The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

[galanter]

The Sanford police chief resigned, permanently, today. Due to the incompetence of the Sanford PD, we may never really know what happened that night.

I know the Sanford PD didn't test Zimmerman for drink and drugs, and they didn't talk to Martin's girlfriend before releasing Zimmerman. I know some feel they should have charged Zimmerman over the negative advice of the attorneys. But contrary to early reports they did lay out crime tape, process the scene for 7 hours, canvass the area for witnesses, etc. What else did they get wrong?

Rather than jump to the conclusion that the Sanford PD did nearly everything they could aside from talking to the person who was on the phone with Trayvon before he was shot, test the killer for drugs, or complete a background check on Zimmy before releasing him...why don't you take some time out from mounting this defense, and look into who the police questioned, how long it took them to question certain people, and the depth of the interviews they conducted. It might give you a better idea of the lack of care taken in this murder investigation.

I simply asked what factors you had in mind. I'm honestly curious and info sharing is one of the virtues of a board like this. The "may never know" bit suggests there were things that had a sort of deadline to be found, and have now been lost. I'm not sure that includes interviews although it's certainly true that the sooner the better in terms of recall. It that's what you have in mind beyond what I already mentioned and you reiterated, then thanks for that I guess.

[Clyde]

The attorney for the shooter accused of killing an unarmed black teen says a website created to raise money for his legal defense has raised more than $200,000.

Mark O'Mara said on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Thursday night that he learned about the money on Wednesday and will inform a judge at a Friday hearing.

George Zimmerman, who has been charged with second-degree murder in the Feb. 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin, was released from jail this week after paying 10 percent of $150,000 bail.

O'Mara says the bail amount may have been higher if the judge knew Zimmerman had raised $200,000.

The website used to raise the money has since been shut down, but O'Mara said he'll likely start a new defense fund for Zimmerman.

http://gawker.com/5905606/george-zimmer ... sed-200000

[krs]

The Sanford police chief resigned, permanently, today. Due to the incompetence of the Sanford PD, we may never really know what happened that night.

I know the Sanford PD didn't test Zimmerman for drink and drugs, and they didn't talk to Martin's girlfriend before releasing Zimmerman. I know some feel they should have charged Zimmerman over the negative advice of the attorneys. But contrary to early reports they did lay out crime tape, process the scene for 7 hours, canvass the area for witnesses, etc. What else did they get wrong?

Rather than jump to the conclusion that the Sanford PD did nearly everything they could aside from talking to the person who was on the phone with Trayvon before he was shot, test the killer for drugs, or complete a background check on Zimmy before releasing him...why don't you take some time out from mounting this defense, and look into who the police questioned, how long it took them to question certain people, and the depth of the interviews they conducted. It might give you a better idea of the lack of care taken in this murder investigation.

I simply asked what factors you had in mind. I'm honestly curious and info sharing is one of the virtues of a board like this. The "may never know" bit suggests there were things that had a sort of deadline to be found, and have now been lost. I'm not sure that includes interviews although it's certainly true that the sooner the better in terms of recall. It that's what you have in mind beyond what I already mentioned and you reiterated, then thanks for that I guess.

It is impossible to know what was missed in the investigation, precisely because of the lack of care shown in this case. The Sanford PD has been covering their asses since the night of the shooting. We know they did little investigation that night, due to the racist assumption that Trayvon Martin was just another Black youth up to no good. We know the department has a history of sloppy law enforcement work. Was there a footprint that was lost to the rain? Did something fall out of a pocket? How thorough was the investigation of the crime scene? All we have are the words of the investigators themselves, who have a vested interest in making themselves appear competent. We know for a fact they are not, and I cannot trust these instigators to be truthful in a proper assessment of their own work. I am sure you have no trouble believing whatever bullshit these racist pigs will tell you.

[Clyde]

A judge is considering whether to raise or revoke the bond for George Zimmerman after his lawyer told the judge a website raised $200,000 for the defense.

