Criminal motions practice in Florida

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Good afternoon.

I write today to provide a possible explanation for the cancellation of the April 2nd hearing.

No motion was pending and she was not under any obligation to check with counsel to verify that nothing was in the works before cancelling the hearing.

When a lawyer files a motion in the circuit court clerk’s office asking the court to do something, he also should file a memorandum of legal authorities in support of the motion. In addition, he must file a notice of the date, time and place where a hearing on the motion will take place.

Copies of the three documents must be provided to opposing counsel with sufficient lead time to file a response.

Copies also must be provided to the court.

This formal procedure can be ignored, if the parties agree that something must be done. In that situation, the parties can prepare an agreed order and present it to the judge for signature without a hearing.

At the last hearing, Judge Nelson told counsel that she was going to tentatively schedule the next hearing for April 2nd even though no motions were pending. She also told counsel that she was going to be on vacation that week, but still in town and available to hold a hearing on April 2nd, if needed.

Several weeks went by during which neither side filed a motion.

On Monday, March 25th, with no motion pending, she cancelled the hearing.

Mark O’Mara filed a motion later that afternoon and a second motion the next day. Both motions seek sanctions, costs and attorney’s fees imposed against BDLR.

BDLR filed an epic response denying any wrongdoing.

I believe the defense motions are frivolous and will be denied.

If O’Mara still intends to proceed with his frivolous motions, he will have to note them for hearing on April 30th, which is the next available date for a hearing.

He really should reconsider those motions.

Whether he will do so remains to be seen.

Go here to review the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

406 Responses to Criminal motions practice in Florida

  1. aussie says:

    “…and that proof is conveniently dropped, deleted or hidden,…”

    and now you can keep on believing whatever you feel like believing and claim you KNOW you’re right because the evidence exists, just conveniently dropped, deleted or hidden.

    How convenient for you. Never need to look at facts. What a time saver. Jump from prejudice straight to hate. Do not stop to think.

    I myself have used the expression “better if they’re drowned at birth”, more than once.

    What is that a confession to?

  2. aussie says:

    Read between the lines?
    Or jump to conclusions?
    Or believe what you want to believe?

    GZ said “got attacked, self-defence”.
    That is NOT PROOF OF MURDER

    Cop said “something like that some other time”
    That is NOT PROOF OF RACISM

    GZ will be convicted on EVIDENCE of how the altercation actually happened. In itself the fact that there was one is no proof.

    The COP should be “convicted” only on EVIDENCE of what he said and when he said it and who he said it about…. all of which is LACKING.

    His resignation is not PROOF of guilt. He could have resigned for any number of other reasons. Just as an example, what if the cop who made the complaint suspected this cop of having an affair with his wife, and was trying to get him fired without his pension, for revenge? (another cop recently killed his wife and another cop for this “reason” so it is not far fetched).

    “….Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence….”

    Absence of evidence is NO EXCUSE for a conviction. You claim he admitted to being a racist. If you believe the above quote, then you can go around saying ANYONE admitted to being racist, or a rapist , or a murderer, just based on the fact that there is no evidence that they did so admit.

    If you are stating AS A FACT that he ADMITTED IT, you’d darned well better have PROOF that he did.

    If you are stating that based on inference and reading between lines, then you only BELIEVE he admitted it. Your beliefs are not PROOF.

    Basically you believe this because another cop accused him of it. And of course cops never lie to get anyone in trouble, so it must be true. Then the only hurdle you have to get across is how come two other cops said the opposite, if cops never lie.

    In my world reasonable people look at facts and try very hard to infer as little as possible.

    Some of the comments here, a few days ago, looked worse than the Treehouse. Sickening. Based on “inference”. yeah, keep up the good work………..

    • cielo62 says:

      Don’t worry, I will. IF you also blindly believe that all there is to justice is what you can “prove” and that proof is conveniently dropped, deleted or hidden, you’re saying that nothing wrong was done. IF people had NOT inferred that GZs story was full of caca based on his initial story, then today he’d be a free man. Yes, I believe that cop said what he said, because he admitted he said it. That is called a “confession.” Based on his confession, I celebrate that he was forced to leave the force even before the department started digging all that hard. No other reason seems likely as the cause. If another cause were the reason, I’m sure the department would have been quick to say so. If enough people were as motivated to really nail this cop, a petition could be launched similar to GZs, to get to the bottom of the cop’s record. Most seem content that he confessed to saying something unprofessional DURING A TRAYVON MARTIN PREP TALK that led to a professional complaint. Honestly, I don’t understand why you don’t see that it’s ok to celebrate the removal of a racist cop who resigned instead of being investigated.

      Sent from my iPod

  3. aussie says:

    I do hope you never serve on a jury where someone’s life or liberty is at stake.

    These are the same two articles originally posted here and the same two I have now several times pulled to pieces and shown STEP BY STEP do NOT AMOUNT TO PROOF.

    Not even that the remark was racist.

    Certainly not to him being “THIS cop is a racist pig BECAUSE HE ADMITTED IT”

    The two articles are not even saying the same thing. The first one says

    “,,,,,retired after an internal investigation revealed he said, “This is why they should be drowned at birth,” in reference to black people.,,”

    a) investigation could not have “revealed” anything because it was not FINISHED according to the statement you quote fro the second one “…this incident resulted in retirement while under investigation …” while not after

    b) the first story claims it outright that it was a reference to black people. The second says the remark was made at a meeting at which one of the topics was “.. how they would handle possible protests or problems related to the one-year anniversary of the death of Trayvon Martin…”

    The first story says no more about the cop. The second one says he admitted to made a similar remark at a totally different time under totally different circumstances…. and NOTHING was revealed about what type of people he was talking about.

    I’ve gone into detail on every point of this 2 or 3 or 4 times now.

    YOU never read past the “Racist Cop” headline before believing it.

    So, go ahead and read what you want to see. but don’t expect me to believe you when it is plain, if you actually READ with an OPEN MIND, that there is no proof there. Slight cause for suspicion, perhaps. Proof, ZERO.

    That is ALL IT TAKES TO SMEAR SOMEBODY THESE DAYS because everyone is so damned ready to believe the worst about anybody and everybody who in any way falls into their favourite hated group.

    It is obvious you never read what I wrote either, before rejecting it, because you have not addressed a single point I made or rebutted a single argument. You didn’t read it so you can keep holding on to your prejudices.

    If you don’t want an open mind, that’s your choice. And your loss.

    I am not going to waste any more electrons on you.

    • cielo62 says:

      Aussie- good. keep your electrons. You fail to do what reasonable people do and INFER, as in , read between the lines, of how reality works. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The cop STOPPED the investigation before it went too far. What can a reasonable person infer from this? That there is something that he didn’t want unearthed. If Police Chief Billy Lee was ok getting on Broadcast TV and saying that 1. there isn’t enough evidence to arrest GZ and 2. GZ had a squeaky clean record, we can infer than any police chief will say whatever to save face for the department. Fine. Then GZ isn’t guilty either. He has never said he murdered anyone. Let’s let him go.

      Sent from my iPod

  4. aussie says:

    Cielo, SHOW ME please WHERE HE ADMITTED IT. Give me the link.

    • cielo62 says:

      http://www.inquisitr.com/607355/trayvon-martin-racist-cop-says-black-people-should-be-drowned-at-birth/ Fear is the parent of hatred and hatred is the parent of violence. Free speech does not mean you can shout “fire” in a crowded theater or talk about bombs in an airport. If people in law enforcement speak ill of their constituents whether they are talking about whites, blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, Muslims etc. they create an environment that feels unsafe to the community. Would you worship with a priest that swears, go to a doctor who makes fun of your illness or hire a lawyer that is rude to the judge? People in any service industry are held to a different standard than the man on the street. This police officer was lucky he was allowed to retire.

      Based on the article, the cop was “allowed” to retire rather than fight the charges. He admitted to having said “something of that nature” and it’s really irrelevent WHO he was talking about. Do I need to have an entire psychologial profile on this cop to be able to make an intuitive leap that his words will be reflected in his actions? Again, I will be clear. I CELEBRATE when bad cops are exposed and held accountable. THIS cop was exposed and was held accountable. WHY is this an issue with you?

    • cielo62 says:

      Aussie:  http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/ content/news/articles/cfn/2013/4/5/racial_remark_forces.html   (you will need to copy and paste this link)   Meanwhile, Winter Park Police Chief Brett Railey released a statement Thursday: “The Winter Park Police Department enforces a non-discriminatory workplace. Official complaints are taken seriously and investigated completely. It is of utmost importance to maintain public trust as we protect and defend all members of our community.  “A full investigation was conducted and the circumstances surrounding this incident resulted in retirement while under investigation. “Lt. Ron Johnson has been a part of our police family for many years and to have this occur after an otherwise distinguished career with our department is regretful. However, regardless of the individual and years of service, statements of this type are unacceptable in order to maintain the public’s trust. “This incident is considered concluded and no further comments will be provided.” That means “Guilty as charged.” That means an exposed racist. That means good riddance from the police force.

  5. aussie says:

    Malisha, thank you for sticking with this to reply.

    When I was saying “you” that was you plural, everyone who piled a bit of hate on the cop or cops generally, and never came back to see what it looked like.

    On what we know for sure, the most that can be fairly said IS

    “..The cop probably DID mean the racist-sounding comment he apparently made…”

    which makes it worth a quick look to see if there was more. A quick look, not a big brouhaha and everyone he ever gave a ticket to encouraged to appeal. (for a guy caught on tape tazing someone into a confession, yes, for a throw-away line like this, no). Let’s keep a sense of proportion. What about the (non-racist) crime lab woman that faked 35,000 results????

    Probably, or possibly. Or maybe not. He admitted saying something like that on some other occasion, not the one the complaint was made about. He said it referred to repeat problem people. Nobody said what colour people. Isn’t just assuming he must have meant it against blacks kind of racist in itself? it may have been against 3 white brothers in trouble with the law from age 7, for all we’ve been told. Or statistics on how many repeat offenders they had that week/month/year. WE DON’T KNOW.

    Yet one person used this to state he’s a “self admitted racist” which makes it okay to spew hate at him from “moral outrage”. Numerous people jumped in with rants against him, rants against police in general, allegations he must have done all sorts of bad stuff and they must have covered it all up etc etc.

    I don’t believe so. A force that would have consistently covered up major misdeeds is NOT going to investigate a trivial comment like this, especially one that was NEVER out in the public view to create pressure or a bad image for them.

    What shocked me in the first instance was that huge wall of hate, a tsunami out of nowhere. From people who always seemed reasonable and fact-seeking.

    What still shocks me is that nobody wants to see it. You are ALL products of your environments, to SUCH an extent that you don’t even NOTICE what a tiny little trigger you react to. And how over the top that reaction is. You all hate racism so much, you are prepared to see it everywhere and don’t bother looking for real evidence.

    Of course there are dirty police departments, but even they’d have some clean cops in them. And clean forces can have a few dirty cops. There are racists, bullies and corrupt people in all walks of life.

    But taking the slightest allegation as absolute proof, enough for that outpouring of moral outrage, and further allegations of totally imaginary activity, is SICK.

    Exactly the same kind of sick as seeing a dark kid in a hoodie as a thug, just because, as we all know, there ARE some black kids who are thugs, drug dealers etc. (Statistically there are a LOT of them, though some were convicted on this assumption, so its a vicious cycle).

    So, in both cases, a TINY FLICKER that MAY be similar to the really bad ones, suddenly classifies the person as being the worst of the worst. And that makes it okay, nay, makes it de rigeur, to hate on him. And everyone joins in, in a self-congratulatory way that we, thank God, are good people, decent people, not like that #$#%@ on whom we are throwing a lot more hate than he ever (provenly) put on anyone.

    This is exactly the same as what is going on at the Outhouse. Except the environment THEY are products of hated blacks, not racists or cops. The processes are the same. They don’t see themselves as being racist… same as nobody here saw themselves as conspiracy theorist cop hating bigots.

    And that is what I still have the shakes about. That this kind of reaction is so deep-seated that a bunch of intelligent thinking people can’t even recognise it, when it’s in themselves.

    So if it’s ok for one comment (context unknown) to cause enough suspicion to demand a full investigation of his career?? then why shouldn’t hanging about in the rain be enough suspicion for following someone to find out what he’s up to?

    I don’t want to hear sophistry about why it’s different. Because it’s not. It’s not a matter of what is OBJECTIVELY right or sensible in the given situation. Objectivity doesn’t come into it, when, in BOTH cases here, it was pure gut reaction from what you respectively grew up with. BLIND gut reaction, as you can’t see what happened.

    That was the shocker.

    America as a nation seems to have forgotten about “benefit of doubt” and “double-check” and “think before you act”. Just a blind gut reaction if your button is pushed. Maybe never ever learned One Law For All. You’re righteously entitled to do and say exactly what you denigrate the “others” for because your gut just told you they are evil.

    God help you all.

    • Aussie,

      I respectfully disagree.

      A police official who served as a cop for 27 years cannot be permitted to say that particular race of babies should be drowned at birth to solve a crime problem. He deserved to be fired for that statement and I would have fired him if he worked for me, even if his record up to that point was exemplary.

      You established a false equivalency IMO when you said,

      So if it’s ok for one comment (context unknown) to cause enough suspicion to demand a full investigation of his career?? then why shouldn’t hanging about in the rain be enough suspicion for following someone to find out what he’s up to?

      There is nothing wrong with hanging out in the rain. There is something very wrong with saying babies of a particular race should be drowned to end a crime problem.

      I see where you’re coming from. I agree that there are quite a lot of racists in this country who are blind to their own racism, but I think you’ve gotten a bit carried away making unwarranted assumptions and making the same mistake that you accuse all of us of making when you say,

      God help you all.

      I feel like you are accusing me and I object.

      • aussie says:

        Fred, if you have a link about this I’d much appreciate it

        “..There is something very wrong with saying babies of a particular race should be drowned to end a crime problem…”:

        Sure, but DID HE SAY IT?

        When this “incident” here started, there was a single line in OS about what was allegedly said and when. And a lot outrage quoted from residents.

        Some hours later another paper came up with the detail that he’d admitted saying something to that effect, in relation to problem repeat offenders. These offenders were not identified, and NOTHING was said about their race. Nor whether he was talking in general terms or about a specific one or two individuals. There was also a statement that the investigation has not been concluded.

        So, if you have any information, that he admitted referring to a particular race, I’d much appreciate seeing it.

        “Words to that effect” could range from, say, “All n****r kids should be drowned at birth” to “these 2 would have been better of drowned at birth” referring to a specific 2. Context makes a big big difference. But to my knowledge we have not been told the context.

        Part of my issue is that everyone jumped in and ASSUMED the worst, then piled on some imaginary offences, and then in righteous moral outrage proceeded to say a lot worse than the cop had. And made excuse after excuse, when pulled up on it, for why it was justified because it’s ok to hate a racist. Which he’s not been proven to be.

        =======
        “”\..There is nothing wrong with hanging out in the rain. There is something very wrong with saying babies of a particular race should be drowned to end a crime problem…”

        True. BUT HE DID NOT SAY THAT.

        And my whole point is that, he did not say that. What he did apparently admit to is not “self-admitted racist” as someone here claimed. Resigning is not an admission of guilt, either.

        One single line in the paper set off a collective mass hysteria of “Hate the Racist Cop who must have hurt minorities for 27 years”.

        And once started nobody sought, or would LISTEN TO, a single word of actual evidence.

        I clearly stated it has nothing to do with OBJECTIVE right or wrong. It is allowing a GUT REACTION to take over, triggered by the SLIGHTEST (and likely irrelevant) feature or action that, in your subconscious mind, is part of the definition of the hated evil “other”.

        I am not stating “standing in rain” is equivalent to “drowning babies”. I am saying using either of these to TRIGGER A FLOOD OF HATE is sick. Sick and crazy and so built into people that even the sensible ones (as here) do not see it.

        It took our otherwise sensible people here about 3 posts to get from an allegation in a sleazy paper to calling for inquiries into 27 years of corrupt behaviour. That is very much the same PROCESS going on as GZ seeing a black kid in a hoodie and equating him with the known thugs who dress that way. And even more so the same with GZ’s supporters.

        Please try to re-read what I wrote without stopping to feel accused. You’ll see more clearly without that. Maybe go back and re-read what everyone else wrote, first, and see the hysteria build up, from a mere assumption of guilt.

        ============
        As for poor poor America…

        This instant over-reaction, based on little or no evidence at all, is prevalent in many fields in the USA today. Politics, religion, the economy, foreign relations…. it’s the paranoia that gets people shot daily for as little as looking at (or failing to look at) another person.

        No benefit of doubt, just assume the worst; don’t doublecheck or they might shoot first. But it’s the environment everyone grows up with. Exactly the same except for the main object of fear and derision. The hair-trigger process, the absence or rational thinking, the blind hate, the same. That is why I was so shocked to open a page of writing from people who had shown themselves smarter, more open minded, still fall victim to THEIR own particular hate object.

        And don’t get me wrong yet again. I am not saying racists or racism should be loved, or may not be hated. I am talking about the wholesale assumption of racism and corruption on no evidence, that opened such floodgates of hate here.

        I can see this BECAUSE I am outside, BECAUSE that is not the environment that I grew up and spent 60+ years in. I follow all your news, I have more American friends than Australian ones, I spend hours with them daily, and I see this in them, too. But at least they’ll talk about it, as a group, and slowly come to heal each other.

        Your nation is sick, Frederick, and you all know it. Racism is just a part of it, an easily quantifiable version of the Us vs Them mentality everyone seems to have grown up with as “normal”. You need to heal, and you need all the help you can get for it.

        I apologise if you feel accused; no accusation was intended. It’s your blog, if you still object, feel free to remove this.

        In fact, I’m putting in some spurious links to put it into moderation, so it’s your choice to print it or not. (But do look at the links)

        ~ aussie 🙂

        For the fighting:
        http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2939#comic
        For the peace:
        https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5080818944/hF1B8D540/

    • cielo62 says:

      aussie~ I just don’t buy your self righteous rant at all.”Products of our environment” is NOT the same as seeing from reality and experience. Sure, there are good cops. But THEY don’t hold the bad cops accountable, which is why corruption is rampant. And if people have no moral outrage, why bother to hold anyone accountable for anything? Cops, especially in Florida, are experiencing increased oversight and heat. Even this whiff of racism is having the chiefs running to CYA when 5 years ago it would have been totally ignored. Times change as do people’s expectations. This particular cop has been on the force for 27 years. It seems only just NOW he’s being held accountable for the words of his voice. I also don’t apologize for my beliefs; I see it here DAILY in Houston how minorities are truly railroaded (NOT like GZs fake railroad) for incidents both small and large. It’s GOOD to see one of the bad apples caught and held accountable. I enjoy reading how cops who take bribes, rape women drivers pulled over for speeding or cops who escort drug deliveries are arrested, convicted and sent to prison. It’s good to have them lose their badges, their peace keeper’s license, pensions and freedoms. It will be GOOD to see GZ sent to prison for decades. Indeed, God help YOU if you can’t see the difference between a hating a racist and being a racist.

      ________________________________

      • aussie says:

        “,,,This particular cop has been on the force for 27 years. It seems only just NOW he’s being held accountable for the words of his voice…”

        Guess what? he only just NOW said it.

        If he’d said it 27 or 22 years ago then you could fairly say “only just NOW” at long last he’s being held accountable.

        Or if you believe he should have been held accountable 17 years before saying it, that’s getting to be the same idea as drowning a newborn to stop it growing up into a criminal (or into a racist cop).

        All jokes aside, Cielo, I am trying to wake you (plural) up to the mental process by which you (plural) decided this cop is racist THEREFORE deserving of the hate poured on him.

        You have just listed a number of serious offenses by police. All of them can make you feel prejudiced against them. NONE of it proves THIS cop is like that, or that ALL cops are.

        The minute you use the shortcomings of SOME to apply it to the entire group, YOU are showing stereotyping, prejudice, bigotry… same as a racist does. Racism isn’t wrong because the victims are black or purple. It’s wrong because it is smearing a whole group of people, and hating them, because of assuming they are ALL LIKE THE FEW WHO ARE PROVABLY WORTHY OF HATE.

        It is ok to hate rapists. You are hating them for something they DID. The moment you hate blacks or asians or aliens from another planet (or COPS) because some of them are proven rapists, THEN you are being bigoted. Equally bigoted, regardless of which group you apply this stereotyping thinking to.

        So, let’s say it’s ok to hate racists. You actually hate cops (look at your list of reasons above) but you don’t even realise to what extent. So at the slightest whiff of “evidence” that this guy is racist, you transfer you feeling to hating him AS A RACIST which everyone agrees is a righteous legitimate hate.

        But how did you arrive at that conclusion?

        a) someone alleged he said something racist.
        * the complainant was another cop. If cops are so dreadfully corrupt, why the hurry to BELIEVE IT? can’t the complainant have been making a false complaint? the same way as they supposedly regularly give false evidence against non-cops?
        * an inquiry was held but not concluded so you can’t claim cover-up
        * several told the inquiry they did NOT hear him sy that. (Insert argument about cops routinely lying).

        SO FAR…. how do you decide WHO TO BELIEVE? if you say “but they always lie” about the ones who didn’t hear it, the consistent thing would be to say “but they always lie” also about the original complaint. I mean, either they lie or they don’t. So you’ve gone and believed the one YOU WANT TO BELIEVE based on your pre-conceived ideas about cops in general.

        b) in a more detailed story, it turns out he admitted to once, some other time, using words to that effect.
        * he said it referred to the trouble and work caused by repeat offenders
        * he did NOT say what/who those repeat offenders were (black purple green)
        * we never heard the context in which he said it so we couild judge for ourselves.

        Again, if “but they always lie” we shouldn’t be believing his admission, either, should we?

        YOU characterised this statement as “spewing hate”. ???? yet when someone said people like HIM should be drowned at birth we got pages of justification why that was okay to say. From him it is “spewing hate” and should cause his whole career to be investigated.

        Then you used this admission to claim he is a “self-admitted racist”.

        Excuse me???

        “Self-admitted racist” is someone who says “yes I am racist”. Or who says “yes I did make those undeniably racist remarks and I stand by them”.

        All he admitted was saying words to the effect of “drown at birth” in a context we DO NOT KNOW.

        If you take that as being directed at some minorities, then either
        * YOU are assuming it “must have been directed at them” because COPS ARE BAD (see above)
        * or you accept he meant it against troublesome repeat offenders but YOU ASSUME THOSE WOULD BE BLACKS because that’s who troublesome repeat offenders ARE.

        In other words the words were racist because that’s what cops DO???

        “…Indeed, God help YOU if you can’t see the difference between a hating a racist and being a racist. …”

        I believe you (plural) were ready to classify this cop as a racist BECAUSE of your own prejudices. Because there was no actual EVIDENCE that he is one. However, you were prepared to believe WHAT YOU WANTED TO BELIEVE because you already hate cops (by much the same process racists hate other races through).

        And this is SO INGRAINED, yes, so produced by YOUR ENVIRONMENT, so internalised, that you cannot even see it. THAT is what I am trying to get through to you guys. Because you’re all good hearted, and intelligent and good thinkers about the things that you CAN see .

        Hate racists, by all means. Go right ahead. (Though personally I’m more inclined to feel sorry for them).

        Just first MAKE SURE you classified them as racists for OBJECTIVELY GOOD REASON.

        I am the product of an environment with a lot less racism, and a law enforcement system designed to reduce corruption opportunities. (There is some of both, but nobody’s been brainwashed into expecting either around every corner). So MY reaction to that first new item was NOT MORAL OUTRAGE about a RACIST COP.

        My reaction was “I want to know more before passing judgement”
        * who made the complaint
        * the context in which the statement was allegedly made
        * what that person’s relationship is to this cop (personal, business, family, promotion, any previous disputes etc)
        * ditto about the ones who said they didn’t hear it
        * the context in which he said what he did admit to saying
        * the exact words of what he admitted to saying
        * even why this claim and investigation was MENTIONED AT ALL when he resigned, considering it had not been mentioned at all in the news previously.

        Pretty much the process by which we judge ANYTHING, if we want to get at the truth (or likelihood of truth).

        If you are subconsciously certain that cops are racist criminal pigs, then of course even an unsubstantiated anonymous allegation is going to SOUND TRUE to you. So you look no further.

