home

Tuesday Night Open Thread

The AQAP would-be bomber was a pretend bomber after all -- a CIA informant.

Republican Senator Richard Lugar is out in Indiana, losing in today's primary to his "tea-party" backed challenger, State Treasurer Richard Mourdock. I'm not sorry to see him go.

George Zimmerman waived his right to speedy trial today. The hearing took less than 30 seconds and neither the lawyers nor Zimmerman appeared. The next hearing is set for August 8, and that's for scheduling matters. There's no date set yet for release of discovery.

Who will win The Voice tonight? Even though I didn't care much for the show or contestants this year, I hope it's Juliet Sims.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Government Won't Call Rielle Hunter >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Josh Hamilton's line tonight - 4 HR, 18 TB (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Dadler on Tue May 08, 2012 at 09:44:28 PM EST
    That's 18 total bases, an American league record, on top of being the sixteenth player to hit four dingers in a game.  Guy has an ungodly great stroke.  Amazing night at the dish against Baltimore.

    What a shame that such talent ... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 08, 2012 at 10:16:06 PM EST
    ... is wearing a Texas Ranger uniform. I agree, Hamilton has one of the sweetest power swings in baseball. It would look even sweeter if he were clad in Dodger Blue.

    Parent
    It figures (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Tue May 08, 2012 at 10:19:00 PM EST
    he's on my opponents team . . . .

    Parent
    SYG laws subject of proposed (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Anne on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:51:04 AM EST
    House amendment; I'm surprised no one else has mentioned it.

    From David Dayen:

    In the House appropriations bill for Commerce, Justice and Science that will get preliminary votes today, Progressive Caucus co-chairs Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva will introduce a "Stop Shoot First Laws" amendment, a direct reaction to the death of Trayvon Martin, whose death and ensuing trial may turn on Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

    The full text of the amendment is below:

    Page 44, line 6, insert before the semicolon the following: "Provided, That upon a determination by the Attorney General that a State has in effect a law allowing an armed person to confront an unarmed person in public and shoot to kill even if the confrontation could have been safely avoided, the Attorney General shall withhold 20 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to that State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755)."

    Basically, this would impact Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funding, a crime prevention program partnership between states and the Justice Department. Any state with a Stand Your Ground-type law would lose 20% of that JAG funding, under the amendment. This would encourage states to repeal those laws, according to Ellison and Grijalva.

    [snip]

    In a statement, Ellison and Grijalva said, "Shoot first laws have already cost too many lives. In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted. Federal money shouldn't be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people. This is no different than withholding transportation funds from states that don't enforce seatbelt laws."

    I agree with dday that this amendment will likely never see the light of day, and maybe, given its wording, it shouldn't.

    I could be reading it too closely, but "laws that allow an armed person to confront an unarmed person...and shoot to kill" doesn't seem like a correct interpretation of what SYG laws actually say.  

    That being said, I do think there is merit in the statement issued by Grijalva and Ellison; laws that result in more deaths don't make any sense, and should be discouraged.

    All a moot point, I'm sure.

    I think the part of their language that is meant (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by ruffian on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:03:55 AM EST
    to apply to SYG laws is the "even if the confrontation could have been safely avoided" part.

    As you say, a moot point. But I am glad to see Progressives raise their heads to do anything about anything these days.

    Parent

    Another Media Fail (none / 0) (#34)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:27:18 AM EST
    The article also misrepresents Florida's SYG law.

    The Stand Your Ground law in Florida permits individuals licensed to carry a weapon to use deadly force if they perceive an imminent threat to themselves . . .

    There is no special treatment for 'individuals licensed to carry a weapon'. Carry licenses aren't mentioned in the statutes.

    The law also retains the traditional standard of reasonable belief, as discussed here. The article claims the Florida law only requires a perception.  

    Fla. Stat. § 776.012

    Fla. Stat. § 776.032

    Parent

    So, are you saying that if one is (none / 0) (#54)
    by Anne on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:53:42 AM EST
    not legally in possession of a weapon, one can still invoke SYG?

    In other words, if the possession is not legal, is SYG still an immunity?

    If the answer is "no," I think that may have been the reason Dayen made reference to "licensed to carry a weapon."

    Parent

    Did you read the statutes? (none / 0) (#57)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:11:05 PM EST
    They say nothing about a person being in legal or illegal possession of a weapon. They don't require that the person defending himself with deadly force, not be in violation of any other law at the same moment.

    Parent
    Yes, I read them. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Anne on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:43:50 PM EST
    And to your point that the statutes are silent on legal v. illegal possession of a firearm, if it's that clear-cut, I expect you could you find me an instance where someone in illegal possession of a firearm successfully invoked immunity under SYG, couldn't you?

    Title 18, Chapter 5, §505 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, for example, says that - I'm paraphrasing - you are not justified to use force if you are in illegal possession of a firearm.

    I get it - that's explicit, and it's not Florida.  But that's why we have courts, isn't it?  Is there case law that says the Florida statute's silence on this issue must be read to include for purposes of determining immunity both the legal and illegal possession of a firearm?

    I'm not a lawyer and I don't presume to know all I would need to to answer or find the answer to this question; that doesn't mean it isn't a valid question, nor does it mean you should respond to me as if I am sitting here drooling on my keyboard.


    Parent

    Making It Personal (none / 0) (#71)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 09, 2012 at 01:10:59 PM EST
    that doesn't mean it isn't a valid question, nor does it mean you should respond to me as if I am sitting here drooling on my keyboard.

    You're being thin-skinned. I had no way of knowing if you had read the statutes. It was a reasonable, factual question.

    If I had thought your question wasn't 'valid', I wouldn't have responded at all.


    Parent

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#104)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:10:53 PM EST
    Your comment, "....It was a reasonable, factual question.".....stated in an ill-disguised, snippy, and unnecessarily adolescent manner.    

    Parent
    The Pa statute you quote does NOT... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Gandydancer on Thu May 10, 2012 at 09:59:24 PM EST
    say "you are not justified to use force if you are in illegal possession of a firearm." It says that you lose the right to stand your ground, in certain circumstances, if you are in illegal possession of a firearm.

    Parent
    That Makes No Sense (none / 0) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:06:36 PM EST
    States that have these laws will get less money to prevent crime, which means more yahoo laws will be needed and so on.  

    Downward spiral into the wild west.

    What they don't seem to understand is the people who get behind these laws want more vigilantism, not less.  They are dangling a carrot and whipping a anorexic masochist.  Idiots.

    The good news is there will be more funds for people who actually don't think life is cheap, if it's passed.  And judging by the interest on student loans, I give it about a 2% chance.

    Parent

    It absolutely shouldn't see the light of day. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Doug1111 on Thu May 10, 2012 at 09:32:55 AM EST
    Among other things it's an outrageous further extension of the killing of federalism.

    What constitutes murder and self defense between civilians has always been a state matter.  

    Tying federal tax monies to fight crime that the states have over time become dependent on to a federal takeover of state law in this area is outrageous.

    Furthermore Florida stand your ground law is reasonable, and overall seems to have deterred crime.

    Parent

    So now (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:40:47 AM EST
    there's a petition to move the Democratic Convention out of NC. Who was the genius that thought NC was a good place to have it in the first place?


    A little late at this point (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:13:13 PM EST
    This stuff has been vetted for over a year.

    Parent
    Maybe they should turn it into an (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Wed May 09, 2012 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Occupy Charlotte event - bring camping food and don't stay in hotels.

    Yeah, I know, not a chance.

    Parent

    As it turns out, they had quite the (none / 0) (#73)
    by Anne on Wed May 09, 2012 at 01:16:19 PM EST
    protests both inside and outside the B of A shareholder meeting today:

    David Dayen:

    Occupy and bank accountability activists have staged a major protest at Bank of America's shareholder meeting today. This is the latest in a series of shareholder activism events that have gone hand in hand with the rebooting of the Occupy movement this spring. Direct challenges to the nation's biggest corporations and financial institutions have often included legitimate efforts to constrain corporate power through shareholder resolutions, like the one that rejected pay packages for top executives at Citigroup last month.

    As Zach Carter pointed out this morning, the BofA protests in Charlotte have also been seen as a type of dry run for the activist plans at the Democratic National Convention, to be held in the same city. And activists planned an inside-outside strategy:

    Inside the Bank of America meeting, disgruntled shareholders -- including Trillium Asset Management, the City of New York and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees -- will force votes on proposals that would curb the bank's political spending and force it to review its foreclosure practices. Foreclosure victims are hoping to give testimony during the meeting.

    Outside the meeting, protesters promise a boisterous slate of events to draw attention to Bank of America's relationship with the federal government, the coal industry and its long record of foreclosure abuse. Occupy Atlanta's Tim Franzen said there are three marches planned, each with its own theme: the bank's environmental record, the housing crisis and corporate accountability issues. The marches will converge into one big protest.

    This appears to have happened. Foreclosure victims did get inside the shareholder meeting and gave testimony to Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, part of a coalition of around 100 activists. Shareholder activists attempted to submit a resolution forcing BofA to review its foreclosure practices and provide a public report to shareholders of that review. But none of the resolutions were accepted.

    There's more at the link.

    Parent

    KNOW HOPE (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    "OBAMA: I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

    Brave, brave move given what just happened in NC.  Fantastic and historic day.  Equality is inevitable.

    awesome (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:03:52 PM EST
    you got a link to that?

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#83)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:09:01 PM EST
    Link

    The dems are going to take an immense amount of heat over this.  We need to be supporting them.  The worst case scenario is that Obama and the dems step out on the ledge with things like this and then we leave them to fall.

    Parent

    yea (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CST on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    I am actually very surprised by this, it's unexpected, particularly the timing.  I think he's been showing with his actions in office for a while that this is where he's been headed, but I wasn't expecting him to come out publicly on it before the election - especially as there is no legislation at stake.  So it means he really felt that this is something he had to do.  Which is awesome, because it's the right thing to do.  But it's not the political thing to do.

    It's kind of sad that we are proud of our politicians for doing the non-political right thing, but it is so rare these days that that's what it is.  So kudos Obama, I feel better about you as a human being right now.

    Parent

    I think it's debatable (none / 0) (#94)
    by dk on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:35:00 PM EST
    whether it's politically helpful or harmful.  It's helpful with most of his base and I'd say neutral with African Americans (in the sense that while a majority of African Americans oppose gay marriage, there's no chance this will mean a drop in African American support for Obama).  

    As for independents, I doubt that those who are even considering voting for Obama are single issue voters on this subject.  Times have changed, and I just don't see this losing Obama votes.  

    I'm glad he did this, especially for the sake of young gay kids who are dealing with acceptance, etc.  He's always, at least publicly, seemed to be a follower more than a leader, and I think it's consistent now that polls show majorities in favor of gay marriage he's jumped on the bandwagon.

    Parent

    Disagree (none / 0) (#100)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:04:47 PM EST
    It would have been politically safer to remain silent and that's what everyone expected him to do.

    This is what leading looks like.

    Parent

    Leading (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by jbindc on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:07:35 PM EST
    After your vice president drags you kicking and screaming.

    Parent
    gotta agree (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:20:45 PM EST
    This is a case where Obama actually taking an unambiguous, forceful stand on a contentious issue should reap more political benefits than the merits of the issue itself.

    Americans have shown they reward leaders with balls, irrespective of political consequences.


    Parent

    I'm glad (3.67 / 3) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:49:35 PM EST
    he's doing this but it's not leading. Leading is what Cuomo did in NY. Leading is followed by action. In this case Obama is taking a stand which heaven knows it been a rare thing for him to do ever on any subject.

    So I'm glad he's taking a stand.

    Parent

    He wouldn't be doing it if there (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Anne on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:18:55 PM EST
    was political danger in it.  After Biden's and Duncan's comments put Obama on the hot seat, and a complete mess was made of the spin, he almost didn't have any choice.

    You say "this is what leading looks like;" I say, "this is what realizing a whole lot of LGBT money he was counting on starts to look like it's drying up looks like."

    He did not lead, he was led; the end result is a good one, at least rhetorically - and now we wait to see if there's more to it than just words, and, apparently, a lot of talk on Obama's part about what it means to be a Christian.

    Parent

    Given that a lot of the (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 09, 2012 at 04:34:08 PM EST
    opposition to marriage equality in the black community is church and religion-based, I'd like him to talk even more extensively and frequently about how marriage equality fits in with what it means to be a Christian.

    Parent
    I disagree, gyrfalcon (none / 0) (#126)
    by dk on Wed May 09, 2012 at 04:44:52 PM EST
    I think that is best left to progressive church leaders.  They're out there, and hopefully they'll have some success.

    In the meantime, Obama is the head of the executive branch of the federal government.  To really be a leader, he should change his position from believing this is a states' rights issue (which apparently is still his position as of today) and acknowledge that this is the civil rights issue of our day and commit to doing his part to ensure that the right he now admits to personally believing should be deemed a federal right that supercedes any views of the states to the contrary.

    Parent

    Problem is (none / 0) (#144)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:50:32 PM EST
    it actually is a states' rights issue per the Constitution.  Sorry about that, but Obama can't do a blessed thing about it, nor can Congress.

    Parent
    The fact that it is a states' rights issue (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Anne on Thu May 10, 2012 at 06:27:08 AM EST
    does not and should not prevent someone who believes in marriage equality from advocating that it is, as dk says above, "the civil rights issue of our day and commit[ting] to doing his part to ensure that the right he now admits to personally believing should be deemed a federal right that supercedes any views of the states to the contrary."

    Especially someone in such a position of power and influence.

    Every time I think about the power of a president - an African-American president - using the bully pulpit to advocate for what is a civil/human rights issue, I want to weep for how passive his support appears to be.  You speak about the power of him using his faith to encourage the black community to get behind this right, but what is more powerful than appealing to the black community using parallels to one of the greatest struggles of our time - racial equality?  

    There is no doubt that stating his support is a positive thing; as Glenn wrote, his motives are irrelevant if the end result is moving this issue in the right direction.  Having taken a stand - finally - he's stuck with it whether he did it for political reasons or personal ones - and that's a good thing for marriage equality.

    He's taken this car out of "Park" and into "Drive," but as long as he continues to use the safe harbor of states' rights, he's driving with the emergency brake on.

    Parent

    He's going to have to (none / 0) (#127)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 09, 2012 at 04:46:14 PM EST
    if I know the way that GOP ads work.

    But that is a non-winner for a president that much of the country believes is a muslim anyway.  They will not value or relate to his system of faith because they think he's an Islamic Terrorist.

    Parent

    Since when did many people (none / 0) (#129)
    by dk on Wed May 09, 2012 at 04:49:16 PM EST
    in the black community start thinking that Obama is an Islamic Terrorist?

    Parent
    I wasn't referring to the black community (none / 0) (#135)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 09, 2012 at 06:37:28 PM EST
    and the black community is voting for Obama regardless.

    Parent
    That wasn't the question (none / 0) (#145)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:53:14 PM EST
    The question was whether he should or shouldn't refer to his faith as the reason why he supports marriage equality and try to open up a few minds (ie, you know, lead) in the black community on the subject.

    Of course the black community is voting for Obama.  The question is whether he's willing to help do something about their opposition to gay marriage.