Mark O'Mara told the judge Friday that Zimmerman's family hadn't told him about the money before his client was given $150,000 bond.

Florida Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester says he wants to know more about the money before he decides whether to adjust the bond. The judge will make a decision on the bond at a later date.

I'm sort of curious about this. Why would the bond be conditional on how much money the plaintiff has? And why would a judge consider revoking the bond at all? Is it that the money wasn't disclosed? Any insights?

[galanter]

A judge is considering whether to raise or revoke the bond for George Zimmerman after his lawyer told the judge a website raised $200,000 for the defense.

Mark O'Mara told the judge Friday that Zimmerman's family hadn't told him about the money before his client was given $150,000 bond.

Florida Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester says he wants to know more about the money before he decides whether to adjust the bond. The judge will make a decision on the bond at a later date.

I'm sort of curious about this. Why would the bond be conditional on how much money the plaintiff has? And why would a judge consider revoking the bond at all? Is it that the money wasn't disclosed? Any insights?

The assumption is that if the accused stands to lose enough money that's an incentive to show up at trial. "Enough" depends on how much money you have. If you're broke losing $15,000 cash and owing $135,000 more might feel like a pretty big deal. If you have $200,000 in the bank, it might not.

[galanter]

Here is a Reuters profile of George Zimmerman that finds something different than the gun-toting violent racist image some have presented.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

Also during the bail hearing Zimmerman's wife offered descriptions of the two previous violent incidents from years before. Of course this is just her side of the story.

Reuters notes:

"That July, Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under-age friend of Zimmerman's at a bar. He avoided conviction by agreeing to participate in a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes.

In August, Zimmerman's fiancee at the time, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman reciprocated with his own order on the same grounds, and both orders were granted. The relationship ended.
"

His wife explained that in the first case Zimmerman saw his friend being pushed up against a wall across the room by men in everyday dress. He interceded asking what was going on. The wife says the police in plain clothes did not identify themselves, and that one moved to push Zimmerman away. When he did that Zimmerman pushed the cops hands away. That was the extent of the "violence" and Zimmerman was then arrested.

In the case of the fiancee the wife says there was a mutual dispute where the fiancee became physical and in fact drew some blood. Zimmerman then restrained her in defense. Both then filed charges on each other.

Again this is a one sided account, but it does show how what might appear to be an indicator of overall violent behavior might (*might*) not be what it appears.

[Clyde]

Thanks, that makes sense. I assume the possibility of revoking the bond works on the same principle?

[krs]

"Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said.

"Get a gun."

Yeah, I don't really believe that a police officer would advise a citizen to buy a firearm, simply to fend off a dog, presumably out in open, public space. If it is true, that officer should not be holding a badge right now. Totally irresponsible. I don't really believe it, though.

galanter -- let's hear your defense of why Zimmy was carrying a concealed weapon to buy groceries. Is that the action of a mentally stable person?

[Clyde]

Here is a Reuters profile of George Zimmerman that finds something different than the gun-toting violent racist image some have presented.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

Also during the bail hearing Zimmerman's wife offered descriptions of the two previous violent incidents from years before. Of course this is just her side of the story.

Reuters notes:

"That July, Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under-age friend of Zimmerman's at a bar. He avoided conviction by agreeing to participate in a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes.

In August, Zimmerman's fiancee at the time, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman reciprocated with his own order on the same grounds, and both orders were granted. The relationship ended.
"

His wife explained that in the first case Zimmerman saw his friend being pushed up against a wall across the room by men in everyday dress. He interceded asking what was going on. The wife says the police in plain clothes did not identify themselves, and that one moved to push Zimmerman away. When he did that Zimmerman pushed the cops hands away. That was the extent of the "violence" and Zimmerman was then arrested.

In the case of the fiancee the wife says there was a mutual dispute where the fiancee became physical and in fact drew some blood. Zimmerman then restrained her in defense. Both then filed charges on each other.

Again this is a one sided account, but it does show how what might appear to be an indicator of overall violent behavior might (*might*) not be what it appears.

