home

Thursday Night Open Thread

I haven't even gotten around to opening my email yet today. I'm also trying to watch American Idol. Katy Perry was just on singing her catchy "Part of Me" song and now I can't get it out of my head.

George Zimmerman's lawyer today said the now-defunct website Zimmerman set up raised $200.000. He said he'll inform the court. Here's the video of O'Mara's comments to Anderson Cooper Our Zimmerman threads are full, so you can comment on that case, and any other topics, here.

< Andrew Young Admits Funneling Funds For Own Use | Florida Drug Testing Law Ruled Unconstitutional >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Its raining... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 08:12:36 AM EST
    bears!  Surely a sign of the end of times.

    Egypt's "Farewell Intercourse" law story (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:49:31 AM EST
    Heh - good catch (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:34:49 AM EST
    Someone is going to be a little upset.

    He was just pushing that rumor yesterday.

    Parent

    Who could have foreseen?! (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 11:10:38 AM EST
    But...the Daily Mail UK NEVER pushes sensationalist, xenophobic, anti-Muslim junk journalism!

    Parent
    When I lived in London (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Rupe on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 05:36:29 PM EST
    We called it the Daily Hate Mail, for good reason.  It's straight reactionary driven.

    Parent
    "and it all happened on Obama's watch!!" (none / 0) (#112)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 04:32:45 PM EST
    Of all the charity cases... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:55:08 AM EST
    in all the world, George Zimmerman gets 200k in handouts.  Speechless.

    Sympathy for Zimmerman (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 11:54:07 AM EST
    For starters, some of us think it was Zimmerman screaming.

    Parent
    If Zimmerman's account... (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    is 100% accurate and the homicide is deemed justified, I still can't find him a sympathetic figure.  

    Out and about in the neighborhood packing heat & looking for trouble is all I need to know to say he is an arsehole.  Whether he is a arsehole guilty of murder is for the courts to decide, and if they decide he isn't I'm totally cool with that.

    Parent

    If Accurate (none / 0) (#76)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    If Zimmerman's account is accurate he wasn't looking for trouble.

    Parent
    Come again? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    Maybe we have different definitions of looking for trouble.

    Playing Charlie Bronson is looking for trouble in my book.  Droppin' dimes without definitive proof of illegal activity is looking for trouble in my book.  Walking the streets packing heat is looking for trouble in my book.

    I think it is beyond dispute that if Zimmerman just minded his own damned business that evening, young Mr. martin would be alive and Zimmerman wouldn't be in the mess he is in...wouldn't you agree.  Sympathetic figure??? lol

    I don't know your definition of a good neighbor either, part of mine is minding your own damn business.

    Parent

    Scared Little Men... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    ...with big guns who hide behind the Constitution every time society pays with blood for their insecurities.

    I wanted to comment on your original thread about Zimmerman getting handouts.  I have no doubt that if I picked up a gun and shot a black man in cold blood for no other reason then his race, I could rake in way more then Zimmerman.

    If it was a dead white kid at the hands of a black man, the same pro-GZ people who be polishing up the electric chair for the another black man.  And researching the kids lineage pointing out he was 1/1000 Cherokee, so it's definitely not about race.

    They are so GD transparent, which is fine, but the part that bothers me is they can't bring themselves to be honest about it.  Instead they will bend and distort the facts just enough to feel justified.  Because if there is one thing I know, they all have all have a black friend, so there is no way in hell they are racists.

    Parent

    Typically... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 02:26:04 PM EST
    I try to bend over backwards to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes racism/sexism/assorted isms of hate....its not an accusation you toss around lightly, imo.

    That being said, I can't argue with ya bro...it is transparent.  I don't think I wanna know whats in the hearts of those who coughed up that 200 large...I fear its too ugly.

    I don't know if Zimmerman is a racist, he could just be prejudiced and sh*t I admit I'm prejudiced, I just prejudge different groups (bankers & cops to name two)...we all are prejudiced to some degree.  But its hard not to see the racism of some in his cheering section.  And certain media outlets all too happy to cash in feeding that monster.

    Parent

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 04:30:16 PM EST
    ...everyone on the planet has prejudices, but most people realize their misgivings and try and put them aside and judge a situation for what it is.

    Then there are the people that decides on those prejudices and then tries to validate them with words from the Bible, Constitution, or whatever other lame brain way they can justify their ugliness.

    Everyone here is cool, even the people I disagree with politically are cool about race for the most part.  But this GZ stuff is bringing in the truly ugly.  There's like this army of right wingers who do nothing but try and dispel these hot topic issues, usually guns.  Not just here, they are everywhere with the Zimmerman garbage.

    I don't know what to think about anymore, but I know that crowd's agenda has nothing to do with TM or GZ.

    Parent

    Totally disagree (3.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Darby on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 05:08:08 PM EST
    Watching out for the safety and welfare of your friends/neighbors/family in no way means you are out looking for trouble.

    The background story on Zimmerman is that he was helpful and reached out to those in the community who had been victims of crime.

    I am not 100% convinced of what transpired that night, but there is no proof, yet, that he was out looking for trouble.

    The same thing could be said of Martin. Possibly he was casing windows and looking to burglarize someone? Wasn't he in the past found to have burglar tools and ladies jewelry in his backpack? Maybe the jewelry tied into past crimes in Sanford and he was out to silence Zimmerman thinking he got busted?

    In all likelihood though, my opinion is neither of them were out looking for trouble.

    Parent

    So now you are just making up sh*t (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 05:25:29 PM EST
    as you go along. You have NO PROOF whatsoever of what you are accusing Martin of. Character assassination of the dead victim. Such a disgusting turn this blog has taken.

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by ks on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 06:02:31 PM EST
    It's really gone off the rails a bit.  Notice the juxataposition too.  Innocent Zimmerman vs. criminal Martin.  

    Parent
    Actually this is fact (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Darby on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:16:53 PM EST
    More factual based than your assertion that Zimmerman was looking for trouble.

    Martin was found at school to have a burglary tool along with woman's jewelry, including wedding bands diamond earings.

    He also has a record of having drug paraphanalia. Maybe we was on drugs that night?

    I read a report that Crump had the autopsy sealed, but not sure if that is accurate.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html


    Parent

    "Burglary toolS" - (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 07:14:25 AM EST
    ... does sound much more scary than screwdriver.

    Guess I have "burglary tools" in my workshop, my kitchen, my car, my wife's car, ...

    Parent

    I suppose (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Darby on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 08:17:03 AM EST
    if you are 17 and your screwdriver is in a bag with 12 pieces of valuable ladies jewelry, it might be called a burglary tool too. That is what the Miami school police called the item in their report.

    Although the Martin side claims that report was a lie.......

    Parent

    I suppose, ... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 08:50:45 AM EST
    ... if you're looking to lead people to a certain conclusion, you would refer to a screwdriver as "burglary tools".

    OTOH - burglary and theft are serious, criminal offenses.  The school police wouldn't simply drop these charges and let him off with a suspension for graffiti if they had any actual evidence of burglary.

    But if you think it's relevant to look at Martin's acts for which he was never even charged, (let alone convicted), maybe we should also look at Zimmerman's history ...

    Parent

    I don't know about you in particular (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Darby on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 09:09:29 AM EST
    But certainly the public, media  and the prosecutor have looked at Zimmermans past actions, including things he had never been convicted of. And things he had never been charged with.

    My entire point was addressing  someones theory above that Zimmerman was out looking for trouble has no basis in fact. Zimmerman's history actually indicates the opposite.

    There are facts that Martin has a history with drugs and suspicious of possession of valuable ladies jewelry.

    I am not claiming Martin was casing the neighborhood or on drugs. I'll wait for the autopsy report and other evidence to come out.

    Parent

    Actually, you went much farther ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 09:32:20 AM EST
    ... than merely addressing the theory that Zimmerman was "out looking for trouble".  You were claiming that the theory had no basis in fact, while the theories about Martin were "more factual" and, by implication, more credible.

