tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post552764527528833331..comments2024-03-28T04:12:17.506-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Goldie Taylor wants to help!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger121125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-31395441403824390692013-12-02T07:29:32.463-05:002013-12-02T07:29:32.463-05:00Salmon? Don't get it. But Anon at 11:08 shows ...Salmon? Don't get it. But Anon at 11:08 shows us what we could have guessed, Pastor Bob is cherry picking with both hands. Did this ever have to be harder than it is? Zimmerman, while having a plausible claim to self defense, was also obviously stupid and possibly unstable. He ignored the instructions he got at Neighborhood Watch Meetings, and he ignored his lawyers who no doubt told him to lay low and keep his nose clean. As to helping him start a new life, how about his big mouthed, media savvy brother or the righties who have taken him under his wing? Must the evil liberals do EVERYTHING? Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288008924419574934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-91923153235524560872013-12-01T14:25:16.869-05:002013-12-01T14:25:16.869-05:00From Free Dictionary:
pro·jec·tion (pr-jkshn)
Th...From Free Dictionary:<br /><br />pro·jec·tion (pr-jkshn)<br />The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-79199514664886662702013-12-01T13:00:00.380-05:002013-12-01T13:00:00.380-05:00OMB
Say, BOB. What kind of help do you think the...OMB<br /><br />Say, BOB. What kind of help do you think these two fine Americans<br />needed?<br /><br />KZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-32797379309219706932013-11-30T13:10:51.312-05:002013-11-30T13:10:51.312-05:00So are the Kardashians "the other"? How ...So are the Kardashians "the other"? How about Paris Hilton, or the Duck Dynasty magnates? People get covered in the media because they've been featured in the media. At this point race has little to do with coverage of Zimmerman - he's a Famous Person, so we have to see what's happening to him (or you do - or you feel it necessary to write blogs about him and his coverage).skeptonomistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-38339526321544870912013-11-30T12:48:12.818-05:002013-11-30T12:48:12.818-05:00So Zimmerman was trying to provoke Martin by follo...So Zimmerman was trying to provoke Martin by following him? How did that work out?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-47767339870005476252013-11-28T22:01:07.505-05:002013-11-28T22:01:07.505-05:00Anonymous @5:24P,
Much of what you say is true, b...Anonymous @5:24P,<br /><br />Much of what you say is true, but the law does not require Martin to stay inside his home. Neither does it require him not to confront Zimmerman in a public place. There is no evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. His blows could have been justified had Zimmerman threatened him. Zimmerman says it was the other way around, but there's no independent witness to what happened.<br /><br />Martin is not being given the benefit of the doubt. He has no use for it. Zimmerman was given the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br />Keep in mind that everything that Jeanel testified to about her last conversation with Martin is hearsay.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-18594574249779299782013-11-28T21:53:57.587-05:002013-11-28T21:53:57.587-05:00Anonymous @5:27P,
You have mistakenly concluded t...Anonymous @5:27P,<br /><br />You have mistakenly concluded that the physical evidence that Martin struck Zimmerman is evidence of assault. Martin had the same right to defend himself that Zimmerman had. If Martin reasonably thought he was in physical danger, then he could have legally struck Zimmerman, even preemptively and even if later he turned out to have been reasonably mistaken.<br /><br />We have no independent testimony as to what went on shortly after the two confronted each other. Zimmerman says Martin was the aggressor, but this is self-serving, although he may be right.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-66519324521128693962013-11-28T17:27:39.418-05:002013-11-28T17:27:39.418-05:00There is not a "complete lack of physical evi...There is not a "complete lack of physical evidence" that Martin committed the crime of assaulting Zimmerman. There are the abrasions on Martin's hands, the broken nose and abrasions on Zimmerman's head. Those are all physical evidence. There were no bruises on Martin at autopsy that would suggest Zimmerman ever hit him -- again that is physical evidence that Martin was not defending himself but was committing assault, as eyewitness neighbors reported.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-1599766598425691412013-11-28T17:24:40.691-05:002013-11-28T17:24:40.691-05:00Martin could have defended himself by staying insi...Martin could have defended himself by staying inside his home when he got there (according to his conversation with Jeantel). He could have defended himself by not confronting Zimmerman at any time but just going about his business (not off the sidewalk or on the lawn casing homes but walking down the street). He could have defended himself by not punching Zimmerman at all. There is no justification for assaulting another person. There is also no evidence that Zimmerman threw any punches (no abrasions on his knuckles as there were on Martin's). The assumption that because Martin cannot tell his story, he must be given the benefit of the doubt about everything, is wrong, especially when it contradicts evidence supplied by various witnesses, including his friend Jeantel and neighbors, not just what Zimmerman said (which tends to be supported in the gist, if not the details). Martin's actions contributed to this outcome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-81112239559557149762013-11-28T15:18:56.890-05:002013-11-28T15:18:56.890-05:00mm,
