DOJ Trolling for Anti-Zimmerman Tips

Panderfest: The Department of Justice is setting up a public email address for tips on George Zimmerman.

Amid pressure from the NAACP and several Democratic lawmakers to pursue Zimmerman, the department has set up a public email address asking for any tips or information regarding the case.

This is nothing but a Neighborhood Watch program gone wild. Report your suspicions and three-times removed gossip. It's just more pandering to private interests. [More....]

FBI agents already interviewed more than 40 people who knew Zimmerman, from the time he was growing up to his employers, co-workers, friends, personnel at shops he frequented and even an ex-girlfriend and her mother. The FBI has investigated Zimmerman for more than a year. They know everyone with whom he has had meaningful contact with since the day he born. If not, they aren't good investigators and should be replaced. Either send agents out to interview his known acquaintances they may have skipped on the first go-around, or shut it down. Don't send out an invitation for people to make stuff up. This email solicitation is nothing but an invitation to manufacture evidence.

Holder should stick to what he first said. DOJ will handle the probe with compassion and the truth. He should treat the Martin family with compassion when DOJ delivers the truth that there is no evidence to support a civil rights case against George Zimmerman.

What a colossal waste of financial resources and Justice Department funds. It's an example of how Congress has overfunded the Department of Justice. As federal public defender and probation offices face more furloughs and cuts, and lawyers who accept federal indigent defense cases are having payments of their fees deferred due to sequestration cuts, the Department of Justice has enough money to burn and enough staff to sort through email tips, the vast majority of which will come from an emotionally charged uninformed public who never knew Zimmerman, and enough manpower to then assign federal agents to investigate the "tips" it thinks may have credibility.

The shooting death of Trayvon Martin is not a national act of terrorism needing further leads to stop the next attack. George Zimmerman was acquitted after a trial at which the state presented evidence gathered from local police, the FDLE and the FBI, all of whom investigated Zimmerman's background hoping to find proof of his evil, profiling state of mind.

This panderfest will also put a larger target on the back of a man whom a jury has declared not guilty, based on the state's failure to prove ill-will, hatred, spite or evil intent, and failure to disprove self-defense. It will encourage people to follow him hoping to gather evidence to submit to the email box.

Zimmerman may want to wire up when he goes out in public in case the checkout clerk at the grocery store who he asks for change submits a tip that while GZ was checking out, GZ used a racial slur when addressing him or someone else in line, or even better, confessed to him he shot Martin because he hated him on sight.

If DOJ really wants to address the problems minorities face in the criminal justice system, it can start by returning some money from its budget to Congress with a request it be reallocated to the Judiciary, so federal defenders and indigent defense counsel who represent the minorities the Justice Department has selected for prosecution can have an adequate defense.

Anyone concerned about racial disparity in the criminal justice system should be lobbying Congress to pass supplemental funding for defender services, not chasing ghosts in George Zimmerman's closet. If the concern is that children need to be safe walking home, consider the impact of sequestration cuts:
Sequestration also will compromise the safety of local communities. It has reduced funding for probation and pretrial officer staffing, which means less deterrence, detection and response to a possible resumed criminal activity by federal defendants and offenders in the community. In addition, law enforcement funding to support GPS and other electronic monitoring of potentially dangerous defendants and offenders has been cut by 20%. Equivalent cuts to funding for drug testing, substance abuse and mental health treatment of federal defendants and offenders have also been made, increasing further the risk to public safety.


For every taxpayer dollar, only two-tenths of one penny went toward funding the entire Federal Judiciary, a co-equal third branch of our government.

Help fight disparity in our criminal justice system. Support the Judiciary's 2013 Request for Emergency Supplemental Funding.

< On the Cover of the Rolling Stone: Jahar's World | Eliminating Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Misspeak? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:21:33 PM EST
    This is nothing but a Neighborhood Watch program gone wild.

    To describe someone looking into Zimmerman with these words...gallows humor? or pitiful choice of words?

    Jeralyn has written, more than (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:25:00 PM EST
    once, about her dislike of neighborhood watch groups and government sponsored spy on your coworker deals.

    Why? (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:26:23 PM EST
    How would you characterize it?

    Ironic n/t (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:40:16 PM EST
    Or karma... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:09:10 AM EST
    But two wrongs don't make a right, and we must expect better of the state than of the individual.

    Don't be a Zimmerman to catch a Zimmerman and drag the whole justice system any further into the gutter Holder.