    The same thing could be said of Martin. Possibly he was casing windows and looking to burglarize someone? Wasn't he in the past found to have burglar tools and ladies jewelry in his backpack? Maybe the jewelry tied into past crimes in Sanford and he was out to silence Zimmerman thinking he got busted?

    Now, you do admit that you don't think it was likely


    In all likelihood though, my opinion is neither of them were out looking for trouble.

    ... but then claim that the Martin theory is based on fact because of the drug (marijuana) paraphernalia and accusations of "burglary tools".

    If that's the standard (allegations of prior bad acts) you want to use to determine what theories are "fact-based", then we should also consider the allegations of Zimmerman's prior bad acts.  Given the allegations of violence (ABC officer assault, domestic violence and firing from bouncer job for being too aggressive), then it's easy to dream up all kinds of "possibilities" that put Zimmerman as the aggressor in this case.

    But that would be pretty silly ...

    Parent

    In the case of Martin (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Darby on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 10:04:15 AM EST
    is not an allegation of prior bad acts. He was caught having a marijuania pipe (and not just a baggie with residue). He was suspended from school.  There is no allegation there.

    He was also found to have a backpack full of valuable ladies jewelry (yes, I call wedding bands and diamond earring as described in the article above valuable). NO allegation there. It is of course just an allegation that the jewelry was stolen.

    Parent

    You mean based on .... (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 10:50:15 AM EST
    ... the media report, you think it's "more than an allegation"?  Okay, based on media reports, Zimmerman has a history of violence.  Based on media reports, he assaulted a law enforcement officer.  Based on media reports, he completed an alcohol education course and an anger management course.  Based on media reports, he had an Domestic Violence injunction entered against him by a judge.  Of course, like Martin, he wasn't convicted of anything, - (although Zimmerman was actually charged before entering a diversion program) - but if that's the standard you want to use ...

    BTW - Regarding the jewelry - if Martin actually stole the jewelry, then why were no charges pressed?  Theft of "valuable jewelry" goes beyond a school rules infraction - it's a criminal offense.  In fact, he wasn't even subject to school discipline (a very low burden of proof) for this serious offense.  Why no conviction?  Was the diamond a real diamond or costume jewelry?  Similarly, were the rings real silver or were they costume jewelry?

    Parent

    No, I mean (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Darby on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 01:26:59 PM EST
    based upon his 10 suspension from school.

    Have you now gone in circles claiming now even that Martin wasn't suspended for having a drug related incident? I'll let you chase that one down the rabbit hole.

    And yes, the report is that it was diamond earrings, not sure where you extrapolate that they are fake from? The report is also that there were wedding bands in the booty. I am taking a miniscule leap that they don't mean from a cracker jack box.

    Yes, theft of jewelry is a criminal offense and I am sure you understand exactly why no charges were pressed.

    I have not said that he was charged or convicted, but rather it is quite suspicious  for a 17 year old to have a backpack of valuable ladies jewelry .

    Parent

    Imaginary "rabbit hole" (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 04:07:02 PM EST
    I'm not claiming that Martin wasn't suspended, but keep chucking that straw.  I'm pointing out the only evidence/information regarding his suspension are from media reports.  Juts like the evidence of Zimmerman's prior bad acts.  Oh, wait ...

    ... not really, since his family members have acknowledged them, not to mention the official police reports and restraining order.

    So, if you want to use information from media reports to attack Martin's character, then by all means ... let's apply the same standard to Zimmerman.

    Somehow, I'm guessing you're not okay with that.

    Yes, theft of jewelry is a criminal offense and I am sure you understand exactly why no charges were pressed.

    No - I don't.  In fact, my experience has been that police, when confronted with compelling evidence of a crime, tend to arrest and charge the suspect.

    BTW - Do you really think a school police officer can tell the difference between a real diamond and a fake one by just looking at it?  Same for the "wedding bands" which, if they're like most, plain circular "wedding bands", are merely circular rings.  OTOH - maybe he happened to have a metallurgy testing kit when he found these rings.

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Darby on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:22:37 PM EST
    Somehow, I'm guessing you're not okay with that.

    Honestly, I am here to learn and discuss facts, not try and prove or disprove what you think I may or may not be okay with. Or to get tangled up in circular discussions just for the sake of being argumentative.

    No - I don't.  In fact, my experience has been that police, when confronted with compelling evidence of a crime, tend to arrest and charge the suspect.

    Well perhaps someone else will take the time to explain and entertain your "questions".

    Peace out.

    Parent

    "POSSIBLY"?!? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 06:29:50 PM EST
    It's "possible" that Zimmerman was out looking to burglarize homes himself.  It's "possible" that Martin was trying to stop him from doing that.  It's "possible" that Zimmerman is actually an alien from another planet preparing the way for an invasion.  "In all likelihood", though, ... probably not.

    Heeeeeeyyyyyy, ... this "possible" thing is really easy!

    Ridiculous, yes, ...

    ... but easy.

    Parent

    Ridiculous is your post (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Darby on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 08:24:08 AM EST
    because their is no basis for it. There are reports in Trayvon's school file that indicates a history connected to drugs as well as the problematic bag of valuable ladies jewelry in his backpack.

    Parent
    Really? "Valuable"? (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 09:13:39 AM EST
    You have no idea of the value of the jewelry that is alleged to have been found in his bag - but it sounds good, right?  More importantly, the connection to "drugs" was a plastic bag with marijuana residue

    But if you think it's relevant to look at what Martin was accused of, then I guess (to be fair), we should also examine what's possible given the history of accusations against Zimmerman.  He was accused of committing an assault on a law enforcement officer - of course, unlike Martin, he was actually charged with it.  the charges were dismissed after he completed an alcohol education program.  He was accused of domestic violence and had a restraining order entered against him.  Not to mention the allegations of getting fired from his job as a bouncer for being "too aggressive" with a woman.

    Now, ... do you really want to talk about what's possible, given the allegations made about Zimmerman regarding alcohol misuse and violence?

    Parent

    valuable jewelry? (none / 0) (#161)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 03:57:28 PM EST
    People may want to read the Miami Herald article that was linked to.  It describes 12 pieces of women's jewelry, plus a watch. When asked why he had the jewelry, T said a friend had given it to him, but he wouldn't name the friend. The jewelry was impounded by police, but police never proved it was stolen. The jewelry was not returned to T.

    I can think of 4 possibilities: T had obtained the jewelry illegally, he obtained it in trade for something he didn't want to disclose (such as pot), he knew his friend had obtained it illegally or he suspected his friend had.

    It wouldn't be surprising if police couldn't identify if the jewelry was stolen. In Miami-Dade, I assume it would be hard to match up all the stolen goods. I imagine there aren't a lot of women who would call police about a missing silver ring. That's especially true of people who think like Kdog does: A person who snitches can expect to be beaten.

    According to Google shopping, a silver band (which is what a wedding ring is) can cost around $20-$100. A good quality CZ can look like a diamond, and so, who knows if the police were accurate regarding the earrings. A nice pair of CZ earrings in silver could cost $50.

    Yes, students can carry large screwdrivers to school, but it doesn't look good when their book bag also has jewelry that may have been stolen.

    Has the mainstream media reported on the accusation that Z was fired for being too aggressive as a bouncer? What evidence has been presented? Yman, what are the allegations concerning "alcohol misuse"?

    Parent

    Even if one was thinking about (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    helping the wrongfully accused, there are a lot of better places for that money, like The Innocence Project.

    But as I said a few days ago, the set intersection of the people that support Zimmerman and the people that normally stand up for the rights of the accused is pretty small.

    Parent

    Unworthy Zimmerman (2.33 / 3) (#62)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:42:27 PM EST
    I guess Zimmerman put himself beyond the pale of liberal sympathy, by exercising his constitutional right to go armed for the purpose of self-defense.

    Parent
    On the contrary I do feel sorry for him (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:25:32 PM EST
    in true bleeding heart fashion. I understand this must be horrible for him, even if it is found that the shooting was justified legally. He deserves his day in court.

    But 200k in his personal account to make his life a little easier? I don't understand the impulse to give him money for his personal use. Is he some kind of hero to people?

