home

Benjamin Crump: Who Screamed Doesn't Matter

Unbelievable flip-flop. Benjamin Crump, the lawyer for the Martin family, was on CNN's Piers Morgan Live last night. When asked about the state's concession today that Trayvon Martin was probably on top of George Zimmerman during the struggle that ended in Martin's death, and how that impacts his and his clients' insistence that Martin was the one who was crying out for help, Crump said who screamed doesn't matter.

The cries for help, all of that is inconsequential when you think about who started this.

Inconsequential? (Start at the 3 minute mark)

[More...]

Then, in explaining his aggressor theory, he makes a claim that is wholly unsupported by the state's evidence at trial: "Zimmerman gets out of the car and chases Martin." Not a single witness testified Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Martin. Not a single witness identified anyone chasing Martin, let alone Zimmerman chasing him.

Piers Morgan then brought out a female CNN reporter (I didn't catch her name.) She said she was in the courtroom today. Maybe she's new to covering this case, and I don't expect show anchors like Piers Morgan to know the facts of any one case they report on, but they both seemed to me to be completely off-base in their comments about defense witness Olivia Bertalan. The reporter actually claimed Mark O'Mara may have taken too big a risk by calling the witness because the witness introduced the race issue by volunteering in her answers to his questions that the two suspects who robbed her home on August 3, 2011 were African American males. She thought O'Mara wasn't anticipating her answer, and it was a move that may backfire on O'Mara.

Obviously, neither of them attended or watched the trial on June 25 or June 26. Here is the video of the June 25 trial segment where the state argued it should be allowed to introduce 5 of Zimmerman's prior calls to non-emergency because they were evidence of his state of mind. To make its position clearer to the court, they argued the calls were evidence of Zimmerman playing cop, profiling young males because he found them suspicious and for "other reasons" and reporting them to police, saying they got away.

Two of the calls pertained to the August 3 burglary at Olivia Bertalan's house. The calls were then played for the Judge, outside the presence of the jury. The judge sided with the state. Here is the video of the calls being played for the jury on June 26 during the testimony of Ramona Rumph, the records custodian for the Seminole County Emergency Communications Department.

I wrote earlier today on why the defense called Olivia Bertalan. I'll restate it here so it's all in one place.

Two of the five calls the state played for the jury pertained to the home invasion at Bertalan's residence.

It was Olivia Bertalan, not Zimmerman, who called police to report a home invasion at her home while she and her infant son were home. She saw the perpetrators, hid in a bedroom and called 911 at 11:00 a.m. Bertalan described the perpetrators in her 911 call to police as two young African American males. Shelley Zimmerman also saw the suspects and provided a description to police.

Later that day, at 5:00 p.m., Zimmerman went to her home and brought her a new deadbolt because hers wasn't working. At 6:45 pm Zimmerman called the non-emergency number to report he spotted someone who fit the description Bertalan had given police of one of the suspects. The police did not catch him that night.

On August 6, Zimmerman called non-emergency again to tell police that the male fitting Bertalan's description was back in the neighborhood, and that he and Shelley had just seen him again. He told police they might want to send someone over to Calabria Cove apartments because he thought that's where the male would run to. Again the police didn't catch him. The case was placed on inactive status.

In September, police got a latent print report from the lab which showed that two prints found on the wall between Retreat at Twin Lakes and Calabria Cove apartments matched someone named Emmanuel Burgess. Bertalan identified Burgess from a photo lineup and charges were filed.

Emmanuel Burgess, who lived with his parents in the neighborhood, was on juvenile parole and and in and out of detention facilities. He lived with his parents at Retreat at Twin Lakes, and was finally arrested in February, 2012, after another burglary at the complex on February 6. His juvenile probation was terminated, he was transferred to adult court, where Judge Nelson presided over his multiple cases, consolidating them. He pleaded guilty to both the burglary at Bertalan's home in August, 2011 and the Febrary 6th burglary . Zimmerman had nothing to do with reporting the February 6 burglary. Burgess was sentenced by Judge Nelson to five years in prison. The dockets are here and here.

The full police reports from the Bertalan burglary are here (they will take a while to open.) The report for the Feb. 6 burglary is here.

O'Mara didn't call Bertalan to inject race into the case, and I highly doubt her description in court of the males who burglarized her home on August 3 was unexpected by O'Mara. He called her to refute the state's allegation that Zimmerman was a wannabe cop who improperly profiled young African American males by seeking them out, reporting them as suspicious and claiming they always got away. (At another motions argument during the trial, O'Mara mentioned Emmanuel Burgess' name and reminded the Judge that she would be familiar with his record.)

Of the five calls the state introduced as supposed support for its theory that they showed Zimmerman's state of mind as a profiler and wannabe cop, two of the calls pertained to the Bertalan home invasion, in which he didn't profile anyone. He reported seeing someone who matched the description the homeowner (and his wife) had initially given police. The person he reported not only turned out to be the perpetrator, but the perpetrator was only able to be charged after his latent prints were found on the wall he had jumped over from Retreat at Twin Lakes to the neighboring complex. Burgess didn't just commit one burglary, but several, and he was found in possession of some of the stolen property when he was arrested. He had a long record as a juvenile and he lived in the neighborhood.

In the third of the five calls, Zimmerman didn't report anyone. He called to report an open garage door after 10:00 pm.

That leaves a total of 2 calls prior to February 26 in which he reported African American males as suspicious.

In one, on Feb. 2, the male appeared to him to be casing Frank Taafe's house, located at the shortcut from the main road. Zimmerman said the guy kept walking up to Taafe's house and away from it, and he knew the guy didn't live there. By the time police arrived, the male had left. Taaffe was out of town.

In the other of the two calls, during October, 2011, Zimmerman called to report seeing two older (late '20's to '30s) African American males hanging out at the entrance to the gated community at 1:00 in the morning. He reported them for loitering.

After the CNN reporter said O'Mara had taken a risk that may have backfired by Bertalan's reference to the two males who robbed her as African-American, Piers Morgan responded, "The prosecutor should have hammered about this" and launched into some other ways the prosecutors had poorly presented their case. Maybe someone could inform Piers that the prosecutors knew exactly what they were doing by not questioning Bertalan further. Had they done so, Ms. Beltaran would have driven the final nail into their already weak profiling argument.