    I am of the belief... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:30:15 PM EST
    that they had nothing to run with earlier and placated the protesters with their case is "ongoing."  

    If they have to ask for tips to try and make a case, they still have nada.  I don't understand how people cannot see that except for their desperation to find Zimmerman guilty of something, anything.

    Cecil Smith said that the DOJ had investigated the SPD.  I don't remember how that turned out so I am thinking that nothing panned out there or it would have been big news.

    What bothers me a lot more (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:04:14 PM EST
    than the "icky" aspect of this is how degrading this is to the Justice Department.  They're supposed to be the shining light of our system of laws, the exemplar for how to do it right.  Instead they display the worst aspects of corruption and bias that you could dig up from some hick town in the hills of somewhere.

    Now they're going after one guy from one state who didn't fit their model of what's fair and just?

    How far this country has fallen, and how little of what made America great remains.  For an old vet it's beyond heartbreaking.

    Holder (none / 0) (#79)
    by koshembos on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:39:18 PM EST
    Holder seems to thrive for the title of "the worst AG ever." WS, of course, did absolutely nothing wrong. Holder made perfectly clear that Wall Street is outside the law of the land.

    Now he starts a new witch hunt reminiscent of the worse authoritarian regimes. Holder's Stasi, KGB and NSA will inform on Zimmerman.

    At least some of Nixon's lawyers went to jail.


    Perhaps you are a young whippersnapper (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Harold on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:49:54 PM EST
    Just sent my lead (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:29:56 PM EST
    Just sent my lead into the tip line:

    Jeantel: I think Trayvon threw the first punch

    That sounds like rank speculation (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:41:12 AM EST
    on her part.  I would discount it as evidence of nothing.  She doesn't know Trayvon threw the first punch any more than she knows that George pursued him, didn't identify himself or put his hands on Trayvon.

    I bet there will be much ranker (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:49:41 AM EST
    speculation showing up on that tip line, like double plus ranker.

    I admire you (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:36:51 PM EST
    thank you, thank you!

    The problem with the tips now, (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:40:46 PM EST
    if that's what you're asking, is that the FBI investigated this last year, interviewing about 40 people, and found no evidence of racism in his past. Actually they found the opposite from what I've read.

    Even the prosecution agreed.

    And about Witness 9, discussed below, I read a filing just last night where the defense AND the prosecution asked that her identity and what she said, not be released. This was prior to Judge Nelson being the judge.

    This bothers me on so many levels, I don't (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:41:19 PM EST
    know where to begin.

    It's bad enough that massive collection of information has been undertaken on all forms of communication - and then I read this today:

       Chances are, your local or state police departments have photographs of your car in their files, noting where you were driving on a particular day, even if you never did anything wrong.

        Using automated scanners, law enforcement agencies across the country have amassed millions of digital records on the location and movement of every vehicle with a license plate, according to a study published Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union. Affixed to police cars, bridges or buildings, the scanners capture images of passing or parked vehicles and note their location, uploading that information into police databases. Departments keep the records for weeks or years, sometimes indefinitely.

    And now, the DOJ wants to waste time and manpower collecting tips from people about this one case?  I guess this looks like easy-peasy stuff compared, to, oh, I don't know, investigating banksters and Wall Street, or the god-knows-how-many-cases that have been languishing for a months or years because "resources are limited."  Or it's "too hard," or the big, mean white-collar criminals might stop writing all those big checks to all their good friends in Congress.

    Holy Jesus, this is just insane.

    This seems like a transparent attempt (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:36:52 PM EST
    at placating people. it is a huge violation of GZ's civil rights in itself - the phrase 'high tech lynching' comes to mind.  I don't expect it to amount to anything but a false front, but both the DOJ and anyone supporting this should be embarrassed.

    Agree 100%. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Cashmere on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:56:27 PM EST
    I am embarrassed to be an American if this is what is going on.

    Anne -- I am extremely troubled about what you posted as well.  I certainly hope it is not true.


    From the link in my original comment: (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:16:52 PM EST
    But even if law enforcement officials say they don't want a public location tracking system, the records add up quickly. In Jersey City, N.J., for example, the population is only 250,000 but the city collected more than 2 million plate images on file. Because the city keeps records for five years, the ACLU estimates that it has some 10 million on file, making it possible for police to plot the movements of most residents depending upon the number and location of the scanners, according to the ACLU.

