The Zimmerman trial continues today!

MONDAY, JULY 1, 2013

Notes on propaganda and tribal disinformation: The Zimmerman trial continues today. In her news report in the New York Times, Lizette Alvarez includes this maddening passage:
ALVAREZ (7/1/13): The prosecution is also expected to call Chris Serino, the Sanford police officer who was the lead investigator in the case. Mr. Serino, who said Mr. Zimmerman had a “little hero complex” and felt his statements sounded “scripted,” recommended a manslaughter charge.

But that testimony could get complicated. Mr. Serino later told the F.B.I. that he had been pressured to make an arrest. He told the federal agents that he did not think there was enough evidence for a manslaughter charge.
In our view, Alvarez’s reporting has been sensible and fair. But do you understand that passage about an important future witness?

According to that passage, Serino told the FBI “that he did not think there was enough evidence for a manslaughter charge.” Earlier, Serino had “recommended a manslaughter charge,” that passage also says.

No direct contradiction has been presented. But as it stands, that passage strikes us as maddeningly unclear.

In our view, Alvarez has been sensible and fair in her reporting, but many citizens have prejudged many aspects of this case. This brings us back to Charles Blow’s recent column—and it invites us to take a look at the evolving liberal world.

On Saturday, we said that Blow’s column struck us as basically fair. That said, he could have done more to issue a warning to his liberal readers. That warning would have gone like this: Many of you have been disinformed about some basic facts of this case.

Consider one extremely basic question about what Zimmerman did. In Saturday’s column, Blow included this passage as he listed “some crucial questions” about the case, “some of which we may never completely know the answers to:”
BLOW (6/29/13): Why did Zimmerman leave his car, armed with his gun, and follow Martin? When the dispatcher realized that Zimmerman was in pursuit and told him, “We don’t need you to do that,” did Zimmerman stop?
In that passage, Blow seems to make a large concession, given his previous role in this case. He seems to concede that we still don’t know what Zimmerman did when the police dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that.”

Did Zimmerman keep following Martin at that point? Or did he turn back toward his truck, as he has always said?

In that passage, Blow seems to acknowledge that he doesn’t know what Zimmerman did at that point. But many of his readers do know! Or at least, they think they know what happened at that point.

If you have some extra time, read through the many comments to Blow's column. We liberals were heavily propagandized last year, in part by Blow himself. As a result, many liberals feel quite sure that they know what Zimmerman did when the dispatcher made that statement.

What follows is the very first paragraph from Blow’s very first commenter. The commenter is a regular commenter at the Times:
COMMENTER FROM CALIFORNIA (6/29/13): Charles,

We absolutely know that Trayvon Martin's intent that night was to get home from the store with his tea and Skittles. We know that Zimmerman had, in previous calls to 911 dispatch, made disparaging remarks about people he found suspicious. Did they all look more or less like Trayvon? We know, via the 911 recording, that Zimmerman was ordered to end his pursuit. He didn't. Whatever Zimmerman's goal was that night, it should have been foiled then.
The full comment is much longer. Later, the commenter adds to her account, suggesting that Zimmerman may have inflicted his injuries on himself after shooting Martin.

Please note what this commenter seems to say “we know” about the events of that night. She seems to say “we know” that Zimmerman didn’t end his pursuit after the dispatcher’s comment.

Blow had just said that we don't know that, though he did so rather obliquely. Did this heavily propagandized reader even realize that Blow had said that?

The 436 comments to Blow’s column ought to be sobering. They are full of aggressive factual claims by heavily propagandized readers. Among other claims, many commenters are quite sure that Zimmerman didn’t end his pursuit at that point. Very few commenters seem to realize that Blow has just said that we don’t know what Zimmerman did at that point.

Here’s why this matters:

Last year, some liberal news organs spewed disinformation about the events of that night. In particular, MSNBC’s conduct was disgraceful, egregious. Blow played an active role in that channel’s month of misconduct.

Today, the nation is full of liberals who think they know all kinds of facts which haven’t been established. In perhaps the most significant instance, they think they know that Zimmerman continued his pursuit after the dispatcher spoke.

Last weekend, Blow seemed to acknowledge that this hasn’t been established. But the people he helped propagandize last year continue their dogged pursuit of their man.

In the 1990s, we liberals laughed at the dittoheads who swallowed every word which fell from Rush Limbaugh’s lips. Last year, our tribe became the dittoheads, as you can see from the hundreds of disinformed comments appearing beneath Blow’s column.

Did Zimmerman continue his pursuit? According to Blow, we still don’t know. As far as we know, that assessment is correct.

We look forward to seeing the evidence as it emerges at trial.

97 comments:

  1. "Today, the nation is full of liberals who think they know all kinds of facts which haven’t been established."

    This is true for so many things. Tons of liberals out there think that women are paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to men for the same work, or that black males are incarcerated at ten times the rate of white men for no good reason, or (one of your favorites) that America's schools are terrible in general. It's the ivy league liberal monoculture in the media, where the extent of knowledge is whatever "everyone knows" with zero investigation or critical thought. It seems to be exacerbated by the internet and increasingly "social" media, where a story's fate depends on whether one likes what one is hearing, and perhaps more importantly wants to let others know that one likes it. Why are there a thousand New York Times articles about an otherwise indistinguishable shooting in Florida, again?

