|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,322
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,322 |
'Exclusive: Fired employee to file lawsuit against Zimmerman prosecutors' By Chris Francescani NEW YORK | Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:43pm EDT http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/16/us-usa-florida-shooting-lawsuit-idUSBRE96F1EL20130716(Reuters) - A former employee of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey's office plans to file a whistleblower lawsuit against George Zimmerman's prosecutors, his attorney told Reuters on Tuesday. The action will put pressure on Corey, who already faces criticism from some legal experts for the unsuccessful prosecution of the case, which led to the acquittal of Zimmerman for shooting unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman's defense has also called for sanctions against her and her prosecution team. Ben Kruidbos, Corey's former director of information technology, was fired after testifying at a pre-trial hearing on June 6 that prosecutors failed to turn over potentially embarrassing evidence extracted from Martin's cell phone to the defense, as required by evidence-sharing laws. "We will be filing a whistleblower action in (Florida's Fourth Judicial District) Circuit Court," said Kruidbos' attorney Wesley White, himself a former prosecutor who was hired by Corey but resigned in December because he disagreed with her prosecutorial priorities. He said the suit will be filed within the next 30 days. Corey and lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Corey referred Reuters to Kruidbos' termination letter, previously made public, in which Corey's office accused him of hacking confidential information from state computers. The six-page letter, dated July 11, charges Kruidbos with "deliberate, willful and unscrupulous actions" that make him untrustworthy and calls his questioning of de la Rionda's actions regarding the cell phone evidence "a shallow, but obvious, attempt to cloak yourself in the protection of the whistleblower law." BRADY DISPUTE Zimmerman was acquitted on Saturday following a five-week trial that riveted America and relaunched debates on race and guns. The verdict sparked demonstrations in some cities by those angered by the decision. On Monday, Corey told Reuters, "Our office adhered to the highest standards of ethical behavior." Trial law requires prosecutors to share evidence with defense attorneys, especially if it helps exonerate defendants. The requirement is known as the Brady disclosure. Kruidbos testified last month in a pre-trial hearing that he found photos on Martin's phone that included pictures of a pile of jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants and a hand holding a semi-automatic pistol. The Martin family lawyer, Benjamin Crump, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Kruidbos had emailed de la Rionda in late January and attached a report containing the text messages and images he had retrieved from Martin's cell phone, his lawyer said. Zimmerman's chief defense attorney Mark O'Mara has said he didn't receive the material until June, shortly before the murder trial began. Judge Debra Nelson ruled that pictures and texts from Martin's cell phone were inadmissible, after prosecutors argued that it couldn't be proven Martin actually took the pictures and wrote the texts on his phone. The judge has yet to rule on whether the prosecution committed any Brady violations by not handing over evidence, as alleged by Zimmerman's defense team. (Editing by Dina Kyriakidou, Martin Howell)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Quote:
Quote:
And regardless of the verdict I still can't figure out why so many are rushing to defend someone who caused the death of ANYBODY because he couldn't mind his own business like the police told him too.
No police officer told him to mind his own business. NONE. Since that never happened, your whole argument is lost because such is the BASIS of your point. The basis of your argument never happened.
A 911 dispatcher - not a police officer - told him "we don't need you to do that". Such is a far cry from what people like you continue to claim as fact.
That does not make Z innocent...it just makes your claim in that regard totally and completely irrelevant.
Yea, just about every dispatcher is totally clueless about their police department. 
If you had a clue about the word relevant you wouldn't have used it. 
I also stated that the National Neighborhood Watch completely disagreed with everything, short of the phone itself, and even with that I would wonder what they thought of some of his comments, Zimmerman did.
The "police dispatcher" said, "We don't need you to do that", but then again there you go with those stupid, ignorant, and irrelevant police dispatchers!
Like I said it amazes me how you can defend this guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
Seriously, you don't see a difference between "Don't do that" and "We don't need you t do that"?
One is a directive. Do not do that. (with implied consequences) It is a command. Do not do that. (or else)
We don't need you to do that. A statement that the person doesn't need you to take a particular action, but the person is in no way, implied or stated, forbidden to take the action mentioned. (We don't need you to do that ....... but if you want to ......)
The 2 statements are completely different. As with many aspects of this case, words have often been changed to create a narrative, because the overall case was so weak that the evidence alone could not obtain a conviction.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Quote:
Seriously, you don't see a difference between "Don't do that" and "We don't need you t do that"?
One is a directive. Do not do that. (with implied consequences) It is a command. Do not do that. (or else)
We don't need you to do that. A statement that the person doesn't need you to take a particular action, but the person is in no way, implied or stated, forbidden to take the action mentioned. (We don't need you to do that ....... but if you want to ......)
The 2 statements are completely different. As with many aspects of this case, words have often been changed to create a narrative, because the overall case was so weak that the evidence alone could not obtain a conviction.