Further indication O'Mara knew exactly what he was doing by putting Bertalan on the stand, and that his purpose was to contradict the state's implicit racial profiling theory, rather than "inject" race into the case: Right after he told the court he would rest and before he called Bertalan, one of his last two witnesses, O'Mara introduced into evidence the 6th call Zimmerman made to the non-emergency line, which the state had decided not to submit. It's the call made by Zimmerman to report his concern for children who were playing in the middle of the street, darting back and forth. He was afraid a car might hit one of them. The dispatcher asked him what race the children were. His response was "all races."

*****

Now that the evidence has been presented, my previously expressed opinions on this case have only become more solidified. Looking to the future, and the legacy of this case, here is what I see. Keep in mind this is only my opinion.

Whether George Zimmerman is acquitted or convicted, and I am not making any predictions before hearing closing arguments and reading the jury instructions, the legacy of this case will be that the media never gets it right, and worse, that a group of lawyers, with the aid of a public relations team, who had a financial stake in the outcome of pending and anticipated civil litigation, were allowed to commandeer control of Florida's criminal justice system, in pursuit of a divisive, personal agenda.

Their transformation of a tragic but spontaneous shooting into the crime of the century, and their relentless demonization of the person they deemed responsible, not for a tragic killing, but for "cold-blooded murder," has called into question the political motives and ethics of the officials serving in the Executive branch of Florida's government, ruined the career of other public officials, turned the lives of the Zimmerman family, who are as innocent as their grieving clients, into a nightmare, and along the way, set back any chance of a rational discussion of the very cause they were promoting, probably for years.

The problems of racial disparity and arbitrary enforcement of our criminal laws are real, systemic and need to be addressed. Criminal defense lawyers see it and fight to correct it every day. From charging decisions to plea offers to sentences, the system is not fair and everybody knows it.

But this case has never been representative of those problems. And perhaps most unfortunate of all, as a result of the false narrative created by the lawyers for grieving parents who tragically lost their son -- a narrative perpetuated by a complicit and ratings-hungry media -- any attempt at meaningful reform is likely to fall on deaf ears for years to come.

< George Zimmerman Trial: Defense Rests | Zimmerman: Jury Instructions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    But wait, there is more (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 04:06:42 AM EST
    Thank you for all your work on this case.

    You note that somehow, somebody or somebodies comandeered the criminal justice system.  IMO, the criminal justice system is culpable in this play, too.  It is not an inanimate "thing" that lacks independent judgment.  Many players in the criminal justice system, prosecutors and judges alike, made many conscious decisions along the way, in order to give the case life.

    The criminal justice system was at least a willing participant (and I think it was eager) by putting on a show trial, against a truly innocent person.

    The court is itself contemptible.

    Translation (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:02:22 AM EST
    .

    The cries for help, all of that is inconsequential when you think about who started this.

    Translation: Any deviation from The Narrative may reduce my fee.

    .

    I don't see how the jury can consider the screams (none / 0) (#81)
    by esmense on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:55:50 AM EST
    The friends and family of both the boy who died and the person who shot him are claiming they hear their loved one or friend. The jury has absolutely no way to come to an independent conclusion. If I was on the jury I would feel I had to put all that testimony aside and focus on the other evidence. If that is what Crump meant when he said it was "inconsequential" he was correct.

    Parent
    They could (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Char Char Binks on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:09:15 PM EST
    decide which side seems more credible, while keeping in mind that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

    Parent
    Isn't this the second major Crump flip-flop? (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Synthesist on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:21:00 AM EST
    IIRC, Crump also flip-flopped and said that this case was never about racism after repeatedly stating publicly the exact opposite on many previous occasions.

    And now, apparently because he realizes that the overwhelming evidence actually supports that it is GZ who is screaming for help on the 911 recording, he says that it doesn't really matter who is screaming, even after his clients testified under oath in court that it was TM.

    This really is all just totally insane.

    Ms. Merritt, I agree with your opinions expressed in your post about how this tragic event of a teenager being shot to death further spiraled into a maelstrom that has consumed the lives of everyone involved. But, I think that there are also some other issues and consequences that should be mentioned.

    First of all, the Florida state officials should have never caved into pressure from outside groups to arrest and charge GZ when there was no probable cause to do so. In my opinion at this point of the trial, there has been NO evidence presented that proves that GZ did not act in reasonable self defense, just as the initial investigators found. It is very disturbing to me that elected government officials were so afraid of being accused of racism that they would violate the constitutional rights of GZ and arrest and charge him without probable cause in an apparent effort to appease the race mongers. The proper (instead of the spineless) response from Florida officials to the race mongers should have been that the investigators found nothing to contradict the assertion that GZ acted in reasonable self defense. But no, they caved and allowed a totally bogus political persecution of GZ instead.

    And now there is the increased realization that "no good deed ever goes unpunished". How many current or potential Neighborhood Watch members that have seen GZ get railroaded on bogus political charges, and have now decided that it isn't worth the risk of their effort to make their neighborhoods safer? With these NW members scared away, how many more crimes of burglary, home invasion, rape, and murder will now occur?

    And once again, the "no good deed ever goes unpunished" premise also applies to the very honorable and civil act of calling 911 to report a crime. This bogus case shows how your 911 call can suck you into much more grief than you could ever imagine. How many people after seeing what happened to the 911 callers in this case would now be reluctant to call? How many more crimes of burglary, home invasion, rape, and murder will now occur because potential 911 callers are now scared away from calling?


    Prosection (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by lily on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:23:53 AM EST
    never ceases to amaze, they opened this morning arguing for felony child abuse to be included in the instructions to the jury.

    Parent
    Can you believe that? (none / 0) (#44)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    I couldn't believe the Judge didn't just throw it out.  It was last minute and it was a trick.  I can see why she is annoyed by West, but come on!
    And I can't stand the little weasel guy on the prosecution, the one who looks like Wally Cleaver.

    Parent
    Trial by ambush (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by lily on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:27:07 AM EST
    I suppose according to the state GZ should have asked his attacker his age before he asserted his right to self preservation.

    Parent
    Nelson (none / 0) (#48)
    by lily on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:41:54 AM EST
    demonstrates bias over and over again. She might  be annoyed that West ain't letting her get away with it and demonstrates a keen knowledge of the law making it difficult for her to pander to the prosecution.  IMO West has been terrific and I am grateful that he lost his cool about the violations of his client's due process.

    Nelson instructs West this morning not argue with her rulings at the same time recommending he use the appeal process.  

    unbelievable.

