MSNBC Claims Al Sharpton Did Not Rush to Judgment on Zimmerman

During his interview of George Zimmerman last night, Sean Hannity asked George Zimmerman "What do you say to Al Sharpton and those who rushed to judgment?" MSNBC today released a statement to Politico:

MSNBC would like to set the record straight following some misinformation presented by Fox News during the interview with George Zimmerman last night," MSNBC wrote in a statement sent to POLITICO. "Reverend Al Sharpton never 'rushed to judgment,' as stated by Mr. Hannity. Reverend Sharpton repeatedly called for calm and for a more thorough investigation in the wake of the tragic events. Ultimately, the authorities agreed an arrest was warranted."

I guess MSNBC forgot about this March 19, 2012 Al Sharpton show. (video here.) Or this Sharpton appearance on the March 21 Joe Scarborough show and this press conference (especially around the 4 minute mark) on the day of his arrest. Sharpton's comments speak for themselves. To say he merely called for calm and a thorough investigation is laughable. [More...]

And Fox is hardly the first news organization to notice. In the past, MSNBC has defended Sharpton's comments on Zimmerman and Martin, saying it didn't hire him to be a "neutered kind of news presenter."

In this interview with the Orlando Sentinel, Sharpton called for an increase in civil disobedience and economic sanctions if Zimmerman was not arrested. At a rally in Sanford, he told the crowd:

It's an "American paradox that we can put a black man in the White House but we can't walk a black child through a gated area in Sanford, Florida," he said.

Also, this March 29 Sharpton show in which he proclaims after viewing the video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station:

It’s clear from the video, he said, that Zimmerman wasn’t hurt — and certainly not hurt enough to shoot in self-defense.

On a related note, here's Barbara Walters on the View today. She does not say Zimmmerman asked for a month in a NYC hotel as a condition of his interview. She says he made a demand ABC could not grant and refuses to say what the demand was. She also refused to allow O'Mara or Zimmerman, who called into the show, to respond to her claim he made an unspecified demand. "We will now continue with our program, and with the people who agreed to interviews and [came] here.”

It sounds like she asked Zimmerman to come to New York to do the show live, and went to Florida to do some kind of background interview that would air when he appeared on the View in New York. (Which would explain why she didn't care her interview would air after Hannity's.)

All shows pay travel expenses for their guests to appear live, including airfare and hotel. Maybe due to his notoriety and safety concerns, he asked ABC to fly him via a private plane. It's not an unreasonable request although I can see how it would not be something a network would agree to.

The "hotel for a month" story is unsourced gossip and makes no sense. (Although this reporter says O'Mara says the hotel room was for Zimmerman's wife.)(Added: O'Mara has indeed confirmed in a three part interview Zimmerman asked for housing for his wife for a month.)

I don't find the ABC story as newsworthy as MSNBC's denial that Al Sharpton "rushed to judgment." Sharpton did more than say Zimmerman should be arrested. He certainly called for more than "calm" and "investigation." He threatened civil disobedience protests, he said he stood with the Martin family, he misrepresented major facts and most importantly, he denounced Zimmerman's self-defense claim.

Update: Here's Mark O'Mara in a three part interview discussing the Hannity interview.

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | Lone Shooter Kills 12, , Injures 50 at Colo. Movie Theater >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I gave up on television news years ago (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Payaso on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:08:35 PM EST
    They are okay when reporting something live but as soon as they start editing and interpreting they are worse than useless.

    We get more "news" today than when I was a kid and yet we know less about what is really going on.

    Jst now watched the Reverend (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:02:24 PM EST
    say he said "he didn't want to rush to judgement".  They all get paid to rush to judgement for cry 'n out loud.

    I guess as long as you don't (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:14:41 PM EST
    want to, it's ok. Kind of like wishing you could have done something differently.

    "unsourced gossip" (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by expy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:24:32 PM EST
    is apparently named Mark O'Mara:

    "Mark O'Mara, told CNN that Zimmerman "asked for shelter and security for his wife for a month. They said they could not do that."

    From CNN

    the gossip came first from (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:01:48 AM EST
     the New York Post. O'Mara later more or less confirmed the Post version to a station in Florida.

    have you ever watched cops (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by fredquick21 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:08:18 AM EST
    and see a seemingly innocent person "TALK HIS WAY TO JAIL"? IMO that's what is happening as we speak.

    One of the comments I make (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:31:59 AM EST
    most often on this site pertaining to Miranda Rights and the importance of exercising them, is "Our jails are filled with people who thought if they could only tell their side of the story, the police would see it their way. It rarely happens. Miranda rights are there for a reason. Use them."

    GZ isn't in jail because of... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 05:14:04 AM EST
    ...anything he said to the police. In the real world jurors don't like defendants who take the fifth. There are a lot of folks in jail because they didn't testify and the jury didn't like it, nevermind what the guy in robes said. He didn't, and Corey's still got nothin'. That's a plus.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#65)
    by Samnod on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:28:07 AM EST
    Without the supposed inconsistencies in GZs story they have no evidence. Deciding to testify in court is different than refusing to talk to the police. The only real value that Deedees testimony has is because of the way it supposedly contradicts GZs story.

    Please explain - (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MikeB on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:22:41 AM EST
    I'm not sure I understand your counterpoint.

    Zimmerman had injuries consistent with a struggle on the ground, a broken nose from a punch to the face, and eyewitnesses to substantiate his version of events as it relates to the struggle.

    My point surrounds Zimmerman's "obligation" to be aware of what his injuries actually were and at the time of the shooting, what he could expect given his position at the time of the shooting had he not used a gun.

    Please explain clearly - I'm not getting how "his goose is cooked".

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:59:02 PM EST
    for stating opinion as fact.

    Aside from "rushing to judgment," (4.00 / 4) (#1)
    by bob somerby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:46:01 PM EST
    Sharpton and others on MSNBC promoted tons of misinformation, night after night for weeks. Some of this involved slanders of the Sanford police. ("They let Zimmerman walk away with his gun.") Some of its was aimed at Zimmerman himself.

    I speak as someone who has generally been a fan of Sharpton over the past dozen years. But his conduct here was beyond atrocious. Lawrence O'Donnell was every bit as bad. Ed Schultz, little better.

    When accurate information began to emerge, the channel never corrected its long list of factual misstatements. One example, of many: O'Donnell insisted for weeks that Zimmerman couldn't have had a broken nose. No one in the MSNBC evening lineup ever reported the accurate information when it emerged.

    The channel's conduct was astonishing. Equally bad: The refusal of the nation's "media reporters" to report or challenge their conduct.

    It sounds like they aren't letting up. From a journalistic standpoint, this has been a rolling disgrace.

    leave it to you Bob (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:31:49 PM EST
    to make the distinction between rushing to judgement and promoting misinformation.  Yes msnbc did/does both.  Truly I find them more ridiculous than FOX.  
    I learned to despise msnbc years ago during the 2000 election... or maybe it was Chris Matthews I learned to despise during 2000.  Same thing I guess.

    But to be fair, there were ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:40:30 PM EST
    ... a number of other sources besides MSNBC that were also reporting the same sort of misinformation. For example, it was ABC News which first began reporting that George Zimmerman didn't look all the worse for wear, i.e., no broken nose or cuts to the back of the head, and not MSNBC.

    Speaking for myslef, my take is that MSNBC, like Fox News, began approaching the issue as one would a political contest, which -- inadvertantly or otherwise -- only ended up encouraging people to choose up sides.

    And for all we know, some of that misinformation may well have come from certain people in the police department and state's attorney's office, who may have had their own personal agendas here, or had other issues regarding the investigation.

    Suffice to say that when all is said and done in this terribly sorry affair, we will probably be noting in retrospect that very few, if any, persons in the media or law enforcement conducted themselves with any real sense of honor and dignity here.



    Close MSNBC, ABC, CBS leaving only one because (none / 0) (#21)
    by Stan25 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:42:09 PM EST
    They simply copy each other [as their unidentified sources]. And repeat that fiction as "news."

    Jeralyn, did you actually watch the (3.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:53:35 PM EST
    Barbara Walters segment?  Because in it, she clearly states that she spoke to O'Mara on Tuesday night, and confirmed with him that if she would come to Orlando, Zimmerman would do an interview with her.  

