Topic: The Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman Trial Thread

[AlanS]

But situations like this are by definition anti-civilized, and you better be prepared to make quick adjustments to that reality. That means using your 2-3 ton weapon as necessary. Absolutely under no circumstances come to a stop in a riot situation.

Which is one reason I drive a full size pick up. You can take out more proportional to the size of the vehicle.

[Libertas]

In chaos there is opportunity...'jus sayin'...

[trapeze]

But situations like this are by definition anti-civilized, and you better be prepared to make quick adjustments to that reality. That means using your 2-3 ton weapon as necessary. Absolutely under no circumstances come to a stop in a riot situation.

Which is one reason I drive a full size pick up. You can take out more proportional to the size of the vehicle.

You need one of those big and heavy duty cow catchers on the front. Around here they are used to mitigate the damage done by hitting a deer or elk at highway speeds. In the city they really could help preserve the look of your truck during urban rioting. You could also weld on some accessories like they did in "The Road Warrior" or "Death Race."

[trapeze]

Highlights from this morning's testimony:

The lead investigator in the George Zimmerman case took the stand again on Tuesday to answer questions from the former neighborhood watch captain's defense team.

Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, on February 26, 2012. Zimmerman told police he was pursuing the teenager because there had been a rash of crime in the area. A confrontation ensued, and Zimmerman said he was forced to kill Martin.

Chris Serino, the lead investigator in the case, had some tough questions for Zimmerman during their second interview together. Serino played Zimmerman's non-emergency call to police, pointing out a specific time where he says it would have taken Zimmerman a minute and 20 seconds to return to his car.

"You're in the rain getting wet… you see where the obstacle is here? I want you to think about that. I'm speaking for you... it doesn't sound like you quite recall exactly what happened at that point,” said Serino in the interview, which was played for jurors Monday. "It sounds like you're looking for him... you want to catch the bad guy. '[Expletive] punk can’t get away'... Did you pursue this kid? Did you want to catch him?"

"No," said Zimmerman.

While Serino admitted there were minor inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements, he said this is normal because people aren't robots. He also testified that he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth, especially after Serino bluffed that Martin's cell phone may have captured video of the incident.

"I believe [Zimmerman’s] words were, 'Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it,'" said Serino. "Either he was telling the truth or he was a complete pathological liar. One of the two."

"You think he was telling the truth?" asked defense attorney Mark O'Mara during his cross-examination.

"Yes," said Serino.

Everyone pretty much agrees that Zimmerman's story is true or, at the very least, there is no evidence or reason to believe that he has not told the truth. Which means that he was attacked and, believing his life to be in danger, defended himself with what he had at hand...his legal concealed carry handgun.

So, the prosecution is reduced to attempting to paint Zimmerman as someone who was looking for trouble and found it. A vigilante. Reckless. And a racial profiler.

That's their case. Guilt by attitude.

Which doesn't prove murder of any kind. I don't see how it does, anyway.

I love this line from the testimony:

O'Mara says that if you consider Zimmerman's story to be true, about his head being hit against concrete, "Do you consider him [Martin] to have armed himself with concrete?"

"Yes sir," said Serino.

[BigAlSouth]

. . .
The prosecution is reduced to attempting to paint Zimmerman as someone who was looking for trouble and found it. A vigilante. Reckless. And a racial profiler.

That's their case.

Which doesn't prove murder of any kind. I don't see how it does, anyway.

Hannity had a caller on yesterday near the end. Unfortunately, she didn't get to flesh out her argument as Hannity was up against the clock, but this is exactly what she was saying. SHE had looked at the call logs and SHE had determined what REALLY happened. Know what it was?

During the ninety second period after the dispatcher told GZ "not to follow", GZ sought out TM, started an altercation with him, knowing he had a gun, and used the baiting of TM to intentionally shoot him.

I hope imbeciles like that are not sitting on the jury.

[Pandora]

Highlights from this morning's testimony:

The lead investigator in the George Zimmerman case took the stand again on Tuesday to answer questions from the former neighborhood watch captain's defense team.

Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, on February 26, 2012. Zimmerman told police he was pursuing the teenager because there had been a rash of crime in the area. A confrontation ensued, and Zimmerman said he was forced to kill Martin.

Chris Serino, the lead investigator in the case, had some tough questions for Zimmerman during their second interview together. Serino played Zimmerman's non-emergency call to police, pointing out a specific time where he says it would have taken Zimmerman a minute and 20 seconds to return to his car.

"You're in the rain getting wet… you see where the obstacle is here? I want you to think about that. I'm speaking for you... it doesn't sound like you quite recall exactly what happened at that point,” said Serino in the interview, which was played for jurors Monday. "It sounds like you're looking for him... you want to catch the bad guy. '[Expletive] punk can’t get away'... Did you pursue this kid? Did you want to catch him?"

"No," said Zimmerman.

While Serino admitted there were minor inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements, he said this is normal because people aren't robots. He also testified that he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth, especially after Serino bluffed that Martin's cell phone may have captured video of the incident.

"I believe [Zimmerman’s] words were, 'Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it,'" said Serino. "Either he was telling the truth or he was a complete pathological liar. One of the two."