     

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:29:35 AM EST
    I have been very impressed by West and O'Mara. Obviously they all know 20 times more about the law than I do, but even I can figure out who is team MVP.  The prosecution lawyers are no slumps either.  Bernie is excellent even if I don't like their methods all the time.  
    But I do think the judge has been biased against the defense.

    Parent
    Martin was a minor (none / 0) (#83)
    by esmense on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    My understanding is that in Florida a person can be charged with "aggravated" manslaughter if the victim is a child, an elderly person, or in some other way deemed especially vulnerable. Is that what they were going for -- aggravated manslaughter based in the fact that the victim was a minor?

    Parent
    I think all of those (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:25:31 AM EST
    911 callers have had to move.  Now imagine if Zimmerman is not convicted.  The neighbors and friends who testified in his favor are going to be potentially in fear for their property and safety.

    Parent
    I think it's his third (none / 0) (#132)
    by Char Char Binks on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:50:28 PM EST
    flip-flop, because he once said Jeantel was the witness who "connects all the dots", then when she turned out to be a disaster, denied that she was their star witness.

    Parent
    Thanks Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:00:44 AM EST
    Although we disagree on many issues this has reminded me why I read Talk Left.

    What is the real shame is that none of the 3 news channels has you on to comment.

    agreed (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:33:46 AM EST
    of all the legal commentators we have seen Jeralyn would be heads and shoulders above most of them.  

    Parent
    Jeralyn thank you (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:47:54 AM EST
    You're arguments about why Crump is wrong to do what he is doing are exactly the ones I would make.  When there is a real problem in society and someone or a group of people exploit that problem for their own gain, it is like the boy crying wolf.  After a while they just make it harder for people who are real victims.  It happens with rape and sexual molestation of children.  False accusations are insidious.  Crump is a real piece of work.

    Excellent summary (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by AghastinFL on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:48:35 AM EST
    Jeralyn your summary close is the finest bit of writing I have had the pleasure of reading regards this case, proof positive of why this site has become the goto place for legal opinion.
    Thank you for your eloquent, concise and undeniably scathing identification of culpable parties and actions.

    Facts in evidence (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:16:10 AM EST
    GZ profiled TM.
    TM had a right to be where he was.
    TM was afraid for his safety.
    GZ & TM had an altercation.
    TM was killed in the altercation.

    Everything else is subject to individual interpretation and are matters for the jury.

    Facts? (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:07:32 PM EST
    .

    GZ profiled TM as behaving oddly, perhaps on drugs.
    Fact: TM's blood showed MJ residuals.

    TM had a right to be where he was. As did GZ.

    TM was afraid for his safety. That is an assertion, not a fact.  In fact TM felt so secure in his ability to master the shorter, fatter GZ that instead of just going home, he returned to confront him.  

    GZ & TM had an altercation. An altercation is a vehement quarrel and there is no evidence there was one.  There is however, evidence that TM was using GZ as a punching bag.

    .

    Parent

    Great post Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:26:16 AM EST


    The way the judge is ruling on these (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by magster on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:31:55 AM EST
    jury instruction makes me think the outcome in GZs favor is not as certain as I thought last night.

    You are just making things up (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:42:24 AM EST
    Why does "for all we know"mean?  Where is there any evidence to indicate that Martin was defending himself?  The injuries on Zimmerman show Martin was attacking Zimmerman. The testimony of eyewitness good corroborate that. The testimony of the trainer that George had no ability to fight also refute your theory that  trayvon need to defend himself .   Your theories have no basis in facts or evidence.  Whereas the evidence shows that  Martin was attackingzimmerman

    OK, I need to go a little further here (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:52:26 AM EST
    My initial reaction to both the incident and the way the investigation was handled had nothing to do with the lawyers or the family or anything.  I heard of the story through friends in Florida that were outraged way before the family found an attorney.

    Every black person I know who hears this story (just the basic facts with no spin) has the same gut level reaction because we have all been Trayvon.  

    We have all at some point been the guy that the cashier follows around the store.  We have all walked next to the car only to have the driver lock the doors when they see you coming close.  We have all had a situation where authorities in one way or another did not take our issues as seriously. Etc.  Our reaction is not because we are weak minded people who are led along like simple sheep because The Media and the Evil Family Lawyers told us to.

    Our reaction (speaking generally) resulted from the fact that we know this happens all of the time.

    We aren't stupid sheep.

    And I do find it highly insulting when someone who has never had to go through any of that points to a community of people that do have to go through it every day because they can't remove their skin when convenient and tells them that their feelings and emotions are not legitimate and the result of what they are being told to feel.

    So my take after seeing the case now and looking at it objectively is that he will probably get off.  

    But as a fellow lawyer, I think you understand the difference between being truly innocent and not being found guilty of a crime.

     

    I would add (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    it does not matter that he also did it to people who were not black.  That argument is also insulting and diminishes the feelings of those who have raised the issue in the first place.  It's says, "get over it, you weren't the only people he did it to."

    As ABG says, it doesn't change the impact on those who've had to experience it regularly.

    Parent

    IMO, that does matter. It shows that he is (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by vml68 on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:32:57 PM EST
    I would add it does not matter that he also did it to people who were not black

    NOT "profiling" based on race.

    Parent

    Zimmerman is not a racist. (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by redwolf on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    A racist would expected Martin to be very upset for being followed and would anticipated a violent attack.  An actual racist would have reached for his gun, not his phone when Martin suddenly appeared.  A real racist would have expected Martin to sucker punch him right away and wouldn't have been caught off guard.

    Zimmerman simply doesn't view black kids as being aggressively violent people who attack over small things like being followed at a distance.

    Parent

    So you're saying ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:33:30 PM EST
    ... that a real racist would believe (maybe even anticipate) this scenario you're imagining.

    Interesting.

    Parent

    George Zimmerman trial (none / 0) (#107)
    by honeybee13 on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:22:00 PM EST
    When this case first came out I did some of my own research.  There is a great web site I go to that has the front page of the newspaper for cities all over the United States.  So I went to the Sanford Paper and read articles from years before this incident even happened.  I found some very interesting things which led me to my conclusion.  The city of Sanford has had racial problems with the police for a very very long time and it was time something be done about it, they'd had enough.  I also talked with some of my friends in my work neighbourhood and they informed me of exactly the things you mention about being profiled. If not for this case I would not have opened that discussion with them.  I learned a lot about racism in my own town and it does exist even though I don't experience it, I am white, how else would I know unless we have open dialoge with one another. The thing that really bothers me and I can't get out of my head is....how does my niece tell her mixed race son (she is married to the father and they have a gorgeous daughter too) that people will want to KILL you just for.....being and it will be justified by most of society.  I hope I see a day when we can truly live equally.

