home

Zimmerman Trial Open Thread

Our forums are still touch and go due to server overload. Here's an open thread to discuss the George Zimmerman Trial.

Please remember this case is about the legal proceedings here, not your views on race. If you are new to the site, please read our comment rules for commenting on the Zimmerman case. If you want to know why our comment rules are different than other sites, you can read my answer to that question on another blogger's site.

This thread is for all topics related to the trial of George Zimmerman. Forum users, please keep checking throughout the day as they should now be staying up for hours at a time (and a permanent fix is forthcoming.)

< Zimmerman: BAE, Y U Always Fighting? | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    And of course, we have (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:13:15 AM EST
    no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight.

    Depends on your definition... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:18:58 AM EST
    of start a fight.

    Would you at least agree the evidence indicates he picked a fight?  If so...pick a fight, start a fight...we're talking semantics.

    Parent

    No not at all (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Darby on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:33:21 AM EST
    No, I would not (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:42:17 AM EST
    Walking along a street is not "picking a fight".

    Parent
    If that's all he was doing... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:46:12 AM EST
    I'd agree with you...but he was doing so much more than that.

    Parent
    Such as....? (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:51:36 AM EST
    Dropping a dime... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 11:01:39 AM EST
    for no reason, for starters.  That's ill intent right there in my world, granted we live in different worlds;)  Following in a creepy enough way for the young man to notice.  Reaching for his pocket when confronted about his following.  Picking a fight 3 ways to Sunday.

    Parent
    He didn't "pick a fight" (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 11:10:36 AM EST
    You really have to stop saying that or else your comments will get deleted.  :)

    Parent
    I'm not gonna lie... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 11:17:37 AM EST
    simply to avoid deletion...if the legal definition differs than the common one, and I'm sure it does, oh f*ckin' bloody well! ;)

    Parent
    Let me walk along the street behind you (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 11:02:12 AM EST
    at night making eye contact, talking on the phone.  Better yet, let me keep showing up at intersections in my car making eye contact while you walk home alone in the rain.  

    Wonder if you'd have that same opinion.

    Parent

    I'd run home to safety (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 11:09:23 AM EST
    Not try and start a fight with you.

    Of course, I live in Virginia, and personal tasers are legal here, so if you REALLY got too close, you might suffer some electrical shock.  I'd take the consequences later.

    Next?

    Parent

    Others might hide (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 11:17:20 AM EST
    ... so the guy who was watching them, then following them down a dark footpath, couldn't catch up to them or follow them to their house.

    The taser thing is interesting, though.  You're suggesting you might commit a battery if someone was following you and got too close, and worry about the consequences later.

    Hmmmmmm .....

    Parent

    So then you'd agree (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 11:19:07 AM EST
    w/kdog that the person you tased was picking a fight?  That your perception of a threat was justified?

    Parent
    Actually what I said was (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:07:19 PM EST
    that I would retreat to safety. That would be the logical and prudent thing to do.  I would NOT double back and then confront you and then initiate a fight by punching you.

    And again, there is no evidence that Zimmerman was "picking a fight" - why do you keep insisting this is true?  In fact, the evidence very much points to Martin picking the fight.

    A more accurate question would be:  If I was walking down a dark and rainy street, stopping to look at houses while talking on the phone, and you followed me, would I run away somewhere out of your sight, then when you turned around, would I approach you and ask if you had a problem, and when you said you didn't, then would I "pick a fight" with you by punching you?

    There.  Fixed.

    To answer your original question:  If at some point, you actually did get too close to me AND gave me some other indication you intended to do me harm, then yes, I'd taser your butt so fast your grandchildren would feel it.

    Parent

    Do you mean like ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:25:42 PM EST
    To answer your original question:  If at some point, you actually did get too close to me AND gave me some other indication you intended to do me harm, AND gave me some other indication you intended to do me harm

    ... reaching toward your hip/pocket, or would you wait to see whether the guy watching/following you was getting a cell phone or a weapon, first?

    Hmmmmmm .....

    BTW - Your "more accurate" question assumes Zimmerman's version of events is true.  Moreover, Zimmerman (the NW guy on the lookout for burglars) said Martin was "just walking around, looking about" and that he was "looking at all the houses" - as opposed to your version  "stopping to look at houses".  Pretty hard to avoid looking at houses when you're walking through a condo development without staring at the ground or the sky.

    There.  Fixed.

    There is also no evidence that Martin "doubled back" as opposed to hiding from Zimmerman.

    Parent

    And if you're in a neighborhood (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:33:08 PM EST
    where all the townhomes look alike, and apparently even people who've lived there for a long time can't pinpoint their location by one of the three street names, and it's dark and raining, and you've been talking on your phone, how on earth are you supposed to know exactly where you are without doing some looking around?

    Jesus this is annoying...