    Parent

    Gotta link? (none / 0) (#133)
    by nycstray on Wed May 09, 2012 at 05:48:02 PM EST
    a president that much of the country believes is a muslim anyway


    Parent
    Disagree Anne (none / 0) (#122)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 09, 2012 at 04:30:44 PM EST
    But I don't see you as one to give him much credit anyway.  This is the same sort of thing that happened with DADT, the admins' position on DOMA and a host of other issues.

    Even on a historic day where he has done what no other President has done, giving him his due isn't possible, even when you agree with the position he just endorsed.

    Those blasting him today on the issue of gay rights make it clear that he really can't please a number of people who will just never cut him slack.

    Meanwhile, progressives are generally thrilled with this surprising development, as they should be.

    It's a time to celebrate the moment and his statement.  I am sure it'll be back to bashing him about the improving economy, ending the wars but not ending them fast enough and all other manner of raging tomorrow.

    But can he just get a day of appreciation?  Just one?

    Parent

    Polls show majorities (none / 0) (#102)
    by dk on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:09:30 PM EST
    in favor of gay marriage now, and it certainly will ramp up enthusiasm among the base (particularly gay doners, who provide quite a bit of $$ to the campaign).

    In light of those factors, it seems more incumbant on those with your point of view to provide evidence of your assertions.

    Parent

    Better late than never (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:13:58 PM EST
    Guess someone is finally feeling the heat in this election year.

    Parent
    From a political point of view (none / 0) (#88)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:16:38 PM EST
    this was a very bold move.  He would have been safer saying nothing. Biden forced his hand.

    Parent
    Now we wait to see if it ever moves (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Anne on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    beyond the political, if it gets tempered when the inevitable pushback comes, if it's backed by real advocacy or remains stuck in "passive."

    Politics without principle is, as I heard somewhere, "just words."

    Parent

    Congratulations! (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jbindc on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:17:22 PM EST
    Obama has taken 3 years to come around to the same position as Dick Cheney!

    Parent
    Obama's new position still "leaves it (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by oculus on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:18:50 PM EST
    to the states."  Not good.  

    Parent
    That's always his safe harbor, and the (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Anne on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:22:16 PM EST
    end result is that he says a lot of good things, but when he has the chance to use the tools of his presidency - like signing an executive order banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when awarding government contracts, which was actually under consideration - he whiffs.

    Parent
    DADT, Defense of DOMA (4.00 / 1) (#123)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 09, 2012 at 04:32:01 PM EST
    and a host of other issues that make him the best POTUS on LGBT rights ever aside of course.

    Parent
    Best POTUS evah! (1.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Yman on Wed May 09, 2012 at 07:22:30 PM EST
    ... on LGBT rights - heh.

    Public support for LGBT rights has grown drastically in the past 20 years.  In the 90's, most people opposed the repeal of the homosexual ban in the military, as well as gay marriage.  When Obama repealed DADT, the vast majority of people supported its repeal, and most people now favor legalizing gay marriage.

    Obama can poll trends.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#139)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 09, 2012 at 08:18:17 PM EST
    Best POTUS on LGBT rights ever.

    Fact.

    For some that is cause for celebration.  For others . . . .

    Well haters gonna hate.

    Parent

    "Haters" gonna ... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Yman on Thu May 10, 2012 at 06:43:43 AM EST
    ... point out the fact that Obama didn't change his mind until the poll numbers changed.

    Best POTUS evah ...

    ... leading from behind.

    Parent

    Im not sure it was any (none / 0) (#110)
    by brodie on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:19:18 PM EST
    longer politically safe for O to stay undecided.  As you said, as I did yesterday, Biden forced his hand.

    His VP forced him to boldly go forth, at least prematurely.  I think he would have been forced to take a stance in Sept at the convention as LBGT forces would have organized over a party plank.  

    O might have been planning an announcement then -- I think that's plausible -- but blabbermouth Biden let the cat out.

    This is the right thing to do morally, and the only thing to do politically, but it was done clumsily.  And it won't be the reason O loses in November.

    Parent

    I agree more with those who opine (4.00 / 2) (#113)
    by oculus on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:21:48 PM EST
    Biden and Duncan were the John the Baptists for Obama, i.e., the Obama admins. and campaign either asked them to proclaim boldly or at least knew in advance they were going to and didn't apply duct tape.  

    Parent
    Too bad (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:21:43 PM EST
    He didn't do it before the NC vote.

    Parent
    Would have earned him (none / 0) (#119)
    by brodie on Wed May 09, 2012 at 04:02:02 PM EST
    some points, but it wouldn't have affected the outcome.  That amend carried by twenty points.  And it's NC, a state he barely carried last time when the electorate was far more favorably inclined towards him.

    Parent
    He voiced (none / 0) (#140)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 09, 2012 at 08:20:23 PM EST
    His opposition to the amendment before the vote.  Wouldn't have impacted the outcome given the numbers and probably more powerful to do it the day after anyway.

    Parent
    Probably not (none / 0) (#147)
    by jbindc on Thu May 10, 2012 at 06:18:08 AM EST
    But it's more of that "leading" thing you know....

    It's much easier to shrug your shoulders and say "Well, I supported x" after X has failed, then to put your money where your mouth is (or, in this case, your mouth where your money is) and stand up beforehand and take a position -even if it's unpopular.

    Parent

    Bravo (none / 0) (#89)
    by lilburro on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:20:35 PM EST
    It is a good thing, and I sure was wrong (see my comments elsewhere in this post).

    He does say it should be a state by state thing though, which, doesn't necessarily work out that well, obviously.  

    But I'm glad he's on the record.

    Parent

    I missed the state by state thing (none / 0) (#97)
    by me only on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:58:58 PM EST
    where was that?

    If true, I see this as a calculation.

    Parent

    Here (none / 0) (#105)
    by lilburro on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    TP:

    During the interview, Obama stressed that he personally affirms same-sex marriage, but says the matter should be left to the individual states.

    Still a good thing, but that is an important caveat.

    Parent

    meanwhile (none / 0) (#90)
    by CST on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:20:43 PM EST
    Mitt Romney today:

    "Well, when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name," he said. "My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not."

    At least he finally found something he's consistent on...

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 09, 2012 at 04:07:49 PM EST
    what's amazing? That he can even say that. Hard to believe even Newt Gingrich was to the left of him on this issue.

    Parent
    what's amazing to me (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by CST on Wed May 09, 2012 at 04:48:26 PM EST
    is the amount of equivocation in that statement.  Don't worry, I'm not trying to kick them out of hospital rooms or some other hot-button emotional situation.  They just can't have ALL the rights.  Pray tell, which rights qualify as too many rights?  Mind you, he also is nay-saying civil unions, so it's not "all" the rights minus the name marriage.  But he is also very clearly not mentioning which specific rights he doesn't want them to have.

    Parent
    YEah (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 09, 2012 at 05:05:01 PM EST
    he's kind of got himself stuck in the brier patch as we would say down here in the south. He can't seem to find his way out of the thicket that is gay rights.

    But really considering he apparently has to appease the tea party and then get enough votes to win a general election, maybe nobody really knowing where he is on this issue is what will work for him.

    Parent

    Well, it worked for Obama 4 years ago. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by dk on Wed May 09, 2012 at 05:12:20 PM EST
    but, unlike with economic policy, corporate America is ok with allowing national will to force movement to the left on gay rights, so Romney's out of luck on this particular issue.

    Parent
    The last thing I think O'Mara or Zimmerman (2.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Doug1111 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:19:48 AM EST
    want is a speedy trial.

    They want passions to die down in the black community.  

    Pretty Sure... (none / 0) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:10:10 PM EST
    ...you mean all communities, black people aren't the only ones offended by his behavior.  And if race really wasn't a factor, this could have been any color kid...

    Parent
    I don't think race (none / 0) (#152)
    by Doug1111 on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:18:20 PM EST
    was a factor in why Zimmerman shot Trayvon, no. I think having his head bashed against the cement sidewalk and face repeatedly punched while he was pinned to the ground unable to get away was what was a factor.

    I think race was partially but only partially a factor in Zimmerman's finding Trayvon suspicious, given all the burglaries in his neighborhood committed by young black men when the race of the offenders was seen as it often was.

    I think race was a huge factor in the early media narrative feed to them by Team Trayvon including Crump and esp. the PR firm Ryan Julison Communications he engaged to spin the media, and still is a huge factor in the media interest.  I think race and the black tendency to go into racial solidarity mode has been a huge factor in the outrange of the black community, and a big factor too for many white left wingers.  

    Parent

    what fight? (none / 0) (#155)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 10, 2012 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    We don't have any real evidence of a fight - just a struggle where the unarmed teen ended up fatally shot.  

    Yes, GZ claims his head was bashed, etc but until we have medical evidence that proves his injuries existed, and determine the cause of them you are relying on his word and a cellphone pic that is inconclusive about what injuries he suffered, and how they happened.  Most specifically, we don't know yet who started the fight, since Trayvon may have been acting in self defense himself.  

    But yes, the wise thing to do at the moment is to leave race out of it, and allow the courts to decide the guilt or innocence of the self-admitted killer.  

    And yes, there was a lot of outrage about a white/hispanic armed man shooting an unarmed teenager and being released the same night with no charges ever filed against him.  This "outrage" caused 30k people in NYC to take to the streets, thousands elsewhere, and 2.2 million online to ALL peaceably demand that he be investigated properly, and charges filed if the case merited it.  

    Nine people calling themselves the "New" Black Panthers made a flyer offering a bounty for the CAPTURE of GZ.  This is not advocating or causing violence.  It is however, stupid and we can all agree on that.  

    The release of the cell phone call was shocking to many, and it has yet to be determined if he used a racial slur or not.  But the issue of profiling is something that will be debated at trial.  

    I think race is pretty much always a factor to some degree in this country.   If Trayvon were white.... what do you think GZ would have done when he saw him walking home?  

    Parent

    Profiling and even racial profiling (none / 0) (#171)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 12, 2012 at 01:57:42 PM EST
    is not illegal when done by a private citizen with respect to how suspicious he finds that person in a neighborhood, esp. when combined with aspects of his behavior (wandering around in the rain, looking at houses, being someone Zimmerman didn't recognize, what he was wearing, and so on).

    Blacks commit burglaries and 4x the per capita rate that whites do according to the US Justice department, and his neighbors had reported may burglaries and attempted burglaries in the last year, and when the race of the perps was seen, in all but one case they were young black men.

    Given all that having race, age and dress be a factor in profiling how suspicious someone is, is entirely appropriate, and not just legal but also fully moral.  

    Parent

    We have lots of evidence that a fight occurred and (none / 0) (#172)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 12, 2012 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    that Trayvon was hugely prevailing. Zimmerman's attorney produced medical evidence at the bail hearing that Zimmerman's nose had been broken and handed them to the court. There is a picture taken by an after the fact witness showing fresh unclotted bright red blood and two long gashed on the back of Zimmerman's head, all consistent with it having been bashed repreatedly against the cement sidewalk as Zimmerman told police that night is what happened, among other things.

    Eyewitness John, who's one of only two eye witness, was by far the closest to the fight (it occurred in his back yard) and who was the only one to have seen clearly what happened during most of the fight, says he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground, repeatedly slugging Zimmerman in the face while Zimmerman screamed help directly to John, and then heard a gunshot as he was running upstairs to call 911.  All of this is fully consistent with what Zimmerman told police that night with no attorney present. The 13 yo walking his dog's account is not inconsistent with this either though he didn't see much.  No earwitness testimony as opposed to opinion and unwarranted conclusions is inconsistent with this either.

    So the idea that there's no good evidence that a fight occurred and that Trayvon had pinned Zimmerman to the ground is I think at this point nothing but pure prejudice and wishful thinking on the part of the Get Zimmerman crowd.  

    Parent

    There's that "bashed repeatedly" again (none / 0) (#175)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 12, 2012 at 05:44:59 PM EST
    Why do they have laws making helmets mandatory for bicycle riders? Because bare skin simply scraping concrete can cause abrasions and bleeding. So, how do a couple of inconclusive pictures showing some abrasions lead to "bashing repeatedly?" And, anyone who's played any sports can tell you that anything from rolling on a hard surface to an errant elbow can cause a sensitive body part, like a nose, to suffer a contusion.

    I thought "wild speculation stated as fact" was disallowed here.


    Parent

    It's hardly wild speculation. That's absolutely (none / 0) (#185)
    by Doug1111 on Sun May 13, 2012 at 03:48:23 PM EST
    preposterous.  

    For one thing it's been Zimmerman's consistent story, so far as we know so far.  For another physical evidence and eye witness testimony are consistent with GZ's story.  

    Those are two long gashes on the back of his head, about two to three inches long. You can suffer a severe concussion, a coma, or even death from on hard bashing of the skull against concrete. It can and often does cause mostly internal brain damage.  That can happen with far smaller surface contusions than Zimmerman's two.

    Given the lack of any injuries on Trayvon other than the gunshot wound according to the funeral director, who would he have those gashes except by having his head based repeatedly against concrete or a rock. The concrete was right there.  On the stand at the bail hearing the prosection's lead investigator admitted the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were consistent with his story to police that Trayvon repeatedly bashed his head against the concrete.

    I submit there's nothing fair minded about how you are approaching the available evidence.  I submit you evince a get Zimmerman highly prejudiced mindset.  

    Parent

    what consistent story? (none / 0) (#190)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 13, 2012 at 06:12:58 PM EST
    According to the press and prosecution, Zimmerman's story was given five times, starting on the night of the shooting and extending into the next day when he walked the scene with his father present.  As late as that evening, he was still giving statements according to what I have read.  

    The prosecution believes his story is inconsistent, and they are the ones with the recordings.  Zimmerman says no, but all he has is his memory to go on.  

    from the CNN  transcript:

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?

    ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that in some of those statement when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started "I don't remember"?

    O'MARA: Outside the scope of direct examination. I will object your honor.

    JUDGE LESTER: We'll give you a little bit of leeway. Not a whole lot but a little bit here, ok.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn't it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn't believe it, that you would say "I don't remember"?

    JUDGE LESTER: I'm going to grant his motion at this time.

    O'MARA: Thank you, your honor.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you agree you changed your story as it went along?

    ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely not.

     

    One of these men is wrong.  One has the tapes and transcripts and has studied them for weeks.  The other has his memory.  

    You are also claiming that eye witness testimony is consistent with Zimmerman's story, but no one claims to have seen the two on a sidewalk, or beating a skull against the sidewalk.  And other witnesses put the fight in the grass, where we also have seen a yellow tarp covering the body.  

    And you can drown in two inches of water, but saying so doesn't mean it happened.  I think GZ had some minor injuries as pictured and I don't have any proof of much else.  Like many have said, head wounds and nose fractures can bleed quite heavily.  These seemed not to.  

    We don't have the medical examiner's report on Trayvon yet, so the word of a mortician isn't conclusive about his injuries, including if he had bruised his knuckles any. The mortician seems to think his hands were clean.   How any of this "proves" GZ had his head hit against the sidewalk is beyond me.  GZ could have slipped while chasing Trayvon in the foot chase" we heard about at the bond hearing.  The grass was wet.  

    The investigator who was questioned admits the injuries seemed consistent with the tale, but to me that means they are going to use a different angle to prove Murder 2.  It's hard to deny he had SOME injury to his head.  How it happened is anyone's guess.  

    I do think that Trayvon was winning the struggle.  In fact, I also think the cries for help MAY have been George, too. It could be that Trayvon was both winning and calling for help.  We don't know.  But if it was George, and he was "near death" or whatever he claims, he certainly didn't have any difficulty yelling for help, or being interrupted while doing so.  That part is curious to me.  