Let's just say that the dispatcher's statement, guide, clue, phrase, belch, whatever was totally incomprehensible as a thought that should cross a mentally stable person's mind, let's also remember he called himself Neighborhood Watch even though he apparently had zero idea what the guidelines for that meant. He was a vigilante who shot an unarmed kid.
I don't care if the kid was a direct descendent of Bobby Seale and was shouting, "Kill whitey!" there are things that are very fundamentally wrong with what happened and I'm completely amazed that I'm expected to somehow see ways that it is right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
there are things that are very fundamentally wrong with what happened
I agree.
Quote:
and I'm completely amazed that I'm expected to somehow see ways that it is right.
Until you can accept that Trayvon Martin's behavior contributed to what was fundamentally wrong, I suppose you will be.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Quote:
Quote:
there are things that are very fundamentally wrong with what happened
I agree.
Quote:
and I'm completely amazed that I'm expected to somehow see ways that it is right.
Until you can accept that Trayvon Martin's behavior contributed to what was fundamentally wrong, I suppose you will be.
What?
He was walking home from the store with Skittles and Ice Tea!
If Zimmerman had not appointed himself the neighborhood Marshal Dillon Martin would be alive.
You completely exclude THAT behavior and go straight for, "Until you can accept that Trayvon Martin's behavior".
Wow!
What a severely messed up world you want to live in. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
DC was implying that both men's behaviors led to his death. From the evidence, that certainly seems to be the case. Do you disagree?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
No.
One was an action.
Then there was a reaction.
Then there was a gun shot.
Then there was a dead kid.
Go back to the first action and none of the rest follows.
It's really getting freaky creepy how people want me to think Zimmerman had a right to shoot this kid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
This may have been posted before, but I saw it last night and really struggled to make sense of it. Florida Mom Gets 20 Years For Firing Warning Shots CBS News Web Copy It makes you wonder if Rev Al and JJ are crazy after all! Updated on July 15, 2013 to reflect more of the testimony and aftermath of the case. JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order. CBS Affiliate WETV reports that Circuit Court Judge James Daniel handed down the sentence Friday. Under Florida's mandatory minimum sentencing requirements Alexander couldn't receive a lesser sentence, even though she has never been in trouble with the law before. Judge Daniel said the law did not allow for extenuating or mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence below the 20-year minimum. "I really was crying in there," Marissa Alexander's 11-year-old daughter told WETV. "I didn't want to cry in court, but I just really feel hurt. I don't think this should have been happening." Alexander was convicted of attempted murder after she rejected a plea deal for a three-year prison sentence. She said she did not believe she did anything wrong. Complete Coverage: George Zimmerman trial and the Trayvon Martin case She was recently denied a new trial after appealing to the judge to reconsider her case based on Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law. The law states that the victim of a crime does not have to attempt to run for safety and can immediately retaliate in self-defense. Alexander's attorney said she was clearly defending herself and should not have to spend the next two decades behind bars. Alexander's case has drawn support from domestic abuse advocates - and comparison to the case of neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, who has claimed self-defense in his fatal shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin. According to a sworn deposition taken in November 2010, Marissa Alexander's husband, Rico Gray, 36, said that on August 1, 2010, he and Alexander began fighting after he found text messages to Alexander's first husband on her phone. The two were already estranged - according to her father, Alexander had been living at her mother's since the birth of the couple's daughter nine days earlier, and Gray, a long-haul trucker, said he spent the night before in his tractor-trailer. Gray began calling her names, saying "If I can't have you, nobody going to have you," and blocking her from exiting the bathroom. Alexander pushed past Gray and went into the garage where she got her gun from her car's glove compartment. Gray told prosecutors in the deposition that Alexander came back into the house holding the weapon and told him to leave. He refused, and what happened next is somewhat unclear. In his deposition, Gray said "she shot in the air one time," prompting him and the children to run out the front door. But when Gray called 911 the day of the incident, he said "she aimed the gun at us and she shot." In August 2011, a judge rejected a motion by Alexander's attorney to grant her immunity under the "Stand your Ground" law. According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life." Alexander's case was prosecuted by Angela Corey, the Florida State's Attorney who is also prosecuting George Zimmerman. Alexander was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly˜weapon, and because she discharged a firearm during the incident, the case fell under Florida's "10-20-life" law, enacted in 1999, which mandates a 20-year sentence for use of a gun during the commission of certain crimes. Corey initially offered Alexander a three year deal if she pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, but according to CBS affiliate WTEV, Alexander did not believe she had done anything wrong, and rejected the plea. Her bet did not pay off: the jury in the case returned a guilty verdict in less than 15 minutes
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363 |
He attacked Zimmerman and was on top of him beating him. Zimmerman was following him. Those are the facts, what world do you live in. These are from a eyewitness, not some media talking head. Self defense, is not a crime, neither is following somebody strange in your neighborhood. Attacking that person and beating him IS a crime whether you choose to believe that or not, those are the facts. The kid could have just kept walking, but he chose to be the aggressor. He keeps walking, he'd still be alive.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,135
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,135 |
Quote:
and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life."