    ReplyDelete
  2. As a long-time reader, I would have assumed that thoroughly reading the NY Times every day would make me well-informed and accurately informed. Sadly, that's not the Times's standard. Otherwise, they'd make their corrections more visible and clear.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe Serino sounds scripted. Have the local cops been investigated? I've seen photos of Zimmerman after the blood was cleaned off his upper lip, and there are what look like pinpricks (or freckles, or boogers) on the underside of his nose. Could the wounds have been self-administrered with a little help from his police friends, or is that too much conspiracy thinking?

    I keep hearing discussions as to who was on top in the Martin/Zimmerman scuffle. In every decent fight and wrestling match I've seen, combatants took turns being on top. Could that not be an explanation for the varying accounts?

    I would also appreciate a seminar on self-defense law in Florida. It's always been my layman's understanding that if you bring a gun to a Skittles fight, that's too much force to claim self-defense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zimmerman himself says he Martin was on top first and then Zimmerman was on top.

      Delete
    2. The varying accounts could be accounted for by the fact that Zimmerman said after he was beaten and shot Martin, he got on top of him. But your explanation along with the self-inflicted wound theory seems much more plausible.

      This guy was lucky to have gotten away with his life. He wasn't armed either, even with skittles

      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/beating-caught-homeowner-nanny-cam-article-1.1381703

      Delete
    3. "Could the wounds have been self-administrered with a little help from his police friends"

      "your explanation along with the self-inflicted wound theory seems much more plausible"

      God, please help us see the sarcasm tags.

      Delete
    4. Jeeves Stump, The answers to your questions are "Yes" and "It probably doesn't matter."

      As for self-defense in Florida, lethal force is permitted if you find yourself in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. Unless, that is, you provoked or attacked someone. In that case, you may defend yourself short of using lethal force unless and until you surrender or flee in good faith but find yourself still under attack. At that point, you may use lethal force. In particular, there is no duty to meet force only with commensurate force, nor is there a duty to retreat.

      Delete
  4. One of the most striking aspects of the liberal take on this case is the hostility toward Zimmerman for volunteering as a neighborhood watchman, and his apparent determination to be effective in that role.

    Actions of an individual like that, who called the non-emergency number numerous times and also was doing precisely what Zimmerman did that night up until the time he was attacked, would be appreciated by most sane people who relied on volunteers for security in their neighborhoods. People who live in lower-income areas, who cannot afford to hire on-site roaming security or gate guards, install in-home security systems, etc.

    The cable analysts and New York Times reporters who contribute to this case live and travel in highly secure worlds. If they needed a George Zimmerman in their neighborhoods, they would appreciate having one and chances are good none of them would do the volunteering themselves.

    Just one more disgusting elitist attitude infecting coverage of this case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right on, you pegged it. That interzone between the gated communities and the lower class neighborhoods is dangerous and the police cannot do it all. The fact that the liberal press did not give George Zimmerman a fair shake is creating a potent martyr story that will haunt the liberal side for years to come.

      Delete
    2. Just when we were getting past Tawana Brawley.

      Delete
  5. I disagree about whether or not Zimmerman was following Martin.


    Zimmerman: This is asphalt and, ah…So I walked straight through to see if there was a street sign that I could tell dispatch
    Singleton: Um hum.
    Zimmerman: where I lost sight of him then. And when I walked back, that’s when he came out of the darkness and I guess he was upset that I called the police.
    Singleton: So this is behind the house that he comes out of the darkness?
    Zimmerman: I…yes, ma’am.
    Singleton: Behind the building? OK, and you said there’s some bushes or something…
    Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
    Singleton: That he may have came out of? OK.
    Zimmerman: Because when I walked past, I didn’t see him down here. I went, so I walked through to make sure…You know, I looked to make sure he wasn’t there.
    Singleton: Right.
    Zimmerman: And then I walked straight through to see a street sign and then when I came back obviously he was waiting somewhere.

    I don't know what "went, walked through to make sure he wasn't there" means but I think it indicates "following" because at that point Zimmerman wasn't looking for a street sign, which is what he claims he was doing.

    Maybe the dreadful "liberals" read the transcript?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reading doesn't mean 'understanding', as you so ably demonstrate in your final paragraph.
      lol.
      You guys are fun-ny

      Delete
  6. I do thank you Mr. Somerby because until I read the transcripts I didn't know to what extent Zimmerman's story relies on how he was the victim of an (apparently!) completely unprovoked beating by Martin.

    It's also really interesting how early and often he repeats that he "was looking for a street sign" NOT following Martin, although that breaks down when he's questioned later and he claims he looking for a street sign at one point, but instead "walking through ....to see if he (Martin) was still there" Sounds like "following" to me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Looking to make sure he wasn't there" is the same as "following"?

    "I went, so I walked through to make sure...you know I looked to make sure he wasn't there.." "And then I walked straight through."

    Obviously Zim was walking across the top of the "T" of the sidewalk, "walked through to make sure" was corrected to "looked to make sure" and then "walked straight through.