    For these and a hundred other small things, I just don't find Zimmerman's tale credible.  I just don't.  Reasonable people can differ.  That's why we have a judge, a jury and lawyers ready to take your money to argue your case.  We'll see, we'll see,  

    Parent

    No helments are required of bicycle (none / 0) (#186)
    by Doug1111 on Sun May 13, 2012 at 03:52:24 PM EST
    riders and motorcycle ones not to prevent skull abrasions.  Abrasions are even more likely on one's arms and legs if they're not covered with leather or other tough material.

    It's to prevent internal brain injury or concussion, coma, or even death. Zimmerman was certainly reasonable in fearing great bodily harm or death if as he says and as the physical evidence is consistent with, he had his head bashed repeatedly against the concrete.  

    Parent

    You make my argument (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 13, 2012 at 06:17:43 PM EST
    You state:

    "Those are two long gashes on the back of his head, about two to three inches long. You can suffer a severe concussion, a coma, or even death from on hard bashing of the skull against concrete. It can and often does cause mostly internal brain damage. That can happen with far smaller surface contusions than Zimmerman's two."

    And yet, minutes after the "bashing" we see GZ walking unassisted and talking lucidly, with no indication of any of the adverse symptoms you would expect from someone who had his head "bashed" into the concrete.

    Your own words belie your conclusion.  "Severe concussion, coma, internal brain damage, even death," yes, those are the possible results of "brain bashing on concrete." And, if any of those results were even a small possibility why wasn't he admitted to the hospital for observation as is customary in such cases?

    You called me "prejudiced" and "not fair minded." I guess that's what someone dealing in wild speculation would think when confronted with facts and evidence.

    Stick to reality, you'll be taken more seriously.

    Parent

    Or, he's a lying murderer. One or the other. (none / 0) (#192)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 13, 2012 at 06:40:59 PM EST
    Yes, head injuries are troublesome.  Yes, he had at least one cut and a scrape on his head according to a photo.  We just don't know how he got these injuries.  You seem to be saying that his tale is true because there is some evidence he had an injury.  

    Parent
    Omara waved papers. Not in record yet. (none / 0) (#176)
    by willisnewton on Sat May 12, 2012 at 06:24:45 PM EST
    At the bond hearing o'Mara made a show of saying he possessed medical evidence but did not actually share them withthe court - if he had the judge would release them to the press.

    As.a general point of observation, where does one put his hands when you want to slam a head against the  ground anyway? Zimmerman has almost no hair.  Its not an easy maneuver, and takes both hands.  

    About that bloody head photo... Why is George talking on a cell phone?  Officer Tim smith claims he put George in hand cuffs immediately BEFORE disarming him.   "John" was still on the line with 911.  Who took the photo and why doesn't the police report mention the photographer? The police report claims he arrived before the photo is time stamped.  Seems odd.

    Also what proof is there that TM started the fight?  

    And why was the body found between the townhouses when Zimmerman claims he was returning to his truck, after looking for a street sign?  Did he think he parked in the backyard or did he think there were street signs behind there?

    Parent

    Around the House (none / 0) (#178)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 12, 2012 at 09:22:47 PM EST
    The police report claims he arrived before the photo is time stamped.

    One of the 911 callers saw the first police officer in front of her home, and told the dispatcher he should go to the back. It's not clear to me how long that took.

    Parent
    More than two minutes? (none / 0) (#189)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 13, 2012 at 05:29:00 PM EST
    This is the most likely innocent explanation for the cell phone picture of a non-handcuffed bloody GZ - that the officer first responded to the address on Retreat View and then took time to walk around the south end of the building, on high alert since the report of shots fired.  

    When ofc. Tim Smith finally gets to "John's" backyard or thereabouts, the photographer has gone back into his townhouse, or he's there and the officer failed to mention him in his report.  

    Still, does all this take that much time?  Walking the distance at a normal pace would take around 55 seconds by my measure, and likely less depending on how direct his route was.

    7:16:56   SHOT FIRED
    7:19:07 metadata of iPhone 4s pic - bloody headed GZ on cell phone

    If you had just shot someone in a life or death fight, would your priority be on souvenir photos in the first two minutes?  Why was this picture taken?    

    Personally, I tend to doubt the veracity of Ofc. Tim Smith's account based on the existence of this photo and its' timestamp.  

     

    Parent

    why are you impugning the (none / 0) (#193)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 13, 2012 at 07:13:04 PM EST
    officer? It was likely a neighbor who took the picture before the police arrived. Do police even carry iPhones?

    Parent
    Law enforcement officers often (none / 0) (#195)
    by oculus on Sun May 13, 2012 at 07:31:18 PM EST
    have a camera at the scene.  

    Parent
    Neighbor (none / 0) (#196)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 13, 2012 at 07:39:49 PM EST
    The Teacher, in both her first and second CNN interviews, said that before she saw a police officer she saw a resident approach Zimmerman and possibly speak with him.

    She didn't mention that in her 911 call, although she stayed on the line long enough to report seeing Zimmerman led away.

    Parent

    Unclear how your comment replies (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Sun May 13, 2012 at 09:54:37 PM EST
    to mine.  

    Parent
    Sorry, Meant For 193 (none / 0) (#199)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 13, 2012 at 11:29:28 PM EST
     

    Parent
    questions about Ofc Timothy Smith's report (none / 0) (#198)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 13, 2012 at 11:00:12 PM EST
    There has been some question regarding the report filed by the first responder, Ofc. TImothy Smith brought up by this diary on Daily Kos.  

    link here to kos diary
    http://tinyurl.com/86vqftn

    Be advised that some of the links from this diary are no longer working, (the city of Sanford complied with the first judge's gag order and took down lots of things, including the video of GZ arriving at the police station) and that it's difficult to understand at first.  

    The gist of the diary is that there was an earlier release to the press of the officer's reports, and this report failed to include Tim Smith's report.  Then there was a later release to the press of what was supposed to be the same reports, but this one now included the report.  (It's a long story, and the actual diary tells it better. But it seems fishy to me.)  

    This, coupled with the fact that Tim Smith was was the officer who responded to several other calls by Zimmerman makes me wonder if the two had developed an acquaintance of any significance.  

    Then, later I took a good look at the "bloody head photo" and noticed that Zimmerman is seemingly talking on a cell phone and is not in handcuffs after the officer reported he was already on the scene.  There may be an innocent explanation for all this, but I am fairly certain there is no real ongoing investigation into the Sanford PD or Norm Wolfinger's office.  So we may never know why these things are going on, or what really happened in the initial investigation in a satisfactory amount of detail.  

    Lastly, I'm an intense sceptic about this case.  I think the "good ol' boy network" was in high gear here.  So I can imagine a scenario where GZ leaves the police station as early as 10PM (as has been reported) or midnight and has time to get his story straight with Ofc Smith before Smith files his report at 3:29 AM.  This is just a wild suspicion, with no evidence to back it but still I wonder.  

    There are a few seemingly exculpatory details in Smith's report, and one wonders if the reason they dovetail with GZ's story is just good police work or not.  In his report he fails to explain why he never saw the "photographer" of the bloody head photo, despite having the time to be there when it happened.  It's less than 200 feet from his car to the place where the body seems to have been found.  He could have been there in around 55 seconds, and if he wasn't, he should at least have been in a position to see the flash of the photographer.  If I arrived on the scene of a shooting and there was more than one person by a dead body, I'd assume they were significant enough to put into my report.  

    If I were a screenwriter, given the known aspects of all this and told to come up with a scenario that explains all the details I'd assume that Smith didn't actually put GZ into handcuffs right away, but instead spoke to him as an acquaintance first, possibly with neighbors joining in.  

    There are just so many questions unanswered yet that I don't trust half of what we know so far sometimes.  Who was GZ calling in the bloody head photo?  It seems he asked the photographer to call his wife.  (That seems like something someone would say after they were in handcuffs.) Even if Smith didn't immediately recognize GZ, then GZ may have known Smith.  At least one witness claimed GZ put the gun on the ground.  When did this happen, and when did he put it back into his holster, if that happened?  Will this reaction be in GZ's statements?  And so on.  


    Parent

    More of the Same (none / 0) (#200)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 13, 2012 at 11:35:53 PM EST
    There has been a media propaganda campaign against the Sanford Police Department, the majority of which has already proven bogus.

    Parent
    campaign suggests collusion for a result (none / 0) (#206)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 12:56:38 PM EST
    If charges against the Sanford PD are part of a "propaganda campaign'" but are baseless, then they have little to fear.  What is the goal of such a campaign, by the way?  

    Let's face it, they deserve a certain measure of scrutiny.  The state of Florida now believes George Zimmerman is guilty of murder and this "cop shop" let him go after shooting an unarmed kid who was walking home.  Even if GZ was 100% right to claim self defense, (which remains to be proven in court) it still was an action he seems responsible for, having left his car with a loaded weapon and failing to identify himself.  It's just not a good situation, and in my mind lies somewhere on a sliding scale of "preventable tragedy" to "cold blooded murder with police corruption and cover up."  It's yet to be firmly established where on the scale this incident lies.  

    Millions of reasonable people want to know what went on.  Of course there are a certain number on non-reasonable people caught up in this, but that comes with the territory.  If cable tv news upsets you, turn it off.  

    Sadly, there is no ongoing outside investigation into what the actions of the Sanford PD and Norm Wolfinger's office truly did to handle this case.  The DoJ is NOT focused on this aspect of the case, and they never said so.  The governor has not authorized an outside review of the police, either.  The sanford city council, by a 3-2 majority seems to think the DoJ will eventually clear Bill Lee, but the city manager Bonaparte and two voting members disagree, claiming that at best it will be months, and after the trial before the DoJ weighs in.  I don't think they ever will, by virtue of centering their focus on the idea of whether or not George Zimmerman violated Trayvon's civil rights.  

    On April 2nd, it was reported that the family of Trayvon sent a letter asking that the DoJ investigate Wolfinger and the Sandord PD.  They never got a reply.  Stories headlined about an investigation turned out to be, on closer examination, rumors coming from the city fathers of Sanford about CRS actions to listen to complaints, not a real investigation of any kind.  

    So if the media doesn't try to find out, who will?

    And Sanford PD has had a record of questionable actions in the past, including the homeless man who was beaten while his tormentors video taped it.  One of the people who assaulted this man was the son of a cop, and no charges were filed at first.  This is exactly the sort of thing that the media is there to help point out.  Zimmerman's family seems to claim George himself helped pass out flyers in that case - was George a propaganda dupe himself?  Of course not.  

    Bill Lee seems to have been brought in as a reformer, but the word from the community is that there is still work to be done in community relations.  

    Your blanket statement about propaganda and bogus charges needs clarification. But more importantly, what damage do you fear being caused to the Sanford PD, or the public at large by this "propaganda?"  Will they be disbanded?  Attacked with pitchforks and torches by the local villagers like a Frankenstein movie?  Stripped of their guns by black helicopters from the UN?  No, of course not.

    They are cops.  I'm pretty sure that they are used to scrutiny and even baseless charges, which tend to lead nowhere fast.  They'll be fine.  

    Parent

    Yeah and how likely to you think (none / 0) (#187)
    by Doug1111 on Sun May 13, 2012 at 03:54:20 PM EST
    it is that O'Mara would hand GZ's medical records into the court saying they substantiated that he'd had a broken nose, if they don't show that?

    He'd lose a lot of credibility and gain nothing by doing that.

    Parent

    about 204K worth of credibility? (none / 0) (#188)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 13, 2012 at 05:09:46 PM EST
    O'Mara woud lose as much credibility as he did when he claimed his client was indigent, and it was almost instantly revealed that there were hundreds of thousands of dollars at their disposal.  The judge let that slide but he didn't forget it.    

    I think his vaunted "medical papers" are going to turn out to be an inconclusive receipt from a minor emergency clinic and a prescription for Tylenol-3.  And no X-Ray.  (The papers he waved in court were not the size of an X-ray. If O'Mara does have one, he was misrepresenting what he had in his hand at that hearing.)  

    But that's just my opinion.  Time will tell.  

    But this point aside, Trayvon may very well have broken his nose and bested him in a physical struggle, but that doesn't mean that he started the fight, or that GZ was justified in claiming he shot the youth in self-defense.  He's going to have to prove that in a SYG hearing, if there is one, which I doubt will happen for that reason and for the other reason - he's no good on the witness stand.  GZ will never testify, I bet.  Or at least not with O'Mara as his lawyer.  O'Mara is no fool.  

    Parent

    at a trial, if the charges (none / 0) (#194)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 13, 2012 at 07:17:22 PM EST
    are not dismissed at a SYG hearing, all he has to present is any evidence, very very little, to get an instruction on self-defense.

    You are starting to sound like a shill for the prosecution. Please be aware your comments will be limited in number as a chatterer under our comment rules if you continue to repeat over and over your theories as to why he is guilty.

    Parent

    fair enough. (none / 0) (#201)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 12:04:50 AM EST
    I appreciate this forum and I know it can't be easy to moderate it, especially in an open topic/thread.  I'll try not to repeat myself too often in the future.  

    IANAL, however and don't know what was meant by this:

    "...all he has to present is any evidence, very very little, to get an instruction on self-defense."

    I tried to google "instruction on self-defense" and got a lot of kung fu videos.  

    And for the record, I'm not fan of the prosecution's actions so far, so I'd be a poor shill for them.  If this were strictly a battle of the lawyers, I'd say O'Mara would be the odds-on favorite to win.  The wild card is his client, as I see it, and his ability to act in his own best interest until the end of the trial.  

    Parent

    Try 'Justifiable Homicide' (none / 0) (#202)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 12:32:59 AM EST
    From the website of what appears to be a Florida law firm:

    The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim.  This is a low standard and even a "scintilla" of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable.  Self-defense may even be inferred from the State's evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.


    Parent
    Why Not a Fan? (none / 0) (#203)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 01:49:07 AM EST
    I'm not fan of the prosecution's actions so far . . .

    I'd be interested in your specific thoughts on this.

    I'm guessing one issue would be Corey's apparent unwillingness to go Johnnie Cochran on the Sanford PD.  

    Parent

    not a Johnny Cochran fan either. (none / 0) (#205)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 11:48:38 AM EST
    My wish is simple - to know the truth, and I want it to come out in court.  It may not be discernible, in the end but boy, am I curious.  

    I disagree with Corey's strategy of asking for a gag order and her propensity to grandstand a bit.  Her office released papers to the press that they redacted for no good reason, and never explained why.  

    see here for daily kos diary about this strange incident
    http://tinyurl.com/d2c5hlg

    Her sabre-rattling caused the city of Sanford to take down all their website links to 911 recordings, and the video of GZ arriving at the police station, and for Sanford to (falsely) claim they couldn't release the tape of GZ LEAVING the police station.  She's stifling the release of public documents in a Sunshine law state.   She's eemingly claiming rights she does not possess, and/or the city father of Sanford as self-serving weasels and she isn't stepping forward to confirm this.  Read the diary and the story it links to for more on this odd matter.

    And I don't care for her public face, either. Her announcement of filing charges seemed like an Oscar acceptance speech to me, and bordered on bad taste with all the congratulations being thrown around. Save those for when you secure a conviction, if any.  

