That's why GZ continue to tutor the black kids even after the program they were part of had closed down. And since he has black relatives he is probably a self-hating black.
-- Now the media is reporting an anonymous witness who says GZ is a racist. --
The anonymous one came in a phone call, so anonymous even to the police. seems to have an axe to grind. I speculate that it's his ex girlfriend, the one who took out a restraining order on him.
CBS News learned that includes texts Zimmerman sent after the shooting -- some of them disparage leaders of "Justice for Trayvon" rallies with language described as offensive.
So, supposedly Zimmerman's phone has text messages about the "Justice For Trayvon" mobs that are offensive.
I can assure you, if I were in the same position as he was, with the race hustlers screaming about killing me as "justice," I would definitely have been using some mighty offensive language too.
"Whether one born outside the US to one US parent is a citizen at birth is covered by Title 8 US Code Section 1401, which has been amended a number of times."
If congress is only granted the power, from the Constitution, to create laws of "naturalization" how could Title 8 US Code Section 1401 be capable of exceeding that limitation?
I'm perplexed about the nature of the "provocation" that might have the effect of negating Zimmerman's defense of "self-defense." Is there any authority to the effect that lawful conduct may represent such a "provocation"? Would the state have the burden of demonstrating that Zimmerman initiated physical contact?
I'm also wondering if anyone can offer an informed conjecture about the probable demographic composition of the jury pool.
It's interesting how, excepting Wilbur the pig and Ryan the pig errr 3rd baseman, the other Zimmerman's I posted pics of above prefer not to use their birth name of Zimmerman.
-- Is there any authority to the effect that lawful conduct may represent such a "provocation"? Would the state have the burden of demonstrating that Zimmerman initiated physical contact? --
"Provocation" is illegal conduct, itself. It is assault (a credible threat), or battery (unwelcome contact).
If the state's narrative depends on Zimmerman starting the fight, then yes, it has to produce evidence to support the narrative, and it has the burden of proof.
-- I'm also wondering if anyone can offer an informed conjecture about the probable demographic composition of the jury pool. --
You missed the probability thread, but it was roughly 50% chance, excluding voir dire, the jury would be all white. With voir dire, my guess is blacks become over-represented, and hold 2 or 3 of the 6 seats.
So Obama would like to have a son who takes pot and has been kicked out of school a number of times. He should be taken to task for stating an opinion before he had all the facts. The man shows over and over that he lacks smarts and he indeed is a racist.
Exactly, Otto. That’s why I want this thing dismissed or adjudicated before the election. Barack’s judgment should be an issue in the campaign. It the chief executive, it was wrong of him to identify so strongly with Trayvon Martin. It will be very hard to seat a jury.
-- I'm perplexed about the nature of the "provocation" that might have the effect of negating Zimmerman's defense of "self-defense." --
The news accounts that say the provocateur always loses the right of self defense are wrong. That is true in the usual case, but there are scenarios where the provocateur may successfully assert self defense.
You slap or punch some dude because you think he's been fooling with your wife. In other words, "you started it," without a doubt. But you never escalate force to a level that would cause a reasonable person to fear death. No kicking in the head, periodic back away, etc. The other dude pulls out a knife with an 8 inch long blade and says he's going to kill you. He rushes at you, knife extended or raised. He's got about a 6 inch reach advantage on you. You pull your gun and shoot - you have legally exercised deadly force in self defense.
"Barack’s judgment should be an issue in the campaign."
The President's vetting of Trayvon wasn't any worse than the electorate's vetting of Candidate Obama. We should give the President his due, just as we should give the Imperial Wizards of the Black Klan every ounce of the respect which they have earned in The Misadventure of Grillntats.
As I pointed out on the other thread, Dr. Selvig, I mean Chu promoted the bridle for the
SkyDragon, by promoting the mythical Tesseract from the Avengers.
You are walking through your neighborhood, trying to locate a guy you think might be a burglar. The suspect confronts you and punches you in the face so hard it breaks your nose and lands you on the ground.
You have the right to meet force with force, but unless a reasonable person (not you, this will be the judge or jury in hindsight) would find the force acceptable, you will be found unjustified.
Anyway, this suspects continues to beat you, even as you call out for help for 10 seconds, 20 seconds, a person appears and says they'll call the police, another 10 seconds. You are being hit in the face, your head is being pounded into something hard, pavement maybe, a rock. Your opponent is angry and shows no sign of letting up. He sees you have a gun, says he is going to kill you, reaches in the direction of the gun. You shoot him - you have legally exercised deadly force in self defense.
The legal outcome could be quite different, depending on the conduct of the fight. The fellow who started it by breaking your nose could get the right to use deadly force against you. The ultimate question is up to that mythical "reasonable person."
In Florida, if you are throwing beer bottles at somebody, in anger (trying to hit them in the head, etc.) you are at risk of being shot, legally, in self defense.
What a GREAT old link, TK @ 8:14 to remember who we are dealing with.
Keep things in perspective -
NRO got one post wrong on Warren...so what...keep hitting!
-- it was roughly 50% chance, excluding voir dire, the jury would be all white. --
Correction, that 50% was that zero of the jury members would be black. The balance could be a mixture of white, hispanic, asian, etc. IIRC, Sanford is about 11% black, is what the back-of-the-envelope calculation was based on. But it is not 89% white.
Re my own link at 8:22; "personal weapons" is the official FBI nomenclature for fists, etc which accounted for 800 murders in 2009, so could we please have no more comments talking about lack of weapons and the unserious nature of beatings?
Well, on the "provocation" issue, I'm having a hard time digesting the proposition that Zimmerman following Martin, for the purpose of being able to point him out to a police officer, could be "unlawful," whether or not it was discouraged by a police dispatcher.