    The ACLU study, based on 26,000 pages of responses from 293 police departments and state agencies across the country, also found that license plate scanners produced a small fraction of "hits," or alerts to police that a suspicious vehicle has been found. In Maryland, for example, the state reported reading about 29 million plates between January and May of last year. Of that amount, about 60,000 -- or roughly 1 in every 500 license plates -- were suspicious. The No. 1 crime? A suspended or revoked registration, or a violation of the state's emissions inspection program accounted for 97 percent of all alerts.

    The important thing to know is, of course, that it's legal.  So, not to worry...what could possibly go wrong?


    Wondering if (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:24:37 AM EST
    All this info is compiled into one central database somewhere...?

    If so, couldn't they just find who GZ has been seeing, who has been driving to his house, where he's been going?  <snark>


    Not as much snark as it used to be; (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:54:45 AM EST
    now I think it's more like we want it to be funny, but it's really not.

    My thought was: "NSA's spending all this money and collecting all this information - at this stage, they should know if George Zimmerman has so much as a pimple on his ass."

    Wonder what would happen if we all ended every phone call, e-mail and text message with, "Hello, NSA!"

    It's really just getting to be too much, and there seems to be less and less chance of stopping it.


    Heh, you have been... (none / 0) (#103)
    by bmaz on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:37:35 AM EST
    ...spending too much time at our site. The cravenness of the government collection on its own citizens is simply brain numbing. And they keep lying about the nature and extent of it. There was more lying and obfuscation in the House Judiciary Committee yesterday (although the fact the government actually does three hop collection suddenly came out)

    that comment was not addressed to you (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:45:19 PM EST
    it was to bobinkty who keeps asking the same question about evidence in the trial.

    You did nothing wrong. But one comment was deleted because you posted a hugely long url to a tweet that will skew our site because we have narrow margins. When that happens, it can take me hours to find the offending comment and delete it. I cannot edit comments, only delete them. The rule about posting urls is stated in both the general commenting rules and rules for commenting on this case.

    Your other comment was on B37. There are two threads in the last 2 days on B 37. The topic here is different.

    I spend hours or days researching and writing some of my posts on this case. Comments must be on the topic of the post. Readers (as opposed to commenters) are looking for what people have to say in response to the post, and will dismiss the comment section entirely if it goes into freefall.  Changing the topic in comments is known as hijacking the thread.

    If you cannot tell who a response is directed too, try setting your comment preferences to nested (under user preferences).

    We have open threads almost every day where readers can choose the topic. Because all of TalkLeft's posts since the week before the trial began have been on Zimmerman, I've limited open threads the past 3 weeks to any topic but Zimmerman.

    Perhaps now that I'm getting back to covering other cases, I'll change that. But I'm not starting a Zimmerman open thread because it will be filled by hatemongers in 5 minutes.

    Our threads close automatically at 200 comments. While we the only site on our server, there are 11 years of posts, court and leglistative documents and graphics on it. At more than 200 comments, the threads skew or slow down. It's my personal belief that by 200 comments, every position has been expressed, and after that, the threads devolve into spats between commenters.

    If you'd like to know the reason the commenting rules at TalkLeft are so different than those on other sites, you can read my explanation here, that I provided to another blogger.

    New definition of unique, maybe? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:58:04 AM EST
    Self defense laws in at least 22 states (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee West Virginia and Wisconsin) provide civil immunity under certain self defense circumstances.

    You know what I meant (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:02:56 AM EST
    The immunity hearing before going to trial on a wrongful death case.

    How do think Immunity is enforced? (none / 0) (#107)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:10:26 AM EST
    As far as I know, a 776.032 immunity hearing before a civil judge is unprecedented in Florida, too.  The law says immunity means no arrest, no charge, no criminal trial, no civil trial, but the law limits the remedy to the person who is wrongly arrested, charged or tried to the case of a civil trial.

    Other states have to be similar, because there will always be cases where the use of force was justified self defense, but the cops, prosecutor and judges press ahead anyway (technically against the law, but there is no remedy).

    Maybe you can clarify what exactly you mean when you say that Florida is unique in its grant of immunity.  The list of 22 states I posted is immunity in a wrongful death suit.  If the suit is brought anyway (and they certainly can be, plenty of unmerited suits are filed), there will have to be a finding by the court as to whether or not the civil trial will proceed.


    No it's not (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by txantimedia on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    MKS, quit spouting off when you're ignorant.  There are numerous states that grant immunity against civil suits after the use of justified deadly force.

    For example, here's the Texas statute:

    A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.
    IOW, if you file a civil suit against someone for a justified homicide, all they have to do is file a motion to dismiss, and the case is thrown out.  You may even have to pay the defendant's attorney's fees.