"You think he was telling the truth?" asked defense attorney Mark O'Mara during his cross-examination.

"Yes," said Serino.

The prosecution is reduced to attempting to paint Zimmerman as someone who was looking for trouble and found it. A vigilante. Reckless. And a racial profiler.

That's their case.

Which doesn't prove murder of any kind. I don't see how it does, anyway.

I love this line from the testimony:

O'Mara says that if you consider Zimmerman's story to be true, about his head being hit against concrete, "Do you consider him [Martin] to have armed himself with concrete?"

"Yes sir," said Serino.

Well, why not?  It's been the Presstitutes case right from the start.

Some nimrod on my local forum wrote, "If Zimmerman had listened to his boss and not pursued .... ".  His boss?  This is the LIV for ya, as a result of the "news" bytes they've heard; "If Zimmerman had just stayed in his truck and not stalked Trayvon .... ".  The edited clip of GZ's phone call to the police, i.e. "He's Black ..." was heard everywhere, the fact that it *was* edited to show Zimmerman in the worst possible light, not so much.

[Libertas]

Didn't I just hear on the radio how the dipshyt judge just told the jury to disregard the question and answer to the detective if he found Zimmerman "truthful" in his statements?

More proof the judge is on the take.

But getting points in and getting the jury to forget about them are two different things.

Still, not sure how impartial this jury is...

[IronDioPriest]

Didn't I just hear on the radio how the dipshyt judge just told the jury to disregard the question and answer to the detective if he found Zimmerman "truthful" in his statements?

More proof the judge is on the take.

But getting points in and getting the jury to forget about them are two different things.

Still, not sure how impartial this jury is...

What I heard was the judge directing the jury to disregard the question, "Did you find George Zimmerman to be credible" and the response in the affirmative. That seems logical, as it supposes that the detective has some insight into his credibility, as opposed to just relaying the facts of the interview.

[BigAlSouth]

Didn't I just hear on the radio how the dipshyt judge just told the jury to disregard the question and answer to the detective if he found Zimmerman "truthful" in his statements?

More proof the judge is on the take.

But getting points in and getting the jury to forget about them are two different things.

Still, not sure how impartial this jury is...

Under the law, the Judge is obligated to instruct the jury that way. I know its just terminology, but the "Credibility" of any witness is the strict purview of the jury. A judge is not gonna let any witness make a statement like that, when it's the jury that determines credibility. IOW, the prosecutor used the wrong word. "Credibility" is a legalism that carries much weight.

[AlanS]

I hope imbeciles like that are not sitting on the jury.

You do realize the people on the jury are the ones not smart enough to get out of it?

[Libertas]

I hope imbeciles like that are not sitting on the jury.

You do realize the people on the jury are the ones not smart enough to get out of it?

 

That!

[John Florida]

Didn't I just hear on the radio how the dipshyt judge just told the jury to disregard the question and answer to the detective if he found Zimmerman "truthful" in his statements?

More proof the judge is on the take.

But getting points in and getting the jury to forget about them are two different things.

Still, not sure how impartial this jury is...

What I heard was the judge directing the jury to disregard the question, "Did you find George Zimmerman to be credible" and the response in the affirmative. That seems logical, as it supposes that the detective has some insight into his credibility, as opposed to just relaying the facts of the interview.

  No one can unring a bell. The jury still heard it!!

[Libertas]

Didn't I just hear on the radio how the dipshyt judge just told the jury to disregard the question and answer to the detective if he found Zimmerman "truthful" in his statements?

More proof the judge is on the take.

But getting points in and getting the jury to forget about them are two different things.

Still, not sure how impartial this jury is...

What I heard was the judge directing the jury to disregard the question, "Did you find George Zimmerman to be credible" and the response in the affirmative. That seems logical, as it supposes that the detective has some insight into his credibility, as opposed to just relaying the facts of the interview.

  No one can unring a bell. The jury still heard it!!

Which is just the point I made earlier...this has to be the deliberate strategy of the defense team...don't want to over do it, but at strategic points it is a wise tactic to employ.

Still, I worry over the competence of this jury...we shall see.

[John Florida]

  All I'm going to say about juries is,remember OJ.

[Libertas]

'Nuff said.

[BigAlSouth]

From NYT: The Five Myths about the killing of Trayvon Martin

This howler:

3. A widely circulated photograph of Martin wearing a Hollister T-shirt shows him much younger than he was the night he died.

Those who fervently believe that Martin was a thug or a thug-in-training are especially incensed by the photo of him smiling in a red Hollister T-shirt. Not only do they claim that the photo makes Martin look more innocent and sympathetic, they also charge that it depicts him at a much younger age than he was when he was killed. Their assumption is that Martin is between 11 and 14 years old in the photo. For more than a year, some have been sharing what one reader told me was “an up-to-date photo” of Martin. The person in the photo is the rapper Game, who was about 30 years old when the snapshot was taken for XXL magazine in 2010.

Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump told me in February that the Hollister T-shirt photo of Trayvon was taken in August 2011, when he was 16 years old. That was six months before he turned 17, on Feb. 5, 2012. He was killed three weeks after that.

