Let's talk about Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and how unbelievably fucked up this all is

i.e. the affidavit is kinda sketchy on that point at least

x-post to contenderizer
Although that would have been better, I'm not so sure would matter much in court, if GZ has a good lawyer (not really an authoritative source). Mostly I'm chiming in because people seem to be treating the operators as full police officers.

The lack of any timely police investigation pretty much hampers this trial. If the idea of the trial is to deflect public outcry,

about preventing riots and Federal action against Florida authorities

Frankly, if those goes before a jury, then who knows at this point. I can imagine it going any way. I think a lot will hinge on those previous 911 calls of GZ, whether they can depict him as aggressive and erratic and, like I said, who knows, maybe this is not his first Stand Your Ground defense.

If GZ is acquitted due to police inaction or incompetence, does Trayvon's family have any standing for a civil suit?

A question out of ignorance - if GZ has previously legally shot someone, is that admissible evidence?

I *think* it would require several shootings to establish a patern.

Josh: oh my yes. A bunch of suits against a bunch of people, governments, and organizations. You can expect those with or without the likely acquittal.

"if those goes before a jury" -- a very big if. I'd be working on a motion to dismiss if I were Z's attorney, and I'd like my chances.

nobody's watching the bond hearing?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/69332322/live/LIVE-VIDEO-Zimmerman-bond-hearing

ruling just came down. 150k bond, electronic monitoring, GPS. no contact w/victim's family, no firearms possession, no consumption of alcohol, 7 p.m. curfew, check in with monitor q3d

z's lawyer requesting specifically that z be allowed to reside out of state, judge refers to some outside authority

http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/2012/04/George-Zimmerman-Head-Injury1.jpg

yup

I cannot find a single source that states who took this picture or why it's just now coming to light.

I would assume a cop took that picture. but when, why it got leaked, and by who etc. is obviously sorta key lol

I hated his apology to Trayvon's family, it was so phony and self serving.

One news story I read that I now cannot find said it was "moments after Martin was shot," i.e. when police and EMT first arrived on scene. In any case, it proves nothing except that Martin defended himself from a stalker.

Also, head wounds bleed out of all proportion to their severity, and it wasn't considered severe enough to bandage according to that police station video footage, so. Almost certainly not life-threatening such that he needed to shoot his way out of a fight.

lol @ "nothing"

it doesn't prove anything at all really

countdown to conservative media saying things like "gushing blood," "drenched in blood," "bleeding profusely"

head wounds bleed a lot, duh

Do "nothing" and "not anything at all" mean different things or

well you said it proves nothing EXCEPT...

which is a way of saying it does prove something, yes?

but I don't think it proves anything at all.

you can tell that the blood is already clotting, meaning there wasn't that much bleeding. in the absense of coexisting bruising on the face, neck, or the site of the bleeding there's not much proven here imho; it is also possible that a superficial wound might have been self inflicted to bolster a self-defense claim, but that wouldn't be my first conclusion

all it proves is that he lost about a tablespoon of blood

yeah head wounds are in general way more horrifying to look at than they are actually ~bad~

all it proves is that he lost about a tablespoon of blood

pretty much. from what is not established by the photo.

maybe he fell down from the recoil and hit his head on the sidewalk

or maybe he just fell down cause trayvon rushed him and he took some clumsy steps backwards

not really a theories i endorse but ones that have passed through my mind

wonder if they ever checked under trayvon's fingernails for george's DNA, or if they dusted george's head for fingerprints

they didn't do anything

"wonder if they dusted george's head for fingerprints" is a tempting display name

ABC says he asked a neighbor to take the photo and the info they showed was that it was taken about three minutes after the gunshots heard on 911. Whatever else it might imply, it shows that something had happenned to GZ and it would be consistent w/his assertion that Trayvon was pounding his head against the sidewalk. I kind of agree w/Cosby's assertion that none of this would have happened had Zimmerman not had a gun.

it's consistent with his statement, yes, but does not necessarily corroborate it

of course a single photo proves nothing. but it does support his story more than contradict it. it's at least consistent with the idea that he was attacked and pushed down. which is bad for the prosecution. of course, it still seems obvious that zimmerman provoked the confrontation and then used it as an excuse to murder trayvon martin.

lot of coursing going on there...

"used it as an excuse"?

Yeah, you can't pick a fight and then claim self defense.

depends what you mean by "pick a fight"

How about, following and confronting a guy walking innocently through your neighborhood?

Has Zimmerman or anyone ever said exactly why he was following him?

iirc the 911 call has him mentioning a pattern of break-ins in the neighborhood, and that martin was 'walking and looking around' and 'acting suspicious.' not verbatim but something like that.

he was 'acting really crazy'

(ie "being black")

acting suspicious = running away from law enforcement super george

How about, following and confronting a guy walking innocently through your neighborhood?

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, April 20, 2012 8:31 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think you can follow and confront someone and still maintain the potential for self-defense.

trial's gonna hinge on that

yup

thrid

"used it as an excuse"?

was being more than a little prejudicial there, i admit

ABC says he asked a neighbor to take the photo and the info they showed was that it was taken about three minutes after the gunshots heard on 911.

ok this sounds pretty rational for GZ to have done in retrospect, but it's also insane. THREE minutes after he shoots someone, he asks a neighbor to take a picture of his head? at that exact point in time, how the hell is he acting like he needs to secure evidence to get him off the hook? there's a dead body on the ground and he treats it like a minor car accident. it seems off to me.

have to admit that if i shot somebody, the possible consequences would loom large in my mind from like second one

<I>at that exact point in time, how the hell is he acting like he needs to secure evidence to get him off the hook?</I>

Well, that's because he's just shot someone. And has probably seen enough TV about this situation to think "catalogue the evidence"

xp yeah

And if it's literally three minutes later, I wonder if the photographer witnessed some of the altercation before the gunshot?