Skip to main content

After the last couple days testimony the Prosecution, by playing various Police Interviews with George Zimmerman, has essentially laid out for the jury the entire Defense case without rebuttal or cross-examination.

There's is reason to question this strategy, but what it does allow is for that story to be examined clearly and thoroughly.  If Zimmerman's story is true as told, it essentially destroys the entire reason for the case being filed.  Conservatives who have been claiming that this case is simply "because Obama politicized it with Holder" (even though President Obama didn't even comment on the case until the day after Gov. Scott assigned a Special Prosecutor) or to appease the "Al Sharpton Wing of the Democrat Party to Prevent a RIOT!" or some such - are already feeling VINDICATED.

If Zimmerman's Story is credible and believable - well - Game Over, Dude. Game Over!

But what if there are problems with Zimmerman's Story which he has been locked into since Day One?  What if there are Holes? Big Holes?

Let's grab a back-hoe and meet me over the flip.

I know that trial is not even half over, but I have to get all this off my chest or I'll explode.

Map of the Crime Scene.

The first thing people have noted is the fact he decided Travon was acting "Suspicious" because he wasn't "walking fast to get out of the rain" and "going between the houses". Why are Travon's actions automatically "Suspicious" because he doesn't behave the way Zimmerman expects he should?  Does he fit the suspect profile (Truthfully, he does. I requested the crime reports from various break-ins around that neighborhood from Sanford PD and he's Does fit the description, although not enough to prove anything - I would post it but the PDF includes my home address) It could be the fact that he really wasn't paying attention to where he going because he was on the PHONE to his friend Rachel Jeantel, and cutting between those houses where he does is a perfect short-cut to and from the 7-11 to the North West.

Let's just leave those issues aside for the moment.

The real big technical and legal issue facing Zimmerman is the fact when Trayvon started to run away to the section between the two rows of house (which led to the father's fiances house) and disappeared from sight George IMMEDIATELY got out of his car to chase Trayvon after he said "Shit, he's running.

That's aggressive behavior on HIS part, behavior he then has to hide or deflect or his all his claims begin to unravel upon themselves.

Full Transcript: http://s3.documentcloud.org/...

Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the
clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the
clubhouse.

Dispatcher: So it's on the left hand side from the clubhouse?

Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh
you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit he's running.

Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [unintelligible] (ed. "PUNKS!")

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Ok

As soon as he says this you can hear the door open, and the wind begin to howl. As we all know the dispatcher heard this and ask him, "Are you following him?"

To which he said "Yeah". and the dispatcher famously said "We don't need you to do that".

Zimmerman responded with "Okay", but he didn't stop. He kept going the same direction he was going (As shown on the map via the Yellow Arrows). The same direction that Trayvon had just run. His explanation for this during the 2nd Interview with Police was - he just wanted to get an address number for the street.  But rather than doing it on the Twin Trees street where his car was parked behind him he proceeded to the "T" where Trayvon turned right and he lost sight of him, then Looked Around, didn't see him and went forward all the way "Retreat View Circle" which is the street he lived on in order to get an address to tell the cop where to come.

Let's get this straight.  He's been living in this Neighborhood for Three Years but he doesn't know the name of the street he's on?  He's part of the "Neighborhood Watch" but he doesn't know the name of all three streets (Retreat View Circle, Twin Trees & Long Oak Way) in the Neighborhood he's been watching?

When asked about this by Det. Serino he makes the unbelievable claim that "He wasn't following Trayvon, he was just going the same way Trayvon went."

Uh what?

When asked why he doesn't know what street he's on he says "He has a really bad memory?"

Ok, this guy tells this story at least 3-4 times within that same night, at least twice to police - two of which videos I've seen - and then a third and forth time to his Air Marshal friend and his wife when they picked him up from the police station.

It doesn't change, it doesn't very. But he has a "bad memory"? Okey dokey.

We Know he got out the car and chased after Trayvon once he ran, we can hear it, the dispatcher heard it, he admitted to it on the tape.  Instead of simply going back to his car and checking the address on Twin Trees he has to walk past the last area he saw Trayvon not once - BUT TWICE on his way to the far street and back again.

Does that make any sense for a guy who swears he didn't want to confront the "Fucking Punk Asshole" who always gets away? Sure, let me just saunter back and forth across the last spot I saw the Asshole... cuz.. nothing bad could ever happen that way could it? Nah. Never.

From what we heard from Rachel's testimony Trayvon did run and then he hid somewhere below the "T" in the area behind his father's fiances house (which was at the end of the double row to the south) thinking he "lost him".  It would make sense if this occurred after Zimmerman passed by the "T" the first time on his way to Retreat View to get the address he "needed" but never did give the dispatcher.

Dispatcher: Alright George we do have them on the way, do you want to meet with the
officer when they get out there?

Zimmerman: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the
club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they
go past the mailboxes, that’s my truck...[unintelligible]

Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?

Zimmerman: I don’t know, it’s a cut through so I don’t know the address.

Dispatcher: Okay do you live in the area?

Zimmerman: Yeah, I...[unintelligible]

Dispatcher: What’s your apartment number?

Zimmerman: It’s a home it’s 1950, oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t
know where this kid is.

Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes
then?

Zimmerman: Yeah that’s fine.

Dispatcher: Alright George, I’ll let them know to meet you around there okay?

Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?

Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that’s no problem.

So George claims he spent all of this time, from the point the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that?" walking all the way to the far end of the walkway to get the address, but as I said - He doesn't Give them an address, either on Twin Trees or on Retreat View.  He says "Call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?"

He's hasn't yet headed back to his car - he's not at Retreat View, he's not at Twin Tree's - Where the FUCK IS HE? Wandering around in circles?  This section takes about 90 seconds, and he never does get back to his car.

"I don't know where this kid is at?"

Logic says He's still looking for Trayvon, the Asshole who always gets away, that's where he's at.  And further, he doesn't want to give his address because he thinks Trayvon might be within earshot of him IMO.

Eventually Zimmerman says he came back to the "T" from the other side, meanwhile Trayvon had told Rachel "I'm not going to run". So he likely came out of hiding and they saw each other., at which point Trayvon according to Rachel says "Shit!".

Now we reach the second major problem in Zimmerman's story, according to him he's at the "T" as Trayvon approaches him.

They have words.  

Zimmerman says the conversion goes "You have a problem Mother-Fucker? - I don't have no problem? - Now you do! BAM (punch in the nose as Zimmerman looks up from reaching for his phone to call 9-11 again).

Rachel says the conversation goes 'What are you following me for? - What are you doing around here! BAM (Trayvon headset fall to the grass as the result of an impact) Trayvon says "Get off. Get off!" and the phone goes dead.

Here's the crux of other problem, even it you put the discrepancies between Rachel and Zimmerman's accounts of the verbals details aside according to Zimmerman he's  minding his own business and walking away when Trayvon comes up behind him and shouts -he turns, Trayvon punches him and he falls backwards back towards his own car on Twin Trees.  Then the fight commences with Trayvon on top pounding his head against the pavement - except that HE'S FALLING THE WRONG WAY.

Watch starting at the 9:50 Mark in this Video.

If Zimmerman is telling the truth the fight should've happened in a different place and Trayvon's body would have been to the side of the houses on Twin Tree, west of the "T' - NOT AT THE BACK between the first and second house South of the "T".  He can't explain how they moved - but he knows that they did - so after saying Trayvon punched him somewhere near the "T", he walks the Opposite Direction - going around a tree that in his path to get to the spot where he knows the fight ended.

Something is fishy with this. Real fishy.

Zimmerman's story makes him the passive person, he's not the aggressor he didn't approach or try to come near Trayvon he was just walking back and forth to get the address then back to his car, cause he doesn't know the Neighborhood he's living in - not a care in the world.  Not following Trayvon. Not looking for him. Not worried about him, not considering the fact he might still be around. Nothing. Nope. La-dee-da.  Then suddenly - "Hey Mother-Fucker." BAM!