    Parent

    I feel compassion for him as well (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by sj on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:36:26 PM EST
    It isn't at odds with my feelings that he put this string of events into motion.  Everyone makes mistakes.  This one was in the giant, whopper category, but still a mistake for a' that.

    Parent
    Same Here (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 03:00:54 PM EST
    I don't know much about the guy, but surely he didn't set out that night to hurt anyone. One really bad decision has changed his life forever, regardless of his guilt.

    I also think he is sorry for the death, and unlike his followers, I think if he had to do it again, he would leave the gun at home, or at least stay put.  And even if it was self defense, he still ended an innocent young man's life.

    Parent

    Decision Tree (2.00 / 1) (#102)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 03:04:34 PM EST
    Following Martin was a bad idea. Following him unarmed would have been an even worse idea.

    Parent
    Getting your arse kicked... (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 03:19:04 PM EST
    in a street fight isn't the worst thing in the world...it's one way to learn playing the arsehole has consequences.

    I have no reason to believe, if Zimmerman's account is true, that he would have been beaten to death.  Just beaten...and from a street justice perspective, rightly so.  Ya can't expect to drop dimes and follow innocent men and not get your arse kicked eventually.

    Parent

    Mayhap if he had been unarmed (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by sj on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 03:31:48 PM EST
    he would never have followed him at all.  Who knows what kind of sense of security he had because of it?

    Parent
    Dumb (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 04:17:02 PM EST
    Following Martin was a bad idea. Following him unarmed would have been an even worse idea.

    This is why fools shouldn't carry guns.  Obviously following him without a gun would have been smarter.  But that decision tree has more then two branches.

    In my 41 years on the planet I have never followed someone in my neighborhood.  Nor have I needed a loaded weapon to fetch groceries, and I can promise you, I will never get out of a vehicle to follow a suspicious looking person.

    So if you think your only option is to follow a suspicious person, for the love of god leave the gun at home, because that person just might be me.  I don't want to get shot by some deluded imbecile who thinks he has magical powers to spot criminals and the authority to chase them down.

    Parent

    Amen.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    The Innocence Project, or all the poor people accused of non-violent crimes being caged for lack of bail money, sometimes as little as a couple hundred bucks.  Not to mention the usual food banks runnin' on empty.  Maybe the wonderful souls who ru food banks should start shooting people to increase donations.

    I'm reluctant to criticize how people spend their money and all...to each their own, party on party people.  It just left me speechless...I just don't understand my species sometimes. It's the same feeling I get when politicians get to begging to pay off campaign debts..."no shame, no shame".

    Parent

    I have no problem with a real (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:13:49 PM EST
    legal defense fund with money earmarked for his legal fees. But to put 200k right into his personal paypal account seems sick to me.

    Parent
    It's just amateurs (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sj on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:25:47 PM EST
    I don't believe it was intended for personal gain but rather the legal expenses.  But amateurs are always going to do something clumsy.

    Parent
    Probably so. They'll get smarter once they figure (none / 0) (#135)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:15:30 PM EST
    out Zimmerman's personal assets could go to the Martins in a civil suit.

    Parent
    How much do you think the 700 Club rakes in daily? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Angel on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    Or SarahPAC. (none / 0) (#63)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    Sheep are for fleecing.

    Parent
    One man's (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 08:01:11 PM EST
    "well written" trash is another mans litter box shredding.

    And that may be one of the worst pieces of trash I've ever seen posted here.

    I deleted that coment (none / 0) (#169)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 08:43:30 PM EST
    which reprinted an article published elsewhere. This space is for comments. You can quote a parapraph or two short ones with a link to the original piece but plese don't  reprint more than that. There are copyright issues and bandwidth issues.

    Parent
    Anne! Anne! (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 08:08:26 PM EST
    Are you all right? Should I call 911?

    Breathe slowly, very slowly; count to ten, and back to one. I'm right here Dear Anne. Just say the word and we'll get you breathing again soon. Now, now, don't worry about the color missing from your face. It will come back.......I think. Stay with us sweetheart, stay with us.

    Anne?

    Anne?


    Shooter, you funny... (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:30:31 PM EST
    Someone needs to post "Site Violator" on that disgusting comment, but I'll leave that to someone else; too many of my objections to other speculative, fact-deficient comments have been met with contorted rationale for why they're "within the rules."

    Parent
    Anne (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:49:24 PM EST
    I have counted 7 new posters that have been totally pro Zimmerman in the last 2 days, that have never posted on another topic at TL. Perhaps it's just one person with multiple names and nothing else to do but spew fecal droppings of drek.

    In fact, maybe it's just the actual author of that literary pile of rubbish posting it under a pseudonym hoping to draw you to his site. It wouldn't be a first around here.

    Parent

    NRA supporters. (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 09:16:06 PM EST
    hi anne (1.00 / 0) (#144)
    by pngai on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 02:04:02 AM EST
    No, I have no connection with the author.
    Yes, I'm new here, Jeralyn seems to have insights into this case that I haven't seen anywhere else.
    I must say your reaction was unexpected.
    You guys seem very different from Jeralyn.

    Parent
    What a crock. (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by caseyOR on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 08:14:14 PM EST
    A whole lot of cr@p has been written about the Zimmerman-Martin case, but this is by far the cr@ppiest.

    Makes one wonder why it's still standing, (none / 0) (#138)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:24:22 PM EST
    doesn't it?

    Or maybe not.

    Does it work for the defense?

    Maybe it does for defense what all those yee-ha, who-needs-the-cops-when-you-can-just-grab-your-own-gun comments from last night did for gun rights.

    Parent

    That was a weird thread. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Angel on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:00:13 PM EST
    My comment telling  someone their crude language wasn't acceptable was deleted.  Yet the post with the crude language is still there.  Imagine that.  

    Parent
    pro gun (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by ZtoA on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 08:27:14 PM EST
    I did not have the time to comment on the pro gun thread, but wanted to offer a bit of a visual crit on the photo used to headline the thread. The one with the four very good looking people holding their guns.

    I thought it was an excellent choice and was very effective with its messaging. As I gaze up at them thru the camera lens I see four prime people with bright skin, great bodies, cool clothing and a breeze in their flowing hair. And what a nice day too. The photo reads just right.... they are empowered, confident, dominant. Winners! Truly superior people.

    The visual message was that more of us could be more like that. I'm not in the vicinity of the $750 class Jesse was advertising, but there might be one in my area.

    If I was running a visual advertising critique, I would say it is a very effective photo and right on target.

    We went to Wonderworks today (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 08:51:59 PM EST
    in Panama City, it was a school field trip.  My husband came too, and we had three other sixth grade boys to look after as chaperones.  We get to ropes course though, one boy goes up and immediately comes down.  The other two other than Josh said they were too afraid to go, I did everything I could to get them to at least try.  The sixth grade girls were all over that thing.  I finally tried to shame them into going up.  They all bet me that I wouldn't go so I did.  When I was up there though and waving for them to come up, they all shook their heads at me.  I can imagine what they were saying down there, "Yup, she did it.  She's always been just a little psycho".

    Load of racist BS (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:15:38 PM EST
    Yet more character assassination of Martin, this time quoting directly from a wingnut blog.

    Completely, .... utterly, ... disgusting.

    Zimmerman raised over 200k (none / 0) (#1)
    by Darby on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 09:06:37 PM EST
    Could this cause trouble with the court , specifically surrounding his bail amount

    I think it depends ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 09:59:47 PM EST
    ... on whether the judge determines there was full disclosure.  The part of the hearing covered by transcripts doesn't discuss this much.

    O'MARA: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: None that I know of.

    O'MARA: I discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not?

    S. ZIMMERMAN (George's wife): Yes, you have.

    O'MARA: Are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Not that I'm aware of.

    Link

    News reports have indicated that his parents also testified that the family had few assets, but were unable to testify about how much had been raised through his website.  I assume Zimmerman was required to testify or make disclosure of his assets, as well.

    Zimmerman's lawyer thinks it could have affected the judge's decision.  There's a hearing about it tomorrow, and it sounds like O'Mara's bracing for it.