    I feel like she will work hard to get a conviction in a fair trial, but I question her motives in so doing.  I think she cares more about politics, her career record and her reputation as "tough" than she does about kids like Trayvon, who sometimes wind up in her sights and are charged as adults when they are clearly minors.  She's a law-and-order republican in Florida and I think this is going to color her strategy in court.  I'd prefer a prosecutor who is more progressive and in line with how I think the profession should be practiced.  

    I don't think anyone felt the affidavit she filed stating why she wants Murder 2 was very well written, as we saw when O'Mara attacked it.  She's assuming a certain lasie-faire favoritism for the government's case will exist when this is shaping up to be no ordinary case.   She's got a big job to do and I don't know if her instincts are right for the task of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ shot Trayvon in Murder 2 terms.  

    I don't think this is any conspiracy to "Defend SYG" and that she's going to intentionally blow the case.  Of course, we have seen such things happen in other cases, but I don't think this is that type.  But neither do I see her as the type who might question the wisdom of SYG laws and bring in the statistics to back these questions.  Because there will be more George Zimmermans, but my opinion is that we need less laws written like the SYG laws on the books.  This may not be what is on trial, but the debate is taking place and the merits of these laws are relevant to the case.

    It's also a minor point, but she is quite religious and touts it on occasion.  I don't see how people who claim to be Christian reconcile favoring the death penalty.  It seems schizophrenic to me, given all we know about the problems with the death penalty, and the forgiving nature at the heart of christianity.  So I think these sorts of people are less rational than they claim to be, and therefor I don't trust them as much.  

    I've got a five cent bet with my brother that GZ will not be convicted of any "murder" charge but will in the end be found guilty of manslaughter or a lesser charge of some kind.  This bet was made on the day she was announced as special prosecutor - we know a little more about the case now and I want to win my five cents, but I also wouldn't mind losing a nickel if the evidence merits a murder 2 conviction.  And I can imagine a smarter, stronger prosecutor who works differently than Corey seems to be doing.  

    And yes, I don't trust the Sanford PD or Norm Wolfinger to be completely straightforward and forthcoming with how this case was initially handled, but Corey needs the Sanford PD to cooperate with her in order to do her job.  But she could have sent her investigators to depose, (question, subpoena, whatever is appropriate, IANAL) Norm Wolfinger on general principal alone if she cared to be that aggressive.  Even if it was just for show, it would send a message that she cared to move mountains and look in every corner for the truth. And who knows what they might find, if they pressed hard?   Norm had his reasons, but we haven't really heard what they were in any detail, or how far he was willing to keep looking and how he planned to do so.  Not checking Trayvon's cell phone records seems like sloppy investigative work on the part of Sanford PD.  Look what it turned up.  Someone like Norm could have pressed for such work, but did he?  We don't really know, and no one is investigating this from what I can tell.  I see this episode as a dual tragedy- the needless death of a kid who was walking home and would have done so if GZ had stayed in his car or not brought along his handgun, which may have been his legal right to do but was still a bad idea, and also a tragedy in bad police and prosecution work not to hold the suspect to closer scrutiny before releasing him.  Would it have killed them to take a decent photo of his injuries?  Or checked Trayvon's cell phone, seeing as how they probably found a headpiece of some kind?   He was also "peppered with questions" by a narcotics investigator rather than asked to make his own statement by a homicide detective, as is wise in such situations.  Corey can't do much about all that, but she didn't have to thank police chief Bill Lee personally from her podium.  

    Because either she is right or Norm and Bill Lee were right.  Her silence on his actions seems to be too much professional courtesy to show to someone who contradicts what you claim to believe.  

    I'm glad O'Mara seems competent and professional.  The former defense "advisors" or whatever they were - GZ never signed a retainer with them - looked like amateur clowns compared to O'Mara.  I want Zimmerman to have good representation in an open court so there is no question that he is getting a fair trial.  

    I don't want this case "tried in the media" but I do think the public has a right to see all the documents given that this is a sunshine state. I also think a jury can be impartial if selected and instructed well, despite a "media circus."  Like so many, I am fascinated by this "riddle" and hope that we learn the truth about what happened in between those townhouses that night.  I don't think our courts are flawless but I do think they will work well enough to satisfy my own curiosity so that I can form a reasonable, measured opinion of my own about whether GZ acted in self defense or not.  I just want every stone turned over, and I don't know if Corey is going to do that or not.  

    Parent

    See (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 14, 2012 at 02:33:48 AM EST
    here, on the difference between stand your ground and self-defense. Statutes here. Read this court opinion I cited.

    On the instruction: See for example,
    Sipple v. State, 972 So. 2d 912, 915-916 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2007):

    When self-defense is asserted in a criminal case, the defendant  only has the burden of presenting some evidence to establish a prima facie case that the killing was justified. [citations omitted]. The state must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. [citations omitted] As long as there is any evidence of self-defense presented by the defendant, the instruction is warranted. ....As the court explained in Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998):[i]t is not the quantum or the quality of the proof as to self-defense that determines the requirement for giving the charge. If any evidence of a substantial character is adduced, either upon cross-examination of State witnesses   or upon direct examination of the defendant and/or his witnesses, the element of self-defense becomes an issue, and the jury, as the trier of the facts, should be duly charged as to the law thereon, because it is the jury's function to determine that issue

    The defendant doesn't even have to testify. His statement to police that he acted in self-defense is enough to get the instruction.

    In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial;  his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient.   See Peterka v. State, 890 So.2d 219, 229 (Fla.2004) ("We conclude that in light of Peterka's statement to police, trial counsel presented a viable, coherent defense strategy of either self-defense or unintentional killing

    Based on Sipple's statement to the police, which was admitted into evidence, we conclude that Sipple met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of self-defense, which required the trial judge to properly instruct the jury as to that defense.



    Parent
    Just wondering (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 09, 2012 at 05:10:34 PM EST
    what my gay friends thought of OBama's decision and this is what they said:

    One says will he do anything to change the laws and he says no.

    This is nothing more than a last minute campaign tactic. Let's take advantage of it and see if he will do anything about it before election day - any bets???

    is what the other friend said. So if these peoplea are representative of what's out there, they are glad that Obama FINALLY took a stand on the issue but know that he's not going to do anything and think it is done right now because it's a presidential election year.

    A number of Obama's bundlers are gay/lesbian. (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 09, 2012 at 06:12:39 PM EST
    I think the reluctance of many in the LGBT community to continue throwing good money after bad played a big part here.

    And for all the talk I am hearing via the news about how Obama reached this decision after long talks with Michelle and their daughters, I suspect that the long talks that really counted were the ones with his fundraisers.

    Also, the White House press corps has been openly disdainful the last few days of Obama's "evolving". Jay Carney has been raked over the coals since the weekend.

    IMO, Obama had to state a firm position for or against marriage equality. He chose the LGBT money tree. I think he made the right choice, but it is hardly a decision that puts him in the vanguard.

    Yes, better he came out in support of marriage equality than against it, but this is hardly a profile in courage.

    Parent

    Just sounds (1.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 09, 2012 at 07:44:19 PM EST
    like typical Obama. I can understand the press being disdainful. I mean this is just nonsense about having this "evolving" opinion on something.

    Parent
    Better for Obama to have "evolved" ... (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 09, 2012 at 08:10:49 PM EST
    ... on the issue of same-gender marriage, than to hide behind one's religion as an excuse to justify continued discrimination against GLBT people.

    And to be perfectly frank, I'm one of those whose views of GLBT rights have "evoleved" over time, and I'll have to take issue with your notion that one's personal evolution on the subject of same-sex marriage is somehow nonsensical.

    If you've been consistent about your position all these years regarding same-sex marriage, then hey, good for you. But for millions of other Americans, myself included, our support of GLBT rights has become something of a personal bellwether regarding our spiritual and moral growth as human beings. And for many of us, it's required us to set aside years of learned and acquired -- if ultimately unfounded -- assumptions about so-called traditional gender roles in our secular society, and that hasn't always been easy to do.

    I hardly look to our mainstream media as any kind of arbiter or barometer of our political and social evolution. That they have expressed disdain for this president's expressed opinion, well, we would do well to remember that it was their expressed disdain for Democrats in general which did so much to propel a manifestly unqualified candidate, George W. Bush, into the Oval Office back in 2000 and 2004. So, consider the source.

    Aloha.

    y expressed similar disdain

    Parent

    Hard to reconcile the Obama (none / 0) (#141)
    by Anne on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:46:58 PM EST
    of 1996, who answered an Illinois State Senate questionnaire with, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages" with all of the Obamas that followed; is it second thoughts?  Or what?

    Here's Obama's "evolution" on this issue; I hope it makes more sense to you than it does to me.

    A few to get you started:

    1. "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages," while running in 1996 for Illinois state Senate, in a written response to a questionnaire from Chicago's Outlines gay newspaper.

    1. "Undecided," while running for re-election to state Senate in 1998, in response to an Outlines questionnaire asking, "Do you favor legalizing same-sex marriage?"

    2. "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, `should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, `absolutely.' And then if you talk about, `should they get married?', then suddenly..." - Feb. 2, 2004, while an Illinois state Senator, in an interview with Chicago gay newspaper, the Windy City Times.

    Good luck.

    Parent

    Great comment. (none / 0) (#142)
    by lilburro on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:48:33 PM EST
    There has been a lot of evolving on this issue, and that's a good thing.  It's amazing how much things have changed in just 10 years.  It's wonderful.  GLBT people are leading better, happier lives.

    But in terms of characterizing Obama's opinion as truly an evolution, well, maybe it was.  Over the past year I've thought of that as a code word indicating that he supportive.  And then you have his support of gay marriage in 1996, which, yes, was disavowed, maybe he just wasn't paying attention when he filled out the questionnaire...but I doubt it.  Regardless, it's still a brave thing to do, and whether or not Obama himself has truly evolved (I think he was already supportive) it's a good way to frame the issue and hopefully he'll lend his oratorical skills to our side and get some people not on board thinking.

    Parent

    I also think (none / 0) (#143)
    by lilburro on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:59:56 PM EST
    the bravest thing was making the statement that he is a man of faith AND supports gay marriage.  I think bringing that forward, and the way he discussed that and tied the two together, was really well done.  IMO as self-identified Christians become more openly supportive, they make the Christian Right look even more like the lunatic fringe.  So while his support for same-sex marriage doesn't surprise me, I think he showed great moral leadership on the faith/marriage question.

    Parent
    My problem (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:42:11 AM EST
    is that his answer for years has been that his opinion is "evolving" what the heck? You certainly can change your mind about any subject and I've seen a lot of people change their mind on the subject of gays but ironically it wasn't something that "evolved" over time, it just more or less dawned on them that the way they had been thinking was stupid.

    Parent
    The Voice (none / 0) (#1)
    by dgwohl on Tue May 08, 2012 at 08:41:14 PM EST
    I like Juliet, but I think her illness made her have an off night. I think it's going to be Chris Mann. And I completely agree this season wasn't nearly as entertaining as the first. I felt the coaches often picked the wrong people in the battle rounds, and would often pit their best people against each other to save certain singers (Cee Lo and Christina both lost good people due to poor planning), and the rule changes along the way seemed very poorly executed--because the ratings were suffering.

    Go Team CeeLo! (none / 0) (#2)
    by EL seattle on Tue May 08, 2012 at 08:53:19 PM EST
    Juliet became my favorite on The Voice this season when she was able to deliver terrific performances while taking part in some elaborate costumes.  Singing any song on live TV while wearing raven black angel wings can't be easy, and I'd guess that successfully belting out a James Brown song while wearing a clingy shimmering dress must be nearly impossible.

    I won't miss Lugar either. (none / 0) (#3)
    by brodie on Tue May 08, 2012 at 09:06:54 PM EST
    In the end he wimped out as the Tea Party wackos took over and called the shots in his party.  He failed to publicly call them out and stand on principle.  So long Dick.  Enjoy your retirement at your probably lovely Virginia home.

    Elsewhere it looks like the anti-gay marriage con amendment passed in NC, despite the good efforts of Bill Clinton to defeat it.  The Billy Graham bigots won today, not so surprisingly.  

    And it also looks like Biden goofed in talking so frankly about his pro gay marriage stance, making his boss look even more like a wishy washy pol stuck trying not to take a firm position.  I think O will have to now quickly evolve to the Biden stance and do so before this becomes a major embarrassment at the Dems NC convention where it will certainly come up as a party plank proposal.

    Hmmm . . . (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by nycstray on Tue May 08, 2012 at 09:10:05 PM EST
    maybe we should bring out Biden more often . . .

    Parent
    This is your GOP on steroids: (none / 0) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 08, 2012 at 09:24:29 PM EST
    "I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote. We should've never turned this over to women. And these women are voting in the wrong people. They're voting in people who are evil who agrees with them who're gonna take us down this pathway of destruction. And this probably was the reason they didn't allow women to vote when men were men. Because men in the good old days understood the nature of the woman. They were not afraid to deal with it. And they understood that, you let them take over, this is what would happen."
    - Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Fox News Contributor (March 5, 2012)

    Well, here's one guy we'll never have to worry about having been mistaken for an enlightened human being.

    I Love It (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 08:24:06 AM EST
    If only the rest of the party could be so honest and stop hiding behind abortion and the bible to justify their cave man mentality.

    Parent
    Amendment One passes. (none / 0) (#6)
    by lilburro on Tue May 08, 2012 at 09:28:24 PM EST
    G*ddammnit.  North Carolina can be better than this.  The conduct of the supporters of the Amendment today at the polls and in getting the amendment on the ballot (and the wording, and everything else about it) makes whatever moral authority they would seek to claim even more laughable than it already is.  Just a completely unnecessary thing to do that only, ONLY, hurts people (it wasn't like they were even voting on gay marriage itself, if you find that threatening, there was no threat here today).  UGH.  Pure malice.

    The only good thing about it is based on polling from a few days ago, the only group that really supported it was old, white straight people.  Young people and African Americans got behind the GLBT community on this.  Recall that lack of AA support was an issue with Prop 8.  Some hope for the future there.

    Then there must be ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 08, 2012 at 10:13:53 PM EST
    ... an awful lot of old, white straight people living in North Carolina, given that the measure enjoyed a 61% affirmative vote.

    It is what it is. That's why the outcome of the Prop. 8 case in the federal courts is so important.

    Parent

    Well, I mean in terms of demographics (none / 0) (#14)
    by lilburro on Tue May 08, 2012 at 11:14:50 PM EST
    older white people were in favor by something like 60/40, younger people against by a bit more than 60/40.  And African Americans were against by a closer margin, but still against.  

    Parent
    Nevermind (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilburro on Tue May 08, 2012 at 11:34:27 PM EST
    I wasn't even right.  African Americans supported it more than not.  PPP.  In polling from this week before the vote, anyway.

    Mea culpa.

    Parent

    They Always Do... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:13:25 PM EST
    ...not realizing the people for this ballot don't just hate gay people, they are usually hater through and through.

    They got behind the one in California as well and I believe they actually tipped the scales.

    Parent

    This is why (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 08, 2012 at 10:22:10 PM EST
    I don't think Obama carrying NC in the fall is anywhere near a given.

    Parent
    I doubt he'll carry NC (none / 0) (#15)
    by lilburro on Tue May 08, 2012 at 11:24:10 PM EST
    but not so much because of this.  I wonder if this will affect his much publicized "evolution" on gay marriage, though.  I'd guess he won't come out in favor until after the election, but who knows what the calculations are in the WH right now.

