obama joined Shakedown Al and CRUMP in Florida a couple years before his first Presidential win. That, too, was a civil lawsuit hiding behind racial/civil rights issues. A young man in some sort of behavioral facility was made to run laps. He complained and the staff thought he was a shirker. Turns out he had Sickle Cell and was a medical time bomb. Wouldn’t have made any difference if he’d stopped running immediately. Crump, after gracing the cameras, presumably flanked by Obama and Sharpton, managed to obtain a 7 MILLION dollar check for the grieving parents.
At some point, I’d really like to know more about that planted question w/ an NBC reporter during a presser about the World Bank nominee and WHY Obama chose to insert himself in such a racially charged way. If Obama had not done so, it is likely this case would have not gone anywhere.
@Jordan:
You make an excellent point, that deserves more attention. It is utterly perverse to suggest that law-abiding citizens have to self-restrict their freedoms, simply due to the act of exercising the right to bear arms. Law-abiding citizens have the right to be outside of their homes and vehicles, and to be outside in their communities, and in public – without fear of being accosted and assaulted.
The entire situation has been perverted by anti-gun zealots, and the narrative that Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle has the potential to cause the farthest-reaching and most long-term damage to the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
Zimmerman did not engage in an unsafe or reckless act merely by getting out of his vehicle and walking on a sidewalk; rather, he undertook an entirely reasonable and responsible act: to attempt to maintain visual contact with a suspicious person. Zimmerman had every legal and moral right to get out of his vehicle, every moral and legal right to walk on a sidewalk in his community, and every moral and legal right to attempt to maintain visual contact with a suspicious person.
To those who legally carry firearms, the presence of the firearm does not embolden to act recklessly; rather, it merely reassures when engaging in normal activities and behaviors. The suggestion that those who exercise the right to bear arms are somehow emboldened by the presence of their firearm does not align with reality. By and large (in fact, by one or two orders of magnitude greater than non-carrying citizens), those who carry firearms are law-abiding citizens who comport themselves in a responsible manner.
(If there were evidence that Zimmerman engaged in some unlawful activity with his firearm, that would be a different story. If he had brandished it or otherwise menaced Martin with his firearm, he would have committed an unlawful act. But there is simply no evidence to suggest that he did so – and ample circumstantial evidence to suggest that he did not do so.)
Progressives don’t understand the right to keep and bear arms. Generally, they have a distorted view of gun ownership – a view further distorted by Hollywood mischaracterization and sensationalization of law-abiding citizens who keep and bear arms.
” it merely reassures when engaging in normal activities and behaviors. ” — such as following assholes in the rain. C’mon, man. Investigating suspicious characters is what you call “normal”?
“Zimmerman had every legal and moral right to get out of his vehicle, every moral and legal right to walk on a sidewalk in his community, and every moral and legal right to attempt to maintain visual contact with a suspicious person.” — but not the situational awareness to handle any of it. Mike wrote a great article about various levels of threat awareness. Still waiting on his synopsis on how Zimmerman stacked up, knowing that the person he was following attempted to actively avoid him.
” it merely reassures when engaging in normal activities and behaviors….”
What did Zimmerman’s gun reassure him of when he left his vehicle to find Martin?
I detect an eloquent dodge in the forthcoming reply.
That he’s a citizen of a free state? That’s he’s responsible for his own safety?
What did the appearance of an overweight, short, pale skinned guy in a windbreaker ressure Martin of when he decided to assault that person and mount him to bash his head into the ground?
That indeed, this weird dude has been watching him, and as evidenced by his leaving of his vehicle, has ill will toward him.
He also wanted to get the address of the first unit on the outer loop, per his statement to Sean. He repeated the directions a couple of times to pass the clubhouse before turning left, not to make the first left. It sounded to me that he wasn’t quite sure if the message would be conveyed/followed properly. Just more helpfulness on George’s part.
Exactly. George and Sean just could NOT get on the same wavelength where directions were concerned. You could hear the frustration in George’s voice more than once on that tape. Were it not involving such a tragic event, it would really be funny listening to the two of them try to get it together. So that’s a big reason George wanted a specific address, and asked the cops to call him when they arrived.
Yo said: “So that’s a big reason George wanted a specific address, and asked the cops to call him when they arrived.”
Do we know if LE ever did call his cell phone? Shouldn’t it have rung when the cops got there. It was at least several minutes or more before they know it was George… right?
If they never did call… well, cry me river.
It’s one of the nagging left over questions that I cannot seem to get answered.
Yes, I am STILL curious to know what happened to the blunts.. AND are we to believe that Martin never had a wallet with him?
Are these dumb questions? Yeah, yeah, I know: At this point what the hell difference does it make?
This is for RuleofOrder:
Obtuse, what a wonderful way to put it. We need to revive that word, it can be very appropriate at times.
:D
@RuleOfOrder:
Through no fault of his own.
Remember: he claims that he merely walked on a sidewalk, then attempted to return to his vehicle. There is no evidence to refute or to contradict that claim.
Reaching for one’s pocket does not constitute imminent use of unlawful force, nor does someone reaching for a pocket constitute reasonable fear of imminent use of unlawful force. Thus, Martin was not legally justified in using force in self-defense, merely because Zimmerman reached for his pocket.
Walking with a hand in the waistband is marginally more suspicious, and Zimmerman reported it as additional suspicious behavior. Had he shot Martin merely for having a hand in his waistband, such use of deadly force would not have been justified as self-defense.
Actually, that account comes directly (if paraphrased) from Witness 6’s FDLE interview – the so-called “recant” interview (that didn’t actually include any material recants). He did include blows being thrown, though he clarified that it could have been either punches or forcible restraint (I’m fairly certain that the two are statutorily the same, anyway).
That dog doesn’t hunt with me. I’ve maintained all along that the only thing that matters is what happened to instigate the physical altercation.
The gun only matters because Martin decided to assault Zimmerman. I fundamentally disagree that his actions that night were stupid. It is perfectly reasonable to attempt to maintain visual contact with a suspicious person, especially when you know that the police will arrive at any moment.
So we’re on the same page: Martin is dead because Martin chose to assault Zimmerman.
Under the law, that is all that matters. Zimmerman did nothing unlawful prior to that assault, and was not the initial physical aggressor of that assault.
if only you’d stopped there…
You have evidence of that?
Zimmerman claims that he passed Martin while in his vehicle, went to the clubhouse to call NEN, and then Martin approached and then walked past his vehicle, then ran around the corner of the buildings, down the dog walk.
No “following the length of the apartment complex” there.
(Not that it matters, even if true.)
A simple review of the RATL map would answer this question sufficiently.
And I am equally sure that you have evidence to support the allegation that his firearm did impact that decision.
That case, in the end, may or may not support your premise. That said, as I’m not intimately knowledgeable about the facts of that case, I can’t comment on it.
The Florida commission returned its recommendation not to change SYG.
Simple: because of Sybrina Fulton and others of her ilk, who have a social and political axe to grind.
Also: SYG is completely irrelevant to the Zimmerman case. He didn’t rely on it, and hasn’t invoked it. His was a case of simple self-defense.
Actually, it is not merely “not legally binding”, but in fact illegal, due to the preemption clause in Florida’s CCW statutes, for any entity to create a regulation or rule that prohibits concealed carry.
The Sanford PD NHW program explicitly did not include a prohibition against carrying a firearm. So no such “rule”, illegal though it would have been, ever existed in the first place.