        By the same token, if someone believes that blacks are criminal thugs, then of course even an unsubstantiated allegation of “he attacked me” is going to SOUND TRUE. So they look no further.

        You are all good guys here. For heaven’s sake WAKE UP to yourselves.

        • cielo62 says:

          I am not certain that ALL cops are racist pigs. I am certain that THIS cop is a racist pig BECAUSE HE ADMITTED IT. Hence the approbation he has earned.

          Sent from my iPod

  6. aussie says:

    So, nobody can give me an answer?????

    • Malisha says:

      Aussie, here’s my answer:

      I didn’t say I hated cops and I didn’t say I hated THAT COP and I didn’t say any of the things you thought I meant.

      I WAS DEFENDING whoever said that “people like him” should be drowned at birth, when I think Unitron said that THAT commenter’s comment was somehow the same as what that cop had originally said about drowning African Americans at birth, OK?

      It was a comment that was perhaps a bit over-the-top but it was said as a way to emphasize the outrageousness of the comment made by the COP!

      From there we went to hating and blah blah. I do believe that the cop’s records should be carefully investigated by someone other than the other cops (they never police themselves appropriately) and I do believe that cases where HE WAS THE WITNESS and the ARRESTING OFFICER against African Americans should be given special attention to determine whether he treated them fairly as a public servant or if, perhaps, his wish that they had been drowned at birth might have come into play while he did the society’s work of protecting the society’s people — Black and White. I never even said he should lose his pension because obviously even prejudiced people deserve their pensions.

      I hate most murderers and abusers. NOT ALL. I don’t do it for any particular reason; I recognize that I do it. If that makes me bad, fine; I’m not insisting that I’m good, either by virtue of being a minority OR by virtue of being morally superior to anyone. I don’t hate that particular cop but I think he has probably misused his power and that should be evaluated by impartial — NOT defensive “blue-line” loyalists — authorities. I don’t do much editing to my blogging and I try to say what I mean and get it down and SENT quickly. I’m not apologizing.

      The cop probably DID mean the racist-sounding comment he apparently made. His past conduct should be evaluated. I have no objection to his getting a pension. Any Black man he sent to prison for 20 years has a right to some re-evaluation of the circumstances of his conviction, though. Wouldn’t you agree?

  7. aussie says:

    Still don’t see it, do you?

    The COP is not “A self-admitted racist”. He admitted saying “words to that effect” in reference to the problems and work caused by repeat offenders (colour unspecified).

    That could be just as easily frustration as the same wording used by a blogger against him, Insisting it was racist is special pleading, ie DIFFERENT RULES for different people. By golly after 27 years arresting the same people over and over I”d get a bit frustrated, too.

    The “DUI conviction indicates someone with a serious drink problem” analogy doesn’t stand up, either. He wasn’t convicted (or even accused) of any serious misconduct against anyone, minority or otherwise. What he was accused of is the equivalent of hearsay that he was seen holding a glass which may have contained alcohol. .

    Resigning is not evidence of racism nor an admission of it. There are many innocent reasons for resigning, eg the stress of proving his innocence; the stress causing a doctor’s visit where a serious disease is discovered; knowledge that his accuser is out to get him because of a personal dispute …….. etc etc etc.

    The investigation had NOT found him guilty:
    “..A full investigation was conducted and the circumstances surrounding this incident resulted in retirement while under investigation…”
    http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/4/5/racial_remark_forces.html

    The Police Chief said he had a clean record. Denying this with claims of probable corrupt coverups is bigotry, not evidence. FACT is someone in that department reported this petty trivial comment and it was investigated. But you’re saying serious misconduct would NOT have been reported or investigated in the same department? This statement was not made on Twitter or TV, it was made at a police gathering, and the FIRST the public heard of it was AFTER he resigned, so you can’t even claim they only investigated to clear the name of the department.

    Cielo says
    “..There is a cavernous gap between hate and moral outrage. We feel moral outrage at the racist cop. HE feels hated for minorities. Big difference. Don’t know why Aussie doesn’t see that. .”

    Cielo also says “..Repeated racially biased behavior indicates a racist..” when there isn’t even evdence of ONE incident of such behaviour.

    Ahem… excuse me… WHAT racist cop who shows what hate?

    What I don’t see is EVIDENCE. I”ve listed above the main points various people here have tried to use to “prove” he is racist.

    None of them prove any such thing. They only prove how easily people can believe what they want to believe, based on false analogies,and STEREOTYPING (corrupt cops, coverups, resigned from guilt etc etc). Even people like yourselves who try to be fair-minded and have spent a full year analysing EVIDENCE.

    And still none of you can even see it.

    Five screens trying to justify DIFFERENT RULES for different people, why from him it’s “hate” when it’s only “hyperbole and frustration” from someone else….. based on “he’s racist” when there is NO EVIDENCE that he is. Only YOUR combined belief that THIS cop is racist because many cops are and THIS department must have covered up his previous offences because SOME departments do which proves he HAD previous offences.

    You’re feeling moral outrage because of “he is racist because he said a racist thing which we know is a racist thing because it came from a racist and what he said proves it”.

    You CAN”T SEE IT?????????

    PLEASE please PLEASE someone help me understand, in what way is that different from believing THIS black teen is a thug because many black teens are, and THIS teen attacked someone because SOME do so that makes him a thug.

    How is it different? please????

  8. Malisha says:

    AND one more thing: I don’t hate these sonsofbotches to prove how good I am. I may be no damn good at all. I hate them for what THEY do. I don’t hate all of their groups (all cops, all men, all whites, all non-Jews, all Jews, all Blacks, all anybody) but I sure do hate them and if I’m wasting my spiritual light by so doing, so be it.

  9. aussie says:

    You’re missing the point Malisha, I said nothing about hating jindividuals qua individuals. And you’re making assumptions about that killer (unless he just told you why). Or are you saying you’d hate him less if his reason was she cheated on him or wouldn’t hand over her purse? or wasn’t Jewish?

    And then, are you hating that person as an individual for being a murderer? or for being a member of a group known as Nazi? and if the latter, do you extend that hatred to people who had no choice but to join the Nazi Party as the only way to keep their jobs and feed their families? Do you extend it someone heard saying Heil Hitler? (even if the context was being sarcastic?)

    Anyway, why is it wrong to hate someone for being Jewish?

    Because you are basing the hatred on a stereotyped image of how terribly evil and hate-worthy being Jewish is.

    Now for “Jewish” substitute “black” or “racist” or “mentally disabled” or “homosexual” or “COP” — or even “trailer trash” — it is the same thing. Hatred based on overblown stereotypes (which can of course always be “proven” by a few examples) taken to the extreme of believing you are JUSTIFIED in not according them the same rights and courtesies as everyone else BECAUSE THEY ARE EVIL.

    You of course, behaving identically, are NOT EVIL because the self-definition that allows such discrimination and bigotry SAYS SO. The OTHER is evil and that automatically makes you GOOD. And by some twisted logic being GOOD entitles you to act just as badly as the EVIL ones do, as long as you only act that way towards the EVILS.

    It all boils down to judging everyone, yourself included, for WHO/WHAT they are, not by their actions, even though the WHO/WHAT is originally defined by small numbers of extreme examples of actions. In cases of doubt, ONE tiny display of any of the defining actions automatically ensures classification into that group… which automatically “proves” also having all the worst characteristics from the “extreme proofs of evil” list.

    Commonly, to be defined as GOOD it is enough to be a member of a group that is frequently discriminated against. Being part of a victim-group means you can do no wrong. You can sometimes even literally get away with murder and blame the other party, if they are conveniently a member of an EVIL group.

    The whole foundation of bigotry and discrimination IS the concept that laws and rights do NOT APPLY EQUALLY to everyone.
    Why the same rules don’t apply to me = elitism
    Why the same rights don’t apply to them = bigotry
    and they can be combined into a lot of nastiness.

    Here’s how it goes:
    1) cop said someone or another should have been drowned = cops are all racist so he must have meant this about blacks therefore that proves he’s racist which proves cops are racist and he must have brought a lot of misery on minorities so he’s a racist so he should lose his pension.

    OH BEFORE I FORGET actually it is people like him that SHOULD BE DROWNED AT BIRTH.

    2) there is nothing wrong with you saying that because YOU who said it are not a cop/racist/cop and it is only bad to say if one of THEM says it ‘cos it proves how evil they are but when I say it it only proves how GOOD I am for hating those EVIL BASTARDS, which is is OK to hate tho hate is generally bad but they deserve it.

    This still leaves me the right to hate a PERSON who was bad to me (eg killed my kid, robbed my house, trashed my car) even if they HAPPEN to be Jewish or black or disabled, without being accused of “only” hating them from racism or bigotry (therefore my hatred isn’t real therefore isn’t justified therefore they were okay doing what they did).

    Sorry this is so long, but the thinking behind these things IS long-winded and roundabout. That’s why most people don’t follow it through to see it in themselves.

    • Malisha says:

      Aussie, I don’t know what kiiller “didn’t turn over her purse” or anything else. I used an example that has nothing to do with the news and does not relate to any killing that occurred in the 21st century in the US. In fact, the example came from the movie “Schindler’s List” and I used it simply to identify the difference between hating people who are actually murdering others for no reason, and hating people who are born into a despised GROUP. I think it’s fine to hate people if they earn it. You DON’T earn it by being born the wrong race, color, ethnic origin, gender or socioeconomic group. You CAN earn it by killing somebody for no reason when it would be just as easy for you to NOT kill that person.

      My example was a generic example. In the movie, the Nazi kills a Jewish architect after ordering her to kneel down. My response was to hate him. Not apologizing. Am I bigoted? Perhaps and guess what, if that is bigotry I’m keeping my own personal brand of it.

      • aussie says:

        Perhaps I should keep it shorter so you could read past the first paragraph.

        You don’t earn hate by making a comment which, coming from someone else, you dismiss as innocent hyperbole. That is what I am trying to get through to you.

        It has to start out from same rules and same rights for everybody, or you’re sunk as a nation and we’re sunk as a species.

    • cielo62 says:

      Aussie- so you make a distinction on moral outrage as opposed to racial bigotry? Then why can’t that particular cop be hated for his behavior choices? Repetitions if a behavior makes you that thing. Repeated racially biased behavior indicates a racist. Once you hate and are morally outraged by ones choice of behavior, you extend that to the individual. Hating THIS COP is moral outrage. Hating ALL cops is racism.

      Sent from my iPod

      • Better yet, why devote any energy, effort and time to hating anyone?

        • cielo62 says:

          Professor- I understand what you are saying. Peace within us is a commendable goal. But I am concerned about the fact that people no longer feel outrage. Too many people view racism with the same passivity as the choice between rival teams. Actually, spirts gets far more passion. To devalue someone based on one characteristic is bad. To act on that belief becomes evil. As moral beings , we must take a stand against evil. I believe that is why over 2 million folks signed that petition. What we saw was the attempted legal sanction of taking a young mans life. Why? Because causing the death of a “black male f@cking coon” based on nothing but skin color is evil. Standing against evil takes energy. But that energy empowers us to act. If many people wouldn’t have been so passive during WWII, maybe less people would have died. I certainly don’t waste too much time hating GZ. But my outrage at his evil choices keeps me praying and primed for June 10.

          Sent from my iPod

          • I did not mean to imply that there are not bad people who must be held accountable for terrible acts.

            I act out of principle because I view it as my duty to do so.

            I do not use hatred as an engine uses gasoline.

            I do what I do because it is the right thing to do and I try to never forget that everyone is human and capable of change and resurrection.

            Yes, even the incredibly selfish and toxic fogen who appears never to have accepted responsibility for lying, using and harming others must be held accountable and provided a chance to change the horrific person he has become.

            Nothing good can ever come from welcoming hatred into your heart.

          • racerrodig says:

            Well said !!

        • cielo62 says:

          Professor- at least I feel comfortable speaking out on this topic. Ethics was my focus of post graduate studies.

          Sent from my iPod

      • aussie says:

        Cielo – start worrying about feeling outrage for NO CAUSE and then then trying to use your outrage as proof that there IS a cause.

      • aussie says:

        What repetitions of behaviour? so far there isn’t proof of even one time. You invented the rest.

        “..Hating ALL cops is racism. .” Hating ONE cop because he’s a cop is racism too. A person can have close friends from a group and still be deeply racist against the group as a whole or other members of it. You don’t have to hate them ALL, or even hate any. You just have to define that group as deserving hate.

      • Malisha says:

        Professor, I am not “putting energy” into hating people I hate. I am reacting and responding as a human being. This is the way I am and I am not dissatisfied with it because I don’t abuse anybody. In fact, if a person I hate is sentenced to death, I join right in the anti-death-sentence petition and all the efforts to prevent him or her from being killed. I have done that over and over. WHILE I hate them. My energy goes to saving their life but I’m not going to say I don’t hate them.

    • Malisha says:

      Commonly, to be defined as GOOD it is enough to be a member of a group that is frequently discriminated against. Being part of a victim-group means you can do no wrong.

      Cut the CRAP. I am not standing up for my right to hate abusers because I want to be GOOD. I am standing up for my right to hate abusers because that is an integral part of my personality and I am entitled to it.

      AND I don’t believe membership in the hated group “Jews” makes me GOOD. I hate plenty of Jews and I hate plenty of non-Jews. If they are self-righteous lying scumbag abusers I hate them. And I am not HATING them to be “good” in your or anybody else’s eyes.

      In fact, put me down as “BAD” right now. That way we have no argument about irrelevancies. Bad or good, I find it in myself to hate anyone who unjustly and abusively deprives an innocent of personal security, life, liberty or property without due process of law.

      • aussie says:

        “… hate anyone who unjustly and abusively deprives an innocent of personal security, life, liberty or property without due process of law….”

        We are talking about the COP. He deprived nobody of anything. But you joined in the chorus of calling him a racist for a statement (“drowning”) which you explained in detail as being justified coming from someone else.

        The argument roughly was, if a blogger (who is “good” because they support Trayvon) says it, it’s mere hyperbole born of frustration. If the cop says it it’s RACIST (because he has power over minorities). BUT no evidence to say it had anything to do with minorities (unless repeat offending criminals are now a protected minority).

        You are standing n your right to spew hate on this guy because “he’s a racist” and you are not, so your not being one entitles you to hate those who are (“moral outrage”).

        EXCEPT he’s been classified as a racist ENTIRELY on assumptions and stereotyping that is suspiciously like racism. And which everyone here is dodging around looking at, with increasing hyperbole about their right to outrage.

        The point is, this cop case is NOT one of those cases that, even by your own definitions, warrants outrage.

        Everyone got outraged first, because of their own prejudices they are STILL HIDING FROM THEMSELVES, and then tried to use the outrage as evidence for being right in their prejudiced belief.

  10. aussie says:

    Hate is hate.

    Going overboard is going overboard.

    Doesn’t matter if you hate someone because they’re black or because they’re racist (except the latter is a lot harder to prove).

    IMO one sentence, inaccurately quoted, without context, doesn’t prove it. A lot of the hate I see here today is from earlier experience and earlier stories. And sure, I know there’s racist cops out there, and otherwise corrupt cops. Same way as there ARE blacks who are drug dealers and thugs.

    One sentence and you “know” he’s one of “those”? then why not one glimpse of a black face and “know” he’s one of “those” ???

    Saying but black is good and racist is bad is NOT ON. Neither justifies the blind HATE. Why? because HATE is bad. Hate is bad and that is WHY extreme racism is bad. Because of the hate, not because of who it’s against. Because of the hate piled on on the flimsiest associations with stereotyped concepts of “them”.

    And some of you think one vague sentence deserves a fine of 27 years’ worth of pension?

    The kid, of any colour, who IS a drug dealer or thug, is a product of his environment. The person who has some racist thoughts is a product of HIS environment. People like GZ are products of their environment. People who turn out well behaved are also products of their environments. Luck of the draw.

    You can NOT spew hatred on people just for not having seen the light and gone against what they grew up with. If they stepped over the line of what’s legal, by all means insist they be charged. But try to keep a sense of proportion, at least. Stop this vicious blind hatred backed up by false righteousness… especially while jeering at the “other side” for doing the same.

    It IS the same and I am shocked beyond belief to see it here, and shocked that none of you can see it.

    • cielo62 says:

      Aussie- people are not “products of their environment”. If you plant corn, WITH HUMAN BEINGS, you don’t always get corn. We have free will. Many make conscious decisions to NOT emulate previous generations. This is how attitudes change over time. I don’t understand why you are defending a SELF IDENTIFIED RACIST. He resigned instead of fighting his case and proving his innocence. I’m personally torn over the issue of the pension; I don’t like to think people get rewarded for acting on THEIR hate while wearing an authoritative badge that can cause misery to the minorities he hates. OTOH he did serve his time and put in his pay. Honestly I don’t understand your rant at all. If you want to defend someone, at least defend someone whose case has not already been settled.

      Sent from my iPod

      • fauxmccoy says:

        cielo – i can only concur with what you have stated. my mother was born and raised in the segregated south and chose to leave that and her southern baptist upbringing. fortunately, she took her nursing license and moved to california in the late 50s. she has worked hard to overcome the racism that was rampant in her upbringing. although she has come far, she is human and far from perfect. i remember as a child, visiting her family in the south and asking her things like ‘mommy, howcome your brother says (the n word) when you have taught me to never use that word?’ this would usually bring her to tears and she had no rational response – this was her family and although their words caused her pain, she did not have the emotional strength to speak out.

        as an adult, i go back on occasion to visit. my uncles and cousins will start bigoted rants in front of my children and i clearly state that we are not interested in listening to bigotry and we walk out of the room. it may not do much for family relations, but i don’t really care – they live 3k miles away and i see them once every 5 years or so.

        what i am trying to say is that this is a ‘progress, not perfection’ thing. my mother chose to break free from a lifestyle that promoted bigotry, but could never say to her family that was the reason. as the next generation, i am far more bold and my children will be more so. we are not all doomed to being a product of our family origins or their chosen locations. we each have the ability to determine what we know is wrong and teach our children better. i have no doubt that my children will be able to deal with these things even better than i have. but it all started when my mother chose to move 3,000 miles to escape the south and i am thankful for those steps. it would be easy to say that perhaps she had not done enough, but in reality, that was a huge step for a single woman at that time.

        • cielo62 says:

          Faux McCoy- once again, I stand in awe of you and your mother. It takes courage to change. When people don’t choose to change EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW BETTER, they should be held accountable. Especially in fields where you will be dealing with all kinds of people and your oath is to serve and protect ALL. Because of people like you and your mother, people of ALL colors and backgrounds have come out for justice in this case. There is hope for the future!

          Sent from my iPod

          • fauxmccoy says:

            thank you cielo. the other thing my mother did which made a profound impact on me occurred before i was born, was to walk off a job in protest. my father’s IRS job had him transferred to las vegas in the late 50s, early 60s to investigate the mob/casino situation. my mother took a job at a private hospital where she mostly attended to vegas stars drying out or hiding their various addictions. after 6 months on a relatively cush job, she saw their ER turning away poor folks and folks of color as ambulances rushed trauma victims to the closest hospital. when she realized that her employer refused to follow the hippocratic oath and sent poor folks to die en route to other hospitals, she resigned immediately and walked off the job. she spent the remainder of her career at non-profit hospitals and rose to the top of the ranks, becoming a highly paid director of nurses. i may not always get along with her, but there is no lack of respect for her ability to take a stand in the presence of social injustice.

            it was my father who taught me to embrace the spanish language and hispanic culture. he grew up in utah, as the qusi-mormon son of a wealthy cattle baron. he spent most of his time escaping the limited views of his peers and worked in sheep camps with basque and mexican herders. since he was the youngest, he was relegated to camp cook. it was incumbent on him to learn their language and food preferences. he too escaped his narrow minded world as soon as practical and met the woman of his dreams who had done the same. i am grateful to them both. my home’s revolving door of teens of all colors, classes, and sexual orientation, etc.is graphic demonstration that the seeds they planted for change and social justice are paying off. the attitudes of my children is so very different than that of my grandparents that it is hard to believe they are related. that is just how my husband and i wish it to be.

          • cielo62 says:

            Faux McCoy- you are all beacons of light. Thank you!

            Sent from my iPod

      • aussie says:

        cielo
        a pension is not a reward for being racist. It is an entitlement based on years of service. And that was general cop work service, it’s not like he spent those 27 years working for the KKK.

        “Self identified racist” ??? where does it say that? he allegedly admitted saying something along those lines in a different context (still not know to us) ONCE. What evidence is there of “acting on his hate” that caused any effect on anyone else? IF it turns out someone seriously misbehaved throughout his career, THEN he deserves to lose the pension because he didn’t really earn it.

        You are just ASSUMING that IF he is a bad racist and this comment is only the tip of the iceberg then MAYBE he treated black people
        unfairly or illegally etc etc. throughout his career. Was there any complaint from anyone? ((and don’t say oh they’d be scared to complain…. this complaint apparently came from another officer… so you say that same one would have turned a blind eye to this guy say beating up someone?). And if that whole department was so racist that they’d not have mentioned his beating someone then they’d not be looking into this complaint. You can’t have it both ways.

        But if you start making a string of assumptions like that, you’re right back to “some blacks are thugs and thugs wear hoodies therefore Trayvon must have been a thug etc.etc”. Same line of thinking.

        Let him who’s never had a single bad thought about another race throw the first stone.

        Maybe everyone should lose their pension, just in case.

        The growing up environment purports to be “normal” and “the way the world is”. It will NOT teach that itself is wrong. The person has to somehow find that out from somewhere else. And then find their own means of acting contrary to what they grew up regarding as “normal”. They can’t all always manage it. A person brought up in a racist environment will still sometimes get a racist thought. The difference is they CENSOR it and don’t say it. Most of the time. That does not make them evil or deserving punishment.

        “Mothers who dress their 10year olds like whores ought to be shot”. Is that a death threat? incitement to violence? no, it’s just hyperbole. Same as people on this blog claimed “just hyperbole” when saying guys like this cop should be drowned at birth (for SAYING THAT about someone else).

        So why is it ok for one to say it and not the other? because blacks are innocent so can’t be attacked? while cops are nasty racist killers who don’t even deserve pensions? ????

        Sorry. Something is either right or it is wrong. And that depends on the “something” itself, NOT on who you target it at. Otherwise you’re right back to it’s okay to shoot SOME people……and we’re just arguing about who those “some” should be.

        @@Fauxy
        you prove my point exactly. You mother somehow saw the light, saw a different way, and chose it. The rest of the family NEVER SAW IT so they’ve remained the same…. what they grew up with.

        And you walk out and leave them to it, or tell them you don’t want to hear what is their only reality . Have to tried to gently, non-judgmentally LEAD them to seeing things differently?

        .

        • cielo62 says:

          Aussie- had this cop actually been fired, he would have lost that pension, so in some regards, that pension is a reward for service done correctly. I do assume, based on human nature, that the comment that surfaced is the tip if an ugly iceberg. The same way that each DUI is usually just one of many times that person had driven impaired. What we are seeing in the department is a paradigm shift. Nobody used to complain, or take those complaints seriously. Why not? Cuz everybody was racist. But now racism within the cop shop is no longer cool. Here is the new shift. That cop deserved to be sanctioned. That he didn’t fight shows he sees the writing on the wall and he’s on the wrong side of history.

          Do cops stick together to cover up egregious wrong doing? You bet!! Beatings, murder, drug sales, you name it! Based on past experience, yes I believe this cop was guilty of what he said, since HE ADMITTED IT. Again, why defend a racist on a case that had already been settled?

          Sent from my iPod

        • fauxmccoy says:

          aussie asks

          Have to tried to gently, non-judgmentally LEAD them to seeing things differently?

          yes, of course i did – only to be on the receiving end of much condescension and name calling. if you have not been to the american south, you may not be aware of how persistent and pervasive this culture is. when you are a minority of one in a crowd of 30, it is beyond unpleasant. that is why i now walk away and take my children with me. i am showing my disapproval, by refusing to engage. i know what the price is for daring to speak up and they know where i stand. i honestly look forward to the time when my mother’s generation has passed and i will not be bound to unbearable visits with people whom i would normally not associate.

    • Malamiyya says:

      Don’t say “none”, Aussie. More than once, I’ve been reading from the bottom of the thread, and said to myself, “This is a centered remark.” And then scrolled up and found it was from you. Keep your cool and stay with it. You bring a standard of mature vision to this thread that keeps the discussion from falling into name-calling and self-righteousness, and that’s as valuable as the professor’s lessons in law. I’m sure I’m not the only one who appreciates that.

    • Malisha says:

      Aussie:

      Doesn’t matter if you hate someone because they’re black or because they’re racist (except the latter is a lot harder to prove).

      Wrong.

      I think it’s NOT OK to hate someone who’s Jewish just because she’s Jewish, but it IS OK to hate a Nazi who just shot her in the head while she was kneeling on the ground because she was Jewish.

      “Hate is hate”? So that makes everyone who hates anyone equivalent to a murderous racist bigot?

      Let me off before the vehicle gets to THAT STOP, OK? I’m not going THERE.

      • Malamiyya says:

        I think it means that hatred is never productive of anything positive. And you enter a moral minefield when you say your hatred is wrong but mine is justified. What Trayvon needs from us is clarity of vision and steadiness of purpose, not self-righteous condemnation of anyone. Let that be a difference between this blog and the other one, which trades in it.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “I think it means that hatred is never productive of anything positive. And you enter a moral minefield when you say your hatred is wrong but mine is justified.”

          An excellent way of expressing it.

          Thank you.

          unitron

      • cielo62 says:

        Malisha- I agree. There is a cavernous gap between hate and moral outrage. We feel moral outrage at the racist cop. HE feels hated for minorities. Big difference. Don’t know why Aussie doesn’t see that.

        Sent from my iPod

      • aussie says:

        Cielo

        what I CAN see is
        1) cop said something not accurately recalled by anyone, in a context we don’t know
        2) you assume that makes him racist and hating minorities (aided by a bigotry that “cops are racist and/or corrupt”)
        3) you feel that entitles you to be outraged
        4) therefore you feel you may freely use against him the SAME WORDS that out of HIS mouth was evidence of racism.

        Y’all be making me dizzy here.

        • cielo62 says:

          Aussie- I NEVER said to use the same words back at him. MY point is that it is morally permissible to hate that which is morally indefensible. By extension, you can hate someone who consistently chooses to act in accordance with what is morally reprehensible. A racist is like an alcoholic; you might catch them one or two times in a DUI but you’d be an idiot to think that those are the only times that person drank and drove. Same for this cop. You’d be an idiot to think he was comfortable enough to spew this hatred was a one-time episode. If you do, you’re not as smart as I believed. He is a racist, didn’t dispute it, took his retirement and went away.

          Sent from my iPod

      • Malisha says:

        Malamiyya:

        I think it means that hatred is never productive of anything positive. And you enter a moral minefield when you say your hatred is wrong but mine is justified. What Trayvon needs from us is clarity of vision and steadiness of purpose, not self-righteous condemnation of anyone. Let that be a difference between this blog and the other one, which trades in it.

        This sounds nice but I couldn’t disagree with you more. I disagree that “hatred is never productive of anything positive.” If more people had made it very obvious to Fogen that they HATED his obnoxious armed patrols, that they HATED the way he was ranting and raving about Blacks in the neighborhood, and they HATED those behaviors that led to the death of Trayvon Martin, I doubt that coward would have attempted his little hero act that night.

        “You enter a moral minefield when you say your hatred is wrong but mine is justified.” I vigorously disagree again. It IS wrong to hate kids who are African American BECAUSE they are African American. It is NOT wrong to hate someone who has killed a kid for being African American. If that is a moral minefield, I will just the Hell stay IN IT and nobody can convince me that it is inappropriate. Mind you, remember, I am not a Christian. I do not believe that it is not my human right to hate abusers and murderers.

        “What Trayvon needs from us is clarity of vision and steadiness of purpose, not self-righteous condemnation of anyone.” I disagree most indignantly. First of all, I don’t believe Trayvon can need anything from me because I do not believe in life after death, but be that as it may, I will say this: I believe that before Trayvon died, he had needs that COULD HAVE BEEN MET by his culture, by his country, by his people (of which I am one although I am white), and those needs were not met. He needed us to make it clear that we would not tolerate a guy like Fogen killing him and he needed us to make it clear that if a guy like Fogen DID KILL HIM that guy would be punished to the fullest extent of the law and that person would be hated, reviled, rejected, abandoned, despised, and treated with the utmost horror and disgust, BEFORE, DURING and AFTER being given due process in accordance with the dictates of our Constitution. I think if Fogen realized how his attempts at heroism by murder would make him into the butt of jokes and the scum of the earth, he would have tried some other psyche-stroking activity that night rather than killing an unarmed innocent kid.

        Is my condemnation of abusers, racists, murderers, bigots, liars, and their minions “SELF-RIGHTEOUS”?

        If so, then OK. I do feel that I am more righteous than they are. I know it. I’m not gonna pretend I don’t know it. I’m not as low as the lowest of the low, someone who would stalk, terrorize and kill a kid and then lie about it and blame the kid and say it was God’s plan. I hate that effing punk. If I were asked to serve on his jury I would say, “I cannot serve because I hate the defendant.” And I would go right on hating him. ❗

        ALSO, I do not accept correction for my hating him.

        • cielo62 says:

          Malisha- ((((APPLAUSE!!))))))). I deeply believe that there is a world of difference between hating people based in a stereotype (racism) and hating an individual for the evil he has chosen to commit. I would not hate GZ except for the evil he has demonstrated over and over again. I have nothing against Afro-Peruvians. However I DO have great animosity for a child killer.

          Sent from my iPod

      • Malisha says:

        Aussie, I didn’t say I hated all cops and I don’t.
        I didn’t even say I hated that guy who made the “drowning at birth” comment although I’d personally insist on looking back at all his cases to see if there was a chain of anti-Black false arrests, beatings during interrogations, allegations of brutality, insult, disrespect, or the like.

        MY point is that the comment made by one of our commenters (now can’t even remember who) that people like THAT should be drowned at birth was, although it was obviously wrong, not a sign of bigotry, racism or other wrongful conduct on the commenter’s part. She was responding to something hateful and she used colorful speech to do so. It did not merit any negative criticism and I came in to her defense.

        And while I was at it, I defended the right to hate abusers, hate-mongers, and those people who really have made our country into a culture-war for many worthless misbegotten reasons.

  11. Lonnie Starr says:

    BREAKING NEWS: THE RATL HOA Has settled with Tracey Martin for 1 Million dollars for Wrongful Death.

  12. Malisha says:

    I have had a chance to study the points made by Unitron a little more now. Here’s my take on the issue of who, if either, was on top pinning whom, if either, to the ground.

    “The bullet hole in the sweatshirt and hoodie were near the left shoulder, while the GSW was more centered around approximately at the solar plexus

    OK.

    The hoodie would have to be pulled down and to the left of the victim’s body, then shot, while also being pulled toward the defendant, by the defendant”

    OK. This proves only that Fogen’s story about how he shot Trayvon Martin cannot be true.

    If you look at the pictures in the FDLE lab report of the light grey Nike sweatshirt worn underneath the hoodie, you see that the bullet hole is just a little under and slightly to the wearer’s right of the Nike swoosh logo which is on the wearer’s left right around where a pocket would be on a regular shirt, and if you compare that with the indication of the bullet hole in the body in the autopsy report you can see that the shirt would have to have been pulled down and a bit to Martin’s right (Zimmerman’s left), not left, for the holes to align.

    OK.

    Since Zimmerman was holding the gun in his right hand, he would have had to use his left hand to pull the shirts, and would more likely have been pulling toward his own left (Martin’s right) because pulling (at that angle almost pushing) toward his own right would have tended to throw him off balance and get his left hand and wrist in the way of the gun in his right hand.

    OK, or he might not be “pulling” at all. He might have already had the shirt & hoodie in his left hand’s grasp and threatening Martin with his right (holding the gun pointed at the youth) while Martin jerks his torso away either in pain or fear (or both) and they both get thrown off balance and tumble to the ground whereupon Fogen fires the bullet into Trayvon Martin.

    Despite the weight differential, if both of Zimmerman’s hands are busy doing something other than pinning Martin to the ground, that only leaves his rear end, and despite jokes about how fat it might be, he could only apply it to one point on Martin’s body, he couldn’t spread that weight out from Martin’s knees to Martin’s chest.

    OK, I actually do not think that Martin was pinned to the ground when he was killed but I don’t think it matters, really. But what Unitron said in his paragraph should be applied to the false narrative given by Fogen. HOW COULD TRAYVON have pinned Fogen to the ground? He could NOT have!

    If he’s sitting on Martin’s knees or thighs, Martin bends at the waist and pulling on the shirts pulls his upper body up off of the ground, and Martin’s arms and hands are free.

    BOTH of Fogen’s hands were free during the period of time HE SAYS his head was being bashed and his face was being punched and his mouth and nose were being covered in an attempt to smother him.

    If he’s sitting on Martin’s waist and has Martin’s hands or arms pinned under his knees, Martin can bend his own knees and plant his feet and buck.

    FOGEN could have “bent his knees and planted his feet and bucked” when he was allegedly underneath Trayvon Martin.

    If he’s sitting above Martin’s waist on his diaphragm, we don’t hear much screaming out of Martin because the air is already squeezed out of his lungs.

    If Trayvon Martin was sitting on Fogen above his waist, he could not have screamed “Help me Help me Help me” 14 or 15 or 16 (who knows what their lying count is by now, maybe 99+) times.

    Not to mention that that high up on Martin’s body, Zimmerman runs a considerable risk of castrating his own self with that gunshot.

    He’s pleading “self-defense,” not “self-castration.”

    During the struggle either one of them might have been on the top or the bottom at any given moment and swapped positions who knows how many times, but Zimmerman would actually have an easier time of it shooting Martin if he were on the ground with Martin on top of him.

    ONLY IF he had the gun out, ready, and prepared BEFORE he ended up underneath his prey.

    The struggle only lasted from 60 to 90 seconds.

    That was long enough to kill. Remember Fogen said he was “running out of time.”

    By the time that the state of Martin’s clothes was considered, he’d been lying on the ground, post mortem, for some time, and the tarp over him would have held moisture in rather than let it evaporate.

    OK, so he was wet from being on the ground AFTER being killed. That wouldn’t have kept Fogen from getting wet if he had been on the ground BEFORE killing Trayvon Martin.

    Officer Smith reports that as he was handcuffing Zimmerman and taking Zimmerman’s gun out of the holster he observed Zimmerman’s back to appear to be wet and covered with grass.

    If you check out the behavior and history of Timothy Smith, you may come to agree with my own belief that at least with respect to this case, not a word of what he says is to be trusted for a split second. I’d believe Serino or Singleton if they had said that. I don’t believe Smith at all.

    Then he puts Zimmerman in the back of the patrol car where, in my view, sliding contact with the seat upon entry and afterwards could have brushed that grass off, and, depending on the upholstery, perhaps absorbed some of the dampness.

    He was also given a chance to clean up at the bathroom in the police station, without observation, because the police were obviously trying NOT to collect evidence of what had happened.

    It seems to me that “Martin’s clothes were wetter than Zimmerman’s” is, under the circumstances and by itself, insufficient forensic evidence to establish that Zimmeman had Martin pinned on the ground for any length of time.

    Fogen’s and Martin’s clothes don’t prove the murder. But all the forensics taken together prove the murder. And having been pinned to the ground is not an element that has to be proven for the murder, either.

    All in all, I think it likely that Fogen had the gun out for most of the time that there was a struggle. I think that Trayvon Martin did not use his hands because he was in mortal fear and thought if he tried to use his hands, Fogen would kill him. Remember, HE DID NOT KNOW that the police were coming; Fogen DID. Whatever happened, in whatever order it happened, we can be sure of two things:

    1. Fogen’s story is false and cannot have been true;

    2. Whatever other way Fogen killed Trayvon Martin, it was murder.

    • Jun says:

      That may be true, but my point was, it would be freakin difficult and not really possible for Trayvon to pin Fogen on the ground, considering:

      1) The weight differential of Fogen having an extra 40 Plus pounds, equaling over 200 pounds altogether. That is a difficult amount to move and lift.

      2) Fogen had experience and training in using violence. Trayvon did not have any experience fighting or even training in fighting.

      3) Fogen is a fully developed adult.

      4) Trayvon would be a rag doll for Fogen.

      5) Fogen had a gun

      6) Fogen is crazy and unbalanced

      Even if Trayvon was able to pin Fogen on the ground, I highly doubt it would be for long, considering the huge margin of combat disadvantage for Trayvon, nor would Trayvon have the mental confidence

      I’m just saying by the forensics, there was no mud, grass, or debris transfer or smears onto Fogen’s clothing, so the shimmy MMA mount story really does not fly to me

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        “Mental confidence” in fighting is a really big thing because, if you can’t envision a move, having any useful or successful effect, you don’t engage it at all.

        When something is coming towards your face, you throw up your hands, why? What effect do you expect, interposing your hands between your face and what is coming towards it, to have?

        So, if someone is attacking you, and you not only don’t know what to do with your hands (because they’re not attacking your face), nor do you know what effect your hands can have if you use them, because you’ve never done it before. Do you think of striking a blow?
        What do you expect that doing so would do? You probably have no idea. You can’t see your blow as being powerful enough to knock them out, or even knock them down, because you’ve never knocked anyone out, and you have never knocked anyone down.

        So, you don’t know and you don’t have any confidence, so why would you do it? Especially since you can easily envision/imagine the retaliation it will bring. That imagined retaliation, is a good incentive not to engage risky conduct that you cannot possible evaluate the effects of.

        Anyone who doesn’t understand the concept of how higher weight translates into physical superiority, needs only to go to a gym and attempt to wrestle with a person who outweighs them by 30%. They’ll quickly realize that Trayvon had no chance at all against GZ, regardless of his filthy lies!

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      I think what we can say for sure is that the forensics are not consistent with GZ’s story. The angle of the shot and the misalignment of the holes in the shirts, make that impossible. Those shirts were pulled down 3 inches at least. There is no space for so much downward movement of the clothing in that position.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        In order for GZ to have a shot straight in with no angle [let’s forget about intermediate distance for the moment] Trayvon’s torso would have to be parallel to GZ’s torso. The only way that could happen if TM is straddling GZ, is for Trayvon to be laying on top of GZ. If TM is laying flat on GZ’s torso, then there’s no room for his garments to be pulled away from his body. Also, no room for any intermediate range shot. Also his left hand can only pull down and to the side, but not away from TM’s torso. So, we must move to another position since this one is impossible.

    • onlyiamunitron says:

      “I have had a chance to study the points made by Unitron a little more now.”

      And then you mix my words and those of someone else without pointing out which is which.

      That very first quote, about the left shoulder?

      Someone else’s words, not mine.

      unitron

      • Malisha says:

        All I commented about it was “OK,” right? Who cares whose words they were. You hadn’t block-quoted them and I didn’t realize they were someone else’s. If an abject apology to your obsessive correctness is in order, I herewith provide it in my typically faulty inferior grammar.

        NOW, as to the other words. You seem to concede that it is not terribly important to the actual case if someone here gets a small detail or observation minutely incorrect. (Again, I’m not going to sit here with Fowler’s and the Oxford to make sure “my words find favor with you” so I automatically repeat my disclaimer at every point when it is needed or even when you believe it may be needed.) Yet what I think has been happening recently between you and several others (including me, this time, although not including me on many past volleys) here is that you take issue with something that you think points up error — of any kind — on our part or on the part of BDLR or others associated with Team Martin. You seem, as your words play out upon others, critical and overly tsk-tsky and you also seem to be baiting us bloodthirsty dumb constitution-trashers. You seem to be so far above our silly and shameful mob mentality — you project (I do not claim that you “say”) the sense that “we” are just a horde of immature talkative folks spewing inaccurate and sloppy indictments of a fellow who really needs a fair trial while we are attempting to prevent that by speaking our minds with some factual inaccuracies (found by you at the rate of approximately one every other day, from a group of perhaps two to three dozen frequent participants).

        That’s what causes the irritation and the counter-irritation. Trayvon was either on the ground, standing unsteadily, still trying to run and hide, or in the midst of some evasive or defensive physiological movement when he was shot. It appears that the dual actions of grasping his hoodie and shooting him (respectively with left and right hands) were MOST unlikely to have been performed from a person prone on his OWN back underneath Trayvon and being “pinned to the ground” by Trayvon.

        But where has your attention gone? Look at your later, even more correct post about how this took place:

        You say [I will use a block quote]:

        Is Trayvon unconscious and unable to resist or move as Zimmerman is carefully placing each knee on Martin’s arms and hands?

        Unless Zimmerman can extend the length of his own thighs, a la Reed Richards, that places his behind at Martin’s waist or higher, which leaves Martin able to use his leg muscles to “buck”, to upset Zimmerman’s balance.

        If you’re the one on the ground, you’re the on a stable platform with no need to maintain your balance, unlike the person on top.

        Your challenge about Trayvon not being “unconscious and unable to resist or move as Zimmerman is carefully placing each knee on Martin’s arms and hands” is misplaced. That is the question that applies to the story FOGEN told about what was done to HIM a few minutes before the murder. HE claimed to have been pinned to the ground and not to have used his hands, legs, torso, or any other part of his body for anything during the entire savage beating. Now look at the possibility that Professor’s suggestion about Fogen possibly being on top at that point was correct. Was Trayvon unconscious? No, but he was probably paralyzed in fear. Was he “unable to resist or move”? Perhaps not, but perhaps all his resistance and movement only brought him more into the position he was shot in. Perhaps that gun had been drawn a full minute or a half minute before that moment, and Trayvon’s hands were UP as he begged Fogen not to shoot! Perhaps his hands were useless to him because his “fight or flight” response had been telling him “FLIGHT” for over five minutes at that moment. Perhaps his life was flashing before his eyes. Perhaps he was not able to do better than you assume he was able to do in that last ten-second segment of this untold tale. (How’m I doing grammar-wise, Your Honor?)

        And your sarcastic comparison of Fogen to Reed Richards (I confess my ignorance of Reed Richards, two demerits), and your assumption that Martin can then “use his leg muscles to ‘buck’, to upset Zimmerman’s balance,” [You’re either British or you got the single-quote and comma in the wrong order, by the way] is technically incorrect. I mean, yes you’re correct in the technical sense. In fact, that is what Fogen could have done while he was under Trayvon (in his version of the story) for 90 seconds being violently beaten. But Trayvon, in the version that some witnesses and some speculators are working with, would have landed on the ground only seconds before being shot through the heart. On the ground, probably with his hands still in the air to show he was unarmed, tired and terrified, and not strategizing this fight that he found himself in, busy screaming and crying out for his mother. I don’t personally believe he could have “bucked” and upset Fogen’s balance. Those TV shows where the cop is being pinned by the criminal and he “bucks and upsets the bad guy’s balance” are carefully rehearsed and usually performed by stunt-actors. All that a person like Trayvon can do when a situation like that comes upon them is go into OMG OMG OMG mode, the stuff of which great fighting moves are not made.

        When you observe that the person on the ground is on a “stable platform” and has no need to maintain his balance, although I cannot figure out what the point is, I would add that Fogen did not need to maintain his balance at the time of the fatal shot either. He may well have shot, lost his balance from the kickback of the gun, fallen, and gotten a boo boo on his nose or something. As long as he managed to kill his victim, he was in no danger of losing the fight from losing his balance as well. And a fall from the position from which he shot could well have gotten the back of his jacket all wet and covered with cut grass.

        I think the main reason I have written all this is not to defend my statements from criticism, since I have been known to get things wrong (and have been lucky enough not to be shot dead for that) but to try to distinguish figure from ground in the comments that are offered about what MIGHT have occurred that night. We ALL know that what did NOT occur that night is self-defense (while pinned to the ground and savagely beaten nearly to death) by Fogen against a violent, murderous and physically dominant Trayvon Martin, even though a competent and effective violent assault certainly would have been legal if employed against a threatening stranger stalking you in the dark in a car and on foot with a gun. We ALL know that what DID occur that night was the murder of a kid who had no idea what was going on, who had no way to effectively defend himself and who had no weapon. So if somebody says he was “pinned” when he was only “shoved and had the wind knocked out of him,” or if somebody says he was “pinned” when in fact he only slipped and fell while trying to escape and at the same time screaming in a terrified syllable of anguish, or if somebody says he was “pinned” when he “could have bucked” or something, OK.

        I used to tell my kid that if he did something to someone that was wrong, he did not get to judge their response. This came up because he had been taught a game I would not encourage (kids punched each other to see who flinched). He punched a girl who assessed her own damages in a way he didn’t like, and she threw him across the room. He came to me crying (she was too). He said he had not punched her “that hard.” HE judged that she had over-reacted, see? I said once you punch somebody, it’s up to THEM to say how hard it was. I say this because some of that applies to what happens on this blog at times.

        I don’t think Unitron is a troll. I do thing that some of the criticism Unitron dishes out hurts people more than he/she thinks, and then they say something Unitron gets to characterize as inappropriate, as picking on him, as “still wrong” or “wrong again” etc. If the person who originally said Trayvon could have been “pinned down” were a court-qualified expert on physiology and fight moves, and they came in way off the mark, sure, attack that. Obviously, yes, attack that. But if Trayvon was on the ground only stunned and not “pinned” — well, to me, that’s like the difference between “walking fast but not from fear” and “skipping.” Either it happened or it didn’t happen. Somebody said it wrong. Wow.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “Your challenge about Trayvon not being “unconscious and unable to resist or move as Zimmerman is carefully placing each knee on Martin’s arms and hands” is misplaced. That is the question that applies to the story FOGEN told about what was done to HIM a few minutes before the murder. ”

          Was Trayvon grabbing Zimmerman’s shirt with one hand and holding a gun with the other?

          If not, it’s an invalid comparison.

          unitron

      • Malisha says:

        Oops, I made an invalid comparison? How I wish I were Catholic so I could go to Confession and obtain forgiveness.

        Other than that and since I’m not, poor dumb me.

        PS: Trayvon had no opportunity to defend himself; Fogen murdered him. I have no idea what position Fogen murdered Trayvon in. Nor do I need to know that. Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa, but at least I never killed anybody and yes, I’m defending a position (my own) that is probably extremely assailable and if I were the prosecutor in this case I would lose in court and the defendant would go free and then sue Fulton, Martin, Sharpton, Jackson, Crump and LEatherman and clean up big-time. 🙄

        In fact, disregard that, strike all that, and just: 🙄

  13. elcymoo says:

    That settlement must have heads exploding all over the treehouse. I’m sure that rzjr. will have a twittersnit, too.

  14. NEWS FLASH:

    SANFORD – Trayvon Martin’s parents have settled a wrongful death claim for an amount believed to be more than $1 million against the homeowners association of the Sanford subdivision where their teenage son was killed.

    Their attorney, Benjamin Crump, filed that paperwork at the Seminole County Courthouse, a portion of which was made public today.

    • Rachael says:

      Hoooray!!!!!!!!!

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Attorney Crump should go after the HOA board members individually as well, since it was they who put this unsupervised vigilante at large in the subdivision. It was they who failed to take notice of the complaints, and it was they who failed to issue warnings to their NW, not to patrol, not to carry his firearm while he was walking his dog, since that was just a cover for mounting illegal patrols.

        They failed to supervise him, failed to honor complaints, failed to demand he issue reports of his actions and activities, failed to keep records of NW members, assignments, actions, areas of watch and notes of their reports. Had they done a proper job, they’d have noted very early on that GZ had been targeting an inordinate number of blacks. But, since they very likely knew this, but did not want any records created to show it, they are individually liable, since that is the only way to make other HOA leadership responsible for the decisions they’d like to hide behind the HOA while making, just as Noel Caracker did!

    • Puck says:

      I seem to recall reading quite a while ago that a couple of the witnesses (Dorival?) might have held back on some details because of potential liability issues for the homeowners’ association. Does this means they’ll spill it all now? Or would they be bound by a non-disclosure agreement that might prevent them from doing so?

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Nope, the only thing(s) a non-disclosure agreement can control are the fact related directly to the settlement, not the facts that are generally related to the underlying criminal case. Otherwise they could use this agreement to shield members from having to testify in the criminal case, which is clearly not possible.

        The fact is that Wendy Dorval should not have been holding back information contained in the police records, no matter how harmful the HOA might have found it. She’s very lucky that the information did not contain evidence of another felony, if it did, she’d be guilty of misprison of felony.

