Reply With Quote
BDLR mentions the button he was wearing... but not who it was.
Well b_d, blacks do hit puberty earlier. You probably could have testified on Z's behalf as to being a pussy like that gym owner.
BDLR mentions the button he was wearing... but not who it was.
Wow. BDLR actually tried to say Martin didn't hit Zimmerman because he didn't have blood on his hands.
who was the button? I never heard.
"You can't say what happened at the actual interaction between them." Might as well let some people here make the closing.
ouch lol poor fuzzy
Benjamin Crump: Who Screamed Doesn't Matter
By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:23:00 AM
Unbelievable flip-flop. Benjamin Crump, the lawyer for the Martin family, was on CNN's Piers Morgan Live last night. When asked about the state's concession today that Trayvon Martin was probably on top of George Zimmerman during the struggle that ended in Martin's death, and how that impacts his and his clients' insistence that Martin was the one who was crying out for help, Crump said who screamed doesn't matter.
The cries for help, all of that is inconsequential when you think about who started this.
Inconsequential? (Start at the 3 minute mark)
[More...]
Then, in explaining his aggressor theory, he makes a claim that is wholly unsupported by the state's evidence at trial: "Zimmerman gets out of the car and chases Martin." Not a single witness testified Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Martin. Not a single witness identified anyone chasing Martin, let alone Zimmerman chasing him.
Piers Morgan then brought out a female CNN reporter (I didn't catch her name.) She said she was in the courtroom today. Maybe she's new to covering this case, and I don't expect show anchors like Piers Morgan to know the facts of any one case they report on, but they both seemed to me to be completely off-base in their comments about defense witness Olivia Bertalan. The reporter actually claimed Mark O'Mara may have taken too big a risk by calling the witness because the witness introduced the race issue by volunteering in her answers to his questions that the two suspects who robbed her home on August 3, 2011 were African American males. She thought O'Mara wasn't anticipating her answer, and it was a move that may backfire on O'Mara.
Obviously, neither of them attended or watched the trial on June 25 or June 26. Here is the video of the June 25 trial segment where the state argued it should be allowed to introduce 5 of Zimmerman's prior calls to non-emergency because they were evidence of his state of mind. To make its position clearer to the court, the argued the calls were evidence of Zimmerman playing cop, profiling young males because he found them su ious and for "other reasons" and reporting them to police, saying they got away.
Two of the calls pertained to the August 3 burglary at Olivia Bertalan's house. The calls were then played for the Judge, outside the presence of the jury. The judge sided with the state. Here is the video of the calls being played for the jury on June 26 during the testimony of Ramona Rumph, the records custodian for the Seminole County Emergency Communications Department.
I wrote earlier today on why the defense called Olivia Bertalan. I'll restate it here so it's all in one place.
Two of the five calls the state played for the jury pertained to the home invasion at Bertalan's residence.
It was Olivia Bertalan, not Zimmerman, who called police to report a home invasion at her home while she and her infant son were home. She saw the perpetrators, hid in a bedroom and called 911 at 11:00 a.m. Bertalan described the perpetrators in her 911 call to police as two young African American males. S ey Zimmerman also saw the suspects and provided a description to police.
Later that day, at 5:00 p.m., Zimmerman went to her home and brought her a new deadbolt because hers wasn't working. At 6:45 pm Zimmerman called the non-emergency number to report he spotted someone who fit the description Bertalan had given police of one of the suspects. The police did not catch him that night.
On August 6, Zimmerman called non-emergency again to tell police that the male fitting Bertalan's description was back in the neighborhood, and that he and S ey had just seen him again. He told police they might want to send someone over to Calabria Cove apartments because he thought that's where the male would run to. Again the police didn't catch him. The case was placed on inactive status.
In September, police got a latent print report from the lab which showed that two prints found on the wall between Retreat at Twin Lakes and Calabria Cove apartments matched someone named Emmanuel Burgess. Bertalan identified Burgess from a photo lineup and charges were filed.