    Orlando lawyer Mark O'Mara told CNN's "AC360" that George Zimmerman told him Wednesday of the donations as they were trying to shut down his Internet presence to avoid concerns about possible impersonators and problems with his Twitter and Facebook accounts.

    "He asked me what to do with his PayPal accounts and I asked him what he was talking about," O'Mara told Anderson Cooper. "And he said those were the accounts that had the money from the website he had. And there was about 200, $204,000 that had come in to date." ...

    Asked whether knowledge of the money might have made a difference to Judge Kenneth Lester Jr., who presided at Zimmerman's bond hearing, O'Mara said, "It might have."

    O'Mara continued, "I'm certainly going to disclose it to the court tomorrow -- coincidentally, we have a hearing."

    He said he was prepared to "deal with any fallout," but predicted Lester would not feel misled. "I told him what I knew at the time, which was exactly what I was aware of."

    The money has been placed in a secure account since O'Mara learned about it, he said, adding, "Nobody's touching it until we figure out how to handle it."

    But criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos said Lester might not react benignly. "I know a lot of judges who would remand the guy back into custody immediately," he said. "If you've got more money stashed in an account and you could just pay the bond and be gone, that gives a lot of judges concern."

    Though the account has been closed, O'Mara said he intends to open a legal defense fund for Zimmerman. "I've had dozens, hundreds actually, of people wanting to donate," he said.



    Parent
    Trouble (none / 0) (#3)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:04:37 PM EST
    I just saw Zimmerman's lawyer on CNN, talking to Anderson Cooper about this.

    Not only could this lead to a higher bond, but also searching questions about whether George Zimmerman and his relatives told the truth at the hearing. His brother was 'not available' to testify, and that might be because he was the one who knew the most about the funds.

    If the judge is unhappy enough he could order Zimmerman back into custody.

    I doubt (3.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Doug1111 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:03:45 AM EST
    this judge will do that.

    I think O'Mara has done an effective job of getting the judge to trust him.

    As well I think the judge has a very low opinion of the prosecution's evidence, and strongly suspects this case was brought to trial almost entirely for political reasons.

    Also, Zimmerman can't work during the pendency of this trial given the death threats against him and needs to support himself somehow.  Also though O'Mara has been willing to do this pro bono in the absence of any money, why shouldn't he be able to get paid if people are willing to donate?

    Parent

    Do you happen to know what the (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    lottery numbers will be tonight?

    I ask only because this:

    I think O'Mara has done an effective job of getting the judge to trust him.

    As well I think the judge has a very low opinion of the prosecution's evidence, and strongly suspects this case was brought to trial almost entirely for political reasons.

    would seem to have absolutely no basis in fact, unless of course, you have mind-reading abilities, in which case you might also have ESP.

    Thank goodness Jeralyn waived those new commenter rules, because I sure am looking forward to more of this kind of speculation...

    And saying you "think"


    Parent

    Whoops - posted before I finished (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 11:47:54 AM EST
    the comment; should read, "And saying you "think," followed by a description of what the judge thinks, feels or suspects, is a lot like the "if" you put in another comment - perhaps you trust O'Mara, and you have a low opinion of the prosecution's case, and you suspect the case was politically motivated - and that's fine - but you are speaking of those elements as if you know what the judge's perspective is."

    And you don't.  None of us know that.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#46)
    by bmaz on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:02:35 PM EST
    Actually there were some fairly telling clues that Judge Lester was not particularly thrilled with several aspects of the state's case.  Speculation, yes; but informed speculation by several people that have experience in criminal trial courts.

    Parent
    I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:11:44 PM EST
    Anne has no problem with speculation.....

    as long as it's stated as speculation and not spoken as if it's proven fact.

    Parent

    What "clues"? (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:15:08 PM EST
    I think O'Mara has done an effective job of getting the judge to trust him.

    As well I think the judge has a very low opinion of the prosecution's evidence, and strongly suspects this case was brought to trial almost entirely for political reasons.

    ... support this mind reading, exactly?

    Speculation, yes; but informed speculation by several people that have experience in criminal trial courts.

    Not sure who those "several people" are, but you do realize that many of us here have been through many trials, right?

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#65)
    by bmaz on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    Well, I am one of those people. For 25 years now, and I stand by my analysis.

    Parent
    So no "clues"? (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:12:09 PM EST
    Analysis of what?

    Were there any actual "clues" to support the speculation that the judge trusts O'Mara (more than any other lawyer?), "has a very low opinion of the prosecution's evidence", and "strongly suspects this case was brought to trial almost entirely for political reasons", ...

    ... or is this just a "gut" feeling?

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#87)
    by bmaz on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:54:39 PM EST
    That has been being discussed for days on this blog - ever since the bail hearing.  Any number of commenters have done so, several with extensive experience in the field, including the host of this blog.  

    For one, Lester immediately and with NO hesitation granted bond, and in a quite reasonable amount as well.  That was a direct blow to the state's argument that the charge of second degree murder is supported by proof evident and presumption great. So there is one huge factor.

    Secondly, Lester cut off, and in a rather impatient and telling manner, the state's attempt to bogusly argue that prior incidents made Zimmerman some sort of violent personality. Lester was extremely dismissive of this argument as well.

    Third, to my eye, Lester seemed, by his body language, to be very receptive to the defense questioning of the lead investigator on the stand.

    Fourth, the fact that there was no indication of particular outrage or excessive concern regarding the defense fund issue this morning, he was very measured; but certainly not outraged like many predicted.

    Fifth, just the general feel of how Lester dealt with the bail hearing as a whole; yes, that is more a "gut" factor than the above four items.

    Maybe other people saw things differently, that is what I saw and, based on my experience at least, supports exactly what I said. In my opinion.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 04:01:31 PM EST
    1.  There is nothing on the record or in the ruling to support the notion that Lester's granting of bond was based on the fact that he had a "low opinion of the prosecutor's evidence".  There are at least 14 factors used to determine whether bond should be granted in Florida courts and, if so, the amount.  Concluding that the judge granted bail at a "quite reasonable amount" establishes that he "has a very low opinion of the state's evidence" (particularly when he hasn't even seen all the evidence) is like saying your "check engine" light coming on means your transmission is shot, when it could be one of at least a dozen other issues.

    2.  Lester's dismissal of the (for brevity) prior bad acts, as he said at the hearing, means he doesn't think those acts are particularly relevant to the charges at hand - although he did permit Sheri and Robert Zimmerman to be questioned about them.  I would agree.  None of which indicates the judge generally has a "low opinion of the state's evidence" in this case, apart from (arguably) the prior bad acts evidence.

    3.  The judge's "body language"?

    So subjective and speculative it's not even worth discussing.

    1.  The judge's "lack of outrage" over the nondisclosure has no bearing on his opinion of the state's evidence or the specious argument that the state is only prosecuting Zimmerman for political reasons.  He was "measured" because, as he noted, he didn't have all the information.

    2.  "Gut feeling" - That, IMO, would accurately describe all of these "clues", with the possible exception of the judge's dismissive attitude toward the evidence of prior bad acts.  However, judges tend to be dismissive of such evidence in general unless they strongly point to a pattern of similar conduct, because such evidence is highly prejudicial.

    In any case, these "clues" do not remotely support the conclusion that the judge has developed some sort of "trust" for O'Mara, or that he "strongly suspects this case was brought to trial almost entirely for political reasons".  The argument that any of them - particularly the body language/"gut feeling", etc. - support the speculation that the judge has a low opinion of the state's case is beyond weak.  The judge made not one statement to indicate he "has a very low opinion of the prosecution's evidence".

    Parent
    And THAT is your opinion (none / 0) (#143)
    by bmaz on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:27:23 PM EST
    And worth no more than mine you seem to think so little of. At best we have a draw, personally, I will stick by what I said, you will clearly do the same with your perceptions. That said:

    1. Baloney.  In an Arthur hearing there most certainly is a decision mad on the evidence presented.  And Lester did not flinch nor hesitate for one second in finding the burden unmet. I never used the words "has a very low opinion of the state's evidence"; hurling them against me is fairly suspect argument.