Just as in Zimmerman's case....stand your ground does not include pursuing someone with a firearm. Unless she was fearing for the lives of her children, she broke the law. I'm not sure how they arrived at attempted murder, unless the kids verified that she aimed at him or the bullet trajectory indicated that she did.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Seriously, you don't see a difference between "Don't do that" and "We don't need you t do that"?
It really doesn't matter.
They could've said 'I am telling you absolutely not to do this, or else' or they could've said 'Gee, I don't think that's a good idea, but it's up to you.'
Either way, Zimmerman's an idiot looking for trouble.
For his sake, I hope he sets up another Kickstarter fund, and uses the cash to move some place where no one knows who he is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,713
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,713 |
Quote:
Quote:
And regardless of the verdict I still can't figure out why so many are rushing to defend someone who caused the death of ANYBODY because he couldn't mind his own business like the police told him too.
No police officer told him to mind his own business. NONE. Since that never happened, your whole argument is lost because such is the BASIS of your point. The basis of your argument never happened.
A 911 dispatcher - not a police officer - told him "we don't need you to do that". Such is a far cry from what people like you continue to claim as fact.
That does not make Z innocent...it just makes your claim in that regard totally and completely irrelevant.
As an fyi to all, any police dispatcher would/has to say something to the effect of "we don't need you to do that". Saw it on CNN or a like channel in regards to this case.
The dispatcher and the police dept and the city and the, etc, etc, etc would be in a heap of legal trouble if they did tell him to follow. It's why they said it.
However, as creepy/irritating/ as a situation like "being followed" is, it's absolutely legal to follow someone. The only remedy is to file a stalking(whatever it's called) complaint, or circle back and break their nose and smash their skull on concrete. One remedy is legal and the other is not-so legal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
or circle back and break their nose and smash their skull on concrete.
It still boggles my mind that anyone actually believes this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
No.
One was an action.
Then there was a reaction.
Then there was a gun shot.
Then there was a dead kid.
Go back to the first action and none of the rest follows.
It's really getting freaky creepy how people want me to think Zimmerman had a right to shoot this kid.
when did I say I want you to believe that? all I said was I want you to see how the combination of the actions resulted in the outcome.
IMO (from the facts that I know):
Zimmerman followed Martin
Martin got paranoid because someone was following him (understandable)
***unknown happenings though the prosecution didn't seem to fight that Martin confronted Zimmerman***
Martin/Zimmerman scuffle that result in Martin gaining an edge, Zimmerman freaking out that his life was in danger (whether it was or wasn't, it seems he believed it was) and Zimmerman shooting Martin dead.
I don't know who was at fault, I don't know if Zimmerman was justified and the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to show it either way. That's it.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,263 |
Quote:
Zimmerman, who has a history of dishonesty and violent behavior, stalked the unarmed teen boy, and a confrontation ensued. After a scuffle, the teen was shot, which is to be expected given Zimmerman's propensity for paranoia and violence.
I think all that is, is media overblow that will stoop to anything to make Z look bad, nothing more or less
Dawginit since Jan. 24, 2000 Member #180
You can't fix yesterday but you can learn for tomorrow
#GMSTRONG
I want to do it as a Cleveland Brown because that's who I am.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Zimmerman, who has a history of dishonesty and violent behavior, stalked the unarmed teen boy, and a confrontation ensued. After a scuffle, the teen was shot, which is to be expected given Zimmerman's propensity for paranoia and violence.
I think all that is, is media overblow that will stoop to anything to make Z look bad, nothing more or less
And Nugent's not doing the exact same thing in reverse right here?
I wrote that sentence. All I did was take Nugent's style and went over the top in the other direction.
Why is one overblown and biased, but Nugent is 'spot on'?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Quote:
Quote:
No.
One was an action.
Then there was a reaction.
Then there was a gun shot.
Then there was a dead kid.
Go back to the first action and none of the rest follows.
It's really getting freaky creepy how people want me to think Zimmerman had a right to shoot this kid.
when did I say I want you to believe that?
Quote:
DC was implying that both men's behaviors led to his death. From the evidence, that certainly seems to be the case. Do you disagree?
My bad, but that sounds like you're asking me to accept that Martin was just as responsible. Do you disagree?
all I said was I want you to see how the combination of the actions resulted in the outcome.
You just want me to see how the combination of the actions resulted in the outcome, but you DON'T want me to think that Zimmerman alone is responsible, but Martin is as well?
I'm sorry, but it sure sounds like you want me to believe Martin is just as responsible and the problem with that is he probably would still be alive if Zimmerman would have stayed in the SUV.
I don't know maybe since he was such a drug addicted, gun toting, gangsta he would be dead by now anyway.
And I'm not accusing you of ever saying that, however others who want me to believe Martin is responsible as well often bring these points up often.
Listen, I know your only asking me to use a different perspective.
I have.