I'm not a lawyer either, and it takes som...mm,<br /><br />I'm not a lawyer either, and it takes some effort for me to separate my sense of injustice from an understanding of the law. The state has a very heavy burden of proof, and when a defendant has killed the only other eyewitness to an homicide, the task of conviction is almost impossible. The Sanford police should have figured out that they needed to be seen doing their utmost, but the fact is that the original state attorney was right to decline to prosecute.<br /><br />I can't fault the state for bringing in Zimmerman's videotaped and written accounts. What choice do they have? Determining the proper degree of homicide requires determining the defendant's state of mind -- depraved indifference or culpable negligence. If Zimmerman doesn't testify, how else are they going to do that?<br /><br />All their other witnesses were weak. Someone who saw a altercation but couldn't tell whether blows were landed. Ear-witnesses who couldn't be sure who was talking or screaming. A friend of Martin who was borderline unintelligible on the stand and had credibility problems.<br /><br />The state tried to bluff by indicting Zimmerman for 2nd degree murder. Thus they had to prove that someone who seemed such a bumbler was actually a depraved killer. I'm assuming they were hoping to get a plea to a lesser charge, but Zimmerman called their bluff.<br /><br />The "elements" of lethal self-defense in Florida are simply stated: the defendant must reasonably believe that he was in danger of losing his life and in danger of great bodily harm. Even if post hoc examination reveals him to have been mistaken. Defendants are presumed innocent from the get go. Since everyone agreed that Zimmerman killed Martin, the only question was his state of mind. Did he fear for his life, and if not did he exhibit a depraved indifference to his victim's?<br /><br />It's not possible to sue prosecutors for their performance. They have immunity.<br /><br />Florida law makes it almost impossible to sue Zimmerman for wrongful death, which is where the final injustice comes in. Sometimes the state cannot convict a killer because we demand so much of the state, but when that happens we shouldn't preclude the victim's family their day in (civil) court. But you can thank the NRA, ALEC, and the Florida legislature for that, not the prosecution. deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-33914320831342976632013-11-28T11:17:23.571-05:002013-11-28T11:17:23.571-05:00J Good did not identify the color of Martin's ...<br />J Good did not identify the color of Martin's clothing, he just said the guy on top had dark clothing and the guy on the bottom had white or red clothing. Much of Good's testimony does not seem particularly reliable.<br /><br />It is not clear Zimmerman had a broken nose, there is no direct evidence to confirm this. The medical examiner said Zimmerman's head was not bashed or banged on concrete - which matches the eyewitness testimony - and said his injuries were minor, very insignificant, and not life-threatening<br /><br />J Good's testimony was about downward arm movements, not hitting. Even on the 911 call, he referred to their action as wrestling.<br /><br />I think the verdict was quite surprising, and apparently many of the jurors were uncertain at best, but swayed by at least one that was very certain Zimmerman was not guilty. No matter how I look at the case, I can not see how Zimmerman reasonably feared for imminent great bodily harm or death to justify killing Martin. I am certain he should have been found guilty. Going forward, he appears to be a menace. I hope the justice system finds a way to curb his violent tendencies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-70061068881921657792013-11-28T07:36:42.716-05:002013-11-28T07:36:42.716-05:00Zimmerman didn't testify at the trial. There w...Zimmerman didn't testify at the trial. There was a witness who did testify that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and appeared to be striking him. Zimmerman did have injuries.There were these screams, and it wasn't clear whether Z or M was doing the screaming. Given these elements, it isn't surprising that the jury found Z not guilty, under the beyond the reasonable doubt standard. There is a difference between being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and being actually guilty. I'm not defending Z, he may actually have been guilty, I wasn't there.AC / MAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-6253914690329126332013-11-28T07:05:34.702-05:002013-11-28T07:05:34.702-05:00deadrat,
I'm not a lawyer. I just have a ver...deadrat,<br /><br />I'm not a lawyer. I just have a very strong sense that the prosecution did not serve the Martin family or the "people" of Florida well by allowing all of Z's self serving statements and preposterous explanation of the events of that night to come into evidence without having the opportunity to cross examine. <br /><br />It is very confusing. On the one hand the self-defense defense is an affirmative defense but on the other hand you claim that it was the state's burden to prove it was not self-defense as though all of the elements of self-defense are assumed to be true from the get go.<br /><br />The prosecution allowed Z to tell his entire story while sitting on his fat lying ass throughout the entire trial. It reached the absurd conclusion where the defense was allowed to show the jury a computer generated reenactment of the killing based on Z's tall tale (without the gun ever appearing!!!!). None of that could have been possible had not the prosecution brought into evidence Zimmerman's statements. If I were the Martin family I would be suing the state for malpractice.mmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-39971949066983209802013-11-28T05:44:32.612-05:002013-11-28T05:44:32.612-05:00Yes, it's evidence that some kind of fight too...Yes, it's evidence that some kind of fight took place. But Zimmerman's story is preposterous that Martin, who was running away from him moments before, suddenly appeared out of the blue to confront him, knocked him to the ground without warning, straddled him and began pounding his head into the pavement, then Zimmerman was still able to pull his gun from behind his back, take off the safety (if we presume he was smart enough to put the safety on) and fire one fatal shot from point blank range.<br /><br />What gets me is that all the Internet lawyers around here who can see only Zimmerman's right to "self-defense" can't afford Martin the same right to defend himself.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5988596722263914082013-11-27T22:57:05.626-05:002013-11-27T22:57:05.626-05:00Anonymous @3:06,
I've read the jury instructi...Anonymous @3:06,<br /><br />I've read the jury instructions. The jury has to decide whether the prosecution met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. The judge therefore instructed them on self-defense.<br /><br />Please don't make me watch the defense closing argument. It's almost an hour and a half. As I recall, O'Mara spent his time picking holes in the prosecution's case and reminding the jurors not to invent their own scenarios. In any case, opening and closing arguments are not considered evidence.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-59874429712273755752013-11-27T19:16:19.371-05:002013-11-27T19:16:19.371-05:00Thank you for correcting that typo.
He identified...Thank you for correcting that typo.<br /><br />He identified the color of jacket that Martin was wearing. Medical testimony confirmed the extent of Zimmerman's head injuries which included a broken nose and abrasions to the back of the head consistent with having been banged on concrete. There were also abrasions on Martin's hands but not on Zimmerman's. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-19267455896683535152013-11-27T19:13:18.125-05:002013-11-27T19:13:18.125-05:00The secrecy involved donating sums to front organi...The secrecy involved donating sums to front organizations that were used for money laundering of contributions to campaigns in California during our last election. There was an investigation tracing back those contributions and that is how we know about where they came from.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-61312686866653799182013-11-27T18:32:01.326-05:002013-11-27T18:32:01.326-05:00You mean Shellie Zimmerman "threatening"...You mean Shellie Zimmerman "threatening" Zimmerman with the IPAD? She wasn't threatening him, she was trying to provoke an argument or hostile outburst and film it. Clearly she was put up to it. <br /><br />These incidents surely make the case against "shield" laws for journalists. If they are put above the law, they will abuse it. Lionelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336249052780481883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-77312668264336268372013-11-27T18:19:45.929-05:002013-11-27T18:19:45.929-05:00The post-trial travails of Zimmerman don't pro...The post-trial travails of Zimmerman don't prove he was guilty. He might have been guilty, but unless we were there at the time, we can only speculate. He was found not guilty by a jury, where guilt had to be found beyond areasonable doubt.AC / MAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85046984944885032712013-11-27T17:29:54.818-05:002013-11-27T17:29:54.818-05:00mm,
I was too quick on the snark. I blame the se...mm,<br /><br />I was too quick on the snark. I blame the season. Sorry.<br /><br />You're right. Z presented a defense, just not an affirmative one, namely justification. Z's lawyers certainly cross-examined prosecution witnesses and presented their own. But the defense witnesses were rebuttal witnesses. The prosecution says that Zimmerman was bigger and stronger? OK, here's a public safety consultant to testify that Martin was in better shape. The prosecution says that it was Martin on the tape screaming for his life? OK, here's Zimmerman's father to say the screams were his son's.<br /><br />Part of the confusion about this arises from the fact that evidence was presented that Zimmerman claimed self-defense. That's true, but it wasn't testimony. It was the videotaped interrogation and Zimmerman's written statement, and that was introduced by the prosecution.