    • Rachael says:

      Does this in any way imply guilt or negligence on the part of GZ for being a NW and carrying a gun (yes outhousers, I know he was supposedly “not on duty”) or for following or for being a renter though head of a home-owner watch?

      Or does it mean that a wrongful death occurred on their property period.

      I mean what does this REALLY mean?

      • Rachael says:

        Ooops, I mean does this in any way imply the HA guilt or negligence by allowing GZ to be a NW (since he was a renter) and carry a gun –

        Sorry. I got so excited I said that wrong.

        And if so, what implications does it have (if any) for GZ?

      • Rachael says:

        ooops again, just read the article:

        “It is understood and agreed that the payment made herein is not to be construed as an admission of any liability by or on behalf of the releasing parties; but instead the monies being paid hereunder is consideration for avoiding litigation, the uncertainties stemming from litigation as well as to protect and secure the good name and good will of the released parties,” the settlement said.”

        http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-trayvon-martin-settlement-20130405,0,6893976.story

        Would you believe it is 10:08 here and I have not had my coffee yet??!!!

      • Jun says:

        I can see why they won

        The neighborhood subdivision are civilly responsible for negligence in allowing Fogen unsupervised to patrol, even after repeated complaints and fear from residents

        IMO, I feel the residents should also sue the homeowner’s association because Fogen caused them danger as well, due to his violence

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Sure thing, the HOA put them and their children at risk of great bodily harm or injury and in terrible danger of death, by unleashing upon the neighborhood an unsupervised and dangerously violent, angry vigilante who refused to abide by either the law or the rules.

          I’m pretty sure that an HOA does not have the right to just put anyone on the streets of the community and declare them in charge of neighborhood security, and advise all occupants to assist and honor the guy. But that is exactly what the HOA executive committee decided to do. I’ll bet the members did this, because they felt that the HOA would ultimately have to take responsibility for their own horrible decisions.

          This is why they should be held individually accountable, because it would not have taken much to avoid personal responsibility for this massive failure. My guess is, had they realized that they could not hide behind the HOA, they’d have demanded that any NW leader and group, be held to tight supervisions and standards. They should have demanded recordkeeping, monthly reports to the HOA, and Hearings to address complaints against the NW. They never even asked GZ to provide an answer to the complaints they received.

      • Malisha says:

        IMO, the HOA settled this quickly so they would not have to face it AFTER the trial. It usually takes a lot longer for any kind of a settlement in a case this big and complex. I consider this a very significant positive development!

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        The bottom line is it means, the HOA would rather pay 1 million dollars out of hand, than even attempt to fight the claim in court. This usually means that they feel it’s cheaper to concede rather than fight. Which also means they don’t see much in the way of a win if they did fight. I’m sure most people would agree that a jury that had to find the HOA guilty, would probably award Tracey and Sabrina the proverbial “Kitchen Sink”. They are being very generous in accepting this paltry sum. I would have totally supported a “Nuclear” lawsuit!
        Oh well, there’s still the City and the SPD, as well as the local papers, radio and TV stations for their hurtful and biased reporting.
        Stutzman, Pepitone and Hoax are you listening?

      • Malisha says:

        Lonnie, it doesn’t matter if certain folks are listening because it looks to me like Crump is way ahead of all of us and that makes me absolutely tingle with delight! OMG, Fulton and Martin are to be congratulated and thanked for all they have done in the cause of justice not just for their son but for all of us and for who knows how many young kids whose lives will be worth a lot more after this is finished. Trayvon’s legacy is in his parents as much as theirs was in him. Hoodies up!

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Hoodies up! This speaks volumes about the incident!

      • racerrodig says:

        Hoodie Up !!

      • Malisha says:

        Furthermore, you didn’t see NBC throwing a million dollars at Fogen but you saw the little HOA (much much MUCH smaller and less rich and powerful than NBD!) throwing a million dollars at the Fulton-Martins.

        We know where the power is now. We know that BDLR really HAS something in that back pocket, NOT something he will have a hard time reaching when he needs it.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        What else could they do? There are records of unaddressed complaints about GZ. They never accepted these complaints into their own records, they refused to accept complaints and they refused to request answers from the party complained against. That’s called “maladministration of executive function”. Since the executive function has never had any right to refuse to accept complaints and to require that complaints be answered.

        • Xena says:

          @Lonnie Starr. Your comment caused me to think of something else regarding GZ and NW. He was a renter. If he didn’t like the area, he could do what he did in the wee hours of the morning on 2/27/12 — move.

          If GZ’s true motivation was to protect that community, and if he believed he had done no wrong, he would not have abandoned it.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Wendy Dorval and the information about NW that she provided for GZ, told him not to patrol, not to follow suspects and not to carry a firearm in the process. So GZ knew he was doing wrong to patrol the Neighborhood while armed and his threadbare dog walking excuse was voided by the complaints that the HOA did not want to hear.

            It’s obvious that GZ knew he was wrong by the lies that he tells. He had no way to know, that; there being no witnesses in sight at the time, that there would be ear witnesses to prove him so wrong.

            We hear him say that Trayvon challenged and then attacked him. But we discover that at the time, he told his girlfriend over the phone, that GZ was behind him again, then she hears Trayvon ask “Why are YOU following me for?” then a “What are you doing around here?” answer and a push. Then screaming and a gunshot and GZ standing over the body. Then a story that a timid unarmed teen tried to kill him and almost succeeded if not for his gun. A weapon that he always purposely carries on patrols against the rules. I cannot wait to see him led into the courtroom in chains for sentencing.

          • Xena says:

            @Lonnie Starr

            It’s obvious that GZ knew he was wrong by the lies that he tells.

            BINGO! Back in April 2011 before GZ was arrested, I read comments on Yahoo that argued the dispatcher did not have to be obeyed — no law that says you can’t get out of your car, etc.

            Then GZ’s re-enactment was released. Seeing him lie and try to cover-up for when and why he got of his vehicle renders the argument of Zidiots moot BECAUSE — by his lies, GZ knows he was wrong.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            You meant April 2012, but we knew that. and yes, all or most of his lies are an attempt to show that he should be excused for breaking one rule or another. He should be excused for carrying his gun while following, because he simply forgot that he had it on him. He should be excused for frightening Trayvon because he really didn’t frighten him, the fact that Trayvon was skipping away proves it. He shouldn’t be faulted for following Trayvon, because he wasn’t following him, just going in the same direction to get an address so the police would know where to meet him. (An address where he had no intention of staying put).

            Oh, and he shouldn’t be faulted for drawing his weapon and shooting Trayvon, because if Trayvon hadn’t reached for his weapon, he would not have even known that he had one. Yeah! Right, and we’re all a bunch of blithering idiots unable to think.

            But, just so you can see how his threadbare lies serve to make you ever more angry at him, because they’re so transparent.

          • Xena says:

            @Lonnie Starr. Thanks for catching the mistake with the year and correcting it.

            But, just so you can see how his threadbare lies serve to make you ever more angry at him, because they’re so transparent.

            My connection is more with Trayvon. I feel his fear. I feel his bewilderment. I feel his urgency. Trayvon didn’t want to die.

            As it pertains to GZ, if anything, I would like to be in the same room with him and each time he falls asleep, play the 911 call that captured the screams — loud — and wake his ass up.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Ah, there are so many of these fools it wears you out trying to figure out punishments for them. I’ve done it enough times to have grown terribly tired of the exercise, just put him in an 8 by 12 and keep him their until his clock runs out. Good enough for me.

      • Malisha says:

        LONNIE: “Maladministration of Executive Function” is a godsend to me. The phrase is a GODSEND and I thank you profoundly for it. :mrgreen:

    • kllypyn says:

      The zimmerpukes will certainly have something nasty to say about that.

      • Xena says:

        @kllypyn. I’ve been saying — GZ is toxic. The HOA has now been infected by his toxicity.

        While he awaits trial, not having a permanent home, unemployed, and dependent on others to give him money, Trayvon’s parents are blessed financially due to GZ’s decisions and actions of killing their son. That must tear him up inside.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          GZ is toxic, toxic, toxic and… He hasn’t yet finished doing damage to those who support him. Now that white supremacists have taken to killing public officials who get in their way, white supremacists are about to take it hard on the chin, and I do mean really really hard.

          • Xena says:

            @Lonnie Starr

            GZ is toxic, toxic, toxic and… He hasn’t yet finished doing damage to those who support him. Now that white supremacists have taken to killing public officials who get in their way …

            That retaliation against public officials goes back to the 1970’s with Posse Comitatus which is the root for the current sovereign citizenship movement. They do not believe that the government has jurisdiction. For decades, they did their dirt by filing “constitutional liens” against the property of prosecutors, police officers, and judges. Subsequently, many states legislated law preventing that. For instance, now in California, les pendes liens can only be filed by attorneys. In pro per litigants must have an order of the court.

            If by chance sovereign citizens are subject to the decisions of the government, they believe it is treason and therefore justifies execution.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Where White Supremacists aim to either take over or die trying, My guess is watch them die trying.

    • The bullet train is heading down the tracks!

  15. ay2z says:

    The reason,on the face it, this petition to have JUdge Nelson”s ruling/re-ruling reversed.

    But what other uses would come of this success? Will Judge Nelson be discredited in her decisions against the defendant, and will there be reason to ask the appeals court to consider these as well?

    Will success with this writ be a stepping stone towards further reviews and for asking for a new Judge if she fails to fold under pressure and recuse herself?

    Will the special appeal hearing, if granted, cause any delay for the set trial date that would benefit the defense?

    If the hearing and writ are granted, then would we expect further demands on the appeals panel, in an attempt delay?

    • Rachael says:

      I’m wondering if it is just to piss the judge off and then they will feel that because she is pissed off, she cannot be impartial and will go judge shopping some more.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      Judge Nelson will continue to rule as the law prescribes and thereby leaving no grounds for recusal. MOM can appeal all he wants but the start of trial is necessarily at the Judges discretion so the case will go to trial, MOM will probably have to do something that would get him disbarred to stop it.

  16. ay2z says:

    Bernie DLR has responded to the petition to the appeals court.

    Got a pet peeve, and that is the pipeline of document information flows from and through Mark O’Mara’s George Zimmerman Legal website. They now control the flow.

    Once we all go there routinely, because that’s where the OS and other news outlets get their docs for free without going to the clerk’s office, we can see whatever else the defense wants us to see, an explanation of this, a photo of that.

    WFTV started out last year by posting documents, videos, interviews. CFNews does it also, but they don’t write the first headline stories as quickly as Stuz and Wein.

    When O’Mara needs to get a message out, closer to trial, he will have an audience for whatever use he might put that site to, if only to show visitors numbers as ‘supporters’ when in fact, we may just be after a document.

    The state has no place for the documents to be shared, other than the court clerk.

  17. SearchingMind says:

    The Constitution died!

    Personhood, individuality and right of self-determination constitute the three basic elements of Man’s Dignity. That Dignity is not measured in materials and money available to man, but man’s (margin of) liberty to act in accordance with his own will and be the master of his own destiny. That Dignity becomes an illusion when the government can, against man’s will, violate- subjugate and force him to act in a way detrimental to his privacy, safety, feeling of self-worth and ability to have the ultimate authority over what happens with his own physical body, countenance and image. An undignified life is not worth living. Equally disturbing is when the government allows organized groups and/or individuals to violate other private individuals in the same manner.

    Personally and professionally, I find it very sad and extremely disturbing that the mother and father of a murdered kid as well as the dead kid’s childhood girlfriend were forced against their will to sit down and be videotaped by (counsels for) the (accused) murderer of their child and loved one, while he grinds, interrogates and intimidates them, puncturing every swollen wound in their aggrieved hearts over and over again, while secretly salivating and reveling at their quiet groans of sorrow and pain! As in rape cases, these victims were forced to relive the evil ordeal that befell them in front of the camera of the monster who shattered their lives.

    In my most humble personal and professional opinion, NO CRIME VICTIMS (or anyone for that matter) who has committed NO CRIME(S) should be forced to allow themselves to be videotaped against their will in (an) official proceeding(s) (and without good cause). Doing so violates the personhood of a person, his individuality, his right to self-determination and his privacy, amounts to double victimization and rape of the spirit. This is exactly what the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for, with regard to video deposition of crime victims.

    It is therefore not a day of joy – today. It’s a day to mourn. I ‘rent my garments, gird on sackcloth and mourn’ before the Constitution, because, the Constitution is dead! It provides no actual “unalienable rights” to the individual and has as such lost its meaning and value.

    Undeniably, an accused murderer has a right to fair trial and must be accorded all means necessary to achieving that goal. BUT, how does videotaping the victims of the accused murderer add and/or subtract anything from accused murderer’s ability to defend himself? Wherein – having answered the first question –lies then the need for the severe breach of the Constitutional rights of Ms. Fulton, Mr. Martin and Ms. DeeDee?

    Neither the Florida Legislature nor Judge D. Nelson can- or would answer these questions. Personally, I would have based the arguments against video deposition squarely on the Constitution and ask the Court to set aside the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedures with regard to those video depositions. BDLR, however, did do his best under the circumstances (he can’t act in a way that would force a continuance). And BDLR is a true Gladiator of- and for the Republic. But that does not make the spiritual rape of the aggrieved parents of the dead kid (Ms. Fulton and Mr. Martin) as well as his childhood girlfriend any better. The damage has been done and is final. I can only but hope that the Prosecution motions for the physical destruction of those tapes after the trial, for they serve no legitimate purpose!

    Disclaimer: the above is deeply held personal opinion and might conflict with the orthodoxy.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      It’s not a good thing when all depositions are not videotaped and this is used selectively. It would be another thing entirely if all depos in FL were videotaped routinely.

      Harrassment and more high theater for the paying Fogen supporters.

    • Jun says:

      IMO it was ruled semi-fairly because it took into account both sides

      Omara had to pay for the videotaping but he cant even use the tapes because they are sealed and I doubt he will get a court order for them, considering he did lie to the court

    • Malisha says:

      It did not die of natural causes, either. It was “real suspicious” so somebody killed it.

  18. acemayo says:

    The Petitioner believes that Mr. Crump is aware of how the
    State Attorney’s Office came to know about Witness 8. This
    information cannot be gained from any other source, as the
    State has refused to provide that information to the Petitioner.
    This is relevant because it is important to understand the
    circumstances surrounding how this very important witness
    came to be known by the authorities prosecuting Mr.
    Zimmerman and why her identity was withheld initially.

    If you remember that police department knew
    Who TM was, what school, he went to, he never had any record
    when they ask GZ to tell his story about shooting so many hours
    after he shot TM.on the same night.
    If they knew all about that they will also know his parents phone numbers
    The police department had better resoures than MR. Crump.
    Why don’t OM made the state tell him what he wants to know

    At the scene, EMTs observed
    that Mr. Zimmerman had bleeding lacerations to the back of his head consistent
    with his head being struck on or by a hard object, facial cuts and a swollen,
    bleeding, and likely broken nose.

    The EMT also say at least 45 to 50 percent of his head was cover with blood
    GZ say before he shot TM blood was all over his face and in his eyes
    But the picture of his likey broken nose with his face is not cover with blood
    or is his eyes has blood on them

    It is of the utmost importance for the preparation of the
    Petitioner’s case to know if Witness 8 has been influenced in
    any way that may affect her testimony, inadvertently or
    otherwise, by the circumstances surrounding the interview with
    Mr. Crump. It is certainly relevant in a criminal case for the
    defense to be aware of any undue influence on the prosecution’s
    key witness. Mr. Crump possesses relevant information in this
    regard.

    GZ had plenty of time to go home and get his story toghter
    He stay with friend how do we knew they did not help get his lied striaght
    His father was also in town
    remember GZ change is story many times

    • Jun says:

      If that was the case, why would they not also depose ABC’s Matt Guttman?

      Why not ask witness 8?

      And yes, that is a good question, as it is fairly obvious the defendant contradicted himself and lied, to cover up activities, so why is there no investigation into that matter?

      Why is there no investigation into the matter of Omara knowing about the money and telling a misrepresentation at the first bond hearing?

      How do we know Omara is not heavily influenced by Fogen to say what he says, or other influence?

    • Malisha says:

      They’re trying to put the prosecution on trial for the crime of prosecuting someone they cannot defend.

  19. Two sides to a story says:

    Sooooo, Xena, Professor, somebody – how long will it take for the appellate court to respond to this mess?

    • Xena says:

      @Two sides. That’s a good question. Seriously. I don’t know when the Florida Appellate Court is in session. Neither do I know whether the trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to continue since the orders on appeal are not final orders. O’Mara might just need to file a motion to stay proceedings to but that question before Judge Nelson.

      (Watch a Zidiot read this and tell O’Mara his next step.) LOL!!!

      • Two sides to a story says:

        We do know how long it took the appellate court to reach a decision about removing Judge Lester – wasn’t it about a week to 10 days?

        • Xena says:

          @Two sides

          We do know how long it took the appellate court to reach a decision about removing Judge Lester – wasn’t it about a week to 10 days?

          Yes, but it was a different type of pleading and relief requested. I spoke with an attorney friend this morning about it (we have daily conversations about legal stuff and GZ’s case), and it’s his opinion that the Appellate Court will summarily deny the Writ. Also, if the Appellate Court does not enter a quick decision or does allow the Writ, the trial court will not be deprived of jurisdiction because the discovery issue does not pertain to exculpatory evidence.

    • SearchingMind says:

      Yeah, Xena, Two Sides. Good observation. I noticed that’s what they do.

      BTW, do we have any info as to what the new deadline is for the submission of final witness list?

  20. God help this country!

    Investigation: Cop made racist remark amid Trayvon Martin case

    http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Investigation-Cop-made-racist-remark-amid-Trayvon-Martin-case/-/1637132/19629646/-/ighqvoz/-/index.html

    WINTER PARK, Fla. – A Winter Park police officer is off the job after making a racist remark about African-Americans during the Trayvon Martin anniversary.

    Lieutenant Ron Johnson quickly retired after an internal investigation revealed he said, “This is why they should be drowned at birth,” in reference to black people.

    That remark came from the 27-year veteran to fellow officers during a February police briefing when conversation turned to the Trayvon Martin case.

    The investigation said the comment was racially derogatory. Locals agree.

    “I think that’s appalling that anyone would say that or think it or believe it, especially in my town,” said Ann Lulow, a Winter Park resident.

    “I think it’s ignorance, just absolute on his part to even utter such words,” said Julius John.

    “Lt. Ron Johnson has been a part of our police family for many years, and to have this occur after an otherwise distinguished career with our department is regretful,” said Police Chief Brett Railey. “However, regardless of the individual and years of service, statements of this type are unacceptable in order to maintain the public’s trust.”

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Kudos to Police Chief Railey.

      • Trained Observer says:

        Kudos, indeed, and hopefully some of Winter Park’s other uniformed slime — you know Johnson couldn’t be alone, since he felt so comfortable mouthing off — got the message loud and clear.

    • ladystclaire says:

      Will he still receive his pension? IMO he shouldn’t and, if more people like him were drowned after their births, this world/country would be a lot better off without his kind.

      • truthseeker66 says:

        Yes. He was not fired,but allowed to retire with full benefits. Sounds like he was rewarded to me…

      • He’s talking about drowning little innocent babies! It’s very chilling. He’s suppose to be protecting the public regardless of race. He has no business wearing a police uniform. What a disgrace to the badge!

      • onlyiamunitron says:

        “…if more people like him were drowned after their births, this world/country would be a lot better off without his kind.”

        So if he expresses his opinion that the way to deal with people he sees as a problem is to drown them at birth, that’s bad, and if you express your opinion that the way to deal with people you see as a problem is to drown them at birth, that’s…what exactly?

        unitron

      • cielo62 says:

        Lady- notice that he “quickly retired” so that he could keep his pension. Had he been actually fired for cause (like Billy Lee) he would have lost his pension and other benefits.

        Sent from my iPod

      • Malisha says:

        Unitron, please.

        “He should have been drowned at birth” was neither a real solution to the problem of racist bigotry and hatred nor an actual possibility. Infants cannot speak when they are born so such an announcement of proud vile hatred could not have issued from him when he WAS a baby. He had to be brought up, socialized, educated, and socially and anthropologically GIVEN PERMISSION to speak that way as an adult police officer for this kind of murderous verbal assault to have occurred.

        “He should have been drowned at birth” was an expression of frustration. We people who do NOT believe that others should automatically be destroyed for our psychologically-impaired comfort do, upon occasion, say something that is just flowery speech (or incendiary speech). But look at the difference (for I expect you to say that the cop who uttered that racist rant was just expressing “frustration” and I want to head you off at the pass) between these two comments:

        1. The COP is a public official and has power over Blacks in his patrol jurisdiction; The commenter is a blogger whose words do not indicate official conduct or official prejudice of any kid.

        2, The COP expressed his hatred against a protected minority under the US Constitution; the commenter/blogger expressed her frustration against a group that can be described as “people who, in their official capacity have power — including lethal power — over Blacks, but who openly express hatred toward them and therefore will be liable to treat them prejudicially.”

        3. The COP was not embarrassed to say what he said. He said it because he wanted to. And he worked for the public and was paid by the public. Do you not see a difference between that and a blogger using hyperbole to make her point?

      • SearchingMind says:

        @ Unitron

        Uni, I think you missed/chose to miss the crux of the comment by LadyStclaire. You are a very smart fellow – which is why I am surprised at the false moral equivalence.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          When people talk about killing themselves, current thinking is that one should not automatically assume that they are joking.

          I figure the same holds true for people who talk about killing other people as well.

          unitron

      • aussie says:

        Orlando Sentinel is exceedingly short on factual details.

        “”This is why they should be drowned at birth,” Johnson said, in an apparent reference to black people.”

        is the WHOLE story they have about it. Only 2 other papers seem to have picked it up, one of them saying the complaint was made only weeks later, not saying by whom and to whom. It also says the matter is still under investigation (or was, until he resigned).

        So, on the basis of one alleged comment, unsourced and without any context, everyone here is prepared to get this guy to lose his pension? never mind being retroactively drowned at birth?

        Enough to say:
        “..2, The COP expressed his hatred against a protected minority under the US Constitution;..”

        DID HE? what actual EVIDENCE do we have? what was the context? have we heard the tape? was he falsely reported by someone with a grudge against him?

        See how easy it it to believe what you want to believe? and then exaggerate it? and then get even angrier about it?

        And why believe it so readily? because all cops are racist slime? the same way all blacks are drugged thugs? is that how it goes?

        ==============

        So someone resigns some months after allegedly saying something in an unknown context which has not yet been investigated, he deserves to lose his pension he contributed to for 27 years??

        Well then, a death penalty for walking while black IN THE RAIN is not a very long stretch on the scale of acceptable outcomes.

        C’mon people SERIOUSLY what about laws and due process and evidence and just punishments IF FOUND GUILTY??? do they apply to EVERYONE? or only to people you like?

        And if they don’t apply to someone YOU are angry with, why the hell should you expect the “other side” to be any different?

        • cielo62 says:

          Oh for Pete’s sake, Aussie. The cop resigned instead of being fired. He knew he had done wrong and got caught. The investigation has already been concluded; WE don’t have to see any of the evidence because its privileged personnel information. This is NOTHING like an ongoing case where a final decision has not been reached, like GZ vs The State of Florida.

          Sent from my iPod

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          Come on, aussie, everybody knows no one ever resigns from a dangerous, physically demanding job after only 27 years, no matter what other opportunities they may have awaiting them.

          unitron

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Are you saying that he resigned despite being able to make a winning case for himself? I don’t think he resigned because he spent 27 years on the force being Mr. Evenhandedniceguy. If he was, he’d have that to put up against the accusation of a single remark, made anonymously to boot. My guess is his record will show that he had nothing to defend himself with.

          As you well know, these racists are smart enough not to admit they are racists. Not only do they have a long history of getting away with discrimination and racism, but they have lots of fellow travelers who help cover for them as well.

      • ladystclaire says:

        @uni-one, I stand by what I said about this person because, his life isn’t anymore valuable than any AA in this country. you might think it is but, I don’t! ALL human life and other wise is SACRED and, just because he was born with white skin does not in any way make his life more valuable than a person who may be as dark as seven mid nights.

        If you took offense to my comment well, it sucks to be you because I’m standing by what I said. it’s past time for people with that kind of upbringing to know that, they are no better than the very people who they hate and disrespect all because of the color GOD chose for them to be when they entered the world.

