Powered by TypePad

« The First Whinger Strikes Again | Main | Much Stranger Than Fiction »

July 03, 2013

Comments

Ranger

More updates (via AJ):

Gehad ElHaddad, a spokesperson for the Muslim Brotherhood and senior adviser to Freedom & Justice Party, has told Al Jazeera that 'a full military coup is underway.'

Haddad said 'tanks are on the move around the outskirts of Cairo' and that 'some high ranking members of the Brotherhood have been arrested.'

Haddad told Al Jazeera and that communication with President Morsi has been cut off so he cannot confirm or deny if he was moved from the Republican Guard HQ.

I suspect the Army will say the are taking them into protective custody. Wouldn't want them falling victim to mob justice.

Account Deleted

"Wouldn't want them falling victim to mob justice."

They're in Egypt, not a Florida courtroom.

I did hear Morsi was accident prone though. General al Sisi said so.

Captain Hate

I hadn't noticed Bunny complaining about any "homoerotica" when all the moonbats were slinging the term "teabagger" around for the past 3+ years.

Or when he and dumbassdave were fantasizing about Hispanic prison violent manlove.

Jeff Dobbs

Oh boy. Now I've done it. Morphed pics of Obama and Morsi together.

Obamorsi.

henry

Hit, in what way is it different than the southern end of a northbound mule?

Jeff Dobbs

(typepad said, "nom, nom, nom" to posting the pic)

Ranger

This is interesting. The BBC is reporting that it will be the opposition, not the Army that will make the statement to the nation tonight:

Opposition figure Mohammed ElBaradei and religious leaders will make this statement, the state news agency said.

The Army looks to be taking its time and being very methodical about having troops in key locations before they make the statement.

maryrose

H&R:
Too bad. I was looking forward to a picture of two losers. Bothof them road the wave of hubris and are now washed out to sea. Legacy for both-down in flames. Pride goeth before the fall. In my mind -poetic justice.

jimmyk

Egypt seems to be much more efficient at disposing of its despots than we do.

maryrose

Ranger:
Good for them. Power to the people. Muslim Brotherhood suffered a huge defeat today. The Egyptian people do not want terrorists running their country. Too bad we can't eject Bammy in the same manner.

maryrose

My last post didn't make it. I wished for a similar fate for Obama that is now happening to Morsi. I guess typepad didn't approve.

Ranger

It makes things easier when you have prison terms pre-approved for the current government (via AJ):

Egypt Appeals Court has made a decision to uphold a one-year prison sentence on Prime Minister, Hesham Qandil, removing him from his post, according to a judicial source.

Qandil was handed the sentence in April for failing to implement a court ruling to renationalise a textile company sold off by the ousted former Hosni Mubarak administration.

That's one down, and just a few dozen to go.

jimmyk

The Egyptian people do not want terrorists running their country.

Unfortunately I suspect that's not the issue. They just want electricity, running water, etc. Terrorism would just be icing on the cake.

Ranger

Via Drudge, I'd say this is a yellowish light with a green tint to the Army:

U.S. eases away from Morsi

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/07/us-eases-away-from-morsi-167594.html

The U.S. Government Wednesday panned Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi's most recent speech to the Egyptian people, saying the address fell short of detailing the reforms the Egyptian leader needed to promise to quell massive street protests.

He chose poorly.

Old Lurker

Rob, I thought it was compulsory for the insurance company to cover the adult children but even I cannot believe that compels the parents to pay for it if they don't want to.

Please tell me I am correct about that or I am joining Clarice's pike sharpening assembly line.

jimmyk

Qandil was handed the sentence in April for failing to implement a court ruling to renationalise a textile company

Yeah, because that's just what Egypt needs most now, more nationalized industries.

maryrose

Preezy is heading for the exits wrt Morsi. Remember how Hil strong armed the people in Israel and Morsi claimed credit for stopping Palestinian fighting? Our foreign policy reps aka Hil and Kerry are so pathetic. The vacuum in leadership is unbelievable. I bet Clenis is laughing his head off at the ineptitude of Bammy.Leading from his behind again.. oh right,he's hiding out in Afica.

Ranger

Well, it is semi-official now (Via AJ which, seems to just be using a reurters feed actually):

The army has told President Morsi at 1700 GMT he was no longer president, Egypt's state-run Al-Ahram newspaper has reported on its website.

The newspaper has quoted a presidential source.

Lets see if that gets the fireworks going.

Danube on iPad

"...because Martin had acted only in self-defense, giving no indication of an intent to harm Zimmerman"

The only evidence in the record is that Trayvon suckerpunched Zimmerman to initiate the scuffle.

The prosecution has not disproved self-defense by GZ beyond a reasonable doubt, which was its burden. Sadly, that doesn't mean there won't be a conviction.

Elliott

All reports I've seen have indicated that the interrupting skype calls were made to the witness. However, from the screenshot, it appears the large video was of the witness and the small window was of O'Mara and the prosecutor strongly suggesting that the calls were in fact made to the account the prosecutor was using.

Gus

ShepTARD Smith is a disgrace. He is blubbering about this being a second Arab Spring. Maybe he should put on a skirt and got do some "on the street" reporting in Egypt.

Old Lurker

Gus I think most of us here will release you from your promise to tone down raw language any time you want to say anything you like about Shep Smith. Have at it/him/her/whatever.

2Jack is Back4

How come our resident rec room dweller only shows up things are going down the toilet for his side (i.e. The State v. Zimmerman)?

narciso

Well even a blind squirrel gets the nut, re Shep,

bunkerbuster

bgates: Here's what I think may have happened:
1. Zimmerman spots Martin, freaks out, calls 911.
2. Zimmerman pursues Martin through the complex.
3. Zimmerman confronts Martin and asks what he's doing or demands ID or somesuch.
4. Martin responds in a hostile tone, provoking verbal escalation from Zimmerman (whose on record as perceiving Martin as an "asshole" after only seeing him at a distance). Seeking to maintain or gain the upper hand in the confrontation, Zimmerman reaches for his gun.
5. Martin, seeing the gun, lunges for it, knocking Zimmerman down onto the sidewalk. A struggle for the gun ensues, with Zimmerman calling for help.
6. Zimmerman wins the struggle and shoots Martin dead.

jimmyk

You're a riot, bubu. Most of those would be closer to the evidence if you reversed "Martin" and "Zimmerman." I.e. Martin freaks out, Martin pursues Zimmerman (or at least lies in wait for him), Martin confronts Zimmerman, etc.

Did Martin think Zimmerman had the gun in his nose, because all the evidence suggests Martin's first move was in that direction, with his fist.

And while I'm no lawyer, even if everything happened exactly as you fantasized it, GZ could have a case for self-defense.

Cecil Turner

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Lord knows, whenever I see a gun, first thing I aim for is the nose. Then I go for the ground and pound, ignoring the gun, because one should announce one's presence with authority. Only after prolonged fisticuffs would I even start to work to control the weapon.

Look, if you want to salvage any credibility whatsoever, first admit St Trayvon beat the crap out of Zimmerman, without any real provocation. That much is incontrovertible. Whether GZ's response was disproportionate to the actual threat is the only real question . . . and I don't see how anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty could fail to extend him the benefit of the (far beyond reasonable) doubt.

Jeff Dobbs

1. Zimmerman spots Martin, freaks out, calls 911.

Start right here with the factual error of who Zimmerman called, which calls into question the subjective description used in between the commas.

bb is not up to a discussion of facts. But he's got all sorts of ideas of *why* his *narrative* *should* be *true*.

boris

Bubu's speculation is not consistent with DD's testimony or GZ's interviews or eyewitness testimony of the fight.

But at least it's creepy.

bunkerbuster

The only evidence we have that Martin started the altercation by hitting Zimmerman in the nose is Zimmerman's own version of events. No one saw that happen.
The suggestion that his amounts to "incontrovertible" evidence only shows how low the bar is for some JOMers...
And while it is virtually impossible for the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin (since the question revolves not around the results of Zimmerman's actions, but on his state of mind), I believe a jury will inevitably place some burden of proof on Zimmerman to prove that mortal fear or fear of serious injury was reasonable.
Remember, no one has said they saw how the altercation started. All of the descriptions, including Good's are consistent with a struggle for the gun.
If the prosecutor can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman told others -- his brother and one other friend, for example -- that there was a struggle for the gun, then the jury will have to apply a substantial discount to everything Zimmerman -- who has a record of violent behavior -- has said about the case.

Jeff Dobbs

Bubu, what sources are you using to keep up with the actual trial?

boris

"The only evidence we have that Martin started the altercation by hitting Zimmerman in the nose ..."

GZ at least has a picture of his bloody nose. WTF do you got?

boris

Good's description is consistent with ground and pound, not a struggle for the gun. DNA evidence is not consistent with a struggle for the gun either, but is consistent with a reach for the gun that didn't get all the way there.

bunkerbuster

boris: Good says he's not sure what he saw. Moreover, he says he just saw arms flailing. He made very clear that he did no see Martin hitting Zimmerman.
Again, there is no evidence outside Zim's own testimony that Martin threw the first punch or even, that he three any punches.
The broken nose could have come during the scuffle for the gun.

bgates

Here's what I think may have happened

If you'd vote to convict someone of a felony based on what you "think may have happened", you don't deserve to serve on a jury because you have no understanding of the burden of proof in a criminal trial.

it is virtually impossible for the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin

You're being much too generous to the state, as usual.

I believe a jury will inevitably place some burden of proof on Zimmerman to prove that mortal fear or fear of serious injury was reasonable.

It wasn't that long ago you thought guns were quite dangerous. Now we have a situation in which you say

All of the descriptions, including Good's are consistent with a struggle for the gun

but you apparently don't think Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of serious injury.

he says he just saw arms flailing. He made very clear that he did no see Martin hitting Zimmerman

Zen Master: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Busty: "Why would a falling tree make a sound?"

bunkerbuster

Based on the testimony I've seen so far, there's plenty of reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin. So far, the prosecutor has failed to demonstrate that Zimmerman is lying about the gun struggle, and without such a struggle, I don't see how the prosecution can eliminate the reasonable doubt about that Zimmerman wasn't merely defending himself. Sure, if I'm on the jury and having to vote only on what's been presented so far, I may well have no choice but to acquit.
None of that means we can't or shouldn't speculate as to how the as yet unanswered questions of the case will be answered. Specifically:
1. Exactly how did Zimmerman get ahold of the gun. If Martin was sitting on top of him, dominating him, how could he reach past and under or around Martin into his waistband. Of course I'm not saying this isn't possible, but it seems highly implausible to have happened.
2. Why have two people so far said Zimmerman told them there was a struggle for the gun? Both of these people are pro-Zimmerman witnesses, one being the defendant's brother.
3. Did Zimmerman lie about his knowledge of self-defense law. His academic and training records suggest he should have known about Florida's self-defense laws. If it can be shown that he did in fact known, and it is shown he lied about the gun struggle, his account of events will be discounted to virtually worthless by the jury.

And be careful about interpreting the meaning of "reasonable" in the context of self-defense in cases like this.


If I follow Gus and boris as they leave the Men's Adult Books store, then confront them with a hostile question while brandishing a gun, it would be unreasonable of me to fear for my life when they tackled me and tried to take the gun away from me. It's not unreasonable because I don't have good cause to think they might shoot me, it's unreasonable because I put them in a situation where they had no plausible choice but to try to get the gun away from me.
Martin may be dead, and he may be of an ethnic background Jomers revile, but while alive, he had the right to be left alone and to defend himself when threatened. It's important to acknowledge that as a starting point.

Fruit Rainbow

Why is bunky always obsessed with naked men?

boris

"unreasonable of me to fear for my life when they tackled me and tried to take the gun away from me"

Based on that it's painfully obvious you have no idea what the word "unreasonable" means.

bunkerbuster

Zimmerman received 'A' in college course that addressed self-defense
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/03/19270677-zimmerman-received-a-in-college-course-that-addressed-self-defense

Why would Zimmerman lie and tell Sean Hannity he didn't know about the stand your ground law?

boris

For one thing it's not actually called "stand your ground" in Florida law.

The course text did not cover "stand your ground" since it was not specific to Florida law.

Carter covered Florida law but possibly didn't spend class time calling it "stand your ground".

Bubu should watch Carter's testimony since it addresses bubu's earlier speculations in a very instructive fashion.

bgates

If I follow Gus and boris as they leave the Men's Adult Books store

You know how you can tell the Men's Adult Bookstore from a Women's Adult Bookstore? Women's Adult Bookstores always have a big "Going out of business" sign. See, women don't frequent adult bookstores.

Of course, busty didn't just mean "men", he meant "gay". He thought it was clever to insinuate (however clumsily) that people he doesn't like are gay. The old ad homonem (actually ad hominem, but homonem is a homonym for hominem).

It was a poorly written insult, and if it were better written it wouldn't bother the targets, but at least it shows that busty cares as little for the dignity of gay people as the straw men he argues against.

narciso

It is intriguing about Brugiere's insight into the SWIFT program;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23178284

Jim Rhoads f/k/a vnjagvet

Homonem, hominem, homonym. Brilliant as always, bgates. It will leave BuBu with nothing more to say but hummina hummina hummina.

poppa india

....hostile question while brandishing a gun..." That's a big 'if' BB. How do you know that's what happened with TM and GZ? Any proof or witnesses to a hostile question or brandishing? Brandishing is a legal term, means display in a manner that frightens someone, not having it hidden in a holster where GZ had it before firing a shot.

bunkerbuster

Thanks bgates! If you have to explain why a joke ISN'T funny...

Poppa: no one other than Zimmerman knows exactly what happened that night. He told his brother and at least one other friend that there was a struggle for the gun. He told the police something different, omitting the gun struggle. There is probably a reason he did that and one plausible reason is that the struggle for the gun started when he brandished it, meaning he was behaving too unreasonably to claim self defense.
There's also evidence that Zimmerman lied about his knowledge of self-defense laws. He had taken a class on exactly that subject and received an A.
Let's do the match. He was very familiar, perhaps even expert, in self-defense law, and adjusted his testimony to police to exclude a struggle for the gun.
Those two factors make it plausible that he brandished.
No one's suggesting they know that's what happened. No one, other than GZ himself, knows what happened.

Jeff Dobbs

Let's do the match.

Let's do. At 6:17 PM on Independence Day we can all do "the match".

So sorry that your life has come to this bb. I wish there is something I could do for you.

But the fireworks are calling.

boris

"evidence that Zimmerman lied about his knowledge of self-defense laws"
...
"and adjusted his testimony to police to exclude a struggle for the gun"

Both are inaccurate and silly. The ground and pound occurred in front of an eyewitness that GZ called to for help. Not plausible GZ "adjusted" anything knowing that.

narciso

I noted this the other day;

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/the-folly-of-the-peace-processors/

Landler seemed to see something amiss;

bgates

If you have to explain why a joke ISN'T funny...

...then you're probably talking to a person of very limited intelligence, the sort of person who thinks the combination of capital letters and negation is the height of wit, the sort of person who thinks that not telling the police one's assailant had tried to grab one's gun bolsters a claim of self defense.

one plausible reason is that the struggle for the gun started when he brandished it

So your story is that Zimmerman brandished his weapon and Martin responded by knocking him to the ground, mounting him, and punching him repeatedly in the face, through all of which Zimmerman maintained his grip on the weapon.

Oh - you wouldn't conclude Martin punched Zimmerman at all, would you? All we know is that an eyewitness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman flailing his arms like a cage fighter punching a prone opponent; and Zimmerman had cuts and bruises on his face; and Martin had cuts on his hands; and Zimmerman said that Martin had punched him repeatedly in the face. But you wouldn't consider it plausible to conclude that Martin had punched Zimmerman at all.

I guess the MMA-style arm flailing was - what? The struggle for the gun? Maybe Zimmerman had it attached to a little remote control helicopter, and that's why Martin had to wave his arms around. Is that more plausible? Why would Martin flail his arms like that if he knew the man beneath him was holding a firearm?

boris

My jury worry is they conclude GZ after taking a "modest" beating still was able to maintain control of the firearm and should have said to TM "Get off or I'll shoot!".

If TM at appx 6 foot had been 75 lbs heavier and had been pounding GZ for the same period of time GZ would likely been a goner. It's more obvious how tall a person is than how much they weigh, ... at night, in loose clothes ... and GZ had no way of knowing how much more damage TM could do.

With hindsight blindness the jury may consider firing without warning to have been unnecessary.

poppa india

BB...Yes, no one knows what exactly happened. Accused people are not supposed to be convicted on what 'might have happened', but on what actually happened. Convicting on 'what might have happened' is ignoring the rule that a person should not be convicted if there is reasonable doubt they are guilty. Since no one knows what happened, the law says that GZ should not be found guilty of any crime. Any other outcome is lynch mob rule...."he might of done it, string 'em up!"


poppa india

BTW, I've been looking at the above picture (BDLR & witness) for two days, and I still LOL.

narciso

Well it was a strong temptation on his part.

narciso

Ironic, in light of the earlier link;

bunkerbuster

bgates asserts in reductio ad absurdum: ``So your story is that Zimmerman brandished his weapon and Martin responded by knocking him to the ground, mounting him, and punching him repeatedly in the face, through all of which Zimmerman maintained his grip on the weapon.''

Pay better attention. GZ brandishes the gun, TM lunges for him, knocking him to the ground, with his nose taking a shot from an elbow, or the but of the gun or a forearm on the way down. Once down, a struggle for the gun ensues, but TM fails to get it away from GZ, who, as soon as he can get the barrel pointed the right way, squeezes the trigger.

The fact that you can't imagine such a scenario makes it clear that you're either unwilling or unable to analyze the scenario objectively. The number of ways we could have GZ taking a shot to the nose and scraping the back of his head with TM flailing his arms in a struggle for the gun are virtually infinite.
Your assertion that the only possible way for GZ to take a shot to the nose and scrape his head is for TM to punch him and conduct a cinematic beatdown pretty much proves exactly where you're coming from.

bunkerbuster

pops india: you're just being silly.

boris

"Once down, a struggle for the gun ensues"

GZ and the eyewitness tell a different story. The eyewitness saw TM throwing punches at GZ head. GZ's head looks exactly like it had been punched multiple times.

That's what's known as evidence.

The bubu version is what's known as bullshit.

boris

Creepy bububullshit.

poppa india

The legal idea of reasonable doubt is silly?

Cecil Turner

Ah, the riveting discussions one misses.

    Facts:
  • GZ lost sight of TM within feet of home, yet ran into him more than a minute later
  • Adversaries were fairly evenly matched (WT advantage GZ, HT/reach advantage TM)
  • TM's knuckles were scuffed/abraded, but no DNA under fingernails, GZ's hands were pristine
  • GZ's nose was broken, back of head bloodied and bruised, no such marks on TM
  • GZ maintained control of firearm

Analysis: TM either turned back or waited for GZ, in either case strongly suggesting he initiated the encounter (bolstered by Dee Dee's story that TM spoke first). Despite being armed, GZ was quickly subdued by TM, strongly suggesting he was surprised (i.e., sucker punched). His injuries indicate he was at least momentarily stunned. If GZ had been ready (e.g., with brandished weapon), he should have shot TM as he closed, but he didn't. In any event, if he'd had the weapon in his hand as he was knocked down, he would certainly have lost control of it, yet he didn't. (All of the above exactly matches GZ's version.) After being knocked down, GZ was entirely defensive, TM entirely offensive. DNA suggests TM probably did not open his hands, either to push GZ's head down or to grab for gun; or if so, only very briefly. (Which suggests GZ embellished about the final moments.)

Conclusion: TM confronted and (after brief verbal altercation) sucker-punched GZ. The gun remained holstered for ~30 seconds while TM beat up GZ, who defended himself clumsily. GZ recovered enough to remember his gun, drew and fired, probably as TM was still punching.

Now, there's still room for those who want to argue GZ acted criminally, either in recklessly setting up a situation that would likely end in tragedy, or in overreacting to a minimal threat (after all, in 30 seconds of fisticuffs, TM hadn't managed to do much in the way of damage). I think the doubt is well beyond reasonable, but there's a plausible argument. But if the going-in position is that he must've engineered a gunfight wherein he first gets his nose broken . . . or fanciful recreations where he's menacing the poor teen pleading for his life, then pounds his own head on the sidewalk and flops in the grass, breaking his own nose and putting grass stains on TM's knees . . . well, not so much.

boris

IIRC there was trace on GZ's right sleeve consistent with GZ using his right arm to block TM reaching for the gun.

Maybe defense will highlight that.

bgates

Your assertion that the only possible way for GZ to take a shot to the nose and scrape his head is

...never mentioned in anything I wrote. That's simply the most plausible way things happened, and the only way that's consistent with the known facts of the case.

The number of ways we could have GZ taking a shot to the nose and scraping the back of his head with TM flailing his arms in a struggle for the gun are virtually infinite

but the number of plausible ways that are consistent with the known facts is zero. You can't look to an observer like you're having a bit of ground & pound while you're actually trying to grab something away from your opponent/victim, any more than you can appear to be doing jumping jacks while you're actually strangling somebody.

pretty much proves exactly where you're coming from:

Earth.

hgh

testosterone for sale no prescription

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame