lawrocket 3 #1901 May 17, 2012 I've been avoiding a lot of comment on this case recently. Part of it is that what little I'm seeing in this case is a veritable catering table of loose legal ethics. It's been a train wreck and I've tried to avert my eyes. But I'm disgusted by it. Let's go back to Zimmerman's defense attorneys who withdrew from representation a while back. See, we lawyers usually have a thing about withdrawing from representation in that we have to avoid foreseeable prejudice to our clients. Hence, I've thus far managed to avoid calling a fucking press conference and griping about my client, calling them mentally ill, that I cannot reach them. The sort of stuff that provides fodder for the prosecution. Then you have a special prosecutor holding a press conference. They ALSO have a duty not to prejudice a judicial proceeding. Hence, going on national television to announce the bringing of second degree murder charges. Think that prejudices the proceeding? THe jury pool? Where did they get it right? Zimmerman contacted members of the judge's husband's law firm. They were also paid by CNN. What happened? The Judge recused herself. Quietly. The firm didn't speak up and hold a press release. Quietly. With dignity. This whole thing is a cluster fuck. It's EXACTLY the reason why I don't like the idea of cameras in the courtroom. Just in this case you've got people more interested in playing to the cameras than in representing interests WITHOUT prejudicing things. In a courtroom, they'll be playing for the cameras, too. It adds an element that I don't think needs to be there and creates a circus environment when peoples' lives are at stake. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #1902 May 17, 2012 Right!!!! It seems this case is more about political agenda and less about justice. Politics always seem to have that circus environment going on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1903 May 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou are correct. The account is GZ was walking back to his truck and TM approached and assaulted him. I am not convinced one way or another of who started the confrontation. Anyhow, I have seen this same map used by some who use it to "prove" that Z was the aggressor and others who use it to "prove" that TM was the aggressor. Either way, they are using the same basic map of the incident, so I assume there is no dispute over where events took place. (The "F" marks the spot where Trayvon was killed.) Note that I did not say who started things either as I dont know It is stated GZ was on his way back to his vehicle And you are right, have not heard how close back to his vehicle he was when this all went down"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #1904 May 17, 2012 If the picture attached above is correct, he certainly didn't do a 180 and walk back to his vehicle. If he was on his way back, it was after he continued looking or pursuing or following or something... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1905 May 17, 2012 Quote If the picture attached above is correct, he certainly didn't do a 180 and walk back to his vehicle. If he was on his way back, it was after he continued looking or pursuing or following or something... I get a kick out of you mind readers"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1906 May 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou are correct. The account is GZ was walking back to his truck and TM approached and assaulted him. I am not convinced one way or another of who started the confrontation. Anyhow, I have seen this same map used by some who use it to "prove" that Z was the aggressor and others who use it to "prove" that TM was the aggressor. Either way, they are using the same basic map of the incident, so I assume there is no dispute over where events took place. (The "F" marks the spot where Trayvon was killed.) Just curios Do you know who provided this map?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #1907 May 17, 2012 QuoteI get a kick out of you mind readers I said if the map was correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1908 May 17, 2012 You also said QuoteIf he was on his way back, it was after he continued looking or pursuing or following or something... Why didnt you go ahead and say profiling too?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #1909 May 17, 2012 QuoteJust curios Do you know who provided this map? I believe I originally saw it in this New York Times article(?), but they have since updated the graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html Not sure if that's where it originated, but I've now seen it (or similar maps) in numerous places. Of course, I wasn't there, so I can't attest to its accuracy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1910 May 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteJust curios Do you know who provided this map? I believe I originally saw it in this New York Times article(?), but they have since updated the graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html Not sure if that's where it originated, but I've now seen it (or similar maps) in numerous places. Of course, I wasn't there, so I can't attest to its accuracy. I understand Thanks BTW wagist.com is in the image you provided Take a look at that site (I think that was it. If not, refer back to your picture)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #1911 May 17, 2012 QuoteYou also said -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If he was on his way back, it was after he continued looking or pursuing or following or something... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why didnt you go ahead and say profiling too? Right, I included all that because I don't know what he was doing. That's why I included multiple options and even ended it with something as vague as "or something". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1912 May 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou also said -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If he was on his way back, it was after he continued looking or pursuing or following or something... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why didnt you go ahead and say profiling too? Right, I included all that because I don't know what he was doing. That's why I included multiple options and even ended it with something as vague as "or something". None of them inocent More like an insinuation Again QuoteIF he was on his way back Then Quoteit was after he continued looking or pursuing or following or something Ya what ever you say....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #1913 May 17, 2012 QuoteNone of them inocent Looking is not innocent? Following is an insinuation? Whatever dude. Look at the map. If those locations are accurate, you tell me how he stopped his "walk", did a 180 and went straight back to his car. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #1914 May 17, 2012 QuoteBTW WASTIG.COM is in the image you provided It was wagist.com, and I did look at it, though it's not the site I got the picture from. I just did a search for "Trayvon Martin shooting map" or something like that and took one of the better images. But again, I've seen the same/similar map in lots of places, many of them using it to take Z's side and many of them using it to take TM's side. It doesn't seem to prove much of anything to me, except that (if it's accurate), the shooting took place in the yard between the apartments and not by Z's vehicle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #1915 May 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteBTW WASTIG.COM is in the image you provided It was wagist.com, and I did look at it, though it's not the site I got the picture from. I just did a search for "Trayvon Martin shooting map" or something like that and took one of the better images. But again, I've seen the same/similar map in lots of places, many of them using it to take Z's side and many of them using it to take TM's side. It doesn't seem to prove much of anything to me, except that (if it's accurate), the shooting took place in the yard between the apartments and not by Z's vehicle. Didnt mean anything by the site listed. Just found it interesting BTW On my way home ABC radio news reported the approx 200 pages of evidence in this case have been released. Including the autopsy reports The shot was between 1 and 18 inches and TM had weed in his system. They are still going over call records and others stuff More soon I am sure Marc"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #1916 May 17, 2012 QuoteAnyone who claims this was a racially motivated crime hasn't read enough about Mr. Zimmerman and his background.. ??? You do realize that the racial shit storm was started well before Z background started coming out. So, since his background can't be the motivation, what else do you have?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #1917 May 17, 2012 Quote. . . and TM had weed in his system. You know, one thing that has really bugged me in this case is that they did a toxicology on Martin but not on Zimmerman. It just seems like that would have been part of the investigation. I've certainly wondered whether Zimmerman was on anything (not implying he was), but I guess the police saw no reason to check. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #1918 May 17, 2012 Quote Quote If the picture attached above is correct, he certainly didn't do a 180 and walk back to his vehicle. If he was on his way back, it was after he continued looking or pursuing or following or something... I get a kick out of you mind readers Fiction writers deserve a note of wonderment, too. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #1919 May 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteBTW WASTIG.COM is in the image you provided It was wagist.com, and I did look at it, though it's not the site I got the picture from. I just did a search for "Trayvon Martin shooting map" or something like that and took one of the better images. But again, I've seen the same/similar map in lots of places, many of them using it to take Z's side and many of them using it to take TM's side. It doesn't seem to prove much of anything to me, except that (if it's accurate), the shooting took place in the yard between the apartments and not by Z's vehicle. Here's the legend for the pic you posted from waginst.com A – The Clubhouse for Retreat at Twin Lakes. B – Community mailboxes. C – Where George Zimmerman parked his truck. D – Brandy Green’s Townhouse, where Trayvon was staying. E – Zimmerman stopped and completed his 911 call for approximately eighty seconds. F – The fight and shooting took place in this area. G – Eyewitness “John’s” townhouse.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #1920 May 17, 2012 Quoteone thing that has really bugged me in this case is that they did a toxicology on Martin but not on Zimmerman A dead person has a significantly lesser right to privacy than does a living person. hence we know far more about what Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and Billy Mays were putting in themselves now than we did when they were alive. But I'll restate my thoughts: (1) TM was minding his own business (2) GM was minting TM's business (3) GM follows TM (4) TM stands his ground using less-than-lethal force (5) GM shoots him, An attacker cannot provoke a response and then increase to deadly force. Not in my mind. The point that seems to be lost in the "stand your ground" is that the initial aggressor cannot stand his. GM was the aggressor. TM stood his ground. GM shot him. I have not heard or read a single fact that contradicts this. It's so simple that the neither the bigots going after Zimmerman nor the bigots going after TM nor the people in between have bothered to get their subjective passions out of it and look at it with reason and logic. I don't care whether TM had THC in his system. It neither makes him more of a threat nor does it make him more aggressive. And GM couldn't have known this either. From the point of view of reason it makes ZERO difference. Period. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #1921 May 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteone thing that has really bugged me in this case is that they did a toxicology on Martin but not on Zimmerman A dead person has a significantly lesser right to privacy than does a living person. Yeah, but when you kill someone else (with a gun, with your vehicle, whatever) don't you lose a little bit of that right to privacy? It would seem important to his statement of what happened to know if he was stone cold sober or if he had a significant amount of any intoxicant in his system. (You can't always tell just by looking at or talking to someone, but still their judgment may be impaired.) Though I agree the THC in TM's system is not very relevant. It's not like weed is known to induce violence. Plus, he wasn't carrying around a concealed weapon that he needed to be responsible for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #1922 May 17, 2012 QuoteYeah, but when you kill someone else (with a gun, with your vehicle, whatever) don't you lose a little bit of that right to privacy? No. The only reason that right would be lost is if the defendant waives it by saying, "I was high and could not form the requisite intent to commit murder." Or, "I had a stroke, which is why I plowed into the schoolyard." Murder, etc., usually doesn't have an "absence of intoxication" element. It's up to the defendant to bring it up, in which case the privacy right is waived. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #1923 May 17, 2012 Quote But I'll restate my thoughts: (1) TM was minding his own business (2) GM was minting TM's business (3) GM follows TM (4) TM stands his ground using less-than-lethal force (5) GM shoots him, An attacker cannot provoke a response and then increase to deadly force. Not in my mind. The point that seems to be lost in the "stand your ground" is that the initial aggressor cannot stand his. GM was the aggressor. TM stood his ground. GM shot him. I have not heard or read a single fact that contradicts this. Here's one: You assume that Z was an attacker. Wrong assumption, wouldn't you agree? No, "follower" doesn't mean "attacker". Here's another: You assume that whatever force TM was using was non-lethal. You don't know that. Here's another: You said TM stood his ground. Not so. By all accounts, he approached. That's not standing your ground. No confrontation would have happened had TM continued on his innocent way and not approached Z. Quote"....nor the people in between have bothered to get their subjective passions out of it and look at it with reason and logic." Something about glass houses here......My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #1924 May 17, 2012 Toxicology testing is a normal thing for dead people. Not normal for live ones. Even if you are arrested, a toxicology test is not mandatory.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #1925 May 17, 2012 >You assume that Z was an attacker. >Wrong assumption, wouldn't you agree? Yes, it is wrong. So is the assumption that "Z was not an attacker" - which is the assumption you made. Neither is provable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
