Posted on 06/25/2013 2:26:55 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 06/25/2013 3:31:16 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
In opening statements Monday, defense attorneys portrayed murder suspect George Zimmerman as a citizen looking out for his neighborhood when he was confronted and attacked by Trayvon Martin, a stark contrast to prosecutors' picture of a vigilante who profiled the Forida teen.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Recall that originally Martin's father said right off the bat that those screams were not his son. He then changed his mind.
There just is not a ton of news trucks up there at the courthouse. Maybe 8 or 10 masts and a gaggle of media cars off the courthouse property.
Viciously attacked! That NEVER happens. Ya know, like this:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2013/06/25/early-home-invasion-on-tape.cnn
The mistake that Zimmerman made was calling 911 in the first place. The most effective ‘neighborhood watch’, in my opinion, is lone wolf, covert, direct action.Kind of like the ‘Glock block’ without the signs and the noise.
Talk about being clueless these two reporters are brain dead:
What trial are they reporting on???
In Florida the only case that requires a 12 man jury is one where the death penalty is a possible sentence. Death is not a possible sentence in a murder 2 trial so there are only 6 jurors.
This is what’s so funny to me. If someone else had shot the little thug Zimmerman would have been in front of the courthouse shouting and waving a sign that said “JUSTICE FOR TRAYVON!!!”
Yes but that is in line with the DS law. The “Double standard” law. Black shooting another black in the back is “self defense”. Someone who is not black shooting someone IN self defense is murder.
“I’m sure the prosecution is going to spend a lot of time trying to confuse the jury with bovine excrement.”
That’s usually a defense tactic though. Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, and confusing a jury is not a stellar way by the prosecution to effect such an outcome. Which is why confusion is an excellent defense tactic and a terrible prosecution one.
I heard early on that you only get a 12-man jury if the death penalty is involved.
Word is FL only uses a 12 person jury for capital crimes. 6 if the worst punishment is life in prison or less.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYR1ztDEYkQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZSwcqQ2rAI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reS4w2aTHV0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uLoRZt9V1U
Copy that.
This case would never have cleared a grand jury inquiry, which is where it was headed before the special prosecutor got involved.
Got it. Thanks!
Thanks, jj. that is helpful.
As I looked and tried to find my phone to dial 911 the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled “Help” several times. The suspect told me, “Shut the f*** up.” As I tried to sit upright, the suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk several times. I continued to yell “Help.” Each time I attempted to sit up, the suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode. I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continue to yell “Help.”
[Heard in the background of the 911 call from Witness #11 was a man desperately yelling “help” over and over again for about forty-two seconds. The call started at 7:16:11, about two and a half minutes after Zimmerman ended his call with SPD.]
As I slid the suspect covered my mouth and nose and stopped my breathing. At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm and say, “Your [sic] gonna die tonight Mother F***er.” I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as he had assured me he was going to kill me and I fired one shot into his torso. The suspect sat back allowing me to sit up and said “You got me.”
[The screams ended abruptly with a single gunshot at 7:16:59. Zimmerman’s narrative continues.]
At this point I slid out from underneath him and got on top of the suspect holding his hands away from his body. An onlooker appeared and asked me if I was ok. I said “No.” He said “I am calling 911.” I said “I don’t need you to call 911. I already called them. I need you to help me restrain this guy.” At this point a SPD officer arrived and asked “Who shot him.” I said I did and placed my hands on top of my head and told the officer where on my persons (sic) my firearm was holstered. The officer handcuffed me and disarmed me. The officer then placed me in the pack of his vehicle.
[Zimmerman’s own account ended here.]
This entire account sounds entirely in accord with the physical evidence, not in conflict with anything I know about either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman, and on the whole, extremely plausible.
Since you obviously know about the history of media games in Los Angeles, may I suggest Randall Sullivan’s LAbyrinth, which examines racial politics in LAPD, the Tupac Shakur murder, and the “Rampart Scandal”. Thoroughly documented and highly enlightening. Available, among other sources, on Amazon Kindle.
Don’t know why we spend so much time on this.
This is a Democrat on Democrat crime
Neither of these guys would give a Conservative Republican a cup of water on a hot day on Election Day.
Even a Democrat has the right of self defense.