    The grasping at straws in search of a gotcha moment (which will never come because Zimmerman's story is true) is almost comical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It actually gets worse in the next interview, where he contradicts his original story. He does that because by this point the police have the dispatcher's tape so they can hear the sequence of events, including what sounds to them like Zimmerman running, which doesn't match up with "looking for a street sign" (what he told them earlier).

      http://zimmerman-vs-martin.blogspot.com/2013/04/complete-transcript-serino-interview.html

      Now he's "going in the same direction" as Martin, but still not following him.

      Delete
    2. Looking for the street sign means he was trying to locate himself I would guess. Makes sense those neighborhoods have lots of little streets that look alike. Maybe when he was looking to see if Martin was not there he was just completing his patrol. I mean, if at that point he could not see Martin, it seems to me he was just following the instincts of an good security agent and making sure no one was lurking. I have lived in similar neighborhoods down south and I find Zimmerman's behavior reasonable and brave. I have been mugged multiple times in my own neighborhood by young thugs so I know that youth and slight build means nothing. Trayvon Martin was a known adherent of mixed martial art fighting (MMA) which mean the kid liked to fight and knew how to do it. I am big and tall but I suspect Trayvon Martin could have beat me up. I beg people out there to quit presuming that George Zimmerman was a racist thug. There is no evidence for that,and such false alarms diminish the effort against real racism.

      Delete
    3. Well, "on patrol" isn't the issue. Following is, because he was directed not to follow.
      Zimmerman's story changes. First he got out of the car only to find a street sign. Then he looked for a street sign and "walked through to see if he was still there". Then he was "going in the same direction" as Martin, but not following.
      The police identify this as an inconsistency, because one of them heard the first story, and asked him specific questions about whether he followed Martin. It's a contradiction.

      Delete
    4. I believe he was told that they did not need him to follow after he was already out of his car and that zimmerman only continued on to the street sign and was then was accosted as he was on the way back to his car. That is, the initial confrontation occurred before he was warned off and the ultimate fatal fight happened right near Zimmerman's car. Martin must at some point have followed Zimmerman. Am I wrong? The timing is so crucial.

      Delete
    5. The police identify this as an inconsistency,

      Every one of them said there were no inconsistencies they thought were notable or anything other than the kind that happen in every case, and when they don't happen they suspect the person being questioned is overly rehearsed.

      Delete
    6. He was not told to not follow. He never even spoke to a police officer that night until post-incident.
      For god's sake, get your facts straight. This is what Bob was writing about. The heavy propagandization of so many liberals who bought it hook, line, and sinker.

      Delete
  8. Blow-Maddow create ditto heads
    just like Limbaugh? You're channeling
    Howard Kurtz again.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What I find the most interesting about today's recording of Zim's police statement immediately after the events is that he is so certain the (white) eyewitness who saw the fight and heard the screams right before the shot would cover for him and tell the same story, rather than the truth of Martin screaming and Zim being on top.

    Zim was so arrogantly certain everyone would comply he even volunteered to the questioner that the witness was watching from the patio and they were both within the other's eyesight and earshot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He probably knew most of the officers he was told were on the way were probably going to be white and racist too. He felt confident he could shoot Martin prematurely and for kicks no matter how many neighbors were watching or listening or even if cops he knew were on their way were approaching the scene at the time and they would all back up the story he concocted about positioning, screaming, shooting and presented immediately after.

      Delete
    2. May Heaven help the fools to see the sarcasm tags.

      It may have been equally foolish to have left them off...

      Delete
    3. Just a suggestion - why don't you simply AVOID sarcasm?

      Delete
    4. My, another delusional racist touting the Trayvon line.

      Those damn facts though....

      Delete
  10. How many assaults take place in which the attacker continued to talk on the phone while approaching his victim. I am not claiming that doing so is impossible, only that it is unlikely.

    It is also possible that an unarmed individual would attack a person who is armed, but that too is less likely.

    It's possible that an unarmed Martin was confident in his ability to fight an individual armed with a gun, (it's been done before,) but that is not a typical response. An unarmed individual is more likely to freeze or run than to attack, unless he or she sees no alternative and has the presence of mind to act aggressively.

    Poor reporting and wild speculation on the part of reporters does not translate to Martin behaving in a series of atypical manners.

    If one were to assume that he or she is about to be attacked by an unarmed individual, does that assumption make it legal to shoot and kill the unarmed aggressor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, missed the testimony showing that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun. Please provide.

      Delete
    2. Should participants in an altercation assume one of the parties is armed? If that is the case than one should assume that a fist fight has the potential of being a "stand your ground" situation. If that is the case, than all fist fights warrant killing the aggressor. Is that the intent of the "stand your ground" law?

      Delete
    3. It is unwise to attack someone and brutally beat them without knowing how well or poorly they are armed, otherwise he might defend himself.

      Delete
    4. Which is why I am glad I live in Massachusetts, where (except in a few neighborhoods in a few cities) it is highly unlikely that either of these parties would be armed. As a bystander, I would feel safer about intervening. (Am I the only person who's noticed how these Floridian bystanders continue to stand-by rather than at least shout something like, Hey, stop that? Not to mention help the guy who's shouting "Help me" -- whichever guy it was -- by intervening physically?)