    2. You actually seem to mostly agree. Again using your little "has a very low opinion of the state's evidence" phrase is impertinent.

    3. I have no idea what your experience is, but if you are in enough courtrooms, over enough years, you most certainly learn to read the players. No, it is by no means scientifically accurate, and it is MUCH harder over the television, but I saw several things that led me to that conclusion. It may well be wrong, but you have no better idea than I do.  I will stick with that read, but agree it is not worth a lot.

    4. I never said the lack of outrage on the defense fund was a direct comment on the state's evidence or that "the state is only prosecuting Zimmerman for political reasons". Intimating I did is disingenuous argument.  It was simply a data point in and of itself. It certainly indicates that Lester did not think the initial facts presented were particularly noteworthy. Heck, he may still raise the bond some, who knows; but I would be pretty surprised absent something shocking being added to the picture.

    5. Thanks for the primer on how courts deal with prior acts. I too have some experience, and I found Lester's tone in this regard extremely dismissive toward the state. I will stick with that. Again, you have contemptuously thrown at me a phrase and discriminator I never used or adopted, in this case "trust for O'Mara". Never adopted, incorporated or used the phrase.

    In fact, your whole last paragraph is pretty much scurrilously applied to my commentary. That is not sound argument. The one operative phrase I used initially was "there were some fairly telling clues that Judge Lester was not particularly thrilled with several aspects of the state's case".  I believe I explained why I believe that, which I was asked to explain.  Having done so, I will continue to stick with that, and I am sure you will stick to your obviously disdainful contrary opinion.  That is fine, that is what discussion is about.

    Parent
    Read the original post (none / 0) (#146)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 07:36:23 AM EST
    Link

    1.  Baloney.  At an Arthur hearing, there are at least 13 additional factors that are used as the basis of the judge's opinion.  Those were the arguments I was responding to.  You chose to jump in and defend them.

    2.  My use of the phrase is because that's the statement I was originally responding to, that you chose to defend.  OTOH - if you now disagree with these statements, I guess we're on the same page.

    3.  I have also been in many courtrooms over many years.  I saw unspecified "body language" that suggest the court doesn't believe a word of Zimmerman's arguments. s

    That was easy.

    Calling it "informed speculation" doesn't give it more credibility.

    1.  Again, read the original post that I was commenting on.

    2.  Ohhhhh, his "tone" was dismissive.  I found his "tone" perfectly normal, given how loath judges are to admit this kind of evidence in general.  The "primer" on prior bad acts was for the benefit of others who may not be aware of this fact, and might otherwise be tempted to read too much into the judge's comments.  Disallowing the use of such acts is extremely common, entirely subjective interpretations of "tone" notwithstanding.


    Parent
    You are right! (none / 0) (#153)
    by bmaz on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 09:40:26 AM EST
    I went back and looked at how this germinated. And perhaps I did not pay well enough attention when you disingenuously grafted someone else's premises onto one of my general statements and then demanded an answer to a your own tartly slanted question. That would be in comment number 52 above I am not responsible for what others say, I was supporting what I said, and I honestly failed to realize the false framing you had engineered.

    You disagree with my response; that is fine, as I said above that is the value of discussion. But I clearly stated from the outset that those were only my opinions and observations and that others may disagree, you seem to be fighting some other war based upon you own crafted personal amalgamations of various different commenters. I do not particularly care for your acerbic and falsely framed interaction; peddle that with somebody else, I do not have time for it.

    Parent

    "Disingenuously grafted" - heh (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 10:25:10 AM EST
    No.

    The original post made the following claims:

    1)  

    I think O'Mara has done an effective job of getting the judge to trust him.


    1.  As well I think the judge has a very low opinion of the prosecution's evidence, and ...

  •  
    ... (the judge) strongly suspects this case was brought to trial almost entirely for political reasons.

    Then someone pointed out that these conclusions based on this type of "mind reading" were pure speculation.  You responded to criticism of this post "Actually,...", appearing to defend those conclusions.

    OTOH - if you weren't defending those speculative conclusions, but merely your own speculative conclusions of what the judge believes and thinks (sorry - "informed speculation"), then I apologize, ...

    ... because that would be slightly less silly.

    Parent

  • Honestly, (none / 0) (#157)
    by bmaz on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 10:54:31 AM EST
    I am sure I probably saw them at some point. But had no clueI was specifically defending them when I made my original comment titled "Actually". I was responding to Anne initially, and then you. I now see you have been referring back to, it looks like a comment by "Doug1111". I was not adopting or supporting what he said, just responding to you and Anne that there are bases - yes mostly speculative, but still the kind lawyers in court engage in every day - to support the notion there are at least some aspects of the state's asserted case Lester did not seem totally convinced by.  

    That does NOT mean he has made his mind up or that he is against them or anything like that. Let's put it this way, if I am on the flip side of the coin and I am Corey and Rionda, I walk out of that bail hearing knowing I have some issues with several points of how I am constructing, or apparently constructing, the theory of my case. Personally, I think they have HUGE issues, but that is another discussion.

    Lastly, I would also note that while I have read TL often enough over the years and knew of Jeralyn both from her being very visible in NACDL and her work with my colleague at Emptywheel, Marcy Wheeler, on the Libby case, I had never commented here before quite recently on Zimmerman. Jeralyn seems to have the same affliction, but Zimmerman is like some kind of nuclear catnip to me; I am fascinated by the dynamics of it.  At any rate, your comment system is confusing somewhat in that it is different than what I have been using almost exclusively for years at Emptywheel and FDL. Also, as I move around a lot, I am sometimes on a portable device and sometimes on work computer and the thing looks completely different on them.  All for what it is worth.

    Parent

    Most of us are aware of your (none / 0) (#99)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 02:31:44 PM EST
    background and experience, bmaz; the problem is that Doug was not writing from that perspective, but from a point of view as if he had inside knowledge of what Lester thinks, feels and suspects.

    Even if he has no criminal trial experience, if Doug had written what you wrote, I doubt anyone would have had a problem with it - they might not have agreed 100%, but at least any discussion would have been based in reality, and not ESP.


    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#74)
    by ks on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:22:36 PM EST
    You have offered neither your clues nor your analysis that you claim would support the poster's dubious speculation.

    Parent
    Fair enough, bmaz, but there's nothing in (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:29:50 PM EST
    Doug's comments that suggests he's one of those people; if he wants his speculation to rise to the level of "informed by experience," rather than being taken as "informed by mind-reading," he could provide his bona fides so we can all judge for ourselves how much credibility to give those comments.

    If he's done that, I must have missed it.


    Parent

    Beyond All That... (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    I think O'Mara has done an effective job of getting the judge to trust him.

    How so, by forgetting to disclose how much GZ took in on the website, surely he knew of it's existence.

    I don't know, but seems like O'Mara would have at the very least made sure there was nothing on the website incriminating his client.  He had to know GZ was getting donations.

    Seems to me like the judge might not take kindly to either O'Mara or GZ forgetting a couple hundred grand in donations.  Surely it's not building trust as you suggest.

    Parent

    O'Mara seems have to acted appropriately (none / 0) (#91)
    by Darby on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 02:10:37 PM EST
    There is nothing to suggest that O'Mara forgot anything. He understood there was a different amount involved. When he found out the new information, he informed the court.

    In the hearing, Zimmermans wife stated that she had no knowledge of the funds in the account, that Zimmermans brother had access and could be made available to testify if needed.

    Unless O'Mara comes with Zimmerman or his wife having access, and/or there were substantial funds in the account last week, all this probably means nothing.

    It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the  donations came in after the hearing when GZ's indigent status became public record.

    Parent

    Good Point (none / 0) (#96)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 02:20:21 PM EST
    But I still find it odd that no one asked the brother how much was there, including O'Mara, even just to figure out how much he could get together for bail.

    Parent
    I too thought it odd in the trial (none / 0) (#103)
    by Darby on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 03:07:16 PM EST
    that nobody followed up during the hearing.

    As a second point though, for all we know O'Mara did ask George or the brother before the trial.