Woah, why for you hit me dude?

Trayvon approached HIM, hit him, jumped on top of him smashed his head against the concrete so badly, he had no choice but to grab his gun and shoot once Trayvon saw it and tried to get it first.  He's the gun-slinger.  Fastest Draw Wins!  Poor little Trayvon loses.  Too bad. So sad.

But what if it didn't go that way? What if what Rachel's saying is more accurate?

What if Trayvon never approached Zimmerman but once they spotted each other Zimmerman came toward him?

The proof of his may be where the body ended up - on the other side of the tree - behind the backyard of the first and second houses on the row where the red box is on the map, instead of somewhere above the "T".  Somehow - and Zimmerman doesn't explain how because HE CAN'T without incriminating himself - the fight was in the other direction.

I think, and this is admittedly supposition to FILL THIS HOLE in the story based on what makes sense in the testimony and evidence up to this point, that Zimmerman came toward Trayvon and either shoved or grabbed him (per Rachel Jeantel testimony) so he wouldn't get away knocking off his headset in the process. "Get off". Trayvon probably punched him and knocked him down based on Zimmeran's injuries and the bruise found on Trayvon's left knuckle.  We do know there was a fight, that's proven. What we don't know is who started it, and obscuring this fact protects Zimmerman because if he started the fight, Self Defense is potentially off the table.  (Stand-your-ground might still be, but that's another story since the Defense didn't assert it pre-trial.)

At some point Trayvon was on top according to what Goode said..  At some point, during or after the gunshot, Zimmerman was on top according to other witnesses. Even Zimmerman admits this "I got on top and pushed his arms away from his body".  Never mind that Trayvon's arms were found underneath his body.  It's inconsistent, but not fatally.

Two pieces of physical evidence that support the idea that Zimmerman approached  Trayvon by moving southward down from the "T" is the fact that Zimmerman's Flashlight (Item #5) and Trayvon's Cell phone (Item #7) were found between the walkway and the the body (Item #6)

Close up of Cell Phone before it's collection.

Close up of Car Keys & Mini-Flashlight.
Closeup of Keys & Flashlight
This Crime Scene photo shows the relative position of all three facing south, the side walk that Zimmerman says his head was bashed against is out of frame to the left, Trayvon's body was found to the right before this shot was taken,  his head was near the "6" and his feet would have been out of frame.
Evidence photos released by the Fourth Circuit Court State Attorney's Office in the shooting death of teen Trayvon Martin. Sanford resident George Zimmerman has been charged with manslaughter in Martin's death.  (Fourth Circuit Court State Attorney's Office)
The large flashlight was found just north of the body (coming from the direction Zimmerman came from and nearest in the picture) while Trayvon's Cell Phone was just South (the other direction, farthest away) toward the direction of his father's fiances place.

This is a view from the "T" -where Zimmerman says the fight started showing where it Ended with Trayvon's Body marked by the yellow tarp.  The Jury is supposed to believe that while Zimmerman was facing the same direction as the camera is here- Trayvon punched him in the nose and sent him -- FORWARD?  That Far? How?

Evidence photos released by the Fourth Circuit Court State Attorney's Office in the shooting death of teen Trayvon Martin. Sanford resident George Zimmerman has been charged with manslaughter in Martin's death.  (Fourth Circuit Court State Attorney's Office)
Long shot of Crime Scene Looking South from "T", Body Marked by Yellow Tarp
My point is this, according to Zimmerman Trayvon had "something in his hands" which was most likely - His phone. It makes sense for George to have his flashlight in his hand.  Zimmerman says "He Punched Me, I Went Down".  So where Zimmerman Got Hit is where he fell and both bodies fought.  The most logical thing to happen once the fight broke out is for both of them to drop what they have in their hands as they swing at and/or grapple with each other. (This is confirmed by Rachel Jeantel who heard Trayvon's headset disconnect as he dropped the phone) If I'm correct, and I readily admit that I could be wrong, These two items MARK where they both were when the fight started and it's nowhere near where George says it started. It's about 20 feet away, Not in the direction of George's Car - but in a PURSUIT course of where he last saw Trayvon.

According to George he's the one screaming even though he "doesn't sound like himself" as he told the detectives, and he's doing that constant screaming while Trayvon is covering his nose with one hand and his mouth with the other (and doesn't get any blood on his hands or clothes) and then with a his magical third hand he reaches for the gun which if he's sitting on George's chest is BEHIND HIS LEGS in the dark , yet Trayvon doesn't leave any DNA or fingerprints on the gun and the screaming STOPS as soon as the gun goes off, but Zimmerman says he's still shouting at talking at Trayvon because he doesn't think he hit him - but that doesn't get picked up on the 9-11 tape - and Trayvon says "You got me" like something out of an old western even though He's Been Shot in the Lung and Heart...and...and...

Oh fuck, I can't keep it up any longer.  This is a complete fustercluck.  It's fantastical, like a Rube Golberg Machine of perfect innocence on George's Part and Absolute Malice on Trayvon's. I don't buy it - but I'm not going to attack or insult people who do. That's their prerogative.  It's a matter of opinion, but DAHYAM - this has got some big holes in it.

Sure, I think this may have been an unintended tragedy that George is maybe shading to take away any of his guilty actions if he had any beyond running his mouth about "Assholes."  Zimmerman may have "profiled" Trayvon, but Trayvon may have done the same thinking he was being following by a Creepy Ass RAPIST Cracker (according to Rachel) who might try to give him a Sandusky.

Trayvon might have thrown the first punch, and then again he might not.

If he thought that's who Zimmerman was I can understand fighting like hell. Any victim of sexual assault should understand such a response.

Yet, I've actually seen people tweet that Trayvon would be alive if he just kept running and didn't "turn around to Confront Zimmerman", because that's how George tells the story and being able to "Stand Your Ground" is only for fine upstanding folk like George, not "Fucking Punk Assholes/Gang-Banging/Burglars" who do all the bad stuff.  George did nothing but get beat up by a "Thug". See?

He Had to shoot, he couldn't have possibly brandished the gun and said "FREEZE! STOP! Hold Still"

Nope, just BANG! That's what Punks deserves.  His Baby-Daddy on Welfare should have raised him better.

It may have happened as George says, but it's also true that George has to say that Trayvon said "You're gonna DIE" because that's required under Florida Law to establish a "fear of death" to qualify for a valid case of "Self Defense".

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/...

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

It is amazing that like a Bond Villian or Lex Luthor On SuperFriends Trayvon tells Zimmerman exactly what he needs to hear in order to pull his weapon and fire without hesitation.

Man, that's convenient. Brother that George is Lucky isn't he?

We're supposed to believe that George took three Martial Arts Classes a week, but couldn't handle a skinny 158 lbs 17-year-old kid?  He's gentle and quiet as a church mouse, except that he has a history of beating up his ex-fiance, attacking an undercover police officer, losing his bouncer job because he lost his temper and threw a woman against a wall, racially taunted a former co-worker to the point of violent distress, and allegations of long term molestation of his cousin - but y'know - good ole George is a Saint. George wouldn't hurt a fly.

Trayvon on the other hand...

The Miami Herald claims that in October, he was caught with a 'burglary tool' - a flathead screwdriver - and 12 pieces of women's jewellery. Martin insisted that they did not belong to him.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Yea, George is not like that dirty devilspawn Martin boy, with his "Burglary Kit" (which was apparently a highly dangerous sawed-off assault SCREW DRIVER) and the Weed dust in his pockets, school suspension, flipping the bird at a camera (whose he think he is Steven Tyler?), his extremely dangerous Youtube Account of people (not him) fighting, and smack-talking text messages.  We all know that every kid with a screw-driver, some dumb pictures, dumb videos, a fetish for MMA or WWE or Kung-Fu movies, and weed dust remnants who says stupid shit on the net has to be a CRIP Right?