    Parent
    You have posted this before and it is beyond (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by vml68 on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 02:23:56 PM EST
    how does my niece tell her mixed race son (she is married to the father and they have a gorgeous daughter too) that people will want to KILL you just for.....being and it will be justified by most of society.

    ridiculous. Get a hold of yourself.

    Parent

    The history of racism in Sanford (none / 0) (#108)
    by Char Char Binks on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:23:29 PM EST
    can all be blamed on George Michael Zimmerman.

    Parent
    you didn't need to do any research (none / 0) (#135)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:31:23 AM EST
    the supposed history of racism stories were all over dkos and other web sites.  They contain ancient history and one incident in 2010 where a guy who was the chief of police's son was not arrested for hitting a black man.  He should have been arrested.  But one incident hardly makes a troubling pattern of racism and it is more likely that he was not arrested because he was the son of a powerful man and the man he hit was homeless and powerless.

    Then there was the tragic incident of the teacher and his wife murdered in 1951.  

     The guy who founded the town way back when was a racist and in the 1940s the towns people dissed Jackie Robinson.  It was ugly...but that has anything to do with this case?

    I am going to say that worse things have happened in most towns all around the country.  Sanford is no different than most places, shamefully.  

    Please, I went over and read the dkos diary on this.  I read an article at The Nation and Daily Beast. Now I need a lobotomy.

    Parent

    Well ABG (none / 0) (#110)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:23:58 PM EST
    I have experienced it.  I got a speeding ticket for DWI, driving with Black.  I won't tell the story but it involved driving my sig other to an Opera audition in NYC and we were on the Jersey Turnpike.  Cops saw him not me, but I got the ticket.  Pissed me off.  Other things happened.  Of course I could never claim to have the same experiences either he had or you have had over your life.  But as a woman I can tell you, the crap we put up with is no better and might be worse.  I won't argue that, ask a variety of African American women and see what kinds of answers you get about which ism has been harder to live with. I think you will find there are varying opinions.

    Still, I think this case has been rather obviously NOT about racism.  Seeing racism in everything that happens to a black person is a problem that is going to hurt not help the Black community.  Again it is like the boy who cried wolf. People will just stop listening.

    Parent

    Just a quick question... (none / 0) (#133)
    by HammerHead on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:17:53 AM EST
    "We aren't stupid sheep."

    You do agree that there ARE stupid sheep in the world.

    Do you think the stupid sheep recognize that they ARE stupid sheep?  Do you think that they admit that they're stupid sheep?

    Or do you think that the stupid sheep deny vehemently that they're stupid sheep?

    Just asking.

    Parent

    What a complete and utter idiot (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Jack203 on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:13:45 PM EST
    Seriously

    What about (4.20 / 5) (#28)
    by Char Char Binks on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:01:50 AM EST
    the Latino being railroaded on false charges?

    You believe they are false. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    That is your opinion and right. Others, including various triers of fact feel different.

    Your insinuation that GZ beimg latino has any relevance whatsoever is silly and IMO, indicative of an uniformed mind.

    Parent

    What is a Latino? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Char Char Binks on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:08:08 PM EST
    Hasn't GZ been called a "white Hispanic" in all the "reputable" media, at least since they stopped simply calling him white?   And this despite the fact that he bears little resemblance to Charlie Sheen or Frankie Muniz.

    Parent
    just ignore vic (2.67 / 3) (#60)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:04:00 AM EST
    he/she is just stirring up sh*t.  Could be Crump with time on his hands for all the sense he is making.  With no facts whatsoever and no indication that he has even watched the trial he is just trying to annoy people who have watched and have some knowledge.

    Parent
    My original response appears to have been (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:43:07 AM EST
    deleted.  Not sure why.  Nonetheless, for you or anyone else that is interested.  I watch the trial every day so I'm quite informed about what's happening.

    Just because you don't like my perspectives doesn't make them invalid.  Sorry, not everyone believes as you do.  Here's a thought, don't reply to my posts if they annoy you.  You post things I disagree with all the time, you know what I do, ignore it.  You should try it, you'll feel better.

    Parent

    Our President also deserves blame IMHO (2.80 / 5) (#62)
    by David in Cal on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:09:32 AM EST
    We already knew that Mr. Obama injected himself into the case, by making a public statement showing sympathy to Martin, but none to Zimmerman. It has now been discovered that a unit of the Justice Department was deployed to Sanford, FL, following the Trayvon Martin shooting to help organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman.

    Please see my comment below. (none / 0) (#73)
    by magster on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    Yeah right. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Leopold on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 03:02:10 PM EST
    Accusation by a conservation winger group.  Projects include anti-immigration agenda and "Obama-watching"

    Parent
    I would submit your blinders are on about this (2.00 / 2) (#10)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:00:17 AM EST
    fact is throughout history, major leaps forward or backward in our country are made via the courts.  This case is no different.  What continues to baffle me is how someone who speaks out against police profiling of individuals and asks us to consider responsible gun ownership a right of the citizens cannot see how both profiling and irresponsible gun ownership came together in a tragic and preventable way.

    I don't begrudge Mr. Crump and his team for using any means necessary to bring these issues to the fore.  I thought zealous advocacy on behalf of a client was what you do as a lawyer.  If you want people to believe what you do is valid and worthwhile, then you should extend the same courtesy to other lawyers - in spite of whether you agree w/them or not.  

    There is zealous advocacy (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:18:59 AM EST
    And then there is the spreading of blatant falsehoods, and getting the media to continue the false narratives.

    Parent
    Iies and defamation are not okay (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:41:09 AM EST
    The only proven  tragedy here  is that trayvon assaulted  an innocent civilian which caused the civilian to fear for his life.

    Parent
    That's not proven... (4.25 / 4) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:09:16 AM EST
    it can't be disproven...there's a difference.

    Parent
    The evidence does proove (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:52:10 AM EST
    That Zimmerman was attacked by Martin.

    Parent
    No it doesn't... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:23:23 AM EST
    Zimmerman's minor injuries prove him and Martin were in a physical altercation of some sort...only Zimmerman knows who got physical first.

    The events leading to a physical altercation...I think the evidence shows that's all on Zimmerman.  Unless you believe dropping a dime and trailing an innocent person is a nice thing to do to somebody.

    Parent

    There is only evidence that Martin (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:26:07 AM EST
    Attacked Zimmermanas evidenced by his injurie. There is no evidence that Martin was attacked.