Zimmerman is still wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
I'm sorry, but it sure sounds like you want me to believe Martin is just as responsible and the problem with that is he probably would still be alive if Zimmerman would have stayed in the SUV.
well, that's the tricky part because it's the unknown. yes, if Zimmerman stays in his car, then nothing else likely happens. but, did Martin turn around and attack Zimmerman or did Zimmerman escalate the situation? did Martin start beating Zimmerman with enough force that he should have worried for his life or did Zimmerman over-react?
even with a very public trial, we still don't have those answers. without those answers, we cannot tell who was responsible and to what degree (just look at the Nugent letter then the one PDR wrote as a counter-example --- 2 very different ways to take the same situation. really wish we had answers here, but we do not).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,077
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,077 |
We most likely never will.
It's one of the reasons why I've pretty much kept my distance from this toxic 3rd-rail of a story... it's all too murky, too messy and too ambiguous to really come down on a definite side.
If I were pressed into an opinion, it would have less to do with the principals of this story than with the people handling the trial- specifically, the prosecution. The conspiracy theorist in me is almost convinced that the prosecution wasn't really all that interested in notching a win in this particular case. It's difficult to imagine a more poorly-handled, weakly-executed case- from the initial charges to the final verdict.
It seemed as if the prosecution didn't really care about the phrase: " to zealously protect and pursue a client's legitimate interests, within the bounds of the law..."
In this case, the State's client was essentially Trayvon Martin. Where was their zeal?
It should be added that I carry no malice toward the jury at this time. The verdict they rendered was due to the prosecution's mishandling of the charges from Jump Street... painted into a corner by the charges, I see almost no other option available for what I'd call a "just verdict."
All I know is this, for sure: even though I'm not a teenager with a hoodie, bottle of iced tea and a bag of Skittles....
...I'm staying as far from FL as I can.
just another .02
p.s. Ted Nugent? Not a fan of the ''Wangdang Sweet Poontang' [ahem] "artist." I don't really care about his 'politics,' his chitty, repetitious low-class noise offended me long before I even knew he had a political stance of any sort.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And regardless of the verdict I still can't figure out why so many are rushing to defend someone who caused the death of ANYBODY because he couldn't mind his own business like the police told him too.
No police officer told him to mind his own business. NONE. Since that never happened, your whole argument is lost because such is the BASIS of your point. The basis of your argument never happened.
A 911 dispatcher - not a police officer - told him "we don't need you to do that". Such is a far cry from what people like you continue to claim as fact.
That does not make Z innocent...it just makes your claim in that regard totally and completely irrelevant.
Yea, just about every dispatcher is totally clueless about their police department.
If you had a clue about the word relevant you wouldn't have used it.
I also stated that the National Neighborhood Watch completely disagreed with everything, short of the phone itself, and even with that I would wonder what they thought of some of his comments, Zimmerman did.
The "police dispatcher" said, "We don't need you to do that", but then again there you go with those stupid, ignorant, and irrelevant police dispatchers!
Like I said it amazes me how you can defend this guy.
Where did I defend Z?
I explained to you that the BASIS of your conclusion actually never happened. Perhaps you should create a new BASIS for your conclusion.
As I stated above, your completely incorrect understanding of what happened with the 911 dispatcher does NOT make Z innocent.
I have no idea what really happened. I do know that - prior to the shooting - one guy was breaking the law and one guy was not.
If that astounds you...then so be it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I do know that - prior to the shooting - one guy was breaking the law and one guy was not.
What do you mean by that, and how do you know that?
The way Florida law is written, it's entirely possible - and to an extent, plausible - that neither person broke the law at any point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Quote:
I explained to you that the BASIS of your conclusion actually never happened. Perhaps you should create a new BASIS for your conclusion.
As I stated above, your completely incorrect understanding of what happened with the 911 dispatcher does NOT make Z innocent.
I have no idea what really happened. I do know that - prior to the shooting - one guy was breaking the law and one guy was not.
If that astounds you...then so be it.
My bad, I'm probably just not figuring out what your saying.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278 |
Quote:
Quote:
I do know that - prior to the shooting - one guy was breaking the law and one guy was not.
What do you mean by that, and how do you know that?
The way Florida law is written, it's entirely possible - and to an extent, plausible - that neither person broke the law at any point.
Ok...so maybe they were both innocent. Maybe the two players are as identical as you think is everyone/everything.
However, the evidence indicates that TM was assaulting Z. That fact is very difficult to dispute - if it's not obvious to you, we should stop now and agree to disagree. What is not obvious is 'why'.
I don't think there is a self-defense law on the planet that would vindicate continual use of force/violence against someone in a prone position as was Z when the shot was fired.
In my mind, a claim of self-defense goes out the window when the defender can get away...just like with most gun laws and training for CCWs for civilians. If you can get away...you must first try to do so.
All I know is what I've read of another person's account of what happened...same as you.
You don't think Z's injuries were just cause for him to shoot a man who was ON TOP OF HIM...per his testimony. You don't agree that his broken nose and cuts on the back of his head mesh with his testimony. I don't know why you think that...but I disagree. I'm not interested in trying to change your mind or get a charge out of you.
However, the forensics showed that TM actually WAS on top of Z when TM was shot. Z actual DID have a broken nose and cuts on his head. We all KNOW that. The remainder of the story - and it's truthfulness - is up to the reader.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Maybe the two players are as identical as you think is everyone/everything.
That's your interpretation of a section of my opinions. You're free to have that opinion. I don't really mind.
But that's not necessarily relevant to the discussion. If you want to preface every discussion with who you think the person you're talking to feels, then you're limiting yourself.
Quote:
However, the evidence indicates that TM was assaulting Z. That fact is very difficult to dispute - if it's not obvious to you, we should stop now and agree to disagree. What is not obvious is 'why'.
This is an example of my problem with opinions regarding this case, on both sides.
Evidence does not suggest Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Evidence doesn't dispute it either.
I can list a whole roster of scenarios that the evidence doesn't speak to.
Maybe Martin made the first aggressive move. Maybe Zimmerman did.
If you see hard evidence to suggest otherwise, feel free to share it. I don't mean that condescendingly.
But what evidence- outside of your idea of the events - is there to suggest what you stated?
Quote:
I don't think there is a self-defense law on the planet that would vindicate continual use of force/violence against someone in a prone position as was Z when the shot was fired.
If we assume justice is blind (which it isn't), then, yes, there is.
If Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation, then it doesn't fit a lot of self-defense laws (but not Florida's).
Quote:
All I know is what I've read of another person's account of what happened...same as you.
And that account doesn't add up to me.
I don't know Zimmerman. Maybe he's a good guy. Maybe he's a cold-blooded killer. But I do know two things -
1) He's provided indisputable evidence that he has no problem lying. Again, I'm not painting him as a terrible person. But he told the court that he was indigent when he and his wife were having coded phone conversations about the $135,000 in their account.
Which, by the way... where are you guys on this? Shouldn't you be calling Zimmerman a lazy, worthless freeloader who expects the nanny state to take care of them? He was asking the taxpayers to foot his legal bills while he made out. The definition of Reagan's Welfare Queens. 
2) His story is full of holes.
Quote:
You don't think Z's injuries were just cause for him to shoot a man who was ON TOP OF HIM...per his testimony.
I didn't say that.
I said his injuries were inconsistent with his story. And they are.
I have Trayvon Martin's build. I'm not a tough guy. I'm not trained to fight. But let me straddle you and bash your head into the concrete three times. Three times. A quarter less than ZImmerman's most conservative explanation. You can resist these blows.
If you live, Zimmerman's injuries will seem like scratches.
Again, I'm not a tough guy. That's not a brag. Either Zimmerman's lying, or Trayvon Martin was so weak that Zimmerman's actions aren't warranted.
By Florida law, Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin.
But, then again, so was Martin.
Have you read the jury instructions for this trial?
A good lawyer could make a solid case for acquittal if Zimmerman caught up to Martin, said 'Hey, buddy', and Martin turned and shot him.
Quote:
However, the forensics showed that TM actually WAS on top of Z when TM was shot. Z actual DID have a broken nose and cuts on his head. We all KNOW that.
I've never disputed that.
All I'm saying is that those facts don't prove the opinions that you provide as definite.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
IMO Z doesn't even get out of his SUV without the gun.
Martin gets home drinks his tea, eats his skittles and watches the rest of the game, maybe talking to his girl on the phone, after he talks with the police about what he's doing walking through his own neighborhood.
So IMO there is only one action which caused this.
Vigilantly gone wild!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,821
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,821 |
Quote:
IMO Z doesn't even get out of his SUV without the gun.
Martin gets home drinks his tea, eats his skittles and watches the rest of the game, maybe talking to his girl on the phone, after he talks with the police about what he's doing walking through his own neighborhood.
So IMO there is only one action which caused this.
Vigilantly gone wild!
BINGO...best response I have read about the Martin murder.
Zimmerman got out of his car (against the advice of police) and got himself into a confrontation...a fight with a kid.
The kid got the upper hand on the "smallish" Zimmerman and rather than fight, Zimmerman killed the kid.
BTW...Ted Nugent is an idiot...
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I really have no idea what happened that night, and I never will. But if someone asked me what I thought happened, in the simplest terms I would say:
Zimmerman confronts Martin. Martin punches Zimmerman. Down goes Zimmerman. Martin and Zimmerman fight on the ground. Zimmerman shoots Martin.
I could elaborate, question or hypothesize from there, but that's the short and sweet of my guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,129
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,129 |
mac, your response is exactly why this case gets my blood boiling.....our President gets involved due to COLOR, media paints the LIE, and liberals jump on it to defend ANYTHING....it is a tragic....HOWEVER, liberals want to conveniently forget the BIG picture....TM wasn't in his neighborhood- his loving Mom didn't want him around due to his behavior, so he's visiting his Dad; tea, skittles, sucking his thumb, and dragging his pink blanket---NOT; what about his gun in hand, blowing MJ rings out of his mouth, naked girls in his phone, jewelry he didn't own.....if THAT is our President- help us.....Lastly, Z is/was/ a cop wanta be....thieves in area CAUSED this confrontation IMHO, a life was lost, sad, but understandable
"You've never lived till you've almost died, life has a flavor the protected will never know" A vet or cop
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,322
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,322 |
'WHY THE ZIMMERMAN CASE IS NOT JUST A DISTRACTION' http://nstarzone.com/NEWS3/231.htmlWritten By : Jaz McKay Those of you who think the Zimmerman case is a distraction are wrong. Dead wrong. It’s all a part of the plan, the agenda and has been so from day one. Obama knew, Holder knew, they all know there was no case. They knew that there wouldn’t be a conviction. That was all a part of their plan. Obama’s DoJ sends a bunch of rabble rousers to Sanford, Florida in March of 2012 to stoke the flames of a small local story in an attempt to stir up the useful idiots of the black community to take to the streets to demand that Zimmerman be arrested and tried for murder. There were no grounds for an arrest let alone a trial. The DoJ staged march’s, rally’s and townhall meetings to further the Obama agenda that America is a racist nation that would not even seek justice for the shooting of a poor little black baby boy by an evil, gun toting white man. (Who happened to be half Hispanic.) Then the pressure is on the DA and local police. When the Chief of police refuses to arrest Zimmerman what happens? The operatives of the Obama DoJ pressure the city to fire Bill Lee. They fold and they do just that. With a new police chief in place, and an Obama selected State Attorney to call for a special prosecutor the case then moves forward. All along they knew they had no case. They knew they would lose. They knew that Zimmerman would walk but that was OK. That didn’t matter; in fact that was what they wanted. Because if Zimmerman had been convicted how could they then tell the idiots that justice was not equal for a young black child? How could they advance the agenda of a racist America if it appeared that justice had prevailed and the evil white – Hispanic killer was going to jail? So when Zimmerman is acquitted this works perfectly into the hands of Obama and his Alinsky style followers. This way he can decry to the masses as he did Friday afternoon that the system just didn’t work. That it’s now legal to shoot young black babies in the streets of America. Oh I know he said “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works.” But what was he really saying? “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works. But maybe we need to change that system.” That is what he meant, and that’s what the useful idiots heard. Believe you me. So Friday Obama takes to the stage to further fan the flames of hatred and division in America by declaring that this was a case based solely on racial profiling and a racist system of justice. Not to mention the “stand your ground law” and CCW permit holders. I’m telling you that this is a very important story! Not a red herring to distract you away from the IRS, NSA or Benghazi scandals. No this case is equally as important as all of those. In fact this is just the latest in a LONG list of scandals involving Obama. The most dangerous man in America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537 |
Quote:
'WHY THE ZIMMERMAN CASE IS NOT JUST A DISTRACTION'
http://nstarzone.com/NEWS3/231.html
Written By : Jaz McKay
Those of you who think the Zimmerman case is a distraction are wrong. Dead wrong. It’s all a part of the plan, the agenda and has been so from day one. Obama knew, Holder knew, they all know there was no case. They knew that there wouldn’t be a conviction. That was all a part of their plan.
Obama’s DoJ sends a bunch of rabble rousers to Sanford, Florida in March of 2012 to stoke the flames of a small local story in an attempt to stir up the useful idiots of the black community to take to the streets to demand that Zimmerman be arrested and tried for murder.
There were no grounds for an arrest let alone a trial. The DoJ staged march’s, rally’s and townhall meetings to further the Obama agenda that America is a racist nation that would not even seek justice for the shooting of a poor little black baby boy by an evil, gun toting white man. (Who happened to be half Hispanic.)
Then the pressure is on the DA and local police. When the Chief of police refuses to arrest Zimmerman what happens? The operatives of the Obama DoJ pressure the city to fire Bill Lee. They fold and they do just that. With a new police chief in place, and an Obama selected State Attorney to call for a special prosecutor the case then moves forward.
All along they knew they had no case. They knew they would lose. They knew that Zimmerman would walk but that was OK. That didn’t matter; in fact that was what they wanted. Because if Zimmerman had been convicted how could they then tell the idiots that justice was not equal for a young black child? How could they advance the agenda of a racist America if it appeared that justice had prevailed and the evil white – Hispanic killer was going to jail?
So when Zimmerman is acquitted this works perfectly into the hands of Obama and his Alinsky style followers. This way he can decry to the masses as he did Friday afternoon that the system just didn’t work. That it’s now legal to shoot young black babies in the streets of America.
Oh I know he said “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works.” But what was he really saying? “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works. But maybe we need to change that system.” That is what he meant, and that’s what the useful idiots heard. Believe you me.
