You're not allowed to beat someone up for following/stalking you.
You certainly have a right to defend yourself, with a reasonable amount of force, if you have a reasonable belief that you are about be physically harmed by someone.
That would apply, I think, if the person stalking you is armed with a loaded handgun, and they confront you, which is what the prosecution alleges.
The photos of Zdog don't indicate he was "beat up". He also refused medical attention, so how "beat up" could he have been?
You're not allowed to beat someone up for following/stalking you.
You certainly have a right to defend yourself, with a reasonable amount of force, if you have a reasonable belief that you are about be physically harmed by someone.
That would apply, I think, if the person stalking you is armed with a loaded handgun, and they confront you, which is what the prosecution alleges.
The photos of Zdog don't indicate he was "beat up". He also refused medical attention, so how "beat up" could he have been?
You may not have seen it because the prosecuter withheld it until October.
The issue isnt that she can't read. It's that she can't read a letter, she supposedly wrote.
From the article and video it's pretty clear nobody is claiming she wrote the letter. Rather, she dictated it to a friend who transcribed it. So what if she "can't read cursive"? This is a bullshit tactic employed by the prosecution to simply embarrass the witness and I'm surprised defence counsel did not object.
You're not allowed to beat someone up for following/stalking you.
You certainly have a right to defend yourself, with a reasonable amount of force, if you have a reasonable belief that you are about be physically harmed by someone.
That would apply, I think, if the person stalking you is armed with a loaded handgun, and they confront you, which is what the prosecution alleges.
The photos of Zdog don't indicate he was "beat up". He also refused medical attention, so how "beat up" could he have been?
You may not have seen it because the prosecuter withheld it until October.
The issue isnt that she can't read. It's that she can't read a letter, she supposedly wrote.
I didn't see that picture. Thanks. You sure it's him? The surveillance video shows no lacerations on his head, swelling of his face, black eyes or blood stains on his clothes.
He also refused medical attention. Plus, Zdog was armed with a loaded weapon. Nothing in that photo suggests an unreasonable use of force to defend against an armed confronter (let's not forget that under FLA law, Martin could have killed Zdog). Presuming that's him, of course.
As to the letter, my understanding is that she may have dictated the letter to someone else. So, if she can't read, she can't read. She probably can't write, either. Unfortunately, that isn't that uncommon.
* for the record, I know that's Zdog.. Just playin'.
Zimmerman repeatedly over the 6 months leading up to the shooting called 911 to report suspicious people he thought were responsible for burglaries.
Every one of these suspicious burglary suspects of his was Black.
Best guess, Zimmerman was committing the burglaries.
You're not allowed to beat someone up for following/stalking you.
You certainly have a right to defend yourself, with a reasonable amount of force, if you have a reasonable belief that you are about be physically harmed by someone.
That would apply, I think, if the person stalking you is armed with a loaded handgun, and they confront you, which is what the prosecution alleges.
The photos of Zdog don't indicate he was "beat up". He also refused medical attention, so how "beat up" could he have been?
You may not have seen it because the prosecuter withheld it until October.
The issue isnt that she can't read. It's that she can't read a letter, she supposedly wrote.
I didn't see that picture. Thanks. You sure it's him? The surveillance video shows no lacerations on his head, swelling of his face, black eyes or blood stains on his clothes.
He also refused medical attention. Plus, Zdog was armed with a loaded weapon. Nothing in that photo suggests an unreasonable use of force to defend against an armed confronter. Presuming that's him, of course.
As to the letter, my understanding is that she may have dictated the letter to someone else. So, if she can't read, she can't read. She probably can't write, either. Unfortunately, that isn't that uncommon.
I agree with you there if she never said she "wrote" the letter, and I dont think she ever did. So the article does appear to be taking a cheap shot. I'm pretty sure that's him. But is it unreasonable to use of force to shoot somebody who does this to your face if that person was the agressor? That is the $64 question.