    So, Walters flies down there, with cameras and crew, arrives, is talking with the lawyers, they talk about the Hannity interview and she promises that any interview that she does with Zimmerman will not air until after the Hannity interview. Zimmerman then comes into the room and says he won't do the interview - unless she agrees to one condition, which, Walters says, that as a member of ABC News, she cannot agree to.  

    So, your speculation that her interview was going to involve bringing Zimmerman to NY is just flat out not true.

    I think it is grossly unfair  - not to mention, highly ironic in a post that flays MSNBC for its latest missive - to dismiss the Walters story as not newsworthy, and then proceed to misrepresent what transpired by offering needless speculation, when there is video from the show in which Walters lays it all out.  

    It's pretty disturbing, frankly.

    Anne, it was Walters who said (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:11:32 AM EST
    on The View, in the clip I linked to, that "we will continue with our program and with the people who agreed to interview and then come here." Did you watch it?

    As I said, I infer from that comment she may have gone to  Florida to do an interview that would air as background during a later live appearance by Zimmerman in New York. I think it's a fair inference.

    Please watch your tone. You are coming close to being insulting. Future comments with personal insults will be deleted.


    Jeralyn, Walters' comment that (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:32:48 AM EST
    we will continue with our program and with the people who agreed to interview and then come here

    was not an inference that there was any plan or agreement for a Zimmerman interview in NY, it was her saying that the show she was on-air doing was going to continue with people who had kept their word - people who had agreed to an interview and were there to be on the show that day - she wasn't going to pre-empt them for O'Mara and Zimmerman, whom she had been ready and willing and was on-site to interview the day before, in Florida.


    Is anyone foolish enough to (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Stan25 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:33:18 PM EST
     believe Barbara Walters?

    Remember, Matt Gutman is also a member of the ABC "team."

    Strange that Walters and ABC do not give equal time to O'Mara to hear the other side of the story.

    People should discount most 'news' coming out of ABC, including this news.


    Sounds weird (none / 0) (#19)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:43:40 PM EST
    Have we heard from any other party than Walters. Perhaps O'Mara disputes her narative which could explain his attempted live call.

    Anne, I actually liked this bit: (none / 0) (#20)
    by LeaNder on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:25:28 PM EST
    Maybe due to his notoriety and safety concerns, he asked ABC to fly him via a private plane. It's not an unreasonable request

    How about a military jet and a couple of Green Berets? With each having at least three loaded pistol magazines in their pockets. (latest Zimmerman documents 90/91)

    But I agree with you, I was a bit puzzled too.

    There was one question by Hannity in which he seemed to suggest that one witness saw the whole fight except the shot. Well actually he saw only about 10 seconds of it, but nothing to worry. And yes, I think he alluded to John, or witness #6.

    But nothing to worry about this slight fact-correction. That's fine.

    Have we heard from any other party than Walters. Perhaps O'Mara disputes her narative which could explain his attempted live call.

    O'Mara confirms the demands, Walters didn't go into more specifically.

    Here are 40 of the jail calls.


    "O'Mara confirms..." is a deadlink. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 04:54:59 AM EST
    Filling in the blanks (none / 0) (#51)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 05:10:59 AM EST
    The "dead link," if it even is a dead link, is to post #13 in this thread.  Post #13 is this thread is a comment by expy, and includes a link to a CNN story.  Here is a link to the same story, with the same excerpt that expy cited, blockquoted just below the link.

    Zimmerman balks at ABC interview after network rejects demands - July 20, 2012

    Walters would not specify the demand, but Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, told CNN that Zimmerman "asked for shelter and security for his wife for a month. They said they could not do that."

    Thx. Other link not working... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:12:24 AM EST
    for me. "Sorry. I can't seem to find that story."

    Doesn't work for me either (none / 0) (#58)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:50:22 AM EST
    I tested the link later, and got the same result.  But I could tell from the URL what I thought was intended to be pointed to, and that post was on the same subject and had a link to the CNN story. So, I just put all that information in a different package.

    Sorry if my earlier made you think I didn't believe you.  I was just saying I didn't know if the link was dead.  At the time, I didn't know - hadn't bothered to click it.


    thanks, Grandydancer, cboldt (none / 0) (#89)
    by LeaNder on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:41:26 PM EST
    Yes, lousy job. According to the source code, I have only copied the comment address, not the whole address.

    Thanks for the hint, either that or the software swallows up things.

    Test, if I may:
    expy's CNN link again.


    I fail to see why the Walters story is (none / 0) (#22)
    by rjarnold on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:44:08 PM EST
    newsworthy or relevant to the case. I guess it is a matter of opinion on what item is more newsworthy, but the the Walters story is simply a story of a interviewer failing to agree to terms to an interviewee (and we aren't even sure what demand Zimmerman wanted). The MSNBC story is much bigger as their hosts for weeks made major misrepresentations, and they are still denying an obvious "rush to judgment."

    I fail to see how a story (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:41:47 PM EST
    that weel be deemed less noteworthy becomes entirely not noteworthy and irrelevant.  There are gradations in all things in this case, as in life.

    This also was more than "simply" failing to give an interview, after an agreement that gets an interviewer and crew to fly thousands of miles, give up a day or more of a busy production schedule, etc.  (And now we know, from his lawyer, what was Zimmerman's demand, and it's ridiculous.)

    This is not to say that the Walters story is more noteworthy or equally noteworthy than the Sharpton story, but the former has value with insight into continued confusion, at the least, by the Zimmerman team (or by Zimmerman on his own, which also suggests continued messiness for his team or in his mind or . . . well, we stay tuned for the next episode in this soap opera).


    Failing to understand this "so called (none / 0) (#41)
    by spectator on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:31:21 AM EST
    soap opera" is BW's fault, her little temper tantrum shows her age, she's a little tired now.

    How so? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:21:41 AM EST
    I have no idea what Barbara Walter's age has to do with this - or your gratuitous insult of her as "tired" and having a "temper tantrum" - but how is this her fault?  As reported, Zimmerman agrees to an interview.  Then, when BW and the crew arrive to do the interview, Zimmerman makes a demand as a condition of the interview.  Under these circumstances, her refusal to allow O'Mara or Zimmerman to call in to her show is not only understandable, but reasonable as well.  

    It's a delicate matter (4.00 / 3) (#105)
    by spectator on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:23:38 AM EST
    and she knows this, her rude behavior is beyond your scope.

    rude and priviledged (2.33 / 3) (#124)
    by lily on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:20:16 PM EST
    only a multi-millionaire celebrity type would be so cavalier in understanding how an ordinary American could pay legal and security costs thanks to the venal media using him daily to attract customers to their crappy papers and TV shows.

    ABC paid Anthony big bucks for photo exclusives,  ABC changed policies when criticized. GZ has few if any options to keep his family safe and his wife housed. Why shouldn't he ask for assistance from the media who continues to be interested in exploited him not justice. Seems like a reasonable attempt at problem solving, maybe the government could offer them welfare and food stamps, after all thanks to certain Congress people they are not likely to work again for years if at all. Perhaps Bondi, Holder and Corey should pay for security, they failed to investigate or prosecute death threats.  

    IMO the View and Baba Walters are mere entertainment for the weak of mind. One step up from Jerry Springer.


    Her refusal to allow ... (4.00 / 4) (#129)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    ... him to call in to her show had nothing to do with a failure to understand "how an ordinary American could pay legal and security costs".  It was because he first agreed to an interview, and then (after they had flown to Florida to do the interview) tried to hold them hostage by refusing to do the agreed interview unless they paid for a hotel for his wife for a month.  She rightly refused.  If he had asked for this before agreeing to the interview, that would have been fine.

    As far as her refusal to let Zimmerman or O'Mara call in to her show after-the-fact for a shortened interview, he has no right to appear on the show, much as he may have wanted to go on a show that is "mere entertainment for the weak of mind. One step up from Jerry Springer."


    I join others here (2.00 / 4) (#135)
    by lily on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:45:27 PM EST
    in viewing your comments in the category of "whatever"

    Apart from her assertion... (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Gandydancer on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:37:06 PM EST
    ...is there any evidence that Zimmerman agreeed to a filmed interview?

    Has O'Mara refuted Walters' version (3.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:50:03 PM EST
    of what transpired, claimed that there was no agreement for an interview?

    No, he hasn't.  Don't you think he would have, if, in fact, there hadn't been an agreement?

    As it is, O'Mara had to take the time to wipe the egg off his face after  his client, once again, took matters into his own hands, and boxed himself out of an interview with the potential to reach an entirely different demographic.



