Could This Be The Beginning Of The New White Panther Party?

[Maury Ballstein]

roger that......i think self of steam was leading me that way

[Juror#8]

This guy has the right to create a White Panther Party, a White Student Union, a _________ Association for the Advancement of White People, and whatever other transparent, non-violent organization aimed at advancing the interests of the group that he is a member of or is a strong advocate for.

 

I think it's awesome actually. Anyone giving him ****, should look in the mirror or ask why is it then fair to have similar minority organizations with the same racially dedicated aims.

 

As for Zimmerman, no one knows what happened on that evening except for him. Because he is knee deep in an adversarial process, you can't characterize him as a disinterested party and caretaker of unbiased facts. The only on-point witness statement points to a fleeing Trayvon and a pursuing Zimmerman. That is supported, at least initially, by the audio evidence available (initial conversation with dispatcher).

 

Everything that happened in between is conjecture. No one knows what happened THAT LED to Trayvon and ZImmerman scuffling. All attempts to do so is opinion. Stating that Trayvon stalked Zimmerman back to the area where the incident occurred belies the only on point factual/testimonial data that is available. Having opinions are fine. I certainly have mine. They may be wrong. But right now, the limited data that we have, unencumbered by passionate opinion, doesn't tell us much more than at one point, Zimmerman was following Trayvon and Trayvon intimated wanting to get away from him.

 

There is nothing anywhere, anyhow that demonstrates, at any point, the converse - Trayvon following Zimmerman. Any attempts to demonstrate that relies on an assumption that Zimmerman and Trayvon wouldn't have ended up where they did otherwise. If it's opinion, then fine. But I don't need to tell you why that is bad logic.

 

Anyway...

 

The unfortunate thing is that someone is gonna go h.a.m. on Zimmerman.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Juror#8

[Azalin]

For all intensive purposes he could have a tactful ass, so therefore he would be "in tact'. Self of steam stumps me though.

isn't it supposed to be 'for all intents and purposes'?

[3rdnlng]

isn't it supposed to be 'for all intents and purposes'?

 

Yes, that was part of the joke. The wrongful use of "intensive purposes" has been an ongoing joke here at PPP for some time. Irregardless, I resemble your remarks.

[Juror#8]

Yes, that was part of the joke. The wrongful use of "intensive purposes" has been an ongoing joke here at PPP for some time. Irregardless, I resemble your remarks.

 

I know that "irregardless" is part of the joke too. But that word is one of my pet peeves. Either "regardless" or "irrespective," please.

[3rdnlng]

This guy has the right to create a White Panther Party, a White Student Union, a _________ Association for the Advancement of White People, and whatever other transparent, non-violent organization aimed at advancing the interests of the group that he is a member of or is a strong advocate for.

 

I think it's awesome actually. Anyone giving him ****, should look in the mirror or ask why is it then fair to have similar minority organizations with the same racially dedicated aims.

 

As for Zimmerman, no one knows what happened on that evening except for him. Because he is knee deep in an adversarial process, you can't characterize him as a disinterested party and caretaker of unbiased facts. The only on-point witness statement points to a fleeing Trayvon and a pursuing Zimmerman. That is supported, at least initially, by the audio evidence available (initial conversation with dispatcher).

 

Everything that happened in between is conjecture. No one knows what happened THAT LED to Trayvon and ZImmerman scuffling. All attempts to do so is opinion. Stating that Trayvon stalked Zimmerman back to the area where the incident occurred belies the only on point factual/testimonial data that is available. Having opinions are fine. I certainly have mine. They may be wrong. But right now, the limited data that we have, unencumbered by passionate opinion, doesn't tell us much more than at one point, Zimmerman was following Trayvon and Trayvon intimated wanting to get away from him.

 

There is nothing anywhere, anyhow that demonstrates, at any point, the converse - Trayvon following Zimmerman. Any attempts to demonstrate that relies on an assumption that Zimmerman and Trayvon wouldn't have ended up where they did otherwise. If it's opinion, then fine. But I don't need to tell you why that is bad logic.

 

Anyway...

 

The unfortunate thing is that someone is gonna go h.a.m. on Zimmerman.