    Parent

    Yes it is (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    People who keep inserting made up scenarios that have no basis in fact - very annoying.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    Since I said my original position would be to retreat if I thought someone was actually following me (since I would be close to safety), and since I wouldn't be around to throw a punch and start a fight, I wouldn't be around to see if the person following me was reaching for a phone, a weapon, or a banana, so the whole line of discussion is pointless, except for those who want to continue to hold on to wrong-headed ideas.

    There.  Fixed.

    Parent

    You need to "fix it" again (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:57:20 PM EST
    You mean like the claim that Martin "doubled back"?

    My point was that others might choose to hide, particularly if they are winded/breathing heavy (per W8) and have no idea how fast the stranger following them is, or if they don't want to lead the stranger back to their home.  You, OTOH, suggested you would taze the person if they got too close to you, later adding the requirement that you would taze them if they did something else threatening - ("If at some point, you actually did get too close to me AND gave me some other indication you intended to do me harm, then yes, I'd taser your butt so fast your grandchildren would feel it").

    Now, you don't want to answer the question, but assign blame to Martin because he didn't run home as you would have chosen to do from the comfort of your keyboard.

    Oy.

    Parent

    I still think it's possible that, rather than (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:51:32 PM EST
    hiding, or lying in wait, TM was not as oriented to place as he thought he was, and when he thought he might be heading in the wrong direction, he doubled back to get himself headed in what he thought was the right direction.  And - hello! - there was GZ.

    I just find it improbable that TM knew his way around the neighborhood well enough to be able to intentionally take a route that would bring him in contact with GZ.

    GZ lived there for a number of years, and yet, he couldn't figure out where he was to tell the NEN dispatcher. We are supposed to believe that Trayvon Martin had a better grasp of the same street/townhome layout that befuddled long-time resident and watch captain George Zimmerman?

    Sorry - I'm just not able to make that make any sense.

    Parent

    My 11 y/o son has a new friend (none / 0) (#112)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:39:05 PM EST
    in a nearby apt complex which has several hundred apartments in dozens of identical but separate buildings.

    He learned how to walk from the street where we park, along the various paths and through the various cut throughs to his friend's apartment on his first visit there.

    He (and I) have no clue what all the little street names are, nor do any of the building's numbers themselves have any relevance to us, but he easily finds his way to the apartment every time since his first visit there.

    Me? I'd get lost every time if my son wasn't showing me the way.

    Parent

    Do we know (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:43:20 PM EST
    If Martin had visited the complex before?

    Parent
    many others are.

    My impression was that this was not very his first day ever at the complex, is that impression incorrect?

    Parent

    I dunno either (none / 0) (#116)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:56:31 PM EST
    But if it wasn't, it would put to rest the whole question of whether he was too confused and lost to seek shelter at Brandy Green's house.

    Parent
    This is what a quick google found: (none / 0) (#119)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:03:09 PM EST
    For more than two years now, Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, a truck driver from Miami, had been dating Brandy Green, a juvenile detention officer in Orlando. She lived at the Retreat with her 14-year-old son, Chad, and it was not uncommon for the Martins to drive up from Miami for overnight visits.


    Parent
    Choosing to hide (2.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:34:42 PM EST
    and choosing to confront are two different things, no?

    Seems that there was a confrontation in this case when someone should have stayed hidden or retreated.

    Parent

    "Choosing to confront" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:19:46 PM EST
    By "someone", do you mean Martin ...

    ... or Zimmerman?

    You think Zimmerman should have retreated immediately after he found the street name for the street he "couldn't remember" (even though he had identified the street to the dispatcher a few seconds prior) or the next street (the one he lived on)?  Or do you mean he should have stayed "hidden" in his car until police arrived?

    No need to answer - the question is rhetorical.  Your assignment of responsibility for "logical and prudent action" falls in only one direction - Martin's.  Similarly, your recollection of facts (including exaggerations and outright misstatements) falls in only one direction - Zimmerman's - e.g. Zimmerman outweighs Martin by @ 10 pounds (in reality, 47 pounds), Martin "doubled back" to confront Zimmerman (no evidence), Zimmerman "walking along a street" street wasn't provocation/"picking a fight", etc.

    Whatever.

    Parent

    Since (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:29:12 PM EST
    There is no evidence to support your theories, we will end this conversation.  

    Besides, you're over your comment limit (with falsities).

    Parent

    My point (none / 0) (#78)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:52:00 PM EST
    wasn't so much about what you'd do, but more about how you would feel, which you confirmed - threatened, as evidenced by your desire to run home.

    A threatened feeling isn't usually accompanied by happy thoughts and good vibes.

    Parent

    Feeling threatened (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    When nothing has been done to you is also not a good enough reason to approach someone and punch them.

    Feeling threatened means you should seek help or shelter.

    Parent

    Feeling threatened (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by JayBat on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:01:52 PM EST
    ...or just stay in your darn truck, like you were told.

    Parent
    Yet feeling suspicious... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:14:52 PM EST
    when nothing has been done to you or your neighbors is a good enough reason to call the cops and jam somebody up?  

