12-7 George Zimmerman Case – Open Discussion Thread

Use this thread as an open thread just for Zimmerman Case stuff. A place to just dump, collect, or discuss general information about the Trayvon Martin VS George Zimmerman Case.

REMINDER – Please WATCH THE TONE and CONTENT of Commentary. Please be respectful, courteous and considerate of other readers and contributors. Please avoid hatespeak, angry rhetoric, vulgarity, personal attacks and condescension. If you wish to engage in vitriolic, racist, or bitter angry rhetoric, there are alternative sites on the internet more than welcoming to such considerations. But not here. Thank You.

About these ads
This entry was posted in George Zimmerman Open Thread, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to 12-7 George Zimmerman Case – Open Discussion Thread

  1. smoothcriminal says:

    after reading
    “George Zimmerman left his vehicle, oh my!
    The hidden subtext could be construed as the following… In modern America, a prudent citizen should know to remain in their vehicle, doors locked, windows up, when there are young black males known to be in the vicinity.
    What does this say about our society?
    Are we living in a drive through Safari Park?
    If we get out of our vehicles we deserve what we get and shouldn’t blame the animals, much less shoot them in self-defense?”

    I began googling safari dangers, and came across this:
    “I was telling the guests about elephant behaviour when, out of nowhere, one charged us from behind. The group split up and six of the tourists came with me while the rest went with Mphandeni. The elephant came past me and brushed two of the tourists before turning on one of the tourists,” Ramsden explained.
    “At that moment, I thought I was dead,” said Anslow, from Stafford, United Kingdom. “I was lying on the ground with the elephant virtually on top of me when I heard shots and it slumped to the ground on my right.” A bullet from one of the guides? rifles penetrated the brain, killing the pachyderm instantly, before it could kill Anslow.

    • Liberals USED to be the optimistic ones says:

      African American neighborhoods are like safari parks (YOU are responsible for any violence you get if you get out of your car).

      • ytz4mee says:

        It’s the template.
        African-Americans should never be held responsible for their choices or behavior.
        It’s all reflexive reaction to systemic, endemic “white racism”.

  2. eastern2western says:

    After reading the beasley firm website, I have to realize that zimmerman sure knows how to hire lawyers. O’Mara is a very respected member of his community and a leader of the local bar. The Beasley Firm is like a freaken beast and it will rarely take on a case this huge without any up front fee unless they are very sure about winning. If Zimmerman wins the case, then flood gate is basically open for every body from the sanford police deparment to serrino because they are all victims of this campaign which is orchostrated by park and crump inc.

    • canadacan says:

      I very carefully read omara’s bona fides when he came on board. I was very impressed at that time he was rock solid. I got real. Impatient. At 1 point. But this lawyer lays rock solid ground work and works with great people like West who ask to be on this case. I believe we have a winner.

  3. ytz4mee says:

    Ha! Zimmerman’s complaint against NBC repeatedly uses the term “scheme”.
    Wish I had video of NatJack’s splodey head.
    NBC is part of the SCHEME TEAM !!
    And yes, NatJack, it is entirely appropriate to use the word SCHEME.

  4. smoothcriminal says:

    using trayvon to make money, and their rap contains anti-white racial slurs

  5. Kim says:

    I dont understand why some media websites are still using the 5 year old Trayvon picture? At least they are using Georges suit-and-tie picture.

    • ksincfl says:

      Kim, you really don’t understand? Of course you do. WHAT (IMO) you don’t understand is why the greedy networks would stoop so low and attempt to make this case something that it is not. Personally, I think there is a market for truth in news, yet we as viewers never see it – why not? THAT is the bigger question. Do we blame the actual news providers for the salacious version, or the viewers who seem to demand it (reward by giving ratings). hmmm? sigh…..

    • Sharon says:

      They are using the 5 year old version of Trayvon because their intention is to deceive.

      They are deceiving. It is their intention to deceive. What they are hoping to achieve requires that they deceive. It is deliberate. It is time-consuming. But it is what it is. You’re probably trying to understand it from the worldview of a normal person who doesn’t depend on deception to get through your day, so it seems puzzling. Give up that worldview when you’re dealing with known liars. Give it up! Or you’ll just go crazy.