Jury selection. Obviously, many prospective jurors would favor hanging Zimmerman forthwith from the nearest tree. Let's say though, that a prospective juror who is not so inclined should be unwilling to deny under oath that he/she thinks young, black males, under the circumstances presented, merit heightened observation. Would this result in disqualification?
Sorry if I missed previous discussions on these points.
Fists kill. The guy with the gun is not obliged to meet fist with fist. The guy who thinks he is is on the losing end of a very bad bet both legally physically.
and End of discussion.
-- I'm having a hard time digesting the proposition that Zimmerman following Martin, for the purpose of being able to point him out to a police officer, could be "unlawful," whether or not it was discouraged by a police dispatcher. --
Following in this case is not unlawful, because Zimmerman had a right to be there, and as far as the evidence shows, he wasn't being verbally active or attempting to become obnoxiously cozy.
The police discourage the behavior in order to protect the concerned citizen, and in order to transfer the risk of following from the police, to the citizen - lawsuit avoidance, in short.
-- ... a prospective juror who [is] ... unwilling to deny under oath that he/she thinks young, black males, under the circumstances presented, merit heightened observation. Would this result in disqualification? --
An interesting question. I don't know the limits on questions that may be put to prospective jurors. I am sure that Team Corey would object to such a juror, for cause. I disagree with the objection, because profiling is sometimes called for, everybody except Ben Franklin would agree that it's okay to profile based on a "be on the lookout" report that mentions race, for example.
Could somebody please tell me when Zimmerman was told to stay in his truck or return to his truck?
The transcript shows the police dispatcher never mentioned anything about a vehicle/truck/car whatsoever.
The only time during the whole call a truck is mentioned is by George when he says "Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]"
There is no indication the dispatcher was even aware Zimmerman was in his truck during part of the call.
-- Could somebody please tell me when Zimmerman was told to stay in his truck or return to his truck? --
Or "stay" period. Zimmerman was asked if he wanted to meet with the responding officer, not told that he had to, or even suggested that it would be best if he did.
"... he wasn't being verbally active." Well, that opens a can of worms, doesn't it? Dee Dee, from all indications, can be expected to testify she heard Zimmerman say, in a loud and threatening tone of voice, "What are you doing here?" (or words to that effect.) I would hope the state would have to make a persuasive showing that words portending physical violence, or "fighting words" were uttered, to justify a resort to violence by Martin. But I've come across no discussion of this point.
Can someone enlighten me on the specifics of Dee Dee's expected testimony that arguably falls within one of the exceptions to the "hearsay rule"?
I am truly delighted to see that no one any longer responds to anything Dana Gilbert Ward of Pitzer College says. I am smirking and gloating. Thank you all so much.
Redbrow, there was no such suggestion nor order given.
Skittles is dead, Skittles got himself killed, IF Skittles wasn't high and stupid, and violent, he'd still be alive today.
Drugs, stupid and violent. So sad.
Danube, Dana Gilbert Ward isn't so stupid that he'd still come here. If he did, it would be like he was stalking us, and that would give us permission to beat him.
"It cannot he presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible unless the words require it."
-- Well, that opens a can of worms, doesn't it? Dee Dee, from all indications, can be expected to testify she heard Zimmerman say, in a loud and threatening tone of voice, "What are you doing here?" (or words to that effect.) --
Yes, Zimmerman, by all accounts was verbally responsive; and my statement about him not being verbally active was imprecise. I meant to convey that he wasn't initiating contact of any sort, not even verbal contact. All contact was initiated by Martin.
"Is 'naturalized' without effect until I find a holding that fits your box?"
Your entire argument is without effect until you cite a case where a challenge to a presidential candidate's eligibility has been upheld on the grounds that one parent was not a citizen.
-- does anybody know if it is illegal to sell lighters to minors in Florida? --
Not yet. The legislature is talking about it.
Under the legislation, store clerks caught selling lighters or matches to someone under 18 would have to pay $500 and could spend up to 60 days in jail. Second offenders would pay $1,000 and face up to a year in jail.
"Can someone enlighten me on the specifics of Dee Dee's expected testimony that arguably falls within one of the exceptions to the 'hearsay rule?'"
She can testify to anything she heard Zimmerman say, because it is a statement made by a party to the case and is not hearsay.
She can testify to any of Trayvon's cries, under the hearsy exception for excited utterances. She may or may not be able to testify that Trayvon was afraid, depending on what he said (state-of-mind exception).
She cannot testify as to what Trayvon said about where he was going, or why.
The media now has access to almost all the evidence and ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC have reached the same conclusion: Zimmerman viciously attacked Trayvon's knuckles with his own face, then pulled a gun and shot the teen for fun.
ABC, despite now having reports and photographs of Zimmerman's injuries, despite having previously produced an "exclusive" photo of Zimmerman's injuries, decided to do an interview where an "expert" is reviewing footage of Zimmerman's arrest and saying that Zimmerman had no injuries...
n the taped interview with Bernie Delario, the state prosecutor, the girl said that Mr. Martin, after evading Mr. Zimmerman for a while, noticed that he was being pursued again and mentioned this to her.
"Whether one born outside the US to one US parent is a citizen at birth is covered by Title 8 US Code Section 1401, which has been amended a number of times."
Here is my question:
"If congress is only granted the power, from the Constitution, to create laws of "naturalization" how could Title 8 US Code Section 1401 be capable of exceeding that limitation?"
Here is your answer:
"It doesn't exceed anything. Nowhere is it held that naturalization--if it establishes citizenship at birth--is exclusive of natural born* status."