        I am not a racist, you see my parents taught us better and they NEVER taught us to hate ANYONE! the thing with you is that, you think people are suppose to go around saying BS like this and, other people are suppose to turn a blind eye to it. well that’s not how it works in 2013 and, if some people don’t like it, oh well.

      • Malisha says:

        Aussie, did the COP deny it?
        He did not deny it.
        He resigned.
        I assume, therefore, that he CHOSE not to deny it.
        Had he denied it, we are well aware that he could have an Internal Affairs investigation and his Union would represent him. If he was found to have said it and contested that, he could have sued the police department. He can STILL sue them, of course.

        My guess is that, since he did not even bother to deny his racist comment, we’re not violating any sacred code by believing that the COP said what he was reported to have said. If we believe that because the press reported it and he did not deny it, and if we believe wrongly, wow, that will be a damages case against the press sources that printed that terrible slander.

        OK?

      • LeaNder says:

        lady, in spite of the fact that I start to wonder, if unitron’s central mission here is to collect evidence for prejudice, let me ask you this:

        If the phrase deeply disgusts you, why are you using it? No matter if you turn it around against one that seemingly used it?

        Lieutenant Ron Johnson quickly retired after an internal investigation revealed he said, “This is why they should be drowned at birth,” in reference to black people.

        Concerning defensive statements, e.g. aussie, unitron(?), if in fact he “only allegedly” said it, how comes internal investigation decided otherwise? We seem to have the precise context, and I suppose quite a few witnesses. Do you consider all this misinformation? Apparently he was offered to leave. I witnessed people sign deals to that effect over here, he may well have done so too. A couple of legal issues are connected with that.

        Concerning his pension over here, he would completely loose or partially loose it if the case is dealt with under disciplinary laws for civil servants. That’s the English term it feels no idea what term you use in the States. If there is a similar law in the states, that may well be the reason why he decided to leave without making troubles.

      • Malisha says:

        Yes, when people speak of killing themselves, we should not automatically dismiss what they say.

        No, that does not mean that when people speak rhetorically of killing others, we should automatically dismiss what they say. We should also not presume that they actually MEAN that they advocate killing others. I cannot COUNT the number of times I have said, “Just take them out back and shoot them — but first give them a fair trial.” I say this, for the most part, about public officials and judges, politicians, news broadcasters, and people in the public eye who say things I find stupid. It’s fun. I would give my very LIFE to prevent anyone from doing that, of course. Everyone who knows me will back my last sentence.

        The difference? It’s a difference that is more than a distinction: when a person speaks of killing himself, he is saying something that he knows is generally upsetting and disturbing to the person he is saying it to. One presumes that he is either asking for some understanding or, if he is a certain type of person psychologically, he is trying to manipulate that person. He is NOT usually saying it in gest. Although I have done that too. Witness my favorite joke:

        “If you put me in a concrete room with a loaded gun with only one bullet in it, and [ex-husband’s name] chained against the wall and right next to him, [state court judge’s name] chained against the wall, and told me I could shoot one of them, I’d shoot [state court judge’s name].

        “If you put me in that same room with [ex-husband’s name] and [federal judge’s name] chained to the wall, I’d shoot [federal judge’s name].

        “If you put me in that room with [state judge’s name] and [federal judge’s name] chained to the wall and one bullet, I’d shoot mySELF!”

        It always gets a laugh. ALWAYS! None of the people I tell this to fear that I am either homicidal or suicidal. I do not say it to get their personal sympathy or to inflame their rage. I say it because to me, it’s hilarious!

        This was the exact context in which, I believe, LadySt.Claire originally made her comment. I don’t think for a moment that either the COP was making a harmless joke or LSC was advocating infanticide.

        Your mind, Unitron, is concrete and fastidious. Do you know the poem “How Pleasant to Know Mr. Lear”?

    • Rachael says:

      So damned disgusting. And they say this case isn’t about raciality (not sute that’s really a word) and the outhouse types deny police profile and treat black people differently, that it is because black people are thugs you know. Do you really think that someone who believes black babies should be drowned at birth is going to treat all people equally? Do you think someone who feels that way won’t profile and treat black people differently? And I DO believe this is typical outhouse sentiment.

      • Dave says:

        To me, the really disgusting thing isn’t the vile remark but rather the fact that a person with that attitude was kept on the police force for 27 years, rising to the rank of lieutenant.

      • Rachael says:

        Oh I totally agree Dave. He “claims” that was the first time he ever said anything like that. Now maybe he was having some kind of bizarre neurological problem where strange things came out – that does happen, but I sincerely doubt that. I think he has not only held these thoughts his entire career, but he has voiced them, and nothing was ever said because they were either afraid or agreed. How do people like this get on the force to begin with? They are hired by people who think like they do. If they really believe that if they had known he felt that way, they wouldn’t have kept him on, I believe they are lying. Someone doesn’t just blurt something like that out after 27 years – unless, like I said, they are having a stroke or something.

        I remember a poor old man in a nursing home who was a patient of mine. He needed help being fed and with all of his care. He had had a stroke that left him unable to say what he wanted to say and all that came out were cuss words. It upset his family greatly because he had been a minister and never said those words before his stroke. They felt it was fortunate that he was out of it enough to not know he was even doing that.

        I don’t think that is the case here. I’m sorry, but you can’t, just can’t hold feelings and thoughts like that in for 27 years. Not that anyone will admit that they heard him say anything or express feelings like that before, but if they do come forward, they should go too. This kind of thing should not be protected. How can anyone have faith in their police force now? How can they believe that this isn’t the feelings that prevail throughout? Now they will probably have to take some sensitivity class, see a movie and that is going to make it all better.

        This nastiness is lurking about everywhere. It makes me sick.

      • “This is why they should be drowned at birth”

        What a sick sick psycho! The officer clearly thought he was speaking in good company about drowning innocent babies. OMG! I shudder to think how he treated AA in his 27 years.

      • SearchingMind says:

        It is even more disgusting that Lieutenant Ron Johnson was allowed to “retire” and got some words of praise for his 27yrs work. IMO, he should have been fired. With this kind of fellow in the police force, African American (teenage) suspects will continue to shoot themselves in the head, after having been searched and forced to sit handcuffed in the back of a patrol car.

        IMO, the utterance of Lieutenant Ron Johnson is in- and of itself is genocidal. Lieutenant Ron Johnson might be safe here at home, but he may not rule out being arrested in Europe (e.g. GB or Germany) and tried for crimes against humanity under the genocide convention before the International Criminal Court. Lieutenant Ron Johnson and Ahmadinejad have one thing in common: genocidal thoughts.

      • OMG!

        According to internal investigation documents, several officers said they did not hear Lieutenant Johnson make the comment.

        But two officers said they heard Lt. Johnson make the remark, which they believed were clearly meant to racially derogatory.

        Lt. Johnson’s Division Commander Captain Vernon Taylor also told an investigator that Johnson admitted to saying something to the effect of “that’s why they should drown their kids at birth.”

        Lt. Johnson admitted that he said the remark to investigators. However, Lt. Johnson said his statement was in the past and not made in late February at a meeting concerning the potential aftermath of Trayvon Martin’s death. Lt. Johnson went on to clarify that it was a humorous term, meaning if a person was drowned at birth, the justice system wouldn’t have to worry about arresting him over and over again.

        http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/4/5/racial_remark_forces.html

      • ladystclaire says:

        @Searchingminds, his being allowed to retire, instead of being fired and losing what benefits that he may have coming, would have be justified. as it stands with him being able to retire for what he did, just goes to show that the racism in the state of Florida is far worse than one could have ever imagined.

        I thought Mississippi and Alabama were both the mecca of racism to the core but, I was wrong because the more I hear about racist acts in Florida, that state is right in the running with the other two states to see which one walks away with the prize.

        Racism and racial hatred is not something we are born with, it is taught in the home and, there is no way that I would have ever taught my son to hate other people who are of a different race than his. but, some parents are OK with doing just that and think nothing about doing so.

        One would think that after Rosewood, the state of Florida would want to work at cleaning up their image. people are people and, GOD created man in HIS IMAGE and, he did NOT make one race superior over another.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      So, no need to look back at his work? This was just a “wayward” remark? Does not reflect his ideology? As far as no racist complaints well… If the system is, and has always been that way, what’s to complain about if there’s no one to listen? But, doesn’t it seem a wee bit strange that after 27 years on the force, he would just suddenly up one day and make such a racist remark? I don’t think so. The remark itself bespeaks a deeply embedded racial hatred that has to have been with him for a very long time. The fact that he’s getting off so easy and without any prior work review, says that he’s surrounded by people who secretly support his racist views.
      Hardly a wonder that he has never had a racist complain lodged against him. Who would blacks complain to who wasn’t a racist themselves? Knowing that putting a complaint in the wrong hands makes one a target of the system.

      • Malisha says:

        AND the subtle apologetics of saying that drowning African Americans at birth would avoid the necessity of arresting them over and over again is not much of an explanation. That’s like Fogen saying he did not call Trayvon Martin a “fucking coon” but only a “fucking punk.” That’s also like the stupid female cop at SPD saying her rant against Blacks was expressing frustration at her white husband. How stupid are we supposed to be in order to not be making our own personal mental decisions and forming our own personal opinions (which we then express on this blog) in ways that avoid insulting racists, liars and corrupt public officials? How “non-race-baiting” are we supposed to be? “Non-race-baiting” enough to simply assume that all comments and all actions that demonstrate hatred for minorities are not MEANT to do just that? “Non-race-baiting” enough to be as accepting as the police wanted Tracy Martin to be when they told him his son went and got himself killed by attacking an innocent address-searcher?

        NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS: I am neither stupid enough nor polite enough to be “non-race-baiting” enough to assume everybody is totally innocent of racism, hatred, bigotry, and other forms of personal wickedness. OK? I’m OK with “innocent until proven guilty” if somebody is charged with a crime in accordance with law. But I’m not OK with the idea that I am not allowed to come to obvious conclusions from clear information. When I’m dead I may be that un-perspicacious but unlikely at any point before then.

  21. esentrick says:

    Wow I don’t know where to begin with MOM petition. MOM asserted in his petition that attorney Crump has information that no other witness or person INCLUDING THE WITNESS HERSELF has “first-hand, unrecorded information from this witness that the Petitioner can only explore by deposing Mr. Crump”. None of the Cert reviews cited, IMHO, are even closely related to MOM’s argument in deposing attorney Crump that would cause irreparable harm or for that matter even relevant to his client case. MOM cites Nucci v Simmons which the trial court denied the petitioner to depose opposing counsel and COA granted the Cert Review.
    The petitioner asserted that deposing opposing counsel was in fact necessary because the attorney for the respondent did disclose the bill payment agreement to his/her client. Therefore, the opposing counsel deposition was necessary

    …because the entire treatment agreement was negotiated between Attorney Tindall and Dr. Nucci without providing any details to Ms. Simmons [respondent]” (p. 391)

    The COA found that the petitioner had the right to depose opposing counsel as a material witness because

    “A material witness is one who possesses information `going to some fact affecting the merits of the cause and about which no other witness might testify “(p.391)

    [emphases added]. So since, “arrangement was handled through Attorney Tindall’s office and never directly involved Ms. Simmons “ (p. 389), the petitioner and opposing counsel “were in a business relationship and that Ms. Simmons’ deposition contained statements that she had no knowledge of the arrangements for her treatment” , therefore, opposing counsel had information that “no other witness might testify” (p. 391).
    I am by no means an attorney and maybe someone with legal background could point it out if it there is something MOM/West addressed, but from what I read of the defense blabbering motions, they did not identify any information that may be discoverable by deposing Attorney Crump; whereas, the petitioner in Nucci v Simmons motion “identifies the type of information that Attorney Tindall possessed that would be discoverable” (p. 391).
    So the only other reason to depose Attorney Crump is so they can determine IF there is any information that Attorney Crump MAY have/recall to impeach Witness 8 or DeeDee. I agree with the professor when he stated

    I do not believe there is any legitimate legal issue whether Benjamin Crump is an attorney who acted in his official capacity as counsel for Trayvon’s parents to locate DD and interview her to collect and preserve information to support a potential lawsuit against the defendant for causing the wrongful death of their son as well as to support a possible murder charge against the defendant. There simply is no question that his interest in representing Trayvon’s parents is in opposition to the defendant’s interest in being granted immunity from civil and criminal prosecution and that was just as certain before the defendant was charged as it is today. Therefore, what he did to secure DD’s interview and all of his notes and research regarding it are attorney-client work product and protected from disclosure

    IMHO, MOM is trying EVERY means possible to harass, embarrass, and intimidate DeeDee. In the defense petition to the COA, MOM stated “Prior to the fatal shot, Mr. Martin was seen by a witness to the incident on top”. I believe they were talking about the witness 6 “John” which time and time again they cite his first statement and dismisses the witness recanted statement. They are so worried about DeeDee recanted statement which has no bearing on the case to distract people from the recanted statement of witness 6 , which HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE!
    I really hope the defense PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI come back DENIED, as I really believe this is just another ploy to delay the trial.

    • Jun says:

      Actually Omara is lying there

      W18, w3, Mary Cutcher & Selma all state that they saw the defendant on top of the victim when he shot the victim

      The forensics show he was on top pinning the victim on the ground when he shot the victim

      W6 only saw part of the altercation and he either is not sure what he saw or heard, or he is purposely lying, as he has contradicted himself repeatedly

      Omara is simply trying the case everywhere except in a courtroom and trial where he would have to have a reasonable argument and debate on the matter and Omara does not want a reasonable debate

      Omara, just like his other motion, where he recused the Lester, he selectively presents his case

      If you look at this and the other recuse motion closely, it is frankly very similar

      • onlyiamunitron says:

        “The forensics show he was on top pinning the victim on the ground when he shot the victim”

        He was pinning his back to the ground by pulling up on his hoodie and the sweatshirt underneath it?

        unitron

      • Jun says:

        What the blood clot hell are you talking about?

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          I thought it was generally accepted around here that the reason the bullet holes in the sweatshirts don’t line up with the bullet holes in Martin’s chest is not because they were hanging down loose as Martin bent over Zimmerman, but because Zimmerman had grabbed Martin’s upper body clothing and was pulling on it while Martin pulled away to hold him in place so that he could shoot him.

          But either way, they don’t line up.

          Something has to account for that.

          If Martin’s on the ground, as you say the forensics show, with Zimmerman pinning him down, wouldn’t Zimmerman pulling up on his sweatshirts tend to pull him up off of the ground?

          What’s Martin doing with his own arms and hands during all of this?

          If Zimmerman is pinning Martin to the ground by sitting on him (so that he can have one hand free for the gun and the other free to pull on the shirts, then either he has to be sitting far enough back to hold Martin’s legs down, which leaves Martin free to raise his upper body, because Zimmerman can’t be pushing Martin’s upper body down with the same two hands that are holding the gun and pulling the shirt, or he has to be sitting up toward’s Martin’s waist and chest, which leaves Martin free to bend his knees and plant his feet and try to buck him off, which should at least spoil his aim.

          It seems the forensics of the bullet holes not lining up unless the shirts are sagging down or pulled on contradict whatever forensics you think place Martin on the ground and Zimmerman on top at the time of the shot.

          unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            You don’t seem to be aware of how the psychology of intimidation and terror works. You can ask what Trayvon would be doing with his hands? What should he be doing with his hands? If he’s pushed against GZ at any point in time, he now realizes that GZ is irresistible. What do you do with your hands against an irresistible person whose terrorizing you? The answer is nothing at all, you’re paralyzed with fear.

            If you’ve pushed against your opponent and determined you have obtained some results, like they moved a bit, then you push harder, in hopes of breaking free. Trayvon could measure GZ’s power, by the push GZ gave him. He could easily tell that he wasn’t going to be able to do anything effectively offensive, and that trying to do so would only ensure a terrible outcome.

            But, the thing that gets me is, Trayvon’s lack of trace on either one of his hands, tells me that he never even tried to use his hands at all against GZ. All he did was try to resist by trying to pull away.

            Usually when a person being attacked, does not use their hands at all, it means that there’s more than one opponent around. Because that means that merely besting your immediate attacker, or even slipping out of his grip, is a pretty futile attempt to defend, by basically stalling or delaying the set up completion.

            So yeah, if GZ was under attack, his reflex is to do something with his hands because he’s not terrorized and he’s certainly not ineffective. Trayvon is a timid child, without much strength and no combat skills at all. He’s in a state of abject confusion and he’s in pain and in terror of losing his life, all he can do is beg and call for his mother. That is what is heard on the tape and that is what will put GZ away for the rest of his natural life.

          • racerrodig says:

            Yep, well said.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Oops, Malisha reminds me that and armed attacker displaying a gun, will also make the victim resist using their hands, for fear of enraging, or otherwise disturbing their attacker.

            Just try to imagine yourself held at gunpoint, would you really try to raise your hands? Unless you had a death wish, then no, it’s not likely at all and we know that GZ was armed. We know that GZ would lie about having his gun out, if he did. GZ would certainly deny holding Trayvon at gunpoint, before taking the shot. And finally, we know this because we know that GZ is a baldfaced liar and that is a matter of record.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            lonnie says

            Just try to imagine yourself held at gunpoint, would you really try to raise your hands? Unless you had a death wish, then no, it’s not likely

            unfortunately, i do not have to imagine – i was held at gunpoint at 17 by a family member experiencing psychosis. what i did was to remain absolutely calm and still. it was that decision, i have no doubt, that let me live to see the sun come up. it is also why i have relished every sunrise since.

            y’all speak truth and there is a profound, personal reason why this case has captured my heart.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            I’ve also been held at gunpoint, and I’ve also had the misfortune to find my self in the company of a lunatic, who just happened to have a gun in his possession. He never did hold anyone at gun point, but it’s a really weird feeling to be around someone talking crazy and see them sitting there playing with their gun. You don’t know what relief is until you finally get away from such a person.

            But the point is, GZ displaying his weapon, is another reason that could be theorized to be, the cause of Trayvon not having and GZ trace on his hands.

            So take your pick: either 1. Trayvon saw nothing he could do with his hands that would have any beneficial effect. Or 2. Held at gunpoint there simply was no use in trying to do anything. Or 3. Some mixture of 1. and 2.

          • racerrodig says:

            I’d be inclined to think Fogen had his pistol out well in advance of getting close to Trayvon. I think he was so mesmerized by having a quarry to pursue and a gun in his hand that Fantasy Cop took over and nothing else, like common sense, mattered.

            Trayvon was not about to provoke this nut, who had a gun in his hand and possibly a crony with him, in any way, shape or form., For all we know the 1st words said really may have been by Trayvon to the effect……take my wallet and money….

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @lonnie – sir, i am inclined to agree with you, largely based on my own experience.

            as to your comments about not realizing how relieved you are until you have escaped the presence of a crazy person with a gun, i totally agree. while in the situation, there was for me, a prevailing sense of distorted reality and your body/mind going on ‘vacation’ for lack of a better word while trying your best to determine what will get you out of this situation as quickly and safely as possible. i don’t think it’s possible to allow yourself to truly take in the whole situation until you are in a position of safety in which to do so.

            i’m glad we both got out of our respective incidents relatively unscathed in the scheme of all possible outcomes.

          • cielo62 says:

            Faux McCoy- AMEN!

            Sent from my iPod

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Yep, in such situations life itself seems suspended. While, what is really happening, I think is, you’re trying to interpret even micro movements for meaning, it’s actually a heightened sense of awareness. You tend not to move because your own motion send out signals that could interfere with the situation.

            Trayvon comes from Miami, so I’m sure he knows there’s a chance that strangers like GZ can and do have firearms. Which is why no unarmed person in Florida will be quick to assault any stranger in a secluded place. Let alone a stranger who is bigger, stronger and seems crazed.

            Most people who accept TM doubling back, don’t live in area where gun control is as loose as Florida. Now a thug who is armed, might very well double back and/or circle the car of someone following him or her. Since they have the capacity to defend themselves and return fire. But, an unarmed person does not go out of their way to make contact with odd acting strangers. Trayvon has no firearm with which to defend himself, so he must assume that GZ is possibly armed. If this assumption is made, then the only rational choice is to try to flee.

            Thus, my suspicion is that Trayvon did not even pass close by GZ’s truck. Why would he get near someone acting crazy, knowing that they could be armed? The weather reports seem to indicate that the rain was heavier when TM left the mail kiosk, than it was when he entered it. Meaning that he cut short his sheltering to get away while he still had a chance.

            If so, I’d guess he’d give the truck a wide berth and stay to the south side of TTL, then go south to the first cut through between buildings to the dog walk corridor. GZ realizes that TM might run into his assistant patrolling the south end of the dog walk and turn back north or go east. So he jumps out of his truck and runs to get in position to catch TM when he is forced to turn around. Because, to make his prepared story work, he’s got to herd TM back north to the T.

            Trouble is Trayvon stops near a house that has lights on in hopes of getting help. When GZ tries to push him, to force him to go north, Trayvon falls to the ground instead and GZ falls down on top of him. They roll over a couple of times as Trayvon tries to pull away and GZ continues to grapple and hold him. Painful hold and questioning, witnesses come and go, out comes the gun and Trayvon’s screaming escalates, GZ tries to emulate TM’s calls for help.

            Trouble is, you don’t call for help when you’re holding someone by the clothes and you have a fire arm. GZ can not say that he forgot about the gun for two reasons, one the gun isn’t his, and two, he always carries it on patrol, even though he’s been told not to. That means that he’s got to be constantly aware of the gun, because he knows it needs an explanation from moment to moment. So, in this case his explanation is that he simply forgot he had it.

            What he completely forgets about is that, Trayvon has reason to suspect that a stranger acting crazy and angry, may very well have a firearm. Meaning that confrontation must be avoided at all costs if possible. So, once Trayvon shows signs of fear, we have to expect him to only flee. The only way a confrontation can happen, then, is if GZ manages to catch him.

          • The only way a confrontation can happen, then, is if GZ manages to catch him.

            Exactly!

      • Jun says:

        The trajectory was straight front to back

        The bullet hole in the sweatshirt and hoodie were near the left shoulder, while the GSW was more centered around approximately at the solar plexus

        The hoodie would have to be pulled down and to the left of the victim’s body, then shot, while also being pulled toward the defendant, by the defendant

        If the defendant was pinning the victim on the ground, the pull of the shirt would not cause the victim to lift off the ground and Fogen has extra gravity because he was over 200 pounds and a bit over 40 pounds more than the victim, hence a grappling advantage due to weight

        There was no grass or mud stains or smears on the defendant’s jacket, therefore, I find that he was not on the ground at all on his back or at the very least just on his back for a couple seconds, as it it is a scientific impossibility to not have any grass or mud stains while pinned on the back

        The victim had lots of debris all over him and the victim was definitely pinned on the ground

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “The bullet hole in the sweatshirt and hoodie were near the left shoulder, while the GSW was more centered around approximately at the solar plexus

          The hoodie would have to be pulled down and to the left of the victim’s body, then shot, while also being pulled toward the defendant, by the defendant”

          If you look at the pictures in the FDLE lab report of the light grey Nike sweatshirt worn underneath the hoodie, you see that the bullet hole is just a little under and slightly to the wearer’s right of the Nike swoosh logo which is on the wearer’s left right around where a pocket would be on a regular shirt, and if you compare that with the indication of the bullet hole in the body in the autopsy report you can see that the shirt would have to have been pulled down and a bit to Martin’s right (Zimmerman’s left), not left, for the holes to align.

          Since Zimmerman was holding the gun in his right hand, he would have had to use his left hand to pull the shirts, and would more likely have been pulling toward his own left (Martin’s right) because pulling (at that angle almost pushing) toward his own right would have tended to throw him off balance and get his left hand and wrist in the way of the gun in his right hand.

          Despite the weight differential, if both of Zimmerman’s hands are busy doing something other than pinning Martin to the ground, that only leaves his rear end, and despite jokes about how fat it might be, he could only apply it to one point on Martin’s body, he couldn’t spread that weight out from Martin’s knees to Martin’s chest.

          If he’s sitting on Martin’s knees or thighs, Martin bends at the waist and pulling on the shirts pulls his upper body up off of the ground, and Martin’s arms and hands are free.

          If he’s sitting on Martin’s waist and has Martin’s hands or arms pinned under his knees, Martin can bend his own knees and plant his feet and buck.