    Although Florida law explicitly states that you cannot arrest someone who claims self defense unless you have evidence to prove it wasn't self defense, every state is supposed to honor the US Constitution and not arrest someone without probable cause.

    Of course everyone can see how well that worked out for Zimmerman.  Nowadays, there are very few politicians or government officials who give a hoot about the Constitution.

    I find (4.20 / 5) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:16:37 PM EST
    this highly ironic. A self appointed neighborhood watchman gets watched by another self appointed neighborhood watch.

    I do not agree the first punch (4.00 / 4) (#55)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:19:55 PM EST
    is when the confrontation started....

    I don't agree (2.17 / 6) (#62)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:44:19 PM EST
    that water's wet.  Makes about as much sense.

    Right (1.80 / 5) (#65)
    by Char Char Binks on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:22:27 PM EST
    Because once Z exited his vehicle in violation of Florida's strict vehicle exiting laws, M had no choice but to run, double back, and punch him in the nose.

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:24:28 PM EST
    Then (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Char Char Binks on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:30:10 PM EST
    exactly what?  George made all the choices after that?  Trayvon made no choices, and had no feet to move him to the final confrontation?  It was all George, is that what you're saying?

    The pithiest (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:43:36 PM EST
    way to say it is what I recall Armando saying:  Just because you lose a fight does not give you the right to shoot the other guy.

    I do not agree every fist fight gives the other guy the right to shoot.

    And, one can provoke a physical confrontation many ways.


    it wasn't just a punch in the nose (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:08:23 PM EST
    it was a punch following by hitting his head against cement and the expert testimony at trial was the injuries could be fatal if not stopped.

    I've been trying to figure out where the line (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:08:58 PM EST
    would be drawn for those who see lethal force in this case as justifiable self defense. Guilty if there was just the broken nose and no head wound? Somewhere in between that and where it ended up? Would it really matter who threw the first punch? If so, why - someone could easily start something and end up getting the worst of it.

    Legitimate use of lethal force (none / 0) (#80)
    by Harold on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:43:47 PM EST
    Has nothing to do with how injured you are.

    Look at it this way (example from someone else): someone points a gun at you and says they're going to kill you.  Must you wait until they hit you with a bullet before replying?  In fact, suppose they shoot you and then run away.  Can you then use lethal force on them?  No, the threat is over.

    Self-defense of this sort is justified by having a reasonable belief that you are threatened with "death or great bodily harm" in Florida's wording.  The threat could in reality be nonexistent, e.g. in the above have the aggressor be pointing an unloaded gun (a method of suicide by armed citizen in a particularly bizarre case Massad Ayoob was involved with).


    Every punch in a school yard (4.00 / 4) (#91)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:22:10 PM EST
    fight would qualify unless the definition of what is "reasonable" is given some meaningful limits.

    guess you missed the opinion from (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 12:47:13 AM EST
    florida's 4th circuit court of appeals reversing a juvenile's assault conviction because the judge wouldn't let him  raise stand your ground when another student punched him on a schoolbus. TC v. State:

    [U]nder section 776.013, a person who is attacked is allowed to stand his or her ground and "meet force with force." It appears that the new law places no duty on the person to avoid or retreat from danger, so long as that person is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is located
    in a place where he or she has a right to be. § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. (2005).

    In this case, T.P. had the right to assert a defense under section 776.013(3). He was not engaged in an unlawful activity, and he had the
    right to be on the bus going home from school. He had no duty to retreat and, despite the trial court's misgivings, had the right to "meet force with force" if he reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself. Whether he was faced with "force" from
    A.F. and whether he reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent harm to himself were factual matters for the trial court to
    determine based upon a preponderance of the evidence.

    that's tp v state not tc v state (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 12:48:06 AM EST
    link is correct. Decided this week, July 17, 2013.

    An interesting new (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 01:34:30 AM EST

    Link to case.  (I could not get the above link to work.)

    T.P. holds that Stand Your Ground applies to public places--here a school bus. The facts involved punches on a school bus between kids in junior high.....

    This passage may place some limits on the use of the defense:

    We reject, however, T.P.'s contention at trial that a mere battery of
    any sort implicates the Stand Your Ground law. The statute permits a person to "meet force with force." A battery may not always be a matter
    of force. It may involve only an intentional "touching" against the will of
    the victim. See § 784.03(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Therefore, the mere tugging at a jacket may be a battery but not an attack with force which would justify the person to use force in return.