Emmanuel Burgess, who lived with his parents in the neighborhood, was on juvenile parole and and in and out of detention facilities. He lived with his parents at Retreat at Twin Lakes, and was finally arrested in February, 2012, after another burglary at the complex on February 6. His juvenile probation was terminated, he was transferred to adult court, where Judge Nelson presided over his multiple cases, consolidating them. He pleaded guilty to both the burglary at Bertalan's home in August, 2011 and the Febrary 6th burglary . Zimmerman had nothing to do with reporting the February 6 burglary. Burgess was sentenced by Judge Nelson to five years in prison. The dockets are here and here.
The full police reports the Bertalan burglary are here (they will take a while to open.) The report for the Feb. 6 burglary is here.
O'Mara didn't call Bertalan to inject race into the case, and I highly doubt her description in court of the males who burglarized her home on August 3 was unexpected by O'Mara. He called her to refute the state's allegation that Zimmerman was a wannabe cop who improperly profiled young African American males by seeking them out, reporting them as su ious and claiming they always got away. (At another motions argument during the trial, O'Mara mentioned Emmanuel Burgess' name and reminded the Judge that she would be familiar with his record.)
Of the five calls the state introduced as supposed support for its theory that they showed Zimmerman's state of mind as a profiler and wannabe cop, two of the calls pertained to the Beltaran home invasion, in which he didn't profile anyone. He reported seeing someone who matched the description the homeowner (and his wife) had initially given police. The person he reported not only turned out to be the perpetrator, but the perpetrator was only able to be charged after his latent prints were found on the wall he had jumped over from Retreat at Twin Lakes to the neighboring complex. Burgess didn't just commit one burglary, but several, and he was found in possession of some of the stolen property when he was arrested. He had a long record as a juvenile and he lived in the neighborhood.
In the third of the five calls, Zimmerman didn't report anyone. He called to report an open garage door after 10:00 pm.
That leaves a total of 2 calls prior to February 26 in which he reported African American males as su ious.
In one, on Feb. 2, the male appeared to him to be casing Frank Taafe's house, located at the shortcut from the main road. Zimmerman said the guy kept walking up to Taafe's house and away from it, and he knew the guy didn't live there. By the time police arrived, the male had left. Taaffe was out of town.
In the other of the two calls, during October, 2011, Zimmerman called to report seeing two older (late '20's to '30s) African American males hanging out at the entrance to the gated community at 1:00 in the morning. He reported them for loitering.
After the CNN reporter said O'Mara had taken a risk that may have backfired by Bertalan's reference to the two males who robbed her as African-American, Piers Morgan responded, "The prosecutor should have hammered about this" and launched into some other ways the prosecutors had poorly presented their case. Maybe someone could inform Piers that the prosecutors knew exactly what they were doing by not questioning Bertalan further. Had they done so, Ms. Beltaran would have driven the final nail into their already weak profiling argument.
Further indication O'Mara knew exactly what he was doing by putting Bertalan on the stand, and that his purpose was to contradict the state's implicit racial profiling theory, rather than "inject" race into the case: Right after he told the court he would rest and before he called Bertalan, one of his last two witnesses, O'Mara introduced into evidence the 6th call Zimmerman made to the non-emergency line, which the state had decided not to submit. It's the call made by Zimmerman to report his concern for children who were playing in the middle of the street, darting back and forth. He was afraid a car might hit one of them. The dispatcher asked him what race the children were. His response was "all races."
*****
Now that the evidence has been presented, my previously expressed opinions on this case have only become more solidified. Looking to the future, and the legacy of this case, here is what I see. Keep in mind this is only my opinion.