So Friday Obama takes to the stage to further fan the flames of hatred and division in America by declaring that this was a case based solely on racial profiling and a racist system of justice. Not to mention the “stand your ground law” and CCW permit holders.
I’m telling you that this is a very important story! Not a red herring to distract you away from the IRS, NSA or Benghazi scandals. No this case is equally as important as all of those. In fact this is just the latest in a LONG list of scandals involving Obama. The most dangerous man in America.
BREAK OUT THE TIN FOIL HATS! THE BLACK PRESIDENT IS MAKING A SPEECH!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
'WHY THE ZIMMERMAN CASE IS NOT JUST A DISTRACTION'
http://nstarzone.com/NEWS3/231.html
Written By : Jaz McKay
Those of you who think the Zimmerman case is a distraction are wrong. Dead wrong. It’s all a part of the plan, the agenda and has been so from day one. Obama knew, Holder knew, they all know there was no case. They knew that there wouldn’t be a conviction. That was all a part of their plan.
Obama’s DoJ sends a bunch of rabble rousers to Sanford, Florida in March of 2012 to stoke the flames of a small local story in an attempt to stir up the useful idiots of the black community to take to the streets to demand that Zimmerman be arrested and tried for murder.
There were no grounds for an arrest let alone a trial. The DoJ staged march’s, rally’s and townhall meetings to further the Obama agenda that America is a racist nation that would not even seek justice for the shooting of a poor little black baby boy by an evil, gun toting white man. (Who happened to be half Hispanic.)
Then the pressure is on the DA and local police. When the Chief of police refuses to arrest Zimmerman what happens? The operatives of the Obama DoJ pressure the city to fire Bill Lee. They fold and they do just that. With a new police chief in place, and an Obama selected State Attorney to call for a special prosecutor the case then moves forward.
All along they knew they had no case. They knew they would lose. They knew that Zimmerman would walk but that was OK. That didn’t matter; in fact that was what they wanted. Because if Zimmerman had been convicted how could they then tell the idiots that justice was not equal for a young black child? How could they advance the agenda of a racist America if it appeared that justice had prevailed and the evil white – HispaZic killer was going to jail?
So when Zimmerman is acquitted this works perfectly into the hands of Obama and his Alinsky style followers. This way he can decry to the masses as he did Friday afternoon that the system just didn’t work. That it’s now legal to shoot young black babies in the streets of America.
Oh I know he said “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works.” But what was he really saying? “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works. But maybe we need to change that system.” That is what he meant, and that’s what the useful idiots heard. Believe you me.
So Friday Obama takes to the stage to further fan the flames of hatred and division in America by declaring that this was a case based solely on racial profiling and a racist system of justice. Not to mention the “stand your ground law” and CCW permit holders.
I’m telling you that this is a very important story! Not a red herring to distract you away from the IRS, NSA or Benghazi scandals. No this case is equally as important as all of those. In fact this is just the latest in a LONG list of scandals involving Obama. The most dangerous man in America.
This is pretty priceless.
Unfortunately, you just know there's a whole host of rubes out there who will read it and nod.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,469
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,469 |
J/C
i wish i can post on here more, but the military has got me extra busy.
i understand this type of stuff happens all the time across America. really the only reasons this is even national news is because 1. its was a minor, and 2. it's florida.
but as a black/puerto rican, i have to ask the obvious question:
if the kid was white, does he get shot and/or followed?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423 |
Quote:
J/C
i wish i can post on here more, but the military has got me extra busy.
i understand this type of stuff happens all the time across America. really the only reasons this is even national news is because 1. its was a minor, and 2. it's florida.
but as a black/puerto rican, i have to ask the obvious question:
if the kid was white, does he get shot and/or followed?
I dunno. Ask the Hispanic guy who did the shooting. Since he did not know for sure if Martin was Black or White when he was on the phone with the 911 dispatcher, I would assume that it probably would have been the same outcome if it was a White kid who circled back and confronted Zimmerman, and who then attacked him.
You know what I have told my nieces and nephews for the past several years about fighting? Be very careful, because you never know if the other person has a gun. (especially in this day and age) It's all well and good to be a badass, but if you have to fight a gun, you will probably lose. If you can get away from that type of a situation without fighting, that's probably the better way to go.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I would assume that it probably would have been the same outcome if it was a White kid who circled back and confronted Zimmerman, and who then attacked him.
Why are so many willing to accept this as fact?
I mean, I'm not saying that isn't what happened, but there isn't much evidence to show it. Just the word of one man whose word is pretty unreliable.