      Delete
    5. gcwall,

      Should participants in an altercation assume one of the parties is armed?
      Of course.

      Should one assume that a fist fight has the potential of being a SYG situation?
      Not every fist fight in Florida. Invoking SYG requires the invoker to be legally where he is and not to be committing a crime. Consider two people who get into a fight, one person who's trespassing and another who assaults the first.

      Is that the intent of the SYG law?
      The intent of the law is provide the broadest possible latitude for people who shoot others.

      Delete
    6. This case has nothing to do with SYG.
      It hasn't even been invoked.
      This is simple Self-Defense.
      If you don't know that, then you are not comprehending the trial.

      deadrat is not a reliable source, btw.

      Delete
    7. Oh, dear! An Anonymous poster (on 7/1/13 @ 11:23P) thinks I'm not reliable. Please, enlighten commenters here on what I've posted that's wrong. I'll wait.

      I'm not hopeful of an answer from someone who can't read for comprehension. I answered gcwall, who had asked general questions about Florida statutes on self-defense. Is there anything in my answers that you find "unreliable"? Take your time. Show your work.

      The case has nothing to do with SYG. Yet. And nothing in my answer to gcwall suggests that it does. Zimmerman had a chance to invoke SYG before the trial, and he declined. He may bring it up when the defense presents his case. Or not.

      In fact, the case has nothing to do with "simple Self-Defense." Yet. The prosecution hasn't rested, and their job is show beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had a depraved mind when he killed Martin. If they can't do that, the defense doesn't even have to put on a case. If they do, they may choose an affirmative defense of justification. Or not.

      As someone said, "If you don't know that, then you are not comprehending the trial." Or any trial for second degree murder for that matter.

      OK, time's up. Turn in your paper with your list of "unreliable" things I've posted.

      Delete
    8. You claimed the the Florida SYG law was to allow the broadest possible latitude for people who shoot others.

      You think that is accurate?

      Delete
    9. Anonymous on 7/2/13 @ 12:43P Of course it's accurate. It's not exactly a secret. The law was written by the NRA for that specific purpose. It removes all duty of avoidance, grounds justification in the mind of the shooter, and indemnifies SYG shooters from civil liability.

      Did you think I meant that the law allowed anybody to shoot anybody else at any time under any circumstances?

      Delete
    10. it was presented in a prejudicial way and was at the very least ambiguous.
      i.e. not accurate.

      The rest of your stuff is right on.

      Delete
  11. When did Zimmerman become an agent for block watch? My understanding is that at some time in the past he served on the block watch, but not at the time of the killing. In fact, if memory serves, Zimmerman was relieved of his duties due to erratic behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope. Not relieved. No erratic behavior.

      Wonder how you got that wrong info?

      Delete
  12. Here's an illustration of what happens when the media demonizes someone. CNN showed Zimmerman's Social Security Number, and people are gloating about how they can use that number to do him harm. E.g., here one tweet:

    Queen Victoria. @Vicki_SeeKz
    Did anybody get George Zimmerman social security number?! Its too late abc....niggss bouta come up!!! Lmao


    and here's another tweet:

     Lock_Star  @thatnappychic
    Hahahaa! Now the whole world has #Zimmerman's social security number!!! Lmbooo!! Now HE can be victimized!!!! #JusticeForTrayvon




    ReplyDelete
  13. That state witness who questioned Zimmerman directly after the shooting who said he expressed guilt over the possibility he killed someone and shock when he learned he had, just disproved the "demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life" portion of their own charge. Typical racist system. Even the prosecution is trying to help Zimmerman walk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous on 7/1/13 @ 3:49P, Expressing guilt or demonstrating remorse post hoc doesn't disprove the depravity necessary for second-degree murder. Having a depraved mind means operating with gross negligence while committing an inherently dangerous act. What counts is the mental state of the defendant as he committed the act for which he has been indicted.

      Delete
    2. I know your creepy conservative mind was attempting a joke there, but yes, the detective who questioned him (and the rest of the police department) is racist and thought Zimmerman should just walk. That's the whole reason this became a national news story in the first place, you dolt.

      Delete
    3. They thought Zimmerman should walk because Zimmerman should have walked.

      Delete
    4. Gee Anon 7:47, does the black version of the KKK wear black robes?

      Watch the trial with open eyes, grievance-monger.

      Delete
  14. I've never lived in a neighborhood where they were needed; but I would be grateful to a volunteers who served on a watch. But WATCH is the operative word. When it's time to chase then it's time for the professionally trained police. I mean your uncle does a great job carving the turkey at Thanksgiving. Would you go to him for a heart surgery? He'd probably give a good rate....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know if I have ever read such an effective analogy. Thank you for helping me understand.

      Delete
    2. In an area with high rates of predatory crime the police are usually too late, despite their great and laudable effort. You might try watching the series The Wire to get a feel of what the police and the communities are up against in many many places across the U S. It is very easy to miss this reality if you do not live in the bottom quarter of society. The reality is that self-appointed agents like Zimmerman can often make a difference.
      Did George Zimmerman "chase" Trayvon Martin? I understand that Zimmerman probably annoyed and hassled Martin by observing him at all. I hate it when security hassles me at night. It is always unpleasant. My point is that even if Zimmerman was a jerk and Martin was annoyed, that does not legally or morally justify an a physical assault on Zimmerman, not unless Zimmerman was physically threatening Martin. I doubt if that was the case since security usually stands back for their own protection and there is no evidence that Zimmerman brandished his gun before the fatal assault.

      Delete
    3. No evidence of GZ chasing him. How would he even think he could catch him, being fat and talking on the phone to police?
      All the evidence points to him 'watching' TM.
      Like he'[s supposed to do.
      How good of a chaser are you if you just sit in your truck as he walks completely around it? Especially if you have a gun?

      Delete
  15. My God what absurd comments here. People assume Martin "attacked Zimmerman" just because Zimmerman says so. Last I heard, killers who leave no surviving victim to tell the course of events will come up with a self-serving explanation. Just knowing that, we have every right to consider multiple scenarios that fit the circumstances. For example, Z approaches TM and TM asks "Why are you following me?"...Instead of answering and explaining, Z demanded "What are you doing here?" (This is factual and note that Z told the police "I never got a chance to tell him what I was doing", a blatant lie.) And with Z lying, the jury can ignore all Z's claims and place equal weight on the likelihood that Z then grabbed TM to "hold him for the police" he knew were on the way. Still having no clue why he was stalked and attacked, TM was fully justified in anything he did to Z. And Z was no more justified in killing TM than a thug on the street who attacks a citizen who then gets the better of him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous on 7/1/13 @ 9:59P, "We" (and by that I take it you're referring to yourself) have every right to consider multiple scenarios whether they fit the circumstances or no. The jury, on the other hand, is supposed to restrict itself to the evidence. If Zimmerman appears to be lying, the jury, as the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses, is supposed to discount his testimony. They're not supposed to board your frequent flights of fantasy.

      To wit, if in the alternate world you live in, it's obvious that Zimmerman grabbed Martin to hold him for the police or for any other reason, Martin would be allowed to break free and defend himself from further assault. That defense could legally include lethal force only if Martin reasonably believed that Zimmerman's actions presented a likelihood of severe injury or death. In the event that Zimmerman provoked Martin in such a manner, Zimmerman would not have the legal right to use lethal force in return.

      In this world, which I urge you to join, we don't really know what happened in the last moments of Martin's life.

      Delete
    2. I assume you are in some way "challenged", since you insult me, then write a concurrence with my point, specifically (and in your own words): "In the event that Zimmerman provoked Martin in such a manner, Zimmerman would not have the legal right to use lethal force in return."

      And if you really think a deliberating jury will not consider alternatives in which the evidence is disputed or even silent, you are naive indeed.

      But since you lie to claim that I said "it's obvious that Zimmerman grabbed Martin to hold him for the police..." (when I spoke of multiple possible scenarios),then other readers here, like juries considering a witness who lied on a material factual issue, may disregard your words completely.


      Delete
    3. ^^the likelihood there are 6 people on a jury who are this dense is infinitesimal. Even a Florida jury. Zman is in good shape

      Delete
    4. Did any of your scenarios include time travel and the illuminati, Anon 11:27?

      Delete
    5. @ anon 9:59
      These absurd comments at least have their facts straight: It is NOT a fact what you say GZ said. The one witness who made that claim had said something different in a previous statement...so she conflicts herself. And THAT'S a fact. Which, btw makes you the liar when you called GZ a liar. And THAT's a fact, too.
      The rest of your statement is just plain ignorant about the law (fact) and is seemingly the product of a syphilis-scarred brain.
      That last part is opinion.
      See the difference?

      Delete
    6. Anonymous on 7/1/13 @ 11:27. You assume a lot of things that aren't so. I'm not insulting you when I disagree with nonsense you write. Neither am I in concurrence with your points.

      Unlike you, I don' t pretend to know what a deliberating jury will do. I'm telling you what they're charged to do under the law.

      I notice that like many people who can't defend their positions, you rely on blustering claims that they've been abused. Go back and read, this time for comprehension. I wrote "if .. it's obvious." Juries indeed are empowered to disregard the testimony of those they find unreliable. They are not tasked with inferring alternate rectally-derived just-so stories. Oops! I mean "multiple possible scenarios."

      Readers here are free to disregard my words partially or completely. But I think you're standing in front of me in that line.

      Delete
  16. Hey look, Bob! Your comments section isn't any better than the one you decried.

    Glad you are starting to see the light.

    ReplyDelete
  17. We'll see how this all plays out, but I am of the view that - if the evidence show's Zimmerman instigated the altercation after being told to to leave it alone by the police dispatcher - then the other guy "also" had a right to self defense, and winning the fight shouldn't be a death sentence, especially if you didn't start it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Following someone is not cause for assault, much less lethal force. Not even illegal.
      If somehow Zimmerman assaulted TM, (albeit if he did, he did it only leaving marks on TM's knuckles), and TM felt reasonably that he was in danger, then self-defense would be justified, to a point.
      But that is just navel gazing. There is no evidence for that.
      At all.
      Are you willing to ruin a man's life based on conjecture with no evidence? Especially when his story of self-defense stands up?

      Delete
  18. If Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin, he wouldn't have a broken nose, and impact wounds to the back of his head. Oh, and he wouldn't have called the police, and given his name and address. First. Dolts.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If @No-limit-nigga, Martin, wanted to be home, he would have been home. (the girlfriends home) That, according to his star witness's testimony. Zimmerman's crime, was looking at him. That's not allowed. Just looking at @No-limit-nigga, Martin, or his ilk, is grounds for a violent beating. Concealed carry by lawful citizens makes sense. Maybe the next no-limit thug will remember George Zimmerman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous on 7/2/13 @ 1:14A, Even the prosecution doesn't believe that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin. That would be first degree murder; Zimmerman is charged with second degree.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous on 7/2/13 @1:30,

      Good troll! Have a cookie. Now go away. The adults are talking.

      Delete
    3. deadrat; you say a lot about the level of ignorance displayed by the Martin cheer-leaders. 2nd degree murder is intentional murder. And, with malice. You are an idiot.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous on 7/1/2013 @ 1:44P, In Florida, 2nd degree murder is homicide committed with a depraved mind, i.e., performing an inherently dangerous act with a reckless disregard for human life, but without premeditation.

      The statute mentions neither intent nor malice. Premeditation is usually taken to mean the forethought required to form intent, but the statute doesn't say that. Malice as a legal term of art probably doesn't mean what you think it does.

      You are an ignoramus.

      Of course, that doesn't preclude my being an idiot.

      Delete
  20. That deadrat is hilarious in his infantile ignorance...Note above he denies what Zimmerman, the defense, and everyone else (but the rat) admits, namely, that Z intended to shoot Martin. Self defense is always a defense to an intentional act, ratbrain! Or did you think Z was cleaning his gun when it went off? Stop your trolling and go learn to read or something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My, let's hope your fever breaks soon.

      Why do you have to make shit up?

      Bob sure was correct about what has happened to the Left.
      I wonder how he feels to have these LIVs, nutballs, and grievance-mongers as his primary audience?

      Delete
    2. So Anon 12:37, I see you also believe that if you're cleaning your gun and it goes off, killing someone, that you can claim self defense?

      If you want to see a nutball, try looking in the mirror.

      Delete
    3. That's RETARDED, Sir.

      How do you "see" something I didn't say?
      When did you realize you weren't as smart as everyone else? That must've been a sad day for you.
      However, I would like to buy a pound of whatever you are smoking.
      So that should cheer you up.

      Delete
    4. Sorry "retarded", but you attacked my comment pointing out that a self-defense strategy by the defense is invariably for an action the defendant committed voluntarily...Other defenses typically are that it was an accident or the defendant did not commit the action...Even an insanity defense admits committing the deed, just like self-defense.

      But I think you know that Deadrat, and you're just responding as an insulting "anonymous" because you know what a buffoon you will prove yourself if you use your "real" name trying to defend a stupid comment. Don't worry though, you could not look more stupid.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous on 7/2/13 @ 7:55A, The prosecution is not charging Zimmerman with an intentional crime. They are charging him with 2nd degree murder, murder with a depraved mind but no premeditation. If Zimmerman presents an affirmative defense of justification, of course he'll have to claim an intentional action. But a legal one, namely shooting an assailant in self-defense. But that's different.

      Anonymous on 7/2/13 @ 1:48P, Did you just post an anonymous comment telling me I'm a buffoon for not using my "real" name? Irony much? And how do you know that deadrat isn't my real name? If I gave another, how would you that it is?

      Delete
    6. Anon 1:48's real name is Fish N. Barrel

      Delete
    7. deadrat 1. Zimmerman IS presenting a defense of self-defense, which is DEFINED as an affirmative defense, so you remain as ignorant as ever.

      deadrat 2. You try to deadweasel out of it but your words above are these: "Even the prosecution doesn't believe that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin. That would be first degree murder...". (deadrat July 2, 2013 at 2:34 AM)

      As I pointed out, your words there were pure BS. Zimmerman obviously and admittedly grabbed his gun INTENDING to shoot Travon Martin. And his defense for that intended and intentional act is self-defense.

      But don't think I'm mad..Exposing your kind of buffoonery is really uplifting...And your little "anonymous" digs on the sly to fabricate a following is just more of the same from you.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous on 7/2/13 @ 4:45P, I'll type slower so you can understand:

      I figure that Zimmerman will claim self-defense, which of course is an affirmative defense of justification. Did you misunderstand even that simple part of what I wrote? But he hasn't yet. That's because the prosecution hasn't rested. The defense needn't put on any case at all. They may move for a directed verdict if the state can't prove it's case. If the judge agrees, it's over before Zimmerman claims anything.

      Zimmerman hasn't admitted anything under oath. Yet. Now here's the important part, so read carefully. Sound out the words if you have to. The prosecution has charged him with homicide with a depraved mind but no premeditation. That's what 2nd degree murder is. They don't have to prove intent. They have to prove extreme recklessness. If Zimmerman claims justification, then obviously he admits intent, but that's different. What's not clear about this?

      I don't think you're mad. I think you're ignorant.