At the end of the day, if Martin had wanted to return to Brandi Green’s home, he would have been inside long before Zimmerman ever reached the sidewalk T. At the end of the day, if Martin had not decided to approach and confront Zimmerman, no altercation would have ever taken place. At the end of the day, if Martin had not decided to assault Zimmerman, Martin would have lived safely through that night.
Zimmerman merely got out of his vehicle and walked on a sidewalk.
“Remember: he claims that he merely walked on a sidewalk, then attempted to return to his vehicle. There is no evidence to refute or to contradict that claim” — yes, I know he claims as such. I also know that his written report (the one that says he first saw Martin over by Taafe’s place, on the other side of the complex) once the NEO gave the advisement of not to follow (that is how Zimmerman took it) he stated he was heading back to his car. 2.5 minutes later… even though it was 15 seconds on the outside in which he left it. Claiming to look for the kid. Mm. Not so good. Claiming to be on my way back to the car, on the other hand…
“Walking with a hand in the waistband is marginally more suspicious, and Zimmerman reported it as additional suspicious behavior.” — Zimmerman then begins to engage in this suspicious behavior while infront of Trayvon. What makes it suspicious? The possibility of a weapon. Fortunately for Zimmerman, he was going for his :cough: cell phone. Not his gun. So he claims. Witnesses regarding the retrieval of his cell phone are dead from gun shot wound. It would make sense as to why Zimmerman would be “forcibly restrained”, assuming Martin saw the gun, wouldn’t it?
Directly, but paraphrased. o.0 Uh-huh.
” “recant” interview (that didn’t actually include any material recants). He did include blows being thrown, though he clarified that it could have been either punches or forcible restraint (I’m fairly certain that the two are statutorily the same, anyway)” — unless the one you are restraining made suspicious moves to a weapon.
“A simple review of the RATL map would answer this question sufficiently.” — so you stand by driving around the block being slower than walking around it, and dodges the rather other pointed questions about suspicious characters, vehicles, and the potential protection they can provide.
“And I am equally sure that you have evidence to support the allegation that his firearm did impact that decision.” — Touche.
“SYG is completely irrelevant to the Zimmerman case. He didn’t rely on it, and hasn’t invoked it. His was a case of simple self-defense.” — says you and me both. That that doesn’t mean others, with even less common sense that Zimmerman won’t try to use it as a shield, or motive, when dealing with other people. I refer back to the case about the music being to loud, though can appreciate it if that is not a case you are familiar with.
“So we’re on the same page: Martin is dead because Martin chose to assault Zimmerman.” — attack in preparation. That is why I didn’t stop there. Parry riposte sort of thing.
” Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs’ Association, said Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.
First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.
From the Sentinel:
“If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job,” Tutko said. “This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he’s overzealous.”
Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff’s offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit.”
“The Sanford PD NHW program explicitly did not include a prohibition against carrying a firearm. So no such “rule”, illegal though it would have been, ever existed in the first place.” — Which is why I say guideline, cause it can’t be a rule, even though its a pretty good idea. I am enjoying these occasions where I state something, and you sort of reword it to codify how what I am saying is true. Its not legally binding/its illegal. They were guidelines/making them rules would be illegal. Its like the difference between a letter opener and a chain saw regarding opening a parcel.
“At the end of the day, if Martin had not decided to approach and confront Zimmerman, no altercation would have ever taken place. ” — and this, right here, is the same argument I use about Zimmerman. Legal right, moral obligation, etc… I think you and I both want to boil it down to whom threw the first punch and why, and ultimately, we don’t have a great record on that. We take different tacks as to how to extrapolate the fault.
No; flatly: no. “Reaching for the pocket” does not constitute reasonable fear of imminent use of unlawful force. If the police had shown up before the gunshot, and pulled Martin off of Zimmerman, and Martin said, “he reached for his pocket, and I was afraid that he was reaching for a weapon, so I punched him to defend myself,” then he would have subsequently been arrested for felony battery.
You’re welcome to refute anything I asserted, if you challenge that what I said was not materially part of the Witness 6 FDLE interview.
The firearm was properly concealed. What evidence do you have that Martin saw the gun, or that Zimmerman reached for it, or menaced Martin with it?
Have you looked at the map yet? Walking one side of a rectangle is considerably shorter and faster than driving around 3 1/2 sides.
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman approached Martin? Remember, Zimmerman by his own admission lost sight of Martin before he ever got out of his vehicle, and did not regain sight of Martin for the duration of the NEN call. There is no evidence that Zimmerman approached Martin.
Again: SPD’s NHW manual did not even suggest that volunteers not exercise their right to bear arms, and statutory preemption in the state CCW law would make such a suggestion (or “guideline” illegal, especially when made by an entity of the State.
Yes, we take different tacks. I start with the constitutionally protected presumption of innocence, move on to the disparity of sustained injury and the volume of eye-witness testimony, and end with the conclusion that a preponderance of the evidence indicates that Martin was the initial physical aggressor. Your tack appears to be to start from an unfounded assumption that Zimmerman behaved stupidly, and is therefore responsible for whatever happened, just because he was legally carrying a firearm.
Assuming Martin walked, and not ran, can you explain why he was not at Brandi Green’s house – some 380 feet from the sidewalk “T” – let’s say… 30 seconds later?
Let’s say Martin used some degree of speed to elude Zimmerman. Can you explaain why he was not safely inside Brandi Green’s house… say… 60 seconds after he attempted to elude Zimmerman, if indeed he was heading back to the safety of Brandi Green’s home?
Can you explain why Martin, if honestly in fear of some dude following him, didn’t call 911 and say, Hey, there’s some creepy old dude following me”?
“No; flatly: no. “Reaching for the pocket” does not constitute reasonable fear of imminent use of unlawful force. If the police had shown up before the gunshot, and pulled Martin off of Zimmerman, and Martin said, “he reached for his pocket, and I was afraid that he was reaching for a weapon, so I punched him to defend myself,” then he would have subsequently been arrested for felony battery.” —- Flatly, you didn’t answer the question. Forcible restraint as witnessed applied to a person reaching for a weapon. I am not talking about assault and batter and crimes, I am talking about what would make sense based on what Zimmerman said he did, suspicious activity, and what you are willing to say a witness mentions.
“You’re welcome to refute anything I asserted, if you challenge that what I said was not materially part of the Witness 6 FDLE interview.” —- Merely pausing over the use of the word/term “directly taken” with “paraphrased” attached to it, thats all.
“The firearm was properly concealed. What evidence do you have that Martin saw the gun, or that Zimmerman reached for it, or menaced Martin with it?” — I am gonna go out on a limb here, and say that you believe that its impossible for Martin to have seen it, right?
“I start with the constitutionally protected presumption of innocence” — like the one Zimmerman gave to this asshole, right?
“Have you looked at the map yet? Walking one side of a rectangle is considerably shorter and faster than driving around 3 1/2 sides.” — yes, I am familiar with the lay out. The elephant in the room here is that Zimmerman didn’t go to the back entrance. He states he believes Martin ran there, but for whatever reason alters his opinion on the matter to stay around the dogwalk.
“What evidence do you have that Zimmerman approached Martin?” —- I am taking directly from another person. Not paraphrasing. ;) Not my words, yo. All I can do is quote an authority on the matter, and his opinion, specifically of interest was his view on NW members and weapons. If you have issue with how illegal it is to recommend not doing so, take it up with him.
I will answer the questions you posed in response to mine, however am assuming you have no explanation for Zimmerman’s failure to be at his vehicle in the times described, despite the assertion that is what he was doing:
Trayvon was not heading directly home once he realized he was being followed.