    Parent
    The minor injuries claim (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by rjarnold on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:43:53 AM EST
    really bothers me. The guy had a broken nose. Just because he doesn't look that bad right a few hours after the shooting and after being cleaned up does not mean that the injuries were minor.


    Parent
    Agree to disagree... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    I consider a broken nose a minor injury...a knock to the head that bleeds a minor injury.  I've seen dudes get their beaks busted, have them set by another dude, and order another round.  

    If Zimmerman was getting his head bashed in like I've seen claimed in the comment section here, he would have had a skull fracture.  I've seen one of those, that's a major injury.

    Parent

    are you even watching the court (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:17:32 AM EST
    proceedings? I don't think so.  Everything you have just said would sound ridiculous from anyone who had been paying attention to the court case.

    Parent
    "minor injuries" (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Char Char Binks on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    Z had "superficial" injuries, because they were literally "on the surface", which is just about all there is on a scalp.  Any head injury is potentially life-threatening.  People have died from head trauma with no external bleeding or outward sign of wounds at all, even after laughing it off and telling paramedics to go away, Natasha Richardson being a case in point.

    Parent
    Easily weakened to the point of disproof (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:19:48 AM EST
    The theory that the deceased assaulted an innocent civilian which caused the civilian to fear for his life can be rendered highly less probable if

    (1) no injuries found on civilian
    (2) no witnesses saw civilian in a defensive losing position in the fight

    Parent

    I've seen the person.. (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    who threw the first punch or shove end up on the losing end of a fight before....happens all the time.

    And when nobody is packing heat, the vast vast vast majority of the time everybody goes home to their families.

    Parent

    What does this have to do with the evidence/facts (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:44:25 AM EST
    There are no facts that show Zimmerman started or in any way attacked Martin

    Parent
    The first punch or shove (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    Evidence that would help establish that Zimmerman started it.
    • If Zimmerman did not call the police initially
    • If Zimmerman had a history of violent confrontation
    • If Zimmerman was trained to fight (and his coach had good reports of his ability)
    • If Zimmerman bragged about fighting
    • Lack of a facial injury: if Zimmerman threw the first punch or shove, he would have been on his guard from that point on and been able to block a major hit to the nose.


    Parent
    American law (4.00 / 1) (#29)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:04:34 AM EST
    still says "innocent until proven guilty".  That means, if he is not proven guilty, he's innocent.
    Want to play word games?  

    Parent
    Same presumption of innocence... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:18:29 AM EST
    applies to Trayvon Martin, no?  

    Or do you have to be formally accused and charged before you're presumed innocent?  

    I realize Zimmerman has to defend himself, and that involves accusing the recipient of his bullet of wrong-doing...but that doesn't mean it's the proven truth.  It might be, it might not.

    Parent

    there must be charges (none / 0) (#39)
    by goddessoftheclassroom on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:25:52 AM EST
    for there to be a trial and for a jury to reach a verdict.  

    Parent
    So if you're not on trial... (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:37:34 AM EST
    you're not presumed innocent?  News to me...I thought we were all presumed innocent all the time, until we are convicted of a crime.

    Parent
    And to answer your question (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:45:38 AM EST
    No - "presumption of innocence" is specifically a right attached to a defendant in a criminal trial.


    Parent
    So what are we presumed? (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:01:08 AM EST
    Lemme guess...suspicious? ;)

    Parent
    Depends on what you're doing, I guess :) (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:04:02 AM EST
    Presumed innocent of what? (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:40:39 AM EST
    Anything and everything...n/t (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:44:23 AM EST
    If George Zimmerman believed in the presumption of innocence, we wouldn't be here.

    Parent
    Actually (4.00 / 2) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:07:48 AM EST
    American law says a defendant is found "guilty" or "not guilty".  

    If someone is found "not guilty" that in no way means that he is "innocent".  He MAY be innocent of the crime(s) charged, or he could very well be guilty of the crime(s) charged, but the state could not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

    No one is EVER found "innocent".

    Parent

    word games (none / 0) (#65)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    I am just playing along.  

    Parent
    profiling and gun ownership (none / 0) (#49)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    While I agree with you on gun ownership, it is fairly obvious that Crump is not concerned about gun laws since he knows Zimmerman didn't break any gun laws and raising the issue would distract attention from the racial issue.  While we can blame gun laws all we like, it has nothing to do with this case simply because the prosecution didn't want to go there.  

    Racial profiling is simply invalid except when used to treat disease risk.  Again, while Crump would have loved to make this the central issue, the prosecution also didn't want to go there, most likely because it wasn't well supported by the evidence.

    So that leaves us with "profiling", a generic statistical method to determine intent based on as many attributes of a person as can be accurately assessed.  The hoodie, walking slowly in the rain in the dark as if on drugs, not from the neighborhood, looking at the houses, appearing to be early-twenties, black, all happening a few weeks  after a burglary, all of these raise the probability of bad intent in Zimmerman's mind over a certain threshold, so he calls NEN.  Is this the profiling issue that needs zealous advocacy in your opinion?


    Parent

    It sort of baffles me too. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Leopold on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 03:09:38 PM EST
    But what I've realized is that this is the nature of the legal field. It is based on legal principle, not necessarily aligned with truth or justice.

    So, if you are a defense attorney, and it helps to say that racism, sexism, or other injustices did not happen, or that current gun laws present no problems for society, then that is what you will say. If, in a different case, it helps your client to say that racism, sexism, or other injustices did happen, or that current gun laws are a problem, or something else, then you will be making be anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-gun arguments.  Presumably, the prosecutorial side is doing the same. That seems to be how it works.

    I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not passing judgement on that - just stating what I observe. But I do think there is moral inconsistency and untruths and hypocrisy evident. Perhaps that is the nature of the beast.

    As a result, this site is not really "TalkLeft". It is "TalkDefense" - and whether leftist or rightist arguments need to be made at any particular time, that is what will happen. That is why you see new crowds come and go over time here. Just my opinion.

    Parent

    partially correct (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:53:34 AM EST
    I always put criminal defense principles above politics. Left or right is largely irrelevant when discussing individual cases of injustice(as opposed to legislation and needed reform.) However, on political issues, the site is clearly left (except on gun rights, which I view as a constitutional right, and I would never advocate restricting any constitutional right.).

    But no, I don't switch sides depending on the client or case, because my client and case is always the person accused. I don't represent defendants one day and victims of crime or discrimination the next. And I don't make up specious arguments. If the facts don't fit, I don't claim they do, I find a different theory of defense.