*Note that you brought natural born into the debate.
Here is the concern your position gave me:
"Is "naturalized" without effect until I find a holding that fits your box?"
Here is your deflection:
"Your entire argument is without effect until you cite a case where a challenge to a presidential candidate's eligibility has been upheld on the grounds that one parent was not a citizen."
An argument I am not making here is without effect? I have to agree with you on that.
"Note that you brought natural born into the debate"
Note that I and countless others--with judicial authority in support, and no judicial authority to the contrary--maintain that citizen at birth is synonymous with natural born citizen.
Please: many people have run for president who do not meet what you think are the criteria for eligibility. Many of them have had their eligibility challenged in court. Each and every such challenge has been rejected.
Will you at least entertain the notion that your only supporters are on what is acknowledged as a near-lunatic fringe?
I'd be interested to hear what others think about the hearsay issues with respect to DeeDee. I think they are fascinating, and could have a significant effect on the outcome.
Danube, I think DeeDee heard a whole lot less than is being claimed. In fact, I believe that if DeeDee does indeedee (hehehehe) testify, she will be quite unconvincing on cross. This whole "prosecution" doesn't smell right to me.
"The report by Serino said Trayvon had $40.15, Skittles candy, a red lighter and headphones in his pocket."
Are these the mic'd headphones he was wearing at the store? If they were in his pocket when he met GZ the last time, how was DeeDee able to hear what was said?
Goodness gracious: I left out Barack H. Obama, who was nominated, elected and challenged. Each and every challenge has been rejected. At what point are we entitled to conclude that the challengers are a bit iffy?
Really sound to me like Dee Dee, with her "let go" and "bump," will get the case to the jury, and an artfully selected "politically correct" jury will be merciless.
-- Are these the mic'd headphones he was wearing at the store? If they were in his pocket when he met GZ the last time, how was DeeDee able to hear what was said? --
Telepathy.
But seriously, great questions. I haven't reviewed the inventory of evidence for a wireless headset, etc. means of communicating with the cell phone.
As a teen, he'd want a wired headset for tunes AND phone, but mostly for tunes. Seen it, watched it being sold. And more specifically, he'd want a hard rubber casing set that coils and doesn't short after so many months.
Bluetooth stereo headsets blow, as far as sound quality. I've wasted a few bucks down that alley.
Your entire argument is without effect until you cite a case where a presidential candidate's eligibility has been upheld on the grounds that he/she was naturalized.
Danube, I believe that you as a extremely well educated and practiced Attorney, look at the issue of Challenges to Obama's eligibility somewhat differently than John Q Conservative. As an educated American with a little political experience, I do not trust at least 75% of those making such decisions without even considering the possibilities.
Just listened to the DeeDee police interview. Does she have some sort of mental impairment?
Also, if you listen to the full audio of DeeDee, you can hear her, at times, saying whatever she thinks the cops want to hear. In fact, several times, the cop has to tell her not to make up things, to just tell the truth. IMHO she is obviously lying during the interview...
"Deb I think he put the headphones in his pocket when he approached GZ."
So he approached GZ holding his open phone as DeeDee listened in? We don't use headphones with our cells, so I'm trying to understand how DeeDee could hear what was said.
I am (as usual) hopelessly behind, but yesterday there was a discussion along the lines of "everybody agrees that Zimmerman wishes that he had stayed in his truck." Well, I don't agree. If we are indulging in alternate histories, then we should look at the more probable outcomes. Take this one:
Zimmerman stays in his truck to wait for the cops, after all it was cold and raining and the hoodie guy had disappeared. TM is hanging around in the back yards of the condos and sees the 13-yr-old dog walker. TM (aka NLN) decides that he is going to do the thug thing on the boy. He sucker punches him in the face, breaking his nose, and knocking him to the ground. The boy's head hits the sidewalk at an unfortunate angle, and he dies instantly.
Zimmerman would be lying in bed right now, agonizing that he was a lazy coward, and that if he had only gotten out of the truck he could have saved the boy's life.
Ok, question for all of you legal beagles... If the prosecution gets to indulge in alt-history fantasy, doesn't the defense get to bring theirs forward, too?
Deb, I do think Dee Dee is not very credible--and remember she waited three weeks before saying anything--but I don't recall she said she actually heard anything after the "bump".
Cathy, Whitey Zimmerman could have done a lot of things. Skittles Martin, could have done a lot of things. Martin called 9/11 to report something that seemed suspicious to him. Skittles could have said xy or z and been on his merry way. He didn't. Skittles Martin confronted and violently assaulted Whitey Zimmerman causing injuries including a broken nose and head lacerations. Whitey could very possibly have been killed or more severely injured had he not been LEGALLY carrying a fire arm. The FACTS are pretty clear, the WISHED and POLITICAL IDEOLOGY of the SKITTLES MARTIN fans does not match the FACTS.
Thanks, Clarice. I just wondered if the headphones being in TM's pocket might mean DeeDee heard nothing at all from the time he removed them.
More DeeDee from the NYT:
"A sense of urgency grew. Mr. Martin alerted the girl to the fact that Mr. Zimmerman “was getting close to him.” She strongly urged him to run, but she could tell he did not because he was out of breath and tired, and kept saying he was close to the town house where he was a guest."
Well words mean things, and you can't stalk someone you don't know, it was a perfectly logical thing that Zimmerman did, there had been 400 calls from that complex, in the last
year.
Now the media is reporting an anonymous witness who says GZ is a racist.
Posted by: myiq2xu | May 18, 2012 at 07:19 PM
"says GZ is a racist."