 

As a juror, what credence would you place on the location of the altercation? If it happened very close to Zimmerman's vehicle would you think that it was logical that Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle and given up any "chase"? As a defense attorney would you be able to make "hay" with that line of defense? Would Zimmerman's broken and bleeding nose and cuts and bruises to the back of his head lead you to believe that maybe he was getting beat up?

[Juror#8]

As a juror, what credence would you place on the location of the altercation? If it happened very close to Zimmerman's vehicle would you think that it was logical that Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle and given up any "chase"? As a defense attorney would you be able to make "hay" with that line of defense? Would Zimmerman's broken and bleeding nose and cuts and bruises to the back of his head lead you to believe that maybe he was getting beat up?

 

The problem with where they ended up is that there are a million different permutations that could have lead to them being there. Where they ended up wouldn't even create a rebuttable presumption in favor of Zimmerman because of the actual evidence supporting the fact that, AT ONE POINT at least, Zimmerman was persuing Martin. This, of course, assumes that the court accepts the veracity of the witness' statement about what Trayvon said and if the court doesn't find a hearsay issue or a hearsay within hearsay issue (if she is saying what Trayvon was saying that Zimmerman said). I would think that 803(1) and (2) should clear up hearsay issues though.

 

I think that an intrepid prosecutor can easily make the case that at night, raining, scared, and confused, and in a place that he is relatively unfamiliar with, Trayvon could have easily lost his way and ran in a circle back to where he started and then the confrontation occurred there.

 

So where they fought is somewhat inconsequential.

 

The fight itself is instructive only inasmuch as after someone was chasing someone else, Trayvon ended up kicking Zimmerman's butt. If the prosecution can successfully show that Zimmerman pursued Martin and then Martin kicked his butt because Zimmerman wouldn't leave him alone, defense is gonna have a tough time showing that Zimmerman can both escalate (by persuing and presumably approaching in an offensive way) and conclude the altercation. I'm not licensed in FL, but I would think that ZImmerman would have to communicate some type of affirmative indication to de-escalate, before things went to blows, evidencing that he was done and didn't desire to persue the matter further.

 

Otherwise the pursuit by Zimmerman, and any subsequent apprehension of danger that Martin may have felt, gives Martin the right to stand his ground too.

 

If the court finds that Trayvon flipped the script and pursued Zimmerman back to his vehicle, and that Zimmerman had no desire to pick a fight, but Trayvon wanted to exact some type of revenge for the initial profiling, which led to him whooping on up Zimmerman something fierce, then Zimmerman will be acquitted and the incident will be considered justifiable.

 

It think that this will depend on whether or not the court will fill in the blanks with continuity in Zimmerman's actions, or a subsequent escalation by Martin.

 

Edit: Somthing that I just thought about when typing this - I wonder if they contemplated Stand your Ground Defenses for the victim. Because if Trayvon was being chased, and he decided to stop running and fight, then he kicks Zimmerman's ass, leading to Zimmerman using deadly force, it begs the question whether or not Trayvon has an expectation of not getting shot while standing his ground against an intial aggressor.

 

Is Stand Your Ground pliable and can it commute back and forth based on the extent of the altercation. Can both people be eligible for a Stand your Ground defense?

Edited March 28, 2013 by Juror#8

[DC Tom]

Edit: Somthing that I just thought about when typing this - I wonder if they contemplated Stand your Ground Defenses for the victim. Because if Trayvon was being chased, and he decided to stop running and fight, then he kicks Zimmerman's ass, leading to Zimmerman using deadly force, it begs the question whether or not Trayvon has an expectation of not getting shot while standing his ground against an intial aggressor.

 

Is Stand Your Ground pliable and can it commute back and forth based on the extent of the altercation. Can both people be eligible for a Stand your Ground defense?

 

Oooh, that's nice...I don't think it's quite applicable in this case (though the prosecution could easily use the argument to undermine Zimmerman's use it, Trayvon isn't truly eligible to argue "Stand Your Ground" in his defense, being both not charged, and dead.) But it's a beautiful observation.

[Chef Jim]

ignore the arrest history and history of violence? perhaps i have a bad link? seems pretty clear cut to me....