I agree with you there if she never said she "wrote" the letter, and I dont think she ever did. So the article does appear to be taking a cheap shot. I'm pretty sure that's him. But is it unreasonable to use of force to shoot somebody who does this to your face if that person was the agressor? That is the $64 question.
The $64 question, IMO, is who was the primary aggressor: Martin or Zdog?
If Zdog was the primary aggressor, armed with a loaded weapon (which we know he was), then Martin has the right to defend himself, up to and including deadly force (at least under SYG). If Zdog is the primary aggressor, I don't think, under the law, he has a right to kill Martin simply because he got the short end of the beat down stick that Martin delivered while defending himself from an armed confronter (George Z.).
If Martin was the primary aggressor, which that photo does not establish, then perhaps Zdog gets a pass on Murder 2. The jury can still convict on a lesser charge.
I agree with you there if she never said she "wrote" the letter, and I dont think she ever did. So the article does appear to be taking a cheap shot. I'm pretty sure that's him. But is it unreasonable to use of force to shoot somebody who does this to your face if that person was the agressor? That is the $64 question.
The $64 question, IMO, is who was the primary aggressor; Martin or Zdog.
If Zdog was the primary aggressor, armed with a loaded weapon (which we know he was), then Martin has the right to defend himself, up to and including deadly force (at least under SYG). If Zdog is the primary aggressor, I don't think, under the law, he has a right to kill Martin simply because he got the short end of the beat down stick that Martin delivered while defending himself from an armed confronter (George Z.).
If Martin was the primary aggressor, which that photo does not establish, then perhaps Zdog gets a pass on Murder 2. The jury can still convict on a lesser charge
You're not allowed to beat someone up for following/stalking you.
You certainly have a right to defend yourself, with a reasonable amount of force, if you have a reasonable belief that you are about be physically harmed by someone.
That would apply, I think, if the person stalking you is armed with a loaded handgun, and they confront you, which is what the prosecution alleges.
The photos of Zdog don't indicate he was "beat up". He also refused medical attention, so how "beat up" could he have been?
You may not have seen it because the prosecuter withheld it until October.
The issue isnt that she can't read. It's that she can't read a letter, she supposedly wrote.
I didn't see that picture. Thanks. You sure it's him? The surveillance video shows no lacerations on his head, swelling of his face, black eyes or blood stains on his clothes.
He also refused medical attention. Plus, Zdog was armed with a loaded weapon. Nothing in that photo suggests an unreasonable use of force to defend against an armed confronter. Presuming that's him, of course.
As to the letter, my understanding is that she may have dictated the letter to someone else. So, if she can't read, she can't read. She probably can't write, either. Unfortunately, that isn't that uncommon.
I agree with you there if she never said she "wrote" the letter, and I dont think she ever did. So the article does appear to be taking a cheap shot. I'm pretty sure that's him. But is it unreasonable to use of force to shoot somebody who does this to your face if that person was the agressor? That is the $64 question.
The key phrase that question hinges on, though, is "if that person was the aggressor", which unless I'm missing something, has not been established in any way.
It seems pretty spurious to follow someone solely on the basis of them appearing "suspicious", with a loaded weapon, a preconceived notion about their purpose, and no actual evidence that they're doing anything other than walking, and then claim that they were the aggressor. That's the part I think I'm having the most trouble with.
Who knows if the court will see it that way, or if any previously unrevealed details will come up that would swing the trial one way or another.
Was reading a report that suggested it was fake, but ended with this update:
UPDATE: Reporter Evan Benn tweeted moments ago the following. ???Zimmerman defense team spokesman confirms photo, says Molly West ???is mortified,??? Instagram acct closed???Don West: ???We???re not always proud of things our children do, but we love them anyway, and then we move on.??? Spokesman: ???We understand the context of the comments with what???s happened in court this week are grossly insensitive.??? ???
Between this and the knock knock joke Zimmerman is building a case for an appeal.