That's why GZ continue to tutor the black kids even after the program they were part of had closed down. And since he has black relatives he is probably a self-hating black.
Posted by: Paulo | May 18, 2012 at 07:22 PM
Has anyone read/done a review on the book by Edward Klein"The Amateur" Is it worth trying to get a copy?
I can't seem to find the search box! Did it go away?
Posted by: pagar | May 18, 2012 at 07:25 PM
-- Now the media is reporting an anonymous witness who says GZ is a racist. --
The anonymous one came in a phone call, so anonymous even to the police. seems to have an axe to grind. I speculate that it's his ex girlfriend, the one who took out a restraining order on him.
Posted by: cboldt | May 18, 2012 at 07:25 PM
Despite evidence, no answers in Martin shooting - Mark Strassmann, CBS, May 18, 2012
Oh Noes!
Posted by: cboldt | May 18, 2012 at 07:29 PM
What are the myriad responses to the question "What are you doing here," that exclude sitting on the questioner's chest and beating his face and head?
Seriously. Trayvon would be alive today if he had merely said, "I'm staying at my dad's condo, just over there."
It seems the best the State has is that Zimmerman dared ask this kid what he was doing. Now, that's some serious provocation.
It suggests that Tryvon went all bus driver, MMA, No Limit on the poor black man.
Posted by: MarkO | May 18, 2012 at 07:37 PM
So, supposedly Zimmerman's phone has text messages about the "Justice For Trayvon" mobs that are offensive.
I can assure you, if I were in the same position as he was, with the race hustlers screaming about killing me as "justice," I would definitely have been using some mighty offensive language too.
Posted by: centralcal | May 18, 2012 at 07:41 PM
"Are you my birther thread?!?"
From DoT on another thread:
If congress is only granted the power, from the Constitution, to create laws of "naturalization" how could Title 8 US Code Section 1401 be capable of exceeding that limitation?
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
It is like a riddle.
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 18, 2012 at 07:44 PM
Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever-spinning reel
Posted by: MarkO | May 18, 2012 at 07:47 PM
The story does not clarify, why Brennan, let 'the cat out of the bag' so early in the game,
Vader choked Admiral Ozzel for less;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/18/us-usa-security-plot-spin-idUSBRE84H0OZ20120518
Posted by: narciso | May 18, 2012 at 07:52 PM
Famous Zimmerman's:
Bob (Zimmerman) Dylan
Zimmerman's Famous Pig, Wilbur
Ryan Zimmerman: Washington Nationals
Ethel Merman Zimmerman
StarTreks: Seven of Nine (Jeri Ryan Zimmerman)
Posted by: daddy | May 18, 2012 at 07:52 PM
I'm perplexed about the nature of the "provocation" that might have the effect of negating Zimmerman's defense of "self-defense." Is there any authority to the effect that lawful conduct may represent such a "provocation"? Would the state have the burden of demonstrating that Zimmerman initiated physical contact?
I'm also wondering if anyone can offer an informed conjecture about the probable demographic composition of the jury pool.
Posted by: archon41 | May 18, 2012 at 07:52 PM
It's interesting how, excepting Wilbur the pig and Ryan the pig errr 3rd baseman, the other Zimmerman's I posted pics of above prefer not to use their birth name of Zimmerman.
Posted by: daddy | May 18, 2012 at 08:00 PM
--"Are you my birther thread?!?"--
LOL, TK.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 18, 2012 at 08:02 PM
I speculate that it's his ex girlfriend, the one who took out a restraining order on him.
My suspect is an occasional commentor who was all over that theory.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | May 18, 2012 at 08:02 PM
You posted more than one photo, Daddy?
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 18, 2012 at 08:04 PM
-- Is there any authority to the effect that lawful conduct may represent such a "provocation"? Would the state have the burden of demonstrating that Zimmerman initiated physical contact? --
"Provocation" is illegal conduct, itself. It is assault (a credible threat), or battery (unwelcome contact).
If the state's narrative depends on Zimmerman starting the fight, then yes, it has to produce evidence to support the narrative, and it has the burden of proof.
-- I'm also wondering if anyone can offer an informed conjecture about the probable demographic composition of the jury pool. --
You missed the probability thread, but it was roughly 50% chance, excluding voir dire, the jury would be all white. With voir dire, my guess is blacks become over-represented, and hold 2 or 3 of the 6 seats.
Posted by: cboldt | May 18, 2012 at 08:06 PM
So Obama would like to have a son who takes pot and has been kicked out of school a number of times. He should be taken to task for stating an opinion before he had all the facts. The man shows over and over that he lacks smarts and he indeed is a racist.
Posted by: Otto | May 18, 2012 at 08:06 PM
Exactly, Otto. That’s why I want this thing dismissed or adjudicated before the election. Barack’s judgment should be an issue in the campaign. It the chief executive, it was wrong of him to identify so strongly with Trayvon Martin. It will be very hard to seat a jury.
Posted by: Rickroberts | May 18, 2012 at 08:09 PM
-- I'm perplexed about the nature of the "provocation" that might have the effect of negating Zimmerman's defense of "self-defense." --
The news accounts that say the provocateur always loses the right of self defense are wrong. That is true in the usual case, but there are scenarios where the provocateur may successfully assert self defense.
You slap or punch some dude because you think he's been fooling with your wife. In other words, "you started it," without a doubt. But you never escalate force to a level that would cause a reasonable person to fear death. No kicking in the head, periodic back away, etc. The other dude pulls out a knife with an 8 inch long blade and says he's going to kill you. He rushes at you, knife extended or raised. He's got about a 6 inch reach advantage on you. You pull your gun and shoot - you have legally exercised deadly force in self defense.