The Reuters piece is sorta interesting but it's so one-sided it's hard to take anything away from it*.

As for the previous charges against Zimmerman, I can't say too much one way or the other. Cops are pretty quick to arrest anyone who even questions what they're doing so I always take the assault on a police officer charges/resisting arrest with a grain of salt. As for the assault charges with his fiancee, that's all possible, I guess, but the explanation for it sounds suspiciously similar to an excuse common to abusers everywhere.



*I think I mentioned I was a juror on a somewhat publicized murder trial. A few months after it was done I came across an article in a prominent magazine that was from the point of view of the accused. It was shockingly one-sided, insulting to anyone curious about all the ins-and-outs. This piece reminded me of that one. In both cases I imagine the lawyer had some sweet media connections.

[Clyde]

galanter -- let's hear your defense of Zimmy carrying a concealed weapon to buy groceries. Is that the action of a mentally stable person?

People who carry concealed weapons tend to carry them everywhere. In my very limited experience--as well as from what I've read--they also tend to be hyper alert to any sense of possible danger to the point of paranoia.

[krs]

galanter -- let's hear your defense of Zimmy carrying a concealed weapon to buy groceries. Is that the action of a mentally stable person?

People who carry concealed weapons tend to carry them everywhere. In my very limited experience--as well as from what I've read--they also tend to be hyper alert to any sense of possible danger to the point of paranoia.

Of course. I want to hear galanter defend Zimmy on this. galanter seems to think Zimmy is a man of sound mind, who has been unfairly tarred by the media.

[Ranxerox]

galanter -- let's hear your defense of Zimmy carrying a concealed weapon to buy groceries. Is that the action of a mentally stable person?

People who carry concealed weapons tend to carry them everywhere. In my very limited experience--as well as from what I've read--they also tend to be hyper alert to any sense of possible danger to the point of paranoia.

It's odd. When you are a kid and someone beats you up you dust off and lick your wounds. Much of the time you wouldn't even tell an authority figure.

Time passes and you decide to respond to an admittedly erratic, sometimes dangerous world by getting a gun. Now, if you are taking the potential threats of life seriously enough to get a gun, it seems logical to carry it with where ever you may be. Preparedness, after all. Next thing you know you are in an argument with someone and it gets heated. You are already front-loaded with a concern that someone might harm you so the question immediately arises: am I in serious, or even mortal danger? This is a question that is hard to answer without seeing the end result, which you are steeling against by buying a gun. If the altercation gets at all physical, you have to decide if you want to risk an ass kicking (that, admittedly, could be fatal depending on the person you are dealing with). The logic of the carry license, its supporting laws, etc., is that, if your subjective sense equates with a fear for your mortal safety, you obviate the risk with gunplay. The idea that such a dynamic is then to be buttressed by laws meant to buffer the shooters and insurance companies, laws which seek to make it much more difficult to process the shooting as a crime, is insane. At least by my lights.

Bad law.

[syntaxfree07]

A judge is considering whether to raise or revoke the bond for George Zimmerman after his lawyer told the judge a website raised $200,000 for the defense.

Mark O'Mara told the judge Friday that Zimmerman's family hadn't told him about the money before his client was given $150,000 bond.

Florida Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester says he wants to know more about the money before he decides whether to adjust the bond. The judge will make a decision on the bond at a later date.

I'm sort of curious about this. Why would the bond be conditional on how much money the plaintiff has? And why would a judge consider revoking the bond at all? Is it that the money wasn't disclosed? Any insights?

The assumption is that if the accused stands to lose enough money that's an incentive to show up at trial. "Enough" depends on how much money you have. If you're broke losing $15,000 cash and owing $135,000 more might feel like a pretty big deal. If you have $200,000 in the bank, it might not.

Fugitives from justice don't want blemishes on their credit scores, of course.

[syntaxfree07]

galanter -- let's hear your defense of Zimmy carrying a concealed weapon to buy groceries. Is that the action of a mentally stable person?