Just like everyone who watches Boxing is ready to give you a right cross to the ear. Just because, y'know?

Be what their pasts may be, the real question is - does Zimmerman's story for the night in question add up?

Can the Prosecution punch enough holes in it to make it completely unreasonable and unworkable?

Will the Jury be open to that seeing those holes, or am I making too much of minor little details?  Who cares if Trayvon's body Levitated 20 or 30 feet all by itself,  along with his phone, and Zimmerman's Keys - shit like that happens all the time. Doesn't it?

Some people who sympathize with Trayvon and want to see racial justice in this case will automatically say "I hope he pays", some people who feel poor innocent whites have been getting slandered for far too long as bigots will reflexively feel that George was justified and think that his conviction is more of the Obamanization of America.

You can't argue either side out of that position.

Regardless of what the jury decides, whether there's another angry Black Riot (which I doubt), or yet another round of "Gone Galt/White Flight" (which I think is already ongoing) I don't think this case will solve the bitter racial/cultural/experiential divide.

No matter what happens, I'm fairly sure that will get worse.

We need to start thinking about what happens after this case.  What happens when the next black boy is shot down.  Or When the next white kid is mowed down by a shooter. Finger-pointing isn't going to help.

Zimmerman might not be convicted. I can see that possibility if the case keeps going this direction.  He told a great yarn. If you don't look between the trees, it's almost convincing.  Almost. I can live with it if the prosecution fails, this time.

But not if the country does because of cases like this.

Vyan

 

Originally posted to Vyan on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:51 AM PDT.

Also republished by Trial Watch.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  fear of great bodily harm. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward

    that's what is needed for self-defense, and the injuries plus Goode's testimony are more than enough to create reasonable doubt.

    •  I wonder how far back one goes though (19+ / 0-)

      before he feared his bodily harm, it was a confrontation he likely caused. I think that they can prove from the 911 call that he continued to chase after and look for TM. He thought he was an asshole who usually gets away. He caused the altercation where he then  supposedly feared bodily harm.

      If they can prove he was the instigator of the entire situation is he not responsible to creating his own fear ultimately? He caused fear in TM, it can probably be shown, who reacted possibly in a way that caused fear in him.

      Can you act threatening to someone, possibly cluelessly that you are doing that, and then when they react to a percieved threat by you you then feel scared so kill them?

      Can we please punish GZ for being a clueless self absorbed vigilante asshole then who ended an innocent life just as it was getting started because of his own stupid cluelessness?

      •  That would be nice jplanner (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        worldlotus, Tonedevil, Eric Nelson

        nosotros no somos estúpidos

        by a2nite on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:50:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your last sentence (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sponson, johnny wurster, Tonedevil

        Really, this is what this case is all about.  Those who try to make it about race (on both sides) seemed to have missed this point.

        •  But his own stupid cluelessness (8+ / 0-)

          has some racial components, that's the part that can't be denied, it seems to me.  He believed this kid to be a threat because he was a black kid and black kids don't belong in "his" neighborhood.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:31:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's some impressive mind reading. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            UbuRoi
            •  more like assuming a very common attitude in (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              someone who makes assumptions and acts as if he thinks the same as people who have that common attitude.

              I agree with gg except the last sentence. She just didn't know it was a racially diverse (admirably so) neighborhood  and GZ looked and acted like the usual person who has those attitudes

          •  That's silly; the complex was well-integrated ... (0+ / 0-)

            with residents of different races, including African-Americans.

            I STILL haven't heard anyone come up with a reasonable explanation for why, if TM made it all the way to the rear of his dad's fiancee's house (as Rachael Jeantel said TM told her he did), and was completely out of GZ's sight and gone for good as far as GZ knew, he backtracked some hundred feet such that the confrontation with GZ occurred near the T-intersection of the sidewalk.  Plus, I've yet to hear any reasonable explanation for why, if TM had made it home, he didn't just go inside?  Instead, according to the witness who heard running "from left to right", he apparent ran back toward the sidewalk intersection ... in the pouring rain, no less.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:53:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think it was silly of the poster but agree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite

              probably not right  or mostly not right in this situation.

              In many neighborhoods poster would be right. This so happens to be a very integrated neighborhood.

              The burglaries in the area were supposedly done by young Black men. It's clear that is enough for GZ to think all young Black men strolling in the neighborhood must definitely be criminal. Because we know GZ had decided that (per 911 tape--these guys always get away..) already. All of GZ reactions, possibly including the shooting, were based on GZ assumption of guilt.

              I think that he would not have reacted that strongly if White or Asian young men had been the previous burglars and TM was the same race as the burglars. I think there is an overlay of kneejerk racial bias.

              It's easy to mistake it for "not in my neighborhood' because he's Black. IN this case it's related to that but not the same. More like "not in my neighborhood because you must be a burglar because you are Black and walking around"". One can be easily duped that it is the more usual "not in my neighborhood" because it smells so similar.

            •  IMO he didn't have time to get that far (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rubyr, Tonedevil

              and back in just under 2 mins - he'd have to have been running all the way both ways for that and George would have heard him coming back. Also like kids tend to be - I don't hink he was being that exactly precise.   That entire walk-way is at the "back of her house" from a kids perspective.  He never said he was "at the back door", that's not what Rachel quoted him saying.

              •  Correct. See below. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tonedevil

                "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

                by rubyr on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:46:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Question: (0+ / 0-)

                Has it been (roughly) determined at what spot TM began to run?  (A link that supports an answer to this question would be appreciated as I would like to review this question a bit more thoroughly.)

                Also, where was GZ's vehicle when TM supposedly circled around it?  Was it at the location where GZ exited the vehicle and left it parked?  Or was it at the location where he was when he initially called 911.

                "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:32:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  She never said that he was "directly" in back (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              of his father's fiance's house and she did say that she did not
              know how close he was to his father's fiance's house because she had never been there.

              "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

              by rubyr on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:45:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  ??? (0+ / 0-)

          Have you seen the father's recent comments? Were you privy to the media circus surrounding the wearing of hoodies? There's a history of racial animus prior to meeting Trayvon. The behavior of stalking random teens with a loaded gun is bad enough, but what do you hope to gain by exonerating Zimmerman before the facts are known in open court? I'm highly suspicious of race hatred at play, and I think there's plenty of evidence which supports that suspicion. But unlike you, I'm not willing to make a categorical statement because I wasn't there and I don't know.

        •  when I said cluelessness it includes around (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil

          race. He was CONVINCED, as we can hear on the 911 call that TM was "one of those assholes who always get away". He was sure of it.

          That sureness was a racial bias. He was so convinced that it did not occur to him What IF the kid was NOT a thief scouting homes to break into. IF the kid was an innocent, ,which was plausible if GZ was being rational-HOW would it seem to him that some strange man was staring at him, following him, running after him?

          We can see this if we do the exercise of simply imagining if TM was a White 17 yr old. And that the thieves in the neighborhood had also been White. I think to the point where I feel I KNOW that GZ would have not held his assumption of guilt quite as closely.

          We know from the 911 call what GZ's attitude to the Black kid walking was. He already knew he was guilty. From that place he no doubt interpreted every action of TM. So TM was trying to kill him, he possibly thought TM had a gun because criminals do, and he thought TM would reach for his own gun. Because TM was a criminal, period, to him. NOW the defense tries to turn TM retroactively into that kind of person. He had his flaws but there is no evidence of being a violent person. Even his teachers say so.