Occam’s Razor, I think (as mentioned by another poster) would be more fittingly applied here. Trayvon’s destination was not the residence. Zimmerman’s destination was not his vehicle. So, in response, you will say something to the effect that he wanted to confront Zimmerman, to which I will reply ZImmerman had the same designs with Trayvon, as evidenced by his failure to be at his stated destination in more than ample time frames.
Sound about right?
“once the NEO gave the advisement of not to follow (that is how Zimmerman took it) he stated he was heading back to his car.”
NO. HE DID NOT. All he did was say, “OK”, at which point he and Sean held a pretty much calm, uneventful conversation for the next two minutes. George says, and the sounds on the tape seem to confirm, that he stayed pretty much right at the ‘T’ most of that time, and walked over to the east end of the sidewalk (to RVC) as the call ended. It was only THEN that he turned around and headed back toward his truck. And by then, it was less than a minute before the first sounds of confrontation were heard by witnesses…. right near the ‘T’, right where George SAID it started.
“NO. HE DID NOT. All he did was say, “OK”, at which point he and Sean held a pretty much calm, uneventful conversation for the next two minutes” — I agree, that is what he -said-, however Zimmerman’s written report (the on that I make reference to about casually walking and looking into homes), he took from the NEO advice of “not to follow” his suspect. That is very nearly what he wrote down.
To Rule of Order.
Lots of distortions being thrown out by you.
I am looking for something a little more real than the mouthpiece saying: “Here is a video of Trayvon reffing a fight. And here is another video of Trayvon reffing a fight. And here is a video of some of the same kids in the other video beatin up a random guy, but no Trayvon. Trayvon must have been filming.”
Occam’s Razor Sir — especially in the absence of any other evidence that someone used TM’s phone to record other videos. Given that most teens have their own phones, seldom are without them; it is probable that TM was the one filming.
Add to that no evidence presented that the video was transferred by text message.
I have heard about weed, Lean, gunz, and now a homeless guy. All of which are not even clued in on by Zimmerman.
Actually Zimmerman did clue in on the possible drug use. The tapes to the NEN clearly indicate that “he looks suspicious, like he is on drugs or something” as why Zimmerman called, right?
So given the background of Zimmerman (cop wannabe), experience with previous break ins (cops explaining why most homes are broken into and how), Isn’t it reasonable that he correctly identified behavior of someone casing houses?
Zimmerman deciding to act as he did while armed, on the other hand, is what I am concerned with. Honest Injun, would Zimmerman have left his car if he not toting his gun?
A little two-faced there, aren’t you?
Martin’s character doesn’t matter but Zimmerman’s character of bravery only coming from his firearm possession does matter, eh.
“Zimmerman had every legal and moral right to “stick his nose” in other people’s business.” — turned out well, too. Sort of. But not really.
Care to explain why he didn’t ? Because if you can, you should work to remove every single neighborhood watch program in the country.
Not only that; you need to get the Federal government to stop their program of “If you see something, say something”.
We often talk about our rights but seldom address our responsibilities; doesn’t each and every individual have a civic responsibility to reduce/prevent crime if they can?
Zimmerman acted REALLY frickin stupid. To further complicate that, he acted REALLY fricking stupid, then had to rely on his fire arm to bail him out of it
Glad you aren’t making the laws or the rules; otherwise stupid behavior would be outlawed or a capital crime apparently. First off, it is simply your opinion it was stupid to determine which way Martin went. Next, you conflate trying to determine where he was his actions after Martin apparently attacked him. So, are you saying that each and every person has to be able to successfully defend themselves from an expected assault without resorting to a firearm?
Try to stay at least within the known evidence/testimony; Nothing suggests that Martin didn’t have the upper hand and was delivering possibly lethal blows when Zimmerman went for his firearm. I hesitate to call that stupid.
that followed him for the length of the apartment complex.
That works against you worse than you think. Why did an apparently healthy 17 year old stop short of safety when he had already traveled nearly the length of the apartment complex?
Could it be that Martin wanted to confront Zimmerman? As shown by his history, that would not be out of character. What would be out of character is for him to be so winded he couldn’t travel the remaining distance to safety.
I’m not saying that Martin had to but if you talk about really stupid ideas; isn’t confronting the person you think is chasing you one of them?
Hey, Chip, got a question for you. Which travels faster to a back entrance, a vehicle, or a person on foot?
Given the structure of the town home complex (not an apartment complex) the foot pursuit can actually be faster. The town homes have wide green spaces inbetween the front of each home. The streets are often narrow and face the back of the homes. People have to walk around the entire structure to get to the front/green spaces.
Enough for now?
“Occam’s Razor Sir — especially in the absence of any other evidence that someone used TM’s phone to record other videos. Given that most teens have their own phones, seldom are without them; it is probable that TM was the one filming.” — but that doesn’t work when applied to the other two videos in which he was -filmed-. Wouldn’t THOSE dudes have used their phone, and not Trayvon’s?
“So given the background of Zimmerman (cop wannabe), experience with previous break ins (cops explaining why most homes are broken into and how), Isn’t it reasonable that he correctly identified behavior of someone casing houses?” —- distilled so eloquently by Zimmerman’s written word. “casually walking and looking into homes”. If he thought Trayvon was a burglar, Occam’s Razor and all, why not say that to the NEO, or write that down in his written report? RE drug use, you will have a hard time convincing me that 1.5 ng/ml is “impairment”.
“Care to explain why he didn’t ? Because if you can, you should work to remove every single neighborhood watch program in the country.
Not only that; you need to get the Federal government to stop their program of “If you see something, say something”.” — casually walking, looking into homes. I would like to point out there is not much else of a view in this complex. For your viewing pleasure, you have the night sky, the road, and homes.
“We often talk about our rights but seldom address our responsibilities; doesn’t each and every individual have a civic responsibility to reduce/prevent crime if they can?” — of course. So, what crime did Zimmerman stop or reduce? Was it the casually walking crime, or looking into homes crime?
“Next, you conflate trying to determine where he was his actions after Martin apparently attacked him. So, are you saying that each and every person has to be able to successfully defend themselves from an expected assault without resorting to a firearm?” — no, I am trying to determine his actions BEFORE Martin attacked him, and each person has to be able to know how to avoid a confrontation. If you can explain to me how following some one (whom ran from you) decreases those odds, I am all ears.
“Nothing suggests that Martin didn’t have the upper hand and was delivering possibly lethal blows when Zimmerman went for his firearm. I hesitate to call that stupid.” — Well, in evidence and testimony, its possible that it wasn’t “blows” so much as a forcible detention, and if Zimmerman was reaching for a concealed object before he got popped, it would make sense as to why a forcible detention was being engaged.
“That works against you worse than you think. Why did an apparently healthy 17 year old stop short of safety when he had already traveled nearly the length of the apartment complex?” — being followed by car, why take my follower back to my residence?
“Could it be that Martin wanted to confront Zimmerman? As shown by his history, that would not be out of character. What would be out of character is for him to be so winded he couldn’t travel the remaining distance to safety.” — on the topic of character, its in Zimmerman’s to make mountains of mole hills. Secondly, is it possible a confrontation was wanted? Of course. As evidenced by running away… skipping away. Sorry. By the same token, it could be asked of Zimmerman with the same results.
“’I’m not saying that Martin had to but if you talk about really stupid ideas; isn’t confronting the person you think is chasing you one of them?” — yup. No argument there. Which is why I expected the adult to act like an adult, and the minor to behave as such.