    Anne (3.50 / 4) (#136)
    by Darby on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:33:14 PM EST
     Think you are the one who has egg all over your face. I watched Omaras interview. No egg washing and Claims he has a great relationship with gz and no plans of leaving the case unless George asks. So, once again, your wearing your disdain for gz on your sleeve and letting it twist the facts.

    Zimmerman isn't paying legal and (3.40 / 5) (#131)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:42:39 PM EST
    security costs because of the media, he's paying them because he shot and killed someone.

    I think it's pretty hilarious that you would call Barbara Walters and The View "entertainment for the weak of mind" considering who Zimmerman and O'Mara chose for his first interview: Sean Hannity; in order to be entertained by Hannity, I think someone has to be mindless.


    Name one other person (3.67 / 3) (#134)
    by lily on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:43:23 PM EST
    involved in a shooting that requires security during their trial. Not even Scott Peterson did.

    Any comment you don't like you respond with a personal attack.

    GZ and O'Mara explained why they agreed to the interview with Hannity, no need for your speculation or insult.


    Nonsense Anne (2.29 / 7) (#138)
    by Darby on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:38:57 PM EST
    He is spending money on security because he has death threats against him by people who think like you. Wow, you hate him so much that not only won't you allow him to defend his life you don't even hold the others who want to kill him responsible either

    Darby, let's get one thing straight: I don't (3.40 / 5) (#141)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:52:13 PM EST
    hate George Zimmerman.  And I certainly have not made death threats against him - that's a pretty outrageous accusation.  And where do you get the ridiculous notion that I won't allow him to defend his life?  Can you find some comment of mine where I have supported those making death threats?  Or refused to hold those who have responsible?  If not, I suggest you take a big gulp out of that cup with your name and STFU on it.

    The truth - the reality - is that George Zimmerman would not be in the position he's in if he hadn't shot and killed someone; that's the genesis for everything that has followed.


    Wrong again (2.00 / 5) (#144)
    by Darby on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:02:26 PM EST
    The truth is gz is in this position because Trayvon Martin assaulted him And he had to defend himself. I think the people who want to blame the victim of death threats are the ones who need to do some soul searching

    Your out of control (1.80 / 5) (#142)
    by lily on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:55:04 PM EST
    with your personal comments and vulgarity.

    When someone says that "people like (4.00 / 4) (#150)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:32:15 PM EST
    me" have made death threats, that is out of control; that is an allegation against me that has no basis in reality and is made out of ignorance.

    And, by the way, it's "you're" not "your."


    It's your powers of reasoning (3.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:07:47 PM EST
    Yep - the same smear of blood in both pictures.  Impressive.  According to your logic, this "bruise" appeared within seconds of Zimmerman's head being "pounded" into the concrete, when the first photo was taken.  Moreover, you say it can't be a blood smear because because it's there before the EMTs cleaned him up, and remains there after he went to the police station.  Of course, there were several, small streaks of blood remaining in the police station photo, so I guess that doesn't work.

    As for your outrage that I incorrectly stated the size of the lacerations, that may have something to do with your "challenge with the metric system".  The medical report indicates two lacerations on his scalp, one being 2 cm in length and one being 1/2 centimeter in length.  You state that "2cm is about 79 thousandths of an inch".  You would be (once again) wrong.  Two centimeters is 0.787401 inches, or (as I said previously) 3/4 of an inch.  (Similarly, one-half centimeter is .196850 inches, or as I previously stated, 1/5 of an inch).  But if you want to round up to 4/5 of an inch, we can do that.  Either way, 2cm is not 79/thousandths of an inch, which would be 0.079 cm.  Happy to help you out there.

    Actually the split at the base of the "question mark" bruise is clearly well in excess of an inch in length. The explanation, now that I think about it, is probably that Frances Robles once again got something miserably wron

    Sad to say, but your new theory to explain your ocular issue is also wrong.  Robles report (as well as numerous other media reports) correctly reflect the actual medical report, which indicates two lacerations (2 cm and .5 cm in length).  Nothing about any bruises on his scalp.

    Let me know if there's anything else ...

    Your post is number 128. Apparently... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Gandydancer on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 04:10:39 PM EST
    ...you missed #116-117.

    As a former graduate student of Physics (albeit one who realized from my difficulty in following either formulation of quantum dynamics that I was in the wrong field) I am particularly embarrassed that I mentally translated cm into English units as if they were mm. The result was an order of magnitude too small and was consistent with your contention that the doctor's assistant's report supported your minimization of Zimmerman's injuries, but clearly inconsistent with the photographs of Zimmerman's battered skull. Hence my expressed puzzlement with the doctor's (actually, apparently, doctor's assistant's) report. Obviously my recantation of my calculations was also a recantation of any suggestion that Robles had made an error in this case. The error was mine.

    On the other hand, your suggestion that the bruising is a "smear of blood" remains obtund. The streaks of dried blood on Z's skull at the station are the clotted edges of the smears of blood visible in the first photograph. The "question mark" is clearly subcutaneous. That you're still denying this is absurd.


    Yman, stop insulting other (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 12:15:16 AM EST
    commenters. I disagree with almost every post you have written on this case but not said much about them. If you don't stop with the insults and mocking tone when disagreeing with others, I'll  have no problem limiting your comments.

    I intend for people to feel free to post here without fear of being ridiculed. You (and Gandy Dancer and to some extent others) are not going to change that.


    Your blog (1.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 08:18:32 AM EST
    It goes without saying that you can do whatever you want, but for the record, I was responding in kind to insulting, ridiculing responses from Gandydancer and Darby.  In fact, I used the very same language that they used in their posts.

    I am sure he called into the show (3.00 / 5) (#143)
    by Darby on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:55:37 PM EST
    To give all the facts. Bw only gave part of the story on the air. Rumors were flying about what happened. I am sure o'mara wanted to fill in the blanks.

    O'mara seems to be very compassionate and understanding of what people who think like you have done to innocent mans life.

    I know you desperately want there to be egg on o'mara and George's face, but I think it is on yours.

    Does Sharpton even know how... (none / 0) (#4)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:41:31 PM EST
    ...not to rush to judgement?

    Is it a rush to judgment (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Payaso on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:47:13 PM EST
    if your mind is already made up beforehand?

    Hindsight - (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MikeB on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:59:28 AM EST
    As with most comments concerning his injuries, you are judging based on your ability to analyze and reflect. Z didn't have that luxury when he was being pounded by Martin.

    Additionally, you know where the beating stopped - at the gunshot. Had Z not pulled the trigger, where would it have stopped? Z had no way to know that - and neither do you. When Z moved his head to the grass, do you think Martin's would have not moved on to another method of serious injury?

    In the face of overwhelming evidence, this seems to be the most intellectually lazy point of contention.


    Not so much (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Samnod on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:37:46 AM EST
    But insisting that he had no injuries whatsoever was. They were claiming that his nose wasn't broken and that he had no cuts on his head. They didn't bother to see if he had injuries or not, they just passed judgement. You can argue that his injuries were not that serious, but the fact that he had injuries has been well documented by various people. That was the rush to judgement. Well one of them.

    Did the police have a bias towards Zimmerman? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:58:53 PM EST
    They had done an investigation, they knew he was injured. We also heard firsthand from witnesses in March that Zimmerman was being attacked by Martin and screaming for help.
    Why not give the benefit of the doubt to the police investigation, witnesses, police and ER that treated him on the scene. Also the fact that he passed one(maybe more) lie detector type tests.

    And not sure what you mean by drops off the radar. You mean went into hiding after death threats and a bounty were put on his head? After complete cooperation with the police.


    Wrong. Twice. (2.75 / 4) (#45)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:09:12 AM EST
    Lets say its a given that if your head ever taps concrete, either its serious enough to get it checked out or its not.
    If your head is smashed against the concrete hard enough to make you worry about passing out and often enough to crack your scalp open several times it's serious enough to get checked out. Zimmerman is lucky he didn't suffer a hematoma and end up a veggie. But if you don't have insurance you still may not go.

    Since Zimmerman's defense hinges on his perception of life-threatening danger when his head was banged against the concrete, isn't it a rush to judgment to think a jury will buy that?
    Z says in the interview that at a certain point he realized that "his" gun wasn't his gun anymore -- it was up for grabs. The head-against-concrete pounding merely demonstrates Trayvon's reckless disregard for Z's life. A gun is unquestionably a life-threatening danger. Ask Trayvon.