          GZ was so clueless about his cluelessness, so steeped in his assumptions and bias he couldn't see his cognitive error, which continues I think to this day.

      •  And.... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfromga, sponson, Tonedevil
        a clueless self absorbed vigilante asshole
        Shouldn't be anywhere near a loaded gun.  Just a disastrous tragedy waiting to happen.
        Just sayin'.

        I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

        by Lilyvt on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:01:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yup (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil

          someone who...assaulted a police officer even though he hoped to go into law enforcement (showing even more of a lack of self control), arrested for domestic violence, fired a bouncer from getting physical (slamming against a wall) woman at work. Someone who seems to not have good impulse control of his urge to get violent when he's angry. Clearly. And he's on ADD meds, and one hallmark of ADD is poor impulse control. NOT that all,most,or even many ADDers are violent in these ways.

          Absolutely the last kind of person who should be carrying a gun.

    •  plus trayvon was reaching for his gun (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Victor Ward

      and so far Zimmerman appears to be a very credible witness. Even the police detectives who were in charge of punching holes in his story found him highly credible.  

      to me this case is all but closed. reasonable doubt can simply not be overcome given what we have seen so far.

      •  ZimHole ain't the Pope. Because he says Martin (3+ / 0-)

        tried to take his gun does not mean a jury will believe him.

      •  The police department was FAR from beyond (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Siri, Tonedevil, rubyr

        reproach in this whole tragedy.  Do you really think that they are going to admit to anything that draws attention to the fact that they let GZ walk free with basically little to NO investigation of Zimmerman's own actions that night?  "Punching holes" in GZ's story at this point would be equivalent to punching holes in their own stories.  

        They basically HAVE to corroborate with what GZ is saying because otherwise it opens them up to further scrutiny and puts more spotlight on how poorly they conducted themselves  that night and in the following days.

        As far as Zimmerman being a "credible" witness, why are discrepancies (aka LIES) that appear in his account perfectly reasonable and "credible", but discrepancies in Rachel Jeantel's statements not credible?  After all, she's not the one who is facing a long prison term, so why would she be more likely to be lying than Zimmerman would?  Zimmerman's trying to save his own skin.  Jeantel's got nothing to lose, but has gained a lot of racist ridicule and notoriety by appearing on the stand.

        •  Rachael has not only admitted to lying, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          UbuRoi, Dr Swig Mcjigger

          she's admitted to having lied while under oath.  Offering excuses for lying does not negate the fact that the lies were told.

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:58:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I completely agree with your comment. I just (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            amsterdam

            feel that George Zimmerman should be held equally accountable for HIS lies, too.  He admitted to lying about how much money he and his wife had so that he could get financial aid.  He's got lots of inconsistencies in his multiple accounts of what happened when he murdered Trayvon Martin (hard to keep lies straight).  Making excuses for Zimmerman's lies does not negate the fact that he's lying,  either.

            So far, Rachel Jeantel didn't kill anybody, to my knowledge.  But some people seem to be much more outraged by her lie about why she didn't attend the  TMartin's funeral, than by GZimmerman's lies about why he murdered an unarmed teenager who had not broken ANY laws.

            Btw, we'll see if GZ is man enough to testify under oath, as Rachel Jeantel did.  After all, if he's so truthful, he certainly has nothing to fear.

      •  one of the officers (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sponson, Tonedevil, a2nite

        said he didn't find him credible.   People hear what they want to hear, including police.  Case is a lot simpler to close if the dangerous black male is the aggressor.   Sanford's department, like many police departments, had a reputation about enforcement.   Blacks are arrested more often for the same actions, followed in stores, I heard it repeated just last Sunday,  young black male in a shooting (and guilty in this case by admission of shooting without provocation), one person asked if he had a criminal background, answer from a person with typical attitude, he was black, wasn't he?

    •  Zimmerman's own account (6+ / 0-)

      contradicts Good. Zimmerman says he was on top when the 1st person came out. He claims he was the one saying help me help me because he was holding Trayvons spread out hands down. We know that didn't happen because Trayvons hands were found underneath him. Zimmerman had no idea when he gave his statements that Good would say he thought Trayvon was on top. He did know someone came out who heard help me help me who then left to call the police. He needed to make up an excuse for why that person would see him on top of Trayvon not knowing that the person (Good) would (erroneously) say he thought Trayvon was on top. Good did seem fairly certain the person on the bottom was the one calling for help. Zimmerman knew he had to say that was him but Zimmerman does say he was on top. I think Good just misidentified who was on top. He did hear the person on the bottom saying "help". That person was Trayvon. Zimmerman thought he had to come up with an excuse for being on top when Good came out so he made up the story about holding out Trayvons outstretched arms. There's no way he could have known that Good would be saying it was not him on top.

      The discrepancy then is that Zimmerman says Good came out after he shot Trayvon. Good came out before. The spread arms thing never happened. Good walked inside, Zimmerman shot Trayvon and as the woman a few doors down testifies, gets up and walks away a few seconds later. That's when the man who ends up calling Zimmerman's wife comes out and sees him up walking. Zimmerman tells him the police have already been called because that's what Good told him he was going to do. Then the police come.

      "Compassion is the radicalism of our time." ~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama -7.88, -6.21

      by Siri on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:09:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Red sweat shirt and black hoodie would look (0+ / 0-)

        different in the dark to someone with mild color blindness like so many males have than they would look to someone else. And color of outerware was mentioned in testimony. So who was on top at which time is still not clear.

        I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box. The TSA would put Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad on the no-fly list.

        by OHdog on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:04:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  However, if GZ were on top at the time .. (0+ / 0-)

          the shot was fired, it doesn't sound likely that the bullet would have penetrated in a straight line from front to back.

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:03:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's intriguing. Why do you think that? Wouldn't (0+ / 0-)

            a moving or mobile body (i.e. on top) be likely to react to the bullet impact and alter the course?

            I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box. The TSA would put Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad on the no-fly list.

            by OHdog on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:41:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps an expert will be asked that question ... (0+ / 0-)

              while on the stand but no, I don't think a person could react that quickly, given the high speed that a bullet travels, and given that this one was fired while only a couple of inches from the body.

              "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

              by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:28:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  It could be that Zimmerman kept TM's arms ... (0+ / 0-)

        spread until he stopped struggling, then got up off him at, which point TM clutched at his chest because of the pain while GZ was distracted by the neighbor who arrived on the scene.  We don't know for sure because no one has made any specific statement about this phase of the events (yet), but the change in position can be explained by this scenario.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:02:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Goode or Manalo? (0+ / 0-)

        Goode went back inside and was calling 911 when he heard the  gunshot. Goode stayed inside talking to  911

        It was Manalo that came outside after the shot and called Zimmerman's wife.

    •  So tell us, Esteemed Esquire... (9+ / 0-)

      How is it that Mr Creepy-Ass Cracker can set a series of events into motion that lead to a homicide... and HE'S justified in defending himself from the person HE PURSUED?

      It is established by testimony and tape recordings that Creepy-Ass Cracker PURSUED Trayvon Martin, he set the events in motion that led to Trayvon Martin's death.

      If the Law is that you can start something that leads to loss of life or injury and you aren't culpable, we are truly in the hands of monsters, and you esteemed members of the Bar are holding their coats while they victimize the rest of us.

      We're doomed.  The inmates are running the asylum and the doctors and staff are cheering them on in their rampage...

      "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

      by leftykook on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:33:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  leftykook - it's about what the word "starts" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neuroptimalian

        means. In a civil case the start of this would be when Zimmerman leaves his truck. In this criminal case the "start" is when the two first meet face to face and who initiates the physical confrontation? That's a question that we don't the answer to, but is the key question the jury will answer as the finder of fact.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:48:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not to mention that this young thug tried to steal (4+ / 0-)

      SuperZim's gun!! This asshole who always got away until z plugged him, brought Skittles to a gunfight! How responsible is that? No life planning, tsk tsk.