          If he’s sitting above Martin’s waist on his diaphragm, we don’t hear much screaming out of Martin because the air is already squeezed out of his lungs.

          Not to mention that that high up on Martin’s body, Zimmerman runs a considerable risk of castrating his own self with that gunshot.

          During the struggle either one of them might have been on the top or the bottom at any given moment and swapped positions who knows how many times, but Zimmerman would actually have an easier time of it shooting Martin if he were on the ground with Martin on top of him.

          The struggle only lasted from 60 to 90 seconds.

          By the time that the state of Martin’s clothes was considered, he’d been lying on the ground, post mortem, for some time, and the tarp over him would have held moisture in rather than let it evaporate.

          Officer Smith reports that as he was handcuffing Zimmerman and taking Zimmerman’s gun out of the holster he observed Zimmerman’s back to appear to be wet and covered with grass.

          Then he puts Zimmerman in the back of the patrol car where, in my view, sliding contact with the seat upon entry and afterwards could have brushed that grass off, and, depending on the upholstery, perhaps absorbed some of the dampness.

          It seems to me that “Martin’s clothes were wetter than Zimmerman’s” is, under the circumstances and by itself, insufficient forensic evidence to establish that Zimmeman had Martin pinned on the ground for any length of time.

          It would be interesting to know how recently prior to that night the grass was mowed and whether they used a bagging mower or some sort of mulch in place arrangement.

          unitron

          • You’re forgetting the defendant’s ability to use his lower legs from the knees down as a platform to stabilize his balance and control Trayvon’s lower arms and hands.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “You’re forgetting the defendant’s ability to use his lower legs from the knees down as a platform to stabilize his balance and control Trayvon’s lower arms and hands.”

            Is Trayvon unconscious and unable to resist or move as Zimmerman is carefully placing each knee on Martin’s arms and hands?

            Unless Zimmerman can extend the length of his own thighs, a la Reed Richards, that places his behind at Martin’s waist or higher, which leaves Martin able to use his leg muscles to “buck”, to upset Zimmerman’s balance.

            If you’re the one on the ground, you’re the on a stable platform with no need to maintain your balance, unlike the person on top.

            If you’re going to play tag team and jump in on this, I’ll be back after a nicotine supply replenishment expedition to the “corner store”.

            unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Go to a gym and attempt to wrestle with a guy who weighs 30% more than yourself.

            What you will discover is that you are helpless against him. No amount of bucking or twisting or turning is going to upset him. Since he’s going to have enough strength in his arms to overcome the strength you have in your entire body, including your legs.

            Against GZ Trayvon was like a baby. When GZ grabbed Trayvon’s arms, Trayvon would have been unable to stop GZ from moving them to whatever position he chose. Half of Trayvon’s lack of resistance would be due to him being afraid to further upset this monster on him. The other half would come from not having the strength to resist him.

            Trayvon could lift at best 25 to 30 pounds and he’d have trouble doing it. GZ, on the other hand is loaded with high performance muscle, able to move and lift between 150 to 200 lbs without trouble.
            Heck I’m 5’8″ and when I was working out in the gym I could easily bench 250 and I didn’t even work at doing bench presses. My weight was 175 at the time. Wrestling with Trayvon would have been like wrestling with a 10 year old kid for GZ.

            Don’t even speculate about what Trayvon could have done to GZ. Trayvon could plant his feet anywhere he wanted, under GZ’s massive weight, Trayvon could not even manage to buck. He could try to twist and turn, but he would not be successful beyond a small lead into the motion. Worse, if GZ were to simply rise up and drop his full weight on Trayvon’s chest, poor Trayvon’s little weak bones would break.

            Go out on the net and talk to some wrestlers and/or martial artists and physical ed instructors, about what 158lb 5’11” teens can and cannot do if they’re not trained and do not know how to fight.

            To people who have engaged in wrestling for fun or training, with lightweight teens and/or who has seen them perform in the weight room, it’s ludicrous to hear them explain that Trayvon could have done this or that. Trayvon was totally helpless and completely under GZ’s control from the moment GZ put his hands on TM.

          • racerrodig says:

            Tell ’em. I’ll add that I never wrestled on a team but I played HS football as a defensive back and split end. I weighed about 160 then and was fast. In gym class, during wrestling, I could do anything I wanted especially with my lower body to anyone not an athlete.

            I could toy with kids much heavier that I was, so your points are well stated.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “I could toy with kids much heavier that I was, so your points are well stated.”

            I thought Lonnie’s point was that the heavier kid would overpower the lighter you?

            unitron

          • racerrodig says:

            Learn to read ….especially the part about trained athletes and stop trying to that smug “Mr. Overanalyzer” Everyone here got it….you, as usual, not so much……

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            You implied that when you weighed about the same as Martin you could wrestle heavier opponents and win.

            I don’t see how that does not contradict Lonnie’s point, and I sure don’t see how it could possibly re-enforce it.

            As for the “trained athlete” part, Martin was the former football player, but I don’t remember any mention of Zimmerman’s sports career.

            unitron

          • racerrodig says:

            You’re hair splitting is a joke. What part of trained escapes you….all of it I see. Trayvon played Pop Warner football. The practice schedule is nothing compared to upper levels, Obviously you have no experience in that realm. My comments supports what Lonnie said, but one needs open eyes and not be so concerned about how fair I am to Fogen only. Get a life nit picker.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “Trayvon played Pop Warner football. The practice schedule is nothing compared to upper levels…”

            If the “trained athlete” part does not apply to Martin, that only leaves Zimmerman.

            “I weighed about 160 then and was fast. In gym class, during wrestling, I could do anything I wanted especially with my lower body to anyone not an athlete.

            I could toy with kids much heavier that I was, so your points are well stated.”

            You’re implying that someone of around Martin’s weight could wrestle successfully against a heaver opponent if they were not a trained athlete.

            unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Please, a football game with his untrained peers is hardly training that’s going to help with facing Fogen. Like I said,
            Fogen could have broken Trayvon’s bones, simply by letting himself fall on top of Trayvon. Trayvon had little more than 18 or so pounds of muscle on his bones while GZ had more than 60 lbs of muscle, which translates into a massive difference in strength.

            As I said Trayvon would have trouble moving 25 lbs around, while GZ could easily move 200 lbs around, with some effort, but without straining. Put 200 lbs in Trayvon’s hands and he could not hold onto it. So, to say that Trayvon might have been able to do anything with GZ is simply ridiculous.

            I’d advise you get a grip unitron, you’re beginning to sound more like just a complainer than a fastidious researcher.

          • racerrodig says:

            Thank you, what part of trained and working out vs untrained escaped him…..Oh my bad, all of it.

            Maybe I should have included that I ran up & down the stadium steps with the weighted shoes 3 times a day all summer long.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            …And, think about this, we have all that lack of training going on 4 years prior. He was 13 in that football game. So, I guess he was prepared for Zero Dark Thirty???? HaW!!!

          • racerrodig says:

            A hahahahahahahaha !! Yep…..”Black Dynamite Slim” coming to a theater near you !!

            This must be what them thar Zidiots saw.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Also, there’s some one here trying to equate Trayvon playing football with his peers as being capable of preparing him for mortal combat with an older, heavier, better trained and confident assailant who was angry and determined as well as violent and armed. I’ve never read of them even considering using football to train soldiers in boot camp.

          • racerrodig says:

            Exactly. It’s called “mature muscle” I have, as the poet said, …arms as strong as rubber bands…” I have small biceps but I can lift a lot more than anyone would expect. I lift cyl. heads, crankshafts and the like all day long. I see tron completely misinterpreted what I said last night. If “…he only had a brain…”

            How hard was it to understand that my leg strength, from training, gained me an advantage. Let me in a wrestling ring with him…please !!!!

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            I’m with you there… I’d like very much to give unitron the benefit of the doubt, but what I see is that he throws out contrary opinions, with no understanding of how things work to back it up. On my timeline he noted (as I did) that there was a phone call made to a phone that was already in use. (In Trayvon’s phone logs this happens more than once). So, what’s the answer? Is it really impossible for a phone that’s in use to receive another call? Well no, because there’s “call waiting” which I use lots of times on my cell phone. You have a call in progress and you get a buzz and you can pick up on another call, automatically putting your first caller on hold until you finish.

            Perhaps unitron made this mistaken claim because he doesn’t use cellular phones? I don’t know. All I do know is that he decided to assert rather than ask. That sort of makes me feel a bit like Rodney Dangerfield, eh?

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “Is it really impossible for a phone that’s in use to receive another call? Well no, because there’s “call waiting” which I use lots of times on my cell phone. You have a call in progress and you get a buzz and you can pick up on another call, automatically putting your first caller on hold until you finish.”

            Doesn’t that require the involvement of at least 3 telephones?

            unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Of course, two connected and one incoming. Why are you being cagey? Either you are working with us and have something to add, or you’re trying to aggrandize yourself with a “gotcha”. I’m not fencing with you, if I’ve made some mistake let me know as quickly and briefly as possible so I can correct it. I’m no stranger to being wrong, I made a mistake with the policy/settlement document. That was because I had so little time. Some mistakes happen because I’m simply repeating what I’ve read or found in other documents with no time or inclination to focus on that issue.

            We all do it, and I don’t call people out on every mistake I see fly by. Because that just makes more posts that have to be read. I’ve currently got some 224 emails to go through, before I even get to my regular email. So yeah, I not going to be surprised to find I’ve made a mistake. So, just give me your thoughts on this matter so we can move on.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “Of course, two connected and one incoming. ”

            But the two calls you have overlapping, the 18 minute call, and the final 4 minute call, only involved 2 phones.

            If her next to last call runs until 7:14 pm, she can’t use that same phone to call him 2 minutes prior at 7:12 pm.

            (or if that’s somehow technically possible, why in the world would she?)

            unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Okay I think I’ve found the error,m the 7:04 call was not 4 minutes but was instead only 1 minute long. I haven’t changed the 18 minute call from 20 minutes back to 18 minutes (as you point out it should be) because I note that I posted it with a question mark. Meaning that there is some reason for the discrepancy nested in the documents that I was using to arrive at that conclusion. Otherwise I’d have simply posted it without the question mark, meaning that it would simply be a mistake. The phone log simply shows the call with an 18 minute length, so it should have been a simple matter to figure it concluded at 6:54 + 18 minutes or 7:12 pm. The question mark means that after I did that, I found it controverted by another document or statement or something. Maybe I’ll remember what it was or else I’ll have to wait until I can track down the source of the question.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            I think the current thinking is that the 7:04 call is the one from Chad, and that Trayvon put the 18 minute call from Witness 8 on hold to take it and then returned to the 18 minute call.

            Although Witness 8 never mentioned anything about that as best I remember.

            But the 18 minute call has to get dropped for her to call back at 7:12 pm, it would seem.

            unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Yep, the problem is in the phone log. Unless T-Mobile explains it, there’s no way to resolve this question. Here, you can look at the phone logs yourself, and see what you can make of the matter.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “Here, you can look at the phone logs yourself, and see what you can make of the matter.”

            That page doesn’t want to load for me right now for some reason, but I recognized the URL, and had previously seen copies of parts of Tracy Martin’s phone bill on there last spring or summer, and as I recall they had the calls listed with the Pacific Time Zone times, which is probably because that West Coast TV station got slipped an unauthorized copy of the bill from someone at a West Coast T-Mobile office.

            Of course they’ve had the better part of a year to change that page and since I can’t see it right now I can’t swear that’s still the same as when I did see it.

            But as I recall, the rest is the same–when he dials out, it shows to where, like those North Dade calls, and when someone calls him it just says incoming.

            There’s a copy with Eastern Standard times on the calls here:

            http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/documents-2/phone-records/

            unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Hmmm… I note that these times are not PST, they are EST. That statement is boilerplate owing to fact that the data was downloaded on the west coast.

            I also note that this is Tracey’s bill which says that there are 4 phones on his account. So, it is possible that they’ve mispositioned a call from one phone to another. So that’s a possibility that might explain the anomaly. Otherwise we still need to have someone at T-Mobile explain the conflict. All we can do is guess.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            If her next to last call runs until 7:14 pm, she can’t use that same phone to call him 2 minutes prior at 7:12 pm.

            (or if that’s somehow technically possible, why in the world would she?)

            unitron

            The first thing you need to ask yourself is: “How can you put so much faith in who is making the call?”

            All the phone log tell us is “North Dade”. While this will normally mean that it’s DD calling in, that in no way has to be the case for every call. Remember Trayvon lives in North Dade, so it’s likely he has other friends who call him from there. This is a cell phone, it goes where ever you go. So, even if people don’t know you are out of town, they call you, they get you. So, just because a call is logged as coming from north dade doesn’t mean it has to be DD calling.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “The first thing you need to ask yourself is: “How can you put so much faith in who is making the call?”

            All the phone log tell us is “North Dade”. ”

            The calls Witness 8 places to Trayvon are marked “Incoming” on the phone bill (although that doesn’t necessarily mean that every incoming call was from her–there’s at least Chad’s call for which we have to account).

            The outgoing calls Trayvon placed are the ones that say North Dade.

            The way Witness 8 tells it, the final 4 minute incoming call and the 18 minute incoming call before that need to be from her for her version of events to make sense.

            unitron

          • Xena says:

            @Lonnie Starr

            I’m no stranger to being wrong, I made a mistake with the policy/settlement document.

            It’s the nature of the subject matter. Making an error in a title to links is easily resolved if people read the documents. The professor caught it quickly. The real reason for providing and reading those documents is to dis-spell Zidiot theories that:
            1. Sybrina was the ONLY defendant named by Travelers, yet posturing the case like Sybrina was Plaintiff suing Travelers; and,
            2. That Travelers was opposed to the suit because of the policy issuance date; and,
            3. That the court dismissed the case, suggesting that Sybrina had lost a lawsuit.

            But then, Zidiots hear GZ answer in the affirmative to following Trayvon, then argue there is no law against following. Well, if you end up killing the person you followed, then the law takes a look at that action and GZ clearly said what motivated him to get out of his truck — “Shit. He’s running.”

          • racerrodig says:

            I think he’s just a trouble maker. Call Waiting…..never heard of it ??

          • Xena says:

            @racerrodig. He’s heard of it. More and more, my observations of his condescending responds and belittlement, and sharing nothing of any benefit, confirm that he is playing the Zidiot agenda to make pro justice for Trayvon supporters look stupid and according to their accusation, have no understanding of the evidence and discuss the case based solely on emotions.

            They begin that agenda by asking questions, and we tire of them they say we “cannot” answer their questions.

          • racerrodig says:

            His new name is “Delete” because that’s all he rates.

      • Romaine says:

        Has anyone ever considered the shooting event occurred while both parties were laying on their side?

        Zimmerman is laying on the ground on his left side which gives him access to the gun on his right side.

        Zimmerman pulls his gun, puts trayvon in a scissor leg lock, pulls Trayvon by his shirt with his left hand, extends his right arm with his gun in his right hand, with enough distance between them because trayvon is trying to move his body away from his shooter.

        Zimmerman has control of Trayvons right arm which is located under Zimmermans left arm, aims his gun ensuring not to shoot his left hand and shoots his victim.

        Zimmerman then releases his victim, stands up, causing Trayvon to roll over onto his stomach.

        Could this be a possible position?

        • cielo62 says:

          Romaine- GZ didn’t have any debris on him so I don’t think it’s likely he was on the ground in ANY position, not sideways nor on his back. The forensics just doesn’t support it.

          Sent from my iPod

      • Romaine says:

        I know my theory / question is not what the defendant states, but his story is so far the from the truth it is pathetic. I would also like to know if what i propose as a position of events would line up with the location of the expended bullet casing found on scene.

      • Jun says:

        Weight advantage means a lot in a fight and you have never been or witnessed a fight to know the unfair advantage a weight difference provides

        They could not have been swapping and rolling around a lot, otherwise, the defendant would have more evidence of so, such as grass stains and mud stains all over the place, due to physical transfer due to repeated contact with the grass and mud, and there was none at all on the defendant’s clothing and jacket

        Martin being on top does not account for the obvious pulling of the shirt to match the trajectory, as well as the distance, as well as numerous other factors

        The rest of the UNit Ron stuff is just too much snake oil for my bearing to reply to because it does not make any sense whatsoever

        The bleeding on the defendant signifies his head was upright the whole time the scratches that self healed occurred

        The defendant sitting and pinning the victim still makes it possible for him to pull the shirt and shoot with a straight trajectory at intermediate range, as well as grab the gun from the holster, if he did not already have it out

        On top of that, the kid had no experience or training fighting at all, so I do not see how exactly he could easily just roll an adult who was larger than him easily on the ground

        Romaine, if the defendant was leaning sideways on his left side, it would be difficult to ascertain the misalignment of the bulletholes with the GSW, as the bullet holes need to be pulled down and to the left and forward to line up with the straight trajectory

        Let’s face it, it was an unfair fight started by the defendant

        The defendant had a physical, mental, and age development advantage on top of a weapons and tools advantage considering the car, gun, flashlight while the kid had skittles, ice tea and no training or experience fighting

        The roll around scenario makes no sense

      • Romaine says:

        my next question is at what angle would a gun be held to create an “L” shaped tear in a garment? is the nozzle of the gun held aiming straight forward or at a side ways angle?

        Does it matter?

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        There are multiple positions that are consistent with the gunshot wound and the holes in the clothing. Trayvon on top of GZ is not consistent with the forensic evidence.

      • Romaine says:

        I’m not focused on the fake super hero guy just getting my thoughts / questions out, since the topic was being discussed…ty you all for your replies

      • Malisha says:

        Unitron, the prosecution does not need to prove that Fogen pinned Trayvon Martin’s back to the ground at any point in time. The fact that witnesses saw Fogen ON TOP and that, using the forensics it is clear that Fogen’s version of being on the ground on his own back at the time, pinned by Trayvon Martin, is provably FALSE, means that any position OTHER than the one Fogen describes, which position does not contradict the forensics, is among the possible.

        ALSO, the fact that a commenter uses the phrase “pinned to the ground” to describe Trayvon Martin’s position at the moment of the fatal gun blast when he was not probably technically “pinned to the ground” even if Fogen was above him pointing the gun down at him and he was either sliding into a prone (on his back) position or already in a prone (somehow) position does not matter.

        Physically, he could have been about to land on the ground on his back while Fogen was actually pulling on his hoodie and shirt accidentally because he had already grasped Martin before the fall (Martin having effected a partial escape from the wrestling-on-ground position and Fogen having grabbed his hoodie to restrain him) and THEN the fatal shot.

        It doesn’t matter. We will never be able to figure out which of the possible hundreds of exact choreographies occurred as Fogen murdered the boy. Even a fight choreographer on Broadway cannot tell how a particular scene actually comes out Tuesday after he carefully rehearsed it on Monday. When I watched “Hurt Village” three times in a row, the fight scene came out differently every time although at the end of it, the man was on the ground and his shoe was off. Fogen murdered Trayvon Martin and a tiny misstatement on the part of a blogger who will not be a witness does not change that.

        I don’t know what your deal is.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “Unitron, the prosecution does not need to prove that Fogen pinned Trayvon Martin’s back to the ground at any point in time.”

          Which has absolutely nothing to do with someone saying “The forensics show he was on top pinning the victim on the ground when he shot the victim” and me saying “what forensics are those?”, not recalling having seen any forensic evidence that said much of anything about who had whom on the ground.

          Of course my question assumed that the person of whom I was asking it understands the difference between forensic and other kinds of evidence.

          Speaking of other kinds of evidence, refresh my memory.

          Which witnesses were the ones who said they saw someone who they were sure was Zimmerman on top before the gunshot?

          “…a tiny misstatement on the part of a blogger who will not be a witness…”

          Perhaps we should wait to see if they themselves acknowledge it to be a “tiny misstatement”.

          Otherwise if someone says ” ‘X’ proves ‘Y’ ” and I ask what they mean by ‘X’, they don’t get off the hook of needing to back up what they said just because someone else comes along and says “It doesn’t matter because it wasn’t really quite ‘Y’ in the first place”.

          unitron

      • aussie says:

        I believe unitron’s deal is that he takes statements quite literally. And won’t let small mistakes of fact slip by.

        And in this I totally support him.

        If we can all just write anything and expect all the others to “know what we mean” we may as well pack up and go home. Telepathy is cheaper than the internet.

        Statements that are contrary to known forensic evidence should not be allowed to pass unremarked. Or we start descending into “what I sort of vaguely think without thinking it through is the TRUTH” territory that so far has mostly been the domain of the other side.

        Some speculation is fine IF CLEARLY FLAGGED AS SUCH and may lead to something that fits the evidence better, for the missing minutes at least, than what we already have. That would count as “working hypothesis” not as fact or evidence.

        But anyone claiming to be stating evidence should do so in a way that MATCHES the hard evidence.

        Everyone please stop picking on unitron. He is trying to keep us all on the straight and narrow and for that you mock him? for that you call him troll?

        Pedantic you may call him — and annoying as that may be sometimes, it is very useful. We are from 5 continents here. English is not our first language for some of us. Pedantics about single phrases and single words help us all work out what we actually MEAN.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          I don’t think people are taking issue with the corrections, I’m sure we all welcome corrections of fact. What we can do without, however, is “snide ‘n’ snarky” being included in the process. Unless and until it is a fact, that someone here is not just making some error or mistake and actually engaged in nefarious behavior, I think that corrections should be kind, gentle and not the least bit self aggrandizing, which is what “smack down” style corrections are meant to be.

      • Jun says:

        Aussie

        Seriously

        Unitron claimed Trayvon could have bucked over 200 pounds off him with his knees

        A smaller person, especially one who is scrawny and not a fully developed adult like Fogen, cant rely on strength to overcome an opponent

        Bucking someone off requires strength

        There may be some martial arts technique to gain leverage to get out of being mounted but even then a larger opponent has an advantage, especially Fogen, who is well versed in using violence on others

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          As I said before, Trayvon would have trouble handling 25 lbs, we see this in the gym all the time when first time, newcomer teens attend their first day in the gym. They’re working out with 5lb plates and barbells. It never ceases to astonish the regular guys, to see someone working so light and having a hard time. No one laughs though, because we know that we all started out there. It just amazes us that we were once that weak.

          GZ, on the other hand, at his weight, could easily work out with 50 lb barbells and 200 lb weights. He has enough strength to actually pick Trayvon up, completely off the ground, against his will. He is powerfully built and he is irresistible to Trayvon, meaning that Trayvon cannot move GZ at all. Anyone who thinks that Trayvon could even push GZ away is imagining things.

      • Malisha says:

        I never accused Unitron of trolling and I’m not picking on him. NO HARM was done by suggesting that Trayvon was “pinned” to the ground — possibly he was, possibly he wasn’t — and I pointed that out.

        I don’t know what the harm ALLEGED was. That somebody was not 100% accurate does not amount to harm.

  22. ks says:

    The defense is acting crazier than usual.

    Is MOM actually arguing in his appeal that not finding about what Crump might have been talking about during a media appearance/press conference, where he supposedly theorized about a SPD conspiracy NOT TO CHARGE GZ, will cause “irreparable harm” to GZ’s defense? Wha….? Double Wha…? That’s makes absolutely no sense. He must be allowing the CTH loons to write another another “Tara Motion” for him.

    It seems to be yet another transparent ruse to harass Crump and add to their nutty DeeDee conspiracies.

    Also, I see that they were allowed to videotape the depos despite BDLR’s good point about intimidation tactics and selectivity but, the Court wisely sealed the tapes to stop any potential fishy business from the usual suspect.

  23. Malisha says:

    Where’s the PTSD motion?

    Hey O’Mara, doesn’t Fogen have PTSD yet?

    Weird. I had several bets on that; there’s still time yet, though. 😈

    • Jun says:

      Maybe Omara decided against it because he saw Jodi Arias attempt it and it did not work well

      Omara is sticking to his guns and going with the 100 pound gain motion and the ADHD motion and the Black Agenda Motion and the Too Busy with Internet Trolls Motion

      Omara has broken the case, Johnson

    • Rachael says:

      It ain’t over yet. I don’t think he will, never did, but this is getting crazier by the minute.

  24. ay2z says:

    The 5th DCA must wait for all the supporting material to be received before they assign a date for review?

    This would include the response from the State, or would the response come from Mr. Crump’s attorney?

    Would the state have anything to say about this if they are not the ones to respond?