    Wrong again (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:20:21 AM EST
    If your head is smashed against the concrete hard enough to make you worry about passing out and often enough to crack your scalp open several times it's serious enough to get checked out.

    His scalp wasn't "cracked open several times".  There were two, small cuts - one 3/4 of an inch and one 1/5 of an inch.

    Since Zimmerman's defense hinges on his perception of life-threatening danger when his head was banged against the concrete, isn't it a rush to judgment to think a jury will buy that?

    Z says in the interview that at a certain point he realized that "his" gun wasn't his gun anymore -- it was up for grabs. The head-against-concrete pounding merely demonstrates Trayvon's reckless disregard for Z's life. A gun is unquestionably a life-threatening danger. Ask Trayvon.

    Zimmerman's statement about the gun and whether there even was a "head-against-concrete pounding" are all factual issues.  Assuming this goes to a jury, the jury is free to accept or reject Zimmerman's version of events in whole or in part, including the issues of the severity of the "pounding" (or whether there even was a "pounding" and whether Martin was (as Zimmerman claims) trying to get the gun.

    BTW - No one has claimed guns aren't a "life threatening danger", but I guess those straw arguments are easier to knock down.  Plus, you get the added bonus of leading into a callous, cavalier joke about asking questions of a dead teenager.



    Should I believe Yman... (3.67 / 3) (#91)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 05:18:56 PM EST
    ...or my own lying eyes.

    Maybe a jury will decide that Z's head didn't get pounded. You could get a jury of Ymans, with really bad luck. But any reasonable jury will conclude that Z's head got pounded and that letting the pounder get possession of the gun would be an unduly optimistic way of testing God's plan.


    Not your eyes ... (2.67 / 3) (#95)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 06:25:58 PM EST
    ... if they're telling you something different, because my statements are supported by the facts and Zimmerman's own medical records:

    The report detailed two open wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head, one two centimeters and one half a centimeter, which did not require stitches. She described his head as "normocephalic and atraumatic'' -- normal and without injuries.

    Not to mention the use of words such as "pounded", "smashed", "slammed", etc.  Two minor cuts that didn't require so much as a bandaid - let alone stitches - for a "pounding".  You may want to believe it, but it's a question of fact for the jury to decide.

    But if you have actual evidence (as opposed to your lying eyes) to support your claim that Zimmerman's head was "cracked open several times", it would be nice to see it.  Otherwise, I guess we can just chalk that up to more exaggeration and hyperbole.

    But any reasonable jury will conclude that Z's head got pounded and that letting the pounder get possession of the gun would be an unduly optimistic way of testing God's plan.

    Heh - "any reasonable jury" - meaning people that agree with you.

    But at least you've now dropped the absurd claim that Zimmerman's scalp was "cracked open several times", backpedaling to merely "his head was pounded".



    Really yman? (3.50 / 2) (#96)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 06:41:21 PM EST
    I know you like to argue and try and make points, but really?

    Colloquially people say they cracked or split their head open all the time. Not to mean their skull opened up or their brain was exposed.

    I would like to know your theory of what transpired and if you think George is guilty of a crime, what did he do that was illegal?


    It's the constant exagerration ... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:44:19 PM EST
    ... and hyperbole.  Two minor cuts that didn't require so much as a bandaid are suddenly evidence that Martin "bashed", "pounded", "smashed", etc. Zimmerman's head into the concrete - usually "repeatedly", "several times", "multiple times", etc.  In the present instance, it's "cracked his scalp open several times".  Plus, "Zimmerman is lucky he didn't suffer a hematoma and end up a veggie".  Not to mention the fact that "The head-against-concrete pounding merely demonstrates Trayvon's reckless disregard for Z's life", despite the fact that the "pounding" resulted in two, small cuts, which are just as easily explained by a scuffle on the ground without a "pounding".



    I see red welts and cuts (3.50 / 2) (#98)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:57:01 PM EST
    And certainly could believe from that photo  that his head was bashed several times.  And it was split open. The photo looks bad to me and more serious than just two small cuts

    But am still curious about your position on the case.
    What is your position on zimmermans guilt?


    Really? (3.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:18:48 PM EST
    I see two, small cuts (as noted by the PA who treated him) that didn't require a bandaid, and some smeared blood.

    But of course you could believe that this shows his head was "bashed several times and "split open".  It's just that only two of those "bashings" on the concrete were actually hard enough to make so much as a small cut on a shaved head.  While we know the PA thinks Zimmerman's nose was probably broken by (according to Zimmerman) the first punch from Martin - knocking him to the ground - he was lucky enough to avoid any damage from the next two dozen punches Zimmerman says he delivered.  Or maybe it was "more than a dozen", as he later stated in the Hannity interview.  Martin's hands were also remarkably unscathed from all this "bashing' and "pounding" and "punching", given that his injuries were limited to only one, tiny nick on one knuckle.

    Go figure.

    My position on his guilt is to wait and see how the evidence developments.  But I'm very skeptical of a story that keeps changing and is full of contradictions, not to mention how the injuries don't (IMO) match up with his version of events.


    Based on the evidence so far (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:24:17 PM EST
    What  do you think happened?

    Yman (3.00 / 2) (#106)
    by spectator on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:12:26 AM EST
    I've had my head impact the concrete twice one night, when i was 15 I fainted and fell backwards with my legs locked, i was seeing stars but i stood up and it happened again before anyone could catch me, they thought i was dead, i was awake but paralyzed and could not walk for a few minutes and not a single cut, only a bump.

    Absolute true story.


    Spectator (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:17:02 AM EST
    When I was nine I fell down and grazed my head on a piece of gravel.  I barely felt it, but it opened up a cut about an inch long in my scalp - larger than either of the two cuts on Z's head.  I looked like I was in a horror movie, with blood covering my head and clothes.

    Absolutely true story.


    absolutey true story.... (none / 0) (#154)
    by lily on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 12:05:24 AM EST
    our good friend died when he lost control of his bike and hit the pavement riding downhill. Not a scratch, repeat not a scratch anywhere on his head or body, yet within two minutes he was brain dead, blood dripping out of his ears. The brain bounces inside the skull, the force and direction of impact determines the damage to the brain.

    OK it is obvious you want to believe TM was a darling child, but that does not change the fact that ANY trauma to the brain can be deadly or debilitating.


    You're not very observant. So... (3.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:04:29 PM EST
    ...perhaps you didn't notice that I gave you a =>>>> link <<<<= to a picture of the wounds on and bruising underneath Z's scalp.

    I can't explain the doctor's report (which doesn't agree with your previous post) but my lying eyes can SEE that the split in the scalp at the base of the question-mark shaped bruise on the back of George's head is significantly larger than you've admitted.

    Why you think that Z's head getting pounded is an exclusive alternative to his scalp getting split eludes me. Well, you've never made much sense anyway. Why start now?


    My observation is fine (3.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:29:34 AM EST
    I just don't have the level of imagination some people have.  By "question marked shaped bruise", do you mean that smear of blood?

    I can't explain the doctor's report (which doesn't agree with your previous post) but my lying eyes can SEE that the split in the scalp at the base of the question-mark shaped bruise on the back of George's head is significantly larger than you've admitted.

    Really?  It doesn't?  Because if, in fact, it didn't, I would think you would spell out exactly how the medical report contradicted my post ... and yet you didn't.


    I can explain the doctor's report.  The PA was looking at the wound after it was cleaned in clear light and upon close examination, rather than a flash photo with some blood smears.  You stick with your (biased) eyes.  I'll stick with the facts/medical report, which showed two, small cuts.

    Why you think that Z's head getting pounded is an exclusive alternative to his scalp getting split eludes me. Well, you've never made much sense anyway. Why start now?

    Some people have trouble with facts and logic.... keep at it!


    I don't have insurance. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Samnod on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:43:57 AM EST
    And i wouldnt go to the doctor unless I was unable to function at all. If he was in danger of dying any moment after the attack then maybe he thought the paramedics would have caught it. I couldn't afford the bills or the missed work. These are the choices that the working poor have to make.