“Given the structure of the town home complex (not an apartment complex) the foot pursuit can actually be faster.” — WHOA WHOA WHOA! I have been assured, many times over, that it was not Zimmerman’s intent to pursue Martin! I bring up the fact of sheer convenience of getting from point A to point B faster via car, while maintaining safety from the person you think is on drugs and up to no good.
RE drug use, you will have a hard time convincing me that 1.5 ng/ml is “impairment”.
So, you are saying that Martin’s drug use would not be considered a slow down to Martin attacking George? Another way of putting it, Martin wasn’t mellowed by his use of marijuana. That means that Martin actually could be able to instigate the fight. That I totally agree with you.
BTW Martin’s blood had 1.5 ng/ml in his system points to illegal drug use. Which means, by definition that Martin is a criminal, just hadn’t been caught.
“So, you are saying that Martin’s drug use would not be considered a slow down to Martin attacking George? Another way of putting it, Martin wasn’t mellowed by his use of marijuana. That means that Martin actually could be able to instigate the fight. That I totally agree with you. ” — indeed. However, that would also toss one of George’s precursors for suspicious activity out the window.
“BTW Martin’s blood had 1.5 ng/ml in his system points to illegal drug use. Which means, by definition that Martin is a criminal, just hadn’t been caught.” — sure. If that is how you would like to justify the end result of all this. Ha. That asshole didn’t get away… with smoking weed! ::musical score::
No, It actually shows Martin’s character. Of criminal mind and intent. He likes to break the law regularly. Illegal drug use points to that. It isn’t any stretch to consider that Martin attacked George illegally.
Ok, since you’ve been civil in your debate with us, I’ll give you one…
“homes. I would like to point out there is not much else of a view in this complex. For your viewing pleasure, you have the night sky, the road, and homes.”
Now that’s pretty funny right there
“Zimmerman deciding to act as he did while armed, on the other hand, is what I am concerned with. Honest Injun, would Zimmerman have left his car if he not toting his gun?
A little two-faced there, aren’t you?
Martin’s character doesn’t matter but Zimmerman’s character of bravery only coming from his firearm possession does matter, eh.”
— sorry, missed this part. Occams Razor says you didn’t answer the question. A few people have, stating that yes, he would, which I disagree with, but its more philosophical to refute than would be relevant to the case.
Dear 3boxesofbs:
Well said. One point most people miss is that trying to follow someone on foot in a vehicle is a losing proposition, particularly in a densely packed housing development. During my police years, whenever I needed to find or follow anyone afoot, I parked my car and followed on foot. Cars take too long and too much space to turn, it’s hard to hear anything going on outside the car, and they’re strictly limited to established roadways. In trying to keep Martin in sight, Zimmerman was, in fact, using good tactics, and was doing nothing improper, unwise, or illegal.
On TV, good guys in cars can catch bad guys on foot because they know precisely where the bad guy will be and when. Reality is another matter.
@3boxes: One other point… Zimmerman went for his firearm, per his statement, only AFTER Martin felt it through his clothing, tried to grab it himself, whilst stating something to the effect of, ‘oh, now you’re really going to get it.’ THAT is when Zimmerman went for his firearm himself and the fatal shot then fired.
Which I think shows admirable restraint. He allowed his nose to be broken, then head pounded on the ground for some amount of time, and only reached for the weapon defensively, to prevent Martin from getting it first.
Yes, as I’m sure Rule will point out, we ‘only’ have George’s word for it. However, it does fit with the facts of the case we do know and there is no evidence to refute his claim.
Reblogged this on A world at war.
@RuleOfOrder:
Do you have evidence that Martin saw Zimmerman’s firearm, and believed that he was reaching for it?
(PROTIP: Zimmerman’s gun was holstered at 5:00 around the waist; hip pockets are generally found at 11:00 and 1:00. Just something to keep in mind for this specious theory of yours.)
Further: if Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun, believed Zimmerman was reaching for it, and in response preemptively punched him, took him to ground, and straddled him, why did he not start screaming, “Help!”? When Witness 6 verbally confronted Martin and Zimmerman, why didn’t Martin say, “Help me! He’s got a gun!” instead of ignoring Witness 6, and continuing with his forcible restraint?
So you don’t refute anything I attributed to Witness 6? You merely balk at the juxtaposition of “taken directly” and “paraphrased”? Sounds legit.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, and assume that you actually know and understand the relative burden of proof and evidentiary standard for a defendant versus that of the accuser?
But, for what it’s worth: yeah, I’m pretty confident that there’s no chance Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun until Martin was on top of Zimmerman, straddling him, and beating the crap out of Zimmerman. Why? First, when Martin first ran, Zimmerman was still inside his vehicle; so there’s no chance Martin saw a gun at that time. Then, when Martin approached Zimmerman from out of the darkness at the sidewalk “T”, Martin would have been facing north, and Zimmerman would have been facing west. Zimmerman’s gun was holstered at 5:00, thus on the back-right side of his body. Further, Zimmerman was wearing a jacket that fell below his beltline. The only chance for Martin to see Zimmerman’s gun would be for Zimmerman to be thrashing and raising his arms, such as trying to defend himself while on his back.
Now you resort to sophistry. Does this retort even justify a sincere response? Perhaps if Martin had done what Zimmerman did – call the police – the entire altercation would have been avoided.
Having one’s nose broken and head bounced on the ground during an assault does funny things to short-term memory, recall of detail, and time perception.
The elephant in the room here is that the only plausible explanation is that, wherever Martin went, he either waited in ambush or circled back intentionally to confront Zimmerman. The even bigger elephant in the room is that the State pressed charges against Zimmerman without a single shred of evidence to refute a self-defense claim, much less to prove second-degree murder.
Speaking of not answering questions; I’ll repeat: What evidence do you have that Zimmerman approached Martin?
Zimmerman’s timeline is perfectly reasonable. The time from the end of the NEN call to the beginning of the confrontation was 90 seconds, at most. Give time for walking from the sidewalk “T” to the front of the building, looking around for a bit for a street/address sign, or any sign of Martin, turning around, walking back toward the sidewalk “T” – probably slowly, since he didn’t know where Martin was – and then getting accosted somewhere in that vicinity is perfectly reasonable in a period of time that simply cannot possibly be any longer than 90 seconds.
And Zimmerman was under no obligation to go directly to his vehicle, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200.
Agreed. Martin had no intention of returning home, or he would have been there. That rather nicely refutes any claim that he was a scared little child, running for his life from the big scary man on the phone in his vehicle.
Zimmerman’s destination was not his vehicle.
Whoops; no. You’ve not proven this. As stated above, Zimmerman’s timeline is perfectly reasonable.
What Zimmerman did in traversing the 150 (or so) feet between his vehicle and the front side of the buildings on the other side of the dog walk, during a period of no more than 90 seconds is immaterial, and does not belie any intent not to return to his vehicle, nor does it belie any inappropriate intent or action.
By contrast, Martin’s failure to traverse 380 feet, given a 90-second head start while the creepy old guy was still on his phone sitting in his vehicle 100 or so feet away, belies an intent and desire to confront Zimmerman. (Not to mention, Martin’s deliberate acts in removing his phone ear buds and the button on his shirt, and placing both in his pocket prior to confronting Zimmerman.)