    Make up your mind jb, you're all over the place.

    Parent

    GZ (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:22:13 PM EST
    thought something might be being done to one of his neighbors.

    If I thought someone was acting crazy and about to break into my neighbor's house, I would be a good neighbor and call the cops.

    If I personally felt threatened, I would get out of there.

    I am completely consistent.

    Parent

    Oh yeah... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:26:38 PM EST
    I forgot that you don't view sicking the police on based on a simple thought with no evidence whatsoever as ill will.  I say it most certainly is, and sometimes it's even a violent act the way some police roll.  

    Parent
    GZ (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:22:15 PM EST
    thought something might be being done to one of his neighbors.

    If I thought someone was acting crazy and about to break into my neighbor's house, I would be a good neighbor and call the cops.

    If I personally felt threatened, I would get out of there.

    I am completely consistent.

    Parent

    Again, no evidence but for the self-serving (none / 0) (#91)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:22:44 PM EST
    statements of the defendant.

    When nothing has been done to you is also not a good enough reason to approach someone and punch them

    Feeling threatened also says something about the person that is making you feel threatened in the first place.

    Parent

    Just enough to call the police, I guess (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:26:06 PM EST
    Glad we cleared that up (none / 0) (#70)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:44:19 PM EST
    a more accurate scenario, based on testimony would be, if I was walking down a dark and rainy street, stopping to look at houses while talking on the phone, and you followed me, would I run away somewhere out of your sight, then when you turned around, would I approach you and ask if you had a problem, and when you said you didn't, but began reaching into your pocket to retrieve you know not what (which, after following me could reasonably be interpreted to be some indication that you intended to do me harm) you wouldn't wait to see what I pulled out to tase me.

    I've got a hoodie for you the next time you go out at night.

    Parent

    Thanks - I already own 2 of them (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:48:39 PM EST
    We go by the laws of the State of Florida (1.50 / 2) (#73)
    by Char Char Binks on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:47:26 PM EST
    not by the kdog he-man laws of ultra-manliness.

    Parent
    I never said GZ did "start a fight" (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:22:26 AM EST
    I don't know who did what.  I do believe GZ didn't have TM's best interests at heart when we pursued him.  Seems pretty obvious to those unafraid to confront their own biases.

    Parent
    The state violates its own Motion (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:34:16 PM EST
    Guy asks if Root knows what Martin was doing at the moment he was shot, the witness says "yes" as a matter of opinion, based on the totality of the evidence, but he wasn't there.

    This is a significant factor in the ultimate issue in justified use of force.  Why is the state asking the witness for his opinion on the ultimate issue?

    Guy got an elbow from BDLR (none / 0) (#102)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:19:57 PM EST
    for opening that up. At least that's what local TV showed.

    It opened up the no no and allowed O'Mara to ask did he act in any way improperly and the witness said no.

    Parent

    Zimmerman Defense Theory (3.00 / 2) (#20)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:51:52 AM EST
    George was a big softy, fighting the more physically fit ki..., um, er guy, thus he had no choice but to shoot.  He only had 30 seconds of fight in him.

    If you're so "soft" maybe you should look to avoid conflicts.

    IMO, this could play into state's theory re: ill will, etc.  George wanted to prove to himself he was a bad@ss.

    Unless, of course (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:53:23 AM EST
    He was going back to his car and Martin approached him and attacked him first.

    Parent
    Not if you care about your neighborhood (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by woodchuck64 on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:17:10 AM EST
    If you're so "soft" maybe you should look to avoid conflicts.

    Not if you care about stopping crime.  There were 8 burglaries in the 14 months prior to the shooting in Zimmerman's neighborhood.  

    3 weeks before the shooting, Zimmerman placed a call to the police to report a young black man, Emmanuel Burgess, peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home.  The suspect fled before police could arrive.  4 days later, Burgess burglarized a home on Retreat View Circle, stealing a laptop.  He was arrested the next day.

    10 days later, Zimmerman noticed another young man Trayvon Martin acting in a way he found familiar.

    From Reuters


    Parent

    I care about my neighborhood (none / 0) (#28)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:27:32 AM EST
    but I care about my own @ss even more.  

    You know what's missing from your report, pursuit by Zimmerman of Emmanuel Burgess.  What is there oddly is this insightful nugget:

    "I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally," Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled.


    Parent
    There is no evidence Zimmerman approached (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Darby on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:32:18 AM EST
    Martin either

    Parent
    Intentions (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by woodchuck64 on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:44:02 AM EST
    Whether Zimmerman pursued Martin or not, it should be clear, given the history of the neighbourhood,  that his intention was to keep an eye on a suspicious character suddenly breaking into a rapid walk or run. That's not being a bad-ass, that's being a responsible neighbourhood watch caption.