    "Force with force" sounds like a reasonable rule of proportion.  But the discussion above has been that a punch necessarily always implicates potential death.  I am assuming many would reject that idea, and that was the point I was trying to make.


    Same links (none / 0) (#142)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 01:36:57 AM EST
    but now the link I posted doesn't work--at least when I try it.

    my link works fine it is to (none / 0) (#143)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 02:28:49 AM EST
    the pdf version of the court opinion from the court's website.

    You keep saying a punch. That's not all Martin did. He also hit his head against concrete. A medical examiner for the state (Rao not Bao) and Di Maio said his injuries were consistent with being hit multiple times.  Root said he had no means of escape.

    You are looking for outs and trial is over. The state has accepted it failed to convince the jury and has not criticized the jury. You need to stop, your attempts to differ with the jury are irrelevant and I'm tired of pointing out you are wrong.I've been more than patient with you and my patience has gone.


    Before anybody punches you (2.00 / 0) (#117)
    by txantimedia on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:13:36 AM EST
    in the head, you need to google "one punch kill".  There is value in education, ever after you finish school.  If you do this, you will learn that one single punch from a teenager can kill a grown adult.

    Who knows?  You might even change your foolhardy mind that a fist fight is so innocuous that you're not in any danger at all.

    142 pound 22 year old woman kills 27 year old rapper with one punch

    restroom confrontation ends in one punch murder

    teenager kills cancer surgeon with one punch

    knockout game kills 72 year old man

    Chicago teens kill 52 year old man with one punch

    It should not escape your notice that the knockout game is essentially the same thing that Trayvon did to Zimmerman; one powerful punch to the face.

    It's despicable that the prosecution tried to minimize his injuries.  They would have been exactly the opposite had Trayvon killed Zimmerman with that first punch.


    foolhardy? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 10:21:07 AM EST
    So, you are saying one punch deserves a shot in the heart?

    Or that an empty-handed man (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 10:31:07 AM EST
    is more of threat people to Stand Your Ground against than a grown man at night with a loaded gun..

    "more of a threat" (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 10:48:44 AM EST
    So now, (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 10:29:07 AM EST
    if you have a reasonable belief that someone is going to punch you (which is now clearly, undisputedly great bodily injury), you can shoot them first before they punch (and hence potentially kill) you?

    It depends (none / 0) (#124)
    by cboldt on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 11:54:32 AM EST
    If you are a 90 pound woman, and the would be assailant is an angry 280 pound skinhead, the grandmother could probably justify use of deadly force.

    Two 280 pounders facing off, not so much.

    The jury gets to decide.

    There is a Florida case where a person throwing beer bottles at somebody (in anger) was shot, and the shooting was found justified by a judge in an immunity hearing.

    If you don't want to get shot, don't threaten or use force.  Even if your opponent is using too much force, you are shot.  Sort of like the motorcycle vs. the car - it doesn't matter if the motorcycle had the right of way.


    Add in Stand Your Ground (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 01:47:08 PM EST
    and Katie bar the gate.

    You do not have to retreat in public, and if you think the guy you just insulted might hit you, you can just blow him away.


    we have provided the (none / 0) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 12:49:09 AM EST
    case law and statutes at least a dozen times. Google is your friend. So are our forums and the search box here.

    plese stop asking the same question (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 12:56:18 AM EST
    over and over. We only get 200 comments. I have deleted the spat between you and CBoldt. No blog-clogging and you need to do some research before challenging people that have been researching the law on this case for over a year.

    MKS, (none / 0) (#73)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:04:40 PM EST
    If Jeralyn allows us to discuss it, are you going to help with the civil legal questions in any upcoming civil suits?

    I agree with you that some interaction took place prior to the punch(es). GZ plus Rachel both said so and even if we don't believe all of what either of them said, I think something verbal did go on.

    What do you think about this DOJ email thing? Do you think the FBI investigation last year shows the charges of racism are probably unfounded, and this is just "for show" to satisfy upset people? The trial is over and it just seems kind of creepy to ask for anything anyone ever knew about a former defendant.

    It bothers me to see them do this. I think the FBI investigation last year was appropriate, because it could have been a hate crime and if it were, it should have been prosecuted that way. But it sounds like their conclusions were pretty accurate that it wasn't a hate crime.


    I think the DOJ (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:38:31 PM EST
    investigation will go nowhere. From what they say, you would need to prove Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black.  Not gonna happen.  

