Zimmerman Trial: Tired of media bias? See gun-friendly legal coverage

[Chee-to]

The first was Judge Nelson's decision to sequester the jury for the duration of the trial. This decision clearly caught some of the prospective jurors off guard, creating considerable hardship for more than a few. On the other hand, several jurors had expressed concerns about their safety if their anonymity was not preserved, one that she would feel like she had a bulls-eye on her back.

Now, "who" are they afraid of ?

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Hey folks,
Just FYI, Day 5 of jury selection has just kicked into gear. Our live, all-day coverage can be found at Legal Insurrection here, if you're interested in following along.


We'll also be doing our usual end-of-day summary of events. I'll drop a brief note when that's up, for folks who are interested.


Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[Law of Self Defense]

From the March 3, 2012 FBI report of interview with Sanford Police Department Investigator Chris Serino:

Serino is concerned that many of the leaks in this case are coming from within the Sanford Police Department. He listed Sgt AUTHOR BARNS, REBECCA VILLENOVE (phonetic),and TREKELL PERKINS as all pressuring him to file charges against ZIMMERMAN after the incident. Serino did not believe he had enough evidence at the time to file charges. Serino also stated that Barns is friendly with TRACY MARTIN [Trayvon Martin's father].

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[coyote223]

Now, "who" are they afraid of ?

Probably the Black Panthers and all the Race baiters. If they don't come back with a guilty plea, it most likely will be the Rodney King Riots all over again, Florida will burn.


Conspiracy theory, maybe this is where the civil unrest starts. Could be why the Obamanation stuck his nose in it,,,

 

[pokerace]

Probably the Black Panthers and all the Race baiters. If they don't come back with a guilty plea, it most likely will be the Rodney King Riots all over again, Florida will burn.


Conspiracy theory, maybe this is where the civil unrest starts. Could be why the Obamanation stuck his nose in it,,,

Bring them on

 

[Law of Self Defense]

I thought some of you might be interested in taking a look at some actual evidence--as opposed to speculation--from the Zimmerman case, so I've pulled together some "Evidentiary Flashbacks" to look at actual evidence that's been collected over the course of the investigation and discovery preparations for trial.


Below is a snippet from the transcript of the [CORRECTED DATE] February 27, 2012 (the day after the shooting) Sanford Police Department interview of George Zimmerman. In it Zimmerman describes to police investigators in his own words how and why he emerged from his vehicle, the circumstances of he he observed and then lost sight of Martin, and how Martin emerged from bushes in a darkened area of the complex and attacked Zimmerman--punching him in the hose, knocking him to the ground, and hitting his head on the concrete sidewalk.


The whole thing is way too long for a forum post, so I've put the longer version of this up on <broken link removed> , if you want to read it in greater length.


Here, however, is a particularly interesting segment:

George Zimmerman: I saw him coming at me and I went to grab my phone. I don't remember if I had time to pull it out or not.
Investigator Singleton: Okay, you attempted to try to recall the &#8211;
George Zimmerman: To call the police.
Investigator Singleton: &#8211;to call the police, right.
George Zimmerman: 911 this time.
Investigator Singleton: Okay.
George Zimmerman: &#8216;Cause the first time I called non-emergency.
Investigator Singleton: But you're not sure if you actually got it out of your pocket or not? Oh, okay and that's when it was, that's when he slugged you.
George Zimmerman: He just hit me, yeah.
Investigator Singleton: And what did he say before that? You said, he asked you like something about, I said, you got a problem?
George Zimmerman: He said, "You got a problem, homey?" and I said, "I don't have a problem." And he said, "Now you have a problem."
Investigator Singleton: Okay.
George Zimmerman: And that's when he hit me.
Investigator Singleton: And that's he struck you in the nose first.
George Zimmerman: Yes, ma'am.
Investigator Singleton: And that's what knocked you down?
George Zimmerman: Yes, ma'am.
Investigator Singleton: Okay. And, this is all, this is, you're saying this is behind the buildings, though?
George Zimmerman: Yes, ma'am.
Investigator Singleton: How, is there, are you sure, is it a patio that he's hitting 'cause you said he's hitting your head on a sidewalk.
George Zimmerman: No, no, it's the, it's the sidewalk.
Investigator Singleton: There's a sidewalk behind&#8211;
George Zimmerman: Yes ma'am.
Investigator Singleton: --the buildins?
George Zimmerman: It's a dog walk.
Investigator Singleton: Okay. . . . the dog walk is, is cement.
George Zimmerman: Yes ma'am.
Investigator Singleton: Okay. Okay. Okay, so he's hitting your head . . .
George Zimmerman: Yes, ma'am. As I went to sit up, then he grabbed me by the, the front of my head and started banging it into the&#8211;
Investigator Singleton: And that's when you could look either to your left or right and you could see this guy? And you were saying help me?
George Zimmerman: I don't remember. I screamed help me probably 50 times as loud as I could.