    Parent
    Sh*t Vic... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:44:50 AM EST
    I care about the people in my neighborhood...ya know, flesh and blood.  Caring enough about their well-being to never call the cops on them absent...ya know, real evidence, as opposed to baseless suspicion...that they are causing harm to the other people of the neighborhood.

    Can't say I care much about the laptops and silverware in the neighborhood...I guess I'm "suspicious" that way.

    And in my neighborhood, nobody leaves the house with a gun unless they're up to no good (aka Police and Thieves).  

    I find the differences I've noticed between the NY metropolitan area and the Orlando metropolitan area quite striking...I like our codes a lot better, both the unwritten and some of the written code. I think where you come from and how you were raised makes all the difference in the opinions formed about this sad case.    

    Parent

    It is odd all the support for snitching (none / 0) (#35)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:50:14 AM EST
    all of a sudden.  Totally agree w/you on the codes.

    Parent
    So, you want it both ways -- or none? (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:46:14 PM EST
    I've had prowlers.  Neighbors have had burglaries and armed robberies.  We're coping with an upswing in the crime in our neighborhood right now, too, including armed robberies, burglaries, and the like.  And I had a prowler in my back yard -- a fenced and gated back yard, so the guy didn't just wander in there -- just last week.  

    Now, if I don't call the cops, which you call "snitching," what are my alternatives?  Open the door, head out into my yard, and confront prowlers myself?  That is not going to go well.  I'm old.  I'm not strong.  I don't have a gun.  The prowlers might, with armed robberies here, have guns.

    Or, you would want neither?  Don't call cops, don't confront prowlers, but just cower inside my home and wait for a prowler to turn into a burglar?  And then, I ought to still not "snitch" to the cops?  

    Perhaps I ought to just feel that I have no resort, that it's wrong to call the cops and it's wrong to not call the cops, so I ought to become homebound, as do too many elderly and others.

    Nope. I'm "snitching" when someone is acting (repeat: acting) suspicious.  I'm calling the cops.  By the way, that's the way that we ended a crime wave in this neighborhood before.  The cops did a good job of increasing patrols -- in cars, on bikes, on foot -- and made it safer for all here.  

    And those who are safer include many who do not live here, an area with lots of non-residents, near a campus.  We never "snitch" on anyone who stays on the sidewalks.  We know that a lot of pedestrians, a lot of "eyes on the street," as urbanologists call it, actually makes an area safer.

    Parent

    Stop with logic and common sense, Towanda (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:49:12 PM EST
    You're killing us here.

    Parent
    Not having it both ways (none / 0) (#97)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:38:09 PM EST
    I made the point about snitching considering the site owners statements on the subject.  However, our host cleared that up further down the thread.

    The key differences in your examples, someone was on your property (yikes, glad you're ok).  Secondly, you'd call the cops, and from what I gathered, you'd let them do their job.  I would certainly agree there'd be less of an argument had TM been deep onto someone's property and not in a common area.  That's not been presented as evidence thus far.  

    Parent

    "snitch" (none / 0) (#107)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:14:44 PM EST
    is a prison-culture term that's become practically a pop-culture term. Getting thrown around now by hip hop stars in customized Escalades..

    If you're violent and scaring the shite out of people, since I'm not Randy Couture, I'm calling the man. Sorry, but suck it up mfers..

    And don't kid yourself, robbing people is a form of violence. Frightening vulnerable people in their homes is violence.

    Though I'd also claim that walling yourself others in gated communites is also a, albeit more subtle form of violence. As is the fetishizing of "competition" that goes on in this country. Race To The Top..

    Parent

    that should've read (none / 0) (#108)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:16:07 PM EST
    "walling yourself off from others.."

    Parent
    Snitching, Informing, Ratting... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:54:04 PM EST
    wouldn't carry such stigma if we had a legal code worthy of respect.  If we had law enforcement good people need not fear.  

    Let's call the Law & Order situation in this country the original sin...and from there is where it gets so twisted.

    Parent

    Add... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:00:30 PM EST
    when you live in a place where stealing a pair of tube socks can lead to a 3rd strike life imprisonment for example, it's god damn hard to drop a dime with a clear conscience.  How can you blame somebody for not wanting to be party to that any of that sh*t?  

    Parent
    Take a look at FL gun laws. Really (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:04:22 PM EST
    permissive. But woe be to he/she convicted of a crime involving use of a firearm. Amazing.

    Parent
    Yep yep.... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:45:24 PM EST
    amazing how so little of our mountainous legal code can pass the common sense & reason test...f*ckin' legislators, they're the worst! ;)

    Parent
    Damn Towanda... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:24:47 PM EST
    have you considered adopting a guard dog?  Some motion sensor floodlights might be a good idea too.  That sucks.

    I just hope your bad experiences don't have you being overly suspicious of your fellow human beings. I struggle on the flip side, being suspicious or overly suspicious of the police based on bad experiences.  