    I think Zimmerman wanted the whole situation (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Tamta on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 09:46:00 AM EST
    perhaps to be done with as quickly as possible and it seems he maybe was receiving signals that there were not significant issues with his reporting of the shooting. Perhaps Zimmerman would have  seen a Physician right away if an officer had said to him "Listen it's in the best interest of a Self Defense or Stand Your Ground claim if you see someone right away to document your injuries". Maybe someone suggested he should try to do it in the next 24 hours if he declined hospital attention immediately.  Zimmerman Waiting until the next morning to pay $90-$120 to go to the doctor office Instead of a four digit trip to the ER doesn't seem like incredibly poor judgement.

    I understand that exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by DebFrmHell on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 04:29:26 PM EST
    I cracked my head open big and when EMS arrived I apparently told them I didn't want to go to the hospital.  It wasn't until the next day that I even got the details from the police about what happened.

    I would have had to pay for the EMS service and the ER visit.  Without insurance, that would have been something else people were calling me about every other day...  ((Pay US!  Now!))

    When I broke my nose, I waited until the next day to go to the doctor.  Both injuries were worse than GZ, too.


    If I thought there was any chance (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:55:25 AM EST
    that I could be arrested for shooting someone, and I believed I had done so in self-defense and fear for my life, you can be sure I would want my injuries documented as close to the event as possible - even if I didn't have insurance.

    Unless...I was afraid that perhaps it would be determined that my injuries really weren't all that bad, and the cops or a judge or a jury wouldn't believe that my life had been in danger, or that someone would decide it wasn't reasonable for me to have feared for my life.

    And this is where George Zimmerman could have benefited greatly from legal advice that night, someone who could have monitored his interaction with police, who could have advised him to go to the hospital, and so on.


    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Samnod on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 09:50:20 AM EST
    Or you just think that what you did was justified and that it is obvious that it was justified so it doesn't occur to you that you need documentation. I'm sure the blood and broken nose were very obvious to him. The paramedics and police both note that he was injured, photographs were  taken. Apparently he didn't realize that others would question his motives. In my opinion he was naive; but it also makes him seem innocent.

    Yeah, he should have waited... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 05:55:47 PM EST
    ...until Trayvon got the gun. Then no one would have questioned his shooting Trayvon. Or maybe he should have waited until Trayvon shot him. Then, surely, no one would have questioned his use of deadly force? But maybe Trayvon was only intending to nick him. So Geoge should wait until he's provably dead, right?

    Assuming (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:05:22 AM EST
    You were in a place where you were thinking clearly and rationally after just shooting someone.

    And, as has been well documented, head injuries can appear benign to those who suffer them.  See NFL quarterbacks and concussions.


    Which is all the more reason why (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    Zimmerman could have benefited from the presence of, at a minimum, either a lawyer or family member or friend, don't you think?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:17:50 AM EST
    But as they were not arresting him at that moment, and IF he was in a fog, maybe that didn't occur to him?

    Or maybe he thought he knew better.

    Who knows?


    Plus (none / 0) (#68)
    by Samnod on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:46:35 AM EST
    isnt his wife studying to be a nurse? Maybe he thought that between the paramedics and his wife that would be enough.

    I'm too lazy to do this (none / 0) (#9)
    by SuzieTampa on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:17:02 PM EST
    but I wish someone would do a long list of the misinformation, similar to what the Orlando Sentinel did early on.

    Jeralyn had a great post early on (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:24:24 PM EST
    but probably even she has gotten tired of documenting the atrocities.

    Zimmerman's bond (none / 0) (#10)
    by expy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:19:02 PM EST
    Assuming you meant to refer to Zimmerman and the apparently aborted Barbara Walters interview... I think the answer is that he would need to seek permission from the court in order to travel to New York.  To go without permission would be a violation of bond conditions and could/would result in bond revocation.

    Given that there is a pending motion to disqualify the judge for bias, I do not think this would be an opportune time to ask for such permission. Although I am not sure that there is ever an opportune time for that sort of request.

    Facts? (none / 0) (#11)
    by diogenes on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:24:05 PM EST
    Stop confusing us with the facts.

    Prosecution signals intent to use tv interview (none / 0) (#14)
    by expy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:37:03 PM EST
    From ABC news:

    "This morning the prosecution entered the tape of the interview into discovery as and could attempt to admit it as evidence in Zimmerman's trial on charges of second degree murder."

    See ABC News

    The news article speculates that the prosecution is interested in Z's statements that "he neither regretted carrying a gun that night nor pursuing the 17-year-old Martin."

    But I assume that the prosecution adding this to the exhibit list would not be accompanied by any statement of perceived relevance.... and there are quite a few other aspects that could be helpful to the prosecution.

    Heh, yes... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by bmaz on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:13:59 PM EST
    I bet they did add it to their list of exhibits and witnesses. I would too were I them. I am still stunned O'Mara would sanction doing that interview. Just stunningly stupid.

    I am sure that O'Mara is (none / 0) (#26)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:40:51 PM EST
    looking for that all important Elizabeth Hasselbeck endorsement of his client.

    O'Mara said he's not surprised by the state's (none / 0) (#40)
    by lily on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:33:08 AM EST
    decision to include the interview and knew it  going in, he also answers many questions debated on various blogs.


    ORLANDO, Fla. -

    Mark O'Mara spoke Thursday about George Zimmerman's television interview. O'Mara said he is prepared to deal with what comes from his client's interview, but said he's not surprised by the state's decision to use the interview at trial


    If ABC is right and those are (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:04:01 AM EST
    the statements of interest to the state (which the notice doesn't specify) it sounds like they think it will be evidence of his "depraved mind" for the 2nd degree murder charge.

    Why wouldn't they (none / 0) (#35)
    by bmaz on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:12:16 AM EST
    ...just notice them up because they might have value as rebuttal/impeachment etc. same as any other statement or interview by Zimmerman?  I didn't see anything in the transcript that furthered depraved mind, at least that I recall....

    She said "IF ABC IS RIGHT..." (none / 0) (#49)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 04:21:12 AM EST
    No, I didn't see any evidence of depravity either, but not having evidence hasn't stopped them so far. Z explained at the end of the interview what he meant about not changing anything he did, and they're choosing to ignore it. So, what else is new?

    O'Mara fixed what wasn't broken when he had Z shut down the first site and grabbed up Z's money. And he screwed up big time at the first bail hearing, too. He's a lib Dem, I believe, and I think he came to the case thinking of Z as a perp who killed an unarmed black teen and deserved a defense, but not any special effort or going out on a limb or the source of much cash. So he didn't put in much effort and walked out on various limbs inattentively. But he got a whiff of money, acquired a new mortgage, got a good look at the State's evidence, and got mugged by Lester. Filing for Lester's disqual burned some bridges and was liberating, and now he'a actually talking about George being innocent. There are even some glimmers that he's starting to enjoy himself. I'm hoping for a considerable upgrade in his performance, which needs it.

    And having the interview was fine, IMHO. Attacking appeals to "God's Will" is going to help who in that jury pool? Also, there were polls on the case w/racial breakdowns and the anti-Z was always much weaker than in the media outside blacks, and unless W9 blows up (which is unconnected) I don't think it has much shelf life if Z keeps his current demeanor front and center. And that may keep the money coming, too. The State's got the judge, plus bupkis, and needs...4 of 7 in Fla? Go for the judge's electorate. (No retired judges, please.)

    And no interviews with hostile media, at least without big contribs to the defense fund, Bobby Fischer-like scrutiny of the groundrules (e.g., his own cameras), and readiness on O'Mara's part to go to war. Not sure if O'Mara or George have the mindset for that, so I'll be perfectly happy if Z stiffs the enemy media.


    I think some of the initial media presentation (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:43:20 PM EST
    of the circumstances of the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin was reductive with the out-sized role and optics given to  the hooded sweatshirt.  With MSNBC anchors such as Melissa Harris-Perry and Keith Olbermann and Current TV's Cenk Ugur and Bill Press wearing hoodies covering their heads during the shows, it, in my view, initiated misunderstandings of the case.  As was learned, the apparel's description was in response to questions from the non-emergency dispatcher.

     Having said that, I also believe that the Martin family had every right to enlist support from friends and advocates, including Reverend Sharpton, to assure a thorough investigation and to bring appropriate charges if warranted.  So far so good, but the media, being the media, made the case into a journalism-free story.

    So I went over to the (none / 0) (#17)
    by DebFrmHell on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:22:29 PM EST
    MSNBC site now NBC and searched all over the site for any mention of this.  Nothing.  I even used their search box for the good Rev.Al.  I checked even corrections and alerts...  Like hunting for a ghost.

    If they wanted to make it clear with their own viewers that they are so transparent, why not post it on their site, rather than just that of Politico.  

    Heck, post it all over!  It's all truth and goodness!  No shame there!

    Zimmerman's foolish interviews (none / 0) (#23)
    by Stan25 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:02:15 PM EST
    are only costing him money because no matter what he intends to say or how sincere he is, the media (except possibly Fox) have it in for him so it is trivial for bubble head "interviewers" to ask loaded questions to make him look foolish.

    O'Mara now has to spend enormous wasted effort and money (in short supply) to contain the damage -- not from what he says but from how what he says will be misstated and ridiculed by the media.

    Zimmerman should have asked for much more than one month expenses and security for his wife if he is so foolish to trust Barbara Walters. I and many others stopped listening to her obnoxious voice and empty headed distorted interviews many years ago.

    Not paying interviewees is... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 05:27:44 AM EST
    ..."ethics" like lawyers not bailing out their clients is "ethics". (Except there's no Bar to bar the former.) It's convenient to say you can't pay when you mostly just don't want to pay.

    Reading between the lines (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:46:07 AM EST
    on quotes from O'Mara today, it sounds to me that Zimmerman is calling all the shots now. Tonight Zimmerman  posted a you tube video .

    It appears George continues to be a loose cannon, and O'Mara finds himself a passenger on a run away train.

    He doesn't come off as a (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:21:34 AM EST
    loose cannon at all, but sincere. I especially liked his repeating the message in Spanish at the end. As I noted when writing about his jail calls, he's clearly comfortable with Spanish.

    He also makes the point this is not his website but "our website." I think that's another sign it's his family and friends (not him) that's calling the shots. But I agree, they are intent on getting their side out, apart from what O'Mara chooses to release or how O'Mara portrays it. It's risky and I wonder how long O'Mara will go along.


    I would want no part of it (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by bmaz on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:29:02 AM EST
    It would be over my dead body, or at least withdrawal request, that all this media nonsense would be occurring.  But I have found O'Mara inanely chatty about everything from the start.  The GZ legal posting is pretty sober and controlled, but when O'Mara gets in the camera lights, especially with his little impromptu courthouse step deals, he is a fairly dangerous loose cannon.  I dunno, maybe that is just me, but I think it is bad lawyering.

    Isn't it wrong for MOM to support his (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 06:35:53 AM EST
    client doing interviews like this for the purpose of replenishing the defense fund? A conflict of interest?

    So why did he take the risk of going on national TV to tell his story? Money, his attorney said.

    "The defense fund is virtually out of money, and they can't provide shelter, security, anything pretty soon if the spending continues as it is and the donations continue as they are," O'Mara told the Sentinel. He described Hannity as his client's "earliest supporter ... a voice of reason saying let's not rush to judgment."

    Zimmerman, O'Mara said, promised Hannity in April that he would get the Neighborhood Watch captain's first interview. O'Mara said the defense fund is down to about $30,000 to $50,000, "but there are outstanding bills that would pretty much devastate that."

    The legal team has not been paid, he said, and the Hannity interview resulted in only a modest uptick in support.

    There are a lot of expenses (none / 0) (#70)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 09:11:01 AM EST
    He is talking about paying for their living expenses and security. So that I don't think is a conflict of interest.
    Also legal expenses will need to be paid to hire expert witnesses etc. This is not money that is going to O'Mara.

    No, I see no conflict (none / 0) (#77)
    by bmaz on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:16:14 AM EST
    Questionable lawyering by my book, but nothing unethical or conflicted.

    The video is a sincere expression (none / 0) (#44)
    by lily on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:08:09 AM EST
    According to O'Mara all decisions including the renewal of the realGZ website are discussed by the  team which includes the client. O'Mara says he has an excellent relationship with GZ and believes GZ values his advocacy. He says this case is so bizarre that nothing is happening by the book, none of usual rules apply, and without funds to support GZ family they are forced to try whatever they can until GZ is acquitted.  He also said it was not difficult to do the interview since GZ is innocent.

    see Thursday interview with O'Mara at Wesh local news


    Re: Nothing by the book... (none / 0) (#47)
    by unitron on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:31:56 AM EST
    "He says this case is so bizarre that nothing is happening by the book, none of usual rules apply, and without funds to support GZ family they are forced to try whatever they can until GZ is acquitted."

    I'm not sure I could argue with that.

    But the concept of Zimmerman as a "team player" is a little hard to swallow.


    watch the interview (none / 0) (#48)
    by lily on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:47:25 AM EST
    do you really think O'Mara is not being truthful?



    It occurred to me that maybe (none / 0) (#75)
    by Tamta on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 10:08:45 AM EST
    The tone, content, and personal presentation of the former website was more appealing to donors and potential donors than the GZLegalCase blog. It offers a more human dimension to Zimmermans case and donors can connect to him and then donate instead of connect to his legal team- which some supporters of Zimmerman may not want to do.

    I am beginning to see it as a calculated move.


    I was under the impression this site (none / 0) (#30)
    by fredquick21 on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:53:03 AM EST
    "DID NOT ALLOW " character attacks and speculation?. We crush BW and AL yet MoM and his PEOPLE MAG "GOSSIP" and BLATANT MISINFORMATION gets no mention? NO ONE is completely without blame in this entire media fiasco... since 2/26 except the dead teen. JMO

    I have not personally (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:29:31 AM EST
    insulted either Barbara Walters or Al Sharpton. I criticized MSNBC for its statement falsely portraying Sharpton's comments. Speculation based on disclosed facts is allowed. See the commenting rules.

    Mark O'Mara has not, as far as I know, presented any misinformation intentionally, let alone blatently. Your comment is objectionable.

    And the "dead teen" may or may not be blameless, due to his physical assault on Zimmerman.  (Even the state admitted in its closing argument at the June 29 bond hearing that Martin hit Zimmerman.) A judge or jury will decide.


    I wonder... (none / 0) (#61)
    by firstfall on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:10:56 AM EST
    Shellie would have access to the safe house just like GZ. She wouldn't need a hotel unless she needed to travel somewhere. Maybe Barbara wanted two interviews? An interview with GZ in the county (bond prevents him from leaving) and a second with Shellie in NY on the View? So the request was to provide Shellie with a hotel in NY for a month?

    He (none / 0) (#73)
    by Samnod on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 09:54:02 AM EST
    Peobably thought she would be safer out of Florida.

    If that is what you think (none / 0) (#83)
    by bmaz on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    First off you do not know the facts as well as most here, and clearly do not understand how the jury instructions will be crafted and read in relation to the burden of proof that rests entirely on the state. Also, in florida, non-capital felony juries are usually six, not twelve.

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 01:56:15 PM EST
    has been deleted.

    Somewhat OT (none / 0) (#88)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:05:58 PM EST
    Jeralyn, when do you think the judge will rule on removing himself?

    I am thinking if he were going to, it would have happened sooner than this.

    I will accept the label 'rush to judgement' (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 09:40:36 PM EST
    if people will remember that without the demand for further investigation we may not have the information we have now that makes it possible for some of us to rethink our initial positions.  'rush to judgement' implies that more facts aiding the judgment would have emerged if the Martin family and activists had not acted.  Before the protests, the decision of the Sanford police and DA had been made with little information released - their decision was that they did not have evidence to charge a crime, and I suppose rightfully they did not have to disclose what they did have so people could evaluate actual facts and see if they agreed with the decision. They did not explain their reasoning. Were there rules that prevented them from disclosing Zimmerman's story of events and self defense rartionale? I don't know the legalities of that. Det. Serino stated multiple times in his interviews with GZ that he would have to be the one explaining GZ to the public if they did not charge. I did not see any explanations at all when it was a local story before the protests started.

    I can't blame the Martin family and activists for demanding justice when no information was forthcoming without the subsequent state investigation.  

    unfortunately it was a false narrative (3.50 / 2) (#103)
    by IrishGerard on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:54:24 PM EST
     predicated on racial profiling and perpetuated by Sharpton, Jackson et al. The veiled threats of civil disobedience led to the political pressure that culminated with an unwarranted 2nd degree murder charge.

     I agree that SPD and the SA did a poor job communicating their findings. Although the City of Sanford did release a statement, it didnt appear to get much press. I also agree that a second look by another SA was in order. However, Angela Corey's actions reek of skulduggery all the way to the top.

