Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[parasaurolophus]

911 operators are trained to deal with a variety if emergency situations. Police dispatchers are a big step down in training requirements and responsibilities.

I have no idea how true this is. But assuming that it is true: are you suggesting that when this police dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that", this represented an amatuerish response which a trained 911 operator would never have uttered?

Look at it from this perspective Tim...Lets say there is a cop and a black yute. They were in the street face to face and the black yute had just spray painted something and the police officer stumbled upon him. The yute put down the can of spray paint and started to walk away. The police officer says to the yute "Son we don't need you to walk away." The 17 year old still keeps walking. The police officer runs after him stands in front of him and says "We really really don't need you to run walk away." The yute simply keeps walking. Now the police officer tackles him an dthe youth hits his head on the ground and the cop charges him not only with vandalism but also resisting arrest.Can you honestly say that you wouldn't argue that there shouldn't be a resisting arrest charge because the cop didn't specifically say he was under arrest and he was to put his hands behind his back and stop moving immediately?

 

[Otis]

Tim's claim that it goes to Zimmerman's credibility is a smokescreen. What he's really doing is trying to use Zimmerman's failure to follow the "instruction" as a "bad act" that somehow goes to the "depraved mind" element of the murder 2 statute. It doesn't.

If you want to disagree with my position, then do so. But don't call me a liar. I meant exactly what I wrote.

I believe you believe what you said. I just believe you are fooling yourself because not following a non-police officer's suggestion has nothing whatsoever to do with the credibility of Zimmerman's testimony.

So I'm smokescreening myself?

"Fooling" would be a more appropriate term. Like Investigator Gilbreath, I could have used many words and I have a lot of evidence that isn't laid out here.

Sure, OK. Well again, let me reiterate that if I am fooling myself about this point, then so is Zimmerman's defense. At the bond hearing, they already disputed the idea that Zimmerman disobeyed the police dispatcher's instruction/suggestion. Why did they do this, and why will they do it again at trial? Because they know that if the jury thinks that Zimmerman ignored what the dispatcher said, it will hurt Zimmerman's credibility. This is clear to me, clear to the defense, clear to the prosecution, and it will be clear to the jury as well. Practically the only place it is not clear is right here, with some of you.

I don't understand this argument at all. His following or not of the police dispatcher's instruction seems pretty irrelevant to me.

 

[Christo]

Tim's claim that it goes to Zimmerman's credibility is a smokescreen. What he's really doing is trying to use Zimmerman's failure to follow the "instruction" as a "bad act" that somehow goes to the "depraved mind" element of the murder 2 statute. It doesn't.

If you want to disagree with my position, then do so. But don't call me a liar. I meant exactly what I wrote.

I believe you believe what you said. I just believe you are fooling yourself because not following a non-police officer's suggestion has nothing whatsoever to do with the credibility of Zimmerman's testimony.

So I'm smokescreening myself?

"Fooling" would be a more appropriate term. Like Investigator Gilbreath, I could have used many words and I have a lot of evidence that isn't laid out here.

Sure, OK. Well again, let me reiterate that if I am fooling myself about this point, then so is Zimmerman's defense. At the bond hearing, they already disputed the idea that Zimmerman disobeyed the police dispatcher's instruction/suggestion. Why did they do this, and why will they do it again at trial? Because they know that if the jury thinks that Zimmerman ignored what the dispatcher said, it will hurt Zimmerman's credibility. This is clear to me, clear to the defense, clear to the prosecution, and it will be clear to the jury as well. Practically the only place it is not clear is right here, with some of you.

 

[Otis]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Absolutely. This is a no brainer.

x100

 

[timschochet]

911 operators are trained to deal with a variety if emergency situations. Police dispatchers are a big step down in training requirements and responsibilities.

I have no idea how true this is. But assuming that it is true: are you suggesting that when this police dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that", this represented an amatuerish response which a trained 911 operator would never have uttered?

Look at it from this perspective Tim...Lets say there is a cop and a black yute. They were in the street face to face and the black yute had just spray painted something and the police officer stumbled upon him. The yute put down the can of spray paint and started to walk away. The police officer says to the yute "Son we don't need you to walk away." The 17 year old still keeps walking. The police officer runs after him stands in front of him and says "We really really don't need you to run walk away." The yute simply keeps walking. Now the police officer tackles him an dthe youth hits his head on the ground and the cop charges him not only with vandalism but also resisting arrest.Can you honestly say that you wouldn't argue that there shouldn't be a resisting arrest charge because the cop didn't specifically say he was under arrest and he was to put his hands behind his back and stop moving immediately?

1. Another terrible analogy.2. What is a yute?

 

[timschochet]

Tim's claim that it goes to Zimmerman's credibility is a smokescreen. What he's really doing is trying to use Zimmerman's failure to follow the "instruction" as a "bad act" that somehow goes to the "depraved mind" element of the murder 2 statute. It doesn't.

If you want to disagree with my position, then do so. But don't call me a liar. I meant exactly what I wrote.

I believe you believe what you said. I just believe you are fooling yourself because not following a non-police officer's suggestion has nothing whatsoever to do with the credibility of Zimmerman's testimony.

So I'm smokescreening myself?

"Fooling" would be a more appropriate term. Like Investigator Gilbreath, I could have used many words and I have a lot of evidence that isn't laid out here.

Sure, OK. Well again, let me reiterate that if I am fooling myself about this point, then so is Zimmerman's defense. At the bond hearing, they already disputed the idea that Zimmerman disobeyed the police dispatcher's instruction/suggestion. Why did they do this, and why will they do it again at trial? Because they know that if the jury thinks that Zimmerman ignored what the dispatcher said, it will hurt Zimmerman's credibility. This is clear to me, clear to the defense, clear to the prosecution, and it will be clear to the jury as well. Practically the only place it is not clear is right here, with some of you.