    It's hard god damn work to keep your personal experiences in perspective and avoid becoming a prejudiced profiler of people.  We all do it, and we all do ourselves a diservice imo.  It's a fine line between taking reasonable precaution and becoming the bad guy ourselves.  Constant struggle.

    Parent

    We have a guard cat! (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:19:17 PM EST
    And a security system, sad to say -- I had hoped to not have to do so, but the police pointed out that almost the only house without the security system sign, we were a target.  And our neighbor behind us has floodlights that cover our back yard.  But the recent activity in our back yard were in daytime.

    I don't consider ours to be "bad" experiences, as we incurred no injury or property loss or damage.  It's part of life in a lively neighborhood, which has lots of benefits -- including good neighbors.

    How do I know they're good?  I was the one who knew enough of them to put together the incidents from street to street that the cops had missed, until I asked them to come meet with us.  Believe me, since the sixties and being tear-gassed and worse, I am watchful for bad cops.  But I also am glad to have good ones, who came through for us -- and helped us to organize our own sort of neighborhood watch.  

    I know that Jeralyn does not like neighborhood watch sorts, but they are just like the cops -- and just like lawyers, for that matter:  Some are good.  I organized ours on email to be able to share information, as that always is key -- and especially in a neighborhood with a lot of transiency, a lot of students.  That makes us a target neighborhood, until they learn from us to -- duh -- lock doors and the like.  And we also help them with the absentee landlords who do not make their places safe; we take turns calling landlords a lot more than we call cops!  (We could call the city on the landlords, but it's a lot more effective, I find, to call them first.)

    Nobody patrols.  We all just try to take care of each other, whether the elderly or each others' kids . . . and, for that matter, with so many students on our streets, we take care of a lot of other people's kids, too.  It's a great place, and we just work to keep it that way, the way that it always has been: Live and let live.

    Parent

    Very odd... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 11:04:15 AM EST
    for this site...not at all surprising from some of the comment community.  Mad Orwellian Junior Spies up in here who would seemingly drop a dime on their parents.

    Parent
    I have said from the beginning of (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:22:08 PM EST
    this case I oppose neighborhood watch groups. That has nothing to do with whether Zimmerman committed a crime. It's not a crime to report a suspicious person. It's too bad that our Government encourages it with programs like Operation Tips and the like.

    Parent
    I hear ya Sister... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:42:19 PM EST
    nor do I think it should be a crime.  Social stigma is the appropriate way to discourage such inappropriate behavior.

    It's just surreal to see so much support for it here amongst your readers is all.

    Parent

    Why the Law Isn't Everything (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:01:03 PM EST
    "Remember, it's monumentally irrelevant who's morally guilty here," Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax. "Whether or not Zimmerman was a racist and racially profiled and shouldn't have been doing it and didn't listen to police, that's all irrelevant in Florida law."

    The worst part about the verdict I predict will occur is the idea that if Zimmerman gets off he is somehow morally vindicated.

    Sometimes the criminal system can't make things right.

    Where (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Char Char Binks on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    is the evidence that GZ was racially motivated, or had any motive to murder, or even detain or harass TM in any way?

    Parent
    He called the police...for them to (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:31:10 PM EST
    NOT detain and harass TM? As to whether he racially profiled, we have only his word for that, and I continue to dis-beleive it, given that the most recent (or at least the most recent named) actual caught burglar in the neighborhood was black.

    Parent
    I meant (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Char Char Binks on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:02:51 PM EST
    that Z wanted to personally detain and/or harass M.  It doesn't matter if he was racially profiling -- that's perfectly legal, and given the recent pattern of crimes in that neighborhood, entirely reasonable.  That still doesn't prove that Z was racially motivated in the killing.  TM calling Z a "creepy-ass cracker", on the other hand...

    Parent
    That's a mouthful! (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:15:35 PM EST
    -- Sometimes the criminal system can't make things right. --

    That's a fact.  It can't ever fix what went wrong.  And, if and when it errs, it can make things more wrong, worse.

    Parent

    Trayvon Martin is DEAD (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by me only on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:22:39 PM EST
    of course the criminal justice system can't make that right.

    That is not why we have a criminal justice system.  The real question here is:
    Can the state prove that George Zimmerman is so dangerous to society that he needs to be isolated from it.

    Parent

    Morally vindicated (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:26:02 PM EST
    when you've become a symbol for a "greater cause" you're always morally vindicated.

    Zimmerman will always be an "innocent man", the way Terry Schiavo was an innocent victim.

    Parent

    Defense witness John Donnelly was inside the (none / 0) (#1)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:17:51 AM EST
    courtroom during testimony, a witness violation.  I read that at worst his testimony could be thrown out and he could be held in contempt for sequestration violation.  But how do you unring the bell of his testimony since he's the man who said GZ was like a son to him?

    Unringing the bell (none / 0) (#2)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:21:08 AM EST
    That's done by mistrial.  Start over with a new jury.  Present the case again.