    Angela corey already new that her counterpart in Seminole County declined to file charges, yet she chose to ignore zimmerman's self-defense claim.
    she already new that the FBI found no evidence of racial animosity yet she included 'profiling', implying racial profiling, in the PC affidavit. She declined to convene a grand jury and instead opted to abuse her prosecutorial immunity and file an unfounded 2nd degree murder charge.

    There is plenty of blame to go around, but George Zimmerman is the one that must bear the brunt of the unwarranted and superfluous murder charge.


    The threats of civil disobedience (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:37:22 AM EST
    were not veiled, they were right out in the open. And without them we may not have gotten this statement, which came after the public outcry and is the most they ever attempted to explain their decision. It is a decent explanation of the law, but since they said the investigation was still open, they did not disclose how GZs self defense claim fit the law.  Without the details of the situation it leaves plenty of room for skepticism.

    I agree with you that if there was not a case against GZ he should not have been charged. It certainly is new for FL to be so worried about the feelings of minorities that they would charge someone with no evidence, but if that is what happened it is wrong and they should have had the boldness they usually display when making unpopular decisions. As I have said before I do not believe that a decision not to charge, if properly explained, would have resulted in the much talked about, almost with gleeful anticipation, rioting. Maybe I am optimistic or naive, but I don't believe an acquittal in a public trial with all evidence presented will result in it either.


    I'm wondering what might happen should he be (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Angel on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:55:08 AM EST

    Timing of publicity (none / 0) (#104)
    by cboldt on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:20:51 AM EST
    The rules that limit and time the disclosure of information are the Florida sunshine laws, and privacy laws.  Until an investigation is complete (and not intertwined with other investigations), it is considered open, and material that is pertinent to open investigations is not made public.  The rationale for not publicizing the material in ongoing investigations should be obvious.

    Government entities may publicize information before an investigation is complete.  Bonaparte and the mayor of Sanford did that in this case, under public pressure.


    Yes, I certainly agree with the (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:27:12 AM EST
    rationale not to release material until the investigation is complete. But why tell the parents and the public that a decision has been made not to charge before the investigation was complete? That leaves the impression that leaving the investigation open is just a way to avoid showing the information.

    I don't blame the parents and others for thinking something was fishy.


    The conclusion was rejected (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by cboldt on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:06:03 AM EST
    I believe Serino told Tracy, maybe Sybrina too, that the evidence didn't support bringing a charge.  That Zimmerman was claiming self defense, and the investigation, so far, contained nothing to support otherwise.  They rejected that.

    Serino produced a novel legal theory, the "culpable if didn't break the chain of events" principle, and used that to recommend a manslaughter charge.  That principle is still being applied, at least by the Martin's lawyer, Parks, who asserts that a person who gets out of his truck deserves a beating.  His contention that being armed plays into that is puzzling, as there is no way to tell, on sight, if a person is armed or not, and he seems to condition the right to administer a beating on the combination of getting out of a truck and being armed.

    I believe the SPD evidence, plus whatever evidence Wolfinger would have produced, if anything, would have become public shortly following the grand jury decision, April 10.  At that point, a decision having been reached, the matter is closed.  I imagine the investigation file might remain open longer, but I can't think of a good reason for it to remain open longer.

    Sometime distrust just "is," without basis other than the viewer rejects the outcome.  Tracy didn't want to provide evidence to SPD, and I think it was necessary to cast SPD as biased in order to obtain public support for their narrative that the shooting was utterly without justification.  The Crumps, Jackson, Julison narrative was that Martin was hunted down - they may still hold that narrative, that observing, getting out of the truck, and endeavoring to maintain visual contact is "hunting."

    Additional evidence has come is, as a result of the outcry.  None of the FBI material would have come in (all of which undercuts a claim of racial animus, hot temper, and vigilant mentality); DeeDee might have, depending of whether or not Martin's lawyer allowed SPD or Wolfinger to have access.  Same with Sybrina's contention that Martin was the one screaming (a finding contrary to SPD's finding).  So, DeeDee and Sybrina could have been before the grand jury.

    Corey is the pivot point.  She concluded that the evidence contains probable cause that Zimmerman committed murder.  Same evidence (other than FBI) that would have been presented to the grand jury.

    I haven't seen the evidence of SPD bias that supports the Martins finding something was fishy.  They just flat out reject that their son unreasonably provoked the use of deadly force.


    emergency treatment (none / 0) (#107)
    by LeaNder on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:32:16 AM EST
    Gandydancer, would you agree that there would be much less argument about the issue had there be an emergency treatment. And an x-ray? Sorry, I think i misspelled your name somewhere else, since I didn't know the word grandy.

    The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]

    Obviously I can't be sure, but shouldn't police forces be aware of such a law? and that is in fact the reason why they offered to bring him there?

    I also checked coast for an x-ray and an examination considering the given case, I doubt they would have been very high.

    And, no, the "argument" about the..., (3.50 / 2) (#111)
    by Gandydancer on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:51:57 AM EST
    ...seriousness of GZ's injuries would be unaffected had he gone to the ER. It couldn't hurt to have a more accurate description than the one provided by GZ's doc (describing the main split as "2 cm" is absurd) but the pictures taken by the first-arriving witness and at the police station are dispositive for anyone who hasn't got their head up their a$$. Z's head is badly bruised and the skin is split, which is not easy to do. I've taken quite a few knocks to my head in my lifetime, and though I've had a cut or tear by ramming it into something metallic and sharp or having a thrown rock bounced off it, the skin has never split like that. And note spectator's story of falling unconcious to the concrete twice -- with no split. Anyone who looks at the pictures and describes what he sees a two small cuts unworthy of a bandage isn't living on the same planet as reasonable people, Or he's lying. And GZ going to the ER wouldn't change that.

    And yet, ... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:06:34 AM EST
    It couldn't hurt to have a more accurate description than the one provided by GZ's doc (describing the main split as "2 cm" is absurd) but the pictures taken by the first-arriving witness and at the police station are dispositive for anyone who hasn't got their head up their a$$.

    ... that's precisely what Zimmerman's own medical records show.  But I guess you know better than Zimmerman's PA who, according to you, must have his "head up his a$$".

    BTW - "Unworthy of a bandage" wasn't my description, if you were referring to me.  But I understand why you'd want to change it.


    As I Keep Pointing Out, Yman (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by RickyJim on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    You need to get from
    A: Zimmerman exaggerated the severity of the beating Martin was giving him to
    B: Zimmerman knew he could have escaped serious harm without using lethal measures, but he did anyway.

    Please try harder.


    I keep asking Yman (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Darby on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 01:54:49 PM EST
    to tell us his theory of what happened, based upon the evidence so far. He just seems to want to try and poke holes in all the evidence right before his eyes and not share what he think happened.  

    I ran out of insulin a bit before... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Gandydancer on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:25:58 AM EST
    ...I could see my new internist, and my blood sugar was up a bit. She insisted on my walking into the nearby ER where they put me on a drip for a couple hours. Cost my insurance something in the vicinity of four figures and would have cost me, without the Blue Cross discount, significantly more. And "no reimbursement" doesn't mean YOU don't get dunned, just that the government is making the hospital eat the costs for indigents and other uncollectables. Not GZ -- he had wages which could be attached.

    Even when one catches oneself... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Gandydancer on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    ...promptly, it's embarassing to make a full throated error. But I expect you to be shameless about the bruise.

    I deleted your comment (none / 0) (#155)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 12:11:48 AM EST
    for insulting another commenter, so you don't need to worry. This isn't the first time. Please don't insult other commenters and avoid insulting anyone, including groups of people.

    lacerations - scratches (none / 0) (#120)
    by LeaNder on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:11:23 AM EST
    "question mark" bruise is clearly well in excess of an inch in length. The explanation, now that I think about it, is probably that Frances Robles once again got something miserably wrong.

    I seem to distinctively remember that one of the two was an inch the other one a quarter of inch long. Which makes them 2,54 cm (one inch)and  0,635 cm (a quarter of an inch)long.

    That was already in the fist Zimmerman recovery, if I remember correctly. If you want to convince us of media bias you have to check the original documents and give us the page number.