Posted by: cboldt | May 18, 2012 at 08:12 PM
Jeri Ryan was the first mother of an autistic child that Obama's team felt the need to go after.
http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/10/threepeat-la-timeschicago-tribune-again-help-obama-make-the-close/
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 18, 2012 at 08:14 PM
"Barack’s judgment should be an issue in the campaign."
The President's vetting of Trayvon wasn't any worse than the electorate's vetting of Candidate Obama. We should give the President his due, just as we should give the Imperial Wizards of the Black Klan every ounce of the respect which they have earned in The Misadventure of Grillntats.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 18, 2012 at 08:16 PM
--You posted more than one photo, Daddy?-
You only have eyes for Ethel, TK?
Posted by: Ignatz | May 18, 2012 at 08:17 PM
Number of people murdered by "personal weapons" (hands, fists feet, etc) in 2009=800.
Hmmm.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 18, 2012 at 08:22 PM
Reminds me of a joke my dad used to tell, Ig.
Why did the moron stick his finger in the gas tank?
He wanted to see what Ethel smelled like.
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 18, 2012 at 08:22 PM
As I pointed out on the other thread, Dr. Selvig, I mean Chu promoted the bridle for the
SkyDragon, by promoting the mythical Tesseract from the Avengers.
Posted by: narciso | May 18, 2012 at 08:25 PM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_Corporation
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 18, 2012 at 08:25 PM
You are walking through your neighborhood, trying to locate a guy you think might be a burglar. The suspect confronts you and punches you in the face so hard it breaks your nose and lands you on the ground.
You have the right to meet force with force, but unless a reasonable person (not you, this will be the judge or jury in hindsight) would find the force acceptable, you will be found unjustified.
Anyway, this suspects continues to beat you, even as you call out for help for 10 seconds, 20 seconds, a person appears and says they'll call the police, another 10 seconds. You are being hit in the face, your head is being pounded into something hard, pavement maybe, a rock. Your opponent is angry and shows no sign of letting up. He sees you have a gun, says he is going to kill you, reaches in the direction of the gun. You shoot him - you have legally exercised deadly force in self defense.
The legal outcome could be quite different, depending on the conduct of the fight. The fellow who started it by breaking your nose could get the right to use deadly force against you. The ultimate question is up to that mythical "reasonable person."
In Florida, if you are throwing beer bottles at somebody, in anger (trying to hit them in the head, etc.) you are at risk of being shot, legally, in self defense.
Posted by: cboldt | May 18, 2012 at 08:29 PM
What a GREAT old link, TK @ 8:14 to remember who we are dealing with.
Keep things in perspective -
NRO got one post wrong on Warren...so what...keep hitting!
Posted by: Janet | May 18, 2012 at 08:30 PM
I am simply amazed at how quiet the two hucksters have been recently.
Posted by: Rickroberts | May 18, 2012 at 08:30 PM
Ben Franklin still trying to recapture the trolling magic of the turkey for national bird meme.
Posted by: Paul | May 18, 2012 at 08:33 PM
-- it was roughly 50% chance, excluding voir dire, the jury would be all white. --
Correction, that 50% was that zero of the jury members would be black. The balance could be a mixture of white, hispanic, asian, etc. IIRC, Sanford is about 11% black, is what the back-of-the-envelope calculation was based on. But it is not 89% white.
Posted by: cboldt | May 18, 2012 at 08:37 PM
Well it seems it's the chip off the old block, moving the ball;
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/05/17/jesse-jackson-jr-obama-is-brown-and-conservatives-are-plessy/
Posted by: narciso | May 18, 2012 at 08:38 PM
Re my own link at 8:22; "personal weapons" is the official FBI nomenclature for fists, etc which accounted for 800 murders in 2009, so could we please have no more comments talking about lack of weapons and the unserious nature of beatings?
Posted by: Ignatz | May 18, 2012 at 08:41 PM
Well, on the "provocation" issue, I'm having a hard time digesting the proposition that Zimmerman following Martin, for the purpose of being able to point him out to a police officer, could be "unlawful," whether or not it was discouraged by a police dispatcher.
Jury selection. Obviously, many prospective jurors would favor hanging Zimmerman forthwith from the nearest tree. Let's say though, that a prospective juror who is not so inclined should be unwilling to deny under oath that he/she thinks young, black males, under the circumstances presented, merit heightened observation. Would this result in disqualification?
Sorry if I missed previous discussions on these points.
Posted by: archon41 | May 18, 2012 at 08:42 PM
It's almost as if they had no standards, shocker;
http://twitchy.com/2012/05/18/media-malpractice-press-pushes-to-hurt-romney-with-mormon-bigotry-left-follows-lead/
Posted by: narciso | May 18, 2012 at 08:43 PM
What I surmised, earlier;
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/05/18/Rush-Obama-Made-Past-More-Exotic-Just-Like-Elizabeth-Warren
Posted by: narciso | May 18, 2012 at 08:47 PM
Fists kill. The guy with the gun is not obliged to meet fist with fist. The guy who thinks he is is on the losing end of a very bad bet both legally physically.
and End of discussion.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 18, 2012 at 08:51 PM
ROFL, Frau.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 18, 2012 at 08:52 PM
-- I'm having a hard time digesting the proposition that Zimmerman following Martin, for the purpose of being able to point him out to a police officer, could be "unlawful," whether or not it was discouraged by a police dispatcher. --
Following in this case is not unlawful, because Zimmerman had a right to be there, and as far as the evidence shows, he wasn't being verbally active or attempting to become obnoxiously cozy.