    Parent
    I just (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 09, 2012 at 07:12:51 AM EST
    think that this vote shows the demographics in NC are generally not favorable to Obama. It also highlights what a HORRIBLE choice Obama made when he picked NC for the convention and not only NC but Charlotte, the town that has a major thoroughfare named the Billy Graham Parkway no less.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed May 09, 2012 at 08:43:57 AM EST
    the Democratic governor (Beverly Purdue) enjoys something like a 30% approval rating, AND the fact that Obama only won NC in 2008 over McCain by something less than 1%.

    I don't know what the planners are smoking to make them think that NC will be in Obama's column on election day.

    Parent

    Obama is the only person I know whose (none / 0) (#16)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 08, 2012 at 11:29:53 PM EST
    position on marriage equality has evolved backward. He was for same-sex marriage before he was against it.  

    Gee, is it possible his views on this issue underwent a political cleansing at around the same time he decided to make a run for national office?  Probably cynical of me to doubt the man's sincerity on this issue, right?

    Parent

    Yeah, when was he in favor of that? (none / 0) (#18)
    by lilburro on Tue May 08, 2012 at 11:40:52 PM EST
    '96?  Where is THAT Obama.  I feel like maybe they're making a fuss over it now to bait Romney into attacking him on his stance.  Probably not quite as effective at mobilizing the GLBT or youth vote as actually supporting gay marriage, but I'd imagine somewhat effective.

    Parent
    Sadly, (none / 0) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:34:54 AM EST
    the worst time to know what a politician really feels about any issue is during a campaign. One need only look at Obama's first run for the Presidency to illustrate that.

    I believe Biden's comments were meant to signal pro-gay marriage voters that, "of course Obama is for legalizing gay marriage, but that doesn`t poll as well as fence sitting does. So, just wait, and you'll see his 'evolving' on the issue will be completed right after his victory."

    Just wait.....trust us.  


    Parent

    On the other hand...I think it's reasonable (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Anne on Wed May 09, 2012 at 06:40:48 AM EST
    to believe that the longer Obama is in office - assuming he wins a second term - the more "real" he's going to get, and that version of "real" isn't going to be of the liberal, solidly-on-the-left variety.

    The problem is that I don't believe that Obama is for legalizing same-sex marriage, anymore than I believe he's for a woman having an unqualified right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health.  Maybe Biden's comments were meant to signal not that "of course" Obama is "really" for same-sex marriage, but that somehow he and others in the administration and Congress who are for it will work around Obama.  

    Regardless, they managed to make a hash of the whole thing, as usual; I'd say it would be nice to have real leadership on these issues, but Obama's essential suthoritarianism doesn't lend itself to expanding anyone's rights, but to controlling them.

    And I don't think that's going to change, or get better, in a second term.

    Parent

    Yes, whatever the idea, (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:40:13 AM EST
    the Obama campaign seems to have made a hash of it.  My take, is that the "gay problem" was to be handled as a "I will transmit that to Vladimir" strategy, when President Obama was overheard telling Dimitry Medvedev in Seoul that he would have more "flexibility" after the election on missile defense.  

    But, when Mr. Obama decided against an executive order to prevent job discrimination by those doing business with the government, it caused restiveness.  The Biden remarks on Sunday, followed by the Sec of Education on Monday (even stronger), seemed to be a way of assuaging the gathering  worries.   But, Biden being Biden, and the White House being the White House, the Roschard Test strategy of letting the observer draw the inferences got out of hand.  It might have made more sense to have issued the executive order on job discrimination and then "transmit the message to Biden."

    Parent

    So, what do you make of the "reminder" (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Anne on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:24:12 AM EST
    that Obama said he "may" endorse marriage equality "soon?"

    More kabuki?

    Think Progress:

    A spokesperson for President Obama's re-election campaign said Tuesday night that Obama was "disappointed" about North Carolina's decision to approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships in the state. And as the administration is still trying to find its footing on the issue following Vice President Joe Biden's endorsement of marriage equality on Sunday, the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza reminds us that a senior adviser to the president said in an interview last month that Obama "may get around" to supporting the freedom to marry before November."

    Ryan Lizza
     ‏ @RyanLizza Sr. BO adviser to me re: BO endorsing gay marriage: BO "may get around to it before this election but he certainly will after the election."

    I think we've seen this show before...the one where Obama hedges - or is that "evolves?" - on a hot-button issue so he can keep the campaign cash flowing, and secure the needed votes, and then fails to deliver on whatever the demographic in question "projected" onto him once the "danger" has passed.

    Lucy and the football, over and over and over.

    Parent

    " . . . may get around to it . . ." (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by nycstray on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:23:17 PM EST
    Oy.

    Parent
    I actually think he supports gay marriage (none / 0) (#62)
    by lilburro on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:22:02 PM EST
    I think it's a question of when he will say so.  I mean, he doesn't even have to do anything, this isn't even about DOMA.  He just has to say he supports gay marriage.  I think he will do that.  

    Parent
    I thought he supported CU? (none / 0) (#64)
    by nycstray on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    And then it makes sense that he would be "disappointed" that NC banned them.

    Parent
    Well, if President Obama's (none / 0) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:41:32 PM EST
    plan was to give a wink and a nod and hold the issue in abeyance, it will now be difficult for the campaign to put an egg on the hash they made without getting more egg on their face.

    My thinking is President Obama, who will continuously be asked about the issue, will express Biden's position, albeit in a sharper way --being comfortable with same sex marriages having all the rights of opposite sex marriages.  That is, if a state permits marriage (a position in which he is evolving), then equity kicks in.  This is, essentially, the idea behind not enforcing DOMA.   Support for same sex marriage, itself, is not likely to evolve before November. However, in the unlikely event of early evolution,  a decision should be announced immediately surrounded by organized arguments along the lines of equality and equity.

    Parent

    President Obama now supports (none / 0) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:11:49 PM EST
    same sex marriage.  

    Parent
    I believe in "evolution" - Go Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by willisnewton on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:34:03 PM EST
    In announcing that he is getting off of the fence and supporting the idea of same sex couples to marry, Obama looks more like a leader than a candidate for re-election.  If he had stayed on the fence while sending out his second to signal something to the gay community for him, which, don't get me wrong, is probably the wise thing to do if all he is counting is votes, then I personally would have thought less of him.  

    He's gotten rid of Don't ask don't tell.  His DoJ is working to dismantle the DOMA, but that will not happen at the Supreme Court level until after the election at the rate it is going through the system.  

    And now he says he personally thinks same sex couples should be allowed to get married.  

    I think he's clearly on the right side of history here, people.  This is a brave move for a sitting president and he deserves to be recognized for his courage and vision.  It takes guts.  

    Parent

    Don't see how it takes guts (none / 0) (#116)
    by dk on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:47:47 PM EST
    when he's just stating what the majority of Americans are shown in polls to believe. It was the right thing to do, though.

    Parent
    A quote (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by jbindc on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:50:37 PM EST
    Often attributed to French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin:

    "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader."


    Parent
    The GLBT vote is miniscule and (none / 0) (#28)
    by Doug1111 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:28:49 AM EST
    they all vote Democrat in presidential elections anyway.  

    Parent
    They all vote "Democrat?" (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:53:00 AM EST
    Language is an interesting thing, and yours is no exception.

    Thanks for the head's up.

    Parent

    Or, (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by jbindc on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:57:12 AM EST
    they may not vote.

    Parent
    And thanks also (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by sj on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:34:59 AM EST
    for the heads up wrt to significance of GLBT population in your view.

    Parent
    yea that was unnecessarily dismissive (none / 0) (#74)
    by CST on Wed May 09, 2012 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    Also, frankly, I think this is an area where Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot long-term.  It's kind of like the hispanic community, I think there are a lot of gay people who would probably love to love Republicans, because they share values on other issues.  But the Republicans keep attacking them, and driving them away.

    Parent
    I'm glad they drove off David Brock.. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jondee on Wed May 09, 2012 at 01:38:09 PM EST
    Otherwise I never wold've gotten to read that fascinating exegesis on the wingnut food chain with it's network of foundations and think tanks..

    The takeaway, btw being: they're completely deranged, but very well organized..

    To paraphrase Captain Ahab, "My method is sane, my goal insane.."

    Parent

    I wasn't commenting (none / 0) (#173)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 12, 2012 at 02:07:19 PM EST
    on their significance as human beings, but rather as a significant political swing voting block.


    Parent
    He Devolved on All Kinds of Things... (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:19:23 PM EST
    ... it's practically his MO.

    Gitmo and MM are one he clearly reversed course on.  Marriage is a weird one, because he doesn't like gay marriage yet he reversed DADT.

    And then add in the zillion things he over-compromised on which at some level is like backing off and you get what you got.  

    A president that hasn't even bothered to intervene in Congress' inability to even get the student interest loan to a debate.

    Parent

    has mr. zimmerman requested (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Tue May 08, 2012 at 09:53:19 PM EST
    an immunity hearing yet? i haven't really been paying that much attention to this lately (some of us actually have real lives), so if there has been, i missed it.

    Not Yet (none / 0) (#13)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 08, 2012 at 10:32:15 PM EST
    They're still working on the discovery process. O'Mara won't decide on requesting an immunity hearing until he has gotten all the discovery and had time to study it.

    Parent
    He'll wait until then... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Doug1111 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:25:15 AM EST
    for optical reasons and so as to know when he'll be ready for the hearing.

    But it would be CRAZY for O'Mara to not request an immunity hearing.  Being granted immunity means Crump also can't sustain a civil suit against Zimmerman, and GZ gets his costs and lost wages paid by Florida.  

    Parent

    crazy to put G Zimmerman on the stand (none / 0) (#76)
    by willisnewton on Wed May 09, 2012 at 01:33:56 PM EST
    I think O'Mara may not choose to ask for a SYG hearing since his client would most likely have to take the stand and face cross-examination, whereas at his murder trial he can keep him from doing so.  

    IANAL but this is how I have heard it explained.  Can anyone confirm or deny this?

    If the bond hearing was any indication, he's not very good at facing cross examination.  He was asked about ONE issue and had to eventually admit "he could not remember" to whom he expressed regret to.  The prosecutor all but called him a liar when he said he has all the recordings of his statements and they are inconsistent with one another and the evidence.  

    Of course GZ now has time to rehearse his testimony and practice being cross examined for a few more months.  

    FWIW, Corey is running unoppposed and while I do think she has political motivations in seeking a conviction, having the trial after the election is sort of a moot point for her personally.

    And her office did object to the non-speedy trial motion, I heard.

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Wed May 09, 2012 at 01:42:23 PM EST
    (and the criminal defense attorneys here can correct me if I am wrong), but his whole defense is based on self-defense which means that even if O'Mara doesn't go through with the SYG hearing, GZ will have to take the stand because his defense depends on his state of mind at the time of the shooting.

    Parent
    here's what's tricky about GZ taking the stand (none / 0) (#120)
    by willisnewton on Wed May 09, 2012 at 04:04:16 PM EST
    Again, IANAL.  So take this as one persons lay opinion only.

    Usually the defense waits until the prosecution has put on it's entire case before deciding if the accused will take the stand or not.   Why risk cross-examination if the prosecution can't prove it's case?  

    But here we have the possibility of immunity from civil suit, and the case being thrown out if GZ can win a SYG hearing.  That's got to be tempting, but then again it's a risk.  I could envision GZ having a Perry Mason-worthy breakdown on the witness stand if he were provoked enough by a skillful prosecutor.  He's a textbook case of a loose cannon, given his history.  His brother and father worked hard to sell his "in fear for his life" story to the press already.   That may be enough already, depending on the jury.

    What's tricky here is that at a full trial, the defense MAY be able to use the statement GZ gave to police as proof that he was in fear for his life.  It's not as good as putting the guy on the stand to tell the jury this directly, but it is evidence that he was in fear for his life, and the point can be made to the jury in summary.  But get this - the defense can't really bring that statement into court unless the prosecution first admits it into evidence themselves.  Otherwise it is simply not part of the case, as I understand the law.  And from what we know so far about how little the prosecution may have to convict on, they MIGHT want to enter GZ's statement, the one that includes his fearing for his life, as evidence so they can "poke holes" in parts of it that don't seem true to them.  They need to paint him as the non-credible witness to what happened in the missing minutes.  And in order to do that, they need to introduce his questionable statements like "i was looking for a street sign" and (I wasn't chasing the kid, instead i was) "returning to my truck," etc.

    here is a cable news clip that says basically the same thing:  

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8rnG7Adb6U&hd=1

    Parent

    Self defense (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Wed May 09, 2012 at 04:34:46 PM EST
    Is an affirmative defense, where (in most jurisdictions), the burden of proof shifts from the state to the defense.

    And if the prosecution doesn't prove its case by the time they are done putting it on, O'Mara will make a motion to throw the case out at that point, and if granted, the whole idea of GZ taking the stand is a moot point.

    Again - not a criminal defense attorney, and I welcome being corrected, but I believe that claiming self defense involves putting GZ's state of mind into play, and if that's the case, I don't think there is a choice as to whether or not he testifies.

    Parent

    Sure O'Mara can put (none / 0) (#154)
    by Doug1111 on Thu May 10, 2012 at 03:08:29 PM EST
    what Zimmerman said to police into the record. He doesn't have to depend on prosecution doing that.  He can call the police officers who questioned Zimmerman to the stand and read the transcript of what he said.  

    Parent
    O.J. Simpson (none / 0) (#156)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 10, 2012 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    O.J. Simpson's police statements weren't admitted at his trial. The prosecution opposed it, and the defense wanted to admit selected parts. The judge kept it all out.

    Parent
    Yeah it might be all or nothing, (none / 0) (#174)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 12, 2012 at 02:09:01 PM EST
    but if the defense does not oppose letting it all in, it will go in.

    Parent
    Phone Records (none / 0) (#24)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 09, 2012 at 08:51:31 AM EST
    I've looked over the phone records that a commenter linked in an earlier thread. I think the source I cited previously misinterpreted the records. The 7:04 four call was only one minute, not eight minutes.

    The records don't show end times. They show start times and lengths of calls. At 6:49 there is a four minute call, at 7:04 a one minute call, and at 7:12 another four minute call. Am I reading this wrong?

    I'm not seeing a plausible scenario in which Zimmerman takes five and a half minutes to call the police after first spotting Martin. Zimmerman probably didn't see Martin talking on the phone before making his own call. There goes that explanation for Zimmerman suspecting Martin was 'on drugs'.

    I'm also having a problem with Martin complaining to Dee Dee that 'a man was watching him', after Zimmerman had already chased Martin.

    Crump's version of Dee Dee's story raises more issues.

    And she talks about how he kind of slows down and he's trying to look in the car like, I think this dude is following me. And she tells him, baby, be careful, just run home.

    And you remember from the 911 tape, Zimmerman tells the police, oh, he's coming at me, he's looking at me, he's checking me out.

    So he starts to run and then what do we know from Zimmerman's 911 call that you heard the recording, Zimmerman gets out of his car and pursues him.

    Martin starts running about 7:11:40, and Zimmerman does the same between ten and fifteen seconds later. All this happens before the earliest the call from Dee Dee would have begun, at 7:12.


    Call waiting? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Mary2012 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:06:12 AM EST

    There is a call at 6:54 that runs for 18 min.... I don't know what it all means

    Parent
    Good Catch (none / 0) (#38)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:40:25 AM EST
    I missed that at the bottom.