    O'Mara said he understood there to be a few hundred or thousand in the account. Perhaps one of them told him this.

    Parent

    I was surprised the judge (none / 0) (#4)
    by Darby on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:15:04 PM EST
    Didn't ask  for details about the account  

    It could also be that significant amounts were not donated
    Until after the bond hearing

    I remember thinking it odd during the hearing that
    His wife had no idea how much was in the account. But she also said the brother who has the info could be made available

    Parent

    It could also be that Mr. O'Mara is rethinking (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:02:50 AM EST
    his agreeing to represent Mr. Zimmerman.    

    Parent
    or his handling the case pro bono (none / 0) (#7)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:14:33 AM EST
    "Quite honestly, with everything he [GZ] is going through over the past few weeks, if that is the only oversight committed, then we'll deal with it," said Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara.


    Parent
    Heh...that's quite an "oversight" (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ks on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:27:09 PM EST
    Can't blame O'Mara for downplaying it but, "forgetting" to tell your lawyer that you have 200K on hand (if that's the case), as he's crying poor for you during the bail hearing is a bit more than an oversight.  Especially since the amount is well over the 150K bail.

    Parent
    imo.

    Are we to believe he really didn't know that the website was taking in money?

    Parent

    The other thing (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by ks on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:47:02 PM EST
    If Zimmerman thinks he has problems now wait until the tax man starts looking at that 200K and counting....

    Parent
    It's not clear (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 03:55:22 PM EST
    how much was collected before Zimmerman was arrested and put in jail.  I think he'd only put up the PayPal link a few days before that, which I think is why the judge is reserving judgment on it until he gets the records of when how much money came in and who had access to even see what was in the PayPal account.

    IOW, it is entirely possible, IMO, that Z and O'M didn't know there was a boatload of money accumulating in there.

    Parent

    Apparently TM's parents aren't thrilled (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    about the new either, fwiw:
    An attorney for Martin's family said the teenager's parents were "offended" Zimmerman did not tell the judge about the money.


    Parent
    They need to stop (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by sj on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:23:49 PM EST
    commenting on everything no matter who asks.  I think they really could use a press agent.  Mostly they need someone to tell them when NOT to respond.

    I like my privacy.  I'm sure I could, should I ever become embroiled in a scandal of any sort, hold reporters at bay for quite some time. I'm also sure that I would eventually be provoked into saying something unfortunate.  And most people aren't as privacy protective as I am.

    Parent

    Agree. There is nothing to say (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:29:39 PM EST
    that would not just start a word brawl, and that is our job!

    No comment would be the right response.

    Parent

    There is a PR executive (none / 0) (#107)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 03:44:14 PM EST
    who has been working with Crump's law firm since March. I've posted the link before.

    Parent
    I don't know if that's the same (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    thing as a PR Rep.  It sounds to me like it would be.  But if so, does Exec actually represent the firm or does s/he represent the Martins?  That's not exactly the same thing.  If exec actually represents the Martins, s/he needs to do a better job.  IMO

    Parent
    Yes, it's the same (none / 0) (#162)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 04:00:53 PM EST
    An Orlando public-relations executive told the WaPo that he read about the case and volunteered to do PR for the Martin family for free.

    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#164)
    by sj on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 07:01:49 PM EST
    They need the help.

    Parent
    I don't get it. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:18:30 AM EST
    What exactly is the importance of the account's balance to the judge? Is it that it could be viewed by the court as a "flee the country" fund? I'm not sure why this would be a big deal vis-a-vis the hearing that took place or his representation.

    Parent
    JUdges do not apprec. attorneys (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:46:04 AM EST
    or parties lying to them, espec. in open court.  

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#19)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 08:30:57 AM EST
    That's probably the worst part of this from Zimmerman's perspective, if the judge determines that there was some type of misleading testimony or nondisclosure.

    OTOH, even if there's some type of reasonable explanation, it could still affect his bond.  I'm curious as to how it will affect his application for indigent status, given that it's not remotely enough to cover his defense expenses, but he will (presumably) continue to raise money.

    It will also be interesting to see what, if any, new records are revealed at the hearing.

    Parent

    Judge denied bond increase request (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:52:07 AM EST
    Yep - for now (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:27:11 AM EST
    Lester said before making the decision to change the bond, he would first need to know who created the account, who administered it, when the payments were made and if Zimmerman had direct access to it.

    Without those details, he said, he had no authority to raise or revoke bail.

    Link

    It'll be very interesting to see what they find out.

    Parent

    RNN on Bond (none / 0) (#34)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:58:37 AM EST
    Thanks for the link.

    Raycom News Network? I don't think I've heard of them before.

    If I'm understanding this correctly, the prosecutor asked for a higher bond, but the article doesn't say if he named an amount.

    Crump has expressed the opinion that the bond should be revoked. I wouldn't think he has standing to petition the court in the matter, and the article doesn't say.

    Crump's statement that '"the lying has already begun"' is really rich considering the lies against Zimmerman and the Sanford police that have flooded the media from the beginning.

    This caught my eye: 'Zimmerman walked out of a Seminole County, FL, jail after raising just 10 percent of his $150,000 bond around midnight Monday.'

    Ten percent is what a bondsman normally charges. It's as if some folks won't miss the smallest opportunity to imply falsely that Zimmerman is getting some kind of special treatment.
     

    Parent

    it was widely reported (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:16:58 PM EST
    Zimmerman used a bondsman. Bondsman usually take collateral such as a real property in addition to their fee. Bondsman in other parts of the country take 15 or 20%.


    Parent
    I'm sure you didn't mean to imply ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:30:08 PM EST
    Thanks for the link.

    Raycom News Network? I don't think I've heard of them before.

    ... anything by that, but my link was to a local NBC station in Florida.

    Parent

    Implications (none / 0) (#64)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:49:52 PM EST
    I meant to imply that since RNN is new to me, I provisionally accord it more credibility than the media outlets that I know have been pouring out inaccurate information, while often suppressing accurate information favorable to Zimmerman.

    Parent
    Credit (none / 0) (#66)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:53:12 PM EST
    The link may be to the station, but the station appears to be crediting the story to an outfit called Raycom News Network.

    Parent
    Aside from the judge (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by expy on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:26:47 AM EST
    this "revelation" is bad news all around.

    Either the client (or his family) have been deliberately misleading the attorney as to their assets; or the attorney is remiss in not having pressed them on the issue.  

    I also find it really odd that the attorney goes on CNN and reports to the world, "he asked me ... I asked him ... he said ..."  Do they not have attorney-client privilege in Florida?

    Parent

    That surprised me, too (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 08:20:12 AM EST
    It really sounded like O'Mara was having a CYA moment, publicly declaring that Zimmerman didn't tell him about these funds until Wednesday.  I get why he would want to do that, but this really seemed like a discussion he should have with the judge.

    OTOH - maybe he talked to his client and got permission to reveal their conversation publicly as a preemptive measure, given that he would be required to disclose this at today's hearing anyway.

    Parent

    Especially when the whole case will hinge (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:02:01 PM EST
    on Zimmerman's credibility.

    Parent
    Credibility (none / 0) (#56)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:23:34 PM EST
    Zimmerman's credibility will matter little if at all. Justification turns on who first escalates to deadly force. The law accepts that there will be situations and fights. It doesn't matter who creates the situation, and if the evidence shows Zimmerman was pinned to the ground unable to retreat, it doesn't matter who started the fight.

    Parent
    This again? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ks on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:33:14 PM EST
    "Pinned to the ground...?   Well, I guess that's a bit better than the "pinned to the ground with Trayvon sitting on his chest that was offered yesterday.

    Parent
    I mean there may very well be no evidence (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:19:14 PM EST
    other than his word to support that he was pinned to the ground unable to defend himself.

    Parent
    Still denying this? (none / 0) (#98)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 02:27:49 PM EST

    Two witnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.

    Parent
    Denying what? (none / 0) (#106)
    by ks on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 03:38:17 PM EST
    There is a big difference between "being on top of" and your dramatic inflation of being "pinned to the ground" and even the witnesses you are talking about only saw part of the struggle at best.