Whether George Zimmerman is acquitted or convicted, and I am not making any predictions before hearing closing arguments and reading the jury instructions, the legacy of this case will be that the media never gets it right, and worse, that a group of lawyers, with the aid of a public relations team, who had a financial stake in the outcome of pending and anticipated civil litigation, were allowed to commandeer control of Florida's criminal justice system, in pursuit of a divisive, personal agenda.
Their transformation of a tragic but spontaneous shooting into the crime of the century, and their relentless demonization of the person they deemed responsible, not for a tragic killing, but for "cold-blooded murder," has called into question the political motives and ethics of the officials serving in the Executive branch of Florida's government, ruined the career of other public officials, turned the lives of the Zimmerman family, who are as innocent as their grieving clients, into a nightmare, and along the way, set back any chance of a rational discussion of the very cause they were promoting, probably for years.
The problems of racial disparity and arbitrary enforcement of our criminal laws are real, systemic and need to be addressed. Criminal defense lawyers see it and fight to correct it every day. From charging decisions to plea offers to sentences, the system is not fair and everybody knows it.
But this case has never been representative of those problems. And perhaps most unfortunate of all, as a result of the false narrative created by the lawyers for grieving parents who tragically lost their son -- a narrative perpetuated by a complicit and ratings-hungry media -- any attempt at meaningful reform is likely to fall on deaf ears for years to come.
< TalkLeft Appreciation Week | Zimmerman: Jury Instructions >
The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news
Menu
Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy | DMCA/ Infringement Notice Policy
Search
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7...Doesn-t-Matter
I don't understand the prosecutions stradegy here. He continues to create his own reasonable doubt. He says that Goode did not see the hands and Zimmerman could have had the gun in his hand the whole time and Martin was defending himself. If you say that then you could just as easeily say that Goode could not see his hands and that he did not have a gun in his hand and Martin was beating Zimmerman as punishment for following him.
Look, I just created reasonable doubt.
BDLR logical gem. Why wasn't his jacket all ripped up from being slammed on the ground. Maybe because the ground was wet and the evidence suggests that his body was mostly on the wet grass and his hear over the sidewalk. The police testified that the evidence suggested that the clothes were wet from the rain and grass.
This guy is throwing so much crap at the wall hoping something sticks. This is why I tend to hate prosecutors.
So tell me how does this temporal order negate the fact that Zimmerman chased after a kid that he saw perform no criminal activity that was trying to run away from him? That is the salient point.
And how in the is 'we don't need you to do that' not a recommendation. I agree that it could not be construed as an order but the suggestion was obvious. He continued doing it anyway.
And this is what I am talking about the Zimmerman defense team jerking each other off. Nice analysis, dimwit.
Thanks
I have seen a kid with his head pounded into the concrete. If you think the injuries are consistent with that despite the ME then your selection bias is pretty damn obvious.
Of course they are not consistent with what you've seen, the kid you saw obviously didn't have a gun to stop his attacker from pounding his head into the concrete.
You saying those 2 little bitty ass cuts are consistent with getting your head bashed on concrete over 25 times?
Great another dimwit Zimmerman slobber.
Well, got to watch a lot of the prosecutions close. It was pretty much smoke and mirrors. I have felt sorry for these guys from the beginning because they got railroaded into taking such an awful case. That being said, they did as good a job as they could with it. Funny close, though. Normally a prosecution is hammering down the nails in the coffin so there is no doubt of guilt. This was more like they were trying to pull the defenses nails out and create reasonable doubt that Zimmerman went on a manhunt to kill Martin...creating reasonable doubt is what the defense normally does. 2/3 of it was nit picking minor discrepancies in Zimmerman's multiple interviews with LE. Hardly a ringing proof of Murder 2 which was their obligation as the prosecution.
I was implying that Zimmerman's injuries were obviously not as severe as what Fuzzy was describing, because one had a gun to stop the attack while the other didn't. I thought that was pretty obvious but apparently you needed help.
yea crazy case indeed. it was obvious the wife beater profiled and stalked a teen who was forced to stand his ground. teen rightfully defended himself and whooped the cowards ass. if the zimmerman walks this will be a victory for cowards worldwide. all white jury, sorry ass prosecution team, trayvon deserved better.
Last edited by Trill Clinton; 07-11-2013 at 05:07 PM.
Manslaughter…15 years…
This is ironic as will be doemonstrated.
The bolded portion outlines how this is nothing remotely like specific analysis but instead a lame ass attempt at emotional appeal. It's like you are mentall yincapable of talking about specifics but instead degrade into melodrama. Now how about you try and make a wager as if that is a meaningful discussion.I have felt sorry for these guys from the beginning because they got railroaded into taking such an awful case. That being said, they did as good a job as they could with it.
Funny close, though. Normally a prosecution is hammering down the nails in the coffin so there is no doubt of guilt. This was more like they were trying to pull the defenses nails out and create reasonable doubt that Zimmerman went on a manhunt to kill Martin...creating reasonable doubt is what the defense normally does. 2/3 of it was nit picking minor discrepancies in Zimmerman's multiple interviews with LE. Hardly a ringing proof of Murder 2 which was their obligation as the prosecution.
I am not sure I understand your question. I think you give way to much weight to the dispatcher's comment. Whether it was an instruction, recommendation, order or suggesstion does not matter. Zimmerman was not breaking a law and to the best of our knowledge, had lost sight of Martin at the point where the dispatcher told him that "we don't need you to follow him", at least he indicates as much in his call.
Next, you are incorrectly assuming that Martin ran away. I could just as logically conclude from the evidence presented that Martin was hiding with the intent to assault Zimmerman. Martin had plenty of time to run to his house. It could reasonably be argued that this would be what most reasonable people would do in a similar cir stance. If you cannot now prove that Martin did not assault Zimmerman, then I don't see have you have met your burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.
One more point from your comment, you note that Zimmerman did not witness Martin commit a criminal act or perform criminal activity. If he had, would he have been justified in then following Martin? The reason I bring this up is because you are falling for exactly what the prosecution is trying to sell: that hindsight should be sufficient to convict Zimmerman. The prosecution has to prove two things which they have woefully failed to do and that is show the elements of 2nd degree murder (and now manslaughter) and that Zimmerman had no cause for self-defense as defined by Florida law. Because they cannot prove the elements, they try to confuse the jury with witness statements that testified without any certainty as to what they saw and irrelevant information such as the purchase of ice tea and skittles.
Lets presume for a second that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, went after him with the intent to kill him, had his gun drawn and everything, Martin then jumps out of nowhere knocking Zimmerman down and the proceeds to beat the out of him to the point that a reasonable person would conclude (subjective conclusion) that their life is in danger or they could suffer serious bodily injury. Would his claim of self-defense then be justified? My point is that what really matters in this case, and I am focusing on Self-Defense not the second degree charge, is to forget all the irrelvant facts of how good or bad Zimmerman and Martin are. Can you reasonably believe that Zimmerman felt his life was ever in danager or he was about to suffer serious bodliy harm. If you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not feel either of these two things during their confrontation, self-defense has been met.
Finally, I disagree with your facts. You say that after the dispatcher told him that "we don't need you to follow him" that Zimmerman continues to do it anyway. I hear Zimmerman say "okay" ant then proceed to tell the dispatcher that Martin got away and where to have the cops meet him. I take it as Zimmerman had stopped following Martin and was returning to his car. Its not the defense's burden to prove it, can the prosecution prove that Zimmerman continue the pursuit?
Just out of curiosity did you read the case law I presented. Do you still disagree that the prosecution has the burden of proof to disprove self-defense?
The only problem is that according to testimony given he did get his head beat in. What it looks like to me is that he got popped in the nose fell down and hit his head.
I have seen a guy stomped so bad that it caused brain damage before we pulled the guys off of him. I have hurt myself worse slipping in the shower.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