People who carry concealed weapons tend to carry them everywhere. In my very limited experience--as well as from what I've read--they also tend to be hyper alert to any sense of possible danger to the point of paranoia.

Of course. I want to hear galanter defend Zimmy on this. galanter seems to think Zimmy is a man of sound mind, who has been unfairly tarred by the media.

It is pretty common down here. I've had more than one girlfriend that packed a piece in her purse and have myself done things like buy groceries or have lunch with a shoulder holster on under my jacket.

[numberthirty]

His wife explained that in the first case Zimmerman saw his friend being pushed up against a wall across the room by men in everyday dress. He interceded asking what was going on. The wife says the police in plain clothes did not identify themselves, and that one moved to push Zimmerman away. When he did that Zimmerman pushed the cops hands away. That was the extent of the "violence" and Zimmerman was then arrested.

In the case of the fiancee the wife says there was a mutual dispute where the fiancee became physical and in fact drew some blood. Zimmerman then restrained her in defense. Both then filed charges on each other.

Again this is a one sided account, but it does show how what might appear to be an indicator of overall violent behavior might (*might*) not be what it appears.

Somebody's bullshit detector is on the fritz.

[fredrock]

#1--Confrontation leads to violence--
His wife explained that in the first case Zimmerman saw his friend being pushed up against a wall across the room by men in everyday dress. He interceded asking what was going on. The wife says the police in plain clothes did not identify themselves, and that one moved to push Zimmerman away. When he did that Zimmerman pushed the cops hands away. That was the extent of the "violence" and Zimmerman was then arrested.

#2--Confrontation leads to violence--
In the case of the fiancee the wife says there was a mutual dispute where the fiancee became physical and in fact drew some blood. Zimmerman then restrained her in defense. Both then filed charges on each other.

Again this is a one sided account, but it does show how what might appear to be an indicator of overall violent behavior might (*might*) not be what it appears.

If it walks like a duck....

Maybe Third time was a charm = (*might*) actually be what it appears

[galanter]

As for the assault charges with his fiancee, that's all possible, I guess, but the explanation for it sounds suspiciously similar to an excuse common to abusers everywhere.

True enough, but abusers typically repeat their behavior. This one incident happened years ago and there are no subsequent reports.

Also, regarded one-sidedness. Keep in mind most of the early negative portraits of Zimmerman were based on almost nothing. The fact that he carried a gun conjured up stereotypes. The fact the victim was black suddenly made Zimmerman a "white hispanic," a term almost never used elsewhere. The fact that Zimmerman volunteered turned him into a "self-appointed crime watch captain." People who expected to find racism heard a racist slur where even the prosecution now says none existed. etc.

It would be interesting to see a one-sided negative portrait of Zimmerman based on the kind of interviews and research the Reuters reporter did. So far as I know one simply doesn't exist.

[Mason]

Keep in mind most of the early negative portraits of Zimmerman were based on almost nothing.

'Cept the thing where he stalked and shot a teen. It kind of jumps out at you.

[galanter]

galanter -- let's hear your defense of why Zimmy was carrying a concealed weapon to buy groceries. Is that the action of a mentally stable person?

Carrying or not is a matter that reasonable people can disagree on. It's something that some perfectly sane people do as a matter of course. I'd venture to say that in fact the vast majority of them are mentally stable.

[krs]

galanter -- let's hear your defense of Zimmy carrying a concealed weapon to buy groceries. Is that the action of a mentally stable person?

People who carry concealed weapons tend to carry them everywhere. In my very limited experience--as well as from what I've read--they also tend to be hyper alert to any sense of possible danger to the point of paranoia.

Of course. I want to hear galanter defend Zimmy on this. galanter seems to think Zimmy is a man of sound mind, who has been unfairly tarred by the media.

It is pretty common down here. I've had more than one girlfriend that packed a piece in her purse and have myself done things like buy groceries or have lunch with a shoulder holster on under my jacket.

I could understand why a female might want to carry. Why do you feel the need to carry a deadly weapon with you when you go eat lunch? Are you a magnet for violence, or something?