P
pnewton
Guest
Still, if he wishes bail, I would hope that it would be commensurate with the fact that he turned himself in and is not a flight risk. He deserves the right to be free before his trial.
George Zimmerman makes initial court appearance in Trayvon Martin shooting, will plead not guilty
- Status
M
maryjk
Guest
news.yahoo.com/video/orlandow…-28640523.html
Martin’s father changed his mind. At first, he said that the screams were NOT his son. Now they are his son.
That is a problem.
And if the prosecution puts mother on the stand, there isn’t anything to stop the defense from putting on the father and asking him what his first instinct was when he heard the tape. And if the father changed his mind before the mother heard the tape, it will be even more of problem.
It would make more sense to not use either and just call an expert.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Please read my latest response to Seekerz. And, maybe read a lot of my other posts too over these many threads. I have NOT rushed to judgment and I’m NOT sure it was an accident. I just don’t know. Have a look at post #7 in this thread where I quote myself from another thread. I’ve tried to be fair to both Martin and Zimmerman because I don’t know what happened and I don’t have all the facts. I’m still seeking and processing information, i.e., I just listened to the 911 calls for the first time this evening. I want the truth and I want justice. No need to rant at me. I have NOT decided anything or made a judgment about anything.In other words:
You have already made up your mind that the whole thing was an “accident” and not something else----like possibly 2nd degree murder.
Haven’t some folks here run themselves ragged (including you) insisting that we should just let the trial come, hear the evidence and “let the system take its course?”
Look----I admit I lean towards the TM side and think there was some funny business regarding BOTH parties----PARTICULARLY GZ----but I’m willing to let the “system take its course,” have an open mind, suspend my prejudices, particularly in regard to it being changed---------and to know the TRUTH, which it was ultimately (and ideally) what a trial should be about.
Are you willing to do that?
Or are you one of those that simply believes GZ and takes him at his word simply on the evidence of a hoodie on a black man and some ambigous bruising on GZ’s part?
You’re telling some of us to not rush to judgement? Then DO JUST THAT yourself.
Sorry if I seem harsh, but I’m tired of this seeming yapping about “convicting GZ and rushing to judgement” and not applying this to Martin’s side as well.
You don’t know if GZ attacked TM? Fine. We do not know if TM attacked GZ either. So please----some here need to stop with the babble-----making this as if that is a fact, when do not know if it IS.
Rant over.
P
pnewton
Guest
Last post dropped.
I would expect two things. First, that the testimony on the other end of Martin’s phone will be admissable as a dying declaration based on the fact that he is the victim of the homicide and this was the last thing he said before his death.
Second, I expect Mr. Zimmerman to testify and waive his right to remain silient. If this happens, he will be subject to cross-examination. If his testimony holds up, it may be given some weight. However, if forensic evidence does not bear out his side of the story, then this will not happen as it will be clear that he did not tell the truth. In this case, look for a plea bargain.
I would expect two things. First, that the testimony on the other end of Martin’s phone will be admissable as a dying declaration based on the fact that he is the victim of the homicide and this was the last thing he said before his death.
Second, I expect Mr. Zimmerman to testify and waive his right to remain silient. If this happens, he will be subject to cross-examination. If his testimony holds up, it may be given some weight. However, if forensic evidence does not bear out his side of the story, then this will not happen as it will be clear that he did not tell the truth. In this case, look for a plea bargain.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I don’t know what was in Zimmerman’s mind–but a neighbor reported that he and his wife were very kind to her, comforting her and letting her know that she could visit his wife any time she felt afraid, after two men broke into her house when she and her baby were at home. Maybe he was thinking about that incident and felt as protective as I did when I did what I did.
We don’t know that Trayvon was talking on the phone when Zimmerman saw him. The phone call his girlfriend reported on was initiated by her at 7:12, the minute after Zimmerman called the police to report Martin, so there’s a good chance that he was not on the phone when Zimmerman first saw him. (ETA Link to story at end of which is a copy of his cellphone bill, which shows an incoming call at 7:04 and another at 7:12)
Zimmerman could have gone in the direction Martin went in so that he’d be able to give more information to the police, not necessarily to confront him.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Going from “it was an accident” to “he stalked and murdered him” isn’t leeway, it is a complete reversal of the narrative. It implies prosecutorial coaching, and when it is all said and done and Zimmmerman is acquitted, I hope the Florida AG drops the hammer on this incompetant prosecutor.
C
Calgar
Guest
The ballistics data will be very helpful in determining if GZ was on the ground shooting up at TM.
D
Dawnia
Guest
I don’t doubt the defense is going to try and get that testimony nixed. If the defense can shed doubt on the credibility of the statements, they may be able to get this prohibited. Dying declarations aren’t automatically admissible, they still have meet certain requirements to be admissible.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Right, and one of the conditions of a “dying declaration” is that the person who makes the declaration knows (or believes) that he is going to die or is on the verge of it. Just because Trayvon said something on a phone call before he was killed doesn’t qualify it as a dying declaration.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, they are not. But usually they are and the jury is then has the authority to decide how much credence to give it. Still, it will be a decision from the bench to allow or disallow it.
If I were to bet, I would bet that it will be allowed as Martin has no way to testify on his own behalf. It is the closest thing possible to the other side of the story. In any case, the person on the other end can testify as to what they said, what they heard, the time it was heard. It may be a case where the person can go so far in the testimony, but questions will not be allowed that involve conjecture.
Actually, on reflection, I do not think her testimony is hearsay as she heard what she heard during the couse of the incident. She is a witness by phone. Hearsay applies to people hearing another speak after an incident. If a witness hears two people yelling in an adjoining room, this is not hearsay.
D
Dawnia
Guest
Don’t start counting your chickens yet. The case is barely started. This trial could go either way at this point.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
In some people in the TM side’s opinion, hoodies are often interpreted as gang/thug signs by some whites (and other peoples------like Geraldo, remember) when worn by young black men (and also other non-black people as well). It is also associated with the Unabomber (remember?) and young people with leftist, radical/anarchist bleifs. Many young people (particularly the more violent radical ones) wore them in such places as the Seatle protests and Occupy Wall Street kerfuflles. Ganag people often wear hoodies.please explain to me why you and some others keep bringing up the hoodie. or better yet, what is “evidence of a hoodie”?.. really what does that even mean?
george didn’t have anything to say about it other than to give the dispatcher a description. it makes as much sense for people to go on and on about sweat pants or jeans. people in the media tried to make an issue about the hoodie, not george.
That is why Geraldo “warned” people against wearing hoodies----because to him, white authority figures and others might associate the hoodie and young black men with possible “thuggery” and “gang activity.” In other words “racial profiling.” One sees a young black dude or dudette wearing a hoodie and acting “suspicious” and they might tag them as possible criminals and gang members. On whites and other races, possible radical, anarchist, terrorist Unabomber-style people. See?
TM’s family and their lawyers have said that they do NOT know if GZ is a racist—but they DO believe that GZ (according to them, of course) “racially profiled” TM, and tagged as a criminal before even getting out of the car----they point to many things, including the fact that he TM was mentioned by GZ as wearing a hoodie (apparently because of the rain that night) and that he was acting “suspiciously” when there was no clear evidence (and still is not clear right now) that he was.
GZ supposedly has a histoy of “profiling” people before this incident. A fellow hispanic had even reported him for profiling him some time before the incident.
That was what all of the Hood Marches was all about-----showing that just because one (esopecially a young black male) wears a hoodie, does NOT mean he is a criminal. It also has come to symbolize Trayvon and many young black men (and otherwise) who have had their lives take away “unfairly” and due to violence. It also was wron by thousands in memory of Trayvon himself.
Many on the TM side are saying that GZ racially profiled TM and used the hoodie-wearing as one of the justifications GZ may have used as “reason” to keep on TM’s behind, even after being told not to-----“he’s acting suspiciously (check) and wearing a hoodie (check)----and he’s BLACK (check)-------gang members tend to wear hoodies and act suspiciously------------DING!!! He could definitely be a criminal!!!”
Many are theorizing that that is WHY GZ went after TM. Unfair stereotyping and profiling based on behavior, race, and article of clothing. Added to that paranoia and possible anger at “punks” (remember?) getting away with things. You have possible vigilantism there then.
Added to that a local police department thatwas widely criticzed for racial insensitivity and profiling and corruption and one has a possible ignoring of evidence.
TM’s people-----this is not totally about racism, it is mainly about vigilantism----but racism may have played a part in this—or did—due to GZ’s profiling of TM.
NOT saying that is what happened. Just answering your question about the “hoodie.”
I’m surrpised you did not know about the significance of the hoodie, to be honest. But that is overall the “big deal.”
I and others are saying-----we do NOT know if TM attacked GZ first or vice-versa----we only have GZ’s version of what happened------and a young black man wearing a hoodie and walking out late at night and “allegedly looking into people’s houses” (whatever he was doing-------apparently just walking home) does NOT mean they are criminals.
When young black dudes possibly wearing hoodies walk next to you—what do you think? Do you unfairly profile them? NOT saying you do-----just getting you to understand what the “hoodie” thing is all about----you understand. Most young black males wearing hoodies and maybe baggy pants are NOT thugs.
Many people here are already taking it for granted that TM attacked GZ-------I was simply calling people up on that.
Be fair to BOTH sides-------don’t rush and assume judgement to BOTH sides.
D
Dawnia
Guest
It will all come down to who has the best argument. If the judge lets it in, then I expect she’s going to get hammered on the stand.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
i agree with you. i think she is sincere in that zimmerman never expected the turn of events that happened. to me, she was more or less sayiing he wasn’t being a vigilante.
but i think she was coached to go back and explain her statement to fit with the profile of zimmerman the media is trying to create. she looks like a very nice person and my heart goes out to her. we have to remember that she is still grieving and i am sure she feels like she is on a roller coaster. i am sure george zimmerman would love to go back to that night and have stayed in his vehicle. like others say, the facts are still being miscontrued and we will have to wait until we have more information. george zimmerman did not look like a stone cold killer to me. he looked scared. america finally has someone other than casey anthony to hate. the media is really good at creating the person that we need to target the emotion of hate towards. my eyes are opened and i refuse to watch any coverage of this case on CNN or Nancy Grace or Jane Velez Mitchell unless they are going to present both sides fairly and not be biased. they jump the gun in my opinion and close the case and before it has even started.
S
St_Francis
Guest
No, a statement is not a dying declaration unless the person making the statement believes death is imminent.
The information about the phone call might be admissable under another exception, however, which is that the person whose words are being reported is describing what is happening at that moment of the conversation and the person whose words are being reported is unable to testify. Since the phone records back up the fact that the phone call occurred, and since Martin’s statements as reported seem to align at various points with what Zimmerman reported to the police, it may be admissable, altho her conclusions at the end probably won’t be–I think she will be able to describe what she heard but not mention her conclusions.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
that was the same reaction i had.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Ok, you are trying to be fair…I accept that.
I simply read this:
Sounded to me (again, to me) like you were saying “She should not have retracted the statement because I’ve made up my mind already that this was just an ‘accident’ and not a possible something else, like murder.”
If that was not the case, then I apologize. I just feel it is unfair for some to be implying that TM was one thing while GZ is not getting the same speculation from some quarters at the same time. Maybe you should have phrased it differently. I don’t know.
Remember, we do not have TM’s side of things. We only have GZ’s side. And just like TM’s actions are not automatically to be taken at face value, neither should GZ’s.
And just because GZ had some ambigous bruising on him does not prove that TM attacked him first. It proves there was some sort of struggle, but it does not determine who started it and what was the “trigger.” That is just up to a judge and jury to decide.
And just because GZ has an apparent “history” and (apparently----we’ll let the judge and jury decide) followed Trayvon for no reason other than some sort of unfair “profiling” does NOT mean he committed murder or attacked Trayvon. In other words, his actions does not mean he is a quasi-racist, paranoid vigilante.
And just because Trayvon was wearing a hoodie on a rainy night, was acting “suspiciously” (whatever that means----we’ll let the jury decide) and was YOUNG BLACK MALE with saggy pants and some normal teenage problems at school does NOT mean he was a thug/criminal who attacked Trayvon. He was a kid with Skittles and Iced Tea bringing them home for his brother. For pity’s sake.
And just because GZ claims “stand your ground,” does not mean it WAS. Even the guy who came up with the Florida version of it and signed it into law admits GZ is not covered under it. Jeb Bush as well. Let’s see what the trial brings out and what is determined.
There IS a possibility that race and paranoia MAY have played a part in this. Either that, or just a misunderstanding.
Everybody needs to stop being so darned sure they know the truth here—including me. We can lean towards a side but we must be willing to change that and accept a truth that conflicts with our perceived notions.
That’s it. Bless you, SwizzleStick.
J
jen_fla
Guest
oh i totally forgot geraldo’s comments on the hoodie. thanks for reminding me. what i am trying to say though is that it doesn’t really matter what other people think about hoodies. i am sure there are some people out there that might have negative associations with white sneakers, or sweat pants for that matter! the problem is that the media tried to make an association with the hoodie into george’s thought processes and there is absolutely no evidence that there was any. he was just giving a description when the dispatcher asked him for one.In some people in the TM side’s opinion, hoodies are often interpreted as gang/thug signs by some whites (and other peoples------like Geraldo, remember) when worn by young black men (and also other non-black people as well). It is also associated with the Unabomber (remember?) and young people with leftist, radical/anarchist bleifs. Many young people (particularly the more violent radical ones) wore them in such places as the Seatle protests and Occupy Wall Street kerfuflles. Ganag people often wear hoodies.
That is why Geraldo “warned” people against wearing hoodies----because to him, white authority figures and others might associate the hoodie and young black men with possible “thuggery” and “gang activity.” In other words “racial profiling.” One sees a young black dude or dudette wearing a hoodie and acting “suspicious” and they might tag them as possible criminals and gang members. On whites and other races, possible radical, anarchist, terrorist Unabomber-style people. See?
TM’s family and their lawyers have said that they do NOT know if GZ is a racist—but they DO believe that GZ (according to them, of course) “racially profiled” TM, and tagged as a criminal before even getting out of the car----they point to many things, including the fact that he TM was mentioned by GZ as wearing a hoodie (apparently because of the rain that night) and that he was acting “suspiciously” when there was no clear evidence (and still is not clear right now) that he was.
GZ supposedly has a histoy of “profiling” people before this incident. A fellow hispanic had even reported him for profiling him some time before the incident.
That was what all of the Hood Marches was all about-----showing that just because one (esopecially a young black male) wears a hoodie, does NOT mean he is a criminal. It also has come to symbolize Trayvon and many young black men (and otherwise) who have had their lives take away “unfairly” and due to violence. It also was wron by thousands in memory of Trayvon himself.
Many on the TM side are saying that GZ racially profiled TM and used the hoodie-wearing as one of the justifications GZ may have used as “reason” to keep on TM’s behind, even after being told not to-----“he’s acting suspiciously (check) and wearing a hoodie (check)----and he’s BLACK (check)-------gang members tend to wear hoodies and act suspiciously------------DING!!! He could definitely be a criminal!!!”
Many are theorizing that that is WHY GZ went after TM. Unfair stereotyping and profiling based on behavior, race, and article of clothing. Added to that paranoia and possible anger at “punks” (remember?) getting away with things. You have possible vigilantism there then.
Added to that a local police department thatwas widely criticzed for racial insensitivity and profiling and corruption and one has a possible ignoring of evidence.
TM’s people-----this is not totally about racism, it is mainly about vigilantism----but racism may have played a part in this—or did—due to GZ’s profiling of TM.
NOT saying that is what happened. Just answering your question about the “hoodie.”
I’m surrpised you did not know about the significance of the hoodie, to be honest. But that is overall the “big deal.”
(edited for length)
Many people here are already taking it for granted that TM attacked GZ-------I was simply calling people up on that.
Be fair to BOTH sides-------don’t rush and assume judgement to BOTH sides.
i still don’t know exactly what happened, and i do want the truth to come out, but i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again, based on the facts that have been presented, i can see absolutely no evidence that gz was a racist or that he was racially profiling tm.
on the contrary, i see evidence that he was not racist. the guy looks hispanic and i’m sure he’s been on the receiving end of racism himself. unfortunately many hispanics have to deal with plenty of people thinking they are illegal.
and as far as being fair to both sides, i (and i believe swizzlestick as well) have both tried to do just that. in fact, if you had read my posts from the earlier threads you would find that over and over i have stated that no one knows what happened.
just because some of us don’t have knee jerk reactions (although many times i do!) in this case though… just because some of us try to stay cool and examine the facts as they are reported, some people jump to conclusions because we haven’t obviously shown a bias and picked a side. i don’t know if it is natural for man or if it is brainwashing from the powers that be, but our society seems to fall all too often into the this or that dichotomy.
no one should be on anyone’s side at this point in time, except for the the cause of truth and justice. and given that, i can’t emphasize enough how important prayers are needed for both families dealing with this tragedy.
J
jen_fla
Guest
continued:
as far as “when young black males (possibly
) wearing hoodies walk next to me, what do i think”… well i have to say it wouldn’t matter what the color of their skin was. i’ve encountered enough sociopaths to know that dangerous jerks come in all colors. hoodie isn’t a factor as i wear them myself. it’s their body language. are they standing too close? do they look angry? are they wearing obvious gang colors? are they giving signals?
edit i usually wouldn’t take just one factor into consideration, but would take in all the facts as a whole.
fwiw, i have a soft spot for those adorable (yet misguided) mormons that ride around on bikes. i think they are too cute with their ties, yet let me tell you, if a group of them walked next to me and their behavior seemed off, i’d be out of there in a second, all the while ready to nail them in the latter day region if they tried anything.
you are right, we don’t know what happened. i don’t know why you are telling me that, when i’ve posted that same sentiment over and over already. i can tell you though that if i saw someone looking into someone’s windows at night, i would assume they are a criminal: either a thief casing the place out or that they are a perverted peeping tom. and depending on the property usually one has to trespass in order to do so which would make them a criminal. thing is george said he was looking at homes so we don’t know all the details of what that entailed. he could have been running up under the eaves to get out of the rain which technically would have been trespassing and could have looked very suspicious.I and others are saying-----we do NOT know if TM attacked GZ first or vice-versa----we only have GZ’s version of what happened------and a young black man wearing a hoodie and walking out late at night and “allegedly looking into people’s houses” (whatever he was doing-------apparently just walking home) does NOT mean they are criminals.
When young black dudes possibly wearing hoodies walk next to you—what do you think? Do you unfairly profile them? NOT saying you do-----just getting you to understand what the “hoodie” thing is all about----you understand. Most young black males wearing hoodies and maybe baggy pants are NOT thugs.
as far as “when young black males (possibly
) wearing hoodies walk next to me, what do i think”… well i have to say it wouldn’t matter what the color of their skin was. i’ve encountered enough sociopaths to know that dangerous jerks come in all colors. hoodie isn’t a factor as i wear them myself. it’s their body language. are they standing too close? do they look angry? are they wearing obvious gang colors? are they giving signals?edit i usually wouldn’t take just one factor into consideration, but would take in all the facts as a whole.
fwiw, i have a soft spot for those adorable (yet misguided) mormons that ride around on bikes. i think they are too cute with their ties, yet let me tell you, if a group of them walked next to me and their behavior seemed off, i’d be out of there in a second, all the while ready to nail them in the latter day region if they tried anything.
C
catharina
Guest
I have to admit that I’m almost stunned to see certain words
in a legal document regarding the Zimmerman-Martin case.
cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Zimmerman_Probable_Cause_Document.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody
It states that Zimmerman profiled Martin.
It states that Zimmerman confronted Martin.
It states that Zimmerman while talking about Martin stated “these a------s, they
always get away” and also "these f------ punks.
It states that Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher
and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.
Although many posters have mentioned such details,
it is almost shocking to see the details lined up in an affidavit.
Even more than the spelled-out vulgarities
is the use of the term “profiled” adding that “Martin
was unarmed and not commiting a crime.” In print too
is the fact that “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher.”
Quite a staggering affidavit, IMO.
in a legal document regarding the Zimmerman-Martin case.
cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Zimmerman_Probable_Cause_Document.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody
It states that Zimmerman profiled Martin.
It states that Zimmerman confronted Martin.
It states that Zimmerman while talking about Martin stated “these a------s, they
always get away” and also "these f------ punks.
It states that Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher
and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.
Although many posters have mentioned such details,
it is almost shocking to see the details lined up in an affidavit.
Even more than the spelled-out vulgarities
is the use of the term “profiled” adding that “Martin
was unarmed and not commiting a crime.” In print too
is the fact that “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher.”
Quite a staggering affidavit, IMO.
- Status