The police discourage the behavior in order to protect the concerned citizen, and in order to transfer the risk of following from the police, to the citizen - lawsuit avoidance, in short.
-- ... a prospective juror who [is] ... unwilling to deny under oath that he/she thinks young, black males, under the circumstances presented, merit heightened observation. Would this result in disqualification? --
An interesting question. I don't know the limits on questions that may be put to prospective jurors. I am sure that Team Corey would object to such a juror, for cause. I disagree with the objection, because profiling is sometimes called for, everybody except Ben Franklin would agree that it's okay to profile based on a "be on the lookout" report that mentions race, for example.
Posted by: cboldt | May 18, 2012 at 08:54 PM
OT- Barrett skips Milwaukee Fallen Officers ceremony for UAW luncheon. Not mentioned in the story, he was on the agenda to speak at the ceremony and said "that police union endorsed Walker" when asked about his absence.
Posted by: henry | May 18, 2012 at 09:08 PM
Could somebody please tell me when Zimmerman was told to stay in his truck or return to his truck?
The transcript shows the police dispatcher never mentioned anything about a vehicle/truck/car whatsoever.
The only time during the whole call a truck is mentioned is by George when he says "Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]"
There is no indication the dispatcher was even aware Zimmerman was in his truck during part of the call.
Posted by: Redbrow | May 18, 2012 at 09:13 PM
-- Could somebody please tell me when Zimmerman was told to stay in his truck or return to his truck? --
Or "stay" period. Zimmerman was asked if he wanted to meet with the responding officer, not told that he had to, or even suggested that it would be best if he did.
Posted by: cboldt | May 18, 2012 at 09:16 PM
"how could Title 8 US Code Section 1401 be capable of exceeding that limitation?"
It doesn't exceed anything. Nowhere is it held that naturalization--if it establishes citizenship at birth--is exclusive of natural born status.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 18, 2012 at 09:19 PM
"... he wasn't being verbally active." Well, that opens a can of worms, doesn't it? Dee Dee, from all indications, can be expected to testify she heard Zimmerman say, in a loud and threatening tone of voice, "What are you doing here?" (or words to that effect.) I would hope the state would have to make a persuasive showing that words portending physical violence, or "fighting words" were uttered, to justify a resort to violence by Martin. But I've come across no discussion of this point.
Can someone enlighten me on the specifics of Dee Dee's expected testimony that arguably falls within one of the exceptions to the "hearsay rule"?
Posted by: archon41 | May 18, 2012 at 09:21 PM
I am truly delighted to see that no one any longer responds to anything Dana Gilbert Ward of Pitzer College says. I am smirking and gloating. Thank you all so much.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 18, 2012 at 09:27 PM
Redbrow, there was no such suggestion nor order given.
Skittles is dead, Skittles got himself killed, IF Skittles wasn't high and stupid, and violent, he'd still be alive today.
Drugs, stupid and violent. So sad.
Posted by: Gus | May 18, 2012 at 09:31 PM
Danube, Dana Gilbert Ward isn't so stupid that he'd still come here. If he did, it would be like he was stalking us, and that would give us permission to beat him.
Posted by: Gus | May 18, 2012 at 09:33 PM
"It cannot he presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible unless the words require it."
http://constitution.org/ussc/005-137a.htm
Is "naturalized" without effect until I find a holding that fits your box?
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 18, 2012 at 09:34 PM
-- Well, that opens a can of worms, doesn't it? Dee Dee, from all indications, can be expected to testify she heard Zimmerman say, in a loud and threatening tone of voice, "What are you doing here?" (or words to that effect.) --
Yes, Zimmerman, by all accounts was verbally responsive; and my statement about him not being verbally active was imprecise. I meant to convey that he wasn't initiating contact of any sort, not even verbal contact. All contact was initiated by Martin.
Posted by: cboldt | May 18, 2012 at 09:39 PM
A minor point (no pun intended), but does anybody know if it is illegal to sell lighters to minors in Florida?
I know many states prohibit the sale of lighters, rolling paper and other tobacco accessories to minors.
Posted by: Redbrow | May 18, 2012 at 09:40 PM
"Is 'naturalized' without effect until I find a holding that fits your box?"
Your entire argument is without effect until you cite a case where a challenge to a presidential candidate's eligibility has been upheld on the grounds that one parent was not a citizen.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 18, 2012 at 09:43 PM
-- does anybody know if it is illegal to sell lighters to minors in Florida? --
Not yet. The legislature is talking about it.
Posted by: cboldt | May 18, 2012 at 09:43 PM
DoT,
My pleasuure to censure who tou speack but too tiired to continue. Night All.
Posted by: Jack is Back | May 18, 2012 at 09:49 PM
"Can someone enlighten me on the specifics of Dee Dee's expected testimony that arguably falls within one of the exceptions to the 'hearsay rule?'"
She can testify to anything she heard Zimmerman say, because it is a statement made by a party to the case and is not hearsay.
She can testify to any of Trayvon's cries, under the hearsy exception for excited utterances. She may or may not be able to testify that Trayvon was afraid, depending on what he said (state-of-mind exception).
She cannot testify as to what Trayvon said about where he was going, or why.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 18, 2012 at 09:56 PM
The media now has access to almost all the evidence and ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC have reached the same conclusion: Zimmerman viciously attacked Trayvon's knuckles with his own face, then pulled a gun and shot the teen for fun.
ABC, despite now having reports and photographs of Zimmerman's injuries, despite having previously produced an "exclusive" photo of Zimmerman's injuries, decided to do an interview where an "expert" is reviewing footage of Zimmerman's arrest and saying that Zimmerman had no injuries...
Posted by: William Demot | May 18, 2012 at 09:59 PM
Martin Spoke of ‘Crazy and Creepy’ Man Following Him, Friend Says
By SERGE F. KOVALESKI, New York Times
Bernie Delario, good old Bernie. ROTFL.
Posted by: cboldt | May 18, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Not this time DoT, not this time.
Here is the advise you gave:
"Whether one born outside the US to one US parent is a citizen at birth is covered by Title 8 US Code Section 1401, which has been amended a number of times."
Here is my question:
"If congress is only granted the power, from the Constitution, to create laws of "naturalization" how could Title 8 US Code Section 1401 be capable of exceeding that limitation?"
Here is your answer:
"It doesn't exceed anything. Nowhere is it held that naturalization--if it establishes citizenship at birth--is exclusive of natural born* status."
*Note that you brought natural born into the debate.
Here is the concern your position gave me:
"Is "naturalized" without effect until I find a holding that fits your box?"
Here is your deflection:
"Your entire argument is without effect until you cite a case where a challenge to a presidential candidate's eligibility has been upheld on the grounds that one parent was not a citizen."
An argument I am not making here is without effect? I have to agree with you on that.
Back to my regularly scheduled beer.
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 18, 2012 at 10:02 PM
...advice...
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 18, 2012 at 10:08 PM
so could we please have no more comments talking about lack of weapons and the unserious nature of beatings?
Unlikely.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | May 18, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Famous right-winger Alan Dershowitz on the new evidence: http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/05/18/new-evidence-is-consistent-with-george-zimmerman%E2%80%99s-self-defense-claim/
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | May 18, 2012 at 10:10 PM
TK-
The home page of your 8:14 held a hidden gem.
Meet Brendan.
What a voice on that kid!
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | May 18, 2012 at 10:11 PM
"Creepy" does not sound like a word TM would be using. Maybe a word Crump would script.
Posted by: Paulo | May 18, 2012 at 10:16 PM
"Note that you brought natural born into the debate"
Note that I and countless others--with judicial authority in support, and no judicial authority to the contrary--maintain that citizen at birth is synonymous with natural born citizen.
Please: many people have run for president who do not meet what you think are the criteria for eligibility. Many of them have had their eligibility challenged in court. Each and every such challenge has been rejected.
Will you at least entertain the notion that your only supporters are on what is acknowledged as a near-lunatic fringe?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 18, 2012 at 10:20 PM
After all this following and bothering and CREEPINESS, when exactly did DEE DEE become concerned with Skittles well being????
Posted by: Gus | May 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM
Is DeeDee proving that Trayvon actually profiled Zimmerman by stating that he is "white, crazy and creepy"?
Posted by: Redbrow | May 18, 2012 at 10:30 PM
I'd be interested to hear what others think about the hearsay issues with respect to DeeDee. I think they are fascinating, and could have a significant effect on the outcome.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 18, 2012 at 10:32 PM
Please: many people have run for president who do not meet what you think are the criteria for eligibility.
Running for president and being nominated and elected are not the same.
However, I'd be interested in who some, if not all, those people were.
Posted by: Sara | May 18, 2012 at 10:33 PM
I am entertaining the notion that you believe citizen at birth is synonymous with naturalized.
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 18, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Danube, I think DeeDee heard a whole lot less than is being claimed. In fact, I believe that if DeeDee does indeedee (hehehehe) testify, she will be quite unconvincing on cross. This whole "prosecution" doesn't smell right to me.
Posted by: Gus | May 18, 2012 at 10:36 PM
DoT-
Go to the prior thread and play with the witless wonder. The needlessness of safety helmets is strong with that one.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | May 18, 2012 at 10:37 PM
"However, I'd be interested in who some, if not all, those people were."
Some, not all: John C. Fremont. Barry Goldwater. George Romney. Johm McCain.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 18, 2012 at 10:45 PM
From Chicago Tribune article on evidence release:
"The report by Serino said Trayvon had $40.15, Skittles candy, a red lighter and headphones in his pocket."
Are these the mic'd headphones he was wearing at the store? If they were in his pocket when he met GZ the last time, how was DeeDee able to hear what was said?
Posted by: DebinNC | May 18, 2012 at 10:47 PM
Goodness gracious: I left out Barack H. Obama, who was nominated, elected and challenged. Each and every challenge has been rejected. At what point are we entitled to conclude that the challengers are a bit iffy?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 18, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Really sound to me like Dee Dee, with her "let go" and "bump," will get the case to the jury, and an artfully selected "politically correct" jury will be merciless.
Posted by: archon41 | May 18, 2012 at 10:51 PM
I think DoT narcisolized me. 8~{((
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | May 18, 2012 at 10:54 PM
George Romney. Johm McCain.
Both these men were born on foreign soil to AMERICAN CITIZENS. I'd have to look up the other two.
Posted by: Sara | May 18, 2012 at 10:55 PM
-- At what point are we entitled to conclude that the challengers are a bit iffy? --
In practice, or in principle?
Posted by: cboldt | May 18, 2012 at 10:58 PM
"Both these men were born on foreign soil to AMERICAN CITIZENS"
Otherwise known as "naturalized".
Right DoT?
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 18, 2012 at 10:58 PM
-- Are these the mic'd headphones he was wearing at the store? If they were in his pocket when he met GZ the last time, how was DeeDee able to hear what was said? --
Telepathy.
But seriously, great questions. I haven't reviewed the inventory of evidence for a wireless headset, etc. means of communicating with the cell phone.
Posted by: cboldt | May 18, 2012 at 11:01 PM
cbolt-
Bluetooth headset.
As a teen, he'd want a wired headset for tunes AND phone, but mostly for tunes. Seen it, watched it being sold. And more specifically, he'd want a hard rubber casing set that coils and doesn't short after so many months.
Bluetooth stereo headsets blow, as far as sound quality. I've wasted a few bucks down that alley.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | May 18, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Your entire argument is without effect until you cite a case where a presidential candidate's eligibility has been upheld on the grounds that he/she was naturalized.
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 18, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Deb I think he put the headphones in his pocket when he approached GZ.
DoT, I thought you did a masterful job on the hearsay question.
Posted by: Clarice | May 18, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Danube, I believe that you as a extremely well educated and practiced Attorney, look at the issue of Challenges to Obama's eligibility somewhat differently than John Q Conservative. As an educated American with a little political experience, I do not trust at least 75% of those making such decisions without even considering the possibilities.
Posted by: Gus | May 18, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Just listened to the DeeDee police interview. Does she have some sort of mental impairment?
Also, if you listen to the full audio of DeeDee, you can hear her, at times, saying whatever she thinks the cops want to hear. In fact, several times, the cop has to tell her not to make up things, to just tell the truth. IMHO she is obviously lying during the interview...
Posted by: William Demot | May 18, 2012 at 11:16 PM
"Deb I think he put the headphones in his pocket when he approached GZ."
So he approached GZ holding his open phone as DeeDee listened in? We don't use headphones with our cells, so I'm trying to understand how DeeDee could hear what was said.
Posted by: DebinNC | May 18, 2012 at 11:19 PM
I am (as usual) hopelessly behind, but yesterday there was a discussion along the lines of "everybody agrees that Zimmerman wishes that he had stayed in his truck." Well, I don't agree. If we are indulging in alternate histories, then we should look at the more probable outcomes. Take this one:
Zimmerman stays in his truck to wait for the cops, after all it was cold and raining and the hoodie guy had disappeared. TM is hanging around in the back yards of the condos and sees the 13-yr-old dog walker. TM (aka NLN) decides that he is going to do the thug thing on the boy. He sucker punches him in the face, breaking his nose, and knocking him to the ground. The boy's head hits the sidewalk at an unfortunate angle, and he dies instantly.
Zimmerman would be lying in bed right now, agonizing that he was a lazy coward, and that if he had only gotten out of the truck he could have saved the boy's life.
Ok, question for all of you legal beagles... If the prosecution gets to indulge in alt-history fantasy, doesn't the defense get to bring theirs forward, too?
Posted by: cathyf | May 18, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Deb, I do think Dee Dee is not very credible--and remember she waited three weeks before saying anything--but I don't recall she said she actually heard anything after the "bump".
Posted by: Clarice | May 18, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Bait thrown and disowned.
G'night all.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | May 18, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Niters, Mel.
Cathy , I count on you for linear thinking.. I beg you don't slip off to the dark side, we have plenty there already,
Posted by: Clarice | May 18, 2012 at 11:23 PM
It does read like bad Python, 'outtakes from Inspector Harry 'Snapper' Organs' maybe with a touch of Clousseau,
Posted by: narciso | May 18, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Great points cathyf.
If there is going to be "justice" in this case, the judge will keep out all the theories and hocus pocus, and only allow evidence.
Posted by: mockmook | May 18, 2012 at 11:28 PM
Cathy, Whitey Zimmerman could have done a lot of things. Skittles Martin, could have done a lot of things. Martin called 9/11 to report something that seemed suspicious to him. Skittles could have said xy or z and been on his merry way. He didn't. Skittles Martin confronted and violently assaulted Whitey Zimmerman causing injuries including a broken nose and head lacerations. Whitey could very possibly have been killed or more severely injured had he not been LEGALLY carrying a fire arm. The FACTS are pretty clear, the WISHED and POLITICAL IDEOLOGY of the SKITTLES MARTIN fans does not match the FACTS.
Posted by: Gus | May 18, 2012 at 11:30 PM
Deb I think he put the headphones in his pocket when he approached GZ.
Then he must have had grass in his pocket because DeeDee testified she heard grass, whatever that sounds like, before the line went dead.
Posted by: Redbrow | May 18, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Thanks, Clarice. I just wondered if the headphones being in TM's pocket might mean DeeDee heard nothing at all from the time he removed them.
More DeeDee from the NYT:
"A sense of urgency grew. Mr. Martin alerted the girl to the fact that Mr. Zimmerman “was getting close to him.” She strongly urged him to run, but she could tell he did not because he was out of breath and tired, and kept saying he was close to the town house where he was a guest."
Posted by: DebinNC | May 18, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Well words mean things, and you can't stalk someone you don't know, it was a perfectly logical thing that Zimmerman did, there had been 400 calls from that complex, in the last
year.
Posted by: narciso | May 18, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Redbrow!!! Skittles SMOKED GRASS, DeeDee heard it!!!
Posted by: Gus | May 18, 2012 at 11:39 PM
You can see and HEAR Trayvon speak through a wired headset in this version BBC posted on youtube that includes audio of the 7-11 footage.
He has a deep voice for such a little boy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eaOiLm5Lwc&feature=channel&list=UL
Posted by: Redbrow | May 18, 2012 at 11:40 PM
There is absurdity, and then there is singularity generating absurdity;
http://www.businessinsider.com/bizarre-in-a-plea-deal-with-a-mexican-druglord-the-us-accepted-fraudulent-royalties-for-a-mel-gibson-prequel-2012-5?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29
Posted by: narciso | May 18, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Jeralyn Merritt noticed in the discovery trove that multiple people showed interest in GZ's injuries
Posted by: DebinNC | May 18, 2012 at 11:46 PM