<br /><br />Your source is correct. It's not permitted for a lawyer to claim his client acted in self-defense. The defendant must present evidence for his claim. That could be expert testimony (i.e., forensic) or eye-witness testimony. In Zimmerman's case, he killed the only other witness, so that would have had to be him.<br /><br />Because Florida law makes illegal homicide an unjustified killing, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. And all Zimmerman had to do was introduce reasonable doubt that the prosecution had shown self-defense was impossible. That's the way the law is written in Florida and most, though not all, states.<br /><br />I'm guessing that the prosecution's presentation of Zimmerman's claims is the basis for your charge of "tanking," but remember that the prosecution had to show depravity for the top charge and at least culpable recklessness for a lesser include charge. Both of these go to state of mind, and without Zimmerman's taking the stand, how are they going to get there without Zimmerman's narrative in evidence?<br /><br />Anonymous @7:56P presents a source (opinion piece at wwww.nola.com) that claims that New Orleans prosecutors think they could have done better partly because their Florida brethren didn't want to win. It might have been easier to convict Zimmerman in another state, e.g., one that had a commensurate harm rule for testing claims of self defense. I don't know whether Louisiana has such a rule. But I'd be wary of this source, which claims that prosecutors should have demanded a change of venue because the case was too hot a potato for county officials to handle. But the Florida Supreme Court (Ashley v State, 72Fla137 (1916)) doesn't allow for such a demand (over the objections of the defense) unless seating a <i>jury</i> is a demonstrably impractical. It's a Sixth Amendment issue.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-33082932823515267192013-11-27T15:30:14.807-05:002013-11-27T15:30:14.807-05:00deadrat, I really enjoy reading your comments on t...deadrat, I really enjoy reading your comments on this blog, but you're simply wrong. Z never presented any defense??? Maybe you slept through the trial, because I certainly remember the defense presenting witnesses. They didn't rest after the prosecution presented their case.<br /><br />I understand, thank you very much, that no defendant can be forced to testify. But if you are claiming self-defense, which his lawyers most certainly were, then, just for example:<br /><br />*************************<br />Much has been made in the public narrative about the fact that Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed Martin. For Zimmerman to be successful in arguing self defense as a legal justification for the shooting he will need to present the court with a compelling narrative of his own recounting his reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. The success of Zimmerman’s narrative will surely be a function of the unremitting nature of Martin’s attack—straddling the prone Zimmerman and punching him “MMA-style” even after Zimmerman was clearly no longer any apparent threat and was, by eye-witness account, screaming for help—and the extensiveness of Zimmerman’s injuries as evidenced by medical reports and contemporaneous photos.<br /><br />http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/mmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-8905232655265002972013-11-27T15:06:43.946-05:002013-11-27T15:06:43.946-05:00deadrat, google up the jury instructions and read ...deadrat, google up the jury instructions and read them.<br /><br />You also might try googling up the closing arguments. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-13395986800338489542013-11-27T15:02:42.207-05:002013-11-27T15:02:42.207-05:00Zimmerman put on a defense. He had his own medica...Zimmerman put on a defense. He had his own medical testimony and the gym owner, as well as calling Tracy Martin to the stand to testify that he had intially told police the voice on the recording yelling "Help" was not his son's voice. Zimmerman also put on several neighbors to testify about all the crime and hundreds of 911 calls in the neighborhood, including a woman who had locked herself and her baby in the bathroom during a home invasion. Lionelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336249052780481883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-48047148346661114922013-11-27T15:01:48.245-05:002013-11-27T15:01:48.245-05:00Easy pickings, indeed. It's like picking a bus...Easy pickings, indeed. It's like picking a bushel basket of rotten apples off the ground then concluding that all apples are always rotten.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-6100037223839931182013-11-27T14:48:14.127-05:002013-11-27T14:48:14.127-05:00David in Cal November 26, 2013 at 2:29 PM,
How Zi...David in Cal November 26, 2013 at 2:29 PM,<br /><br />How Zimmerman saw Martin tells me a lot about Zimmerman too. <br />That, along with Zimmerman's violent past and the complete lack of physical evidence supporting his story , is why I didn't believe Zimmerman. <br />But you and Somerby can blame it on tribalism on my part if it helps you sleep better at night.<br /><br />BertoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com