As to the other poster's question... if Trayvon Martin was white and/or dressed in a J. Crew sweater, it's highly unlikely that any of this happens. That doesn't make George Zimmerman a racist, but it does highlight an ugly fact of American life.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
j/c
I cannot believe that so many people are so wrapped up in this case, or that they get so bent out of shape over it.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,322
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,322 |
A related article of sorts: 'BLACK AMERICA'S REAL PROBLEM ISN'T WHITE RACISM' http://nstarzone.com/NEWS3/227.htmlBy Patrick J. Buchanan In the aftermath of the acquittal of George Zimmerman, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton and Ben Jealous of the NAACP are calling on the black community to rise up in national protest. Yet they know — and Barack Obama, knows — nothing is going to happen. “Stand-Your-Ground” laws in Florida and other states are not going to be repealed. George Zimmerman is not going to be prosecuted for a federal “hate crime” in the death of Trayvon Martin. The result of all this ginned-up rage that has produced vandalism and violence is simply going to be an ever-deepening racial divide. Consider the matter of crime and fear of crime. From listening to cable channels and hearing Holder, Sharpton, Jealous and others, one would think the great threat to black children today emanates from white vigilantes and white cops. Hence, every black father must have a “conversation” with his son, warning him not to resist or run if pulled over or hassled by a cop. Make the wrong move, son, and you may be dead is the implication. But is this the reality in Black America? When Holder delivered his 2009 “nation-of-cowards” speech blaming racism for racial separation, Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald suggested that our attorney general study his crime statistics. In New York from January to June 2008, 83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of all gun assailants. Forty-nine of every 50 muggings and murders in the Big Apple were the work of black or Hispanic criminals. New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly confirms Mac Donald’s facts. Blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crimes in the city, he says, but only 85 percent of the stop-and-frisks are of blacks and Hispanics. And these may involve the kind of pat-downs all of us have had at the airport. Is stop-and-frisk the work of racist cops in New York, where the crime rate has been driven down to levels unseen in decades? According to Kelly, a majority of his police force, which he has been able to cut from 41,000 officers to 35,000, is now made up of minorities. But blacks are also, per capita, the principal victims of crime. Would black fathers prefer their sons to grow up in Chicago, rather than low-crime New York City, with its stop-and-frisk policy? Fernando Mateo, head of the New York taxicab union, urges his drivers to profile blacks and Hispanics for their own safety: “The God’s honest truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these drivers are blacks and Hispanics.” Mateo is what The New York Times would describe as “a black Hispanic” Yet he may be closer to the ‘hood than Holder, who says he was stopped by police when running to a movie — in Georgetown. Which raises a relevant question. Georgetown is an elitist enclave of a national capital that has been ruled by black mayors for half a century. It’s never had a white mayor. Is Holder saying we’ve got racist cops in the district where Obama carried 86 percent of the white vote and 97 percent of the black vote? And his son should fear the white cops in Washington, D.C.? What about interracial crime, white-on-black attacks and the reverse? After researching the FBI numbers for “Suicide of a Superpower,” this writer concluded: “An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.” Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse. If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism, what does this tell us about where racism really resides — in America? And if the FBI stats for 2007 represent an average year since the Tawana Brawley rape-hoax of 1987, over one-third of a million white women have been sexually assaulted by black males since 1987 — with no visible protest from the civil rights leadership. Today, 73 percent of all black kids are born out of wedlock. Growing up, these kids drop out, use drugs, are unemployed, commit crimes and are incarcerated at many times the rate of Asians and whites — or Hispanics, who are taking the jobs that used to go to young black Americans. Are white vigilantes or white cops really Black America’s problem? Obama seems not to think so. The Rev. Sharpton notwithstanding, he is touting Ray Kelly as a possible chief of homeland security.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
j/c
I cannot believe that so many people are so wrapped up in this case, or that they get so bent out of shape over it.
I don't think it's the case itself, but what it represents.
Let's put it this way ... and I know that this could be said about so many things, but it's quite interesting in this case...
When this case first hit the news, there was very little information available. No one really knew a whole lot about the specifics of the incident.
Yet had you given me the basic gist, I could've told you with probably 90%+ accuracy exactly what any given person's opinion would be on the matter with just a basic knowledge of their political beliefs.
The compelling thing about this case isn't the incident itself, but the reactions to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I'm reading this going 'what the hell?' .... ...then I saw it was written by Pat Buchanan and everything made sense. This website is hilarious to look through, though. It wears it's racism and paranoia on it's sleeve and visually looks like something from 1997.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
Quote:
Quote:
j/c
I cannot believe that so many people are so wrapped up in this case, or that they get so bent out of shape over it.
I don't think it's the case itself, but what it represents.
Let's put it this way ... and I know that this could be said about so many things, but it's quite interesting in this case...
When this case first hit the news, there was very little information available. No one really knew a whole lot about the specifics of the incident.
Yet had you given me the basic gist, I could've told you with probably 90%+ accuracy exactly what any given person's opinion would be on the matter with just a basic knowledge of their political beliefs.
The compelling thing about this case isn't the incident itself, but the reactions to it.
The insane thing about this case is that from periodic reading here, I'm pretty sure that nobody in here knows any better what exactly happened than they did the day it happened, yet everyone is convinced that they KNOW whether the verdict was correct or incorrect.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Ted Nugent: Zimmerman verdict
vindicates citizen patrols,
self-defense
|
|