      And Good's testimony is definitive, if you discount almost everybody else's testimony.

      All power to violent busybodies who go grocery shopping with guns!!

      •  No one contradicted Goode. (0+ / 0-)

        That's the thing: Goode says Z was on top, and no one else testified to the contrary.

        •  Goode walked away to call 9-11 (0+ / 0-)

          and sometime later the shot went off. I missed all of Goode's testimony so how many seconds later, I'm not certain.  Several other people said - after the shot - that GZ was on top, and GZ himself doesn't contradict that.

          •  Which Z also said. (0+ / 0-)

            The story is that Z was beneath M getting his ass whipped, he shot, then got on top of M.

            No one's testimony contradicts that narrative, and we have one witness that directly supports it.  And on top of that his injuries are consistent with it.

            It all adds up to reasonable doubt, and there's a very good chance that Z wins the SYG immunity motion that his attorney will probably make at the close of the trial, which would immunize Z from the inevitable civil suit.

            •  Two witnesses testified, both women, and one (0+ / 0-)

              Spanish speaking, that the shot was fired and the one on top got up and started pacing.

              ZimHole profiled the kid, chased him, argued with him, struggled with him and then shot him.

              He needs to be jailed to protect some future innocent from being shot because Skittles.

              z has lied about the shooting from the nite it happened, and he lied at his bail hearing, as did his wife, about the money he was pocketing from racist gun nuts.

              He's a very calculating and dangerous man johnny.

        •  He didn't say Z was on top, he (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil

          said Trayvon was on top (see one of millions of examples below).

          http://www.politicaljack.com/...

          And other people testified otherwise. One witness says that the person on top got up and walked away, that was GZ, since TM could not get up and walk away, because he was dead.  

          "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

          by rubyr on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:55:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  He "Does fit the description" --of the man who was (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Siri, Tonedevil

    arrested two weeks prior to this event according to the police detective during the trial testimony.
         That doesn't mean there couldn't be another criminal standing in line to be the neighborhood's next suspicious character, but it does mean that Zimmerman was afraid of something that had been real that wasn't there anymore.

    As self-proclaimed neighborhood watch captain, did Z. realize that the actual perpetrator was already dealt with? The police should have told him that so the neighborhood could relax a bit.
       IMHO even if Z. did know that, didn't matter because Martin was just another one in Z's eyes.
       

    We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

    by nuclear winter solstice on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:15:48 AM PDT

  •  Thanks Vyan, republished to 'Trial Watch' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Siri, worldlotus, Eric Nelson

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:21:22 AM PDT

  •  Medical evidence doesn't support GZ either (14+ / 0-)

    As in wounds not consistent with being slammed 25-30 times into concrete, as in the assessment by EMT and his PA that he did not have any concussive symptoms or at most only complained of a headache. And also the fact that his injuries were so minor that he never followed up with a doctor. Also, he was seeing a therapist. Why?

    •  seeing a therapist and taking major medications (6+ / 0-)

      related to anxiety & aggression...

      Personally I think the jury will understand how relatively small the injuries were if they remember the blonde physician's assistant testifying that the head wounds didn't need stitches, they didn't even need band-aids but she gave him some 'to keep it clean' she said although IMHO she seemed like she was humoring him like you would a little kid with a skinned knee who would be better served with fresh air but needs a band-aid to validate his hurt.

      We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

      by nuclear winter solstice on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:33:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, the band-aids (5+ / 0-)

        He (Zimmerman) seemed to want to call attention to his "wounds"  On Al Sharpton last night they showed a video of Z walking through his actions that evening while wearing those band-aids, as he turned so the back of his head was clearly visible, I almost laughed out loud because he was wearing I think three of those large band aids that come with long tails to fit around a curved surface, but what was funny was that he had them stuck on top of his buzz cut.  When those are used on the head, they shave the area  so they'll stick.  They couldn't have stayed on for long, they were show.

        Source of this information on head bandages:  grandchild who has spent lots of time in e.r. due to being hyperactive.

    •  He didn't go to the hospital immediately after (5+ / 0-)

      The murder.

      Yeah, right I know that's a legal term. Don't care.

      nosotros no somos estúpidos

      by a2nite on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:47:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  your assertion does not pass the smell test (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ffour, Victor Ward, Neuroptimalian, UbuRoi

      if you had a large teenager on top of you, a broken nose, and he was slamming your head against the pavement, you would not feel your life was at risk?

      i seriously doubt it. sorry.

      •  But he didn't have (9+ / 0-)

        1. A large teenager (Trayvon was a skinny kid, not a large one)

        2. on top of him (the evidence contradicts this statement; Z was on top say witnesses)

        3. a broken nose (no deviated septum according to medical testimony)

        4. slamming (his) head against the pavement (no physical evidence to suggest any head was slammed on any pavement (i.e. no injuries that reflect this, no blood)

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:36:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  sorry you are wrong on everything (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ffour, Victor Ward, Neuroptimalian

          1. he was 6 feet tall, towered over GZ
          2. the neighbor who could actually see them testified the lighter skinned person with the red shirt was at the bottom
          3. the medical report says broken: "closed fracture". the pictures clearly show the same.
          4. pictures clearly show both blood and injuries to the back of his head. the only thing we dont have is evidence of concussion.

          are you following the trial on tv? if so, this is further evidence to me that people will just see what they want to see. to me the four points above are just basic facts at this point.

          •  Medical testimony Tuesday: Injuries insignificant (10+ / 0-)

            GZ outweighed him by 50 pounds.
            GZ had two years of regular mixed martial arts sessions... and was armed...

            The blood on the back of the head scratches was minor and dripping down the wrong way... not the way if he'd been on the bottom at least some of the time...

            There is no proof of a nasal fracture. No actual medical specialist determined that. At most they said it should be checked by an actual doctor to see if there was a fracture which Zimmerman declined to have done. The swollen area on the nose was very temporary and was almost entirely gone in less than an hour...

            And none of the injuries were consistent with anything even beginning to approach being punched in the face 20-30 times and having a head slammed onto concrete the same number of times... there would have been significant bruising on the back of the head and an urgent need to have a scan done for a possible subdural hematoma. No sign of impact at all... two scrapes only.

            A face hit with fists that many times would be visibly swollen in many places with extensive bruising. The photos show a person who did not sustain any serious injuries at all.... only in movies do people being battered end up looking as unmarked as GZ... and this was not a movie but real life.

            Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

            by IreGyre on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:28:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I hit my head once (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Siri, Tonedevil

            in a fall onto concrete, I had a concussion.  I didn't fall 25 times, no one was slamming my head into the concrete.

            I cannot imagine staying conscious if my head was actually slammed into concrete several times let alone 25.  With no hair protecting my head, I cannot imagine that my skin wasn't mincemeat from being hit into concrete that many times.

            I have never broken my nose, I don't know anything about it.

      •  You have to believe ZimHole's story. Lot's of (7+ / 0-)

        people don't. He chased down a kid, confronted him, struggled with him, and then shot him.

        Now he's lying about it. z is not credible and his story is self serving.

  •  A pistol with a chambered bullet and the (17+ / 0-)

    safety off.

    That's not how guns are carried when you're not looking for trouble.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:27:47 AM PDT

    •  This type of gun HAS no "safety", ... (0+ / 0-)

      that's not how it works.  This was explained elsewhere, possibly above, in considerable detail.