Even a Democrat deserves not to be lynched by a mob of race pimps and spineless politicians scared to death of being falsely accused of being racist if they didn’t arrest and prosecute him on a trumped up charge.
And, I would bet that when Mr. Zimmerman heard the words “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon”, the first words out of his mouth were probably “FU a$$hole!”.
I really doubt that he still considers himself a Democrat today.
The suit Zimmerman has filed against NBC shows the way, but it is insufficient. The way to suppress this sort of thing - the crying need of the Republic - is to sue journalism as a whole. Otherwise, you get what you always got in the past - each journalist sloughs off responsibility and says, “I relied on someone else.”You will say, “Yes, but the problem is, How do you sue ‘journalism as a whole?’” And isn’t that unconstitutional? First, the way to sue journalism as a whole is to sue the Associated Press, and its membership. That covers the waterfront quite well, and is very appropriate, because the AP has always been aggressively dominant and monopolistic. But actually, any and all wire services merit the same treatment.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)”Liberals” love that Smith quote, but if it applies to any one trade, it applies to wire service journalism. The AP newswire is nothing but a continuous virtual meeting of all the major journalism outlets in America. And it started before the Civil War, and has been running continually for over a century and a half. And it didn’t take long at all before the AP was putting out its “style guides.” Guides that rule out expressions like “illegal alien.”Is it, or should it be, unconstitutional to sue monopoly journalism? No. They do not promote free discussion of issues, they participate in the suppression of it. Consider their coverage of the “settled science” of “man-made global warming.” The press cooperates with the Democratic Party in calling anyone who debates the issue “climate deniers.” The ancient Greeks had the same problem; people (who must have some sort of edge like our journalists do today) were able to call themselves Sophists (wise), and short-circuit debate. The answer to the Sophists was not to do a “he said, she said” argument over who was wise and who wasn’t; the answer was to eschew claims of wisdom but to claim only to love wisdom - that is, to demand that the argument be over the facts and logic of the issue at hand, not over who has the prettiest college degree. The Greek term for “a lover of wisdom” is Philosopher, and the Greek “Sophist” is the origin of the English word “sophistry.”The point is that journalism is not objective; instead, journalism uses the term “objective” in precisely the same sense as the ancient Sophists used the term “wisdom.” Just as when the Sophists claimed to actually have wisdom the result was sophistry, journalists claim to actually be wise (instead of limiting their claim to trying to be objective) - with the result that they engage in dishonest argumentation themselves. It is often said that journalists are “int the pocket of the Democrats,” but that is IMHO not the way to look at it. The same situation can be understood as the “liberals" going along to get along with journalism. And being awarded positive labels - “liberalism” was indeed a positive label before the socialists misappropriated it in the 1920s - while their opponents were given negative labels such as “right wing”, or even “conservative.” Conservative is a negative label in any country where the people believe in progress, which America emphatically does - at least until the “liberals” muck things up.
It's going to be fun to watch the idiots burn down there own neighborhoods as they have done so many times. Also, going to be fun to watch law-abiding citizens on top their stores like the Koreans in the Rodney King riots if they have any cojones.
I don't believe for a second the "gimmes" will move out of their self-imposed crap "hoods" and attack the suburbs. Even they are not that stupid - they are creatures of opportunity. They don't want to be shot deaded which could happen if they go further and will just loot and riot where it's easiest. Kind like water finding its own level.
They are all sh*thead opportunists - think Katrina. However, I will feel bad for the honest store owners. That said, if the store owners don't have the gumption to assemble on top of their properties with various evil guns pointed down, then that's their problem. Again, the Koreans knew what to do and not a one of their stores were burned, IIRC.
The real question to me is what will local police do? Will they cut and run like the LAPD during the Rodney King riots? That was an amazing thing to watch in real time. I watched from the flash point after the verdict and into days of the LEO's standing down, and watched central Los Angeles burn. I vividly remember the real time helo videos of one of biggest cities in the World on fire on every few blocks.
Hell, the Police couldn't even protect the fire-fighters who eventually had to give up while being attacked and just let stuff burn. The National Guard finally moved in, but by then, the anger and chaos was already winding down.
Personally, I grew up believing that looters and arsonists should be shot on sight. Teach them a lesson they will never forget. But in this age of political correctness, every life is so-called sacred. Pfft!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.