    I welcome readers who can leave their politics out of the discussion on a particular criminal case. I try to do the same. It's about exposing injustice to as many eyes as possible.

    Nor do I have a problem with readers leaving when my writing reverts to political topics and crime policy. I'm not trying to foster a cult or convert anyone.

    That said, TalkLeft is an appropriate description because (historically at least, although not nearly as much in recent years) the reforms I seek in the war on crime and war on drugs are far more likely to come from progressives in office.

    Parent

    I would submit your blinders are on about this (1.67 / 3) (#9)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:00:15 AM EST
    fact is throughout history, major leaps forward or backward in our country are made via the courts.  This case is no different.  What continues to baffle me is how someone who speaks out against police profiling of individuals and asks us to consider responsible gun ownership a right of the citizens cannot see how both profiling and irresponsible gun ownership came together in a tragic and preventable way.

    I don't begrudge Mr. Crump and his team for using any means necessary to bring these issues to the fore.  I thought zealous advocacy on behalf of a client was what you do as a lawyer.  If you want people to believe what you do is valid and worthwhile, then you should extend the same courtesy to other lawyers - in spite of whether you agree w/them or not.  

    advocacy for a client in a case (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:26:28 AM EST
    in court in a legal matter.  Crump's clients are not in court they have no case against them.  He is just stirring up anger and misinformation to try and make big bucks down the line in civil court at the expense of a man's freedom and reputation.  It is immoral.  It damages race relations ultimately at the expense of the minority. I am surprised you can neither see nor understand that.

    Parent
    Blinders? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:18:56 AM EST
    Your bafflement may be due to the fact that you may be the one with blinders on.

    Their transformation of a tragic but spontaneous shooting into the crime of the century

    I really hope that you, or someone close to you, are never a defendant in a felony case. If you are I hope that your fight against the system is not also a fight against the media selling soap fed by the prosecution and self-serving attorneys who would benefit from a conviction.

    Parent

    I would hope I'm not either. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:30:56 AM EST
    If I were, I'd hope I could obtain representation that would zealously defend my position.

    Do not Mark O'Mara or Don West stand to gain representing such a high profile client? Yes. You have no issue with what they're doing obviously because you believe in the ideals they are defending. That's fine.

    Do not begrudge others the right to uphold other ideals which are equally important.

    Parent

    Not Begrudging Anyone (3.67 / 3) (#77)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:44:45 AM EST
    But pointing out that what this case has turned into because of Crump, and politicians self-serving interest has made this a no win for anyone. To use this case as a touchstone for the history of racism, is immoral, imo. Particularly because the people using it for that are sacrificing racial reform for political and monetary gain. Nothing good is going to come of the efforts by Crump except financial gain and notoriety

    And the fact that you have made a claim that Jeralyn must have blinders on for not seeing this case as tragic is a gross misrepresentation of what Jeralyn has just written in this post.

    Parent

    For you it's "turned into something" (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:31:14 PM EST
    for others it is something that was already there and dealt with regularly.

    Parent
    BS (4.00 / 4) (#94)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:38:31 PM EST
    You are FOS here. Had not Crump, various politicians and the media used this case for personal gain, 99% of the other's you mention would never heard of the case.

    And if you are trying to make believe that I am unaware that there is tremendous racial bias in the justice system, please give it a break, as I am well aware of the statistics, and personal stories of many who have been subject to racist bias in the justice system.

    Parent

    First off, you have no idea what I heard (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:24:26 PM EST
    let alone have experienced in my life so please.

    Secondly, save your outrage over your street creds for someone who's questioning them.  Stop projecting your own insecurities about where you stand on me.

    Finally, so it's a bad thing that this got the attention it did?  Easy for you to say apparently.  That's an opinion I don't share.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:40:49 PM EST
    I have no idea about what you have heard, how would I?
    Not sure why you think I have made a claim about hearing you.

    I do believe that had Crump et al not gotten involved 99% of the people who are using this case for self-serving reasons, would never have heard of the case.

    And, sorry I am not insecure at all regarding my stance on racism, so not sure where you get that. I am projecting nothing on you. Mainly I am pointing out your gross mischaracterization on Jeralyn's POV.

    And I do believe that the wide publicity of this case is a bad thing because almost what is disseminated is false, biased an ultimately divisive.  For those who are truly interested in criminal justice, civil rights and fighting racism, arguing that this case is a window into racial injustice, is a big mistake, imo.


    Parent

    who cares? (1.60 / 5) (#3)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 05:48:31 AM EST
    last i checked, mr. crump isn't involved in either the prosecution or defense, and the jury is sequestered. that being the case, what mr. crump (or anyone else similarly situated) has to say is utterly irrelevant to the case, other than as a starting point for rightwing keening and wailing.

    ms. merritt, you spent several paragraphs of space, on, well, nothing of consequence to the actual case itself. your blog, your choice of how to use its scarce, allocable resourses. that said, it seems it would make more sense to focus your efforts on what the actual participants in the actual court proceedings said/did.

    just my (not so) humble opinion.

    You don't think (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 06:43:37 AM EST
    Benjamin Crump's words mean anything?  Not to the jury, which is sequestered, but you don't think it drives the bigger narrative?  You don't think if Zimmerman is acquitted, all we're going to hear is about how a victim who is  black child can't get justice when a "white" man with an agenda pursues him and guns him down? (Oh wait, we're already hearing that)?

    You don't think the media has been playing fast and loose with the facts here????

    Parent

    How about the former police chief? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Payaso on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 06:51:31 AM EST
    CNN:

    The George Zimmerman investigation was hijacked "in a number of ways" by outside forces, said the former police chief of Sanford, Florida.

    Bill Lee, who testified Monday in Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial, told CNN's George Howell in an exclusive interview that he felt pressure from city officials to arrest Zimmerman to placate the public rather than as a matter of justice.

    "It was (relayed) to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn't care if it got dismissed later," he said. "You don't do that."



    Parent
    they pale by comarison (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 07:12:47 AM EST
    in my opinion. I'm looking forward to the day when my clients can get better and fairer treatment. Harvesting all this energy onto a single person, when the promoteer gets a big paycheck at the end doesn't speak "equal justice" to me.

    Parent
    you think false claims of racism (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:48:57 AM EST
    only bother people on the right?  You are wrong.  It bothers some of us on the left too.  What do you think you have been reading here?