Ratio & Proportions example:
H.S. J.V. player : Kobi Bryant :: whatzisname : Chip Bennett
H.S. J.V. player IS TO Kobi Bryant AS whatzisname IS TO Chip Bennett
Chip, you are simply feeding RuleofOdor’s need for someone to acknowledge his pathetic existence. Even he must recognize his own stupidity. Ignore him. Let his miserable isolation consume him–or maybe he’ll try to find his way out of his mother’s basement and meet some nice girl. Well, that won’t happen.
Chip is THE master at this and he likes doing it. If everyone else will stay out out of it, his opponent will quickly disappear.
I stay on the sidelines and enjoy watching how each “battle” inevitably ends. AFAIK, Chip is undefeated.
“Chip, you are simply feeding RuleofOdor’s need for someone to acknowledge his pathetic existence. Even he must recognize his own stupidity. Ignore him. Let his miserable isolation consume him–or maybe he’ll try to find his way out of his mother’s basement and meet some nice girl. Well, that won’t happen.” — Don’t flatter yourself, or Chip. My pathetic little existence is acknowledged in far more fufilling ways. Tobias, no offense, but you’re just a cheap hobby. Now, go have a beer.
Best advice? Ignore the troll. Ignore the troll. Ignore the troll. Refuse to engage and let them spew. Not easy to do and sadly I violate my own advice but it really is better to let comments from some people pass without comment.
He should be charged with ruing my day. Every other email is about him and he sends his replies to one of my comments.
Thank you Tobias- RuleofOrder has been here hitting every post since Mike started blogging about the case. There have been many that have come and gone trying to talk sense to him, and to convince him of how wrong he is, all to no avail. Wouldn’t some be much better off commenting with those that can actually see the light? The one thing I would disagree with is that he lives in his mom’s basement. He in fact lives in Ben Crumps basement. He has Trayvon Martin set on his computer alarm to run out and say stuff whenever his hero is in an article. Thank God for scroll and roll.
PineCone, it was out of sheer morbid curiosity that I checked back on the posts I have made here. So, in light of your comment, I would direct you to: 1-9, “Coming Soon”, 12 in which I told Mike his links didn’t go where indicated and posted no more, 13,13.2, 14, 18, 24,25,26,27, and 28 in which I think I mentioned some of Mike’s other articles. For some one whom makes it their life’s ambition to posts on all his articles, I missed quite a few. In many of the TM articles Mike writes, I agreed with some of the conclusions, and in others have had some of your regulars at least voice some degree of agreement, as I have done in kind.
It looks like 10 was my first post here, after “Justincaselogic”/nitsujmai made mention of the SMM in another blog/forum. Since then, I have sounded off on a few of Mike’s other articles, ranging from firearms to public education, and a few movie reviews in between.
Assuming indeed you were interested in going back to re-read some of my posts (which I am not sure you will, or have for that matter), you would find that respect was met with respect, disdain was met with the same, as was condescension. You will also notice that a few times Chip and I ‘got into it’, I conceded many points, as did he leave a few of mine hanging. Yes, he is able to hit me over the head, time and time again by statute. Since that was never my premise to begin with, it’s pretty easy to do.
So, dismiss dissenting opinion as trollish. Say I live in a basement, and me and Crump et all are besties. It’s good to know that is pretty much the only arrow in your quiver.
Jordan, sorry if it’s your tag that enables me to reply. Surely there must be some way of filtering it out of your email if it’s one of my replies to another poster. I have to work in the nesting available, I have no designs of spamming you.
“Do you have evidence that Martin saw Zimmerman’s firearm, and believed that he was reaching for it?” — Still not answering the question proposed, but I do notice you try and move the goal posts, even though it’s my question. I believe Trayvon thought Zimmerman was going for a weapon, yes. I believe he struck him in attempts to prevent him from producing it, and then grappled with him to ensure it.
“Further: if Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun, believed Zimmerman was reaching for it, and in response preemptively punched him, took him to ground, and straddled him, why did he not start screaming, “Help!”? When Witness 6 verbally confronted Martin and Zimmerman, why didn’t Martin say, “Help me! He’s got a gun!” instead of ignoring Witness 6, and continuing with his forcible restraint?” — I am not 100 percent sure either one of them knew there was a witness 6. That includes Zimmerman. That would explain why Zimmerman nor Martin spoke to witness 6 while he was present.
“So you don’t refute anything I attributed to Witness 6? You merely balk at the juxtaposition of “taken directly” and “paraphrased”? Sounds legit.” — C’mon, Chip. How can you claim something is taken directly if you paraphrase it? You either take it, as is, or you don’t. It’s like being a little pregnant.
“Now you resort to sophistry. Does this retort even justify a sincere response?” — only if you want to.
“Perhaps if Martin had done what Zimmerman did – call the police.” — Martin did leave the vicinity. With some degree of speed. Perhaps he believed that Zimmerman would lose interest if he was no longer in a place accessible by vehicle, or was no longer by the mail boxes or club house. I mean, really, how could he have known that Zimmerman would follow him?
“Having one’s nose broken and head bounced on the ground during an assault does funny things to short-term memory, recall of detail, and time perception” — this of course will only apply to the details that are inconsistent with his stories (or details that don’t fit), and not with the details he provided during the fight, before the fight, and some what after the fight that cannot be verified.
“Speaking of not answering questions; I’ll repeat: What evidence do you have that Zimmerman approached Martin?” — speaking of repeating… again, Zimmerman had 3+ minutes to reach his car after being at best 15 seconds away from it, you say 90, excluding the 2-3 he was on the phone with the NEO. If Zimmerman does not make his intended destination, and Martin didn’t make his (even though we are both speculating that indeed home was the place), to me, that means they were both still wandering about. One doing lord knows what, and the other presumably still looking for the one doing lord knows what.
“Zimmerman’s timeline is perfectly reasonable. The time from the end of the NEN call to the beginning of the confrontation was 90 seconds, at most. Give time for walking from the sidewalk “T” to the front of the building, looking around for a bit for a street/address sign, or any sign of Martin, turning around, walking back toward the sidewalk “T” – probably slowly, since he didn’t know where Martin was – and then getting accosted somewhere in that vicinity is perfectly reasonable in a period of time that simply cannot possibly be any longer than 90 seconds.” — See my previous regarding the 2-3 that he was on the phone.
And Zimmerman was under no obligation to go directly to his vehicle, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200- — Trayvon was under no obligation to go home either, but I think that has been mentioned a few times.
“Agreed. Martin had no intention of returning home, or he would have been there. That rather nicely refutes any claim that he was a scared little child, running for his life from the big scary man on the phone in his vehicle.” — scared or not, he did opt for retreat. He left Zimmerman’s vicinity.
“Zimmerman’s destination was not his vehicle.
Whoops; no. You’ve not proven this. As stated above, Zimmerman’s timeline is perfectly reasonable.” — If you limit it to your arbitrary 90 seconds, and even then 50 yards even at a slow walk seems difficult not to have been traversed. If you include the time he was on the phone, then we know are bordering on 5 minutes of walkabout, in which Zimmerman was not accosted, and couldn’t produce an addy in which to meet authorities, which was supposedly his entire reason for not being at his car, and instead was just traveling in the direction Martin went. So, for 4+ minutes, we have Zimmerman not at the place he said he was heading to, not able to provide an addy to meet authorities at, and the tag line of having police call him for his present whereabouts. You enjoy the preponderance of evidence, right? What does that preponderance point to? Zimmerman’s destination was not his vehicle.
“..vehicle and the front side of the buildings on the other side of the dog walk, during a period of no more than 90 seconds is immaterial, and does not belie any intent not to return to his vehicle”, — no, asking law enforcement to call him for his location did that (belie intentions)
“..nor does it belie any inappropriate intent or action.”— unless he was still on the hunt, which I would consider inappropriate. Granted, that is subject to debate.
“By contrast, Martin’s failure to traverse 380 feet, given a 90-second head start while the creepy old guy was still on his phone sitting in his vehicle 100 or so feet away, belies an intent and desire to confront Zimmerman. (Not to mention, Martin’s deliberate acts in removing his phone ear buds and the button on his shirt, and placing both in his pocket prior to confronting Zimmerman.)” — Wait, what? Martin doesn’t make it 380 feet in more than 90 seconds, its ill intent, Zimmerman doesn’t make it 150 feet in 3+ minutes, and its reasonable? Please tell me you see the double standard there.
On what evidence do you base that belief?
Also, sorry, but the contention that Martin reasonably believed that Zimmerman was reaching for a weapon just doesn’t fly. There is no evidence that Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun; meanwhile, there is ample evidence that Martin saw Zimmerman talking on his cell phone (which most males keep in their pockets). And still: Martin never tried to alert anyone that Zimmerman had a gun. There were houses with porch lights on. There were witnesses who engaged Martin and Zimmerman. Why didn’t Martin say, “he’s got a gun!”?
Further, even if Martin reasonably believed Zimmerman exhibited an imminent use of unlawful force against him, Martin clearly escalated the use of force far beyond what is reasonable and prudent to prevent that imminent use of unlawful force.
Zimmerman didn’t know if any of his neighbors were within earshot, and nevertheless he screamed in anguish for help for at least 40 seconds.
Zimmerman behaved like a victim. Martin behaved like a perpetrator.
Do you have anything of substance to refute regarding that which I attributed to Witness 6’s FDLE interview? That you continue to parse words implies that you do not.
First, Martin approached Zimmerman’s vehicle, then continued on. Second, Martin either never left the vicinity, or left the vicinity then returned. Neither scenario works in Martin’s favor.
Zimmerman immediately called NEN when he saw Martin acting suspiciously. Martin had four minutes from the time he eluded Zimmerman until the start of the physical altercation, and yet he didn’t use that time either to return to Brandi Green’s home, or to call the police to report someone following him.
Zimmerman’s account was remarkably consistent, even without considering the trauma he had just undergone.
But if you believe Zimmerman’s account includes any material inconsistencies – that is, inconsistencies that would refute his self-defense claim, or prove his guilt for second-degree murder – by all means, list them.
It would have been much simpler just to say that you don’t have any evidence that Zimmerman approached Martin.
Where Zimmerman was during the NEN call will not be inculpatory. He had a right to be wherever he was, and he was doing nothing otherwise unlawful. But Zimmerman clearly was not attempting to return to his vehicle while still on the NEN call, nor did he imply such, nor did the NEN operator tell him to return to his vehicle. Zimmerman was simply standing outside, on a sidewalk, talking to the NEN operator. From the time he hung up with NEN until the start of the altercation was no more than 90 seconds. There is nowhere that Zimmerman could go in 90 seconds that would prove inculpatory.
On the other hand: from the moment that Martin rounded the corner of the dog walk and eluded Zimmerman’s visual contact, until the start of the altercation, was approximately four minutes. Four minutes is plenty of time to return safely home. Four minutes is plenty of time to return home, prepare for a fight (by dropping certain items off, and removing other items from one’s clothing), and then return to the scene of the altercation. Four minutes is plenty of time to find a good ambush spot, get pissed that someone is narcing on you, and decide to retaliate.
And you’ll find that I’ve never implied that Martin is culpable because he failed to return home; rather, he is culpable for instigating a physical assault on Zimmerman.
I do find it instructive, though, that most of the people who want to hang Zimmerman because of his whereabouts during a period of no more than 90 seconds so quickly dismiss the four-minute span for which Martin’s whereabouts are unexplained. If Martin’s whereabouts aren’t relevant, then neither are Zimmerman’s whereabouts relevant; if on the other hand, Zimmerman’s whereabouts are relevant, then so too are Martin’s whereabouts relevant.
(And I’ll wager that the GPS/Ping location map shows that Zimmerman either waited in ambush, or else circled back to the scene of the altercation; and while Zimmerman’s location map will be ping-based only, I’ll wager that it provides for the plausibility that Zimmerman never ventured south of the sidewalk until confronted by Martin.)
No. If Martin had left the vicinity, then no altercation would ever have taken place.
During his time on the NEN call, that much is clear, since he’s not walking anywhere after the NEN operator says, “we don’t need you to [follow him]”, and Zimmerman responds, “okay.” But after that call ends, Zimmerman claims that he continued on to the front side of the building, looked for a sign, and then attempted to return to his vehicle, where he was accosted en route.
You have no evidence that, after the NEN call ended, Zimmerman’s intended destination was not his vehicle.
Where do you get “4+ minutes”? That time must include part of the NEN call, during which Zimmerman never stated that he was returning to his vehicle. 90 seconds may be arbitrary, but it is also a conservative estimate, given that the first 911 call picks up exactly 2 1/2 minutes after Zimmemran’s NEN call ended. 90 seconds gives only 60 seconds for approach, verbal accost, assault, and escalation to the point that neighbors noticed, became concerned, and decided to call 911. I think I’m being quite generous to say that Zimmerman had up to 90 seconds between the end of the NEN call and the time at which Martin approached him.
You’ve listened to the NEN call, right? You clearly hear that Zimmerman is concerned, because he doesn’t know where Martin is, and doesn’t want to be overheard giving out personal information. You also clearly hear that he and the NEN operator are having a communication failure as Zimmerman attempts to describe his exact location. It is perfectly reasonable that he merely wanted to speak directly to the responding officer, to ensure that the officer got to the right location.
At the very least, the NEN call provides reasonable doubt that Zimmerman’s intended destination was his vehicle.
If by “subject to debate” you mean “completely specious and utterly lacking in evidentiary support”, then we agree that the contention that Zimmemran was “on a hunt” is “subject to debate.”
Actually, Zimmerman had no more than 90 seconds – much of which time is reasonably explained by walking to the front side of the building, looking around, and backtracking – all while not under any reasonable compulsion to return directly to his vehicle. And Martin had a 90-second head start on Zimmerman, and a total of more than four minutes from the time he eluded Zimmerman’s visual contact to the start of the altercation – while under a reasonable compulsion to reach the safety of Brandi Green’s home (if one is to believe that Martin was in fact frightened by Zimmerman, and attempting to get away from him and to get to safety).
It would be entirely reasonable for Zimmerman to stand right where he was when he completed his NEN call. There is no justification for claiming that the only possible, reasonable course of action for Zimmerman was that he return directly to his vehicle. By contrast, if Martin was in fear of Zimmerman, then the only reasonable course of action would have been for Martin to round the corner of the dog walk, and proceed directly home – perhaps dialing 911 while doing so.
Finally! First game of Eastern Conference playoffs set for Sat. June 1st, Bruins at Penguins. Boston is 0-3 against Pittsburgh this (shotened) season. My man boricuafudd (a Registered Bruins hater) as well as Nettles will be alongside me on the Pens bandwagon. Let’s get it on!
Oh, and I believe 5th DCA does their Opinion drops on Friday 10 AM most always. We’ll soon see how they rule on the Writ of Certiorari the Defense filed last month.