    It looks like an 18 minute call from Dee Dee, from 6:54 to 7:12, with a 7:04 call from someone Trayvon spoke to just long enough to brush off.

    Parent

    You're welcomed (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mary2012 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:52:46 AM EST
    For some reason the 7:04 and the 7:12 calls are more well known (seems that way) -- the 6:54, not so much if at all.  Maybe because TM would be heading back from the store at that time/ he and GZ spot each other in the after-7 time slot? Who knows...

    Parent
    Jury Issues (none / 0) (#29)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:49:33 AM EST
    Regardless of race, anyone who pays attention to news in any medium will probably be kept off the jury. That's one reason I hope it doesn't go to a jury.

    I don't think an 'all white' jury will be tolerated. If need be, some way around it will be found.

    I still don't see a conviction unless the prosecution cheats outright, or gets very lucky with jury selection. It does help them that there will only be six jurors.

    I deleted the comment (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:28:41 PM EST
    you are replying to. It was inappropriate to assume any jurors would be subjected to challenges based on race, let alone invite speculation as to a percentage that would so be excluded.  

    Parent
    Subtle Distinction (none / 0) (#69)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:53:01 PM EST
    It was inappropriate to assume any jurors would be subjected to challenges based on race . . .

    I don't think the commenter was doing that. The point was more subtle. It was that, when examined in voir dire, many African American potential jurors would as individuals be found challengable 'for cause', on various factual evidences of bias.

    I'm not quarreling with your decision to delete the comment. It's your prerogative, and I think you would probably do the same if you read the comment as I did. But I wanted to respond to what I thought was not an accurate characterization of the deleted comment.    

    Parent

    I wasn't suggesting that O'Mara would (none / 0) (#153)
    by Doug1111 on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:22:44 PM EST
    much less should reject jurors based on their race.

    I was suggesting that from what I've observed on the net and to some extent in my real life, there's a whole lot of prejudice about this case among a high percentage of American blacks.  A whole lot.  

    The voir dire process properly should exclude jurors who have such prejudices or fixed opinions of what really happened, etc.

    Parent

    The trial would be held in Seminole County (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    where the incident occurred, unless it is moved. 78% white according to latest census, and heavily Republican. How many blacks would even be in the jury pool?

    Note - the Republican part is not in the census (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:39:27 AM EST
    ...I just know that from watching voting in the last few years.

    Parent
    And 'Black Persons' is just over 11% (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:43:01 AM EST
    5% below the FL average.

    Parent
    National 12.6% (none / 0) (#40)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:50:46 AM EST
    Making Seminole County roughly 1&1/2 percent below the national average.

    Parent
    I just mean in terms of getting black people (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    on a jury in Florida...Seminole County is not the best best.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:18:07 AM EST
    Getting blacks on many juries is a problem (besides sheer numbes) because they a)are not registered to vote in the same numbers as whites and b) might be more mistrustful of the criminal justice system?

    But then again, you are selling a lot of people short - are blacks more capable than whites or other races of giving George Zimmerman a fair trial?  Are whites automatically going to acquit him because he's white?

    In my limited experience, it seems like whatever people may say individually, for the most part, when they get on a jury, they actually take it pretty seriously.  

    Parent

    Taking it seriously is one thing (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dadler on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:33:29 AM EST
    Being able to overcome your ingrained prejudices is another. Having the requisite critical thinking skills is another.  Why do we require tests of competence for drivers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, and a multitude of other important social occupations, but we require NOTHING for jurors but showing up and not sounding insane?  

    BTW, both times I served on a jury, I was horrified at the lack of critical thinking ability of almost all of my fellow jurors.  Literally, I felt sorry for the litigants involved in the cases that a bunch of idiots were going to decide their fates.

    Sad but true.

    Parent

    Uh, because (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:15:36 PM EST
    Being a doctor, lawyer or teacher isn't mentioned in the Constitution?

    By your logic - why should we allow everyone to vote?  Have kids?  Marry? Own a home? Or any other equally important things.

    Being able to overcome your ingrained prejudices is another. Having the requisite critical thinking skills is another.

    And again - does this mean that you think that only black jurors will give him a "fair trial" (i.e. - find him guilty) and a white jurors will not (i.e. acquit him)?

    Parent

    yes, i understand (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Dadler on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:24:03 PM EST
    My point was not procedural as much as rhetorical, logical. Since, when that document was written, those who could vote and serve on a jury were a quite narrow range of folk.  

    And, nope, you concluding quote means exactly what it says it does. The groups of well-meaning and pleasant idiots with whom I served crossed all racial and age and occupational demographics.  

    I get this is what the jury selection process is for, also, to weed out, hopefully, the incompetent as well as the prejudiced.  But I gotta tell you, what passed for competent and unbiased on my juries was neither.    

    Parent

    unbiased.. (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jondee on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:41:09 PM EST
    which winds up meaning no knowledge about anything, and no experience thinking in depth about anything..

    Malleable sheep, in other words..

    Parent

    Impartially Critical (none / 0) (#65)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    Jury service is a duty, not a right.

    If a state legislature wanted to screen potential jurors with some kind of 'critical thinking' test, I don't think there would necessarily be a constitutional barrier. A challenger would have to show that the test made it prohibitively difficult to select an 'impartial' jury.

    Parent

    In terms of getting whites who are receptive to a (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:59:11 AM EST
    SYG defense? Pretty darn good there. It is one factor I'm sure O'mara is looking at.

    Parent
    Hoodie-gate returns (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Wed May 09, 2012 at 01:14:01 PM EST
    This time with a new front-man, Mark Zuckerberg.

    There's something about this that makes me smile a little.  Mostly the idea of someone "disrespecting" wall street.  

    If he really wanted to disrespect 'em... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kdog on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    he wouldn't be letting Wall St. use his company as their new dice game.

    Totally superficial and prejudiced of me to say, but that Zuckerberg guy gives me the creeps...he's got the crazy eyes.

    Parent

    From NYT obit. of N. Katzenbach: (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Wed May 09, 2012 at 01:30:16 PM EST
    On Capitol Hill, Mr. Katzenbach, a devoted Democrat, cultivated the good will of Republican senators in 1964 to help pass the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which he also helped draft, ending a century of discrimination at the polls. In an interview with The New York Times for this obituary in 2006, Mr. Katzenbach contrasted his style as attorney general with that of the sometimes brutal straightforwardness of his predecessor, Robert Kennedy. He said his own way was to be "less than direct."


    West Virgina (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:07:54 PM EST
    This is why the D's didn't want to run a primary.  Forty percent of West Virginian Democrats would rather have a convicted and imprisoned felon in Texas running in the election, than Obama.

    More than 40percent  of Democrats voting chose to cast their ballot for Keith Russell Judd, an inmate at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Beaumont, Texas, where he's doing time for extortion and threats made at the University of New Mexico in 1999.

    Judd scored 42.28 percent of the vote -- or 49,490 votes -- compared with President Obama with 57.72 percent, or 67,562, according to unofficial state results.


    LINK

    Can't say I blame them...

    You know (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:13:03 PM EST
    There's more people than in just West Virginia that feel that way....

    Parent
    I Surely Do... (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:30:34 PM EST
    ...not sure if I think a convicted felon who is in prison would be a better choice, but you could toss me just about any legitimate name and they would have had my vote in a primary.  

    And if I had to guess, Obama would not have won a primary run against a legitimate candidate, it would not have been close IMO.

    Parent

    After 2 minutes of deliberation... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:29:52 PM EST
    in a two-horse race I'd have to go with Keith Judd.

    Judd's favorite president is Tricky Dick, definitely a negative.  But his religous affiliation is Rastafarian-Christian....that sealed it;)

    Parent

    I'd Take Any of the Judd Sisters... (none / 0) (#96)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:53:12 PM EST
    ...at this point.  Maybe even Paul Reubens or Anson Williams(Pee wee Herman or Potsie).

    Rastafari is just another nonsense movement based on the bible, same silly notions, like Christianity, of good and evil.  Same deep seeded intolerances, well except for black people, and if possible I would say their hatred of homosexuals is worse then evangelicals.

    Don't be fooled by the weed...

    Parent

    Fear not my good man... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:10:24 PM EST
    I just gotta hand it to the Rastas, when it comes to picking sacraments they've got all the other superstitions beat, honorable mention to the Native American faiths down with the peyote.

    Parent
    Mozart????? (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:59:41 PM EST
    re-thread from fri re: zimmerman's timing (none / 0) (#151)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 10, 2012 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    this is a reply to

    Not the Best Navigator (none / 0) (#209)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 09, 2012 at 07:47:15 PM EST

    sorry, I can't seem to make the wordpress links work for me.  `

    http://tinyurl.com/86ecjya

    that should be the post

    regarding where GZ was when he lost sight of TM who was headed down the cut thru path:

    I was likely not considering my answer as clearly as I should have:  I think GZ could see TM at first when he exited his car, but had lost sight for certain when he says "he ran" in past tense.  But he may have lost sight of him as early as "f-ing goons/c**ns/punks/cold"  - this may be a remark of consternation about losing sight, not just general frustration at having to get out of his car to keep him in sight.  

    If it is the early mark it may not yet be the moment that TM rounds the corner south to the dogwalk area.  

    I'm not sure it is possible to accurately speculate where GZ is by this point.  But from where he may have parked, on K17-21 he would lose sight of TM before TM rounded the corner, due to the angle he's sighting from - the front of the townhouse blocks his view.  

    As to the lighting, you can see the shadows of street lamps on the aerial photos, but this only helps show how the street was lit, not the cut thru or the dog walk.  

    I you look at the local tv news video taken on the night, you will see that police cars parked at either end of the cut thru, some on the grass even and shined headlights into the area to try and have some light to work by.  We also heard 911 callers describing first responders as carrying flashlights.  Somewhere I read that GZ himself had two flashlights in his possession - sorry I don't have a link - one wa sonhis keychain so it was likely small.  In any case, it seems like the primary lighting in the cut thru and dog walk areas was the small back porch incandescents, (ie, household bulbs with tungsten filaments) and whatever spill was coming from the townhouse interiors out the windows.  

    http://tinyurl.com/6r4434m

    here is a screen shot of a frame grab from local TV video camera,  greatly lightened in adobe photoshop to the point that colors are skewed and grain is shown.  If you had excellent night vision, it's still probobly better than the human eye cou/d see. Note that this shot includes illumination from police car headlights.  In general I'd say it's dark back there.  

    All this circumstantial evidence leads me to believe that it was possible that GZ lost sight of TM before TM turned south into the dogwalk area.  

    The location of the body is what leads me to think that GZ missed seeing TM as he headed east towards Retreat View, since he was on the phone and TM was in the "shadow" of the townhouse he died behind.  Once GZ was at the T intersection at I/J 28, he would have had to look behind himself to see Trayvon.  
    This is just a guess however.  We don't know where GZ went, really.  We just know where he ended up and where he said he was going to get there.  

    I do agree that moving would make TM more visible to GZ.  That's one reason I am inclined to think he rounded the corner as quickly as he could and found a dark or secluded spot, answered his phone and didn't move for the next 2 minutes or so.  

    You speculate this:


    If Zimmerman reached the T not knowing which way Martin went, I think he would stop there to look around. But his running seems to take him another fifty feet past that point, in whichever direction.

    But this where we may disagree - but maybe not. We jsut can't know how fast GZ jogged.    It's entirely possible GZ finished his call here, at the T, scoping about to try to see the youth.  I just think he continued east eventually, since it seems improbable that it took him two minutes to find TM if they were both pretty much in the same vicinity and GZ was actively looking there.  I'm only guessing at this point - we don't have much to go on.  I'm guessing that his reluctance to give his full name and street address is related to his being near where he saw the teen last, and I put that point at somewhere WEST of the T, or at the T itself, for reasons given above.  But he could be past the T if he assumes TM did not turn south and GZ is continuing east from the T himself.  So I'm going with the general idea that he is somewhere on the cut thru - let's say J25-31 to be on the generous side.  

    But it makes more sense to me to guess that GZ looked south on the sidewalk, didn't see the running kid, and so continued east to retreat view.  But again, I'm only guessing - partly because the timing of his return and the angle at which he would be facing when he comes back, "returning to his vehicle" as he claimed.  Now he's able to see TM, hiding near the spot where he was shot.  

    This is just the simplest route I can come up with.  

    You make some good points in the rest of your post, but in the end it comes down to "who left their innocent path and moved to intercept the innocent path of the other?"  And the location of the body seems to suggest that person was George Zimmerman.  If, two minutes or so after hanging up the phone he had not yet returned to his truck, what was he doing all that time?  He seems to be saying (after the fact) he was "looking for a street sign."   Instead, it seems rather obvious that he wasn't going to find a street sign or house number between the townhouses.  I simply don't find his excuse credible.  But I do find it a good indication that he went all the way east to Retreat View, or at least claims he did.  

    We just don't have enough information yet to determine for certain what happened.  The timing and location of the alleged foot chase will be key, and the prosecution seems to be vey interested in this bit of testimony.  They also seem to think they a can prove Murder 2.    

    I agree that GZ was foolish to say anything to the police without a lawyer present.  But he did, and it seems he said plenty.  He may have believed he was justified at the time in claiming self defense.  Then they started asking him questions like, "what were you doing out of your car in the first place?"  So he came up with the idea that he was innocently looking for a street sign and not looking to keep eyes on the teen.  He had the TRUE element of returning TOWARDS his vehicle to weave into the fabric of his lie.  And no living witness that he knew about to refute him.  Looking for a street sign is implausible, but who can truly prove him wrong if he sticks to his story?  

    this is the link to the grid referenced above:

    http://tinyurl.com/cmcra5e

    there are more general reference pics in this flickr set

    http://tinyurl.com/87uopau

    Complicated Story (none / 0) (#160)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:05:24 AM EST
    Then they started asking him questions like, "what were you doing out of your car in the first place?"  So he came up with the idea that he was innocently looking for a street sign and not looking to keep eyes on the teen.

    Why?

    Even if Zimmerman approached Martin and questioned him, that wouldn't have been illegal, wouldn't have justified Martin's alleged assault on him, and wouldn't have undermined Zimmerman's claim of justified use of deadly force.

    If Zimmerman approached Martin and assaulted him, he could have claimed he approached Martin only to question him. He could have told the truth about everything, except which one started the physical fight.

    Parent

    That's just not his story. (none / 0) (#163)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:27:37 AM EST
    Yes, GZ had the legal right to follow and question Trayvon.  We don't know the reasons why, but in the aftermath, that just isn't his story for what happened.  Instead he claims he was out of his car looking for a street sign, and seemingly later "returning to his truck" ( I will grant him TOWARDS his truck since he never reached it) when he was "jumped" from behind and sucker punched to the ground.  Unfortunately for his credibilty, this seems to have happened at a location that is not where one looks for street signs or on a likely route towards his vehicle.  

    I don't know why he claims it, but from what's been reported that seems to be his story.  I would assume he's NOT trying to assert his right to approach TM, by virtue of wishing to paint his actions in a less aggressive manner.  Telling the story his way makes him innocent and TM the aggressor.  

    Keep in mind at the time he told this story, he may not have had a full recall of what he has said to the operator, or considered that it was recorded and would be reviewed.  Investigators were likely sympathetic and letting him run his mouth all he wanted.  That's the best way to get an an excited suspect to hang himself - you just "give em enough rope."  