      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

      by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:15:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  there's a lot wrong, but this is amazing- (16+ / 0-)
    Let's get this straight.  He's been living in this Neighborhood for Three Years but he doesn't know the name of the street he's on?  He's part of the "Neighborhood Watch" but he doesn't know the name of all three streets (Retreat View Circle, Twin Trees & Long Oak Way) in the Neighborhood he's been watching?
    last night on dr drew on call the cohost pointed out the same thing. I almost fell over.

    vyan- what do you think of the sean Hannity interview, where Zimmerman says he has no regrets, it was god's plan, he wouldn't have done anything differently?

    "...i also also want a legally binding apology." -George Rockwell

    by thankgodforairamerica on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:30:22 AM PDT

  •  The Prosecution in this trial has seemed inept (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    I hope they get their act together.

    John Roberts? Melville Fuller?? WTF is the difference???.

    by Walt starr on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:45:49 AM PDT

  •  According to George he's the one screaming even (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chmood

    though he "doesn't sound like himself" .

    That statement matches up nicely with more than one witness who said they didn't recognize themselves- sounds different they all said. I wondered why they were pressing that issue, until I heard Z. say this too.
    I don't believe George, but the testimony thus appears to be consistent.

    We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

    by nuclear winter solstice on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:46:57 AM PDT

  •  somewhere on video, the detective asks (14+ / 0-)

    Zimmerman if he identified himself to Martin as a neighborhood watch person.
         Zimmerman says no, which is sorta unexpected, I thought. The Detective asks, why not?
         Zimmerman says, I don't know... and they move on, nothing to see there, at least that's how I understood that part of the video.

    It seems to me that along with "we don't need you to do that" this was another milestone in what happened. He says he doesn't know, but instinctively I'm sure he did. Because the answer is: If I told him I was George the neighborhood watchman, he might have a legitimate answer too, and then I'd have no where to take my fight. Hafta go to Target instead. Nope, not tonight.

    We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

    by nuclear winter solstice on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:21:23 AM PDT

  •  Good job & agree that GZ's story has lots of holes (11+ / 0-)

    I don't think GZ's injuries matter one way or the other. And I don't think it matters who threw the first punch. With a gun in his hand or holstered, either way, why would GZ initiate a fight? But if you were TM, being followed in the dark by who knows who, maybe you even saw a gun, you would easily initiate action to defend yourself, to try to prevent getting shot or being attacked, and call for help.

    Your comments of GZ's testimony about what TM supposedly said is right on. It clearly conflicts with Rachel Jeantel's testimony and it's preposterous in its face.  "You're gonna DIE"?? TM, heck, anyone will fight with ferocious new strength to protect themselves but they don't suddenly become a murderous thug!

    GZ created this situation 100% which seems undisputed. Pure stupidity, rotten instincts, rotten judgement, mortally dangerous to himself and the community, racist BS but none of that really matters regarding the case until the fighting started.  The restrictions in a court of law and dependency on the lawyers make any outcome possible. But the court of public opinion is pretty convincing here. GZ should know he'll live with the guilt of killing this innocent boy for the rest of his life.

    Your closing questions though, that's the essence of the take aways here. And the intolerable danger of people walking around our neighborhoods with guns.

  •  If the defense had the burden of proof, (5+ / 0-)

    this all might be more important.  

    But what all this might do is cast reasonable doubt on the details of Zimmerman's story.  That may well be true.  But the prosecution does not have to cast reasonable doubt on Zimmerman's story.  If the jury believes that there's doubt as to whether that story happened, that is an acquittal.  

    The prosecution has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did NOT act in self defense.  That means they must do much more than cast doubt on Zimmerman's story.  They must provide a factual scenario (that conforms with the physical evidence and the testimony of the other witnesses) that does not involve the possibility of self-defense, and that  the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt.

    That means that they must provide a scenario that explains things like Zimmerman's injuries (minor or not) and the testimony of people like Mr. Good that (1) does not involve the possibility of self-defense; and (2) the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt.  Saying "we don't know how Zimmerman got those injuries, or what Zimmerman did to end up with Martin on top of him beating his head, but we don't believe Zimmerman's story" means acquittal, in all likelihood, because that does not meet the burden of proof.  

    In opening statement, the prosecution ignored Zimmerman's injuries (minor or not) and the prosecution ignored Mr. Good's testimony.  Their story was basically "Zimmerman was angry that the people burglarizing the neighborhood got away, so he followed Martin, and went up and shot him for no reason other than he wanted to."   Their story in opening was essentially that Zimmerman followed Martin, the two came together in front of Martin's house, and (if the jury believes Ms. Jeantel beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the fact that she had previously lied under oath), Martin said "why are you following me," Zimmerman said "what are you doing here," there was "bump," and maybe Martin saying "get off get off."  The prosecution has not laid out the facts that it expects the jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt, like how did the parties get from that event in back of Tracy Martin's girlfriend's house to where Martin's body was found; who first started the physical altercation (even if you believe that following Martin made Zimmerman an "aggressor," which is not the law, and "aggressor" can still claim self-defense if the person who he is following reacts in a way that would potentially mean death or great bodily injury); and how did Zimmerman get the injuries he had, and Martin had no injuries except the one abrasion on his hand and a the gunshot.

    Does the prosecution concede that, at some point, Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating his head, as Mr. Good testified, and that's when Zimmerman shot?  If they do, I have a hard time seeing how they prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that if someone is on top of you hitting your head, you have no reasonable belief that you need to take action to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.  

    If this were the defense's case, or rebuttal to the defense's case, I could certainly understand the focus on letting the jury hear Zimmerman's version over and over and over and trying to pick apart the details.  But this is the prosecution's case, where they are supposed to lay out the scenario that they expect the jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt.  We did not hear it in their opening,and we did not hear it so far in their case in chief.  But it puzzles me why THE PROSECUTION'S case in chief involves letting the jury hear Zimmerman "tell" his story over and over and over and simply trying to pick that story apart, without offering a clear alternative version for the jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt.  

    •  As usual (3+ / 0-)

      CT is speaking beyond his/her mandate...

      Florida Statutes (Fla. Stat.)

      Title XLVI.  Crimes.

      Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

      776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

      The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

      (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

      (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

      (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

      (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

      Impeaching Zimmerman's story is vital to showing that it was Zimmerman who provoked the incident. It's possible a jury might find that stalking Martin fulfills the definition, even if you would disagree with such an assessment (as I assume you surely would). Your zealous defense of poor George Zimmerman's rights notwithstanding, you are wrong to suggest the burden of proof lies solely with the prosecution, even if the bar is a bit more unnaturally high in Florida than in other states.
      •  Did you read the statute? (4+ / 0-)

        Let me bold the REST of the statue.

        (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

        (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

        So, first you'd  have to prove Zimmerman was the "aggressor" -- which means that he did something more than follow Martin and ask what he was doing.  If you proved that Zimmerman hit Martin first, or grabbed him, or something physical like that that constituted aggression, Zimmerman could nonetheless claim self-defense if, when Martin was on top of him beating on his head (if the jury believes that is possibly what happened just prior to the shot) (1) he reasonably believed he had to act to prevent possible death or great bodily injury; and (2) he tried to get out from under Martin but could not..  
        •  So say you (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          laughingriver, sponson

          where in the statute does it say he has to do "more than follow Martin?" Martin suggests fear for his own life in the phone call with the girlfriend. If you invert the case such that Martin survives and is brought to trial, he'd be basing his defense on being stalked by a person he correctly suspected was armed.

          Zimmerman has to have standing to apply the self defense statute. Florida law is clear that claiming self-defense cannot be a get-out-of-jail free card. You are claiming that Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything, that he can just claim self-defense and let God sort it out. But the statute states there are conditions that must first be met. And even if the law is intended to be a get-out-of-jail card for gun nuts who shoot first and ask questions later, in the real world a jury who has doubts about the shooters story has plenty of room to deny that person status to claim self defense. It's all a matter of interpretation which is why categorical statements by people watching on TV should be taken with a grain of salt. Your confirmation bias (among other biases) is showing.