    Parent
    "rightwing keening and wailing" (4.80 / 5) (#20)
    by HammerHead on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:33:01 AM EST
    Now that's rich!  Was it "rightwing keening and wailing" that got us into this mess?

    Was it rightwingers who dressed up in hoodies and demanded the firing of Bill Lee?  Was it rightwingers protesting in front of the Sanford police station and demanding an arrest, evidence or no evidence?  Was it rightwingers crying over the monstrous injustice and writing articles comparing Trayvon Martin to Emmitt Till?  Was it rightwing politicians who went on TV and said that Zimmerman hunted Martin down like a rabid dog?

    No offense, but the point is, Benjamin Crump is indeed responsible for a great deal of "keening and wailing".  Why do you only criticize the "keening and wailing" that came from the revelation that the whole thing is a scam?

    Parent

    he was sequesterd the past 3 weeks (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 07:15:47 AM EST
    due to a court order. Now he's back. I prefer for people not to be buying whatever it is he's offering. There are much better, more organized national groups that can help these folks in a predicament then these guys. Just my opinion of course.

    Parent
    MSNBC legal experts (none / 0) (#1)
    by Payaso on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 03:19:11 AM EST
    are advising the persecution to go racial in closing arguments.

    I kid you not.

    msnbc stinks almost as bad as fox (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:12:41 AM EST
    except for morning joe.  Even though joe often spouts right wing lunacy I want to stuff back down his throat, and Mika simpers way too much, they manage to have a variety of really smart people on and discuss all sides of an issue at least part of the time.  

    Parent
    Morning Joe is Great (none / 0) (#22)
    by rcade on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:37:05 AM EST
    Morning Joe is one of the only shows on cable news that lets guests talk and gives them a lot of time to do it.

    Parent
    yup (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    sometimes Joe cuts people off but not often.  Then usually he will let people finish after his rant.

      But compare him to Lawrence O'Donnel.  O'Donnel had a guy on once just to let him start speaking so he could scream over him. I think it was right after the Sandy Hook shootings. I never watched him again.

    Parent

    On a related note (none / 0) (#8)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 07:49:48 AM EST
    Sort of... I was wondering if staffing three prosecutors on a case is SOP for the state of Florida?

    The prosecution blundered (none / 0) (#11)
    by Adirolf on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:00:25 AM EST
    The prosecution had a valid point they bypassed...Zimmerman in the Hannity interview (in evidence at trial) stated that he was yelling out because he thought the police were right nearby and wanted to bring them to his exact location. He did not say he screamed in pain or fear. Accept that, and the prosecution aligns with the more likely fight scenario and reduces the argument that Z was screaming in fear of his life.

    Quote: "And I was yelling so that -- I believed that the police officer was there and they just couldn't me. So, I was yelling in the hopes that they were in the vicinity and they would come when they heard me yelling.

    Link: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/07/18/exclusive-george-zimmerman-breaks-silence-hannity?p age=4


    Screaming (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by friendofinnocence on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:54:57 AM EST
    Zimmerman was screaming and hoping the police would hear him because he was in fear of great bodily harm and his life.  Anyone in that situation would be in fear of great bodily harm and his life.

    Parent
    So he was yelling for help... (none / 0) (#127)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 06:11:14 PM EST
    ...but wasn't in any fear?

    Seriously?

    If someone had come to help other than the police, do you think he would have turned down their assistance?

    Parent

    Do we know which def. atty. is doing closing? (none / 0) (#59)
    by magster on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:03:26 AM EST
    West might be a fine human being but he sure comes across as abrasive and arrogant, and I thought his opening was insensitive.

    A liberal site devoted to maintaining the .... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by magster on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    integrity of the judicial system on behalf of all criminal defendants is creating strange bed-fellows when that criminal defendant enjoys most of his sympathy from politically conservative amongst us, but it's a bridge too far to adopt Rush Limbaugh's spin of a Judicial Watch report (and almost a bridge too far to say Morning Joe is the best cable show out there).  The feds were there as mediators. From the website of the Justice Dept's Community Relations Service.

        The Community Relations Service is the Department's "peacemaker" for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and national origin. Created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS is the only Federal agency dedicated to assist State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.

        [...]

        For more than 45 years, CRS has been asked to provide its experienced mediators to help local communities resolve conflicts and disturbances relating to race, color, or national origin. Each year CRS' highly skilled conciliators bring hundreds of community-wide conflicts to peaceful closure across America and its territories.



    Parent
    SOP for WIngnuts, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:35:06 AM EST
    But, apart from that, it is sadly ironic that because of self-interested parties flaming this case to benefit their political and monetary situations those who have been historically denied justice by the State are rallying for the State to fry Zimmerman.

    The problems of racial disparity and arbitrary enforcement of our criminal laws are real, systemic and need to be addressed. Criminal defense lawyers see it and fight to correct it every day. From charging decisions to plea offers to sentences, the system is not fair and everybody knows it.

    But this case has never been representative of those problems. And perhaps most unfortunate of all, as a result of the false narrative created by the lawyers for grieving parents who tragically lost their son -- a narrative perpetuated by a complicit and ratings-hungry media -- any attempt at meaningful reform is likely to fall on deaf ears for years to come.



    Parent
    I blame FL law and carry conceal..... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by magster on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:52:46 AM EST
    .... for setting the stage of TM's death at this point. I won't repeat what I've posted numerous times here, but I'm starting to parallel this whole sad tragedy with the basic plot lines from "Frankenstein".

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    Although according to bmaz over at emptywheel:

    State of Florida v. Zimmerman is a straight up traditional self defense case. It has never been pled as a Stand Your Ground defense case, irrespective of all the press coverage, attention and attribution to Stand Your Ground. It's never been Stand Your Ground, and certainly is not now that the evidence is all in on the trial record. It is a straight self defense justification defense, one that would be pretty much the same under the law of any state in the union including that which you are in, and that I am in, now (so don't blame "Florida law").

    bmaz

    Parent

    Carry conceal. Not SYG (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by magster on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:06:29 PM EST
    He had no business packing heat.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    Almost all states allow for concealed carry, so it is not about Florida Law.

    Parent
    Yeah, most states do. (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by magster on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:13:02 PM EST
    gods help us!

    Parent
    Gods (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:16:22 PM EST
    They may be worse..  plagues, burning in hell for eternity.. getting turned into a rock.. and the worst imaginable tortures all wrought by the gods..
     