____________________________________


There's more <broken link removed> if you're interested.


It must be mentioned that Zimmerman's testimony could well simply be self-serving. It is, nevertheless, entirely legitimate evidence that the State must overcome, beyond a reasonable doubt, if they are to obtain a conviction.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[duane black]

I thought some of you might be interested in taking a look at some actual evidence--as opposed to speculation--from the Zimmerman case, so I've pulled together some "Evidentiary Flashbacks" to look at actual evidence that's been collected over the course of the investigation and discovery preparations for trial.


Below is a snippet from the transcript of the May 5, 2012 Sanford Police Department interview of George Zimmerman. In it Zimmerman describes to police investigators in his own words how and why he emerged from his vehicle, the circumstances of he he observed and then lost sight of Martin, and how Martin emerged from bushes in a darkened area of the complex and attacked Zimmerman--punching him in the hose, knocking him to the ground, and hitting his head on the concrete sidewalk.


The whole thing is way too long for a forum post, so I've put the longer version of this up on <broken link removed> , if you want to read it in greater length.


Here, however, is a particularly interesting segment:



____________________________________


There's more <broken link removed> if you're interested.


It must be mentioned that Zimmerman's testimony could well simply be self-serving. It is, nevertheless, entirely legitimate evidence that the State must overcome, beyond a reasonable doubt, if they are to obtain a conviction.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

First time I have seen that Andrew, thank you for posting it.

George Zimmerman: He said, “You got a problem, homey?” and I said, “I don’t have a problem.” And he said, “Now you have a problem.”

I thought the poor young boy was on his way to get some skittles...

 

[orygunmike]

Some have stated that Treyvon was acting in self-defense, out of fear for his safety ...

- A person acting in self defense out of fear for their life is not likely to wait and attack from ambush ...
- A person truly afraid should, given the opportunity, flee.
- Assuming Zimmerman's testimony is factual, or at least that the State can't refute it, one would then have to say that Martin initiated the attack and was not an innocent party.
- It seems to leave the door open for Zimmerman's affirmative claim of self-defense.

I thought some of you might be interested in taking a look at some actual evidence--as opposed to speculation--from the Zimmerman case, so I've pulled together some "Evidentiary Flashbacks" to look at actual evidence that's been collected over the course of the investigation and discovery preparations for trial.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[michaels]

You are a lawyer, aren't you.
And yes, everyone hates a lawyer, until they need one.
Thankfully, I don't need one right now JK
When I said "I think" the implication was that I was NOT certain.
It looks like a restraining order was issued and an arrest for "resisting an officer with violence" was made, with the charges later waived.
Still relevant.

I'm not in your class, so I can't go to the front or the back of your class.

So yes, I will say that SYG expands use of force beyond strict self defense.

And yes, I understand he is on trial for 2nd degree murder.
Personally, I think manslaughter would've been the easier route, and sometimes there's nothing wrong with easy.
Anyways, he's on trial for 2nd degree murder, where he perjured himself, (if not legally, in spirit)
Not a good move. Kind of puts his other statements into question.

And just one small piece of personal advice?

When you try to "educate" people, make them see your point of view.

Don't talk down to them.

You may, (or may not, examine your argument) have a point.
But being a douch will make people disregard you.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

So yes, I will say that SYG expands use of force beyond strict self defense.

Well, I'll leave you with your opinion, then.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[Law of Self Defense]

I was just reviewing the transcript of Zimmerman's questioning byInvestigator Singleton of the Sanford Police Department on February 27, 2012 (the day after the shooting,) and I was reminded of how absolutely chilling it is.


It's just words on paper, a police transcript, but you can feel the tension building line by line until the deadly climax, and then falling off. Zimmerman's responses start off as one or two words, usually just "Yes, ma'am," and then grow to a few words, longer sentences, then a couple of sentences . . .