I don't understand this argument at all. His following or not of the police dispatcher's instruction seems pretty irrelevant to me.

Maybe to you. Not to the jury. Which is why the defense will dispute that it ever happened.

 

[parasaurolophus]

911 operators are trained to deal with a variety if emergency situations. Police dispatchers are a big step down in training requirements and responsibilities.

I have no idea how true this is. But assuming that it is true: are you suggesting that when this police dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that", this represented an amatuerish response which a trained 911 operator would never have uttered?

Look at it from this perspective Tim...Lets say there is a cop and a black yute. They were in the street face to face and the black yute had just spray painted something and the police officer stumbled upon him. The yute put down the can of spray paint and started to walk away. The police officer says to the yute "Son we don't need you to walk away." The 17 year old still keeps walking. The police officer runs after him stands in front of him and says "We really really don't need you to run walk away." The yute simply keeps walking. Now the police officer tackles him an dthe youth hits his head on the ground and the cop charges him not only with vandalism but also resisting arrest.Can you honestly say that you wouldn't argue that there shouldn't be a resisting arrest charge because the cop didn't specifically say he was under arrest and he was to put his hands behind his back and stop moving immediately?

1. Another terrible analogy.2. What is a yute?

A youth. It was a my cousin vinny reference.Why is it a terrible analogy?

 

[pantherclub]

The 911 operator argument can pretty much be ended by this. Its not what you think protocol is, its not what you think how much authority they have. ITs what the jury decides about it.

 

[Otis]

Posters in here are way too, uh -- prolific -- for me to even go back and find the discussion of the major thing that happened like a day ago, but what has been the reaction in here to Z's testimony at the bond hearing?

I thought he came across really well, and the prosecutor came off like an ########. Z seemed honestly sad for the family, and credible, and I love how the prosecutor tried to trip him up with BS ridiculous questions and he remained composed and direct and came out of it squeaky clean. Zimmerman was dynamite on the stand, I thought. If he is as credible/likeable at trial and takes the stand there, he'll be at a big advantage going in, at least in view of all the evidence we've learned so far.

ETA: link here

 

[timschochet]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Absolutely. This is a no brainer.

x100

100% irrelevant, since the prosecution will never imply that there was a requirement. That's not the point, which Christo keeps missing.

 

[Otis]

The 911 operator argument can pretty much be ended by this. Its not what you think protocol is, its not what you think how much authority they have. ITs what the jury decides about it.

Well there you have it.

 

[Otis]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Absolutely. This is a no brainer.

x100

100% irrelevant, since the prosecution will never imply that there was a requirement. That's not the point, which Christo keeps missing.

In 2 sentences or less, what is the point?

 

[identikit]

Posters in here are way too, uh -- prolific -- for me to even go back and find the discussion of the major thing that happened like a day ago, but what has been the reaction in here to Z's testimony at the bond hearing?

I thought he came across really well, and the prosecutor came off like an ########. Z seemed honestly sad for the family, and credible, and I love how the prosecutor tried to trip him up with BS ridiculous questions and he remained composed and direct and came out of it squeaky clean. Zimmerman was dynamite on the stand, I thought. If he is as credible/likeable at trial and takes the stand there, he'll be at a big advantage going in, at least in view of all the evidence we've learned so far.

ETA: link here

About what I saw too.The prosecutors (so far) came across as unprepared and mostly inept.

 

[identikit]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Absolutely. This is a no brainer.

x100

100% irrelevant, since the prosecution will never imply that there was a requirement. That's not the point, which Christo keeps missing.

In 2 sentences or less, what is the point?

Unpossible for Tim.

 

[Otis]

Tim's claim that it goes to Zimmerman's credibility is a smokescreen. What he's really doing is trying to use Zimmerman's failure to follow the "instruction" as a "bad act" that somehow goes to the "depraved mind" element of the murder 2 statute. It doesn't.

If you want to disagree with my position, then do so. But don't call me a liar. I meant exactly what I wrote.

I believe you believe what you said. I just believe you are fooling yourself because not following a non-police officer's suggestion has nothing whatsoever to do with the credibility of Zimmerman's testimony.

So I'm smokescreening myself?

"Fooling" would be a more appropriate term. Like Investigator Gilbreath, I could have used many words and I have a lot of evidence that isn't laid out here.

Sure, OK. Well again, let me reiterate that if I am fooling myself about this point, then so is Zimmerman's defense. At the bond hearing, they already disputed the idea that Zimmerman disobeyed the police dispatcher's instruction/suggestion. Why did they do this, and why will they do it again at trial? Because they know that if the jury thinks that Zimmerman ignored what the dispatcher said, it will hurt Zimmerman's credibility. This is clear to me, clear to the defense, clear to the prosecution, and it will be clear to the jury as well. Practically the only place it is not clear is right here, with some of you.

I don't understand this argument at all. His following or not of the police dispatcher's instruction seems pretty irrelevant to me.

Maybe to you. Not to the jury. Which is why the defense will dispute that it ever happened.

How can you be so sure of this? Have you spent a lot of time trying cases in front of juries?

 

[timschochet]

Posters in here are way too, uh -- prolific -- for me to even go back and find the discussion of the major thing that happened like a day ago, but what has been the reaction in here to Z's testimony at the bond hearing?

I thought he came across really well, and the prosecutor came off like an ########. Z seemed honestly sad for the family, and credible, and I love how the prosecutor tried to trip him up with BS ridiculous questions and he remained composed and direct and came out of it squeaky clean. Zimmerman was dynamite on the stand, I thought. If he is as credible/likeable at trial and takes the stand there, he'll be at a big advantage going in, at least in view of all the evidence we've learned so far.