    Parent
    Yikes! I guess the defense wouldn't (none / 0) (#3)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:30:39 AM EST
    mind the extra time to get ready for things held out on them.

    Since he didn't hear the tape he testified about, can she just do nothing and/or just strike it? I thought Shaeffer said striking testimony is the most extreme.

    Like Angel said, though, you can't unring the bell. I honestly think the jury will ignore what family and friends say re: the tape, though.

    Parent

    My point was that you can unring the bell (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:49:17 AM EST
    I'm not saying that will be the remedy here, but the way to unring the bell is to bring in a jury that never heard the bell in the first place.

    I think O'Mara will be admonished by the Court for not advising everybody on his witness list that they were sequestered.  She'll hear argument on why Donnelly's testimony should be struck, and she'll allow the testimony to stand. (/speculation)

    Parent

    Striking the testimony (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:32:46 AM EST
    and an admonition to the jury to disregard is how to legally correct.

    Such a result would prevent the Defense from arguing the testimony in closing, so there is some benefit to the Prosecution here.

    And mistrial in criminal cases are tricky, no?  Is there not some Double Jeopardy limitation here?

    Parent

    Apparently (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:24:34 AM EST
    Donnelly was not subpoenaed until 8 days after he was in court for trial.

    Parent
    I just read that. I guess why no hearing (none / 0) (#10)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:25:50 AM EST
    today.

    Parent
    I don't think it matters (none / 0) (#11)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:26:52 AM EST
    He's on the witness list.  See Robert Zimmerman, Sr.

    Parent
    Animation out as evidence (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:14:55 AM EST
    Can be used for demonstrative purposes.

    Text messages out.

    Not surprised re: animation, but... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Cashmere on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:18:01 AM EST
    text messages out, that is just wrong.

    Parent
    I posted in the other thread that (none / 0) (#7)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:19:27 AM EST
    Sheaffer of wftv is surprised and said fertile ground for appeal and denial of due process to GZ due to it's the defense theory.

    Parent
    No surprise (none / 0) (#8)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:24:16 AM EST
    Nelson is determined to prevent any bad image of Martin to be presented as "fact" in court.

    It's a tough leap to look at court as a "realpolitik" institution, which runs by hidden rules, not the rules that held up as "the reason a decision goes the way it does."  There is often a hidden real reason for a decision, and more often than not, these "errors of law" persist without correction.

    Breaking the law and the rules is "okay," if you are a judge.  I would guess that less that 10% of errors is corrected, more like 1%.

    Parent

    Well that's damn scary cbolt (none / 0) (#12)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:27:21 AM EST
    Do you think if there's a conviction, it won't be overturned on appeal? Even though there's legal precedent?

    Parent
    Most likely the Judge (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:28:55 AM EST
    thinks there will be no conviction.  

    Parent
    This is an easy appeal (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:30:01 AM EST
    If Zimmerman is convicted, the conviction will be reversed.

    But, if Zimmerman is acquitted, all the errors that Nelson made sort of "disappear," as though they were correct decisions.  That's a big part of what I mean by most errors go uncorrected.  There is another set of error that is admitted by appeal review, and that is called harmless error.  Yeah, the judge screwed up, but it doesn't affect the outcome of the trial.

    Parent

    If Zimmerman is convicted, when the correct (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cashmere on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:42:24 AM EST
    decision by Judge Nelson might have resulted in a different verdict, it seems extremely unfair to Zimmerman.  Even though it may, in the end, be reversible, what a waste of more years of this man's life.  It is as if the judge is gambling with the outcome, possibly thinking the jury will acquit and her error will be deemed "harmless".  But, what if it is not harmless.

    Parent
    It's what judges do (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:51:24 AM EST
    If Zimmerman is acquitted, the error isn't even reviewed and put in the "harmless error" category.  It is as though there was no error, as far as the legal system is concerned.

    And judges have no duty to be consistent.  The exact same authentication/hearsay issue can come up in another case, the same judge can rule the opposite way, and that case sits in its own four corners.

    For the point of view of the legal system, retrial is admitted to be a burden to defendant, but it's acceptable (for judicial efficiency/economy sake) because defendant is under at least probable cause of committing a crime.  Plus, trials are the lifeblood of the commercial industry known as criminal justice.  More work for everybody, more revenue.

    Parent

    Interesting theory. I never realized judges (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    and prosecutors generated revenue from participating in criminal trials. [snk.]

    Parent
    ;-) You really missed the boat, huh? (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:09:29 PM EST
    The courts try to (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:14:10 AM EST
    reduce the numbers of trials.  There are insufficient resources to try all the cases that are filed.  So, there is tremendous emphasis, at least here in California, on getting cases out of the system.  So, mistrials, retrials after appellate reversals, etc. are not favored and more a matter of last resort.

    Maybe Judges want more cases in Florida but here the budget of the court system was cut in half....So, efficiency is perhaps the most valued virtue....

    Parent

    Nelson seems to be at least acting like (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:07:46 PM EST
    she is trying to stay away from reversible error in all her rulings. She usually mentions it at least once in the evidence hearings. I'd be surprised if she is thinking along the 'he is not going to get convicted anyway' lines at all.

    Parent
    Harmless error (none / 0) (#13)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:27:45 AM EST
    Or the adage that one is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one.

    Parent
    Mr. Root... (none / 0) (#27)
    by bmaz on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 10:27:22 AM EST
    ...the "use of force expert" is not exactly one of the better use of force experts I have seen. Not sure how helpful he has been to the defense. Don't think he has hurt them at all, just not that much of a net positive for the time expended on him.

    During Direct I Agree With You (none / 0) (#44)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 11:18:15 AM EST
    But Mr. Guy's cross was so bad that this witness ended up helping the defense quite a bit.

    Parent
    Agree after Judge limited his (none / 0) (#46)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    testimony. I don't know if a jury will pick up on it (I didn't), but the lawyers on CNN are saying after two and half weeks, the prosecution is totally changing its theory.

    They tried all that time to say TM was on bottom screaming. Now, with the prop, they put TM on top. They said that's the defense's job to create scenarios and what if's and reasonable doubt. But, the prosecution is the one doing it.

    I guess O'Mara may point that out in closing. I didn't make the connection but those lawyers were practically yelling it.

    Parent

    Intriguing, possibly quite important (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 11:45:59 AM EST
    and I had missed that commentary. Thanks.

    Parent
    A least one former prosecutor who (none / 0) (#48)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 11:58:31 AM EST
    used to be their main guy before Jeffry Toobin, thinks the defense shouldn't have done it because he thinks the scenarios could make the jury wonder "well maybe GZ is telling some inconsistencies so we'll go for manslaughter". (He was outnumbered 3-1, though)

    I guess it will depend on how they spin it in closings. This guy thinks they should have closed after Dr. Di Maio and I think I agree since the texts got thrown out.

    My big issue now is the manslaughter. If it's ruled self-defense (by the jury), it's out, too. If it's not, it's 30 years most likely. The jury doesn't know that and if they did, I think they'd throw that out too. I assume O'Mara can't even hint at closing that GZ could go away a long long time for even manslaughter so if they have any doubt at all, it's not guilty across the board. I think it should be, but I'm not at all sure the jury will do that because they don't know what we know on sentencing.

    Parent

    One defense attorney (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:09:30 PM EST
    Who has been "live tweeting", wrote this about Mr. Root:

    Diana Tennis @TennisLaw
    I cannot believe the trajectory of this testimony. How is this guy able to tell GZ story again as an expert?! Wow.


    Parent
    Thanks for even more detailed report (none / 0) (#55)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    and I can see the concern about a letdown from yesterday's testimony -- but I also would bet that Di Maio was so memorable as to lessen that concern.

    The closings will be so crucial.  I hope that the judge's hectic schedule for the lawyers also lessens a bit, so that they have the time -- on both sides -- to not be exhausted and to prep well.  As a juror many times (and again soon), I generally approved the judge for her concern for their jury, but not anymore, not after last night.  

    Parent

    Totally agree. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:18:52 PM EST
    They should be as considerate as possible of the jury, but that should never trump a defendant's right to a fair trial.

    And if she hadn't rushed it, stuff like last night wouldn't have happened. And things like her text ruling could have already been appealed the way they did that Crump deposition.

    Parent

    Plus, the phone evidence was (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:20:28 PM EST
    hidden from the defense for months and the defense is the one who finally found the stuff. The WFTV guy said it took the FBI to help get to it!

    Parent
    War story: one of the witnesses about to testify (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:21:01 PM EST
    In a civil case I was defending overheard a couple jurors in the men's rooming opening the witness I had on the stand was a waste of time. As required, I reported this to the judge. I also decided to not put on any more witnesses. Jury was not sequestered. Defense verdict.

    Parent
    Haha, I always wondered (none / 0) (#68)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:42:01 PM EST
    if juries can resist making any comments at all about the case. Especially if sequestered. I keep picturing them headed to lunch rolling their eyes at each other. I just think it would be hard to resist and even accidentally say something.

    I'd have to actively concentrate do not comment, do not comment.

    Parent

    I served 2 weeks on a jury (none / 0) (#127)
    by donatella on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:49:50 PM EST
    in a civil case.  We were not sequestered but did spend a great deal of time in the jury room (2 quick tempered attorneys).   There may have been some eye rolling over the situation but we never discussed the case.  When it came time to deliberate I was relieved to find us all on the same page.  It was quite the kumbaya moment as we were a very diverse bunch.
    After the verdict against the plaintiff was read and we were released,  minions from the losing attorney's office came to the jury room to talk to the jurors-- but only the african americans and hispanics (the plaintiff was hispanic).  I guess they assumed that there was some sort of racial divide when in fact we were quite unanimous.