    Parent
    From CNN: (none / 0) (#116)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 05:28:03 PM EST
    According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman told authorities that after he briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him. After the two exchanged words, Zimmerman said, he reached for his cell phone, and then Martin punched him in the nose. Zimmerman said Martin pinned him to the ground and began slamming his head onto the sidewalk, leading to the shooting.
    If this CNN article can be trusted, they said that the Sanford police confirmed that Zimmerman said that Martin pinned him to the ground.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#122)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 06:32:21 PM EST
    Sanford police confirmed that's what Zimmerman told authorities.

    Parent
    Um, isn't that what I said? (none / 0) (#123)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 06:37:39 PM EST
    I thought you meant ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 07:09:16 PM EST
    ... that this confirmed that Zimmerman was, in fact, "pinned to the ground".

    Although now that you mention it, this was a news article paraphrasing his statement, not verbatim quotes.  I don't know if the Sanford PD confirmed the wording "pinned to the ground".

    Parent

    Not So Very Well (none / 0) (#100)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 02:50:37 PM EST
    It's possible that both witnesses will drop dead, or change their stories, or be discredited on cross. That's why I cautiously said 'if the evidence shows.' But I don't think these possibilities add up to 'may very well'.

    Parent
    Bails are set in an amount (none / 0) (#12)
    by expy on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:22:28 AM EST
    that is calculated to be high enough to guarantee the person's appearance in court - but (ideally) not so high so as to make it impossible to raise bail. Typically, bails are secured by property, such as a deed to a house -- or through a 10% posting with a bail bondsman. (The bondsmen will go out looking for any of their client's who skip bail, because the only way for them to get back their money is to produced the defendant).

    Someone with $200K of money obtained through online donations really doesn't have much to lose by skipping bail, when the bail is lower than the amount the are sitting on.  

    Parent

    The NFL draft (none / 0) (#5)
    by Makarov on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:27:15 PM EST
    did not disappoint for entertainment value. I'm certain they broke the record for number of first round trades, particularly in the top half. The only original pick in the top 7 was the Colts.

    Biggest highway robbery:
    Minnesota getting Cleveland to give them a 4th rounder in order to swap picks and secure Trent Richardson. Vikes were never taking the RB, but made the Browns think someone else was interested.

    Biggest reaches, in my subjective order:

    Tampa Bay - Safety Mark Barron at 7
    Seattle - DE Bruce Irvin at 15
    Cleveland - QB Brandon Weedon at 22
    Miami - QB Ryan Tannehill at 8
    49ers - WR AJ Jenkins at 30
    Vikings - Safety Harrison Smith at 29

    Barron shouldn't have been drafted above 20, just not a special player. Irvin was taken with better DEs on the board including Melvin Ingram and Quintin Coples. Weedon had no business being drafted in the first round. Tannehill should have been drafted much later but he wasn't getting out of the top 10 anyway. Jenkins had a 2nd or 3rd round grade. Smith was also over-drafted.

    Biggest value picks:

    Eagles - DT Fletcher Cox at 12
    Chargers - DE Melvin Ingram at 17
    Tampa Bay - RB Doug Martin at 21

    Some analysts ranked Cox the highest defensive lineman (some the highest defensive player) in the draft. What's more, is he appears to be a perfect fit for the Eagles' Wide-9 defensive line. Kansas City had a need for a 3-4 nose guard and reached for Dontari Poe, letting Cox fall.

    Ingram was a flat out steal at 17, more so considering he was the third DE drafted. Easily the best DE available and should have gone top 10. Great value at a position of need for San Diego.

    Tampa snuck back into the 1st round and snagged the second best RB in the draft. I partly gave them mention because the Giants would have likely taken Martin with the next pick.

    Special mention:
    The Rams, fresh off fleecing Washington for their 1st round picks over through 2014 for the second pick in the draft, traded down two more times today. They have 3 of the first 13 picks in the 2nd round. There is good value to be had there. St. Louis is in an excellent position to improve their roster. Some very promising WR, DL, and RB are all available.

    All in all, this was the one of the most entertaining 1st rounds I've watched. Both ESPN and NFLN didn't spoil the picks before they were announced this year on their broadcasts. Individual reporters certainly did if you monitored twitter. Interestingly, Seattle Seahawks owner Paul Allen actually spoiled 3 or 4 picks over his personal twitter account.

    And Old #7.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 08:01:11 AM EST
    doing his best Bill Belichick imitation--trading away the Bronco's first round pick not once, but twice and stockpiling later round picks.  Going to be an interesting day for Donkey fans.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#29)
    by Makarov on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:25:42 AM EST
    I should have mentioned Denver going completely out of the round.

    More surprising, was Bill Belichick himself trading up twice. Some people think NE never trades up, and that's not exactly true. Still, I bet many were stunned to see the Pats move up twice in the first.

    Belichick also did it rather smartly - he went defensive line / linebacker on both picks, not reaching for either player. Both were good value - DE Chandler Jones at 21 and ILB Dont'a Hightower at 25. Better still, the Pats still have 2x 2nd round picks remaining.

    Parent

    My personal moment of excitement... (none / 0) (#40)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 11:34:41 AM EST
    last night was Riley Reiff, T-Rex arms and proclivity for drunken, naked chases through downtown Iowa City and all, going at #23--even if it was to the Lions.

    First B1G player off the board too.  Also of note, no Florida player went in the first round.

    Parent

    did the Bears get anyone good? (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:03:14 PM EST
    Too early to tell about the "good"... (none / 0) (#50)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:13:19 PM EST
    ...part but they got themselves a linebacker out of Boise State.  

    We are talking about the Bears though, so...

    Parent

    yes, where all promise goes to die... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:15:26 PM EST
    Here's hoping for the next Gary Fencik or Mike Singletary!

    Parent
    Buddy of mine from Chicago (none / 0) (#118)
    by Rupe on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 05:45:03 PM EST
    is already calling him the next Urlacher.  A boy can dream  :)

    Parent
    I've heard... (none / 0) (#121)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 06:30:37 PM EST
    that this is going to be Cutler's breakout year.  Hope springs eternal for Bears (and Cubs) fans!

    Parent
    Second Round... (none / 0) (#125)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 07:02:58 PM EST
    Da Bears select a big receiver, Alshon Jeffery out of South Carolina to go with Brandon Marshall.

    Parent
    Katy Perry (none / 0) (#8)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:15:52 AM EST
    That "Part of Me" song just sort of makes me roll my eyes, because it's supposed to be a "kiss off" song about her divorce or something -- but Russell Brand divorced her because she wouldn't stop partying all the time and he's trying desperately to stay sober, AND he's one of the more articulate famous voices on the "war on drugs" and the current state of "fame" that we have at the moment. So the idea that Katy Perry was wronged by him is a bit hard to swallow.

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by sj on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:38:45 AM EST
    I think the song predates her divorce.  The demo was first leaked online in 2010.

    And I know way too much about that song for someone who really only likes "ET" from the Katy Perry catalog.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:08:38 AM EST
    ...it was marketed as I described, in any case -- starting with the Grammy's performance (I think that was where it "debuted").

    Parent
    the grammy's is where I first heard it (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    And I thought it was related to her and Brand. I still think it's a catchy tune and I like the song and the assertiveness in it. I don't really know or care why their marriage didn't work and certainly wouldn't judge either the song or either one of them on the basis of who wanted to party and who went to drug rehab.  

    Parent
    I liked it when I first heard it (none / 0) (#127)
    by sj on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 07:21:18 PM EST
    And probably for about the next 100 times after that, LOL.  But when I would hear it on nearly every channel on both ends of my commute, it got to be a bit much.  And much to my chagrin my new satellite radio receiver needs a remote to get to channel presets.  I'm not going to use that when going down the freeway.  I only do channel changes that I can do by "feel", so I get stuck listening to a lot of songs way more often than I want to.

    Though I'm not yet tired of Gotye's "Somebody that I Used to Know".  Or anything Adele.

    Parent

    I don't know if it was (none / 0) (#28)
    by sj on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:24:44 AM EST
    so much marketed it that way, as it is the fact that the reviewers kept "analyzing" it that way.  And it is certainly possible that the release of the song wasn't coincidental.

    But KP herself has made a point of saying that the song does not refer to the end of their marriage.

    And while it is a catchy tune it is a testament to the fact that over-playing is a serious problem even on satellite radio.  It's a song that by now makes me immediately select another channel.  

    As does Rihanna's latest.  Rihanna tends to run out of lyrics long before she runs out of song.  I find that repetition annoying in the extreme.

    Parent

    I prefer Rihanna to Perry by leaps and bounds... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:44:54 AM EST
    ...although we're mostly talking about which producer we like better at a certain point. Rihanna's repetition I can handle and enjoy because it's more "club" music than "pop" music, insofar as there's a difference. So Rihanna is singing the verses, but is also (in effect) being "sampled" for the hooks. It's like a "Rihanna (feat. Rihanna)", and I like enough electronic music (and rap that also uses her hooks for choruses) that it doesn't irk me.

    I haven't liked Katy Perry's newer album save for the title song, "Teenage Dream". It shared too much DNA with Lady Gaga's "Born This Way", which I thought was excessive in every way, musically and aesthetically.

    Mostly, though, I like "postmodern pastiche" indie rock of the Pitchfork Media style. I can't help it! But that's really not been too hot either, lately. It seems to have gone maudlin and "wistful" again, after a few years of caffeination.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#36)
    by sj on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 11:12:10 AM EST
    Rihanna (feat. Rihanna).  Yes that's it exactly!  And I much prefer (feat. Rihanna) when the main artist is someone else.  Eminem's "Love the Way You Lie" is still a favorite.

    And while (as I've said here before) I'm a reluctant Gaga fan, I have to say that I haven't run out and purchased "Born this Way".  I LOVE "The Fame" though.  

    I'd forgotten about Pitchfork Media.  It was blocked when I first tried to go there and I just did an "oh well" and left it at that.  You think I should take a second look?

    Parent

    Nah... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Addison on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 11:19:19 AM EST
    ...don't worry too much about Pitchfork except as a curiousity.

    Oh, or actually, if you get in the mood to try something really different from radio, they do offer free tracks and music videos -- it's a true musical grab bag so the genres are all over the place. So it might take a little while to hear something you like, but when you DO you will not have heard it anywhere else.

    But as for a daily check for reviews...most of the bands reviewed are very obscure and the music is not remotely the "best in genre", so it's just sort of a waste of time to read the reviews unless you're an indie/hipster music obsessive.

    Parent

    unless you're an indie/hipster music obsessive. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 06:43:07 PM EST
    You say that like its a bad thing!  

    Nobody will ever mistake me for a hipster, but I'm always on the look-out for new stuff that isn't "mainstream".  

    The Civil Wars, Snake Rattle Rattle Snake, The War on Drugs--just some of the stuff I'm listening to from cruising the interwebs.

    Parent

    Yeah, the song does (none / 0) (#15)
    by rjarnold on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 07:09:59 AM EST
    seem immature and self-centered, but it is still really really catchy.

    Parent
    Thanks for being my Trayvon Martin case (none / 0) (#9)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:17:30 AM EST
    support group. In Tampa, a judge is hearing arguments concerning the dismissal of a SYG case that has some similarity to the one in Sanford. The neighborhood also is called Twin Lakes ...

    Interesting reported facts (none / 0) (#20)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 08:51:18 AM EST


    They said James then reached for the gun as the two toppled to the ground.

    Hmmm.  Is it possible that reaching for a gun can cause two people otherwise not in contact to tumble to the ground?

    Parent

    Dooley, the defendant (none / 0) (#39)
    by Doug1111 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 11:23:52 AM EST
    in the Tampa case you linked doesn't have NEARLY as good a self defense argument as Zimmerman does.

    He would if he could produce evidence that the man he shot was in fact reaching for his gun as he claims, but eyewitnesses contradict that.  

    Parent

    yes, the facts in the cases (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 02:11:07 PM EST
    are so different -- the case being heard had eyewitnesses to the entire incident -- I don't think they are comparable.

    Parent
    You know better than I (none / 0) (#160)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 02:24:58 PM EST
    but here's what I thought was similar: Unlike most SYG cases, there were no criminals in these two cases. Both shooters had concealed weapon permits. In the first, there was a struggle over the gun. That has been raised as a possibility in the second. I think it's likely no one would have been killed if a gun had not been present. The cases are interracial.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 05:29:19 AM EST
    Who do you like on American Idol this year?

    Wait!!! Isn't the bear the symbol of the (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:14:10 AM EST
    old communist Soviet bear???

    And this is happening in Bolder!

    Everyone! Hang on to your precious body fluids!

    The Russian Bear (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:47:55 AM EST
    The bear has been a symbol of the Russian nation since at least the Nineteenth Century.

    Nineteenth Century editorial cartoons depicted the U.S. as an eagle, Britain as a lion, and Russia as a bear.

    The word 'jingoism' comes from this British beer hall song:

    We don't want to fight
    But, by Jingo, if we do
    We've got the ships
    We've got the men
    We've got the money too
    We've fought the bear before
    And while we're Britains true
    The Russians shall not have
    Constantinople.

    'We've fought the bear before' refers to the Crimean war. The song was popular during the various 'Eastern Question' crises of the late Nineteenth Century.

    Late in the Nineteenth Century, British policy makers decided Germany was threat number one, and adopted a conciliatory policy toward Russia. Rudyard Kipling criticized this policy with his poem 'Truce of the Bear', in which Russia was represented by the bear and Britain by a human hunter.


    Parent

    Time for some REAL house music (none / 0) (#41)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 11:46:24 AM EST
    And the best worst album cover ever (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:00:37 PM EST
    Yikes! (none / 0) (#95)
    by ks on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 02:16:11 PM EST
    That's terrible and great at the same time!

    Parent
    Oh dear! (none / 0) (#129)
    by sj on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 07:28:09 PM EST
    That's all.  I've got nothing else.

    Parent
    Melting Metal Lava Man (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:33:43 PM EST
    "Three boys" (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Rojas on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 07:24:59 AM EST
    That one is a natural wonder.

    Parent
    Seriously? (none / 0) (#72)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:18:10 PM EST
    I'm a libertarian.

    Are you seriously contending opinions on this case aren't polarizing on ideological lines?

    Sure there's some polarization (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by sj on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 01:32:33 PM EST
    There almost always is.  What does polarization have to do with your "beyond the pale" nastiness?  That wasn't an observation.  It was nastiness intended as a smear.

    And most self-described libertarians that come here are ridiculously self-deluded.  They are wingers who don't particularly want to be associated with the batsh!t crazy arm of the GOP, even if slightly batsh!t themselves.  Understand, I'm not saying you fit that category.  Too soon to tell actually, but your "beyond the pale" business was the first datum.

    Or one of the first.

    Parent

    please stop the sniping (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 02:04:50 PM EST
    Sniping? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by sj on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 02:14:29 PM EST
    Like this?
    I guess Zimmerman put himself beyond the pale of liberal sympathy
    This hardcore liberal gets really annoyed at being sniped at.  

    Parent
    No, like the comment you (none / 0) (#168)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 08:39:40 PM EST
    just wrote with the subject line "Get Over Yourself." I just deleted the comment.

    Parent
    interesting (none / 0) (#170)
    by sj on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 09:11:06 AM EST
    Hackery (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 02:02:16 PM EST
    I guess Zimmerman put himself beyond the pale of liberal sympathy, by exercising his constitutional right to go armed for the purpose of self-defense.

    Gee, how could anyone mistake that for right wing hackery...

    Wanting it to be self defense doesn't make it self defense and since there is no way for you to know, you claim is ridiculous.  Nothing more then left bashing under the disguise of some sort of nobler principle.

    Parent

    Wanting (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 01:50:52 PM EST
    Wanting it to be first degree murder doesn't make it so either.

    There is no evidence that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin when he exited his vehicle.

    I was clearly talking about Zimmerman's choice to go armed, not the shooting.

    Parent