      Your conclusion that they are lying and that they actually do live by deception is not a commentary on you–it’s a commentary on them. Our struggles in this are just another version of the conviction that we need to “always be nice” and it’s not nice to call someone a liar, so we try to solve our dilemma without calling them a liar, but that only works when you’re not dealing with liars.

      When you’re dealing with liars, the shortest path to sanity and problem-solving is to call them a liar when it’s obvious they’re lying and deceiving. :)

  6. smoothcriminal says:

    written by MAX KENNERLY, ESQ. of the beasey law firm http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2011/03/articles/attorney/civil-rights-1/ignorance-of-the-law-is-no-excuse-unless-youre-a-prosecutor/
    John Thompson had a bad couple of years, as summarized by the Supreme Court’s Connick v. Thompson opinion released earlier this week:

    The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office now concedes that, in prosecuting respondent John Thompson for attempted armed robbery, prosecutors failed to disclose evidence that should have been turned over to the defense under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963). Thompson was convicted. Because of that conviction Thompson elected not to testify in his own defense in his later trial for murder, and he was again convicted. Thompson spent 18 years in prison, including 14 years on death row. One month before Thompson’s scheduled execution, his investigator discovered the undisclosed evidence from his armed robbery trial. The reviewing court determined that the evidence was exculpatory, and both of Thompson’s convictions were vacated.

    • waltherppk says:

      It seems strange that a plain malicious prosecution lawsuit would have been presented instead of such a convoluted pleading. Concealing evidence is not only a Brady violation but is also a crime. The qualified immunity outside of a courtroom does not immunize a prosecutor who is acting during the investigative phase of a case in an administrative capacity from civil liability for damages caused by the unlawful act of the prosecutor which was concealing evidence. From the point at which the exculpatory evidence was known to the prosecutor which would lead to an acquittal of the accused, further prosecution of the case was malicious and was enabled by the crime of concealing the evidence. Damages were suffered by the accused as a consequence for both the crime of concealing evidence and for the malicious prosecution which was enabled by that crime of concealing evidence. Such wrongful acts by the agent of the state have nothing to do with the policy of the agency or the State which employed them and were beyond the scope of their lawful duty and as such were unlawful acts contrary to their duty. A legal fiction involved in lawsuits against such corrupt agents of the state is called the “stripping doctrine” which basically creates the legal fiction that since the State itself cannot be held accountable directly for the unlawful acts of its agent, then the agent is sued and is liable personally and has no personal immunity, but at the same time is held harmless by the State for financial liability for any acts done “on the job” for which the State is still liable under the principle of “vicarious liability” similarly as is a parent vicariously liable for wrongful acts of a minor child even even though the parent themselves did not commit a wrongful act.

      • John Galt says:

        “The qualified immunity outside of a courtroom does not immunize a prosecutor who is acting during the investigative phase of a case”


        • waltherppk says:

          Exactly. Unqualified immunity for a prosecutor exists for their actions in a courtroom during actual trial proceedings in front of a judge, with possible exception being the perpetration of a fraud upon the court, or going berserk, a prosecutor can get away with just about anything. But for other times when the prosecutor is not in front of a judge and participating in an actual trial…..for example when the prosecutor is acting as an investigator taking a deposition ….or when the prosecutor is making requests of the police or FDLE or conducting other business involving investigative or administrative activity…..then the immunity is not absolute but is reduced to being “qualified” immunity ….meaning the prosecutor is indeed liable for certain kinds of serious wrongful acts.

          • waltherppk says:

            For example a prosecutor is not immune if they solicit false testimony or if they are involved in witness tampering or evidence tampering or if they falsify an affidavit …then they are liable for such wrongful acts.

            • jordan2222 says:


              Thank God, your complex, in depth posts are written in good, proper English or I might have a difficult time understanding and grasping exactly what you are saying.

              You always make a determined but eloquent case for whatever mission you choose here. Your posts about the damn phones, for example, are amazing. You should be on MOM’s payroll. I do not mean to minimize DMan in saying that, by any means, because, he, too, knows his stuff.