Was reading a report that suggested it was fake, but ended with this update:
UPDATE: Reporter Evan Benn tweeted moments ago the following. ???Zimmerman defense team spokesman confirms photo, says Molly West ???is mortified,??? Instagram acct closed???Don West: ???We???re not always proud of things our children do, but we love them anyway, and then we move on.??? Spokesman: ???We understand the context of the comments with what???s happened in court this week are grossly insensitive.??? ???
Between this and the knock knock joke Zimmerman is building a case for an appeal.
Yeah, sure. Any appellate court would laugh an appeal based on such crap out the door in a minute.
in
Certainly.
Any ineffective assistance of counsel claim begins with a presumption that the representation was effective.
Not sure a tweet by counsel's daughter would even be considered.
They're discussing this on Hannity. Wouldn't normally watch something like this, but I flipped past. Wow. Fuck these people. They're making it sound like this kid was some savage MMA fighter who is at fault.
If he hadn't been followed they wouldn't have even needed to interact.
Okay, I get it, on gumdrop island where you live, only white people are racist and pointing out the. - unbelievable - fact that people use race relations to score political points is in itself racistn unless of course your pointing it out in someone you don't white. This whole trial is a farce, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt and it looks to me like "the son Obama might have had" just picked the wrong creepy ass cracker to fuck with. You have a witness who can't even tell the truth about her age, and another describing it as a "ground and pound" and that's for the prosecution. I would bring an abuse of process suit against whoever strong armed the DAs office from bringing this stupid case.
Also, making excuses for a witness's inability to tell the truth because, what,she comes from a culture that doesn't know the difference? Iis that what you're saying because it sire sounds like it. It's,tantamount to saying that she is incapable of recognizing one of the basic requirements of living in an organized society. THAT is racism. Holding people accountable based on the same standard is not racist.
Its just such a "retarded" argument, to coin a phrase, now somehow requiring that someone tell the truth while under oath is culturally insensitive.
I wouldn't be surprised if this case gets dismissed on a motionafter the prosecution rests. So fat Al better hustle is ass down to florida so he can whip another mob for CNBC - god knows they could use the ratings.
Okay, I get it, on gumdrop island where you live, only white people are racist and pointing out the. - unbelievable - fact that people use race relations to score political points is in itself racistn unless of course your pointing it out in someone you don't white. This whole trial is a farce, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt and it looks to me like "the son Obama might have had" just picked the wrong creepy ass cracker to fuck with. You have a witness who can't even tell the truth about her age, and another describing it as a "ground and pound" and that's for the prosecution. I would bring an abuse of process suit against whoever strong armed the DAs office from bringing this stupid case.
Also, making excuses for a witness's inability to tell the truth because, what,she comes from a culture that doesn't know the difference? Iis that what you're saying because it sire sounds like it. It's,tantamount to saying that she is incapable of recognizing one of the basic requirements of living in an organized society. THAT is racism. Holding people accountable based on the same standard is not racist.
Its just such a "retarded" argument, to coin a phrase, now somehow requiring that someone tell the truth while under oath is culturally insensitive.
I wouldn't be surprised if this case gets dismissed on a motionafter the prosecution rests. So fat Al better hustle is ass down to florida so he can whip another mob for CNBC - god knows they could use the ratings.
The idea that you have to wait until you actually suffer grave bodily injury in order to be in fear of it doesn't really make a lot of sense. But whatever.
The idea that you have to wait until you actually suffer grave bodily injury in order to be in fear of it doesn't really make a lot of sense. But whatever.
I agree completely with this but given the medical examiner's statement in contrast with dude's recollection of the incident, I don't think dude is painted in the best light.
The idea that you have to wait until you actually suffer grave bodily injury in order to be in fear of it doesn't really make a lot of sense. But whatever.
I agree completely with this but given the medical examiner's statement in contrast with dude's recollection of the incident, I don't think dude is painted in the best light.
After the state's case absolutely fell apart on cross examination of the pysician assistant who actually attended to Zimmerman, this is not going to be enough. Asking whether all people have perfectly round heads or isn't it true that a person can have a bumpy or raised area of their head as a normal state of affairs, and not solely as the result of traumatic injury? Really.
And Jonathan Good, another prosecution witness, who saw most of what happened confirmed "dark clothing on top, white or red on bottom."
I think its criminal that this case is being so grossly misreported because, if you aren't paying attention to whats actually going on, you would believe that Zimmerman has to be guilty, so that when he is acquitted - because it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" - people are going to think that somehow the justice system is imballanced, and that isn't the case. That's why there are all these articles on how white people don't understand Rachel Jeantel, but none of the articles will report on the actual testimony. The Slate article on her identifies one piece of tesimony, her response of "that's retarded sir" and they actually misattribute it to the question about whether Trayvon could have attacekd Zimmerman, but the real question was whether he could have been not telling the truth about his whereabouts. The press is trying to convict someone using race because they don't have the evidence. Like when NBC edited the 911 exchange:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy--is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
to
"This guy looks like he's up to no good. . . . He looks black."
It's a recipe for violence when the verdict comes down.
The idea that you have to wait until you actually suffer grave bodily injury in order to be in fear of it doesn't really make a lot of sense. But whatever.
Which would seem to support the state's case.
After all, it was Martin that was being stalked by an armed stranger.
The idea that you have to wait until you actually suffer grave bodily injury in order to be in fear of it doesn't really make a lot of sense. But whatever.
I agree completely with this but given the medical examiner's statement in contrast with dude's recollection of the incident, I don't think dude is painted in the best light.
After the state's case absolutely fell apart on cross examination of the pysician assistant who actually attended to Zimmerman, this is not going to be enough. Asking whether all people have perfectly round heads or isn't it true that a person can have a bumpy or raised area of their head as a normal state of affairs, and not solely as the result of traumatic injury? Really.
And Jonathan Good, another prosecution witness, who saw most of what happened confirmed "dark clothing on top, white or red on bottom."
I think its criminal that this case is being so grossly misreported because, if you aren't paying attention to whats actually going on, you would believe that Zimmerman has to be guilty, so that when he is acquitted - because it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" - people are going to think that somehow the justice system is imballanced, and that isn't the case. That's why there are all these articles on how white people don't understand Rachel Jeantel, but none of the articles will report on the actual testimony. The Slate article on her identifies one piece of tesimony, her response of "that's retarded sir" and they actually misattribute it to the question about whether Trayvon could have attacekd Zimmerman, but the real question was whether he could have been not telling the truth about his whereabouts. The press is trying to convict someone using race because they don't have the evidence. Like when NBC edited the 911 exchange:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy--is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
to
"This guy looks like he's up to no good. . . . He looks black."
It's a recipe for violence when the verdict comes down.
You are the one living on gumdrop island with this shit.
I don't doubt Zimmerman will get off. But the violence won't be because of the media coverage. Smdh
Even if it's self defense, shouldn't you still be responsible for provoking the altercation? You shouldnt be able to pick a fight you cant win and kill someone because you were losing.
There's got to be some culpability for initiating the interaction knowing that you're armed and ready/willing to shoot.
He could have taken a non lethal shot too, like in the leg. No guarantee that would stop a scared person who has been stalked, and now shot, from continuing to fight, but it would most likely put a break in the altercation. It's easy to say "shoulda done this", but I just don't understand how you can get away with something like this when the whole incident results from something you didn't need to do and the police said not to do.
Harvey, or any of the gun supporters, how do you rationalize guns in a case like this? If this dude didn't have one, it may have been a fight, but that's probably it. I highly doubt Zimmerman would have been beaten to death.
Not trying to bait up some nasty discussion. Just looking for some honest thoughts on that.
Even if it's self defense, shouldn't you still be responsible for provoking the altercation? You shouldnt be able to pick a fight you cant win and kill someone because you were losing.