          •  I'm not "saying." I'm quoting the law. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward, Neuroptimalian

            And if you watched this morning's testimony, the state's own witnesses explained this to the jury as well.  

            And this:

            You are claiming that Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything, that he can just claim self-defense and let God sort it out.
            Actually, what I am claiming is that Zimmerman can just claim self-defense (his statements claiming self-defense are in evidence before the jury, thanks to the prosecution) and God doesn't get to sort it all out, but the prosecution has the burden of sorting it all out.  That's because the burden of proving that Zimmerman did NOT act in self-defense is on the prosecution.  That's the law of the state of Florida, as well. And the judge will mos certainly tell the jury exactly that.
            •  Are you a lawyer, or just a statute-quoter? (0+ / 0-)

              'Cause your commentary doesn't suggest much familiarity - or any training.

              Not that I'm against statute-quoting, y'unnerstand:  that just requires that you build a supporting argument when you do it, rather than just hoping the words tilt your way....

              Show me the whisky stains on the floor
              Show me an old drunkard as he stumbles to the door
              And I'll see a young man with so many reasons why...
              ...and there, but for FORTUNE, go you - or I... - thanks, Phil

              by chmood on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:33:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You're a clown (2+ / 0-)

              Thanks for the 705 page pdf document from which I'm supposed to glean your point. That is some AMAZING revelation you've uncovered, that judges instruct juries. OMFG how long has this sort of thing been happening? O brave new world that has such wonders in it...

              The law. is. subject. to. interpretation. by. the. jury. A claim of self-defense has to meet a threshold in the state of Florida. Zimmerman stalked Martin from a truck and thereby created a confrontation. He claims, with little corroborative evidence beyond signs of a scuffle, that he was therefore in fear of immediate death and used his weapon with the safety already disabled to kill his alleged assailant. This case has room for a lot of interpretation, and so I would suggest refraining from categorical statements regarding the likely outcome.

              And don't think I didn't notice your clever movement of the goal posts. In one comment you state Prosecution must prove Zimmerman did not fear for his life, now you state Prosecution has to prove he did not act in self-defense. This is a much lower burden of proof to meet, and the evidence shows Zimmerman taking a very active hand at causing the confrontation. Perhaps sufficient for a jury to agree that self-defense, let alone "stand your ground," should not be available to Martin as a line of defense.

              •  This is so basically wrong that not even (6+ / 0-)

                a first year law student would say it:  

                The law. is. subject. to. interpretation. by. the. jury.
                No, the jury CANNOT INTERPRET THE LAW.  That is for the judge to do.  The judge will INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO WHAT THE LAW IS.  That pdf are the instructions that a Florida judge will give to a jury.  Sectioni 3.6(f) are the instructions that will apply here.  

                The jury will also be given the general instructions found elsewhere in that document (check the table of contents) that include the instructions that the MUST APPLY THE LAW as the judge states it.  A jury never, never, never is supposed to "interpret" the law.  They must take the law, as the judge tells them, and apply it to the fact before them, to determine whether (in this case) the prosecution has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was NOT self defense.

              •  You're embarrassing yourself (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk, Neuroptimalian

                Black Holes Suck.

                by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:16:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  You are also ignoring (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chmood

          the forcible felony language. Again a jury would have room for interpretation to find that Zimmerman was attempting a forcible felony, in that he had a loaded gun with the safety off and was admitting to stalking an individual.

          •  "Room for interpretation" means acquittal. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward, Neuroptimalian

            I agree that if he approached Martin with his gun drawn and visible, that would justify a physical response by Martin in the nature of getting on top of Zimmerman and beating Zimmerman's head.  

            But if the prosecution tells the jury that "there's room for interpretation" that Zimmerman did that, or that it's possible that Zimmerman did that, or that it's likely that Zimmerman did that, that's an acquittal.  

            The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt. that Zimmerman did NOT act in self-defense.

            •  BULLSHIT (1+ / 0-)

              you can't POSSIBLY be a lawyer.  Not even in Alabama.  Although I confess you can conflate and confuse just like one.

              Zimmerman claims he is immune to prosecution for Martin's killing, due to the stand-your-ground law;  he is NOT claiming he did not kill Martin.

              In order for such claimed immunity to apply, there are conditions.  One is that the claim of self-defense hold up under scrutiny.  if it does not hold up, then Zimmerman's claimed immunity collapses - and he goes straight to jail for murder.

              It being Florida might well fuck with this or that somewhat, but that's the straight line here.  Your acquittal fantasy is neither possible nor amusing.

              Show me the whisky stains on the floor
              Show me an old drunkard as he stumbles to the door
              And I'll see a young man with so many reasons why...
              ...and there, but for FORTUNE, go you - or I... - thanks, Phil

              by chmood on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:01:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, my point is that the prosecution (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Victor Ward, Pi Li, Neuroptimalian, Vyan

                has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is NOT self-defense.  

                If there's "room for interpretation" as to whether it's self-defense, that means that the jury should find the defendant not guilty.

                See the Florida jury instructions on self-defense, section 3.6(f) of this document,

                Read in all cases.

                If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

                However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

              •  You need to accept that you're not a lawyer ... (0+ / 0-)

                and don't have the education to know what you're talking about.  Coffeetalk has been entirely correct in everything she's (patiently) tried to explain.  Just because you can't believe what she's telling you doesn't make her the least bit wrong.

                "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:34:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Mandate? (4+ / 0-)
        As usual CT is speaking beyond his/her mandate...
        What is coffeetalk's "mandate"? And how did she "speak beyond" it?
        Your zealous defense of poor George Zimmerman's rights notwithstanding
        Well, all I see is a lawyer talking about the law. And even if she were concerned with defending someone's rights, or the simply the right to due process, what's your problem with that?
        you are wrong to suggest the burden of proof lies solely with the prosecution
        The burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt does, in fact, lie solely with the prosecution. And yes, that goes for all 50 states, including backwards Florida.

        Why are you so concerned with the poor, helpless state and their poor prosecutor's burden in this case?

        Black Holes Suck.

        by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:14:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Is that true of Stand your ground? (0+ / 0-)

      there is no doubt whatsoever that GZ shot and killed TM and claimed stand your ground as justifying that...

      If he cannot justify this on stand your ground then he is a killer...

      Since when does the state have to prove that it was not stand your ground? Stand your ground can be seen as the reverse of the normal approach to justice.... as you say the prosecution normally has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a murder was done. All of the "stand your ground" claims are from GZ alone. There are no actual witnesses to the start of the altercation or the moment that TM was shot. We have to just take his word for it?

      With stand your ground who substantiates the claim that it applies? Without the shooter having to prove it and if there are no witnesses or cctv cameras etc. to disprove their claim they can kill and get away with it. Is that the fault of a very poor law?

      In an odd way, the burden of proof is on GZ... if the prosecution can show there is no substantiation of stand your ground GZ is at least guilty of manslaughter... since he killed someone without a valid reason... he had no basis to pursue but he did pursue. Other stand your ground cases have allowed people to pursue unarmed people and shoot them dead but the person they shot had committed a crime, theft etc. so there was at least a reason to pursue them...

      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

      by IreGyre on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:44:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's the law in Florida. (5+ / 0-)
        Since when does the state have to prove that it was not stand your ground?
        In any case of self-defense, the judge will read the following instruction to the jury:
        Read in all cases.

        If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

        However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

        That's an instruction that the burden is on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was NOT self-defense.  If the jury thinks it probably was not self-defense, but they have a reasonable doubt, they should acquit.  
    •  I agree with all of that... except. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, Tonedevil

      Tracy Martin's girlfriends house is almost all the way at the end of the double-row and across the walk-way on the East Side toward Retreat View Circle about 50-60 ft from where Trayvon's body was found.  It's marked by a purple square on the Map and it's out of sight, beyond of camera range to the left in the last photo.

      •  If the jury believes Ms. Jeantel (4+ / 0-)

        that Martin was near that house when whatever happened between the two started, how did they end up 50-60 feet away with (if the jury also believes Mr. Good) Martin on top of Zimmerman throwing punches down at Zimmerman and Zimmerman (according to Mr. Good) screaming for help?

        I think that for any possible conviction, the prosecution needs to provide the jury with a scenario of how that happened that the jury can believe beyond a reasonable doubt.

        •  Well, Rachel said that Trayvon claimed.. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          worldlotus, Tonedevil, a2nite, Eric Nelson

          he "was at the back of the house" which may not have meant Literally at the back door but simply on that walk-way/dog path that leads to his back door.

          I'm not really sure he had enough time to walk all the way down to the third building and all the way back again to the first between the time Zimmerman lost sight of him and Rachel heard his phone cut off.  Based on Zimmerman's time line - it was only about 2 minutes.

          I'd have to cross reference the phone call time stamps to be sure, but I need some sleep - was up until 3am typing this out and proof-reading it (still missed a couple).

  •  Hmmmm.... (7+ / 0-)
    Will the Prosecution Tear Open the Mack-Truck Sized Holes in Zimmerman's Story?
    I hope so.

    I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

    by Lilyvt on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:56:42 AM PDT

  •  Zimmerman statement I find unbelievable (8+ / 0-)

    when he says Trayvon said "You got me" after being shot.

    I would like to hear from medical experts on what would happen when a person is shot through the heart by a 9mm "hollow point" bullet.

    Would they speak after this happens?

  •  Great summary. Thanks/ (5+ / 0-)

    Further, affiant sayeth not.

    by Gary Norton on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:11:05 AM PDT

  •  I have only watched a little, and yesterday I was (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, Tonedevil, Eric Nelson

    disgusted at Zimmerman's friend seeming so gleeful to get his "15 minutes of fame".  Also, if I heard right he wrote a book, so his appearance would get some free advertising for his book.

    I kept wanting to hear the Prosecution ask if Zimmerman's injuries could be self-inflicted.

    Mother Teresa: "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other."

    by Amber6541 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:20:46 AM PDT

  •  Who is Rachel? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus
    Rachel says the conversation goes 'What are you following me for? - What are you doing around here!
    Please choose to refer to all people by their surname or by their given name but please pick just one. This is confusing - at best.
  •  It is not "fucking punks" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, chmood, Eric Nelson

    It is "fucking coons."  Listen to the tape.  I did multiple times -- it's not "punks."  I learned the word "coons" while living in South Florida, so don't kid yourself that just because it sounds anachronistic to you, it is not alive and well in some places.

    "If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another . . . after the war is on." -R.M. LaFollette

    by Spirit of Fighting Bob on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:24:48 AM PDT

  •  The kids in our neighborhood own every yard (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus, a2nite, Eric Nelson

    They treat all yards in the neighborhood, front and back, as if they were their own.  Pretty much at all times of day or evening.  So cutting through yards (or using them for games) might look suspicious for adults but it's normal behavior even for high school kids around here.  Very annoying but not unusual in itself.

    ------
    Ideology is when you have the answers before you know the questions.
    It is what grows into empty spaces where intelligence has died.

    by Alden on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:41:52 AM PDT

  •  Seems possible (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chmood, worldlotus

    The prosecution is inviting Zimmerman to testify on his own behalf. What they are able to do if he refuses to do so is anybody's guess. In Florida you can't claim self-defense if you provoke the fight. Zimmerman supporters are banking on him using self-defense as his get-out-of-jail card but even in Florida it's a bit more complicated than that. It's clear Zimmerman lied to police on many occasions. He's vulnerable to having his credibility impeached just like any other participant in a legal process.

    •  bzzt. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neuroptimalian
      n Florida you can't claim self-defense if you provoke the fight.
      Flat out wrong.  
    •  You've been told this is wrong. (0+ / 0-)
      In Florida you can't claim self-defense if you provoke the fight.
      Here's the statute explaining when an aggressor can claim self-defense:  
      776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
      (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
      (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
      (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
      (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
      The Florida Courts have heldthat the word "provoked" means "the use or threat of force":  
      We agree with appellant that the jury instruction given by the trial court was inadequate to properly charge the jury in this case. The instruction stated that appellant could not defend herself with non-deadly force if she "initially provoked" 445*445 the victim. By not limiting provocation to the use or threat of force, the court failed to make the jury aware that the word "provoked," as used in the instruction, did not refer to mere words or conduct without force. Stated another way, the instruction given by the court eliminated the use of non-deadly force in self-defense if there was any provocation by the defendant—no matter how slight or subjective the provocation. By that standard, a mere insult could be deemed sufficient to prohibit defending oneself from an attacker.
      If the jury finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did something more than "mere words or conduct without force," but instead, "used or threatened force" against Martin before Martin "used or threatened force" against him,  this is the statute they would apply.
  •  Those white ladies are never gonna convict him (0+ / 0-)

    They know in advance what their lives would be like if they did. And the lives of their family members. At church. At bingo. At the Winn-Dixie.

    All it takes is reasonable doubt. I'd bet the farm (if I had) one this guy walks.

    Either way, the proverbial stuff is gonna hit the fan. And if he walks, it should.

    Ich bin ein Wisconsiner!

    by Apphouse50 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:21:55 AM PDT

  •  This may have been said above, if so, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Eric Nelson

    forgive me but the commentators are saying the Prosecution may put on the medical examiner and Trayvon's mother and then rest their case today. I cannot believe it but they seem pretty sure. They said they were told this AM that the State had 8 more witnesses and they have seen six already today. Sad, if it is so. That means they either have a hell of a rebuttal after the defense rests or they plan to cinch the deal in the closing.

    "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

    by rubyr on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:08:40 AM PDT

  •  Confirmed--prosecution plans to rest today. nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neuroptimalian

    "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

    by rubyr on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:51:00 AM PDT

  •  Does Zimmermans story add up? Not even the.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Tonedevil

    ..police interviewing/coaching him believe it does.

    Minute 13.38 of the first video when the officer is trying to sort out Zinnermans story says: "I'm speaking for you..I'm trying to protect you the best that I can.."

    Sure, the cops are trying to get the story and maybe by acting as Zimmeremans advocate they hoped to put him at ease enough to get his guard down to then trip him up in a lie, but did the officers take those inconsistencies and juxtapose them for Zimmerma to anwser alone - unaided?

    No. At every inconsistency in Zimmermans story, and there are many, the cops were filling in the holes, essentially helping to write a narrative. Warning Zimmerman about how it didn't add up. Then offering their own explanations.

    So based on everything this Dairy has pointed out:

    Be what their pasts may be, the real question is - does Zimmerman's story for the night in question add up?
    Not to me.

    P.S. also too: Sean Hannity interviewed Zimmerman asking (paraphrasing): 'do you wish you hadn't had a gun that night..would you change what you did that night?'

    Zimmerman (paraphrased) answered: 'It's God's Law and I'd do it again'

    That may not reach the 'depraved mind' threshold needed for a 2nd degree murder conviction in some peoples minds, but, with that complete lack of remorse it does meet that bar in my mind.

    Fear of great bodily harm whether it is reasonable or not may be all that is needed as a defense for reasonable doubt as some lawyers will say, but a jury is made up of people who may see that it is also very reasoable to believe that Zimmermans story is a bullshit lie.

    I  do

    Thx Vyan

    And one more thing on the politics end (iow's OT). This IS about the RWNJ Stand Your Ground law. Maybe not legally, but it is just the same an extention of the Castle Doctrine into the public space

    imo

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site