    Just an investigation to dot the Is and cross the Ts.

    If Zimmerman keeps a low profile and does not go on television, write a book, etc., or otherwise indicate he will make money off of the whole thing, there will be very little monetary incentive to sue.  Without that, not even Crump would sue--he would just keep his share of the $1 million settlement from the HOA.  O'Mara could get his fees paid (and I am all for trial counsel getting paid)  through contributions without relying on any Zimmerman public appearances.

    Many here can explain the civil concepts. And I don't think Jeralyn would be all that interested in any follow on civil suits.


    Thank you. I'm sure you're right (none / 0) (#94)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:53:58 PM EST
    regarding Talkleft and civil suits. If there's an Immunity hearing, I'll probably watch it if it's online just because, until this case, I'd never heard of anything that could prevent a person from being sued in civil court.

    We had... (none / 0) (#96)
    by DebFrmHell on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:46:12 AM EST
    a thread or two on the civil case (The NBC suit) over in the Forum.  I am hoping that if any actions are undertaken that we will still have the Forum to discuss.  I realized most of us will have to watch cable to keep up though as I suspect that they will not be covered.

    when it began was irrelevant (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:10:42 PM EST
    to self defense. The court rejected the aggressor portion and the only thing it conceivably could be relevant to is the state's argument for intent on murder 2. For self defense, the only time that matters is the time of the shooting.

    This case has stirred up a lot of race hatred (2.00 / 0) (#53)
    by David in Cal on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:06:02 PM EST
    Imagine all the good it would do if our President told the public what his FBI has already discovered, namely that there's no reason at all to think Z is a racist. There have been a number of reports of violence or attacks that seem to be a response to this case.  Imagine the calming effect if Mr. Obama would tell the public the facts about Zimmerman.

    Rather than act to calm the public, this hot line keeps the hatred fulminating. I guess riling up black Americans helps swell the Democratic vote.  I am disgusted.

    Are you kidding me? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:08:33 PM EST
    Not you, Jeralyn, but the DOJ?

    Good grief.

    This email solicitation is nothing but an invitation to manufacture evidence.

    Exactly. If they didn't find it the first time, anything found this time is totally meaningless, imo.

    He's been found not guilty. He wasn't charged with a hate crime and even the prosecutors agree with that. This is like some kind of persecution. And prosecution by rumor.

    Why (none / 0) (#56)
    by Semanticleo on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:20:51 PM EST
    And juror misconduct is not in the mix?

    What juror misconduct... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cashmere on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:00:00 PM EST
    Please alert us of this..

    You'd think there'd be some way to spam (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:11:25 PM EST
    the email address they made public.

    or submit information showing (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:33:08 PM EST
    he had no bias. Shouldn't they be asking for information that clears him as well as that which would incriminate him?

    will be sent the the doj...

    They probably (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Zorba on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:02:40 PM EST
    already know your email and IP address, SUO.  And if they don't, I'm sure they can get those from the NSA.    ;-)

    Or when this is over (none / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:05:23 PM EST
    speak to a national audience about things we know that the general public probably does not.

    The two children he was tutoring, that O'Mara said last night he was still doing even though the program was disbanded, the two children he grew up with, the prom date, the homeless man, he even voted for Obama according to an editorial in a FL paper Sunday.

    I think he's owed a public explanation if they find the same thing the FBI did last year, if they're taking it this far.


    A quick trip (none / 0) (#18)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:10:02 PM EST
    around the web. Indicts that spamming is well underway.

    Some are rather creative and humorous.


    Adding: Don't spam the box (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:11:52 PM EST
    That's not right either, and while I haven't checked, it could be illegal. It could also get you on a watch list of some sort.

    thx and agree. (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:14:38 PM EST
    see my comment: #12.

    Really now (none / 0) (#22)
    by Adirolf on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:14:10 PM EST
    The "lead" here suggests "trolling for anti-Zimmerman tips". The link is to Fox News.  But even the Fox quote above states: "The department has set up a public email address asking for any tips or information regarding the case."

     I read "any tips" in a fair and balanced way myself. So the title characterization is unconfirmed. And not even Fox said "anti-Zimmerman tips".



    Follow the link on the Fox site to the (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:19:14 PM EST
    Orlando Sentinel:
    The DOJ has also set up a public email address to take in tips on its civil rights investigation.

    Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - who earlier in the day joined calls for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, said that later in the afternoon, she joined a U.S. Department of Justice conference call to discuss the prospects.