    Parent
    All states now permit concealed carry (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by David in Cal on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:12:10 PM EST
    a few days ago, Illinois became the last state to legalize it.  As I understand it, the Supreme Court had ruled that concealed carry is a constitutional right

    Parent
    On a scale of 1 to 10, he was a 1 physically, (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by friendofinnocence on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:00:40 PM EST
    according to his trainer.

    How else was he supposed to defend himself from an attacker who is younger and stronger than himself?

    Parent

    Point 5 (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Char Char Binks on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    But who's counting?

    Parent
    By staying in his car. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by magster on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:30:10 PM EST
    No business packing heat (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Char Char Binks on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    Tell that to the State of Florida, the entity that both gave him the permit to carry, and illegally charged him with murder.

    Parent
    how convenient (none / 0) (#96)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    to blame a law you don't like for a completely unrelated event.  You can not tie the two together because you can not assume that Zimmerman would have acted differently if he had no gun.

    Parent
    Yeah, I can make that assumption. (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by magster on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:16:29 PM EST
    On what basis do you make the assumption (none / 0) (#119)
    by vml68 on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 02:16:58 PM EST
    that Zimmerman would have acted differently had he not had a gun?
    If you can make that claim based on no evidence, can't a claim be made that based on TM's tweets he enjoyed fighting and was probably quite eager to take a swing at the person watching him? Would TM have acted differently had he known that Z was carrying a gun?

    Both of us can make assumptions to fit our biases and prejudices but neither one of us were there and neither one of us know what really happened and how either TM or Z would have behaved under different criteria/ circumstances.

    Based on the evidence so far, I am willing to give Z the benefit of the doubt.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 04:10:38 PM EST
    Florida law may be different from other states. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, but in Florida all a defendant has to show a minimal amount of evidence of self-defense then the burden of proof shifts to the state.

    I think in other states the burden of proof is on the defendant through the trial if claiming self-defense.

    Parent

    Reply fail to David in Cal's comment # 62 (none / 0) (#71)
    by magster on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:28:54 AM EST
    pssst... (none / 0) (#78)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:51:57 AM EST
    not sure who you are talking about, but if you are referring to me, were you to actually know me, I am one of the more politically liberal people here.

     I just don't like STUPID liberal arguments.  I like SMART and not one sided liberal arguments.  I also don't need or like to be fed one sided arguments which is why I like Morning Joe. See, I think people who think with their own brains are challenged by hearing all sides. If you listen to only those who agree with you, you end up sounding like a parrot, which is what has happened to so much of the liberal blog-world and made so many sites just useless these days.

    When you read, "this would never have happened if only GZ had never gotten out of his car".... how much are you supposed to value that person's opinion?  You have read that how many times?  You know damn well that is not an original thought.  

    Parent

    An argument doesn't need to be original .... (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by magster on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:18:31 PM EST
    to be right. If I say he shouldn't have gotten out of his car, how is that less respectable than making an original argument that GZ should have instead set his ray gun to the "stun" setting (original and just made up argument).

    Parent
    Reread your # 18. (none / 0) (#87)
    by magster on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:11:26 PM EST
    You have a nice qualifier in there, but I think their guests are just the same old blah-blah'ers that make the Washington media bubble so disgusting.

    You've been commenting here for a long time, and I was not specifically directing my rant at you. I feel I know where you generally stand.  But your comments do drive me nutty sometimes. :)

    Parent

    peaceful closure (none / 0) (#103)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    .

    It seems that "peaceful closure" in this case was the arrest and charging of GZ.  So far we have only your speculation that the DOJ did not apply pressure toward that end.

    .

    Parent

    MOM (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:21:14 AM EST
    I believe..

    Parent
    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#68)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:25:57 AM EST
    I get that you think the legalities of the case indicate a clear outcome, but your statement at the end was one step too far.

    You can believe that the man shouldn't go to jail and acknowledge that everything from the fact that Zimmerman picked out Martin as suspicious in the first place to the way in which the initial investigation was handled can validly be argued to evidence the disparate way in which black men and their death are treated in this country.

    Whitewashing (no pun intended) this case so that race isn't a factor is sound legal strategy, but I think saying that none of this had anything to do with race so definitively is a step too far.

    Evidence shows racism may have influenced Martin (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by David in Cal on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    According Rachel Jeantel, Martin used an insulting racial epithet in describing Zimmerman.  So, Martin's attack on Zimmerman may well have been motivated by racism, at least in part.

    OTOH, whatever anyone may imagine, there's essentially no evidence that Zimmerman's actions were motivated by racism.

    Parent

    That could have been... (none / 0) (#128)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 06:17:34 PM EST
    ...not a racial, but a homophobic epithet.

    Parent
    You are right (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:23:47 PM EST
    .

    This case has everything to do with race.  If Zimmerman were blacker than Martin we would have never heard of it.

    Even though Zimmerman was blacker than Homer Plessy, the NYT chose to describe him virtually alone on the planet as a "white Hispanic."  This no doubt so you would know it was a racial killing first and foremost.

    .

    Parent

    Ah, those pesky legalities... (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Char Char Binks on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:28:30 PM EST
    .

    Parent
    This trial is not about (none / 0) (#82)
    by gadfly on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:59:06 AM EST
    Rush limbaugh, it is now about a rotten-to-the-core prosecution that has demanded and Judge Nelson has granted the introduction of a new charge of 3rd degree murder based upon child abuse.

    All this happens after the defense has rested and the judge gives the defense lawyers until 1:00PM to research and counter the charge - while the prosecution already has a fully researched argument prepared.

    Nothing here to see - move on.

     

    Judge Nelson (none / 0) (#100)
    by friendofinnocence on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:10:58 PM EST
    shot down the surprise Murder 3/child abuse charge, so the jury won't be considering it.

    I should add it seems ambushing by the prosecution is routine, and the judge doesn't seem to mind it at all.  Intentionally delaying discovery and hiding discovery seems to be routine as well.  This is a corrupted system.

    There is a documentary playing on HBO right now called, "Gideon's Army", about public defenders in the South.  Highly recommended if you want to see what a defendant who can't manage to acquire MOM and West has available to fight the prosecution's steamroller.  They have just one overworked, underpaid, but very didicated public defender.  Highly recommended.

    Parent

    fastest 450 feet ran (none / 0) (#136)
    by dms on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:29:13 AM EST
    i bet if zimmerman had gotten out of his truck looking like "The Rock", or wearing an officer's uniform, martin would have made it home in 20 seconds. it's likely he sized zimmerman up.