              Adulation aside I have to ask this:
              As of this point in the case, knowing what is available, do you personally believe there is there any realistic and reasonable chance that any of the characters involved in the State’s prosecution of George will be punished, and if so which ones?

              • waltherppk says:

                I’m not sure what heads are going to roll but it looks like that will be happening if this case continues to track the way it is going. Corey and BDLR could both be in hot water IMO beyond what their qualified immunity may cover. If the phone evidence does not check out then they have a huge problem. And that is the way it is looking. If there was soliciting of false testimony and manufacturing of evidence and concealing of evidence in which BDLR is implicated he could end up not only disbarred but in jail, or to a lesser extent ruined professionally as a result of civil liability brought by him on the State. Even avoiding criminal prosecution his legal career if retained would be next to nothing for having cost his last employer dearly ….he would not be a sought after attorney…but would be reduced to nickel and dime type case work.

                • jordan2222 says:

                  waltherppk.. Thanks for your opinion.

                  What do you think is really going with the phone evidence? I am baffled as to what is taking so long but I am also wondering about the full tox report. Is it possible that the defense has discovery that has not been made public?

                  Under normal circumstances, the State has a defined time line for turning over discovery. I think someone mentioned 15 days but it it has been months since charges were filed.

                  This latest batch of requests for discovery is certainly not the first. This makes no sense to the average citizen who expect the judicial system to work at least reasonably close to the rules. Looking at all the defense motions for discovery from the start, I just do not get it. I mean that I really do not get it.

      • ksincfl says:

        Amen! I wouldn’t be surprised by a post acquit malicious prosecution suit. I just read the exhibits included in the motions posted today on gzlegal. It almost seems to me Bernie is more concerned with defending a malicious prosecution than actually prosecuting Zimmerman. At least one of his depos appears more concerned with who (investigators at SPD) said they had/didn’t have enough and when they said it, rather than the substance of the evidence. Bernie attempts to downplay the fact the overwhelming view at SPD and Seminole County prosecutor didn’t think they had enough and that GZ story was consistent w/ evidence…CYA Bernie & Corey = charges

  7. Seems to be a lot happening this week.

  8. Angel says:

    Happy Friday to everyone!! Been a long week. After work today, I am going on the hunt for a eggnog shake as a treat for getting through it!!! One of the many blessings to be thankful for: to have an eggnog shake during the holiday season!

    • yankeeintx says:

      Thank you for reminding me that it is important to be Thankful for the little things in life too. Eggnog shakes!!

    • Sharon says:

      Mark Levin went off on a tear involving egg nog today–said the FDA is going after some producer because the milk fat % in their product is too high, and it’s gonna kill everybody or something. We have been so softened up for tyranny–all for “our own good”—I hope that somewhere in our future the FDA and its millions of representatives down to the local level learn to fear the citizenry who have finally had enough of being told what they may eat, how much of it they may eat, where they may eat it, what kind of container they may eat it out of and where they must buy the little they are allowed to eat. Some how we need to get to the point where government fears the people. Right now, things are quite backwards.

      Except for in Egypt–for the moment: it appears that Mursi’s government is quite fearful of the protestors. Egypt is also building up their military, and obama is AWOL even in terms of leading from behind. Oh, well, he’s probably in the process of getting some company for Iran: he couldn’t be bothered with their fledgling freedom in May of 2009, and I’m sure he’s not going to dirty his lying hands for the freedom-fighters in Egypt either.

  9. Liberals USED to be the optimistic ones says:

    Some videos I like…..kinda obscure…..I know….

    Thanks Diwata, you have provided hours of entertainment and information…….
    Another one I like….

    • Liberals USED to be the optimistic ones says:

      I watched the vid of him in the 7-11 plenty of times and thought he was on drugs big time (since I thought he bent over to pick up something that wasnt there – but he had to find his joint/blunt he lost in the store-first he can be seen searchign his pockets at the register for quite some time and then he finds it in the back of the store)

      • Liberals USED to be the optimistic ones says:

        he wears the hoodie in the rain, in the store, heck, i bet he fought his teachers for the right to wear his hoodie in class

        • canadacan says:

          I bet that was a real joy for his teachers. this kid is very on steady on his feet. In this video.