    Parent
    Very sound... (none / 0) (#122)
    by bmaz on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:09:23 PM EST
    ...lawyering. Hat's off to that and well done.

    Parent
    Frankly... (none / 0) (#121)
    by bmaz on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:07:49 PM EST
    ...I am not sure I would have put Root on either. A better "Use of force expert" maybe, but not sure I would have Root.

    Parent
    Maybe none of the other experts (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:13:04 PM EST
    defense counsel consulted had an opinion favorable to defendant.

    Parent
    Root testified that he offered his services to Zimmerman's lawyers after hearing about the shooting on the news.


    Parent
    This is pretty amazing: (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:40:19 PM EST
    "It's clear he was struck and his head made contact with the concrete," said Root, who also interviewed Zimmerman to form his opinion. Zimmerman would have found himself physically "lacking" in a confrontation with Trayvon, Root said.

    Later, O'Mara asked Root whether Root believed Zimmerman had any other option than to shoot Trayvon.

    "I don't believe he did," Root replied.

    Root, however, acknowledged that Trayvon could have been trying to get away or backing up from Zimmerman when the teen was shot.

    He also added that he didn't query Zimmerman about how Trayvon approached him, how the fight may have moved, and how Zimmerman dropped several items away from Trayvon's body. Root also said he didn't give much weight to statements by Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Trayvon moments before the shooting, or to the time gap between when Zimmerman ended his call with police and shot Trayvon.

    Did the prosecutor have all records of Root's interview of defendant?

    Parent

    Maybe, but... (none / 0) (#129)
    by bmaz on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:48:57 AM EST
    ...crikey you can always get a "hired gun" (pun not intended) expert if you want one, and there are better facts here for the defendant than there often are. Maybe they spent their expert wad on di Maio. I dunno, but not that impressed with Root.

    Parent
    Any more witnesses today? (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    I missed most of the morning session.

    We don't know yet. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:16:03 PM EST
    The only thing I read was it would depend on whether or not they decide to bring in toxicology.

    Ruffian, up above, you said Nelson seems to be trying to avoid reversible error. The FL lawyers I've heard and read think she made one because the texts are admissible by a lot of case law cbolt mentioned and Jeralyn wrote. The relevancy, they say, is that this is the defense theory (fighting) and the judge prevented the defense from presenting it.

    They think if there's a conviction, that ruling will be reversed. We may get to do this again!

    Parent

    Is that one ruling enough to overturn (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:30:43 PM EST
    a conviction? Don't they have to argue that the text messages would have made the crucial difference?

    Parent
    FL Rules of Crim. Procedure: (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:44:48 PM EST
    Rule 3.600

    This is the grounds and standard of review at the trial court for motion for new trial.

    Parent

    Thanks! Seems that would qualify (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:09:37 PM EST
    under #6 if indeed she made a mistake.

    Parent
    A couple basic questions: (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:13:52 PM EST
    (1)  Who requested the court sequester the jury?

    (2)   Does the Sanford P.D. consider the community where Zimmerman resided to be "high crime"?  If so, has there been law enforcement testimony based on crime stats?

    the defense requested (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:32:22 PM EST
    the sequestered jury.

    Yes there were numerous burglaries in the area.

    The state called Wendy Dorival earlier in the case who said she used some kind of computer mapping to confirm high rate of burglaries in RATL before attending the meeting to set up the neighborhood watch.

    Parent

    Is Dorival a law enforcement officer? (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:49:15 PM EST
    Answer: mo. (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:23:36 PM EST
    Dorival says she is a civilian staff, and has worked in a police department since 1998, minus two years she worked for the state.

    Parent
    In Orange Co. there is a web site (none / 0) (#103)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:22:46 PM EST
    your can go too that shows various crimes on a map. Seminole probably has the same thing. Ah, it does -  here is one from last December for Seminole Co. RATL is near where I-4 meets 46, in the western part of the lavender colored Sanford area.  

    Parent
    This map isn't in evidence, correct? (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    FIREWORKS (none / 0) (#77)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:51:07 PM EST
    GZ DID NOT agree that he's decided not to testify.

    West objected over & over & over (none / 0) (#79)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:52:16 PM EST
    Is this a tactic for more time??

    Not a stall tactic (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    Zimmerman said he hadn't decided yet, and his lawyers have said they would not have a firm piece of advice until the evidence presentation was complete.

    I wonder if the direct, under oath questioning by a judge, to the defendant, is routine.  I also wonder what the outcome would be if Zimmerman stood there like a potted palm.

    Parent

    What about the state's rebuttal? (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    Since Zimmerman has the right to speak in his own defense, he could just say that he has the right, and chooses not to disclose his state of mind at this time.

    The state has a right to rebuttal, and I think the court is attempting to inform the state of something the state has no right to know.

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    I don't know Florida rules, but maybe he doesn't want Zimmerman saying anything that could be construed as waiving his 5th.

    Parent