    It still feels to me that if you have just survived death even the cost of an examination wouldn't matter, if there would have been cost at all if police accompanies you to a hospital in case of an emergency, that is. If you prefer not to go, even stop to complain about pains after you are offered to go there again, this leaves open the possibility that you do not want to be confronted with specialists for your type of injuries. Clearly your family doctor does not have that expertise.

    bruises (none / 0) (#122)
    by LeaNder on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 10:36:22 AM EST
    I get bruises very, very easily. You do not need to struck my head against concrete, one simple knock is absolutely sufficient. I often do not even remember how it happened.

    I am not sure if the argument of bruises on Trayvon's hand makes sense, we would need a paramedic or doctor for that answer. But very much the same is true of George's skull.

    My impression is you get bruises usually on the soft parts of your body, because a certain amount of soft flesh is needed or a hematoma of tissue to develop, there is not much soft tissue around the skull. In very much the same way the only part on my hand I can remember having had bruises on is on the ball of the hand.

    Is there enough flesh underneath the skin around your skull for bruises to form? I am asking a question. Maybe we have specialists here. I can see it in your photo, but admittedly I am still  puzzled.

    In any case these bruises are no clear evidence for the bashing against concrete, you can get a bruise from a simple fall too.

    But Gandy, I would like to have one question answered why should Trayvon attack Zimmerman without any provocation? What would be his motive? If Zimmerman only went over to RVC and back again? Can you see that if Zimmerman's perception of who Tracy Martin was was correct, I would have much less problems?

    If you answer my question sufficiently well, I may even change camps on the issue. ;)


    Cerebal contusion (none / 0) (#123)
    by LeaNder on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:01:14 AM EST
    Here is something that would have convinced me, medically, that his story is correct.

    Cerebal contusion

    While here someone asks my question Is it possible to bruise your skull?

    While it is possible to bruise the bone of the skull, the bone that makes up the skull is really quite dense, so it doesn't bruise easily. In fact in order to have enough force to bruise it, you're looking at internal brain damage as well as potentially breaking the bone. If it's really swollen, chances are you've just caused a great deal of soft-tissue damage and bruising of that, not the bone. However, if 4 hours later you still have a headache, you should probably go get checked out just to make sure there isn't any brain damage or bleeding within the brain. It can sometimes take 8-12 hours for bleeding within the brain to reach a point that you would notice, especially if it's a small bleed. And by then, if you've just gone to bed thinking you're fine, you might not wake up.
    X-Ray/CT Tech who's seen his fair share of brain bleeds from just such an occurrence.

    Do we have a medical report that says something about damage within the brain?


    If you're actually open to... (3.67 / 3) (#137)
    by Gandydancer on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:38:28 PM EST
    ...changing camp on the basis of the evidence it would be a welcome change from pointless exchanges with a verkrampte like Yman.

    I've elsewhere withdrawn my animadversion against Robles in this case. Lame error on my part. The case for media bias is robust and was the cause of my suspicion, not its consequence.

    There is a small amount of flesh between skull and scalp, and if the blood vessels are sufficiently broken I see no reason why the appearance of the bruises should be delayed. The pattern, rather than a point bruise, suggests multiple impacts, IMHO. The ER would see this more often than the family doctor, but the family doctor has usually interned there, and though he would undoubtedly want to order an interpreted MRI (for CYA, if nothing else) in a case like this it would be the results that would determine if a specialist is called for.

    The bone of the skull is nourished by blood but, absent extensive microshatterage the interstices don't exist for visble mixed-in blood -- bruising -- to exist. Concussion or cerebal contusion was a danger but Z seems to have lucked out.

    As to why Trayvon (you misspoke, said Tracy) would attack George... Well, TM was a middle-class kid who looks quite pleasant in the family photgraphs a week or so before he was shot. But his school environment and friendships (and, perhaps, for the purposes of racial comity, social environment) seems to have been somewhat pathological and I would be unsurprised if he'd acquired some racial hatred, a wounded sense of racial victimhood, and an unappetizing attidude towards fisticuffs. I'm not shocked that he hit Zimmerman but see nothing to predict as sustained an attack as seems to have occurred. Beyond that I have no particular insight or interest. And the subject is neither welcomed by Jeralyn nor germaine to her chosen focus.

    A gandydancer, btw, is someone who is part of a crew which manually lays railroad track. I like it because it incorporates both my name and my primary physical recreation, now that my knees and back are no longer up to gymrat basketball.

    Did I fail to address anything of importance to you?


    Objection to recusal motion by O'Mara (none / 0) (#126)
    by friendofinnocence on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:55:20 PM EST
    In this interview, O'Mara says his motion for recusal is the only document Lester can consider while deciding whether to recuse himself from the case, and nothing else.  When asked about the objection filed by Corey, he said doesn't think the rule allows for the state to respond.

    I found that very interesting too (1.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Darby on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:44:36 PM EST
    If o'mara is correct it just is further evidence what a political circus Corey has created. I hope she can be held accountable for her unethical behavior.

    I don't think it's true though (none / 0) (#146)
    by cboldt on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:18:10 PM EST
    O'Mara let stand, a remark that suggested the affidavit was deficient for want of covering the self defense angle.  I don't mind that he has a policy preference about charging, but the legal process doesn't require Corey to put self defense stuff in the charge.  She has to consider it, in order to ethically bring a charge, but the charge itself is kosher under the rules.

    I believe the opponent may argue against a motion to disqualify.  This time it's the state who wants to keep the judge, but next time it could be defendant.  The rebuttal should not challenge the FACTS relied on in the motion to disqualify, but it could argue that those facts, assumed true, would not give a reasonable person cause to believe the judge was biased in this case.

    IOW, the rules allow a rebuttal, but the rules do not allow a challenge to the facts that are used to justify movant's belief that the judge is biased.


    A few clarifications (none / 0) (#147)
    by cboldt on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:20:20 PM EST
    Not that "the charge itself" is kosher, what I meant to say was that the papers used to bring the charge, the information and supporting affidavit, comport with the rules of form.  I don't believe the charge is ethically brought - but the charging papers do follow the correct form, and the correct form says "no need to mention self defense."

    Where in the world is the rule (none / 0) (#153)
    by bmaz on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 11:54:15 PM EST
    ...that says the state cannot respond to a motion filed in due course under the FL Rules?  I will be shocked if there is such a rule.

    Link to the interview: (none / 0) (#127)
    by friendofinnocence on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 02:56:27 PM EST
    what's a libt...? (none / 0) (#151)
    by LeaNder on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:01:10 PM EST
    But he's a libt... uh, better not.

    It's an insulting term ... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 08:39:02 AM EST
    ... often used by Limbaugh combining two words - "liberal" and an insulting term for people with a mental disability.

    Yman (none / 0) (#159)
    by LeaNder on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    thanks, for the hint. I registered Rush Limbaugh, but my knowledge of US Zeitgeist is limited from my perspective: sitting on the outside looking in. ... you are not even allowed to use the term.?

    The only thing that comes to mind while reading "libt", is the type of liberals with a strong insistence on personal rights without much love of a complete surrender to majority consented rules or patterns, politically, the unorthodox left, occasionally? ...

    The libertarian camp is too complex for me to understand, some lean towards the right some more towards the left it feels.

    But Yman, I am obviously sympathetic to your cause and to use a term by Anne, feel a basic amount of congeniality, thus yes, I was a bit puzzled that you managed to insult somebody. Really? As far as I observed it, it went both ways. I am also slightly biased towards the perspective that Grandydancer started it with ill-guided basic assumptions. But I may have missed one of your contributions gone now. I have troubles understanding the specific Zimmerman comment blog rules surrounding the term "insult" against Jeralyn and others here, I have to admit. Does insult start with not sharing the same opinion?


    The libt* insult wasn't against Jeralyn... (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Gandydancer on Sun Jul 22, 2012 at 07:18:01 PM EST
    ...and Yman's insults directed against me didn't include "libt*".

    IIRC the subject of my anamadversion was the denizens of the mainstream media.

    The root is "liberal", not libertarian. In the US "liberal" has reversed its original meaning in Europe.

    "Retarded" is a euphemism, like "slow", that suffers from inaccuracy. The developmentally disabled aren't traveling to the implied destination at a small rate of speed impacted by some molasses-like substance. In this area he number of words that have traveled from approved euphemism to insult are multitudinous.

    Despite the clear photographic evidence Yman will never admit the seriousness with which Zimmerman was battered. The correct term for this, from the sometimes-Stalinist bowels of Wikipedia, is "POV Warrior". When there is so little at stake I don't understand this at all, but I have in any case had my snootful of it and developed an allergic reaction.

    Does this clear things up?