    It's clear the reason he left the car in the first place, and he admitted as much to the operator.  "Are you following him?"  George Zimmerman: "Yes."  Yet after the fact of the fatal shooting, he wants to distance himself from the notion that he hunted the youth down.  Who wouldn't want to paint that picture?

    I think he is trying to explain away the minutes AFTER he lost sight of the teen by saying he was walking around looking for a street number to use as reference when the cops call him.   We can reasonably guess he didn't spot TM, or vice-versa, until shortly before the 911 calls began.  He has to have a reason for not being back at his vehicle earlier, since he ran away from it for 25 seconds but took at least two minutes to NOT get back to it.  

    There is what is reasonable to believe and there are rationalizations.  Which is a jury more likely to believe?  

    To me the location of the body is the key element in demonstrating that his story is a later rationalization.

    Parent

    more on TM and GZ's moves and timing (none / 0) (#157)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 10, 2012 at 08:32:01 PM EST
    here are some short notes I compiled.  At issue in my mind is how quickly TM was able to run out of sight of GZ, and what that might say about where each was at those times.  

    ---------------------------------
    1:03 now he's coming towards me

    1:37 these assholes always get away ---  34 seconds of Trayvon walking to pass GZ vehicle

    slow motion car-to-foot chase here

    2:08  (7:11:41 EST)  
     he's running   - --   T.M starts to run having walked an additional 31 seconds

    209-219 GZ  (7:11:41 - 7:11: (parks) exits car, secures weapon, keys, etc

    2:20 GZ runs

    2:23 fucking c/goons  --- T M runs for 15 seconds, GZ has been running for only 3

    T.M runs for 15 seconds at minimum

    239   he ran  -  T M runs for 31 seconds in sight of GZ

    T.M  runs in sight of GZ for 31 seconds maximum

    246 GZ stops running - GZ has run for 26 seconds and cannot see T.M.

    339 doesn't want to give out his address, GZ has walked for 53 seconds at most after running for 26

    ---------

    TM walks south from the mailboxes and passes GZ in 34 seconds.  He then continues to walk for 31 more seconds until he is said to be running.  This means he could cover 16-18 grid squares more or less, and if this is accurate, places him at the second corner on Twin Trees in the vicinity of J22.  GZ has followed in his  car and is somewhere near K 18,19,20.  If TM runs for 15 seconds and covers at least half the distance he's able to walk in the same time, he's out of sight of GZ when GZ says "f*ing punks" or whatever it is that he did say at that moment.  GZ has gotten out of his car and in ten seconds has secured his keys, door, weapon, flashlight? etc and has only jogged for 3 seconds at this point, if the wind noise is any indicator of his speed.  He's not far enough north to look all the way down the cut thru path - the front of the townhouse obscures his view.  

    I think TM may have run for as little as 15 seconds to get out of GZ's sight.  At most, however, he ran for 31 seconds with GZ jogging behind for 19 seconds, with the same head start.  But even then, he disappeared from GZ's sight at the same time that GZ says "f-ing punks/goons/etc"   and was gone again when GZ says "he ran."

    I suppose it is possible that GZ caught sight of him again as they ran someplace, but what we know is that he took two more minutes at least from the end of his call to get into a struggle.  So it's doubtful.

    This seems to mean to me that GZ never saw Trayvon turn south between the townhouses.  He just didn't have the right angle, and he wasn't close enough.  

    This means I think if there is a "foot chase in the back" witness for the prosecution, then what they saw was not likely the initial "chase" from the car/corner towards the T, but a last minute one elsewhere.  The initial chase was two people separated by at least 120 feet, likely more.  

    Head Start (none / 0) (#159)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 11, 2012 at 01:44:47 AM EST
    TM walks south from the mailboxes . . .

    People who want to believe Zimmerman is a liar, naturally like the idea that Martin was standing under an awning at the very moment Zimmerman described him as walking in the rain. There's no evidence for it.

    I put Martin south of the clubhouse, 150 feet or more from Zimmerman's car at J8. He would be somewhere in rows L-N, columns 3-5.

    By assuming that Martin walked from the mailboxes to Zimmerman's car, you put the car further east than I would, about K13. That gives Martin a bigger lead, and the rest follows.

    Parent

    Not everyone (none / 0) (#161)
    by Mary2012 on Fri May 11, 2012 at 08:47:56 AM EST
    People who want to believe Zimmerman is a liar, naturally like the idea that Martin was standing under an awning at the very moment Zimmerman described him as walking in the rain. There's no evidence for it.

    I think it's entirely possible he cut through the large common area.

    What significance are you placing on it -- the fact he didn't stick to the road?

    Parent

    Off Road (none / 0) (#166)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 11, 2012 at 04:32:51 PM EST
    What significance are you placing on it -- the fact he didn't stick to the road?

    Willisnewton and I have been debating how big a lead Martin had when Zimmerman started running after him. I think it was about a hundred feet, and Willisnewton thinks it was larger.

    It matters for that debate where Martin was when he started walking toward Zimmerman's car. I think he was south of the clubhouse. Willisnewton thinks he was at the mailboxes, which I think means under the awning at H6, at least twenty feet west of Twin Trees Lane.

    Neither Willisnewton nor I put Martin on a road at this point, so I don't understand your question about not sticking to the road.

    Parent

    Because of how you characterized it (none / 0) (#167)
    by Mary2012 on Fri May 11, 2012 at 07:32:06 PM EST

    People who want to believe Zimmerman is a liar, naturally like the idea that Martin was standing under an awning


    Parent
    The two positions (none / 0) (#168)
    by Mary2012 on Fri May 11, 2012 at 07:36:05 PM EST
    might be suggesting how that person 'sees' TM arriving at one or the other position regardless if both positions are off the road at that time.

    Parent
    Under the Awning (none / 0) (#169)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 12, 2012 at 02:04:01 AM EST
    No, my point was just what I said in #165.
    Zimmerman said Martin was walking, and implied he was in the rain. That's two lies if Martin was standing under an awning.

    Come to think of it, the awning is twenty feet square, so a person would have room for 'walking around' underneath it if he wanted to. When I first read about the awning I pictured something smaller, like for a single doorway.

    But the point is that Zimmerman clearly suggested Martin being out in the rain was a reason for suspicion. If Martin was sheltering under an awning for the first fifty-odd seconds of Zimmerman's call, then Zimmerman's account is not just tendentious or exaggerated, but an outright fabrication.

    Parent

    Well, re the awning, i.e., place to take shelter.. (none / 0) (#170)
    by Mary2012 on Sat May 12, 2012 at 09:03:54 AM EST
    I'm not so sure the spot TM takes shelter is even in the Retreat given Crump's presser:

    She relays how he went to the store. When he came out from the store, he said it was starting to rain, he was going to try to make it home before it rained. Then he tells her it starts raining hard. He runs into the apartment complex and runs to the first building he sees to try to get out of the rain. He was trying to get shelter. So he tries to get out of the rain.

    Some might think I'm quibbling here but I don't believe there are any "apartments" at the Retreat; the Retreat is not an "apartment complex" and if you'll recall when the dispatcher (non-emergency), in effect, asks GZ for an apt#, he sort of stops short (insulted?) then replies it's "a home"....

    I think they're all homes as far as I can tell, and Crump might have mispoke but, on the other hand, maybe he did not; he is an attorney after all.  The presser, imo, is also sort of choppy or disjointed at times (& perhaps meant to be that way?), for lack of a better way of putting it.

    At any rate, the covered-looking area at the side of the Club House might be what Dee Dee is referring to, but maybe it isn't.  I don't know.  I'm not really sure yet.  When the presser was posted the other day, it was the first I'd read it, so I'd really like to go back, read it again and spend some time with it before committing myself one way or the other wrt that particular location.

    I currently actually have him closer to where you have him though I put him on the sidewalk because of the rain -- I can't tell if the ground there is dirt ground or sand or what it is and it might be on the muddy/ slick side.

    However, I'm taking GZ's non-emergency call (as well as any other record, including the presser since we don't have an actual transcript) as it is/ as they are, i.e., word for word, exactly as it's given.  But yes, if everything matches up and GZ states it's raining, I wouldn't have any reason to believe what GZ was saying before the shooting, as on his call with the dispatcher, was a lie or fabrication.  

    Parent

    Apartment Complex (none / 0) (#183)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 13, 2012 at 02:34:22 AM EST
    The units are called townhouses or townhomes. They are like duplexes, except with more than two units to a building. Each unit has front and back doors (apparently sliding doors in the back) and a front and back yard. It's the yards that technically distinguish them from apartments or condominiums, but both terms are sometimes used.

    Each unit has its own street number, so there are no 'apartment numbers'.

    The units are individually owned, like condos, but may be sublet. I think there has been an upswing in sublets because of the housing crisis.

    Googling for information about The Retreat at Twin Lakes, I have come across advertising for 'apartments for rent'. And I think I have seen the community called an 'apartment complex'.

    I think Martin may have taken shelter at a different complex because of a timeline issue, discussed in comment #182.

    Parent

    I'd done a search as well.... (none / 0) (#207)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    Googling for information about The Retreat at Twin Lakes, I have come across advertising for 'apartments for rent'. And I think I have seen the community called an 'apartment complex'.

    I did the same thing (a google search) with roughly the same results except I didn't see the Retreat at Twin Lakes referred to as an "apartment complex", though there is a Twin Lakes Apartments in Palm Harbor, FL.  

    Your description of the differences between each of the three exactly matches my understanding of those differences.

    I think the vacancies are listed under "apartments to rent" to increase the likelihood of getting people to look at the townhomes.  The specific descriptions list as "townhomes" ("condos") and not apartments.

    As you say, all this may not matter one bit.  I did happen to find out, however, there is an apartment complex right next door to the Retreat at Twin Lakes.  It is called Colonial Village at Twin Lakes.  I went to the street view and there doesn't appear to be any fences or walls, i.e., easy access appears available IOW should anyone seek shelter from rain (at least it appears to be possible) and there are awning type spaces noticeable from the street: stairs on the right and a place to stand and maybe walk to the back of that building on the left (it appears opened to what would be the back yard?).  I couldn't get 'to' the back yard but it looks like one might be able to (maybe) walk out the back and access the short cut entry  into Retreat at Twin Lakes.  Not sure, just guessing.  

    It's so close, it doesn't seem it would throw a timeline off either way IF this is the place Dee Dee meant.  How long he would've stayed there would be helpful; I know Crump mentioned in effect several minutes but can't remember off hand if he was referring to the length of the downpour or if it's in ref to how long TM stayed.

    Now -- something else I noticed and I'm not sure if it's important yet or not but I went down the street some to make sure it really was the Retreat at Twin Lakes that was next door (it was) and found out the gate to the community was opened.  For some reason I had in mind it would be closed but it wasn't.  I could make out the larger print on some of the signs but the smaller print was too blurred.

    Also, going down S. Oregon -- seeing the backs of some of the townhouses -- it might be possible to be "cornered" back there in some way.  I still need to re-read the presser and I don't remember mention of "cornered" there though I might have missed it my first time through.  I think Dee Dee says, in effect, (GZ) approached TM from behind. But I thought I would mention it in any case it's needed at some point and of course, places to hide.

    Something I spent a lot of time on was trying to find out what time GZ left to go on his errands.  All I could find out was he was texting his sister and said he was going out on errands but no time was given.  I still think it's possible they (GZ/TM) met up sooner than the eastern stretch of Twin Trees Lane.  Oh, one more thing --if it be of help -- from the front entrance, looking down Twin Trees Lane, if I have it right, the speed limit (at least where the sign is) is 15 mph.  It might be that way throughout the complex.

    Parent

    If TM is below the swimming pool, then why ??? (none / 0) (#162)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 11, 2012 at 09:01:38 AM EST
    No offense, but you are wrong here, I think.  Too many things against this theory for it to be very likely.

    If TM is below the swimming pool, then why go back to Twin Trees at all, where the menacing car is?  Why wouldn't he just continue towards home on the path behind townhouses, taking the route that kept him away from the car?  Seems nonsensical to me.  He's taking a long way home going past some creep who probably has his brake lights on in your scenario.  

    If GZ's car is at K13, he's blocking a driveway, and in plain view of a street number he could give to the operator.  Why then does he give the number of the clubhouse instead?

    He also never says "behind the clubhouse" or, "by the pool," or "by the pond," or "behind the townhouse" or "in the grass, getting rained on, etc."   Instead he says "near retreat View Circle" while trying to describe the street address closest to TM's position.  

    I'm sorry, but I think you are all wet on this one.  

    But it's true we don't know that TM was by the mailboxes from Zimmerman's words.  He says mailboxes later, and that may or may not be an unconscious hint and where they youth was earlier.  We don't know.   All we know is that it seems to take 30 seconds or so for TM to pass GZ, who LATER describes himself parked by the cut thru.  After the teen passes GZ, there is another 30 second interval before TM is said to be running.  

    Do you think GZ left his car blocking someone's driveway or not?    Which way was he facing while he is watching a teen behind the swimming pool?  Wouldn't GZ be more likely to add the detail that the youth was BEHIND buildings?  It comes across as more suspicious to me, and he's casting about for suspicious descriptions of the teen's activity.  

    Last but not least, there are many hedges, trees and obstructions blocking a view from K13 to L 3,4,5.   L5 in fact is mostly a tree or shrub of some sort that blocks L 3 and 4.  Then there are the tall decorative trees in between the driveways.  K 10, K 11 and K 13 itself, all of which are in your line or sight.

    And yes, I think GZ is a bad liar when he's concocting exculpatory details that paint his self defense story in a good light.  A lot of these exculpatory details are ludicrous on their face, in my opinion.  He claims he's verbally threatened with death by an unarmed person who has yet to get his gun away from him, for staters.  Mostly, he claims he is returning to his vehicle and looking for a street sign when he ends this mission between the backs of the townhouses, where there are no street signs and not on a likely route to return to his vehicle, but instead on a route to intersect TM's path home.

    But he's telling the truth in his unguarded call to the operator.  And that's what I am using to guess at the timing of his early movements.  

    In the end, he's more motivated to tell lies after he's killed someone who was yes, besting him in a physical struggle while unarmed.  

    Parent

    South of the Pool (none / 0) (#165)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:59:08 PM EST
    If TM is below the swimming pool, then why go back to Twin Trees at all, where the menacing car is?  Why wouldn't he just continue towards home on the path behind townhouses, taking the route that kept him away from the car?

    Benjamin Crump, at his March 20 presser:

    He then says, I think this dude is following me. And she talks about how he kind of slows down and he's trying to look in the car like, I think this dude is following me. And she tells him, baby, be careful, just run home.

    And you remember from the 911 tape, Zimmerman tells the police, oh, he's coming at me, he's looking at me, he's checking me out.

    Crump's scenario differs from both yours and mine, but he seems to be acknowledging that Martin's first response to being 'followed' was to try to get a closer look at the driver.

    We don't know that Martin felt Zimmerman was 'menacing'. Dee Dee presumably told O'Steen that Martin was 'scared'. Dee Dee isn't a disinterested witness.  

    If GZ's car is at K13 . . .

    I was about to reproach you with careless reading. Then I looked at the comment, and I saw that the sentence in which I mentioned K13 is ambiguous. That's because I thought I had already made it clear that I put the car at J8.