Anybody believe the lawyer for the Martin family that the cutesy lil photo of Trayvon in the iconic red Hollister Tee was taken when he was 16?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-killing-of-trayvon-martin/2013/07/03/0d76c176-e368-11e2-80eb-3145e2994a55_story_1.html

[Pandora]

Some will, because it "feeds the narrative". 

Not I.

[charlesoakwood]

Read there's video of Trey buying Skittles, the clerk is 5'10" and Trevon is taller and bigger strapping young man.  Put the clerk on the stand and show the video.

[Libertas]

Can't do that CO...it's raaaacist.

But yeah, do it anyway

[trapeze]

This is undeniably the stupidest commentary on the Zimmerman case (ever) and is unlikely to be surpassed.

I am tempted to start a whole other (2nd amendment) thread on this (and I will if asked because, what the heck, this is fabulously stupid and funny at the same time) but I am putting it here because it is relevant (sort of, in a psychotic disconnected way) to the Martin/Zimmerman story.

I actually heard this radio excerpt several days ago and I concluded the same thing (as this blogger). I mean, I already believed it (that Michael Savage is an idiot) from listening to him on occasion. I try not to listen to him...it's an especially miserable form of mental torture for me and I do not engage in it willingly. I feel very irritated for the wasted minutes of my life that I have had to endure his witless blather.

I know that there will be some here who believe that Michael Savage is a pretty good radio talk show host and a good spokesman for conservatives. Well, that's your opinion and this is mine. I think he's a world class stupid asshole.

My opinion is backed up by this:

Michael Savage Blames Zimmerman for Trayvon Death, Defends Snowden - Full Show - 7/1/13

Go to the 19 minute mark to hear the entire embarrassing mess in context. (He goes off topic at the 33 minute mark but gets back into it at the 35:40 minute mark...back again at the 40 minute mark and the gun BS starts at the 48 minute mark) The blogpost has an abbreviated version from Mediaite embedded on the page but you really should hear Savage's "logic" from beginning to end. It's horrid having to listen to this boob, yes, but I want to be fair.

This is the link to the blogpost that takes down this ridiculous nonsense point by point. It is well worth the time to read the whole thing because it is written by someone who seems to have a very firm grasp of the law and (unlike Savage) reality. Here are the final paragraphs to the blogpost...

For some time, Savage has been accused of being a fake conservative—that he is really a liberal out to make conservatives look bad (and make some money in the process).  Well, for me this is powerful evidence that this might be the case.

Not every conservative is an expert on guns.  I am not.  I have never hunted, for instance, and I have literally only purchased guns for self-defense.  I learned enough to learn my weapons and that is all.

But I submit that every conservative knows at least one person who knows something about guns.  “Gun nerds” is my preferred term, because it points out that it isn’t much different than being a “law geek” or “history geek” as I readily admit I am, or a sports fanatic as others self-identify.  For some people owning, firing, collecting guns is a hobby akin to playing video games or collecting jazz albums.  I might not understand why guns appeals so much to certain people, but I feel a similar kind of love for American history, to name an example.  And any conservative worth his salt knows at least one “gun nerd.”  Remember when Savage said, “many of you don’t own guns.”  He was trying to set himself up as some kind of expert.

I am not an expert on guns by far, but anyone who merely shops for a pistol will know that most pistols don’t have any kind of safety you can manually turn off.  That didn’t tell me Savage was definitely wrong, but it made me suspect he was.  It should have made him suspect he was wrong, too.  And people who actually own pistols more than likely would know that you don’t talk about the “top” of a semi-automatic, as Savage did, but you talk about the “slider.”

But Savage not only didn’t know what he was talking about when discussing Zimmerman’s gun (while proclaiming he knew something no one else knew), but he apparently didn’t know anyone he could call up and ask.  That says to me he is not a real conservative.

I suppose there is one defense he can offer.  I have argued that he 1) doesn’t know anything at all about guns and 2) doesn’t know anyone who does and therefore, he isn’t a real conservative.  But I suppose it is possible that in fact he is 1) a real conservative 2) who doesn’t know anything at all about guns and 3) is too much of an arrogant prick to actually recognize he needs help and to ask for it.  So if he wants to plead “arrogant prick” that is his prerogative.

I don't think that Savage is a "fake conservative" because I don't believe there is any compelling evidence that he is clever enough to pull that off. But I don't think he knows which end of a barrel the bullet comes out of. I don't think he knows much of anything about guns. Prove me wrong if you can but I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for a reply on that one.

Bill O'Reilly has been (justifiably) called Ted Baxter but if Savage had the same television following that O'Reilly does then that title would belong to him. Savage just makes sh*t up. That's the long and short of it. He comes up with an opinion on Zimmerman's guilt and then just makes sh*t up to justify his opinion. The gun "facts" are especially nonsensical. But then, so is the rest of it. Absolute bullsh*t from beginning to end. Perhaps he is mentally ill. Given what he says on this subject, that is a legitimate line of reasoning...that he's delusional, that he does not have a firm grip on reality, that he's not responsible for what comes out of his mouth and so on.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned but if you disagree then feel free to give it a go at defending this clown.