ETA: link here

I agree with you, and I mentioned it at the time. There were several things we learned at the bond hearing, almost all of them to Zimmerman's advantage, and his credibility and intelligence on the witness stand was one of the most important. Whether or not he can sustain that facing a prepared and lengthy cross-examination remains a big question. Chaos Commish, however, brought up some points critical of Zimmerman's performance on the stand which I did not consider at the time. You can find these on the previous page.

 

[Otis]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Absolutely. This is a no brainer.

x100

100% irrelevant, since the prosecution will never imply that there was a requirement. That's not the point, which Christo keeps missing.

In 2 sentences or less, what is the point?

Unpossible for Tim.

He'll need to comply, that's all the attention I am willing to give on this, and beyond that, if you can't explain it in less than a full paragraph, then it's a crappy argument.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Cliff notes?

 

[identikit]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Absolutely. This is a no brainer.

x100

100% irrelevant, since the prosecution will never imply that there was a requirement. That's not the point, which Christo keeps missing.

In 2 sentences or less, what is the point?

Unpossible for Tim.

He'll need to comply, that's all the attention I am willing to give on this, and beyond that, if you can't explain it in less than a full paragraph, then it's a crappy argument.

That's where he lives.

 

[timschochet]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Absolutely. This is a no brainer.

x100

100% irrelevant, since the prosecution will never imply that there was a requirement. That's not the point, which Christo keeps missing.

In 2 sentences or less, what is the point?

If the jury believes that Zimmerman didn't follow the instruction/suggestion by the 911 dispatcher, I believe they will be less inclined to believe Zimmerman's entire story of self-defense. The issue of whether Zimmerman was actually legally REQUIRED to follow it has nothing to do with this, which is why Christo's comments are irrelevant.

 

[identikit]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Absolutely. This is a no brainer.

x100

100% irrelevant, since the prosecution will never imply that there was a requirement. That's not the point, which Christo keeps missing.

In 2 sentences or less, what is the point?

If the jury believes that Zimmerman didn't follow the instruction/suggestion by the 911 dispatcher, I believe they will be less inclined to believe Zimmerman's entire story of self-defense. The issue of whether Zimmerman was actually legally REQUIRED to follow it has nothing to do with this, which is why Christo's comments are irrelevant.

3

 

[timschochet]

Tim's claim that it goes to Zimmerman's credibility is a smokescreen. What he's really doing is trying to use Zimmerman's failure to follow the "instruction" as a "bad act" that somehow goes to the "depraved mind" element of the murder 2 statute. It doesn't.

If you want to disagree with my position, then do so. But don't call me a liar. I meant exactly what I wrote.

I believe you believe what you said. I just believe you are fooling yourself because not following a non-police officer's suggestion has nothing whatsoever to do with the credibility of Zimmerman's testimony.

So I'm smokescreening myself?

"Fooling" would be a more appropriate term. Like Investigator Gilbreath, I could have used many words and I have a lot of evidence that isn't laid out here.

Sure, OK. Well again, let me reiterate that if I am fooling myself about this point, then so is Zimmerman's defense. At the bond hearing, they already disputed the idea that Zimmerman disobeyed the police dispatcher's instruction/suggestion. Why did they do this, and why will they do it again at trial? Because they know that if the jury thinks that Zimmerman ignored what the dispatcher said, it will hurt Zimmerman's credibility. This is clear to me, clear to the defense, clear to the prosecution, and it will be clear to the jury as well. Practically the only place it is not clear is right here, with some of you.

I don't understand this argument at all. His following or not of the police dispatcher's instruction seems pretty irrelevant to me.

Maybe to you. Not to the jury. Which is why the defense will dispute that it ever happened.

How can you be so sure of this? Have you spent a lot of time trying cases in front of juries?

I have no experience with juries. I'm sure of this because I watched the defense at the bond hearing. They already challenged the notion that Zimmerman disobeyed the police dispatcher.

 

[Otis]

Posters in here are way too, uh -- prolific -- for me to even go back and find the discussion of the major thing that happened like a day ago, but what has been the reaction in here to Z's testimony at the bond hearing?

I thought he came across really well, and the prosecutor came off like an ########. Z seemed honestly sad for the family, and credible, and I love how the prosecutor tried to trip him up with BS ridiculous questions and he remained composed and direct and came out of it squeaky clean. Zimmerman was dynamite on the stand, I thought. If he is as credible/likeable at trial and takes the stand there, he'll be at a big advantage going in, at least in view of all the evidence we've learned so far.

ETA: link here

I agree with you, and I mentioned it at the time. There were several things we learned at the bond hearing, almost all of them to Zimmerman's advantage, and his credibility and intelligence on the witness stand was one of the most important. Whether or not he can sustain that facing a prepared and lengthy cross-examination remains a big question. Chaos Commish, however, brought up some points critical of Zimmerman's performance on the stand which I did not consider at the time. You can find these on the previous page.

Just read these comments, didn't find them particularly compelling. This hearing was a huge win for Zimmerman, regardless of whether Chaos Commish thinks it was mean to express his sorrow to the family even though they didn't want to hear it. The family, with their rush to the USPTO to trademark catch phrases with their son's name while the body is still warm, and their full-on media blitz (how many times have they appeared on Anderson Cooper already?), isn't making the most compelling case in the world for my sympathy anyway.

 

[timschochet]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Absolutely. This is a no brainer.

x100

100% irrelevant, since the prosecution will never imply that there was a requirement. That's not the point, which Christo keeps missing.

In 2 sentences or less, what is the point?

If the jury believes that Zimmerman didn't follow the instruction/suggestion by the 911 dispatcher, I believe they will be less inclined to believe Zimmerman's entire story of self-defense. The issue of whether Zimmerman was actually legally REQUIRED to follow it has nothing to do with this, which is why Christo's comments are irrelevant.

3

Cpunt it again.

 

[Christo]

Tim, even if it's the defense's factual position that Zimmerman followed the operator's advice they are still going to argue the legal position that whatever Zimmerman did, he wasn't required to follow that advice.

Do you know why? It's because there could be people who--whatever Zimmerman testifies he did--decide that Zimmerman ignored the operator's advice.

There will be a statement in the closing similar to this: You heard the tape where the operator suggested that it wasn't necessary for Mr. Zimmerman to follow Mr. Martin. He said "OK." You also heard Mr. Zimmerman testify that he, in fact, stopped following Mr. Martin at that point and returned to his truck. Even if you don't believe Mr. Zimmerman, and for whatever reason think that the operator's advice was actually an instruction and that Mr. Zimmerman did continue to follow Mr. Martin, the judge is going to instruct you that the law did not require Mr. Zimmerman to stop following Mr. Martin. What you would have done, or what you believe Mr. Zimmerman should have done is irrelevant for the purpose of this trial. All that matters is whether Mr. Zimmerman broke the law when he shot Mr. Martin.

 

[Otis]

Tim's claim that it goes to Zimmerman's credibility is a smokescreen. What he's really doing is trying to use Zimmerman's failure to follow the "instruction" as a "bad act" that somehow goes to the "depraved mind" element of the murder 2 statute. It doesn't.

If you want to disagree with my position, then do so. But don't call me a liar. I meant exactly what I wrote.

I believe you believe what you said. I just believe you are fooling yourself because not following a non-police officer's suggestion has nothing whatsoever to do with the credibility of Zimmerman's testimony.

So I'm smokescreening myself?

"Fooling" would be a more appropriate term. Like Investigator Gilbreath, I could have used many words and I have a lot of evidence that isn't laid out here.

Sure, OK. Well again, let me reiterate that if I am fooling myself about this point, then so is Zimmerman's defense. At the bond hearing, they already disputed the idea that Zimmerman disobeyed the police dispatcher's instruction/suggestion. Why did they do this, and why will they do it again at trial? Because they know that if the jury thinks that Zimmerman ignored what the dispatcher said, it will hurt Zimmerman's credibility. This is clear to me, clear to the defense, clear to the prosecution, and it will be clear to the jury as well. Practically the only place it is not clear is right here, with some of you.

I don't understand this argument at all. His following or not of the police dispatcher's instruction seems pretty irrelevant to me.

Maybe to you. Not to the jury. Which is why the defense will dispute that it ever happened.

How can you be so sure of this? Have you spent a lot of time trying cases in front of juries?

I have no experience with juries. I'm sure of this because I watched the defense at the bond hearing. They already challenged the notion that Zimmerman disobeyed the police dispatcher.

You didn't answer the question. See my bolding. I guess you're conceding though, since you admit you have "no experience with juries."As to what the defense "disputed," seems to me they left it open ended and not commit to what their positions will be at trial. Which is exactly what you would want to do here.

 

[identikit]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Absolutely. This is a no brainer.

x100

100% irrelevant, since the prosecution will never imply that there was a requirement. That's not the point, which Christo keeps missing.

In 2 sentences or less, what is the point?

If the jury believes that Zimmerman didn't follow the instruction/suggestion by the 911 dispatcher, I believe they will be less inclined to believe Zimmerman's entire story of self-defense. The issue of whether Zimmerman was actually legally REQUIRED to follow it has nothing to do with this, which is why Christo's comments are irrelevant.

3

Cpunt it again.

run-ons.

 

[Otis]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Absolutely. This is a no brainer.

x100

100% irrelevant, since the prosecution will never imply that there was a requirement. That's not the point, which Christo keeps missing.

In 2 sentences or less, what is the point?

If the jury believes that Zimmerman didn't follow the instruction/suggestion by the 911 dispatcher, I believe they will be less inclined to believe Zimmerman's entire story of self-defense. The issue of whether Zimmerman was actually legally REQUIRED to follow it has nothing to do with this, which is why Christo's comments are irrelevant.

Bolded sums this up. I think your belief is wrong.

 

[timschochet]

Posters in here are way too, uh -- prolific -- for me to even go back and find the discussion of the major thing that happened like a day ago, but what has been the reaction in here to Z's testimony at the bond hearing?

I thought he came across really well, and the prosecutor came off like an ########. Z seemed honestly sad for the family, and credible, and I love how the prosecutor tried to trip him up with BS ridiculous questions and he remained composed and direct and came out of it squeaky clean. Zimmerman was dynamite on the stand, I thought. If he is as credible/likeable at trial and takes the stand there, he'll be at a big advantage going in, at least in view of all the evidence we've learned so far.

ETA: link here

I agree with you, and I mentioned it at the time. There were several things we learned at the bond hearing, almost all of them to Zimmerman's advantage, and his credibility and intelligence on the witness stand was one of the most important. Whether or not he can sustain that facing a prepared and lengthy cross-examination remains a big question. Chaos Commish, however, brought up some points critical of Zimmerman's performance on the stand which I did not consider at the time. You can find these on the previous page.

Just read these comments, didn't find them particularly compelling. This hearing was a huge win for Zimmerman, regardless of whether Chaos Commish thinks it was mean to express his sorrow to the family even though they didn't want to hear it. The family, with their rush to the USPTO to trademark catch phrases with their son's name while the body is still warm, and their full-on media blitz (how many times have they appeared on Anderson Cooper already?), isn't making the most compelling case in the world for my sympathy anyway.