DEFENDANT’S 4th SUPPLEMENTAL is sitting there waiting to be distributed to the Defense & the public. Can only be even more damning to the State’s pathetic case.
Notice that Tracy “Father Of The Year” Martin is now MIA? And reporters at the Scheme Team presser after the hearing wanted to ask Sybrina if she actually DID kick Trayvon out of her house as TM’s tweets show, but then the whole team was spotted on TV hastily fleeing the scene rather than answer actual questions. As SD @ CTH says, “The Bloom Is Off The Ruse.”
Newsflash for Scheme Team incl. BALDY: Game over. You lose.
Chip Bennett, The Human Shredding Machine.
“Just the facts, ma’am.”
As always, your in-depth knowledge and attention to detail are very much appreciated. Folks like you are one of the reasons I cut off cable TV service exactly 5 years ago tomorrow. Who needs MSNBC, CNN etc.? Not any thinking human being, as far as I can ascertain.
Congratulations on the acknowledgement you received at American Thinker a few weeks ago. Well deserved!
@JB:
Thank you, but I’m much more concerned with seeing an innocent man exonerated. I think the accolades should go to those whose lives are in peril (the Zimmerman family) and who have done the heavy lifting in bringing the truth to light (CTH, Dman, Nettles, Mike, etc.).
“On what evidence do you base that belief?” — because it fits, based on the scene. It makes sense, without having to rely on “Oh, well, he was just a thug”. Its the same suspicious behavior that caused the panic in Zimmerman’s voice that Zimmerman executes now in front of the person whom he acknowledged tried to flee from him.
“Further, even if Martin reasonably believed Zimmerman exhibited an imminent use of unlawful force against him, Martin clearly escalated the use of force far beyond what is reasonable and prudent to prevent that imminent use of unlawful force.” — I think I could sleep soundly (even in a holding cell) knowing I was under arrest for assault, rather than dead from a gun being pulled on me.
“Do you have anything of substance to refute regarding that which I attributed to Witness 6′s FDLE interview? That you continue to parse words implies that you do not.” — how many times do you want me to say “paraphrasing” opposite “taken directly” makes me chuckle? As taken directly from the bible, two nudists got nutrition advice from a talking snake. (paraphrasing, of course).
“First, Martin approached Zimmerman’s vehicle, then continued on.” — this later turned into “circling” his vehicle, which was left out in his play by play to the NEO. Considering Zimmerman’s location and where Trayvon was coming from, it could just as easily been said he was walking by his vehicle.
“Martin had four minutes from the time he eluded Zimmerman until the start of the physical altercation, and yet he didn’t use that time either to return to Brandi Green’s home, or to call the police to report someone following him.” — why? Zimmerman was eluded. Left him in the car a block and a half back.
“Zimmerman’s account was remarkably consistent, even without considering the trauma he had just undergone.
But if you believe Zimmerman’s account includes any material inconsistencies – that is, inconsistencies that would refute his self-defense claim, or prove his guilt for second-degree murder – by all means, list them.” — Zimmerman’s written. He goes straight from “don’t follow” to “heading to vehicle” to set upon by Martin. Serino got him to open up a little about the gap, to which the “looking for an addy” line came up, and that just happened to be in Martin’s direction. For 2 ish minutes Zimmerman is not able to find this address. So… his destination is either a place to meet police, which he ultimately doesn’t get, or his vehicle, which would have been the logical place to tell police to meet him at, if he was heading there. I I think it would be the third time I have mentioned with you and this board that 2nd was an over charge. Manslaughter would have been more reasonable.
“Four minutes is plenty of time to return home, prepare for a fight (by dropping certain items off, and removing other items from one’s clothing),” — of which the most obvious things he didn’t. Four minutes is also plenty of time to find an addy, including post “following” et all, find a place to wait for the police or make it to your car. None occurred.
“It would have been much simpler just to say that you don’t have any evidence that Zimmerman approached Martin.” —- according to ear witnesses, before the 911 calls started coming in, people heard an argument. Some one described it as what they thought were rowdy teens coming from up and down the T. As Zimmerman describes it, his only dialogue with Martin consisted of saying “no”. Were I take a stab at it, we have Martin shouting what are you following me for, and we have Zimmerman replying what are you doing here. neither of course answering each other’s question, even though it would be the most logical question for each. They approach each other as they talk, and then Zimmerman goes for his cell. You could put a bow on it.
To tie up some of the other questions, yes, I include where Zimmerman started to follow Martin as part of the time frame for him to actually commit to the various acts he stated when questioned. If Zimmerman was genuinely interested in meeting with police, he could have easily told the NEO to have them find his vehicle parked at the turn. No hunting for an addy required.
“As taken directly from the bible, two nudists got nutrition advice from a talking snake.”
LOL! Ha! Roo, that was a great “paraphrazication” you did there. I really did chuckle. Of course, this was a genuinely appreciative chuckle, in light of a clever play on the concept, a funny paraphrase. In your posts, you have NOT evidenced appreciation for Chip’s use of the technique. Your vague implications that he was “doing it wrong,” or ought not have done it at all, have fallen flat, and your own example illustrates why.
Say, “As taken directly from the bible, two nudists got nutrition advice from a talking snake, and were ejected from playland by their landlord because of it.” and you have the whole story all right, succinct, humorous, and accurate in principle. Reference the original for details. That’s what paraphrasing (give or take the humorous element) is all about.
By the way, didn’t you try to subtly take me to task for “speculating” about a possible conversation between reporters and some lawmaker a little while back? Yet here you are going great guns and spare no ammo with this “He’d never a’ got out’a that vehicle if he hadn’t a’ had that gun, I’m just SURE of it!” Raw speculation, can’t prove it, and you’re riding it into the dirt.
Meh, yeh never have played square, here, Roo. I guess that’s the reason why I never go the distance with you. Sure is fun to watch Chip do it, though.
Ciao!
http://www.seminoleclerk.org/CriminalDo … 2CF001083A
Under “Detailed Information” for GZ case,
4th item down reads: 05/28/2013 SUDI DEFENDANT’S 4TH SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
[not yet posted @GZ Legal. tick, tick, tick . . .]
Reposted at CTH Thanks!
You’re welcome dmoseylou! Please pass on best regards to all the self-described “Nutters” over there. LOLZ
Ah, here it is late at night, again.
Read all your post during the day. Great stuff.
What is really remarkable, in my travels on various media sites I have noticed the tone of the commentary has shifted from pro Trayvon to pro George.
For example on YouTube the various videos have positive comments. And national MSM have changed their tone.
And I regret that this is the current state of affairs, but the only media still supporting Trayvon Martin are the black talent and journalists. (Al Sharpton, Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart).
That’s sad because I used to like Capehart, but the Trayvon Martin shooting caused him to lose all objectivity. Take a look at this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/05/28/george-zimmermans-relevant-past/
Obviously he and I have a totally different take on what happened in court yesterday.
Note: 12 months ago you would have never seen the comments that are now appended to his articles.
Oh, some late night oddities I came across or have noticed:
– MOM West have submitted in discovery materials related to Sherman Ware, and Zimmerman’s advocacy on his behalf. Why is this separately noteworthy (besides it proving Zimmerman is not a racist)?
– Both Sherman Ware and Trayvon Martin are black.
– Sherman Ware was a homeless man. The victim of Trayvon Martin’s assault was a homeless man.
– Sherman Ware was assaulted. Trayvon Martin participated in assaulting a homeless man.
– On a cell phone a bystander recorded the assault of Sherman Ware.
– Trayvon Martin recorded on his cell phone his buddies assaulting a homeless man.
– Judge Nelson handled the criminal case against Justin Collison, the SPD lieutenant’s son who assaulted Sherman Ware.
– Zimmerman advocated on Sherman Ware’s behalf when the Sanford Police attempted to sweep the Sherman Ware incident under the rug.
– As a result of the assault and cover-up the SPD Chief of Police and Lt. Collison retired/resigned.
– As a result of the Trayvon Martin case, the SPD Chief of Police was fired, others have been disciplined or demoted.
– In the Sherman Ware matter Zimmerman spoke at a community forum where he badmouthed elements of the SPD.
– In his case, Zimmerman now has elements of SPD advocating on his behalf.
– If this Sherman Ware is the same Sanford Sherman Leon Ware, in 1986 he pleaded guilty to burglarizing a home and stealing women’s jewelry.
– Trayvon Martin is alleged to have burglarized a home and stole woman’s jewelry.
This is friggen surreal and bizarre.
And with that I will say night all.
Love your “comparative lit” so to speak, the way you paired up the actions of Ware and Trayvon for comparison. Ingenious. I always look forward to reading your essays, as you manage to give insight into the process utilized in the Real World as opposed to shallow, dense, MSM Sound Bite-based fluff.
My background is Civil Engineering, but I’m damn sure I could do a better job of reporting than the knuckleheads on both local and national periodicals. Are they a bunch of lazy bufoons, or what. And most mind-boggling is that they actually get PAID for this drivel. I’d rather not waste precious time on reading their “reports” and would rather wait for you, ItsMichaelNotMike, Chip Bennett, John Galt, Mike McDaniel and other outstanding and respected Blog Analysts. You guys were able to see through the “Fog of War” and had it right from the get-go.
I’m sure hoping you’ll make a daily visit here Michael, maybe even several times a day. Sincerely, thank you for sharing your insight, wit and wisdom with us. It is very much appreciated.
Well, such nice words, I dunno what to say.
Update: Called my friend. She said to say thank you.
So: Thanks!
On the eve of trial Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara appeared on Al Sharpton’s Politics Nation show. Bottom line first: MOM killed it!
O’Mara skillfully answered many questions, but did NOT get baited into giving away his trial strategy. He just let Sharpton get out his biased, lying-sack-o-sheet talking points.
For example, check out the exchange between the two on experts (Al saying that THREE experts are saying it was Trayvon Martin screaming in the 911 audio). I could see MOM really tempted to retort Al’s skewing of the facts and evidence, but he resisted and did not reveal Zimmerman’s strategy on taking down the experts Al named by name.
Note that as the interview went on Al’s famous scowl got more severe. He was clearly getting frustrated that O’Mara would get into an argument with Al, thereby revealing trial strategy.
So too bad Angela Corey-Nifong, Bernie, dullard Crump, Natalie Jackson, et al., you won’t get squat by watching Al’s show.
I am uploading the video to YouTube and will provide a link shortly.
Oops… amendment TO my comment. Insert word “NOT” and reword so the sentence reads:
“Al was clearly getting frustrated that O’Mara would NOT get into an argument with him, thereby possibly revealing trial strategy.”
Here’s the YouTube link to the interview:
What is interesting is that Sharpton totally ignores the FACT that George had bruises, a bleeding skull, and a broken nose while Martin had only one bullet hole. That tends to indicate that George received a severe beating which he stopped by shooting Martin.
I don’t care what that guy from CTH says. O’Mara is a very good lawyer.
Thanks but is anyone having an issue with the volume?
? It is playing fine on my computer.
I have a title at the beginning. There’s no sound for the first six seconds or so. Is that what you are referring to?
It’s OK … I found another source and wish I hadn’t. MOM really hurt the case in that interview and everyone, I think, knows it.
I saw the same thing. I don’t see how O’Mara hurt anything. If anything, he wasted Sharpton’s time and showed that he (O’Mara) was not a screaming racist. He didn’t expose his strategy, nor queer George’s chances and by going on the opposition’s channel O’Mara demonstrated he wasn’t afraid. He was calm, cool and collected.
Why do you think he really hurt the case?
i have posted twice about this and still think the same. He was speaking to the pro Trayon crowd and MAYBE a few on the defense. Our guys were not the target audience.
O’Mara gave’ them more fuel to fan their flames of hate because he refused to go the distance with Al on anything so all MOM did was reinforce their pathetic outlook and he won over no one who was on the fence. This was for THEM and not US. In the end, MOM broke my heart by agreeing that the rallies and the petition were necessary to get Zimmerman arrested. Surely, you can take it from there.
You cannot play footsies on HIS program but MOM did. Remember Al is above the law and he proved it once by calling a presser to watch him refuse to comply with subpoenas. NOT a thing was ever done to him. That was the Brawley case.
i have not watched Bennies interview with him but it looks much more brief. I will reply to Nettle about that since she asked me to.
You have an interesting name that I still have not figured out. Is it deceptive by design?
“I don’t care what that guy from CTH says. O’Mara is a very good lawyer.”
Well IMO what matters is what the client thinks of his lawyer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82bU1Nw59-8&feature=youtu.be
This notwithstanding that THAT blogger has said he is in the know, has inside information, and said that the Zimmermans don’t know any better and are under MOM’s spell (a Rasputin-like spell.)
Yes, MOM is a very good lawyer. He makes mistakes like EVERY LAWYER ON THE PLANET DOES. Heck, even Judges make mistakes (as indicated by the fact that there’s appellate courts and appellate opinions reversing Judges).
One of the early indicators that MOM is a skilled lawyer was when he used the bond hearing to put SAI Gilbreath and elicited devastating testimony from him. (MOM mentions that event in the Sharpton interview. See minute marker 4:20 in my YouTube video.
That certain blogger who shall not be named has an agenda. He seems to think that O’Mara should conduct the Zimmerman Case according to that agenda. The problem is if O’Mara did it that way, George would have NO CHANCE whatsoever.
Right now, O’Mara has scored so many points against BDLR and Corey that the Media has caught on and are just waiting with baited breath. Sharpton did try to get O’Mara to argue which would have played into Sharpton’s racist hands. O’Mara skillfully, I know some think it is pandering, (it isn’t), played Sharpton. By the end of it Sharpton couldn’t denounce O’Mara, couldn’t get O’Mara mad, and also couldn’t deny O’Mara.
TA stands for trans am, and I have one. The drop top because I have had this name since I dated one of my exes and his trans am was a convertible so he was trans am drop top so I was tadroptopgirl lol
Got it. Now I know you must like TransAms. I had one briefly many years ago. I think it was called a “muscle car.” Could that be correct?
Update: While I am NOT having an issue with the volume, I noticed that the video is out of sync with the audio. I believe that is a problem with my computer.
I’d get technical with you, suffice it to say, I believe it has to do with my not flushing my cache. As a result, my video capture program is slower than the audio recording function of that program.
Oh well, we get what we pay for, eh. :)
Seems to be doing the exact same thing for me, Michael. Maybe we both have caused the problem the same way, or maybe it’s inherent in the video. For what it’s worth, I tracked it back to Youtube to watch it, where other videos don’t do me like that.
Yes its still considered a muscle car mine is a 2000
I live in Tallahassee where mr crump has his office. Him and his wife came into the movie theater I work at. And saw now you see me, but it is funny I took his tickets looked up and recognized him. Idk if I should admit it but he was in my major at fsu which is criminology well mine is computer crim but he offered me a paid internship at his law firm lol