    "They were calling on us to actively refer anyone who had any information," that might build a case against Zimmerman for either a civil rights violation or a hate crime, Arnwine said. "They said they would very aggressively investigate this case."

    Arnwine said the call was convened at about 3:30 p.m. by Tom Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, and included representatives from the FBI, and several federal prosecutors, she said. DOJ officials also said they would open a public email address so people could send in tips on the case.

    That email address, which is now in operation, is xxxxxxx.xxxxxx@usdoj.gov.

    [I won't post the email address]

    As (none / 0) (#29)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:23:01 PM EST
    a person interested in protecting the rights of the defendant, how did you react to President Obama's remark about Martin resembling the son he might have had?

    You tried this already. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:56:20 PM EST
    If you don't know about the safety, you probably didn't watch the trial and/or know enough about GZ's athletic ability, or lack of, to make that comment.

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:09:03 PM EST
    the trial is over. this is not a post about the evidence in the case.

    Where would be a proper place (none / 0) (#24)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:15:21 PM EST
    to post the question to all the trial experts on TL?

    I'd like to know if the issue was raised and addressed at any point because it never has made any sense to me.


    Try the TalkLeft forums (none / 0) (#30)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:23:55 PM EST
    When you find a place (none / 0) (#32)
    by Harold on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:27:07 PM EST
    Link to it here, not the raw URL but use the link button right after the underline button.  I'll answer your question in detail; in short, it would have been of no concern whatsoever.

    there isn't a proper place here (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:27:48 PM EST
    for you to ask your question. But you can find every aspect of the evidence dissected in all its minutia at the forums.  Registration is not automatic, and since the case is over, I'm not adding new users now. If you can't find the answer to your question there, you might try any number of other sites writing on the case.

    We Tip (none / 0) (#13)
    by Semanticleo on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:02:31 PM EST
    Other than the fact that Holder is involved, I don't see a problem with this.  I think the book deal requires some more oxygen.

    How was 37 not aware of any controversy until sequestration?
    Was she on Fantasy Island for the past 2 years?  Voir dire surely had questions for jurors as to their knowledge of the case.  The book deal was killed after some tweets outed it.  If she was the foreperson and she cajoled other jurors (I believe the first voting was mixed) into accepting the verdict.  I want to hear more, and any person coming forward can be vetted at will.  This is not a problem.

    please discuss this on a B 37 thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:10:10 PM EST
    this is about DOJ and the email tip box and the imbalance of funding for  prosecution and defense

    Holder (none / 0) (#27)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:19:23 PM EST
    is Ashcroft.

    well (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:34:28 PM EST
    they don't call the President George W Obama for nothing.

    Okay people....just kidding..... kind of


    It was your URL (none / 0) (#31)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:25:07 PM EST
    highlight the word "tweet" or anything you choose. Then copy your link and click the little chain thing above your comment box. Delete the http stuff already there so it won't copy twice, paste and hit ok.

    Then you're link will work.

    Your comment will likely be deleted as (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:31:06 PM EST
    you didn't link correctly.

    To link, with apologies if it's too basic:
    -highlight the URL of the web-page that you want to link to.

    -copy the URL ("edit" then "copy").

    -come back to TL and write something in your "Comment:" box.

    -highlight the word(s) in that comment that you want to be the link.

    -click the "URL" button above the "Comment:" box, it's the button that has
    an icon that looks like links of a chain. That brings up a link box, and your cursor is automatically in it.

    -hold down the "Ctrl" button on your computer's keyboard and then type "v". That copies the url into the link box.

    -click "OK."

    -click the "Preview" button below the "Comments:" box.

    -if the preview looks good - ie., the word(s) you selected to be the link
    are a different color from the rest of the text - click the "Post" button below the "Comments:" box.

    Recall "witness 9," an anonymous tipster (none / 0) (#39)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:31:08 PM EST
    who called within only a few days of Martin's death and claimed to be a cousin of Zimmerman, claimed sexual molestation in childhood by Zimmerman (also a child then, almost the same age) -- and claimed that he was racist, because his family is racist?

    Is she emailing more tips right now to the DoJ, too?

    (What was the final resolution on her identity?  I recall reports that she actually was Zimmerman's ex-girlfriend, that the FBI did finally figure out who she was and interviewed her -- but then, she disappeared from the discourse, and she certainly was not deposed for nor did she testify in the trial.  But the early damage to Zimmerman was done.)

    How (none / 0) (#72)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:53:04 PM EST
    would her testimony be relevant?