          • Liberals USED to be the optimistic ones says:

            since he had failed the FCAT, it seems he had to seek another major (thus he majored in cheerfulness and selling and distributing cheerfulness products-aka drugs)

            • menostupid says:

              I agree liberals & he wouldn’t have been able to graduate until he passed FCAT. THIS kid was probably nowhere near on track to graduate.

    • ytz4mee says:

      Along with the full tox report, why has a photo of the button he was wearing never been released?
      Trashcan Momma was ducking and weaving like Mike Tyson about answering questions about the button.

  10. ejarra says:

    Anybody see anything on InSessionsTV? I had it on this AM and there wasn’t any live feed.

    • Liberals USED to be the Optimistic Ones says:

      I spent a couple of hours of watching insession today (mostly nauseating with bouts of glee with MOM & West being interviewed by the proxies to the persecution).
      so, mr crump, now that you aren’t allowed to be surrogate persecutor in this case, what will you do for money?
      it was still very lopsided (vinny the moron politan tried his best to obfuscate and lie and most of the clowns on there did their best to help).
      journalists….they should prolly ask questions like who, what, when and where, right? not on this channel…….it has taken months for them to ask questions of chump they should have asked him months ago.
      And they pretend like chump as a florida lawyer is free to lie to the public as much as he likes as long as he is hiding or destroying ebidense

  11. menostupid says:

    Ive been watchin it on trutv ejarra.

    • Liberals USED to be the Optimistic Ones says:

      I found the coverage slightly less off putting than normal (they actually let MOM & West say something without constantly interrupting them AND they actually pretended like they understood what prosecutorial misconduct means for this case).
      it almost seems like they are setting it up for the fall duke lacrosse and twanna brawley style….they are just beginning to examine hwo the persecutors have lied (one day they may admit that tracey martin had an affirmative responsibility to his own son-they demand far more responsibility of GZ towards TM than even tray dad was required to show)

  12. menostupid says:

    I’m recording it but have no clue how to post it lol Hopefully someone does because it’s pretty interesting.

  13. menostupid says:

    And the king of schemes will b live discussing his interview with Double Dee. This I gotta see.

  14. Dexter says:

    Just went over to the Leathermadhouse. A new theory has emerged. George Zimmerman is the cause of all the burglaries and breakins in the community. That’s why he became neighborhood watch. So they couldn’t catch him robbing.

    • John Galt says:

      Leatherman prediction: “I do not believe this lawsuit will survive a motion to dismiss.”

      I predict that Leatherman’s prediction accuracy record will remain intact.

      • ytz4mee says:

        I always take my legal advice from disgraced former attorneys who dumpster-dive.
        Kinda gives new meaning to the term, “bottom feeding”.

        • Dexter says:

          They still haven’t figured out that Zimmerman wasn’t the watch captain, but just one of the watch captains. He only did it part time, when others weren’t available.

  15. Sentenza says:

    Interestingly enough, Al Sharptongue is employed by NBC.

    I wonder if his history of doing the same crap in the Tawana Brawley case will become evidence in this case? If course Al Sharpton is a pustulent boil on humanity’s nether regions that skips out on his own debts, so don’t expect much.

  16. John Galt says:

    MOM takes an opportunity to acquaint the judge with the complete lack of evidence against GZ:

    Good job!

    • kathyca says:

      Just catching up. Love the not so subtle reminder to the Court in this motion about the State’s liability for arresting and detaining George in custody once immunity is granted.

      • Sharon says:

        Is it a given that the judge has invested time in reading and understanding the motions before setting herself in the big chair at the beginning of the hearing?

        My uninformed observation: Some of her responses at the previous hearing seemed to suggest that she didn’t have much context. I realize that that actually fell in MoM’s favor, since he got to take some initiative then about which way to push things…but good grief, if she is not conversant with the contents of all these motions before the hearing begins, 3 hours doesn’t begin to allow enough time.

        Since the motions are obviously submitted to the court prior to the hearing, is the hearing just a time for the judge, generally, to deliver decisions? Or do the attorneys normally have to use considerable time to orient the judge? I realize that the attorneys who don’t like the motions can object.

        ADD: If most or all of these motions are granted, we would expect to see the prosecution leaving the court room crawling on their hands and knees, with tears dripping off their nose, no?

        • howie says:

          She was following Lester’s lead.

        • kathyca says:

          It’s not a given, but I think it would be highly unlikely that she wouldn’t read the motions ahead of time — especially if it’s true that she doesn’t know much about the case otherwise. It’s rare that the Judge hasn’t read the motions ahead of time and typically counsel will have plenty of time to argue during the hearing. Three hours is a LOT of time for these types of motions. Is the three hours for the upcoming hearing, or was it a request for the latest batch we saw today (haven’t read everything yet)? I don’t know how motion hearings are scheduled in Florida, but wherever I’ve practiced, you wouldn’t file a motion and expect it to just be lumped into the next hearing date. The other side is given time to respond and a separate hearing scheduled unless the motion is specifically denominated an expedited motion. Not sure if I’m being clear, but I’m wondering whether the 3 hours is for the existing motion already scheduled for the 10th, I think, or for the rest of the motions we saw today.

          • Sharon says:

            You are clear–I didn’t understand what all the variables might be and your answer touches on several of them. Thanks…

          • howie says:

            I remember the defense wanting a discovery judge. Of course it was denied. Because she had plenty of time and was well versed….give me a break. All she does is refer to Lester and continue. Nahhh. The fix is still there. Any well versed judge would have already thrown this case out. If you were a judge what would you do? They are not really that smarter than the rest of us peons.

            • kathyca says:

              That’s right…I forgot about that request. And didn’t she say something about how her schedule was such that she’d have plenty of time? Idk, but in my experience I’d think that the buzz of this case around the courthouse — especially in light of all the recent developments and media attention — would be extremely high and that she’d be paying a lot of attention to it and discussing it with all of the other judges, including the presiding judge, on a pretty constant basis.

              I don’t think she’ll throw it out until she’s asked to do that, and then will do it only after a full hearing or stipulated motion setting forth the entire factual basis. I don’t get the impression she’s the kind of maverick who would take such action unless it were strictly by the book and as unassailable from reversal on appeal as possible and I think her brethren would agree.

              • howie says:

                Well I am no expert. But I can still smell a rotten fish. This is a fix. I am just a student of law. These people are supposed to be experts. Come on. If you were the judge what would you do? The DCA has already tossed Lester 2 to 1. The one was prolly a stickler for citation that was lacking. This case should be put out of it’s misery ASAP. This judge may follow in the Lester footsteps. I am just disgusted with this whole charade. I do not want to cut anyone a break on it.

                • jello333 says:

                  I just don’t think MOM and West WANT it to end yet. Look at all the info they’ve been collecting recently. That’s not just valuable to the immunity part (that’s coming very soon, well before Spring IMO). It’s also gonna be very, very valuable for all the civil suits… and hopefully even some criminal sanctions coming later.

              • ejarra says:

                I doubt that MOM/West will ask for this case to be thrown out until after they get everything they can for a CIVIL case(s). Unless something were to occur that makes them feel as though they are losing, full steam ahead. MOM already said no to any plea suggestion. Right now, even though George is still arrested for murder2, they are in control.

          • jordan2222 says:

            Has the State responded to anything yet?

        • jordan2222 says:

          Sharon, you ask a very good question. I also wonder if she is up to date on what has happened. At her first appearance , she said she knew next to nothing about the case except for what Lester gave her in a brown paper bag.

          This particular motion sounds like a motion to dismiss the entire thing. It is a good summary of the case for immunity.

        • selfdefenseadvocate says:

          Sharon says:
          “ADD: If most or all of these motions are granted, we would expect to see the prosecution leaving the court room crawling on their hands and knees, with tears dripping off their nose, no?”
          What a visual! I would give my next Social Security check to see that happen!

          • Sharon says:

            You’re part of the wealthy elderly ripping off the country!!! (so am I!!!!) Hannitty’s interviewing Krauthammer right now, and two times within 30 seconds when discussing SS payments, Krauthammer said “the wealthy—oh…the elderly….”

            That’s real encouraging: the elderly are now being presumed to be wealthy. I’m gonna have to break the news to my 69 year old DH…his part time hours at HD have already been cut (due to the looming 2013 obamacare threats) …crap…if we’re wealthy, he should be able to just quit.

            Who knew.

        • jello333 says:

          Is a judge under oath in the courtroom? I never considered that. I know that all lawyers are considered to be, but I never heard it explicitly said about a judge. If she says “Yes, I carefully read the motion,” can we assume that’s true? If I was MOM, I would word every statement or question to her like this, “As you know from reading it, I stated in the motion that….” Sorta put her on the spot in case she gets something totally wrong. You can then ask, “You understand that this is just a summary of the long point I made in the motion, right?”

          • jello333 says:

            By the way, I know the term “under oath” re. lawyers may not be technically correct. But my point is that they’re SUPPOSED to be truthful in their dealings with the judge.

            • jordan2222 says:

              Jello: Do you have a link to the entire In Session show today?

              • jello333 says:

                Nah, sorry. I haven’t even seen any of it yet. In fact, I’ve still got 2 or 3 more whole threads I need to read before I’m caught up, since I got WAY behind these past couple days. Things coming fast and furious, eh? ;) But WELL worth it.

          • kathyca says:

            All lawyers and judges are ethically obligated to speak only the truth in the courtroom, amongst other things. Human nature being what it (unfortunately) is, take that fwiw.

    • howie says:

      Opinion…This will be decided in the 5th DCA. And not appealed.

    • jello333 says:

      Wow. In the deposition of Santiago, he said that by the last day of the daily meetings they had, not only were they no longer considering charges against George, but they now WERE considering charges against one of the 911 callers (John?) for not HELPING George! Obviously they all believed, REALLY believed George was the victim here. Well, except for Smith and Serino… both of who said nothing for 2 1/2 weeks, and then suddenly at the end…. Yeah, something VERY fishy went on with those two (I say someone “got to them”).

  17. ytz4mee says:

    MOM & West being interviewed on TruTV’s “In Session” by Jeanne Casarez this morning:

    MOM asked why Traydemark’s school records are relevant:
    State vs. Munoz.
    Self-defense case makes Traydemark’s violent tendencies relevant.
    Munoz case “very insightful”.

    MOM: “I believe there’s a lot more information that the FBI and Justice has, and I want it”
    refusal to provide info to defense “based on political pressures …”

    • jello333 says:

      So are you saying that MOM seems to believe that Trayvon’s school records will show he had some “violent tendencies”? If so… wow. In his school records? Yeah… wow…. could that “swung on a bus driver” be for real after all?

  18. metrometeor says:

    Hey guise… have you ever seen this vid? It’s pretty pointless but for some reason I think it’s really funny.

  19. DWS says:

    I hope MO’M’s team is keeping an eye on this case: Erik Schwirtlich, Corpus Christi TX.

    He was attacked on the sidewalk the other night (I posted the link in an earlier thread). Knocked unconscious. Left for dead. Surveillance video caught the attack:

    They found the guy who sucker punched him, charged him with aggravated assault. Bond is $200,000.

    Victim still in ICU, not doing too well. Broken jaw, fractured skull, brain injury. Now has a fever and is getting more scans.

    Medical costs will be through the roof. Outlook uncertain. One punk, one punch, and the guy’s life changes forever.

    • boutis says:

      This is a perfect example that blows to the head are often devastating injuries and that anyone swinging for the head is attempting to seriously injure someone. All of the morons claiming that Zimmerman’s injuries were not sufficient for the response with a gun need to watch this video which just happened to be recorded without the thug noticing. The age, race, or even sex of the thug sucker punching someone until someone is unconscious or dead is immaterial. I hope they up the charges to attempted murder for this bum.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s