There's got to be some culpability for initiating the interaction knowing that you're armed and ready/willing to shoot.
He could have taken a non lethal shot too, like in the leg. No guarantee that would stop a scared person who has been stalked, and now shot, from continuing to fight, but it would most likely put a break in the altercation. It's easy to say "shoulda done this", but I just don't understand how you can get away with something like this when the whole incident results from something you didn't need to do and the police said not to do.
Harvey, or any of the gun supporters, how do you rationalize guns in a case like this? If this dude didn't have one, it may have been a fight, but that's probably it. I highly doubt Zimmerman would have been beaten to death.
Not trying to bait up some nasty discussion. Just looking for some honest thoughts on that.
The other question is, shouldn't self defense - from a legal standpoint, at least in CA - be met with equal force? Punch vs. bullet doesn't seem equal to me.
This:
Controller_7 said:
I just don't understand how you can get away with something like this when the whole incident results from something you didn't need to do and the police said not to do.
Comments
You certainly have a right to defend yourself, with a reasonable amount of force, if you have a reasonable belief that you are about be physically harmed by someone.
That would apply, I think, if the person stalking you is armed with a loaded handgun, and they confront you, which is what the prosecution alleges.
The photos of Zdog don't indicate he was "beat up". He also refused medical attention, so how "beat up" could he have been?
She can't read. Big deal. Half of Florida probably can't.
You may not have seen it because the prosecuter withheld it until October.
The issue isnt that she can't read. It's that she can't read a letter, she supposedly wrote.
Dudes up in here acting like some creepy ass crackers
I didn't see that picture. Thanks. You sure it's him? The surveillance video shows no lacerations on his head, swelling of his face, black eyes or blood stains on his clothes.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/photo-gallery.aspx?storyid=249936
He also refused medical attention. Plus, Zdog was armed with a loaded weapon. Nothing in that photo suggests an unreasonable use of force to defend against an armed confronter (let's not forget that under FLA law, Martin could have killed Zdog). Presuming that's him, of course.
As to the letter, my understanding is that she may have dictated the letter to someone else. So, if she can't read, she can't read. She probably can't write, either. Unfortunately, that isn't that uncommon.
* for the record, I know that's Zdog.. Just playin'.
I think you have this reversed.
Every one of these suspicious burglary suspects of his was Black.
Best guess, Zimmerman was committing the burglaries.
I agree with you there if she never said she "wrote" the letter, and I dont think she ever did. So the article does appear to be taking a cheap shot. I'm pretty sure that's him. But is it unreasonable to use of force to shoot somebody who does this to your face if that person was the agressor? That is the $64 question.
You're right. Oops.
The $64 question, IMO, is who was the primary aggressor: Martin or Zdog?
If Zdog was the primary aggressor, armed with a loaded weapon (which we know he was), then Martin has the right to defend himself, up to and including deadly force (at least under SYG). If Zdog is the primary aggressor, I don't think, under the law, he has a right to kill Martin simply because he got the short end of the beat down stick that Martin delivered while defending himself from an armed confronter (George Z.).
If Martin was the primary aggressor, which that photo does not establish, then perhaps Zdog gets a pass on Murder 2. The jury can still convict on a lesser charge.
The $64 question, IMO, is who was the primary aggressor; Martin or Zdog.
If Zdog was the primary aggressor, armed with a loaded weapon (which we know he was), then Martin has the right to defend himself, up to and including deadly force (at least under SYG). If Zdog is the primary aggressor, I don't think, under the law, he has a right to kill Martin simply because he got the short end of the beat down stick that Martin delivered while defending himself from an armed confronter (George Z.).
If Martin was the primary aggressor, which that photo does not establish, then perhaps Zdog gets a pass on Murder 2. The jury can still convict on a lesser charge
It seems pretty spurious to follow someone solely on the basis of them appearing "suspicious", with a loaded weapon, a preconceived notion about their purpose, and no actual evidence that they're doing anything other than walking, and then claim that they were the aggressor. That's the part I think I'm having the most trouble with.
Who knows if the court will see it that way, or if any previously unrevealed details will come up that would swing the trial one way or another.
what the hell? is this real?
UPDATE: Reporter Evan Benn tweeted moments ago the following. ???Zimmerman defense team spokesman confirms photo, says Molly West ???is mortified,??? Instagram acct closed???Don West: ???We???re not always proud of things our children do, but we love them anyway, and then we move on.??? Spokesman: ???We understand the context of the comments with what???s happened in court this week are grossly insensitive.??? ???
Between this and the knock knock joke Zimmerman is building a case for an appeal.
Certainly.
Any ineffective assistance of counsel claim begins with a presumption that the representation was effective.
Not sure a tweet by counsel's daughter would even be considered.
If he hadn't been followed they wouldn't have even needed to interact.
Hannity - "classic self defense. It's a tragedy."
Aggghhh barf.
Also, making excuses for a witness's inability to tell the truth because, what,she comes from a culture that doesn't know the difference? Iis that what you're saying because it sire sounds like it. It's,tantamount to saying that she is incapable of recognizing one of the basic requirements of living in an organized society. THAT is racism. Holding people accountable based on the same standard is not racist.
Its just such a "retarded" argument, to coin a phrase, now somehow requiring that someone tell the truth while under oath is culturally insensitive.
I wouldn't be surprised if this case gets dismissed on a motionafter the prosecution rests. So fat Al better hustle is ass down to florida so he can whip another mob for CNBC - god knows they could use the ratings.
Hahahahaaaaa
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/02/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE9610TY20130702?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637
After the state's case absolutely fell apart on cross examination of the pysician assistant who actually attended to Zimmerman, this is not going to be enough. Asking whether all people have perfectly round heads or isn't it true that a person can have a bumpy or raised area of their head as a normal state of affairs, and not solely as the result of traumatic injury? Really.
And Jonathan Good, another prosecution witness, who saw most of what happened confirmed "dark clothing on top, white or red on bottom."
I think its criminal that this case is being so grossly misreported because, if you aren't paying attention to whats actually going on, you would believe that Zimmerman has to be guilty, so that when he is acquitted - because it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" - people are going to think that somehow the justice system is imballanced, and that isn't the case. That's why there are all these articles on how white people don't understand Rachel Jeantel, but none of the articles will report on the actual testimony. The Slate article on her identifies one piece of tesimony, her response of "that's retarded sir" and they actually misattribute it to the question about whether Trayvon could have attacekd Zimmerman, but the real question was whether he could have been not telling the truth about his whereabouts. The press is trying to convict someone using race because they don't have the evidence. Like when NBC edited the 911 exchange:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy--is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
to
"This guy looks like he's up to no good. . . . He looks black."
It's a recipe for violence when the verdict comes down.
Which would seem to support the state's case.
After all, it was Martin that was being stalked by an armed stranger.
You are the one living on gumdrop island with this shit.
I don't doubt Zimmerman will get off. But the violence won't be because of the media coverage. Smdh
There's got to be some culpability for initiating the interaction knowing that you're armed and ready/willing to shoot.
He could have taken a non lethal shot too, like in the leg. No guarantee that would stop a scared person who has been stalked, and now shot, from continuing to fight, but it would most likely put a break in the altercation. It's easy to say "shoulda done this", but I just don't understand how you can get away with something like this when the whole incident results from something you didn't need to do and the police said not to do.
Harvey, or any of the gun supporters, how do you rationalize guns in a case like this? If this dude didn't have one, it may have been a fight, but that's probably it. I highly doubt Zimmerman would have been beaten to death.
Not trying to bait up some nasty discussion. Just looking for some honest thoughts on that.
The other question is, shouldn't self defense - from a legal standpoint, at least in CA - be met with equal force? Punch vs. bullet doesn't seem equal to me.
This:
sums it up perfectly.