    After a trial is over (none / 0) (#87)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:16:05 PM EST
    all depositions not turned into testimony are irrelevant, no?

    I'm talking about the new call for tipsters and recalling a tipster at the start, wondering (I've searched for and read the TL post at the time but find no followup) how truthful that tip turned out to be.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:46:38 PM EST
    my recollection is that the family talked the state into backing of based on ( what I surmised ) were psychological issues with the witness.

    Relevance may also have been an issue.


    what makes you think she was deposed? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 12:53:42 AM EST
    she made an anonymous call to the SPD after seeing on TV GZ has shot Trayvon. They called her back. She was never going to be a witness. They had 2 taped telephone calls with her, none of which are remotely relevant to this case or a civil case.

    I was talking to morphic. Not you. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:54:50 PM EST

    they had an expert (none / 0) (#54)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:19:16 PM EST
    come in and explain that the gun he was carrying would not go off unless you actively pulled the trigger with a concerted effort.  It's not like in the movies where you touch the gun and it goes off by accident.

    I think you mean (none / 0) (#58)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:29:39 PM EST
    verboten...... meaning forbidden, lol. Poor semanticleo, you are really getting the treatment today.

    Don't worry about it, this has been a stressful few weeks.  I think a lot of people have had posts deleted.

    thank you TheresainPa (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:48:33 PM EST
    I appreciate your help in answering new commenter's questions. If I'm not online or immersed in writing a post, it may be hours before I see it.

    it has been the other Teresa (none / 0) (#111)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:47:19 AM EST
    who has been so helpful.

    There will be no DOJ charges (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jack203 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:52:06 PM EST
    It's pretty obvious.  

    Holder, Obama the government are people just like us.  Make no mistake, they were extremely nervous the beginning of this week that the sporadic rioting would reach a tipping point and become nationwide and much worse.

    Obama, as always, was a strong voice of reason on Monday.  "We are a nation of laws.  The jury has spoken."  But it wasn't enough.  Holders speech was very clear that it would be difficult for charges, but they did NOT want to shut the door altogether on DOJ charges and piss off the rioters.  So basically Holder got up and said a bunch of bullcr@p to make it seem like they were on the case.

    Make no mistake, the top levels of government were scared 24-48 hours ago.  It's their job to be.  Let's hope things continue to fizzle down.

    Char Char Binks (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:55:56 PM EST
    Please don't fill the thread with drive-by one liners. Comments are for discussion. And some of your one liners are very objectionable (even though they support the defense) and have been deleted. You don't need to reply to every comment you disagree with, and sarcasm and one liners are rarely appropriate.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#86)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:09:14 PM EST
    Do you remember about a week before the trial ended, when Mr. Parks went on TV and said this case is NOT about race?

    I know you do because you wrote a good post about their turnabout. I don't understand why he's silent on this issue now and why no one seems to remember him saying it. (Not people here, but the people trying to make this into something it isn't).

    J, one more comment (none / 0) (#90)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:30:38 PM EST
    Remember the Crump attorney who went on Greta and said she was a "social engineer"? Here is the video of it. Greta brings out how happy everyone was with this jury pre-verdict, which we talked about the other day (mothers will probably convict him all the experts said).

    It's this kind of talk that has people so stirred up that the DOJ, I guess, felt compelled to do this. I hope it's on topic since it involves how unhappy millions of people are and the federal government needs to step in according to her. I think they should stick to what Mr. Parks said a week or so ago.

    4 minute video

    Comment was deleted. (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:29:55 PM EST

    To say the DOJ set this up (none / 0) (#97)
    by labrat on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:01:59 AM EST
    to quell the protests is ironic. Since the DOJ sent their CRS to "facilitate" the protests in Fla. Worse they were working with "activists" from Parks and Crump law firm. It's mind boggling. The Dept of Justice helped to shut down the SPD over an open and shut self defense case.

    Good God (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:22:00 AM EST
    Another glaring snapshot of how broken the Eric Holder DOJ is..  They have now managed to make me feel sorry for and champion George Zimmerman.  The social karma he will experience from this point on isn't enough?  The police state has really been empowered.  When will Americans say enough instead of just buying more guns?

    BS (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 02:30:14 PM EST
    MKS stated the law states about reasonable assumptions and self-defense. If you reasonable belief that someone is going to punch you with a killing blow (that is the context here: one punch kill) you are able to defend yourself with killing the person.

    However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

    sample jury instructions