    I put Martin south of the clubhouse, 150 feet or more from Zimmerman's car at J8. . . . By assuming that Martin walked from the mailboxes to Zimmerman's car, you put the car further east than I would, about K13.

    I meant that I inferred you would put the car at K13.

    TM walks south from the mailboxes and passes GZ in 34 seconds.  He then continues to walk for 31 more seconds until he is said to be running.  This means he could cover 16-18 grid squares more or less, and if this is accurate, places him at the second corner on Twin Trees in the vicinity of J22.

    Does that not mean Martin would have been somewhere in column 13 when he passed the car, putting the car at K13?

    He also never says "behind the clubhouse" or, "by the pool," or "by the pond," or "behind the townhouse" or "in the grass, getting rained on, etc."

    Zimmerman said almost nothing about Martin's location. He gave the address of the clubhouse, and answered 'yeah' when the dispatcher asked if Martin was 'near the clubhouse'. Martin could have been near the clubhouse to the south as well as in any other direction.

    Zimmerman did imply that Martin was getting rained on.

    Instead he says "near retreat View Circle" while trying to describe the street address closest to TM's position.

    Zimmerman didn't use the word 'near' at this point. If you want to use quote marks, you should check the original.

    It's Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is one eleven Retreat View Circle.

    If Martin was behind the clubhouse, someone pulling up in front of it wouldn't see him. But he was on the grounds of the clubhouse. So the address was unsatisfactory but still 'The best address I can give you'.

    Wouldn't GZ be more likely to add the detail that the youth was BEHIND buildings?  It comes across as more suspicious to me, and he's casting about for suspicious descriptions of the teen's activity.

    There are psychological differences among people, as to what kinds of details come most readily to their minds. Zimmerman talks about Martin's behavior. As I mentioned before, he just doesn't say much at all about Martin's location.

    But he's telling the truth in his unguarded call to the operator.

    '[T]here's a real suspicious guy . . . It's raining, and he's just walking around looking about.'

    Zimmerman said Martin was walking, and implied he was in the rain. That's two lies if Martin was standing under an awning.


    Parent

    GZ first saw TM at C negative 8 (none / 0) (#177)
    by willisnewton on Sat May 12, 2012 at 06:49:48 PM EST
    I think Zimmerman saw TM moving before he saw him loitering - off the grid chart west of the clubhouse , having entered the complex thru a back walking route.

    That's why he speaks about walking in the rain. And that's why TM thinks he's being followed.  

    At least that's what I think.

    J8 seems reasonable to me for GZ as a start.  

    I don't see GZ be g able to spot TM turning south into the dog walk however.  Listen to the wind noise- he takes ten seconds after opening his door to get moving.  TM is outta sight in 15 easily. I think GZ said f-ing goons in rewinds to losing his visual.  

    Parent

    Discrepancies (none / 0) (#179)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 12, 2012 at 09:47:07 PM EST
    Crump implies that Martin left his shelter before the beginning of the 6:54 call from Dee Dee, about 15 minutes before the beginning of Zimmerman's police call. He says it was after that call began that Martin noticed Zimmerman 'following', leaving out the part where Zimmerman was just 'watching'.  

    Crump describes Martin as running to reach the shelter.

    Parent

    Working On It (none / 0) (#181)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 12, 2012 at 10:51:44 PM EST
    OK, I'm trying to follow this.

    From the point Zimmerman first spots Martin, it takes Martin about 45 seconds to reach Twin Trees Lane, and another 10 seconds to reach the awning in front of the mailboxes, if he's walking at normal speed. How long is he under the awning before he starts to walk toward Zimmerman?

    I once had it in my head that Zimmerman described Martin as walking 'slowly'. Zimmerman never said that.

    Zimmerman said Martin was 'walking around, looking about', and later that he was 'just, staring, looking at all the houses'. Some people translated this into 'walking slowly down the street, looking around him.'

    I uncritically allowed that 'slowly' adverb to lodge in my brain, but it didn't come from Zimmerman. Zimmerman didn't comment on Martin's pace until he described him as 'running'.

    J8 seems reasonable to me for GZ as a start.

    If Martin passed Zimmerman's car at J8, he started running no further east than column 19. That's why I think he only got about a hundred foot head start while Zimmerman parked the car at K20.  

    Parent
    Zimmerman the spy? (none / 0) (#180)
    by willisnewton on Sat May 12, 2012 at 10:29:36 PM EST
    How blatantly did George Zimmerman shadow Trayvon Martin?  I think he may have increased his tranparency at each trees of the sequence.  Leaving his house for a trip to the big box store Target, he first spots trayvon walking east on retreat view circle.  He didn't spot him entering the community from the break in the fence or he probably would have mentioned that.  His trees are aroused right away by something:  he doesn't recognize the person, and he doesn't realize trayvon is talking on a headpiece while looki g for shelter from the rain. Trayvon hasn't yet put up his hood, so it's possible Zimmrerman sees he is a black teenager already.  Zimmerman isn't overtly racist so he simply files that information in his head for when he is asked but decides to keep a watch on this stranger for a minute and so ends up making a right onto twin trees street instead of a left out the  gate.  GZ calls the police non-emergency number on his cell and waits for an operator as the teen makes the corner himself.    TrAyvon takes shelter under an awning by the mailboxes and GZ pulls ahead to try to spy on him.  He makes the first corner on twin trees (j8) but turns around in the first  driveway.  Then he creeps back to the corner (j8) but trayvon has noted this and says as much to his girlfriend. They discuss what trayvon should do as GZ begins his call.  A minute and a half into the call to police GZ sees trayvon start towards him.  Trayvon has just told his girl friend he's going to walk fast, not run and they hang up.   He passes GZ in 34 seconds and GZ tells the operator these a-holes alwYs get away.

      TM walks for 30 more seconds east on twin trees  as GZ backs his car into the same driveway again and starts shadowing Trayvon east toward the second corner, moving  slowly.  

    GZ is at k19 when TM suddenly leaves the roadway for the cutoff at a out j22. GZ parks quickly but it takes him tense ones to secure his keys weapon and car door. By this tine TM is almost out of sight. GZ starts to jog but after three seconds loses sight as TM is headed east into the cut thru. GZ says f-ing goons/punks under his breath in response, but jogs on after until admonished by the operator; "we don't we'd you to do that" he is told. He runs a few more feet and then stops, having reached the cut thru and nearing the T intersection.  

    Unbeknownst to him, trayvon has cut the corner behind the townhouse and stopped behind "johns" townhouse in the grass- his phone just rang again.  He pAuses to answer it, catch his breath and consider his options.  In his  haste TM has not seen GZ exit his car.  He thinks he "got away" and says so to his g/f, relating the details a bit.  

    GZ looks south down the cut thru sidewalk but not in the grassy shadows and so misses TM.  George last saw TM headed east - TM was headed east the first time he saw TM as well.  GZ is trying to give directions, and since he sees no one on the path he decides to keep going east to Retreat view.  TM spots GZ as he passes, north of him, headed east but not looking back.  He tells his g/f about it.

    GZ walks east to retreat view and ends his call, ultimately telling the have the police call him rather than meet him at his truck.

    Parent

    Continuing Saga (none / 0) (#182)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 13, 2012 at 01:51:05 AM EST
    He didn't spot him entering the community from the break in the fence or he probably would have mentioned that.

    I agree. If Martin came in that way, Zimmerman didn't see.

    If the mailbox awning is Martin's shelter as per Dee Dee's account, I think Martin had to come in through the main entrance.

    Crump's March 20 presser:

    Then he tells her it starts raining hard. He runs into the apartment complex and runs to the first building he sees to try to get out of the rain.

    If Martin came in the main entrance, the clubhouse would be one of four or five buildings in his field of view, though not the closest. That 20 foot square awning would be an attractive shelter. Assuming the main entrance, I'd say it's a toss-up whether Martin would have chosen the clubhouse or one of the closer buildings.

    Martin wouldn't see the clubhouse upon entering by the shortcut.

    Crump again:

    So, he stands under that apartment building for a few minutes, the rain kind of dies down. He then goes, and he has his hoodie on because it's raining and he goes back to walking. And he goes back to talking to her again. You'll see the phone calls when it came in at 6:54. He then says, I think this dude is following me.

    Wherever Martin's shelter was, he seems to have left it about fifteen minutes before Zimmerman's police call connected at 7:09:34. And that's a problem I hadn't noticed before. If Martin was inside the complex and walking home at 6:54, he had plenty of time to get home before it all started.

    It's possible, as Mary2012 suggested, that the shelter was at a different complex.

    he doesn't recognize the person

    Zimmerman didn't say that to the dispatcher, in contrast to some of his earlier suspicious person calls. I think he couldn't see Martin well enough to know if he recognized him or not.

    Trayvon hasn't yet put up his hood

    It never made sense to me that Martin would have his hood down in the rain, then put it up because he saw someone watching him. Crump seemed to contradict Dee Dee's own public statement, saying that Martin put his hood up against the rain after leaving the shelter, and before noticing Zimmerman. Zimmerman said nothing about the hood being up or down, or Martin adjusting it.

    Trayvon has just told his girl friend he's going to walk fast, not run and they hang up.

    Crump puts this exchange later, just before Martin speaks to Zimmerman. In his version, Martin does run the first time Dee Dee suggests it, corresponding to the chase on the police tape. The ABC News paraphrase reverses this order.

    Crump's version seems to fit better.

    He passes GZ in 34 seconds

    That has Martin walking about 2 feet per second. Not fast.

    TM walks for 30 more seconds . . . TM suddenly leaves the roadway for the cutoff at a out j22.

    If you mean Martin walks from J8 to J22 in 30 seconds, that's 8 feet per second. I think that's more a slow run than a fast walk.

    GZ says f-ing goons/punks under his breath in response, but jogs on after until admonished by the operator; "we don't we'd you to do that" he is told. He runs a few more feet and then stops, having reached the cut thru and nearing the T intersection.  

    Zimmerman runs for another 14 seconds. That's over 90 feet at 8 feet per second, and 70 feet at a 5 feet per second walk.

    I estimate 160 feet from where Zimmerman starts running to the T. He runs for at least 21 seconds, from 2:20(7:11:54) to 2:41(7:12:15). He just reaches the T at 7.6 feet per second.


    Parent

    we aren't communicating well at all (none / 0) (#184)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 13, 2012 at 11:56:35 AM EST
    But it's not from lack of trying.  Sorry.  

    On a general level, I don't think Crump is doing a good job of communicating either.  I can't wait to see what Dee Dee actually said, instead of hearing it filtered through him.  I've just been taking his statements and assuming they were told to him and related BY him as grossly out of sequence.  What she says is what she recalls, I think, but she can't know the geography or be expected to even recall what all she said or heard in chronological order.  

    I think TM took the foot path cut thru into the complex, but GZ didn't see him until he was already walking on Retreat View by the townhouses ("looking about, etc)  or already turning the corner towards the mailboxes.  If he came in the gate, GZ wouldn't have seen him "looking at the houses" much.  And TM passed the mailbox on the way to the store, so he knew where it was already.  He's likely "looking at the (town)house" seeing if he can escape the rain without standing on someone's doorstep.

    What I was saying is that if GZ did see TM come from behind a townhouse he would have said as much to the operator.  I think he missed that part, but that TM did not come in the main entrance since it is a longer route for a pedestrian to do so.  I'm simply using the simplest explanation for my thinking.  

    But either way he came in, I still think he waited out the rain by the mailboxes.  I keep trying to err on the side of what is the simplest explanations for the unknown.  The timing from there to just past J8 or K9, let's say, to J12 is around 30 seconds, or eight squares on the grid.  This is where GZ says "these assholes always get away."  Then it is ANOTHER 30 seconds to get to j22, where GZ says "he's running."  The timing puts TM right at the corner, where the cut thru path begins when he starts running.  Hence GZ's surprise when he does so, and his consternation a few seconds later when he loses sight of the teen, and says "f-ing goons/punks/cold" and starts to jog after him.   By the third second of the wind noise, I think he's lost sight of the youth and that he doesn't regain this visual until the altercation begins, after the call is over.  He tells the operator "he ran,"  in past tense to explain why he ran after him, but also to say that the kid was gone, and that he "wasn't following" anymore.  This is the moment when his tale changes (post-shooting) from one activity, (are you following him/yes) to another (looking for a street sign).  Only it's likely he isn't looking for a street sign at all.  He's looking for a visual on the teen.  At some point in the future, likely after the call ends, he does walk towards his car, but not just yet.  

    As for the timing of the calls from Dee Dee, the start time doesn't tell us where TM was.  It seems likely that except for the moments he waited out the heaviest rain under a shelter, he was moving from the store towards his home during the 6:54 call.

    I tend to think that TM ended his call to her right about the time he left the shelter he had sought near the clubhouse.  He's about to make a move, and he want to not be distracted by the phone call.  About a minute later, she calls him back just as he has rounded the corner of the townhouse and has arrived near the spot where he gets shot later.  GZ misses seeing him as he takes the cut thru, talking to the operator and jogging to the T.  He looks down the path but not behind him into the grass under "John's" window or thereabouts.  But on his way BACK, he's facing west and that is when he spots TM.  

    I don't know how fast GZ jogs, but your estimate seems reasonable to me.  Average walking speed for humans in general is around 4.26 feet per second.  Running is up to 8 ft per second, average.  If he ran for 19 seconds at average speed he's moved around 152 feet, but keep in mind that he was also possibly holding his phone up to his ear, and using his other hand to hold keys, flashlight, hand on weapon to secure it, etc.  I don't think he went at his maximum speed.  

    What we do know is that around the time GZ is telling the operator that he is reluctant to give out his address because he doesn't know where the kid is, he has been moving for almost exactly one minute, some of it at a jog. He could be a lot of places, but it seems likely he was near where he thought the youth could have run to, and in a place where he couldn't see very well.  

    We don't know if he was on the cut thru or on the dog wak by then.  But I tend to think he was taking the cut thru east towards Retreat View only because he seems to claim later that he was looking for a street sign.  There are no street signs in the dog walk.  

    Here's a new thought, however.  GZ left his vehicle and jogged for 20 seconds or so.  At most, he walks for another 1:34 until the end of his phone call.  What is the farthest he might have travelled from his vehicle?  And, taking that point on the grid, how long SHOULD it take him to immediately return to his car by walking?  The slower he walked away from his car, the shorter time it would take him to return, leaving time for him to be taking detours in search of the teen, if that were true.  The farther he had travelled, the more likely he was to have been "returning to his vehicle" for the portion of time he moved west.  It's going to be interesting if we ever hear where GZ says he was at these times on his call, and how he explains his movements.  

    Of course, in a literal sense all the time from "we don't need you to do that" to the end of the call GZ should have used to return to his vehicle, but seems to have not.  In a legal sense, what is his explanation for this activity?  Looking for a street sign seems to be his answer.  

    7:12;01  "we don't need you to do that"
    7:13:41 EST call ends
    7:15:??  ALTERCATION BEGINS WITH VERBAL EXCHANGE
    7:15:??  STRUGGLE ON THE GROUND
    7:16:11 FIRST 911 CALL BEGINS, fight already in progress


    Parent

    Zimmerman case discovery expected on Monday (none / 0) (#164)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 11, 2012 at 12:19:17 PM EST
    According to O'Mara, via his defense website, discovery documents could arrive on Monday, but maybe later if it takes time to redact them for privacy of witnesses.  

    A lot of these questions should be answered then.