    Would the defense have included copies of all the relevant material on which Judge Nelson relied? Would that include transcriptions of the hearings, and if relevant, would it include video where the court reporter was not yet present, and they decided to rely only on video/audio recording until the reporter’s arrival?

    • Xena says:

      @ay2z. The Appellate Court should have Rules regarding how long after a Writ is filed that responses are due. Some opposing parties do not file a response. They wait for the court’s decision to grant or deny the Writ. The Writ is not the appeal itself. It is more like requesting leave to file an appeal. Don’t know Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure but in some states if a Writ is granted, the party can have the Writ stand in place of its opening brief.

      Any party served with the Writ may file a response or if the Writ is granted, a brief. IIRC, O’Mara noticed the Florida Attorney General on the Writ. That office represents State Attorneys, so they would file a brief on behalf of BDLR.

      • ay2z says:

        Thanks, Xena,

        The docket now lists an appendix to the petition, ‘Acknowledgement letter 1’, And a CD, under misc docket entry.

  25. leander22 says:

    Considering Amsterdam’s comment above. I’d actually I’d suggest that people that cannot stand to read the whole motion should read it at least the last few pages starting with page 36, “Certain relevant aspects are”, all the way down to the final political argument. Some nuggets.

    a. …If Mr. Crump has evidence that supports this contention [alleged police cover up] , it is absolutely relevant to the Petioner’s case because if indeed, the Sanford Police Department is corrupt and that further, Mr. Wolfinger played a part, the prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman is happening, in part, by those efforts. If Mr. Crump has evidence to support this statement, it is highly relevant.

    Versus page 40, part of the poltical argument, 5. To Disallow Mr. Crump’s Deposition Creats Bad Policy:

    A civil lawyer with a vested interest in the outcome of the case should not be allowed to keep evidence from law enforcement; potentially influence significant witnesses; speak on national television about evidence he claims to exist and witnesses he has spoken with; accuse several law enforcement agencies of dishonesty; otherwise play a central role in the media persecution; and then gather evidence to further prosecution of the Petitioner and, as a result, significantly threaten Mr. Zimmerman’s chance of having a fair trial, yet claim he is not subject to a deposition regarding non-privileged matters.

    Now doesn’t this contradict the argument above, shouldn’t it be either or? Thus a central part of the relevancy argument is insincere.

    The political argument: 5. To Disallow Mr. Crump’s deposition creates bad policy.

    By Prohibiting the deposition of Mr. Crump, the trial court set upon a dangerous course that goes well beyong simply protecting a lawyer from unwarranted disclosure; it allows an attorney unfettered discretion to significantly affect a pending criminal proceeding with no obligation to explain the basis for that influence.

    In in the conclusion on page 41 he effectively states what it is all about. It’s about Witness 8:

    a witness who possesses relevant, non-privileged information about the most significant witness in this case.

    and this:

    The Petitioner has already experienced material injury, in that subsequent depositions have been hindered and rendered incomplete.

    Does that mean DeeDee has only confused them, as they write, in the first part of her deposition and now they urgently need the help of Crump to collect their impeachment material?

    • Xena says:

      @leander22,quoting from O’Mara’s Writ:

      If Mr. Crump has evidence that supports this contention [alleged police cover up] , it is absolutely relevant to the Petioner’s case because if indeed…

      If the Appellate Court grants the Writ, if I were attorney Blackwell, I would argue that the defense for defendant George Zimmerman lacks standing to depose attorney Crump regarding his statements of a police cover-up. In the alternative, any such facts that attorney Crump might have are subject to attorney-client privilege because his clients might have a cause of action against the SPD.

      • ay2z says:

        Is the defense going to argue that the arrest was based on false information? That is, there was no cover up and the opinion of not enough information to charge, or he’s a buddy and there’s no proof he isn’t telling the truth anyway, so he should not have been arrested except for political reasons or some such thing?

        • Xena says:

          @ay2z

          Is the defense going to argue that the arrest was based on false information?

          The defense will argue that aliens from another planet conspired against GZ if they think that will avoid trial. Whatever is behind their reasons, it’s an effort to avoid trial.

      • Jun says:

        Am I correct to say that if the Appellate Court grants a listen to the motion, it has to also grant Crump and Blackwell the right to object the writ?

        • Xena says:

          @Jun

          Am I correct to say that if the Appellate Court grants a listen to the motion, it has to also grant Crump and Blackwell the right to object the writ?

          At this point, Blackwell and the Florida AG don’t have to do anything. They can file a brief asking the Appellate Court to deny the Writ, but they don’t have to.

          Certiorari is an extraordinary prerogative writ granted in cases that otherwise would not be entitled to review. In general, orders entered in discovery matters are not final orders and appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review them without there being an extraordinary reason. If the Appellate Court denies O’Mara’s Writ, then Blackwell and the Florida AG have saved themselves time and effort. If the Writ is granted is when their work begins.

      • Jun says:

        Okay, so basically, Crump & Blackwell can go object, if the hearing is granted, regarding Omara’s weird motion?

        • Xena says:

          @Jun

          Okay, so basically, Crump & Blackwell can go object, if the hearing is granted, regarding Omara’s weird motion?

          Yes, if you want to use those terms. What Blackwell would do is file a brief showing the Appellate court that the trial court did not err.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        @xena,
        If the hearing is granted and the Appellate court rules against the defense, would that impact potential later appeals?

        • Xena says:

          @amsterdam1234

          @xena,
          If the hearing is granted and the Appellate court rules against the defense, would that impact potential later appeals?

          No, it shouldn’t.

      • leander22 says:

        Xena, I have very mixed feelings about this motion. The hint at the “dangerous policy” is clever, it feels. The argument that this is all a political prosecution of some type of “sacrificial lamb” that is prosecuted, not for his own faults but due to media manipulation and pressure (look it’s not my argument!) is already out there. So one way or another they may be forced to make a wise, or a slightly “political decision”, IF the core column of their argument the central “waive privilege by going public” theory has legal merits.

        Notice this waiving privilege theory can also circumvent elegantly in their opinion the fact that Tracy Martin’s statements about the scream are no longer work product due to reporting it in the media. Thus they intend to clearly get into matters concerning his clients too. And that is a very manipulative attempt.

        Why should Crump e.g. in statements he made rely on information by DeeDee, who wasn’t even there? She cannot have told him anything about a “police cover up”, that was clearly Tracy’s impression and why he hired Crump to start with. Interestingly there is no hint at Tracy in this context, although it was solid media knowledge at the time. Spread by both Tracy himself as his lawyer. What exact statements Crump could have only made only with “a little help” from DeeDee? That sounds really ridiculous to me, but they do not tell me what is on their mind. They don’t tell the appellate court either.

        Strictly I hate to say this. It may be better to allow a very clearly defined and limited deposition of Crump to not feed the “Hard Right’s” imaginations and fantasy even further: It’s all purely political! Meaning blacks manipulate the system. On the other hand it would be very, very wrong to support the motion for the exact same reason. A black lawyer working for the family is characterized as manipulator: as the “the central cog of the Scheme Team”, or whatever more polite terms Jeralyn uses.

        The only thing they rely on is their suspicion that that “the scheme team”, notice not the parents, Tracy who accessed the cell phone record, somehow pulled DeeDee like a rabbit out of the hat. But strictly the only person that can answer why she did not contact police immediately, when she was first contacted and by whom, if she was informed that media would be present, if he consented to publication,… is DeeDee herself. They desperately need Crump to find contradictions to her statements for impeachment, and they don’t even hide that.

        Certain relevant aspects are:

        a. Mr. Crump made a broadcasted statement and publicly mailed correspondence to the Department of Justice claiming Chief Bill Lee of the Sanford Police Department and State Attorney Norman Wolfinger met on the evening of February 26, 2012 and conspired not to have Mr. Zimmerman arrested; in other words, jointly participated in a “cover up” of the death of Trayvon Martin. App. AA: 262. If Mr. Crump has evidence that supports this contention, it is absolutely relevant to the Petitioner’s case because if indeed, the Sanford Police Department is corrupt and that further, Mr. Wolfinger played a part, the prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman is happening, in part, by those efforts. If Mr. Crump has evidence to support this statement, it is highly relevant.

        b. Mr. Crump stated publicly that the Sanford Police Department falsified records during its investigation into the death of Trayvon Martin. Mr. Crump alleged that the Sanford Police Department “lied” in its report that said Tracy Martin told Investigator Chris Serino that the voice heard in the background screaming for help on a resident’s 911 call was not his son’s. App. BB: 264. Mr. Crump further stated that since Mr. Martin heard the 911 call at the Sanford Police Department, he has listened to a “cleaned up” copy of the recording, and that he is convinced now that the voice crying for help is Trayvon Martin’s voice.

        d. If Mr. Crump has evidence supporting his contention that the Sanford Police Department lied, it is imperative that the Petitioner be entitled to know what it is. If Mr. Crump is aware of any information at all supporting this contention, it is highly relevant to the Petitioner’s case because these officers may be called as witnesses, and the issue of voice identification is crucial to the case.

        c. Finally, Mr. Crump has also publicly commented on other significant factual aspects of the case not apparent in the Witness 8 recorded interview, or in Mr. Crump’s affidavit. Mr. Crump has commented on significant factual aspects of the case and seems to possess information that could have only come from Witness 8.

        • Xena says:

          @leander22

          Xena, I have very mixed feelings about this motion.

          There’s a good chance that the Appellate court will deny hearing the Writ. They don’t have to hear it. O’Mara’s Writ lacks the basic presentation of having a question to review. It does not set forth how the trial court erred. It does not set forth the irreparable harm it alleges.

          • leander22 says:

            Xena, I am almost through the appendix and thus the limited window into the case history and the special deposition angle they present. In the process I read Blackwell’s response again. He has the much better argument. There are ultimately a lot of evasions and prevarications in their tactics. The most interesting were the partial transcripts of the hearing. If I ignore there special angle at the case by their selective use of transcripts.

      • Jun says:

        It’s 100% proven that the defendant stalked then killed the victim, a 17 year old unarmed kid, a kid who just bought Skittles from 7-11

        There’s nothing political regarding it, it’s a simple case of murder, and there is probable cause

        The only proven parties to have had schemed and manipulated public spectrum is the defendant and Omara, example being the funds sceptered from right wing wackos and racists, and their schemes at the first bond hearing

        Even if they allow a limited scope, the courts allow the opposing counsel to object and make their arguments, because all they hear at this point is Omara’s argument, which is full of fallacies and misrepresentations, which is a perversion of justice, and Crump really cant offer anything to the case because he was not there and his only contact is his phone interview where Matt Guttman was with ABC there

        Even via rules, only recorded conversations are to be disclosed and they did just that, and whether w8 is a client of Crump’s or not, he can still have work product regarding her

    • Jun says:

      Is Omara not suing NBC? That would make him a civil lawyer vested in this case? So by his argument, Omara is up for a deposition from as well LOL

      I think any evidence Crump could gather would be insignificant since he is not authorized to investigate the SPD and besides, that would be part of his work product against Fogen, if there is anything

      The last paragraph regarding Crump sounds like a load because he is accusing Crump of influencing the criminal proceedings with no basis or cause to show that it even exists and lastly, Crump has no authority to place forward criminal proceedings, since he is not a State Officer

      The work product rule is the work product rule

      Omara can whine all he wants but if his argument had any merit, that would mean Omara would also have to spill all the beans he can about Fogen and I doubt he is going to do just that and anyways, Fogen and Omara can keep it on the downlow

      Omara is basically asking to make exceptions and bend the rules just for him it seems

      • ay2z says:

        His client is suing NBC, so can they keep the two suits distinct from one another, even if the lawyers are working for the same client and arrangements for the law suit were in concern with the criminal defense team?

      • Jun says:

        Omara’s logic does not connect together but let us see what the appellate court says

        The appellate may not even grant a listen to the motion

      • leander22 says:

        Is Omara not suing NBC? That would make him a civil lawyer vested in this case? So by his argument, Omara is up for a deposition from as well LOL

        This is an interesting point, Jun.

        I think the civil versus criminal does not matter in their argument, if their waiving-privilege-by-going-public-theory will be accepted, it may well be valid in both areas. What it signals though is that media has to be really, really careful in the future to interview relatives and friends in such a case. Just as the lawyers will have to protect themselves to a much larger extend. Anything they say could be construed as losing their client attorney privilege. Obviously these people are at the center of the media attention since there is a huge interest in the public to see their responses maybe I guess in spectacular civil cases too.

        What I do not understand is that media does not “collectively stand up” against these hardly veiled threats. Today it will be NBC tomorrow it can be you. It’s a call for rigid censorship it feels. But we do not have a system over here that allows to sue for ultimately unlimited sums of money. Personally I think that in this case “a story found media” and not the other way round.

        There is hardly any cache trace of this story. There is also no You Tube version of the interview he gave in this context. At least on first check.

        The lawsuit names multiple reporters within the ranks of the NBC News division who allegedly edited the 911 call. On Thursday, Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara told In Session correspondent Jean Casarez that more defendants could be added to the lawsuit depending on what evidence comes to light during the discovery process.

        “I think what they tried to do was get ahead of the curve… thinking they had themselves a person who was a racist and they were wrong. I think what they did is they cut a lot of corners to try to beat the aggressive media to it. Had they been right, they may have gotten away with it. But they were wrong,” said O’Mara.

        The jury has not yet decided if they were wrong. The core theme O’Mara seems to ride on is that Crump and the family claimed that if Trayyon shot GZ he would have been arrested on the same night. No matter how well I understand the statement, a slightly problematic statement considering Trayvon’s age. To a certain extend it may associatively trigger “illegal weapons” if you intend it or not. He wouldn’t have been able to carry a concealed weapon due to his age. On the other hand media often demands personalization of an issue. That’s the crux, you can misunderstand but you do not need to. And strictly O’Mara admits that there is a problem with the justice system considering black males, just that his client is as “innocent as a lily” of both murder and of racism.

      • leander22 says:

        What about O’Mara losing his client-attorney privilege since he went public over and over again using a counter PR strategy?

    • Jun says:

      I am feeling Omara is misrepresenting a lot of information because Crump allegedly alleged that there was a cover up to hide Fogen’s guilt and that Wolfinger and Lee has a connection to the defendant

      Crump never alleged to have evidence or information regarding any cover up and he alleged a theory of a cover up to cover up for Fogen

      Omara is alleging that Crump has evidence that they are covering up the fact that Fogen shot Trayvon in self defense when the exact opposite is true and Omara has no evidence that it exists or that Crump even stated such

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      MOM desperately needs to pass the time while maintaining the high profile this case affords him. That means always having something going on, to keep the cameras turning and the internet abuzz. So, like a cornered animal MOM must strike out at anything or anyone who passes within range of his lair.

      My guess is he normally would not file such dramatic loser motions as he does, but having learned that there are a lot of clueless idiots out there, who believe that their dollars can do for the defense what the evidence and testimony cannot, hey, why not? Thus do the internet trolls embolden him. Z should place no faith in a defense that finds it’s only encouragement in the blogs of internet trolls. In fact I don’t think he is, I think he’s working furiously to find a way to defeat the anklet he wears. The better to leave the court trying an empty chair.

      Unfortunately for any such plan, he’s gained over 100 lbs and looks like two people instead of one. That, is a very unwanted attention getter, exactly what he doesn’t need. So that now if he’s going to have any chance at escape, he needs to travel as containerized freight. 😀

      • leander22 says:

        “not file such dramatic loser motions as he does” For whatever reason, I had the impression this motion was slightly more straightforward then earlier ones, but I need to look into the history much closer. Jeralyn of course considers the “waiver theory” valid, I checked late yesterday. It is a very dangerous idea, and ultimately deeply undemocratic. ‘For me it is nothing but a legal variation of the theme: “only evil media or the scheme theme brought prosecution about”. I am completely with Blackwell, if a lawyer has the consent of his clients then he does not waive his privilege. Obviously they only look for impeachment matter. Hoping that Crump will help them. I doubt he would, even if he was deposed. There whole story is a lot of hot air. It’s very, very transparent that they want DeeDee to go away.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Not to worry, none of these questions being raised are new, so the judge has a substantial body of case law to guide her every step of the way. While MOM is simply filing and refiling motions that, even if he were to win, would gain him nothing of substance. Much as he might like DD to go away, even if he were to some how manage it, he’d still have a very poor chance of winning.

          If anything, as the investigation progresses, it’s looking more and more like M1 should be the charge. Discovery of a critical piece of evidence could very well make that a possibility. Though I doubt the SP will make things any more difficult on themselves than need be. So they’ll probably just save the additional evidence for the sentencing.

  26. ay2z says:

    The appeal has not yet made its way onto the online docket. It should appear on this page when the new case is entered.

    http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_person_stats

  27. kllypyn says:

    Her age is irrelevant. Whether she went to Trayvon’s wake or funeral is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is why there was a funeral in the first place. Trayvon’s murder.The prosecution never said she lied under oath,the defense did. The defense are lawyers they should know whats relevant and whats not.

    • Mike says:

      ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐@kelly

    • ladystclaire says:

      Apparently they don’t know it’s not relevant because, the MORONS keep upchucking the same regurgitated BS for months now. the defense knows this POS is guilty and, they also know they have no defense for him. also, what better way for the defenseless defense to buy more time for their murdering client, than to keep filing these BS motions.

  28. leander22 says:

    Before I am gone, thanks for this article, Frederick. I hadn’t paid much attention on the chronology of events. Very, very important you point that out.

    It feels media reports on the news were only on March 28, that is after the motions were filed. Were is our US citizen so concerned about misinformation/misrepresentation by media? 😉

    René Stutzman, writes this on March 30, 2013:

    Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson is expected to hear argument on the delay request and other pending motions on Tuesday.

    • leander22 says:

      No trace of the news, you just put into context. But she is running flag waving already with the latest defense activity.

      Omission is misinformation too, especially if one is so busy with the case.

    • groans says:

      Leander, your link goes to a January 30th article (which does include that sentence, but….)

      😕

      • leander22 says:

        but? groans, you wonder about my argument?

        Frederick wrote above that Nelson canceled the hearing on March 25.

        Now strictly I defended Rene Stutzman against the suspicion that she responded to the defense hints and desires with her articles with stating, she could have picked it up via Twitter or the defense site. Had she picked it up via twitter, she would have noticed the entry concerning the next hearing.

        Zimmerman Legal Case ‏@GZlegalCase 28 Mar

        Regarding the Next Hearing Date in the #Zimmerman Case http://ow.ly/juv0v

        She immediately wrote about this motion on March 28. Had she indeed picked it up via Twitter she would have noticed the note above. But two days later she still apparently still thought, the hearing would take place.

        Now here is the defense’s note on the issue:

        Regarding the Next Hearing Date in the Zimmerman Case

        on 28 March 2013.

        On Monday, March 25, the Court canceled the hearing previously scheduled on April 2. The Court did not consult with the defense before canceling the hearing. As there are only 74 days until trial, and as there are Motions before the Court, we hope to appear before the Judge for pending matters before the next hearing currently scheduled for April 30.

        By publishing it only on March 28, they made sure that if it was picked up at all, in connection with the motion. Thus they perfectly managed to taint Debra Nelson.

  29. The defense filed for a writ of certiorari this afternoon in the Court of Appeals seeking an order that will permit them to depose Benjamin Crump.

    You can read the writ here.

    • Xena says:

      You can read the writ here.

      Defendant George Zimmerman, by and through his undersigned legal counsel, requests this court to review orders entered by the Honorable Judge Nelson.

      Yada, yada, yada. Whine, whine, whine. Grumble, grumble, grumble. Oh — and here is a case citation. Yada, yada, yada. Whine, whine, whine.

      Conclusion:
      The defense has no evidence to prove that the defendant killed in self-defense, so this court must allow this Writ so we can question attorney Crump about what he ate for breakfast, go through his garbage can to prove him a liar, and that the arrest of the defendant is part of the Black Agenda, and therefore not have to proceed to trial.

      Respectfully submitted,
      The Feign Team

      • racerrodig says:

        What about us white guys who wanted his ass arrested ???
        We don’t count……I’m stunned….and so hurt……I could just cry.

        You know me by now Xena……..I just had to !!!!!!

      • Jun says:

        You forgot that all non blacks are race traitors LOL

        • Xena says:

          @Jun.

          You forgot that all non blacks are race traitors LOL

          Oh yeah — that’s right. This country is just filled with race traitors resulting in America having its first Black President, (who was conceived by a racer traitor making her the same as the “n” word.) And now GZ is in jail because of those same traitors. My, my. What is this country coming to? (snark)

      • ladystclaire says:

        @racer, you white guys most definitely count and, I thank GOD that, there are people in this world/country like you all. there is good and bad in every race and for some people to think other wise, they are only fooling themselves.

        For these people to think that Fogen was right for killing a child, every last one of them, ought to have to go through seeing what it feels like to have a child taken from them in this manner. it’s such a shame that we still have RODENTS such as these in this country. but, at the same time, I’m so glad that the rest of the world has a front row seat to witness the racism and uncaring attitudes in this country.

        You are a good person!

        • racerrodig says:

          I appreciate that and I just love all you guys & gals on Team Trayvon. It’s a shame they are still in the 18th or 19th Century with their thinking. The real world has so much good and they seem hell bent on missing it all.

      • @ladystclaire

        AMEN!

        Good folks of all races want to see justice served in this case. Like Sybrina stated, “it’s not about black & white…it’s about right and wrong”. There were people of all races, young & old, participating in those protest rallies demanding GZ be arrested.

      • ladystclaire says:

        @Cielo62, AMEN! that’s exactly what he is and, I don’t care what his Jack@ss of a brother say. his brother is a murderer and, Trayvon didn’t almost kill his fat ass either. in fact, Trayvon never laid a hand on the filthy peasant.

        Fogen and those in that neighborhood were on a campaign to run AA out of what they think was their turf. Fogen wasn’t even an owner and further more he wasn’t a renter because, he wasn’t paying his rent. he more or less thought he had squatters rights so, therefore he wasn’t paying his rent.

        What ever is coming down the pike in his direction, he is deserving of every bit of it.

        • Xena says:

          @ladystclaire

          Fogen wasn’t even an owner and further more he wasn’t a renter because, he wasn’t paying his rent. he more or less thought he had squatters rights so, …

          I just had a light bulb moment. Maybe GZ assumed that if he could prove his value to that community, the HOA would pay his rent for him in exchange for security.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        @ladystclaire,
        Biologically, there is no such thing as race. We probably evolved to darker skin when we started losing our bodyhair to protect us against the burning sun on the African savannah’s. The first human’s that migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the world, were black.

        The people who started living in northern locations, most likely evolved back to lighter skin because less sun meant less vitamine D, and darker skin because it functioned to protect us from the sun, would’ve meant serious vitamine D deficiencies.

      • lurker says:

        Sena–re: your light bulb moment. I do believe that George’s motivation had something to do with overcompensation. He was a renter dependent on his wife’s family (I believe they owned the house) for support. Best way to make up for being seen as a loser is to go kick someone else likely to be seen as a loser. It is very likely that there were lines drawn between owners and renters, and that these lines tended to coincide wiht race.

        • Xena says:

          @lurker

          He was a renter dependent on his wife’s family (I believe they owned the house) for support…

          After they married, GZ and ShelLIE lived with her mom for several years until they rented the townhouse in R@TL. Based on the Credit Union statements, they paid rent to a woman whose name is not the same as ShelLIE’s mom.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Ownership and renters only coincided with race in the minds of the racists. Just like welfare. They thought welfare was a synonym for black, until they started cutting welfare and discovered that there were more whites on welfare than blacks. The problem, as usual is that the media makes the negatives of blacks more visible than for whites, in fact, when adjusted for population size and other factors, crime, welfare/public assistance and just about anything else is pretty much the same for all groups. Exactly what you’d expect if humans of all variations were simply humans after all.

          If people like Taaffe and Caraker knew weren’t so ignorant it hurts, they’d have known that their financial problems were due to them having cast their votes for George W Bush, whose lax regulation of financial markets allowed the subprime mess to escalate out of control until there was no more money available to for banks to make loans with. Property values were falling because nobody could get a mortgage to buy. Thus you had lots of people wanting to sell, but few if any able to buy. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what happens when supply outstrips demand.

          Instead idiot and now famous “Useless Drunkard” Taaffe, blamed black for what his ignorant vote accomplished. He voted for his own poverty , 2000.

      • lurker says:

        Apologies, that should be Xena.

    • elcymoo says:

      Frederick Leatherman says:
      April 4, 2013 at 6:55 pm
      The defense filed for a writ of certiorari this afternoon in the Court of Appeals seeking an order that will permit them to depose Benjamin Crump.

      You can read the writ here.
      ************************

      I noticed that although the defense is still claiming that the witness who recanted his statement saw TM beating GZ, the writ does at least say ‘likely broken nose’ instead of the previously ‘undisputed broken nose’.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Somehow a likely broken nose and a bullet through the heart don’t seem to match up.

      • Jun says:

        Notice nothing is said about this witness 6’s conflicting statements and testimonies, yet w8….

        • Yes, I believe O”Mara was intellectually dishonest for repeating W6’s statement, which W6 subsequently recanted, as fact in the Statement of Facts.

          That’s lying to the Court of Appeals and I hope they sanction him for that.

          He certainly deserves to be smacked down for repeating that lie.

  30. ladystclaire says:

    Could the Florida bar step in and, remove O’mara and West from this case? I mean, seeing that they are taking advice from a racist group of people, whose intent is to harass W-8 to the point of not testifying. also, can the prosecution just try this case without W-8 because, this bickering from the defense is only holding up the start of this trial.

    The state has enough evidence without DeeDee in order to get a conviction as far as Fogen is concerned. this way Crump can have some peace of mind.

    • Question: Could the Florida bar step in and, remove O’mara and West from this case?

      Answer: No.

      Question: Can the prosecution just try this case without W-8 because, this bickering from the defense is only holding up the start of this trial?

      Answer: Yes, but I do not believe it’s very likely that they will because the jury will want to see who was talking to him and what he said.

  31. Rachael says:

    I’m sick and have a migraine, so nothing is making any sense to me at the moment. I’m confused as all get out. So what is going on here? The defense is purposely trying to get the judge aggravated so they can say she is not impartial and they can try for another judge? Or in some sleazy manner they are trying to get more time? And they need more time because GZ is innocent?

    I’m going to bed. Maybe this will all make sense later, though I have to admit, long before the cold and migraine, it was rather confusing. I’m not sure I understand their game plan. O’Mara is playing stupid so GZ can call foul and get an appeal if convicted?

    IDK. It is making my head hurt worse to even think about it.

    What is the BFD? They say he is not guilty, it was self-defense, prosecution says it was murder 2 – so lets get it done.

  32. Two sides to a story says:

    Thank you for clearly showing the FL motion procedure and establishing that JN did nothing at all wrong by cancelling the hearing without notificatiion. The Stump has been all atwittter with news of how hostile and rude JN is to the defense.

    Pffft. :/

    • ladystclaire says:

      The next thing we know, they will be demanding Sylvester to have her thrown off the case. if they even try that, I hope they will be told NO! they have rid this case of two judges already and, just because Fogen isn’t getting his way, he is no better than anybody else when it comes to having some of his motions denied.

      They went Judge shopping with the past two judges and, now the shopping should stop here. I know that there are some judges who can be had for a price but, they shouldn’t be given the chance to buy that judge by having judge Nelson removed.

      Fogen was so angry when his continuance was denied, you can see it in his face. he even cried the big obese baby. it’s very evident that he is not a man without his gun.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        If you’re man enough to kill someone you’d best be man enough to take your lumps for it.

      • ladystclaire says:

        True that! also, Fogen knew very well that he was in pursuit of a kid and, he also knows that he would have never followed an adult AA male, even with his courage strapped on his person. Fogen is a bully and as we know, bullies don’t pick on those who are their equal. they pick on those who are defenseless and none confrontational.

        Fogen will be one of the very people, who he loves to bully when he is behind bars. I sure would like to see him pick a fight in prison. oh, he won’t be allowed to have his fire arm when he is locked up.

  33. kllypyn says:

    why aren’t they focusing on thew evidence? whether dee dee trayvon’s funeral or wake is irrelevant.

  34. Nef05 says:

    Funny how O’Mara made a big deal out of making sure that he mentioned how JN cancelled the hearing without consulting him, as if that was necessary.

    Also, he’s filing a writ/appeal to depose Crump. This will be interesting.

    http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      How do judges in general feel about actions like that?

    • Xena says:

      I read up to page 25 and have yet to read any argument supporting that GZ will be caused irreparable harm without the deposition of attorney Crump. That in fact, the defense contradicts itself when alleging that Witness 8 was dishonest, while wanting to depose attorney Crump about that. How was Crump to go beyond Witness 8’s statements?

      Also, this matter can be resolved by the fact that the State conducted its own interview of Witness 8. At that interview, the State did not request hospital records and indeed, it’s a moot issue because it has nothing to do with GZ’s claim of self-defense.

      I suspect that attorney Blackwell is going to file a reply brief that tears the defense not one, not two, neither three, but multiple butt holes.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        I stopped reading after the “irreparable harm” part.

      • I suspect that attorney Blackwell is going to file a reply brief that tears the defense not one, not two, neither three, but multiple butt holes.

        bwa ha ha ha ha ha

        • Xena says:

          @SG2. I need to correct myself. O’Mara filed a Writ. He is appealing a non-final order of the court. The appellate court might or might not grant to hear it. Blackwell might save himself time and not file anything until the appellate court makes its decision on whether to hear the issue. But I do like to read his pleadings. 🙂

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I suspect that even if the judge granted the motion that the defense wouldn’t get much from deposing Crump that would help the defendant anyway. This constant badgering has more to do with delays and soliciting donations and messing with the jury pool than anything else, IMHO.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        Thanks Xena,

        I guess the structure of your example is less suitable for hiding the fact that they filled 43 pages with:

        “W8 said she went to the hospital instead of going to the funeral of the kid my client killed, and that was not true. Therefore it is essential I get to depose that black guy, who claims he is a lawyer, to ask him something I need to know. If I am not allowed to do that, irreparable harm, irreparable harm, irreparable harm”

        • Xena says:

          @amsterdam1234. Yeah. You got it.

          Funny thing about irreparable harm. One would think that O’Mara is saying that the evidence of Witness 8’s testimony is so damaging to GZ, that unless he’s unable to depose attorney Crump, a finding by the jury of guilty as charged will not be subject to appeal on any basis.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        Nice example by the way. I am completely ignorant about the standards of writing for legal arguments. The defense’s writ gave me that same irritable feeling, when I had to review systems documentation. I can recognize that I’ve been presented with a document consisting of 50 pages of garbage, with in minutes.

        • Xena says:

          @amsterdam1234

          I can recognize that I’ve been presented with a document consisting of 50 pages of garbage, with in minutes.

          That’s because you’re experienced in system technology.

          I was taught that Writs and appeals must present the question for review. Maybe I missed it, but didn’t see it in O’Mara’s writ. Justices are not too keen on having to read an entire brief to try to figure out the question for review.

        • Xena says:

          @amsterdam1234. Oh — btw, the question for review is generally how paralegals and legal researchers begin their research on how the court has previously decided the same issues.

      • Tzar says:

        I no longer read anything by the defense
        just the responses

        • racerrodig says:

          Everything written by the defense looks like a kid wrote it. They might as well sign everything “Waaaaaa…..Waaaaaaa…….Waaaaa”

        • Xena says:

          @Tzar

          I no longer read anything by the defense
          just the responses

          You mean, you don’t like reading “How not to write a legal pleading” ?? LOL!!

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        @xena,
        I was wondering about that. They used every sleazy tactic and every gullible reporter to get the message out that the prosecution’s case was “crumbling”. It doesn’t make much sense to now write, that if they don’t get to depose Crump, GZ will spend the rest of his life in jail.

        • Xena says:

          @amsterdam1234

          They used every sleazy tactic and every gullible reporter to get the message out that the prosecution’s case was “crumbling”. It doesn’t make much sense to now write, that if they don’t get to depose Crump, GZ will spend the rest of his life in jail.

          It’s a great way to pave the path now for when they fail to bring forth an effective defense during trial.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        @xena

        — btw, the question for review is generally how paralegals and legal researchers begin their research on how the court has previously decided the same issues.

        I was watching The Verdict last night, and I was wondering what kind of system is used to find the case law you are looking for.

        I guess O’Mara’s motions will end up in the ” how not to” section.

        • Xena says:

          @amsterdam1234

          I was watching The Verdict last night, and I was wondering what kind of system is used to find the case law you are looking for.

          For appeals, it always start with the question(s) for review. That gives the issue to begin the research for other case decisions. Many times, a legal researcher or paralegal can find cases both for and against the issue, and write a Memo for how the courts reached the decisions.

          This is generally completed before Notice of Appeal is filed.

          I guess O’Mara’s motions will end up in the ” how not to” section.

          LOL!! Now we know why O’Mara did not advise the prosecution about his plan to video the depositions. Had he needed to file a motion, Judge Nelson may have denied his request.

      • Jun says:

        The main question to will be asked is, why do they need to depose Crump, when Crump is the victim’s family’s lawyer, and he was not a witness to the actual event? Crump is offering absolutely nothing to the case at all and could not anyways, considering he is not a witness to the incident.

        • Xena says:

          @Jun. Right. Along with that, the defense has already deposed members of law enforcement, and Witness 8. If they didn’t find the answers they wanted from those individuals, how is deposing attorney Crump suppose to give them answers for others?

          Although I could only get to page 25 of the Writ, I scanned through the rest and no where did I read any explanation by the defense how not deposing Crump will cause GZ irreparable harm.

      • Jun says:

        I think Omara fails because he does not mention how exactly not deposing Crump irreparably harms Fogen for his trial. Omara also fails to mention why it would irreparably harm his Fogen if Crump is not deposed. Omara seems to work like Junior in that he just makes an accusation without any supporting evidence or reasoning. I have stated this numerous times, but whether or not Crump is the big bad black guy the Fogen Gang Members allege he is, Crump is not offering any testimony or anything to the case because he was not there, so even winning this whining to the appellate court seems to be very pointless. It actually changes nothing at all for the trial.

        The funny thing is the state can easily call Omara and Fogen liars and they have backing to that accusation to prove it to be true yet, nothing is said how that irreparably damaged them at all or how they could be found not credible either

        • Xena says:

          @Jun. Agree. Absolutely. But see, Zidiots do not want Trayvon’s phone records as evidence. They first tried arguing that it wasn’t Trayvon’s phone. Their theory that DeeDee does not really exist and attorney Crump made her up is tied into the phone records — Because if DeeDee is made up by Crump, then the phone records do not belong to Trayvon but someone else who was on the phone with a person at the phone number of “DeeDee” in Miami Gardens when Trayvon was followed and killed by GZ.

          That then proves that GZ killed Trayvon in self-defense and should not have been arrested, based on the decisions of Lee and Wolfinger who both no longer have their jobs neither knew of Trayvon’s phone records and that he was on the phone while being watched, followed, and pursued on foot by GZ.

          You see, you have to put on your tin-foil hat to see these things. 🙂

      • Jun says:

        Tzar

        I do not bother reading the defense stuff either

        I learned after skimming and reading them, is, they are all essentially the same motions, but they change the wording

        You can give Hitler black, white, or red clothing, and he’s still Hitler

        Yep, Fogen is Fatso Hitler

      • Jun says:

        Fatso Hitler the Dumkopf

        Sounds like a hit movie

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        @jun
        I don’t even think they change the wording, they just change the title.

      • lurker says:

        Well, I made it somewhat beyond the 25 page mark. It looks to me that this issue only makes sense within the context of a belief that Deedee does not truly exist, was a creation of Crump and did not attend the funeral because there is no such person.

        Poking around the treepers of late has led me to the knowledge that they firmly believe that no calls were made from the “heart phone” found at the scene. As they seem to deal much more heavily in gossippy repeated notions handed from one to the other, I cannot figure out whether this is grounded in anything other than imagination or not. Certainly that is information that can easily be substantiated in records from T-Mobile and from the analysis of the phone itself. (T-Mobile, like many companies uses “sim cards” which are easily swapped out by kids who trade phones).

        In any case–there seems to be a person who can be identified and linked to a phone used for over five hours of conversation to a phone that can be linked to Trayvon.

        REgardikng crump and the not-so-veiled allegation of “coaching, I have seen attorneys do roughtly the same thing in court with witnesses on the stand, urging them to repeat loudly and clearly their comments so that they can be heard and put down by the court recorder.

        Again–unless Deedee’s deposition provides some indication that Crump dug her up from somewhere and told her what to say (or someone else in Trayvon’s family did the same), it is hard to see how this is anything but a desperate waste of time–and one more opportunity toi lay out the defense case before ht public.

    • leander22 says:

      Well that is the second time they look for help beyond the judge it seems. This time not to get rid of him but to challenge her decisions.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        Maybe they are just trying to buy time.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        What is their obsession with Crump? I don’t get it.

        • Xena says:

          @amsterdam1234.

          What is their obsession with Crump? I don’t get it.

          He’s a Black lawyer, not as articulate as President Obama, who dared to appear on television and give statements on behalf of Trayvon’s parents seeking investigation and arrest of GZ.

          It is my understanding that issues not brought before the court cannot be argued for the first time on appeal. I don’t remember reading anything in O’Mara’s motion for reconsideration arguing that Crump failed to identify Witness 8 before interviewing her via phone and recording the interview.

          O’Mara and West have simply presented the arguments of Zidiots in their quest to attempt to denigrate and humiliate attorney Crump.

      • leander22 says:

        I am not sure if Nelson has to address a Writ of Certorari herself, maybe? Maybe I was misled with the allusions to the fact that an appellate court cannot mend that anymore.

        In any case this is odd:

        Mr. Crump does states that he does not have an attorney-client relationship with 8 and states that he knowingly waived any work-product privilege that he may have had.

        I didn’t read or hear that it is in fact the theory of defense that he waived it by going public with the interview. But interesting how Crumps shifts in the process of these motions from not being to being opposing counsel.

        I start to wonder, if the motion against ABC has to do with the fact that this audio suddenly surfaced. Besides he writes what Crump says can be “construed” as coaching her what to say. He then goes on to cite ironically a passage were DeeDee corrects Crump. Well? Am I to believe that a coached person corrects someone’s mistakes and does not simply repeat what he “coached” her to say.

        Jeralyn and Diwataman have already discovered a passage on that audio file were–I do not hear what they want me to hear–DeeDee allegedly says exactly what GZ claims he said. Crazy. If I do not hear, what they want me to hear than, she tells me, I do not hear it, because I do not WANT to hear it. Crazy. Absolutely Crazy.

        • Xena says:

          @leander22

          I am not sure if Nelson has to address a Writ of Certorari herself, maybe?

          No. No one has to actually address a Writ to an interlocutory order. The Appellate court might not grant review.

          There are times when others, such as organizations having interest in the issue might file briefs supporting that the Writ is granted. If the Appellate Court grants the writ, it would be interesting to see the American Bar Association file an amicus brief supporting dismissal.

      • leander22 says:

        Now that is a misleading mistake:

        I didn’t read or hear(,) that it is in fact the theory of defense

      • ladystclaire says:

        @amsterdam1234, that is exactly what these sneaky B******S are doing. if they can’t hold up this trial starting by the judge granting them an extention, they will get it in another manner. this trial is set to begin in two months and, by the defense trying to stall, that is not going to make it go away.

        T.J. Lane committed his crime the day after Fogen committed his and, T.J has already been tried and convicted for is crime. now if Fogen is so innocent, why the hell are they doing everything they can, to delay this trial?

      • leander22 says:

        Thanks Xena, thus my first response was more correct than my hesitation. My other nuggets:

        Oh, dear. Irony pure. It was suspect but is helpful now:

        While the purpose of Mr. Crump’s decision to have a national news outlet present may well be suspect (particularly in light of the recently discovered audiotape released by ABC last month), the presence of ABC nontheless also secured an additional 25-minute audio recording which was significantly better quality than that recorded by Mr. Crump. Had Mr. Crump only taken the extra step of securing a copy of the entire ABC audio, which was readily available to him (particularly since it was the hwo set up the media ‘exclusive’, most of the concerns regarding the audiotaping would have dissipated.

        Is ABC stalling? Wasn’t there a motion against ABC too to give them all they have from the interview? Yes there was, Jan 18, 2013 Do they in fact want him to get the whole tape for him?

        Seems they didn’t listen to Debra Nelson who several times mentioned hearsay, or at least words to that effect. (italics stand for blockquote, I hope it works here inside a quote, that is not always the case)

        Summary of the Argument

        The Florida Supreme Court states in the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220:

        after receipt of the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit, the defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged

        3.220(h)(1)(A)(emphasis added) Mr. Crump’s affidavit illustrates that Mr. Crump does have information relevant to the offense charged and is therefor subject to the rule governing depositions of unlisted witnesses.

        I would assume that this rule usually refers to witnesses that have not been listed or have not even been questioned by prosecution. Witnesses that are simply ignored. How is Crump anything else but a witness to an ear-witness of the event. Now, the witness they should ask is DeeDee. What he can tell them is hearsay. Besides, if what he says can be “construed” as coaching him, shouldn’t their argument be very, very different?

        Ok, here we go:

        Mr. Crump himself possesses directly relevant, non-privileged information regarding his own involvement with Witness 8 that is absolutely necessary as substantive evidence into what witness 8 originally said, necessary to adequately prepare Petitioner’s case, necessary for impeachment purposes, necessary as Mr. Crump has made himself into a material witness, and necessary because this is a criminal case with no other adequate remedy at law.

      • Jun says:

        I think Omara’s argument fails because Crump does not need to represent witness 8 to have work product from her but let’s see what the apellate court says

      • Jun says:

        It is very simple if you give insight since the murder took place, the investigation, and the first bond hearing

        The Fogens Gang blames everyone else for their problems or throws responsibility elsewhere for everything they do

        It’s the same mess with Lester where Omara says it is Lester’s fault that Fogen is a known liar LMAO

        Omara also got mad when he was the one that asked Lester to look at the evidence and Lester gave it to him

        Now they are blaming the judges decisions or not being allowed to do something… never any of their own decisions LMAO

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Now we know he clearly did that to stir up the Fogen supporters and keep those donations flowing in. They fall for that stuff EVERY TIME.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      More high theater by the defense.

  35. amsterdam1234 says:

    It appears the Court did end up hearing the arguments that day, and allowed the video deposition to take place. The videos however, are sealed.
    Does sealed mean the defense doesn’t have access to them?

    • leander22 says:

      Does sealed mean the defense doesn’t have access to them?

      Were did you read or hear this? If the court allowed the video deposition to take place on the same day, then the news arguing the deposition was to be held later were wrong.

      Strictly I would imagine they only wanted the images of her reaction when confronted “with her lies” for use during the trial to manipulate the jury.

    • truthseeker66 says:

      If the video depo took place then why all the noise from mom? I don’t think the video depo took place. That is why mom is seeking compensation for the video crew.

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      Thanks,
      I guess that means it is still vulnerable to “accidental” leaking.

      As a non US citizen, I do get the impression that being a witness to a crime, can be a very heavy burden.

      • racerrodig says:

        You would be correct. Many chose not to get involved in criminal or civil cases. But to witness a crime and not do the right thing, to me, is inexcusable.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        Yes, of course. But I think there should be more protections in place for witnesses, especially in a murder case.

    • lurker says:

      Not certain if that was actually hearing arguments–as they have been formally submitted since.

      I am guessing that the formal arguments would then be used to determine whether the video can be use?

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        Possible. That is how I understood BdlR’s response. But I also thought, based on the defense’s motion, that there was no ruling by Nelson and no videotaped deposition. So you may be right.

  36. amsterdam1234 says:

    The State’s response to Motion for Sanctions( re video depositions) is up at the defense’s website.

    • leander22 says:

      Do you have a link, Amsterdam? I don’t the site. Yes I can do a search, and I will. But it may be helpful anyway.

    • leander22 says:

      Found a link with a little help by media. Thanks anyway. 😉

    • leander22 says:

      Wrong, I have to look further. Not easy to find anything on the 4th circuit. Can you give us some more hints.

      • leander22 says:

        I checked GZlegal, but it did not show under the latest files.

        Stupid me, not long ago i advised to take a look at the twitter feeds on the right:

        STATE’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (RE: MIAMI VIDEO DEPOSITIONS) in #Zimmerman case. http://t.co/0Pb8io8Ktd

        about 4 hours ago

        Very good argument by BDLR. He basically claims the reference to the civil code does not include videotaping since transcripts are specifically mentioned, if videotaping was simply another free option it would be mentioned too.

        Hmm? this gets more and more interesting.

        I hope that seals means in the hands of Nelson only for the time being.

      • leander22 says:

        OK, I have to start to proofread my notes:

        “Very good argument by BDLR. He basically claims the reference to the civil code procedures does not include videotaping, since transcripts are specifically mentioned [in the criminal procedures], [while videotaping isnt] and if videotaping was simply another free option, it would be mentioned too.”

        Hmm, maybe authorities should make that more clear. Make their “except as provided herein” more clear. Maybe they can amend with more precise rules for videotaping. I did in fact peruse 3.220 for any hint concerning video.

        Hmm, the decision of the court suggests otherwise too. Hmm, the firm they hired referred to some high profile but I think out of state criminal case.

        Food for thought. …

      • lurker says:

        It does look as though the use of video for depositions is pretty narrowly conscribed. And he did throw in the possible (or certain) use of the video to intimidate Witness #8 and the victim’s family (the only witnesses videotaped).

        My read is that the Judge’s ruling to video and keep under seal was her way of saying “I don’t have time for this today–just go ahead and we will decide later based on careful reading of the law after arguments are presented.”

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “…Witness #8 and the victim’s family (the only witnesses videotaped).”

          Where can I find documentation proving that the defense has not made video recordings of any of the other depositions they’ve taken?

          unitron

          • Xena says:

            @Unitron

            Where can I find documentation proving that the defense has not made video recordings of any of the other depositions they’ve taken?

            Had you read the State’s response to O’Mara’s motion for sanctions, you would not need to ask that question.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            ” “Where can I find documentation proving that the defense has not made video recordings of any of the other depositions they’ve taken?”

            Had you read the State’s response to O’Mara’s motion for sanctions, you would not need to ask that question.”

            When I said “any of the other” I meant including the ones on the 14th and 15th, following the Witness 8 deposition, which apparently included persons other than the victim’s family.

            However, apparently in addition to the response to the motion for sanctions where Bernie gets his Shakespeare on, there is a second one I hadn’t seen previously, which appears to be the one to which you referred.

            But it only talks about the depositions previous to the March 13th one with regard to whether video recording was done or not.

            Interestingly it does mention that the draft notices from the 6th and the final notices from the 11th do specify the intent to make video recordings on the 13th, 14th, and 15th, and glosses over the prosecution having apparently not read that far down the page.

            unitron

          • Xena says:

            @Unitron

            But it only talks about the depositions previous to the March 13th one with regard to whether video recording was done or not.

            And that’s the basis for the State’s argument that O’Mara did not video tape any witnesses previously. The key word — previously.

        • leander22 says:

          Look at Ron Fleming’s advertisement on the left side of the page. It concerns a first degree murder case in? Morocco. BDLR’s response was very important. It was my impression too that the only reason they would like to have it, is for impeachment. Were I seem to have been wrong, and again, I would have realized had I kept the prof’s statements in this context in mind, is that depositions cannot be used in trial. But it may help to parse her body language expressions. I am so sick of many of the arguments by defense concerning her. e.g. that her not going to the wake or funeral tells us anything about her relation to Trayvon. The time she spoke with him on the phone all day long tell me something very different.

    • Jun says:

      It even says in the rules of 3.220 that the opposing party is allowed to object as to the manner of the deposition, and in my mind, videography is a manner of the deposition

      The rules state that the opposing counsel is allowed to object then and there and have the court listen to the argument and have it put on hold pending and the charges are displayed for the party ordering the videography, which would be the defense

    • Jun says:

      Even if they want to argue via Civil Procedure, there is still a rule written that the opposing party is allowed to object

      and the rules say “may” videotape not “has to”

  37. Xena says:

    IMO, the only motion that O’Mara should be concerned with preparing, filing, and having heard, is a gag motion on Junior.

  38. Trained Observer says:

    Thank you for this tutorial. Quite helpful for getting a handle on where things stand.

  39. fauxmccoy says:

    follow

Leave a Reply to SouthernGirl2 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: