Zimmerman_Martin Trial

[UNT90]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/14/whistle-blowing-state-official-fired-after-testimony-in-zimmerman-trial/?intcmp=trending

Pretty disgusting behavior by the prosecution. They should have gone out of their way to avoid a Brady violation. They obviously were not too concerned about it. But, then again, when a governor decides a political prosecution must occur, I guess you just do anything to win.

[FirefightnRick]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/14/whistle-blowing-state-official-fired-after-testimony-in-zimmerman-trial/?intcmp=trending

Pretty disgusting behavior by the prosecution. They should have gone out of their way to avoid a Brady violation. They obviously were not too concerned about it. But, then again, when a governor decides a political prosecution must occur, I guess you just do anything to win.

Holy crap they are crooked. That's amazing.

Ben Kruidbos, the state attorneys office IT director, was reportedly fired in the wake of rendering testimony during a June 6 hearing that was potentially damaging to the prosecution regarding cell phone photos and text messages discovered on Trayvon Martins phone that were not furnished to defense attorneys.

The Orlando Sentinel reports Kruidbos received a scathing letter from State Attorney Angela Corey's office Friday morning, calling him untrustworthy and adding he "can never again be trusted to step foot in this office."

However, the Associated Press reports that Kruidbos received the pink slip Thursday, which accused him of misconduct and violating numerous state attorneys office policies and procedures. Specifically, the letter reportedly accused him of disclosing confidential information, sabotage of property or equipment, and misuse of equipment.

The cell phone photos reportedly depict, among other things, a clump of jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants, as well as a hand menacingly holding a semiautomatic pistol.

Rick

Edited July 14, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[emmitt01]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/14/whistle-blowing-state-official-fired-after-testimony-in-zimmerman-trial/?intcmp=trending

Pretty disgusting behavior by the prosecution. They should have gone out of their way to avoid a Brady violation. They obviously were not too concerned about it. But, then again, when a governor decides a political prosecution must occur, I guess you just do anything to win.

While we're on the subject of "disgusting" and making sure to portray only the Trayvon Martin supporters as "playing the race card" let's not let THIS go unnoticed....

http://www.mediaite.com/online/george-zimmermans-brother-pimping-comparison-of-trayvon-martin-and-alleged-georgia-baby-killer/

Or this...

http://gawker.com/zimmermans-brother-calls-trayvon-martin-a-gun-running-774157551

You know, since we're all so concerned with preventing the sensationalization of this case.

[UNT90]

While we're on the subject of "disgusting" and making sure to portray only the Trayvon Martin supporters as "playing the race card" let's not let THIS go unnoticed....

http://www.mediaite.com/online/george-zimmermans-brother-pimping-comparison-of-trayvon-martin-and-alleged-georgia-baby-killer/

Or this...

http://gawker.com/zimmermans-brother-calls-trayvon-martin-a-gun-running-774157551

You know, since we're all so concerned with preventing the sensationalization of this case.

Actually, my post had to do with a specific legal point.

But I agree with you. Zimmerman and his family should keep their mouths shut. Some people want thieiir 15 minutes, and Zimmermam's family has had to wait a long time for it.

Edited July 14, 2013 by UNT90

[FirefightnRick]

I have a question.

In regards to all the "Lean" manufacturing and dealing conversations on Martin's Facebook page, do you recall if any of that was introduced as evidence?

Im just curious, does anyone know an answer to this question?

Rick

Edited July 15, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[All About UNT]

I want to live in this neighborhood

[emmitt01]

The facts of the case are pretty simple. Zimmerman legally followed him. Trayvon beat the crap out Zimmerman. Zimmerman ended the assault with a single shot while defending himself. There was no case. Government forced a crappy case. Government loses to reason. The media will find a new story in 30 seconds. Case closed.

I love that it's ever so "simple" and everyone knows the true narrative...when in fact what Zimmerman supporters have clung to this entire time, and the jury used to reach their verdict, is that there was NOBODY who is still breathing (and not named George Zimmerman) who can say conclusively what happened.

Let me play what if too (and couch it in a manner that seems definitive since that's apparently ok for the purposes of this thread). If my daughter, when she reached her teens, is walking home from the store and realizes that there is a vehicle following her I would expect that she might duck between a few houses to elude what she could only assume is a pedophile or worse. Then, if she continues to walk and realizes that this vehicle is still behind her, I would expect that she would get on the phone (hopefully to me) and might have a few choice words to say about the guy who's following her. And then, if that person decides to live out his lifelong fantasy of playing cop (though he's been rejected by actual police departments) and approaches my daughter to grab her and detain her because she's "suspicious" then I would expect that her response would be to beat the living shit out of the strange man who has accosted her. And I would condone, expect, and encourage her to contine beating him until the threat is subdued. And if he shot my daughter and killed her I'd expect that he would concoct some outlandish story about how she lay in wait to ambush him because he's embarrassed about getting owned by a teenage girl.

And I'd expect that he would be convicted or that he had better learn how to hide from me for the rest of his natural life.

Edited July 15, 2013 by emmitt01

[THOR]

so because you don't agree with the justice system's verdict, then it's wrong???

you can't have it both ways...

[emmitt01]

so because you don't agree with the justice system's verdict, then it's wrong???

you can't have it both ways...

Not sure who this is directed towards. If it's in response to my post I wonder if you actually read my post because nowhere did I say I disagree with their verdict.

Given what they had to work with I don't see how they could have convicted him. Likewise, though, given the FACTS available, I'm not sure how we have people who continue to paint Trayvon Martin as the mindless miscreant who ambushed this poor cop wanna-be and left Zimmerman no other choice but to kill him.

[Varsity]

The verifiable aspects of Zimmerman's story check out, the forensics check out, the police did not want to arrest him -- they had no probable cause. The police chief was fired and the mayor leaned on by the White House which helped politicize the case. From the start, the prosecution could not make it's case.

Emmitt, if you had anything that could help the prosecution, you should have offered it. But you didn't because you don't so ....

[THOR]

And I'd expect that he would be convicted or that he had better learn how to hide from me for the rest of his natural life.

it was in response to you based on this line...you have expectations of him being guilty...not of having the justice system works it's course...

and how can there be facts available that the prosecution wouldn't use in trying him? i would think that a prosecution would use all facts available...

[FirefightnRick]

I have a question.

In regards to all the "Lean" manufacturing and dealing conversations on Martin's Facebook page, do you recall if any of that was introduced as evidence?

Does anyone know an answer to this question?

Rick

[emmitt01]

it was in response to you based on this line...you have expectations of him being guilty...not of having the justice system works it's course...

and how can there be facts available that the prosecution wouldn't use in trying him? i would think that a prosecution would use all facts available...

You miss my point entirely. IF I'm allowed to assume the hypothetical narrative that I put forth (and there are no facts put forth to rebutt it) then the jury could/should have convicted him. Likewise, IF Zimmerman's version of facts is assumed to be true (again, no facts to counter it) then he was rightfully acquitted. All that is known is that Trayvon Martin got the upper hand in a struggle and Zimmerman shot him. What happened prior to that nobody alive not named George Zimmerman can say.

I have zero problem with the verdict...I hope that's plain enough English for you. My issue is, and always has been, with the universal acceptance of the deceased party in this case being some over-aggressive thug who accosted an innocent do gooder. No gray, just the black and white depiction of Zimmerman's defense team. (And, no, that is not an attempt to inject race UNTLifer)

It's a lot like the O.J. case to me. The system worked because there was a trial, both sides presented their case, and a verdict was reached. (Or are we gonna say that one was different because in that instance we are smarter than the legal system?)

[UNTFan23]

Does anyone know an answer to this question?

Rick

I believe the answer is no. There were several pieces of evidence the defense wanted to enter but were not allowed to do so. I'm not sure what the judge's reason was but it might have to do with the fact that Trayvon Martin was not able to defend himself regarding much of the evidence the defense wanted to enter. Basically the judge was trying to prevent character assassination by the defense of a minor.

[THOR]

You miss my point entirely. IF I'm allowed to assume the hypothetical narrative that I put forth (and there are no facts put forth to rebutt it) then the jury could/should have convicted him. Likewise, IF Zimmerman's version of facts is assumed to be true (again, no facts to counter it) then he was rightfully acquitted. All that is known is that Trayvon Martin got the upper hand in a struggle and Zimmerman shot him. What happened prior to that nobody alive not named George Zimmerman can say.

I have zero problem with the verdict...I hope that's plain enough English for you. My issue is, and always has been, with the universal acceptance of the deceased party in this case being some over-aggressive thug who accosted an innocent do gooder. No gray, just the black and white depiction of Zimmerman's defense team. (And, no, that is not an attempt to inject race UNTLifer)

It's a lot like the O.J. case to me. The system worked because there was a trial, both sides presented their case, and a verdict was reached. (Or are we gonna say that one was different because in that instance we are smarter than the legal system?)

Got it...my bad...I guess I missed what you said and just responded to your ending statement.

[JesseMartin]

Okay, I thought I was pretty up to date on stuff like this but I guess not...what the heck is "lean"?

[FirefightnRick]

Okay, I thought I was pretty up to date on stuff like this but I guess not...what the heck is "lean"?

A cheap street drug made with codien, Arizona Tea or Sprite and Skittles or Jolly Rancher for added flavor. Here's a detailed blog (no idea how detailed or accurate it is),...but it covers it fairly well and more importantly, has screen shots of his conversations on Facebook discussing it.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/24/update-26-part-2-trayvon-martin-shooting-a-year-of-drug-use-culminates-in-predictable-violence/

Thank you Sean for the answer. I believe the toxicology report that showed he had marijuana in his blood was also not used due to the defense not wanting to character assassinatte, at least I think I read that?

Rick

Edited July 15, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[UNT90]

I love that it's ever so "simple" and everyone knows the true narrative...when in fact what Zimmerman supporters have clung to this entire time, and the jury used to reach their verdict, is that there was NOBODY who is still breathing (and not named George Zimmerman) who can say conclusively what happened.

Let me play what if too (and couch it in a manner that seems definitive since that's apparently ok for the purposes of this thread). If my daughter, when she reached her teens, is walking home from the store and realizes that there is a vehicle following her I would expect that she might duck between a few houses to elude what she could only assume is a pedophile or worse. Then, if she continues to walk and realizes that this vehicle is still behind her, I would expect that she would get on the phone (hopefully to me) and might have a few choice words to say about the guy who's following her. And then, if that person decides to live out his lifelong fantasy of playing cop (though he's been rejected by actual police departments) and approaches my daughter to grab her and detain her because she's "suspicious" then I would expect that her response would be to beat the living shit out of the strange man who has accosted her. And I would condone, expect, and encourage her to contine beating him until the threat is subdued. And if he shot my daughter and killed her I'd expect that he would concoct some outlandish story about how she lay in wait to ambush him because he's embarrassed about getting owned by a teenage girl.

And I'd expect that he would be convicted or that he had better learn how to hide from me for the rest of his natural life.

Terrible, terrible comparison.

Would your daughter utter a racial slur in her phone call and attack the guy following her?

Also, you say Zimmerman supporters like you either have to be a supporter of Martin, or else you are a supporter of Zimmerman.

How about supporting the truth?

Many on here were quick to point out that Zimmerman had to be a racist because he described Martin as a black male to the dispatcher. Of course, NBC edited the 911 tape to make it appear Zimmerman brought up the race of Martin. Even if he had, you dang well know that race is an identifier and every time you checked out with a suspicious person while you were on patrol, you notified dispatch of the race and sex of who you were out with.

Whole lot of truth coming from NBC.

Then everyone wanted to assume Zimmerman was on top of Martin because that's what the news media told them to assume. Those same people are on here now admitting that wasn't the case, but still trying to justify their point of view by saying "well, Zimmerman followed him, so it's his fault." No one wants to admit they are wrong .

Then these same people seized on the news reports that Zimmerman didn't have any injuries the night of the assault. The evidence CLEARLY showed this to be inaccurate.

Now you are taking to comparing what happened to a pedophile abducting a young girl. Pretty unbelievable, especially from someone who should know the law. Pedophiles are into pre-pubescents, which Martin wasn't. Prepubescents don't physically attack their offenders, which the jury, you know, the ones who saw ALL the evidence, clearly believe Martin did.

Oh, and pedophiles don't call the police department to tell the police they are following their victim.

Other than that, your post is..... Dead on?

Oh, and if I am what you call a Zimmerman supporter, I guess that makes you a Martin supporter, because it's just so last generation to support, oh, I don't know, the truth?

Edited July 15, 2013 by UNT90

[UNT90]

Does anyone know an answer to this question?

Rick

None of Martin's Facebook account was allowed into evidence at trial. Also not allowed in was the fact that he tested positive for small amounts if marihuana at autopsy or the information from his cell phones.

The judge made the right decision. This wasn't about Martin's past, it's about what happened that night.

But, Martins Facebook account and telephone images are why you probably will not see a civil action brought by the Martin family against Zimmerman. All the ugliness would come out, on both sides, in that trial.

Edited July 15, 2013 by UNT90

[MeanGreenTexan]

I love that anyone who disagrees with the verdict is "emotional" or "swayed by the liberal media". Neither of these fit me.

If you knew me, you'd know I'm one of the most even-keel people on earth and that media does not sway me anywhere.

So what I also see/hear from alot of the "stoic", "fox news watchers" (because that must be what all of you are?)... is that Martin could have ran away from Zimmerman or called the police himself. Couldn't the same thing be said about Zimmerman once he followed (because we KNOW he followed) Martin and was confronted by him... if that's the way it really went down?

Bottom line:

Kid walking home from the store. No one knows his intentions. He could have been walking straight home. He could have been going to rob someone. He could have been practicing jazz hands for the school musical audition... We don't know.

Neighborhood watch guy sees something he feels is threatening to his neighborhood. He follows this person against advice (and who cares if a 911 operator has the authority to say "no". They did, and Zimmerman disregarded the advice). THIS IS WHERE WE CAN STOP. THIS MAKES HIM THE AGGRESSOR. THIS IS SIMPLE. CAN WE AGREE HERE?

From there, all we know is a scuffle ensued and a boy died.

Details could be that Zimmerman approached him kindly and Martin jumped him and began beating him mercilessly.

Details could be that Zimmerman approached him aggressively and Martin was defending himself (and was successful until shot, would this not be standing his ground?).

We don't know.

I keep hearing that Martin could have called dialed 911 himself. I hear that he could have run away from Zimmerman. (could he? we don't know. Zimmerman may have run him down). Do those same arguments not count for Zimmerman? Could he not have run away? Could he not have redailed 911?

Instead, details (that no one knows, sans Zimmerman & Martin) between the end of the 911 call and the death of the boy skewed the focus of the case and drove a jury to issue a not guilty verdict (who's voice was on the tape screaming? Trayvon's girlfriend's testimony?).

It would be one thing if Zimmerman did not pursue Martin, and Martin came to him. That would be standing your ground. It's completely different when you pursue someone knowing you're armed. That's not "standing your ground", that's "looking for trouble".

Plus, Florida jurors are boneheads. I think the Casey Anthony trial proved that for us. Can we agree there?

Edited July 15, 2013 by MeanGreenTexan

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

[MeanGreenTexan]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

782.04.2.n sure is interesting...

[UNT90]

782.04.2.n sure is interesting...

Maybe you should read the Florida stalking statute:

http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/784.048

You can't apply your own definition of what you think the law is and then declare "well, I think he's guilty."

That's just an emotional reaction.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Maybe you should read the Florida stalking statute:

http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/784.048

You can't apply your own definition of what you think the law is and then declare "well, I think he's guilty."

That's just an emotional reaction.

784.048.1.a sure is interesting.

Edit: Again, not "emotional". Just reading comprehension.

Edited July 15, 2013 by MeanGreenTexan

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

782.04.2.n sure is interesting...

...until you read about what it is and realize it doesn't apply here:

Aggravated stalking:

willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury;

or willfully, maliciously, repeatedly follows or harasses minor under 16;

or after injunction for protection or any court-imposed prohibition of conduct, knowingly, willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person.

Edited July 15, 2013 by The Fake Lonnie Finch