 

i see the 80 pages on the real Trayvon thread..........too many people "know" what happened to believe either side from what i see...

 

no thanks to that one............passionate sides have been formed

 

if you want to hear my take which i don't think ya do..........then Zimm is a little girl who needs a gun, seems like a highstrung loser out looking for a fight(which unfortunately he's not good at) I don't think Trayvon turned into a reincarnation of the rapper the game at the age of 17 nor was he a fresh eyed doe humming a tune and eating skittles and sipping on sweet tea. There are too many cooks in the kitchen it seems.

 

All of us are different, I have zero fear of the "urban youths" in my town. I also have zero desire to jump to a side of either party in the case. If i had to guess though Zimm's going down. Guess I will let our great legal system figure this one out.

 

So anyone who has ever had the run-in with the law is a racist?

[GG]

 

As for Zimmerman, no one knows what happened on that evening except for him. Because he is knee deep in an adversarial process, you can't characterize him as a disinterested party and caretaker of unbiased facts. The only on-point witness statement points to a fleeing Trayvon and a pursuing Zimmerman. That is supported, at least initially, by the audio evidence available (initial conversation with dispatcher).

 

Are you referring to the girlfriend's testimony?

[Juror#8]

Oooh, that's nice...I don't think it's quite applicable in this case (though the prosecution could easily use the argument to undermine Zimmerman's use it, Trayvon isn't truly eligible to argue "Stand Your Ground" in his defense, being both not charged, and dead.) But it's a beautiful observation.

 

I don't think that you understood my point.

 

I was wondering if, at the point of confrontation and Zimmerman getting his ass kicked, Martin having a 'Stand Your Ground' defense could ameliorate his actions and be dispositive when considering it's applicability in Zimmerman's case.

 

It's theoretical and fun to query. I'd even bet that the attorneys are looking at it contrapositively.

[Maury Ballstein]

doesn't makes him a racist.............but he sures comes off as a class A jackass IMO. why does Mr. Neighborhood watch have run ins with the law anyways? I have managed to go 34 years on this planet without any run ins with the law besides your typical drinking around 19-20 year old college ticket. Zimmermans arrest history is not normal, maybe Zimm's a dimwit who needs a psychiatrist?

 

assaulting an officer? daddy's a judge? paints a pretty clear picture to me as a grade A dumbass. Glad to see he has gained 105 lbs with everyone's donation to the cause .

 

highstrung "blacks are suspicious" neighborhood watch guy gets beat up and kills a youth........thats what i see..........if he was or wasn't provoked etc is still a grey matter at this time. i guess the 19 year old girlfriends hospital alledged visit will tell the whole story (gotta find the crack just like oj's lawyers did).

 

 

 

why does the rapper "the game" keep getting brought up in pictures? i noticed in the comments section on GG's linked post they are saying thats what trayvon looked like there as well.

 

"the game" is one scary looking dude.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Ryan L Billz

[B-Man]

maybe Zimm's a dimwit who needs a psychiatrist?

 

assaulting an officer? daddy's a judge? paints a pretty clear picture to me as a grade A dumbass. Glad to see he has gained 105 lbs with everyone's donation to the cause .

 

 

 

 

I also have zero desire to jump to a side of either party in the case. .

 

I guess that we can just "strike" your previous statements.

 

and while I am glad that you are now reading up on the case, may i suggest a little more diversity in your sites................

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Juror#8]

Are you referring to the girlfriend's testimony?

 

Yep. I sure am talking about this girlfriend's testimony: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/06/prosecutors-admit-trayvon-martins-girlfriend-lied-under-oath/

 

The same one who lied under oath about being at the hospital and so forth.

 

The same one who has been proven to have been on the phone with Martin based on phone records.

 

And, despite your efforts at a gotcha moment, the same girlfriend that I said the court would need to determine the veracity of in the post above:

 

"This, of course, assumes that the court accepts the veracity of the witness' statement about what Trayvon said..."

 

Do you think that because someone lies about one thing, they lie about everything? I sure don't think that. The court is obliged to weigh evidence, and testimony (including al the Rule 608 ****) and determine the weight of her testimony on the disposition of the case.

 

But back to my original question: Do you think that because someone lies about one thing, they lie about everything? You probably do...at least in the case of this witness. But that's only because you've already adjudged Zimmerman's actions as justifiable. So you're finding the things to support the conclusion that you've already arrived at. It's a little backwards and not very scientific but you're entitled to your opinion. But at least you're not pretending to be objective and dispassionate. Because if you were, you'd take my stance of "we don't know."

[KD in CA]

But back to my original question: Do you think that because someone lies about one thing, they lie about everything? You probably do...at least in the case of this witness. But that's only because you've already adjudged Zimmerman's actions as justifiable. So you're finding the things to support the conclusion that you've already arrived at. It's a little backwards and not very scientific but you're entitled to your opinion. But at least you're not pretending to be objective and dispassionate. Because if you were, you'd take my stance of "we don't know."

I don't. But I sure do think this girlfriend is going to lie in any way she can if she thinks it'll help to punish Zimmerman.

[GG]

Yep. I sure am talking about this girlfriend's testimony: http://dailycaller.c...ied-under-oath/

 

The same one who lied under oath about being at the hospital and so forth.

 

The same one who has been proven to have been on the phone with Martin based on phone records.

 

And, despite your efforts at a gotcha moment, the same girlfriend that I said the court would need to determine the veracity of in the post above:

 

"This, of course, assumes that the court accepts the veracity of the witness' statement about what Trayvon said..."

 

Do you think that because someone lies about one thing, they lie about everything? I sure don't think that. The court is obliged to weigh evidence, and testimony (including al the Rule 608 ****) and determine the weight of her testimony on the disposition of the case.

 

But back to my original question: Do you think that because someone lies about one thing, they lie about everything? You probably do...at least in the case of this witness. But that's only because you've already adjudged Zimmerman's actions as justifiable. So you're finding the things to support the conclusion that you've already arrived at. It's a little backwards and not very scientific but you're entitled to your opinion. But at least you're not pretending to be objective and dispassionate. Because if you were, you'd take my stance of "we don't know."

 

The only thing I've been doing here and in the other thread is pointing out your bias to give greater credence to the girl's testimony that needs be given. You continually cite her version of the events as if they bear greater factual history than Zimmerman's version, even though he was the one at the spot, and she has since been caught lying. It's immaterial how I view one lie in a person's testimony reltaive to another part of the case, but as a juror, that would certainly flavor my judgment.

 

So getting back to the only real facts of the case - the recorded phone calls, the layout of the complex and the timeline. And I go back to that which jibes more with Zimmerman's version of the events.

[Rob's House]

I don't think that you understood my point.

 

I was wondering if, at the point of confrontation and Zimmerman getting his ass kicked, Martin having a 'Stand Your Ground' defense could ameliorate his actions and be dispositive when considering it's applicability in Zimmerman's case.

 

It's theoretical and fun to query. I'd even bet that the attorneys are looking at it contrapositively.

It wouldn't change the analysis. If Zimmerman attacked him Zimmerman would not be able to claim self-defense anyway b/c initiating aggression precludes a self-defense claim, even if one attempts to retreat after initiating the attack.

[Maury Ballstein]

IMO if Zimmerman was attacked then he should show up at the stand your ground hearing and be done with this. His account as well as the lying girlfriend account (about something else) should allow him to put all this behind him? no ?

 

his reluctance to do so, is puzzling

 

either way guilty or not he won't be able to walk the streets again, in his head IMO he's already effed up....... couple that with all of the black hate thats coming his way and he won't make it without another scuffle popping up.

 

it's time to go live with mommy in Peru buddy....

[Azalin]

Yes, that was part of the joke. The wrongful use of "intensive purposes" has been an ongoing joke here at PPP for some time. Irregardless, I resemble your remarks.

well, this certainly is embarrassing....

Edited March 28, 2013 by Azalin

[Chef Jim]

highstrung "blacks are suspicious" neighborhood watch guy gets beat up and kills a youth........thats what i see..........if he was or wasn't provoked etc is still a grey matter at this time. i guess the 19 year old girlfriends hospital alledged visit will tell the whole story (gotta find the crack just like oj's lawyers did).

 

Where did Zimmerman say this??