I wouldn't expect them to. You've made very few comments in this thread, but the ones you have made have been all pro-Zimmerman. You were especially outraged, IIRC, at the fact that the Martin parents trademarked their son's name and image to prevent outsiders from ripping them off. I found this to be a perfectly reasonable decision on their part, so we obviously disagree rather strongly on that point.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, even if it's the defense's factual position that Zimmerman followed the operator's advice they are still going to argue the legal position that whatever Zimmerman did, he wasn't required to follow that advice.Do you know why? It's because there could be people who--whatever Zimmerman testifies he did--decide that Zimmerman ignored the operator's advice.There will be a statement in the closing similar to this: You heard the tape where the operator suggested that it wasn't necessary for Mr. Zimmerman to follow Mr. Martin. He said "OK." You also heard Mr. Zimmerman testify that he, in fact, stopped following Mr. Martin at that point and returned to his truck. Even if you don't believe Mr. Zimmerman, and for whatever reason think that the operator's advice was actually an instruction and that Mr. Zimmerman did continue to follow Mr. Martin, the judge is going to instruct you that the law did not require Mr. Zimmerman to stop following Mr. Martin. What you would have done, or what you believe Mr. Zimmerman should have done is irrelevant for the purpose of this trial. All that matters is whether Mr. Zimmerman broke the law when he shot Mr. Martin.

I'm sure you're right. I'm sure they will make that argument. which is very reasonable.However, that is not the two main arguments that you and others have made in this thread regarding this subject matter. The two arguments that you and others keep reiterating are:1. "We don't need you to do this" is not an instruction. 2. The police dispatcher is not a trained person with authority. I have said all along that these two arguments will be unconvincing to a jury and the defense will never make them. That's what I've been disputing all along, NOT the issue of whether Zimmerman was required to obey the dispatcher.

 

[renesauz]

When you see someone walking in the dark with a hoodie, you see one thing. When they are on top of you kicking your ###, you might have a different opinion. Zimmerman was interviewed multiple times by the police, there will be'apparent contradictions. The human brain is not that good at recalling every details of an event and we tend to fill in the missing parts. If we want to call people liars, how about the Martin family. One day saying all they want is an arrest, now crying about bond being set too low. It is tragic all the way around, but this lynching of Zimmerman, and that is exactly what it is, makes me sick.. The masses will not be happy until they are given Zimmerman's head.

The Martin family lied about a he&^% of a lot more than this. "Innocent little boy" my #%%%$&

 

[jon_mx]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Absolutely. This is a no brainer.

x100

100% irrelevant, since the prosecution will never imply that there was a requirement. That's not the point, which Christo keeps missing.

In 2 sentences or less, what is the point?

Unpossible for Tim.

He'll need to comply, that's all the attention I am willing to give on this, and beyond that, if you can't explain it in less than a full paragraph, then it's a crappy argument.

You do realize what Tim considers a full paragraph. Hell, two sentences could be a 1000 words. With Tim you need to specify a character count.

 

[identikit]

If the prosecution tries to imply (because they can't come and and say it) Zimmerman was required to follow the operators instruction you better believe I'd counter the argument--it'd be malpractice not to. And I'm having the judge give an instruction to the jury as well. You can't let the other side get away with claiming that your client was required to do something when he wasn't.

Absolutely. This is a no brainer.

x100

100% irrelevant, since the prosecution will never imply that there was a requirement. That's not the point, which Christo keeps missing.

In 2 sentences or less, what is the point?

Unpossible for Tim.

He'll need to comply, that's all the attention I am willing to give on this, and beyond that, if you can't explain it in less than a full paragraph, then it's a crappy argument.

You do realize what Tim considers a full paragraph. Hell, two sentences could be a 1000 words. With Tim you need to specify a character count.

Twitter rule.Tim is the anti-twitter.

 

[renesauz]

When you see someone walking in the dark with a hoodie, you see one thing. When they are on top of you kicking your ###, you might have a different opinion. Zimmerman was interviewed multiple times by the police, there will be'apparent contradictions. The human brain is not that good at recalling every details of an event and we tend to fill in the missing parts. If we want to call people liars, how about the Martin family. One day saying all they want is an arrest, now crying about bond being set too low. It is tragic all the way around, but this lynching of Zimmerman, and that is exactly what it is, makes me sick.. The masses will not be happy until they are given Zimmerman's head.

You would look like the bigger man in this thread if you just conceded a point here and there. Even tho i think zimmerman was a jackwagon for causing treys death i also can now see that this case can go either way based on some of the evidence and or lack thereof.To say that zimmerman changing details in his story in front of the whole world was not a big deal is just plain stubborn on your part.

While you're correct, you should realize it will happen. The cops and the prosecution are gonna ask or have asked a billion questions a billion different ways. Some inconsitancies are inevitable, and human memory is hardly infallible, especially after hearing 10 other people describe the same events 10 differant ways from multiple persepctives. A few minor inconsistancies shouldn't cause any reasonable person to deem him "unreliable"...just human. If the basic story is unchanged and fits the known facts.....

 

[jon_mx]

When you see someone walking in the dark with a hoodie, you see one thing. When they are on top of you kicking your ###, you might have a different opinion. Zimmerman was interviewed multiple times by the police, there will be'apparent contradictions. The human brain is not that good at recalling every details of an event and we tend to fill in the missing parts. If we want to call people liars, how about the Martin family. One day saying all they want is an arrest, now crying about bond being set too low. It is tragic all the way around, but this lynching of Zimmerman, and that is exactly what it is, makes me sick.. The masses will not be happy until they are given Zimmerman's head.

The Martin family lied about a he&^% of a lot more than this. "Innocent little boy" my #%%%$&

My intent was the term should not be used. Too much inflamatory rhetoric being thrown around in particular from the anti-Z crowd.

 

[renesauz]

911 operators are trained to deal with a variety if emergency situations. Police dispatchers are a big step down in training requirements and responsibilities.

I have no idea how true this is. But assuming that it is true: are you suggesting that when this police dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that", this represented an amatuerish response which a trained 911 operator would never have uttered?

I know you're not asking me, but I would think a trained 911 operator would avoid making ambiguous, wishy-washy statements if the intent was to communicate a directive.

I really don't regard this statement as wishy washy or ambiguous at all, frankly. From the moment I first read it, I had no doubt whatsoever as to what the dispatcher was saying. I still don't, despite all of the arguments being made here.

But an awful lot of other people do Tim. Can't you see this? Are ALL OF US unreasonable in failing to see this as an order?You could be right that the operator meant it as an order, and still be wrong if significant numbers of people don't see it that way. If a lot of people think it's ambiguous...than it's ambiguous...whether you think it is or not.

 

[timschochet]

911 operators are trained to deal with a variety if emergency situations. Police dispatchers are a big step down in training requirements and responsibilities.

I have no idea how true this is. But assuming that it is true: are you suggesting that when this police dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that", this represented an amatuerish response which a trained 911 operator would never have uttered?

I know you're not asking me, but I would think a trained 911 operator would avoid making ambiguous, wishy-washy statements if the intent was to communicate a directive.

I really don't regard this statement as wishy washy or ambiguous at all, frankly. From the moment I first read it, I had no doubt whatsoever as to what the dispatcher was saying. I still don't, despite all of the arguments being made here.

But an awful lot of other people do Tim. Can't you see this? Are ALL OF US unreasonable in failing to see this as an order?You could be right that the operator meant it as an order, and still be wrong if significant numbers of people don't see it that way. If a lot of people think it's ambiguous...than it's ambiguous...whether you think it is or not.

I don't regard my own point of view as the only reasonable option. Don't confuse me with Christo.

 

[Christo]

Tim, even if it's the defense's factual position that Zimmerman followed the operator's advice they are still going to argue the legal position that whatever Zimmerman did, he wasn't required to follow that advice.Do you know why? It's because there could be people who--whatever Zimmerman testifies he did--decide that Zimmerman ignored the operator's advice.There will be a statement in the closing similar to this: You heard the tape where the operator suggested that it wasn't necessary for Mr. Zimmerman to follow Mr. Martin. He said "OK." You also heard Mr. Zimmerman testify that he, in fact, stopped following Mr. Martin at that point and returned to his truck. Even if you don't believe Mr. Zimmerman, and for whatever reason think that the operator's advice was actually an instruction and that Mr. Zimmerman did continue to follow Mr. Martin, the judge is going to instruct you that the law did not require Mr. Zimmerman to stop following Mr. Martin. What you would have done, or what you believe Mr. Zimmerman should have done is irrelevant for the purpose of this trial. All that matters is whether Mr. Zimmerman broke the law when he shot Mr. Martin.

I'm sure you're right. I'm sure they will make that argument. which is very reasonable.However, that is not the two main arguments that you and others have made in this thread regarding this subject matter. The two arguments that you and others keep reiterating are:1. "We don't need you to do this" is not an instruction. 2. The police dispatcher is not a trained person with authority. I have said all along that these two arguments will be unconvincing to a jury and the defense will never make them. That's what I've been disputing all along, NOT the issue of whether Zimmerman was required to obey the dispatcher.

This is where you're fooling yourself. The mere fact that Zimmerman was instructed/advised not to follow Martin is irrelevant. It is only because that instruction/advice was cloaked with what you believe to be some kind of authority that you give it credence. But much like the Emperor's new clothes, that authority is non-existent.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, even if it's the defense's factual position that Zimmerman followed the operator's advice they are still going to argue the legal position that whatever Zimmerman did, he wasn't required to follow that advice.Do you know why? It's because there could be people who--whatever Zimmerman testifies he did--decide that Zimmerman ignored the operator's advice.There will be a statement in the closing similar to this: You heard the tape where the operator suggested that it wasn't necessary for Mr. Zimmerman to follow Mr. Martin. He said "OK." You also heard Mr. Zimmerman testify that he, in fact, stopped following Mr. Martin at that point and returned to his truck. Even if you don't believe Mr. Zimmerman, and for whatever reason think that the operator's advice was actually an instruction and that Mr. Zimmerman did continue to follow Mr. Martin, the judge is going to instruct you that the law did not require Mr. Zimmerman to stop following Mr. Martin. What you would have done, or what you believe Mr. Zimmerman should have done is irrelevant for the purpose of this trial. All that matters is whether Mr. Zimmerman broke the law when he shot Mr. Martin.

I'm sure you're right. I'm sure they will make that argument. which is very reasonable.However, that is not the two main arguments that you and others have made in this thread regarding this subject matter. The two arguments that you and others keep reiterating are:1. "We don't need you to do this" is not an instruction. 2. The police dispatcher is not a trained person with authority. I have said all along that these two arguments will be unconvincing to a jury and the defense will never make them. That's what I've been disputing all along, NOT the issue of whether Zimmerman was required to obey the dispatcher.

This is where you're fooling yourself. The mere fact that Zimmerman was instructed/advised not to follow Martin is irrelevant. It is only because that instruction/advice was cloaked with what you believe to be some kind of authority that you give it credence. But much line the Emperor's new clothes, that authority is non-existent.

I think we've discussed this at length enough to the point where we have reached a clarity of our differences on this issue. While I've enjoyed arguing it, I've made it clear that I do not regard it as especially important one way or the other. It's certainly not going to decide this trial. I think it's time to move on.

 

[timschochet]

From the Wikipedia account:

On March 29, 2012, an eyewitness referred to as a male said that he saw two men on the ground scuffling, then heard the shooting, and saw Zimmerman walk away with no blood on him.[118][119] The witness later appeared on CNN AC360 referred to as a female, giving more details on her account. She pointed out that she heard an argument between a younger and an older voice. The whole time she witnessed the incident the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top, and that it was too dark to see blood on his face.[120]

I don't recall reading about this witness here (though I might have missed it; it's a pretty big thread!) This witness appears to contradict "John" since she asserts that Zimmerman was on top. Will the prosecution have this witness testify, and will it have any impact?

 

[jon_mx]

Witnesses will have a huge impact depending on how much they saw and how clearly they saw it. I find it hard to believe that Zimmerman, who had injuries consistent with being beaten up while Martin according to the funeral director had none, would have been the one on top. Of course perhaps what she witness was after the shot with Zimmerman rolling over Martin, then being on top and getting up. The information is too sketchy to judge how good it is.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Just read these comments, didn't find them particularly compelling. This hearing was a huge win for Zimmerman, regardless of whether Chaos Commish thinks it was mean to express his sorrow to the family even though they didn't want to hear it. The family, with their rush to the USPTO to trademark catch phrases with their son's name while the body is still warm, and their full-on media blitz (how many times have they appeared on Anderson Cooper already?), isn't making the most compelling case in the world for my sympathy anyway.

Their son was killed and they trademarked two slogans for a charitable foundation in his name. Take issue with the copyright? That's lame. They also moved to stop the use of their sons image as a thug for gun rights advocates. If your daughter was shot and killed by neighborhood watch would you want her image used by those who thought it was a good shoot? People who do not understand the context of Zimmerman's self serving apology think he did a nice thing and came off well. Good for the defense. He lied to the parents' faces, changed his story, answered only those questions that might serve him and did so dishonestly. He didn't state that he was answering Sybrina's rhetorical questions (which have haunted him) from a month ago. He just crafted a paragraph that addressed them making himself look good. Google Sybrina Fulton's questions for George and you'll see why he chose those three questions. The others are a little rougher, like if you could do it again would you still pull the trigger? There's an angry media with a huge following who understand. You haven't been following closely (kudos). Maybe that's more representative, but I don't care. It was a nasty move from my box which is following this too closely. I'm going golfing now. ATC said they didn't want a private apology but a public one. They never asked for a public one unless it was again a rhetorical request from the sentencing hearing of a convicted George Zimmerman.

 

[Chaos Commish]

From the Wikipedia account:

On March 29, 2012, an eyewitness referred to as a male said that he saw two men on the ground scuffling, then heard the shooting, and saw Zimmerman walk away with no blood on him.[118][119] The witness later appeared on CNN AC360 referred to as a female, giving more details on her account. She pointed out that she heard an argument between a younger and an older voice. The whole time she witnessed the incident the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top, and that it was too dark to see blood on his face.[120]

I don't recall reading about this witness here (though I might have missed it; it's a pretty big thread!) This witness appears to contradict "John" since she asserts that Zimmerman was on top. Will the prosecution have this witness testify, and will it have any impact?

Her entire cloaked interview was posted here. She seemed to "want" to get into the discussion. I didn't trust her, but even if I did, she wasn't too compelling. There is something very fishy about her though (hint: that was no female in the interview and the wig was straight from the 70s). I have a suspicion but will keep it to myself for now.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Witnesses will have a huge impact depending on how much they saw and how clearly they saw it. I find it hard to believe that Zimmerman, who had injuries consistent with being beaten up while Martin according to the funeral director had none, would have been the one on top. Of course perhaps what she witness was after the shot with Zimmerman rolling over Martin, then being on top and getting up. The information is too sketchy to judge how good it is.

I always believed it was George yelling with the possible exception of that last horrified wail before the gunshot. It is hard to imagine unscathed Trayvon yelling for help while the bleeding head and broken nose was beating on him or whatever they want us to think. John SAW Zimmerman yelling for help. I think the two voice expertes (one you found credible with all his made up credentials) are hacks. The first thing George said to one witness who heard the yelling, was "that was me, no one would help me." Trayvon has a deep voice that has been scrubbed from the internet along with his youtube, facebook and twitter accounts.

 

[jon_mx]

Just read these comments, didn't find them particularly compelling. This hearing was a huge win for Zimmerman, regardless of whether Chaos Commish thinks it was mean to express his sorrow to the family even though they didn't want to hear it. The family, with their rush to the USPTO to trademark catch phrases with their son's name while the body is still warm, and their full-on media blitz (how many times have they appeared on Anderson Cooper already?), isn't making the most compelling case in the world for my sympathy anyway.

Their son was killed and they trademarked two slogans for a charitable foundation in his name. Take issue with the copyright? That's lame. They also moved to stop the use of their sons image as a thug for gun rights advocates. If your daughter was shot and killed by neighborhood watch would you want her image used by those who thought it was a good shoot? People who do not understand the context of Zimmerman's self serving apology think he did a nice thing and came off well. Good for the defense. He lied to the parents' faces, changed his story, answered only those questions that might serve him and did so dishonestly. He didn't state that he was answering Sybrina's rhetorical questions (which have haunted him) from a month ago. He just crafted a paragraph that addressed them making himself look good. Google Sybrina Fulton's questions for George and you'll see why he chose those three questions. The others are a little rougher, like if you could do it again would you still pull the trigger? There's an angry media with a huge following who understand. You haven't been following closely (kudos). Maybe that's more representative, but I don't care. It was a nasty move from my box which is following this too closely. I'm going golfing now. ATC said they didn't want a private apology but a public one. They never asked for a public one unless it was again a rhetorical request from the sentencing hearing of a convicted George Zimmerman.

This is the kind of irresponsible rhetoric which will lead to race riots should Zimmerman win, which I think is fairly likely.

 

[jon_mx]

Witnesses will have a huge impact depending on how much they saw and how clearly they saw it. I find it hard to believe that Zimmerman, who had injuries consistent with being beaten up while Martin according to the funeral director had none, would have been the one on top. Of course perhaps what she witness was after the shot with Zimmerman rolling over Martin, then being on top and getting up. The information is too sketchy to judge how good it is.

I always believed it was George yelling with the possible exception of that last horrified wail before the gunshot. It is hard to imagine unscathed Trayvon yelling for help while the bleeding head and broken nose was beating on him or whatever they want us to think. John SAW Zimmerman yelling for help. I think the two voice expertes (one you found credible with all his made up credentials) are hacks. The first thing George said to one witness who heard the yelling, was "that was me, no one would help me." Trayvon has a deep voice that has been scrubbed from the internet along with his youtube, facebook and twitter accounts.

I offered no opinion on the voice experts conclusions or credibility.

 

[Chaos Commish]

I think some are misunderstanding the defense's opposition to the claim Zimmerman followed Trayvon after the dispatch discouraged the idea. I know wdcrob said as much and I know the public has this all wrong.

Zimmerman was out of his car and 8-9 seconds into his "foot chase" when the instruction came.

He did not disobey the suggestion after it was given. He was already giving chase.

In the previous 30 seconds the operator had twice instructed Zimmerman to report what Trayvon was doing. So when he ran, he FOLLOWED DISPATCH INSTRUCTIONS to continue reporting the suspicious character's activity. It's right there in the phone call.

911 dispatcher:

Let me know if he does anything, OK?

Zimmerman:

OK.

911 dispatcher:

We’ve got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Zimmerman:

OK.

These #######s. They always get away.

When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse. [1:39]

911 dispatcher:

OK, so it’s on the left hand side of the clubhouse?

Zimmerman:

Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.

He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman:

Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14] (Zimmerman's been out of his car for two seconds here by the sound of the door)

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?

Zimmerman:

The back entrance.

[it sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, ‘F-ing ##ons’ at 2:22]

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

Zimmerman:

OK. [2:28]

So some seem to think the defense is terrified of acknowledging the instruction and therefore will contend Zimmerman did not disobey it. That's bunk. If the prosecution pushes it, they crush it, as Chisto, BB, and Otis agree. The defense is going to contend Zimmerman took the instruction to heart after rounding the corner and losing Trayvon. He ended his pursuit as advised by the operator. This isn't to weasel out of some fear the jury will see him as disobedient. This is because that is probably what happened give or take a little snooping, not pursuing. The snooping could be George obeying the request to keep informing the operator. He had clearly lost Tray and therefore could not truly be following him... or some such angle.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Just read these comments, didn't find them particularly compelling. This hearing was a huge win for Zimmerman, regardless of whether Chaos Commish thinks it was mean to express his sorrow to the family even though they didn't want to hear it. The family, with their rush to the USPTO to trademark catch phrases with their son's name while the body is still warm, and their full-on media blitz (how many times have they appeared on Anderson Cooper already?), isn't making the most compelling case in the world for my sympathy anyway.

Their son was killed and they trademarked two slogans for a charitable foundation in his name. Take issue with the copyright? That's lame. They also moved to stop the use of their sons image as a thug for gun rights advocates. If your daughter was shot and killed by neighborhood watch would you want her image used by those who thought it was a good shoot? People who do not understand the context of Zimmerman's self serving apology think he did a nice thing and came off well. Good for the defense. He lied to the parents' faces, changed his story, answered only those questions that might serve him and did so dishonestly. He didn't state that he was answering Sybrina's rhetorical questions (which have haunted him) from a month ago. He just crafted a paragraph that addressed them making himself look good. Google Sybrina Fulton's questions for George and you'll see why he chose those three questions. The others are a little rougher, like if you could do it again would you still pull the trigger? There's an angry media with a huge following who understand. You haven't been following closely (kudos). Maybe that's more representative, but I don't care. It was a nasty move from my box which is following this too closely. I'm going golfing now. ATC said they didn't want a private apology but a public one. They never asked for a public one unless it was again a rhetorical request from the sentencing hearing of a convicted George Zimmerman.

This is the kind of irresponsible rhetoric which will lead to race riots should Zimmerman win, which I think is fairly likely.

And that's exactly why Zimmerman should have never lied to the parents faces in some self serving effort to answer rhetorical questions to his advantage.

 

[Chaos Commish]

now I'm going golfing.

 

[Underachievers]

Just read these comments, didn't find them particularly compelling. This hearing was a huge win for Zimmerman, regardless of whether Chaos Commish thinks it was mean to express his sorrow to the family even though they didn't want to hear it. The family, with their rush to the USPTO to trademark catch phrases with their son's name while the body is still warm, and their full-on media blitz (how many times have they appeared on Anderson Cooper already?), isn't making the most compelling case in the world for my sympathy anyway.

Their son was killed and they trademarked two slogans for a charitable foundation in his name. Take issue with the copyright? That's lame. They also moved to stop the use of their sons image as a thug for gun rights advocates. If your daughter was shot and killed by neighborhood watch would you want her image used by those who thought it was a good shoot? People who do not understand the context of Zimmerman's self serving apology think he did a nice thing and came off well. Good for the defense. He lied to the parents' faces, changed his story, answered only those questions that might serve him and did so dishonestly. He didn't state that he was answering Sybrina's rhetorical questions (which have haunted him) from a month ago. He just crafted a paragraph that addressed them making himself look good. Google Sybrina Fulton's questions for George and you'll see why he chose those three questions. The others are a little rougher, like if you could do it again would you still pull the trigger? There's an angry media with a huge following who understand. You haven't been following closely (kudos). Maybe that's more representative, but I don't care. It was a nasty move from my box which is following this too closely. I'm going golfing now. ATC said they didn't want a private apology but a public one. They never asked for a public one unless it was again a rhetorical request from the sentencing hearing of a convicted George Zimmerman.

Don't forget that his parents quit their jobs also. With all the donations rolling in, guess they felt like they no longer needed to work. Yep, model citizens....