      And you can stop reading my mind at any time. You're not any better at that than you are at understanding this case. There are people I would be flattered to have appreciate me. None comments on TDH.

      Delete
    9. I see you have now learned (from me) that intent and premeditation are not the same thing. Good boy. Keep it up, but you've got a ways to go.

      Obviously the state doesn't "have to prove intent". Z has repeatedly admitted his intentional shooting of TM to police, detectives, his friends, and Hannity. And your pretense that such an admission would have be "under oath" is ridiculous. You don't get sworn in for police interviews...and you might want read Miranda rights to learn that anything you say to police can be used against you. Plus anything you say on TV or blab to friends can be used against you regardless.

      And the defense could even rest without presenting a case, but there will be a closing argument which WILL be one of self defense, unless there were the highly unlikely directed verdict. Z's attorneys said that when they waived the pre-trial hearing on "stand your ground" (which they could still bring up at trial as a part of a self defense presentation).

      Delete
    10. Anonymous on 7/2/13 @ 7:26. "Obviously the state doesn't have to prove intent." Thank you. Since intent isn't an element of the crime charged. So contrary to what you said, Zimmerman is not charged with intentional murder. Are we done now? Or do you need to keep trying?

      Sorry, but all evidence must be given under oath. And, no not anything you say on TV or blab to friends can be used against you. It must be admissible. But keep trying.

      There need be no closing argument. Keep trying.

      So there could be a directed verdict, even if unlikely? So that would mean no presentation of justification? Thank you. But keep trying.

      What Z's attorneys said? Not evidence. Nothing an attorney says to defend his client in court or out is evidence. Keep trying.

      If Zimmerman testifies that he shot Martin or if the police testify that Zimmerman made an admission against interest that he shot Martin, then the prosecution will try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that self-defense was not an issue, but Zimmerman's intent won't matter for them. But that's because self-defense is not depravity of mind, which is what they have to show. Done now?

      Delete
    11. When you argue with the clueless, there's always the chance that it's catching. I amend my remarks.

      Intent won't be an issue in Zimmerman's trial, even if he claims justification. The reason is that although self-defense is by its nature an intentional act, that admission is of no help to the prosecution. That's because the intention that Zimmerman will own will be to defend himself, not to kill to defend himself. If he testifies, it will be to say that his intent was to save his own life by firing but not that his intent was to do so by killing (who he says) was his assailant. He will seek the protection of the law that says that the lethal outcome was justified, but he won't say that Martin's death was what he sought.

      Delete
    12. deadrat...The foolishness you wrote above above does contain the one fact that you also now realize that self-defense is "by its nature an intentional act". So I've now elevated you TWO steps above the abysmal pit of complete ignorance where you started. You're welcome.

      Here's another point you flub that any fool could see, so maybe you could work it up to three: "Testimony" is given under oath in court, not "evidence". Evidence can be what some devious character said on Hannity's TV show, such as Z's unsworn comments with Hannity that he had no regrets that TM is dead...Comments now already in evidence, as you know if you watched the trial today...And proving again your abysmal ignorance.

      Delete
    13. ^^The prosecution's entire case depends on jurors being this dumb. A long shot

      Delete
    14. Anonymous on 7/2/13 @ 10:47P. Given up on your ignorant claim that Zimmerman is charged with intentional murder, I see. Still, however, I see I wasn't typing slowly enough for you to follow. I'm not sure I can type any slower.

      Of course, self-defense is an intentional act, something I've never denied. It's just not an intention that's relevant to the murder charge. In claiming self defense, Zimmerman won't be admitting an intention to kill; he'll be admitting an intention to stop an attack that he says was waged against him.

      All evidence must be admitted by sworn testimony except for stipulations and certain self-certifying documents like certified public records. Your quibble is a distinction without a difference. Hannity's tapes will be admitted as evidence in the usual way. Will anyone be surprised about Zimmerman's admission that he had no regrets about his killing someone who he claims was trying to kill him? Well, not you. Anybody sensible.

      I hope you don't mind if I don't take seriously a charge of ignorance by someone who is himself ignorant of the elements of the crime that Zimmerman is charged with.

      Delete
    15. <quote>
      "Premeditation," as applied to a homicide, is defined as meaning Intent before the act, but not necessarily an intent existing any extended time before the act Ernest v. State, 20 Fla. 383, 388; Killing V. State, 9 South. 711, 714, 28 Fla. 313.
      </quote>

      If there's a difference between premeditation and intent in Florida, it is miniscule.

      Delete
    16. There are lies, damned lies, then deadrat lies. If you think there is "miniscule" difference between 1st degree murder (premeditated) and other lesser killings which only show an intentional act, then you are a fool...But I assume you are just lying again.

      I never suggested Z was charged with "intentional murder"...Remember...you stated in complete buffoonery that the prosecution had to prove Z "intended" to "shoot" TM, which Z has admitted over and over. (The subject was never "intending to kill TM" except in your weaseling out of your errors.) You then claimed those admissions did not count because they were not "under oath", and then pretended that admissions against interest by a defendant were only admissible if given "under oath"...that such admissions were not ecidence bu testimony, and, when all that was disproved and you realized your idiocy, you then projected your dumbassery to others. Get help. You are a pathological liar.


      Delete
    17. Anonymous on 7/3/13 @ 8:10A, It's hard to keep all the Anonymouses straight, but I'd think you could figure out which comments are made by someone who uses the nym deadrat.

      I don't think there is a minuscule difference between degrees of murder. I think in Florida the difference between premeditated murder and intent to murder is vanishingly small. "Intentional acts" are relevant in the Florida murder statute only for non-lethal acts. One such is self-defense, which makes the homicide non-criminal. Others are concomitant crimes, which make a death during their commission second degree murder or manslaughter and which also define felony murder.

      I responded to this comment: "deadrat; you say a lot about the level of ignorance displayed by the Martin cheer-leaders. 2nd degree murder is intentional murder. And, with malice. You are an idiot." If that's not you, then I'm sorry for the error, but not very much.

      Now I may be an idiot, but I responded, "The statute mentions neither intent nor malice." So, sadly, no, I'm not the one who said that the prosecution had to prove intent. They don't; they have to prove a depraved mind.

      I didn't claim that admissions against interest not made under oath aren't admissible, but that they have to be made admissible by proper testimony under oath from the person who heard them.

      Again, Zimmerman may have said he intended to shoot Martin, but that's far different from intending to kill Martin. Since he hasn't testified yet, it's important to hear what he actually says about his mental state. If your story is now that the subject isn't intending to kill, then fine, but it's hardly relevant. Intending to shoot someone to save your life doesn't show a depraved mind. Intending to shoot someone when you're unreasonably mistaken about the threat to your life negates your claim of justification, but by itself doesn't prove a depraved mind.

      But, really, why all the bluster? Perhaps I'm a fool or an idiot, or maybe just ignorant, in all of which cases it should be easy to point out where I'm mistaken. Without reading my mind or making psychiatric diagnoses, which are fairly difficult feats, especially in cyberspace. Why not take baby steps and get straight what I actually wrote?

      Delete
    18. Deadrat pathological lying continues....You lie about your own words right above what you write and you cite things I don't believe and never said

      To wit: Deadrat (7-3, 1:47 AM) "If there's a difference between premeditation and intent in Florida, it is miniscule."

      Your lie, obvious to anyone, is to pretend now in your latest bluster that the word "intent" is the same as "intentional murder".

      Fortunately for you, no one is likely to be here reading at this point..For me, just keeping you at the keyboard makes the streets safer.

      So you now lie to claim you said

      Delete
    19. Anonymous on 7/3/13 @ 12:53P,

      Do you have some form of Tourette's? You might want to get that checked out.

      Florida statutes use the term "premeditated murder," not "intentional murder." I don't see how the words "intent to murder" are different from "intentional murder." Is this part of your fantasy that if Zimmerman admits to an intentional act (namely, self-defense), that makes the prosecution's job easier?

      Keeping me at the keyboard? How long do you think it takes me to make fun of your nonsense, anyway? Does doing that make me a bad person?

      How about it I intended to do it?

      Delete
    20. deadrat, it is hopeless. You'll never convince a moron like that about the law, evidence, burden of proof, etc.

      But he has great self esteem.

      Delete
    21. Anonymous on 7/3/13 @ 8:44. So your story now is that you can't explain yourself because "it is hopeless"? OK, I guess we're done. I suppose it is easier not to explain. It's certainly easier to read minds on a comment section.

      Burden of proof? Where did that some into this conversation? Didja learn a new term today?

      Is it Tourette's that you've got? I hear that can be a social handicap. Not in cyberspace, of course, where nobody can much tell.

      Delete
  21. Why Zimmerman would lie to the dispatcher claiming walking on the sidewalk and talking on a cell phone was "looking into houses" and "acting suspiciously" is probably best explained by his words "assholes" and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGuctYqCDvo

    ReplyDelete
  22. If the jurors have IQ's of 65 or above, they already know it was Zimmerman screaming.

    When Martin's parents testify it was their son after the prosecution suggests "every parent knows their kid's voice" the jurors will have no choice but to conclude they are lousy parents because they know their kid's voice, or liars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. correction: lousy parents because they DON'T know their kid's voice.

      Delete
    2. It doesn't matter what Z, or the eyewitness, or Z's bloody face, or all the cops saying Z's statements squared with witnesses whose statements he did not know about when he gave his own, suggest about who was getting beaten up. The mother's emotion will prove she knows it was her son.

      Delete
  23. I believe the prosecutors are purposely trying to lose the
    Zimmerman/Martin case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the way it always looks when the State chooses to persecute a man in a show trial without any actual evidence.
      Doesn't mean they won't win.

      Delete
  24. Can't say the comment section is any surprise. People presenting their own "facts" based on their own preconceived notions. The liberal media maybe guilty of framing a story not based on facts. But clearly people who watch Fox News or no news at all, have formed opinions as facts as well. Amusing but incredibly sad as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Comments like yours are always more interesting (i.e. they hold more than zero interest) when the commenter actually identifies the false facts supposedly held by others.

      So you're still down at zero.

      Delete
    2. What a waste of precious pixels that comment was, 7:09.
      It might have sounded smart in your head.
      Out here? Not so much.

      Delete