. . . and then he describes in harrowing detail the fight for his life:

Zimmerman: I, it was dark. I didn’t even see him getting ready to punch me. As soon as he punched me, I fell backwards, um, into the grass and he grabbed me. He was wailing on my head and I, then, I started yelling help. When I started yelling help, he grabbed my head and he started hitting my head into the– I, I tried to sit up and I, and yell for help and then he grabbed my head and started hitting it into the sidewalk. Um, when he started doing that, I slid into the grass to try and get out from under him and so that he would stop hitting my head into the sidewalk and I’m still yelling for help. And, I could see people looking and some guy yells out, I’m calling 911 and I said, “Help me, help me. He’s killing me.” And he puts his hand on my nose and mouth and he says, “You’re gonna die tonight,” and I don’t remember much after that. I just remember, I couldn’t breath and then he still kept trying to hit my head against the pavement or I don’t know if there was a sign or what it was. So, I just, uh, when I slid, my jacket and my shirt came up and when he said, “You’re gonna die tonight,” I felt his hand go down on my side and I thought he was going for my firearm. So I grabbed it immediately and as he banged my head again, I just pulled out my firearm and shot him.

A few lines later he recalled:

Zimmerman: I didn't know what he was hitting [me with]. It felt like he was hitting me with bricks.

The content before and after this snippet is great stuff, too, but much too long to post here. If you want to see more, <broken link removed> .


Zimmerman’s own testimony can, of course, be seen as self-serving. Nevertheless, this is entirely legitimate evidence that the State must overcome if it is to prove Zimmerman guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of a crime in this case.


Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[michaels]

Well, I'll leave you with your opinion, then.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

Oh come on, don't give up so easy....

It's the professionals that I love to debate with.

 

[Father of four]

I'll just watch and munch...

 

[Grunwald]

Oh come on, don't give up so easy....

It's the professionals that I love to debate with.

You are not debating, you are accusing him of being a douche all the while emitting a strong aroma of vinegar.

 

[michaels]

Well let's start with that I'm not trying to insult anyone.

Yes, I said what I said, and I could've been clearer, but, I'm not wanting to name call people I don't know and will probably never meet. Even if that's what happened. Please see it as an inelegant, poorly worded request.

So, yes I am trying to have a debate with losd.

Where I'm coming from is that he is a lawyer, and as a lawyer he should be able to defend his arguments.

And when I say defend, I mean defend his arguments on their merits, not through attacking my or anyone else's "ignorance"

If there is something that I am misinformed about, I welcome new information.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

I realize most of my posts today have been rather dire in tone, so let's lighten things up a bit.


Always good for a laugh is the letter orchestrated by Crump & company and written (if not authored) by Witness #8 (since identified as "Dee Dee"). Note that although she was presented as Trayvon's girlfriend, she somehow neglected to learn how to spell his name properly.

March 19, 2012


I was on the phone when Trevon [sic] decided to go to the Cornerstore. It started to rain so he decided to walk through another complex because it was raining too hard. He started walking then noticed someone was following him. Then he decided to find a shortcut cause the man wouldn't follow him. Then he said the man didn't follow him again. Then he looked back and saw the man again. The man started getting closer. Then Trevon [sic] turned around and said, "Why are you following me!! Then I heard him fall, then the phone hung up. I called back, and that no response. In my mind I though it was just a fight. Then I found out this tragic story.


Thank you,
[Redacted]

Finally! The State had its own "ear"-witness who could contest Zimmerman's recounting of events. It was the State's strongest--almost their only--piece of evidence pointing towards Zimmerman's guilt.


Or did they?


In March 2013 the State would be compelled to admit in open court that Witness #8 hd perjured herself in her sworn statement to the prosecutors. Claims that she was a minor and that she was "Trevon's" girlfriend were also proven to be untrue.


The State might still put Dee-Dee on the stand. If they do the cross-examination should be a popcorn-worthy event.


Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[michaels]

Questions

1) How did "witness 8" perjure herself?
2) How is her literacy relevant to her recounting of events?

 

[CJ1089]

Umm, Stand your ground maybe?

What if Martin was scared and fearful for his life?
Wouldn't SYG apply?

The cops didn't just "let z go", there was at least one that wanted to charge him with manslaughter.

My reading of the SYG law would prevent Martin from applying it, while someone is following him no threat was apparent. Fails the reasonable person test.

I personally feel that he killed Martin unjustified.

I can say that as a private citizen. I will not be on the jury, I'm not part of either legal team, and hell, I don't even really like florida.

So you have made up your mind and your ability to judge the validity subsequent information is now called into question.

I think zimmerman has some kind of domestic violence conviction and an assaulting a police officer conviction.
Will this be brought up at the courts?
Not to mention that he misled the courts about the amount of money he had at trial.

All this, true or not, does not apply to the facts of this case. The source for this seems doubtful also as these convictions would make Z having a CWP near impossible. Z was legally carrying from all sources I reference so this fails the smell test.

The money issue is one I have not spent any time reading about so that sounds like post-event perjury. If it is proveable then maybe the prosecution can use it to show a systemic reaction by Z to lie under stress which could then be used to attack his credibility as the surviving eyewitness to martin death.

Yes, yes, I'm sure there is a legal justification for that, but there's legal and then there's common sense.

This statement is not worthy.

My biggest problem with laws that expand use of force beyond strict self defense, is that they favor and reinforce a social hierarchy.

Now it shows itself, when I read SYG text, I see a self-defence law only. It was quoted here for our benefit and rather clearly hinges on self defence. If you read anything else from it then you are projecting your biases. It would be incumbent on you to pull the language that shows social favoritism.

Look, arguing the legality of George Zimmerman killing a kid (yes, a bad, bad, street fighting kid. Christ, where were you when you were a kid? Nevermind....)

Is like arguing that the banks did nothing illegal when they pillaged the American economy in 2008.

You are very correct, in asserting that nothing was illegal. But maybe it should've been

Boojah, so the predjudice emerges. This is good, first line says arguing legality is immoral and second line declares "nothing was illegal" but should have been.

Hell, I thought arguing legality is the sole point and purpose of the court system. Tear it all down!

Well the defence rests since the trial judge is only concerned with what is legal and illegal. You don't like the rules of the game then change them politically. But Z goes free, his morality/immorality is not grounds for imprisonment.

What I see from a couple of posters is a desire for social justice. That is sheer ****. Like it or don't if it is legal he walks and SHOULD walk. If it was illegal then he goes to prison and SHOULD go for a good long time. But listening to the 'calls for justice' makes me want to vomit.

This is a classic Rule of Man v. Rule of Law debate. Just consider the system where you play by the rules (the Law) and then another walks behind you and says, "That should not have been legal, so you are going to jail, Buh-bye now!" The Jury will decide if Z violated the rules. We should at least wait until the trial is over, and reviewed the evidence that survives brfore making up our minds on guilt or innocence.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Hey folks,


I just posted up the end-of-day wrap-up for day five of jury selection in the Zimmerman case, available at Legal Insurrection here.


There were four notable events of the day, apart from the jury questioning.


Perhaps today’s most interesting news happened outside the court room. Juror E7, since identified by media sources as Jerry P. Counelis, who was dismissed from the jury pool on Wednesday for apparently misleading the court, was back at the court house today. We’ve done a separate write up just on Mr. Counelis, so if you’re interested in more just click the link in the header above. I did a separate post just on this interesting development, which can be seen on Legal Insurrection here.


Another unexpected bit of news today was the release by Robert Zimmerman, George’s father, of an e-book entitled as in the header above, covering the travails of his son through the current crises. I’ve downloaded a copy to my Kindle, and will comment as soon as I’ve had some time to “flip” through it. If you're interested, a copy can be obtained at Amazon here, for $3.99.


The Judge also raised the issue of scheduling the as yet not completed Frye hearing from last week, to determine whether the State's speech "expert" witnesses would be permitted to testify at trial. Nothing was determined within hearing of the cameras, but the court room was left with the impression that the Frye hearing would be wrapped up next week.


Finally, she released a group of 23 prospective jurors who had “survived” to the next round of voir dire. They were told to return to court next Tuesday, and admonished to not discuss or research the case in the meantime, nor access any news about the case. Of the 23, 19 were women, 4 were men, and three of the group were black. Talk around the court house is that both sides want to bring 40 prospective jurors into the next round of voir dire, in anticipation of heavy attrition.


The remainder of the day the court moved through preliminary voir dire of another seven prospective jurors. For all the juicy details, check out the full end-of-day wrap up post at Legal Insurrection.


Tomorrow we do another full day of live stream, all-day coverage of day two of jury selection. Be sure to join us.


Best,


Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[Intention]

Andrew,
First off thanks for keeping us out west informed on the case. I feel the same way about this incident as I did on day one. You refered to Mr. Martin as a robust 17 year old football player. I have to respectfully dis-agree with you there. 6' something and 150 to 160 lbs is not robust for a high school ball player. 6' something and 220 to 300 lbs is robust. I believe that the average grown man could mop the floor with a 160 lb un- armed teenager and if you can't, don't sign up for the neighborhood watch. Just one opinion that mose will dis-agree with but hey I am just not afraid of one lone un-armed 160 lb punk but thats just me.