Home » Uncategorized » May 30, 2013

May 30, 2013

cropped-george-grad.jpg

George’s team posted an update yesterday, the defense fund is broke. Donations are needed. Please give if you can and use your voice to ask others to help. For those who are able, please make a donation to the defense fund. Thank you for helping.

For newcomers, please know that racist remarks will be trashed. If you are presenting yourself as a George Zimmerman supporter, please keep in mind this man is in a fight for his life. Conduct yourself in a way that won’t bring heartache and/or embarrassment to the Zimmerman family.

Advertisements

233 thoughts on “May 30, 2013

  1. This could be a great sign. There may be a line-up for donations. Please be patient.

  2. Great photo of GZ at the top of your blog, Nettles! Imagine the ‘optics’ of this case if the media had used that photo and a more recent one of TM at the start of this entire mess…

  3. Ok lets start rubbing our brain cells together here. We have Natalie Jackson who cashed in on the beating of homeless sherman ware and now Nat is trying to cash in on Trayvon who was helping encourage and perpetrate beatings on the homeless. How can we combine these two aspects to do the most damage and bring that racist hag down a couple notches?

    • That is the second time I know of that Hal Uhrig has been disciplined by the Fla. Bar via the FSC. Last time he was disciplined for writing nasty and unethical letters to the spouse of someone he was representing in a divorce and child custody battle. It appears that George made the correct decision in not having him represent him in his criminal case.

      The Fla. Bar sends their disciplinary cases to the FSC to decide. Is that a customary practice in other states? From my perch you have to do something really really bad in order to be punished in Fla. Fooling around with trust accounts or other people’s money seems to be their main focus. That is why I seriously doubt that Ben Crump will ever have any actions taken against him by the Fla. Bar.

      • Well… in some circles it might be considered fraud to:

        1) go on a trash can tour collecting charitable donations based on lies (and then not even using those funds for the charitable purposes outlined in the foundation’s mission statement)

        2) deliberately conceal evidence during a wrongful death settlement that would have weighed heavily in the HOA’s decision to settle or not

        Even if not illegal, in the very least, it is unethical… which is still a serious problem for an attorney of law and officer of the court.

    • Trayvon didn’t assault a homeless person though. I think you need to check your sources and chill with the insults.

      • So trayvon turned his video over to police…How admirable…lets just hope the other guys who were doing the beatdown didn’t get video of trayvon taking his turn….

          • Coreshift…

            “Trayvon didn’t assault a homeless person though. I think you need to check your sources and chill with the insults.”

            It appeared to me someone was trying to excuse TM by stating he ONLY videoed the assault…and I elaborated with sarcasm….

    • stevie g.- This reminds of what what has and is continuing to happen to the Benghazi whistleblowers, and the Fast and Furious whistleblowers. When they have factual information, and come forward with it, they themselves are attacked, and their character is trashed. It goes along with the “snitches get stitches” attitude. This is exactly why so many others refuse to come forward and tell the truth, and correct the record. This is exactly why many good people don’t run for political office as they know that they will be attacked visciously as well as all of their family members. The perfect human being, who has never done anything wrong, or made any mistakes doesn’t exist.

      I appreciate the fact that Mr. White is representing someone who will bring forward information about the corrupt actions of the Corey prosecution team. I have no doubt that he knows he will be trashed and accused of acting because of sour grapes. I personally don’t care about the accusations in the article, I only care about the fact that the Corey corrupt prosecution will be brought to light. Maybe, just maybe, the railroading of George, and all those that come after him will be derailed.

  4. Zimmerman Defense Fund Raises $12,000 In A Day

    on 30 May 2013.

    Yesterday, we had to ask for help. We stated that the defense fund had exhausted its funds, and we’d have to raise another $120,000 to give George the trial he deserves. In the 24 hours since we asked for new donations, we’ve received just over $12,000 — 10% of our goal. Thank you to everyone who has shown support.

    More than 240 donated. The largest donation was $500. Many gave $100. Most contributed $10 or $20. Some donors left comments:

    A donor from the Bronx sent $5.00 and said: “Good luck and I know this is not a lot, but everyone deserves a fair trial.”

    A person from Tampa sent $50.00 and said: “I’m a former journalist. From the beginning, I knew the ‘facts’ had been manipulated. I’m an antiracist liberal, and my friends recoil in horror if I try to discuss any of the evidence. Mark O’Mara has been eloquent in challenging the ‘racist monster’ meme. When this is all over, I wish someone would write a book detailing how this has been played.”

    An individual from West Virginia donated $10.00 and said: “I don’t know if George Zimmerman is guilty or not, but he deserves the ability to defend his self in court as best he can. This donation wouldn’t be necessary if certain individuals and organizations hadn’t attempted to act as his judge, jury, and executioner in the wake of that terrible night. Good luck, and may the truth prevail, whatever it may be.”

    A $10 donor from Los Angeles said: “I believe GZ should have equal access to funding as the prosecutors. I have not forged an opinion on his guilt or innocence. I support fair trials for all. Good luck.”

    A Pennsylvania donor gave $25.00 and simply said, “Win.”

    http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/index.php/updates-2/22-zimmerman-defense-fund-raises-12-000-in-a-day

    • In an overly simple way, imo this is pandering to their base. Of couse none of that is relevant, except when it is. Ignoring the facts because they are inconvenient, and difficult to swallow for their readers. In April they ran an editorial about black homicide victims and how the leading cause of death for blacks between 18 and 24 was homicide. A correlation was made about drugs and how it contributes to this.

      It is very hypocritical of them, of course since this was a White Hispanic and not another black teen doing the killing that changes things. It is so frustrating to me to see, this type of BS.

    • Did you notice who wrote that?

      May 29, 2013|By Sun Sentinel Editorial Board, By Sun Sentinel Editorial Board

      You call that an editorial? Holy crap. We’ve gone mad/

  5. I happen to think that ANYTHING that helps support George is GOOD. <<< That said, I've been noticing a few people on the internet post that Hal Uhrig, George's former attorney has been suspended. While looking for some article on that I bumped into this video, and I think it is a great video that cut through much of the early on BS, and is worth watching not only for the support it lends to George, but reminds us of the early on feel of what was going on in the community.

    I love at the end where Uhrig says (paraphrasing): "We actually had an attorney for the Martin family, who we presume went to law school, say that they should just arrest Zimmerman now and let him prove his innocence".

    The only reason I introduced this video the way I did is in case someone felt not right considering George has MOM and West. To me, everything is important for DAY ONE.

    • Not a suprise . George knew these were no good getters. He even refused to acknowledge these two were attorneys. Gz was kinder then I would have been by calling them ” legal advisors.” Goes to show you my friends….Karma is a bitch ( sorry Nettles) no other words for it.

    • I think we need to have the video first. Is it possible that this may be what is in the 4th Supp. Discovery of Defense filed on 5/28 that we are waiting to see? MOM needs to get that out there asap.

  6. HEARING CANCELED: Media agrees not to photograph George Zimmerman jurors at trial

    Tomorrow’s hearing in Sanford in the George Zimmerman case has been canceled.

    On Tuesday a lawyer for several media companies, including The New York Times, CBS News, NBCUniversal and The Miami Herald, indicated they’d fight for the right to photograph jurors, something Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson said she would prohibit.

    She then ordered attorneys back to court tomorrow to discuss the dispute, but the media group lawyer, Scott Ponce, today filed paperwork, saying there was no dispute, that his clients would abide by a ban, provided it applied only to the courtroom and ended when the trial concludes.

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-trial-hearing-canceled-20130530,0,5962020.story

  7. Judge wants four alternate jurors for George Zimmerman trial

    Six jurors will decide whether George Zimmerman is guilty of second-degree murder, but during jury selection at his trial, attorneys will pick a panel of 10, four of them alternates, according to Seminole County Clerk of Courts Maryanne Morse.

    Normally at a second-degree murder trial attorneys pick six jurors and two alternates, but in this case Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson is apparently building in extra protection by adding more alternates.

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-george-zimmerman-trial-jury-selection-20130529,0,2098457.story

    • Nettles – I still do not see a link to the OS on an article about the hearing being canceled. I see a twitter reference from Bori about Rene but it doesn’t go to the OS article, and a twitter from Jeff which leads to GZ legal case, the same link you have posted above. I certainly won’t be offended if you remove the link, there is no need to duplicate the same link, but imo, articles from the MEDIA are important. The same information is going to be reported by everyone and a wide range of MEDIA slant is applied for or against GZ.

      I personally follow Media links because that is what everyone is reading, both TM/GZ supporters. Just as the TIME’s link listed a break down of where most of the money has gone. Of course you can get that information from MOM’s site, but TM supporters don’t use MOM’s website, but they do Media reporting, you can tell by their comments. Do you just want MOM’s postings & not Media Links to newspapers?

      • No, I appreciate the media postings too. I don’t know if OS wrote a story on the cancellation. I did see Rene’s tweet advising it was cancelled. You’ve given me an idea. I’ll post a Media Link at the top of the page, we”ll keep in order of the most recent at the top and for those who don’t have time to wade through all the comments, they get glance the news of the day on that page.

        Bear with me, I’m new to wordpress and have to figure out how to do it.

        Also on my list of things to do is to argue why GZ deserves a $25K donation to his defense fund. That one comes first after I get off work tonight. (see yesterday’s thread if this is news for you).

        • Nettles – I was looking for a link to the OS which is a newspaper, I wasn’t looking for cfnew13 which is a TV Media outlet, I guess that’s why I didn’t find it., so the link itself was not duplicated as I thought by your comment. ALL Orlando Media information is not the same, I have followed Fla. news for years as well as 4 or 5 High Profile cases/trials there utilizing all Media sources available.. Several previous blogs I participated in shared all available information from any news outlet, only the link couldn’t be duplicated, I left them due to TM’s supporters had taken over on one BLOG & webslueth discontinued anything about the GZ case. Some blogs provide a thread on “current news” on a case in which it would require none of your time if you provided the thread, webslueth is an example, peeps post the news as it comes in or they find it, THEN, the links always remain on the case available for everyone at anytime to read or catch up, they don’t have to wade through the blog looking for links, any link can be found in a minute on a “Thread” for News.. A media article can be found in a glance.

          Just as WFTV’s reporting on the hearing had a lot more information than anyone else focusing fairly as they should on the whistle blower, other outlets barely mentioned it but it was important to me. Whether an article is posted first or last, imo, if it is a different source of information, it still deserves to be shared. I read every news available on this case, I assumed you did as well..

          I don’t agree w/SD’s criticism on MOM or failing to site sources on his opinions, but he does have an opinion today of the importance of different source information on the case in which I do agree with.

              • I get nothing when I google “news aggregator for zimmerman.”

                Your search – news aggregator for zimmerman – did not match any news results.

                I am a long time Mac user and most of us never use any Google products but I did try the above terms.

                Any other suggestions for an actual blog about the case that also had ALL of the news article links as mentioned?

    • Funny, the media companies are basically asking the judge to deny the anonymous jury petition because juries can only be anonymous in certain very special circumstances. Then they list a bunch of circumstances under which it would seem obvious that the jury might need protection from the DEFENDANT. In this case, what MOM wants is to protect the jury from the PUBLIC, because of the threats of violence that will surely come from the race-hustlers and their minions if the jurors rightly vote for acquittal.

  8. I need someone to explain the Wesley White/Ben Kruidbos situation to me. I was under the impression that Wesley White was acting as the attorney for the IT guy Kruidbos, who downloaded the texts and photos from Martin’s phone. I’m reading articles elsewhere that claim that White is actually the whistleblower who contacted the defense to let them know that the prosecution had not handed over all of the phone information, and that Kruidbos deleted those texts and photos. So, can someone please tell me if Kruidbos is the good guy that is coming forward, or is it Wesley White? Apparently White was still employed in Corey’s office until Dec., and would have been aware of the downloads by Kruidbos.

    Does anyone understand who is who and what in this situation?

    • Kruidbos is the whistleblower – you have to be employed by the state to be a whistleblower, and White is not employed by the state.

      White almost certainly did NOT know of the withheld phone data, until he was informed by Kruidbos. Kruidbos is going to have problems getting the compensation given to whistleblowers because he didn’t follow the statutory chain of reporting.

      White is involved because White asked O’Mara if O’Mara knew of certain specific items being in state’s evidence. White learned these specific pieces from Kruidbos, about five weeks ago. Upon learning that O’Mara had not received that data, it became apparant to White and O’Mara that data in state’s possession had been withheld from the defense.

    • Kruidbos didn’t delete anything. Kyle Hightower’s article has an ambiguous statement that can be read as Kuidbos (or White) having deleted material; but what the fact is is that the state recovered photos and messages that Martin (or somebody in possession of his phone) had “deleted” from the phone. Being a digital storage device, “delete” doesn’t wipe the data off memory, it just makes the memory available for other/new data. So, the state withheld photos, and the state withheld deleted messages that had been recovered.

      • Thank you for the info. cboldt. Yes, I was referring to a very misleading headline claiming that Kruidbos in fact deleted the info from the phone. There are some commenters now calling for Kruidbos’s head. He is being portrayed as the bad guy at the state that erased info., and then withheld it from the defense. There is one site where I am going to go and correct that info. I wanted to be sure before I said anything.

        As to Kruidbos not following the proper chain of command for whistleblowers, does anyone know for sure that he didn’t go to the proper authorities to report his info. even before O’Mara was told anything. White has had the info since January, it is very possible that Kruidbos may have covered his tracks before White came out with the info. at trial Tues.

        I was referring to the deleted info. based on the article you listed. It appears that some are confusing the deleted tag after many of TM’s texts. I do not believe that Kruidbos was the one to try to delete those texts. I honestly believe Tracy and/or Crump were the ones to try to do that through the computer. Tracy owned and was paying for the account which TM’s phone was one of four. I do not buy that he couldn’t get into the account info as the owner of the account.

        • White hasn’t known since January. White testified that he found out five weeks ago. White left Corey’s SA office in January, for reasons we haven’t been given yet.

          As to Hightower’s report, given the absence of clarification from the AP, I think it was a deliberately misleading remark. AP is a master propaganda organ. Nothing it produces should be accepted for what it says. ALWAYS find a source, independent report or something.

          As for who deleted the texts, I think it was Trayvon Martin. I do not think it was Kruidbos, as Kruidbos is willing to testify in court that the state withheld evidence, and he does not want to be fingered as contributing to that.

        • You make a good point that Kruidbos may have given de la Rionda and Corey his notice that the material had not been delivered to the defense. That may be why he was grilled before White testified, and before he (Kruidbos) was put on administrative leave, five minutes after White testified.

          I’d say that White knows what he’s doing (in making sure his client, Kruidbos is protected under the whistleblower law), but White came out of the SAO, and he may be just as much of an asshole as Corey and de la Rionda, and is just getting even.

          At this point, you’d have to be a fool to trust any part of Florida government or courts, absent personal knowledge of a person’s integrity. That place has a corrupt government, all around. Doesn’t matter to me, I don’t and won’t live there under any circumstance. When I visit, I charge rates that look like expert Owen’s rates.

          • As I said elsewhere on this thread earlier today, I really don’t care about whatever White has done in his past, or his reason for coming forward. I am only concerned that someone finally is coming forward, and who has direct knowledge of the machinations of Corey’s dungeon. As long as White hasn’t been found guilty of murder, child porn, child or elder abuse, or anything else raising to that level, he will be a hero to me if this in fact does cause Corey’s office, and everyone in it that has been complicit, to blow up, figuratively speaking of course. Right now my only concern is George Michael Zimmerman and his total and complete freedom from the corruption of the Fla. legal system, and that includes the Dump.

            • cboldt- I just thought of something. White had said on one of the “tee vee” LOL channels that when Kruidbos was grilled, the state investigators wanted to know what he was going to say. If that is the case it seems even more likely that Corey and DeLaRiondito were made aware that he was going to talk. So in that case, he should be protected under the whistleblower act, correct? Why would they ask him what he was going to say if he didn’t already say that he was going to talk?

              • Sorry cboldt, but another opinion. I do not believe it was Trayvon who tried to delete stuff from his phone. If that was the case, why would he keep some messages that could cause him trouble and not just delete all the incriminating messages. Even more than the messages, why would he have not deleted the very incriminating pictures from his phone like the gun, pot, and underage chick? I honestly believe it was Tracy and/or the Dump.

                • He’d keep the stuff that was fun to show off. The other material may have been “old and useless news” to him. I don’t know that’d necesarily have good reason for what he chose to delete. If the phone really was password protected, he wouldn’t worry about his babysiter of the day looking in on it.

              • Heh, I got a kick out your LOL at my “teevee.”

                My reference is Florida Statutes 112.3187 and following sections. I think that just saying “I’m going to tell on you” is insufficient. The whistleblower has to give a precise enough heads up of the tattle. See parts (5) and (6) for what the tattle contains, and who it is supposed to be tattled to. I don’t know if he is protected if he tattles to a court.

                He’s crossed the Rubicon. Might as well give his testimony, then press his case for protection if Corey’s office retaliates in any way.

                • I don’t know, cboldt. I think it would be quite easy to argue that disclosure to Judge Nelson satisfies the “other appropriate local official” category. The circuit court system certainly is an appropriate venue to report violations occurring within the SAO, I would think.

                  (6) TO WHOM INFORMATION DISCLOSED.—The information disclosed under this section must be disclosed to any agency or federal government entity having the authority to investigate, police, manage, or otherwise remedy the violation or act, including, but not limited to, the Office of the Chief Inspector General, an agency inspector general or the employee designated as agency inspector general under s. 112.3189(1) or inspectors general under s. 20.055, the Florida Commission on Human Relations, and the whistle-blower’s hotline created under s. 112.3189. However, for disclosures concerning a local governmental entity, including any regional, county, or municipal entity, special district, community college district, or school district or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing, the information must be disclosed to a chief executive officer as defined in s. 447.203(9) or other appropriate local official.

              • I thought I read somewhere that omara told the prosecutor in advance of the hearing about white. But I also thought that i read that omara didnt know the name of whites client until he was sworn in at the hearing, so how could the state talk to him before the hearing then?

          • That may be why he was grilled before White testified, and before he (Kruidbos) was put on administrative leave, five minutes after White testified.

            I read that the grilling started wthin 5 minutes of the testimony, and the admin leave instituted directly afterwards. So I always figured that someone in the SAO ofice was monitoring the televised hearing, and reported immediately when White gave his testimony.

            • My take was that Kruidbos was grilled before White testified, and five minutes after White stepped off the witness chair he was put on administrative leave.

        • Hmmmm. I think that Mr. Crump has exhibited quite clearly that his technical skills leave a lot to be desired.

        • I dont think you can remotely delete individual texts through tmobile. There is a way to remotely lock the phone and to erase ALL texts and contacts, but not individual ones. They would have to have possession of the phone to do it

    • Wesley White RESIGNED from the State’s Attorney’s back whenever. My guess is how this went down is that the whistleblower, Ben Kruidbos contacted White and told him what happened. White came forward on behalf of his client who is STILL employed at the SOA as Dir. of IT. White attempted to tell Kruidbos’ side of things when then accused of heresay. Make no mistake (to coin an Obama phrase) Kruidbos is a GOOD GUY. And who better to represent him than a former SAO who knows the in’s and out’s and BDLR. Kruidbos is claiming that HE, HIMSELF, gave the evidence to BDLR. BDLR told Court a hearing or two back that he gave EVERYTHING to defense. Defense was contacted by White, who apparently told MOM BDLR is not being truthful cause White was told by his client Kruidbos that he gave BDLR evidence that has not been released through discovery. Both WHITE and KRUIDBOS are good guys. Not sure how much longer Kruidbos will have his job tho. As to what and who you are reading, as you know many many times has the press just been simply clueless as to what’s going on.

      • I said then (when I first heard there was a purge going on in the SAO), and I’ll say it again – my money says that White resigned from the SAO because he could see the railroad job that’s being done here on Zimmerman and he didn’t want any part of it.

      • I read last night that White was accused of “sexual harassment” against a 10 yr. SAO employee. She wanted to be paid for lost benefits, etc., the usual in those cases but it was Corey that stood up for White in those proceedings. imo, those cases are usually he said and she said and usually don’t get resolved. White left the SAO by choice, he wasn’t fired. I agree that case in the past has nothing to do w/White representing Kruidbos.

        The problem remains for Corey, she can’t fire Kruidbos, I wouldn’t think she could demote him as he claims to be truthful & can prove so. Just speculating, Kruidbos could leak more information about other cases if he had knowledge and at the least derail the careers of Corey/BDLR.

        • As a female, I have seen more cases of sexual harassment charges brought against males, than ever seemed possible. Again, as a female, I know some in the gender to cry foul because of other reasons like they didn’t get the diamond earrings they wanted etc. It is a he said, she said charge, and it seems that most often the female gets the benefit of the doubt. I hate it, and don’t want to have anything to do with it. If I can’t win my way, and my argument with intelligence, than I sure as hel1 will not go out and use the oldest female trick in the book. It destroys the valid arguments about real sexual harrassment.

          • A lot of the sexual harassment was him asking her if she was havjng an affair with a sheriff I think. It was pretty weak even if she was telling the truth.

        • Kruidbos could leak more information about other cases if he had knowledge and at the least derail the careers of Corey/BDLR.

          They shoud all live in glass houses.

      • ottawa- I pretty much agree with your heory. I just hope and pray that Kuidbos has whistleblower status, and that he doesn’t lose his pension from the state, and whatever else he has coming to him. Kudibos may as well just resign from his position with Corey now, as he will never have a peaceful life if he tries to go back to that office with the vipers. Maybe he and White can hang their shingles together.

      • it was genius of MOM to get BDLR on the record saying everything was given. He knew the whole time BDLR was lying. Attorney lesson: Never ask a question to which you don’t know the answer!

  9. Thank you Nettles for all you do. How you do it I do not know nor do I care. Extrodinary on all the updates and flashing updates, postiveness, and true seeker of justice ,which has never waviered despite from day 1.

    • No thanks needed. It pisses me off when things are not fair. It didn’t take too long looking into the narrative of this case to see it is built on lies.

  10. I will celebrate my 14th wedding anniversary tonight! Despite all at home, and here to do everyone is in my thoughts and prayers. I could not ask nor want better news this week to enjoy myself for such a brief moment.

    • Congratulations, enjoy yourself and your family. On September, my wife and I will celebrate our 22nd so I know how it is, the good, the bad and the not so bad. No one is ugly in out family in case you were wondering, for that I am grateful.

      • Congrats to you and the Mrs. Danny. Enjoy your anniversary, you surely deserve some celebrating in your hectic and busy life. Hope your Mom is doing OK. I read your other posts and agree with all you said. We are all here for George, and love when you can check in. Have a good evening.

          • Aww, Thanks bori & pine. I am sure Mrs. Bori caught one hella of man! In case I forget in September… Happy 22nd! My oldest is 16. And no, in case you wonder, I have not allowed her to drive yet! I may feel young, but I am kinda set in my ways 😉

  11. Did anyone else find it interesting that BDLR said in the hearing on Tues., in reference to the toxicology report, that the medical examiner took the samples incorrectly? O’Mara has the full tox report, and talked about pot “among other things.” Is BDLR trying to imply that the whole tox report may be wrong? I am even more convinced that there were “other things” found in TM’s system that we don’t know about. Maybe the full tox report will be released by the defense in one of their discover dumps. O’Mara did say he has a lot more from what I read.

  12. Allow me to parse the legal versus moral roadblock, re: my potential financial support for GZ’s criminal case. And I’ll use an analogy which is totally unrelated to this crime in order to minimize any emotions that may have some wrapped around ye olde axle.

    Let’s say a friend of mine cleaned out his savings and retirement accounts and went to Las Vegas. While there, he lost the almost the entirety of that money playing craps. The little remaining, he spent on a few hookers north of town at a legal brothel. So, he comes back home broke. No cash, no retirement savings – he’s got nothing. And he calls me and says ‘Hey analyst, old buddy, can you throw $25k my way, I really screwed up – but don’t worry, I didn’t do anything illegal!’

    He is certainly being honest, he didn’t break any laws, did he? Nope, not a one. But neither myself nor his wife are going to be concerned with legalities at this moment, right? Ergo, my point is: conflating the legal with the moral, and vice versa, is to suspend one’s values. A failure of conscience and a failure I choose not to make nor support…

    • phooeey, analyst1961, that is not even a nice try. You will have to do better than that. I cannot fathom that George knew he was taking a comparative risk. The gambler knew exactly what might happen and George never even considered that he MIGHT have to shoot Martin.

      • I think the distinction between law and morality is a good one to make – it exists. Most people will flout a law that offends their moral sense, and always being inside the law does not mean that you are acting morally. See, e.g., it is not illegal or even legally actionable in civil court for the press to lie and mislead, except to the point of defamation.

        The argument you are making is that Zimmerman’s actions were moral. I happen to think they were, but quite a few people don’t think so, or are uncertain. I happen to think that Zimmerman is good hearted, avoids unpleasant confrontation with strangers, and is probably torn up that he took a life. He’s not exceptionally bright, he’s average. He did what he thought was the right thing by cooperating fully with law enforcement. Naive, but not a sign of being conniving.

        The primary moral failure here lies with Corey, period. By extension, the state.

              • You’ve spent an awful lot of time here the last couple of days trying to prove that you were serious about an offer that seems to have attached to it an impossible condition – all we have to do is free your mind of a moral conflict that you’re hung up on, but you offer no standards for how that conflict can be cleared, and you seem to be continually moving the goalposts if anyone makes any progress toward helping you to do that. You and I communicated several times last night, and the last thing I remember reading before I went to bed was that I had offered a very persuasive argument in favor of making the contribution to the defense fund, and that you were going to read it again today when you weren’t so tired. Then today, I heard nothing from you.

                Was your offer a serious offer? You seem to keep moving the goalposts.

        • OK then.. this indicates we are making progress:

          The argument you are making is that Zimmerman’s actions were moral. I happen to think they were, but quite a few people don’t think so, or are uncertain. I happen to think that Zimmerman is good hearted, avoids unpleasant confrontation with strangers, and is probably torn up that he took a life. He’s not exceptionally bright, he’s average. He did what he thought was the right thing by cooperating fully with law enforcement. Naive, but not a sign of being conniving.

          Insofar as the moral failure of Corey, I look at her behavior as a violation of the criminal code FIRST and not the code of ethics or morals. It is precisely why I want her and the rest to be held accountable to the same laws as George in criminal court. I don’t want to hear any nonsense about how they disrespected the Florida Bar. Sorry but palsy walsy and pussy footing under the table is not good enough for me.

          I think they should suffer the same fate as the one they tried to enact upon our friend. IOW, send their butts to jail where I can visit them to get down on our knees together and pray for some loving justice for George. Is that mean? If so, I dare not tell you what I really think should happen. Notice I try to never say I would like to see another person suffer. I only say what I “think” should happen not what I feel.

          It’s all a matter of perspective but I think you will agree that it is difficult to be precise on a blog, given the inadequacies of the English language.

          Doncha wish Buckley would have created an addendum to Webster’s best dictionary?

              • I was a Latin “scholar” high school. Starting in 7th grade (Jr High) we all received a special student edition of Reader’s Digest. Each week, we were required to learn at least 20 new words… spelling, dictionary definition, pronunciation and then had to use each word in 2 or more written sentences. Most of us loved vocabulary building and we dueled it out by trying to outdo each other so we were pretty well prepared to tackle the National Review, when we get copies.

                When I say “we” I am referring to our single class of college bound students and most of us ended up with degrees.

                That was when the 3 R’s were taught. LOL

                I loved Buckley and his debates. He held my attention and I would literally strain to hear AND understand the man. His manner of speaking had a musical flow to it. And, of course. English was his THIRD language. That is remarkable.

                Needless to say, like Bill, I am Conservative with strong Libertarian leanings who does not vote for either mainstream party

                How the hell did I get into this?

      • You don’t think he was taking a risk by leaving the relative safety of his truck to possibly be in the presence of someone he had called the NEN to report as suspicious?

        And I don’t think you can say with certainty that GZ never considered shooting someone to be a possibility. GZ was, after all, armed. Could be true that he never did consider it, of course – hope it was, but we can’t say never. Remember the 007 movie…

        • What risk do you suppose he was taking? Is it immoral to watch where a suspicious person skips off to, when you think he might be interested in burgling (or worse) in your neighborhood? Does getting out of the relative safety of your house or vehicle turn that watchfulness (if that’s what it was) into an immoral act?

          I go armed almost all the time. I pray I never have to use so much as a harsh word, nevermind deadly force. But there are some tough and bad cookies out there. The last think I want to do is be close enough to one of those bad actors that I find or believe my life is at risk. Most people who carry routinely do so as a precaution (see seat belt, but you don;t intend to be in an accident, even though you might cause one). Are you going to declare me immoral if somebody decides he wants to poke my eyes out, and I shoot in defense?

          If your test for “morally right” is “minimum risk,” then it is the wrong test. If your test for morally right excludes people who choose to go armed, well, you’ve damned quite a few good eggs.

          Sorry for rambling. You have to make up your own mind – we all do.

          • No, it’s just that he called and knew the police were on their way. And he didn’t see any particular crime in progress. I don’t carry a sidearm, but have plenty of other guns and weapons and would have no compunction about blowing a hole in anyone posing a threat to myself or another human being.

            But, again, TM – from all known evidence – was not in the process of raping or beating someone when GZ first called NEN. And I’m not being smart-alecky, but please re-read that last sentence, if necessary. I respect your brainpower as much as anyone’s I’ve debated on the net, cboldt. Sincerely…

            • Funny you would remark about being willing to protect a stranger. I’ve thought about that. I wouldn’t do it, and the reason I wouldn’t do it is right before your eyes in this Zimmerman case. Helping a stranger carries the same legal risk, and it’s not worth it to me. I’d use force in defense of myself or a family member, probably in defense of the less than five people that I consider good friends, and that’s it. If I’m in a mall, and some dude is killing people, my mission is to get the hell out without showing a firearm. I’m no hero, the law HATES heros. You want help? Help yourself. If I have the misfortune of being in that spot, I’m going to be second guessing myself either way (whether I took a shot at the bad guy, or not), to the point of heartache tears and nightmares for the rest of my life. I don’t want the weight of the law against me too.

              At the same time, and this is no exaggeration, I think, believe with all my heart, life is a sacred gift from God. If you recall the Schiavo case, it really pissed me off. I opined a legal point, that civil law (which is supposed to be about money damages) is flat out not equipped to make a life and death decision. Schiavo was dehydrated to death on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof, on a judge’s decision, where reversing the judge is done to a standard of “clearly erroneous.” Life hanging in the balance. Makes me want to puke.

              But, self defense is a moral imperative. And even though I don’t trust the law for shit, I’ll take my licks from those jerks rather than be put to death by some thug, without a good fight.

              • Well, I have no desire to be a hero – but I have the courage of my convictions. Again, GZ didn’t see TM raping or beating someone – that would be totally different in my humble opinion, sir.

                • Well, applying my own standard, if I saw somebody, a stranger, being raped or killed, I’d make distance between myself and the bad guy. I won’t use force in defense of others, and definitely won’t use force in defense of property, even if it’s legal (life is a sacred gift, not mine to take short of the moral imperative).

                  As I said before, I don’t think Zimmerman had any intention to close distance with the suspicious guy. I think that was all on Martin’s volition. And Zimmerman wasn’t in a spot, when he fired the gun, where he was viewing somebody else’s predicament. He had his own predicament in hand.

                  It’s easy to be critical in hindsight. I’d bet my net worth that if Zimmerman had known (or even suspected there was a possibility) how this would have turned out, he’d have stayed in his truck. Naive. Careless recon. Shitty situational awareness. His life is forever changed, not for the better, and at least temporarily ruined.

                • That is the point, that is why he called NEN not 911 and why he would not be expecting to get jumped, his own past experiences on those circumstances were contrary to what TM decided to do. For almost 2 minutes after he got out of the truck, he was on the phone with the NEN dispatcher, what happened was unpredictable based on the circumstances.

            • BTW, thank you very much for your kind compliment. Best of luck to you, in all you do. I think the only advice I’d give on your thoughts about providing financial support for Zimmerman is to not view it as an all or nothing choice. You have a much bigger range of option than most of us would dream of having 😉

              • And I am leaning towards a smaller donation, regardless, mainly because of the arguments put forth by yourself, Jordan, ackbarsays, bori and a few others. And, of course, Nettles.

            • “And he didn’t see any particular crime in progress.”

              I was standing out on my porch one night finishing up a cigarette when I noticed a group of kids coming down the street, really nothing out of the ordinary… seen it a thousand times over. But this time my spidey-senses were tingling, so I stood there and waited to see what they were going to do. Sure enough, they broke into my neighbor’s car.

              To this day I couldn’t tell you what it was that drew my suspicion, but it was correct nonetheless…

              So when I see folks making the argument that Trayvon wasn’t committing any crime, I think to myself… “yet.” Just because he wasn’t crawling through someone’s window at that exact moment, it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t looking for the opportunity to do so.

              George couldn’t articulate very well what exactly it was about Trayvon that seemed off, might be on something, might be up to no good, but dang if his intuition wasn’t spot on… Martin’s history of burglary, vandalism, trespass, assault, drugs, guns, etc speaks for itself.

              Do common criminals like this give off some sort of barely perceptible cues that others pick up on but can’t fully explain… probably so.

              • One thing that has always jumped out at me is how aware TM was of GZ sitting in his car and talking on the phone. Why was TM so acutely aware of GZ in his truck?

                Even W8 said TM told her about the guy in the car talking on his phone and he was going to make a run for it from the back.

                From the time TM left the store to when GZ saw him, we know TM wasn’t simply walking home. So what was he doing?

                He may have been up to no good and when you are you give yourself away just be looking intensely at anyone looking at you.

                • More good points. Another parsing of DeeDee’s statements is when she said that TM reported the creepy white guy (profiling!) ‘wouldn’t follow him’. Wouldn’t. Methinks that DeeDee encouraged TM to put the bangaz to that crackah! Of course, I can’t prove that and it would be hard to do so if GZ were in his truck – as is shown by the non-incident when TM circled GZ’s vehicle.

                  Ok, I’ll shut up for the night…

                • What you are really wondering about is easily explained in that Martin’s instints and learned behavior as a thug took over. Fortunately, George’s instints and learned behavior arose to the challenge. Martin underestimated his target and provoked a battle with an unknown opponent who clearly outgunned him.

              • Maybe someone should make a movie about preventing future crimes! Oh, wait…

                And if you haven’t read about it, you probably don’t want to know, but – there are software programs under development in this country (the USA) regarding predictive and preventative crime solving, i.e., solving them before they occur. Hopefully that will put a pretty good whomp on your spidey-senses.

                An extraordinary premise in a country where ‘profiling’ is apparently a mortal sin, These programs are also a violation of almost everything this country was founded upon…

                • I’m not sure I understand your reply… are you saying that crime prevention is wrong?

                  Anyway, my point is that I don’t believe that it was mere coincidence that the young man who raised George’s suspicions that night just happened to actually be a criminal…

                  George’s suspicions and instincts were correct.

              • George was fulfilling his DUTY. It is that simple. His duty is to be able to anticipate a crime BEFORE it happens. For some folks, that is a “gift” but for others they actually train and LEARN how to be able to do that. I am convinced that part of the problem here is that the average person cannot identify with that. Sorry, but to be blunt, they DO NOT even try to put themselves in George’s shoes. That concept is foreign to them much as it is when cops APPEAR to behave badly.

                How many amongst us understood the position of LE in the Rodney King affair? A jury said they broke no laws. Racial politics came on the scene and forced the Feds to say the hell with double jeopardy and the Constitution. We created some federal laws to SCREW anyone we want to. Nah, nah, na, nah, nah.

                I hope that my instincts would have been as good as George’s that night had I been in his predicament. That is why so many folks look up to, respect and admire him as well as his courage to “do the right thing.” He saved his own life by doing what many of us would not or could not have done. I will go further and say he did it perfectly… right by the book.

          • Several months before TM/GZ story, my husband and I were inside our home when we noticed a man walking between our house and our neighbors. He was walking in the culvert, which is public property between the houses. We live in a residential neighborhood and this is not someplace someone would normally be walking. My husband decided to see where this guy was going and went outside. No, we didn’t call the police and my husband doesn’t own a gun. Hubby observed him until he got to the street and the guy proceed down the block. We had never seen this guy before, but came to find out he was renting a house down the end of the block. Several weeks later this guy was arrested for breaking into another neighbor’s house. Soon after that a Neighborhood Watch was formed.

            I can’t help to compare this incident with George. It never entered our minds that it could have turned into a dangerous situation. The guy could have easily turned, asked if hubby had a problem and assaulted him. Hindsight is 20/20.

        • I think the risk Zimmerman thought he was assuming was that he would get wet in the rain. I think he expected to see either nothing (nobody) or a figure in the distance, exiting the neighborhood.

          Obviously, if that is what he thought he’d find (and that had been his experience all his life), he was probably shitting himself when Martin appeared over his left shoulder. Things went downhill from there. Still going downhill.

    • analyst, I am going to respond to your comment, as it appears that you are replying to me. I could be wrong.

      You said last night that you are having a problem with GZ exiting his vehicle with a loaded weapon, and pondered if he was morally correct in doing do. The law was clearly on his side. GZ had a CCP, took gun safety classes, and went to the range with Osterman and maybe others. If I am not mistaken, in gun safety classes, you are taught to never pull your gun unless you mean to use it. You are taught that trying to shoot someone in the leg, arm, fingers or whatever still keeps the attacker able to get to you and your gun, and use it against you. I think I have that right, correct me if I am wrong. Because GZ was a neighborhood watcman does that mean that he needed to park his gun, even when off duty, and never carry it on his person for protection. Why have a gun at all in that case. Yes, he had the legal right to carry his weapon with him to Target. He just happened to see something suspicious while on his way. Should he have taken the gun home before he called police? Should he have taken the gun out of it’s holster and put it in the glove box before exiting the vehicle? From all of the evidence that has been released, he would have been dead, brain damaged, or at least severly injured if he didn’t have that loaded gun on his side. Did he have any clue of what Trayvon was up to, absolutely not.

      If DD’s deposition is to be believed, even she said that Trayvon had escaped GZ’s eyes, he was by his father’s house, and that then Trayvon asked GZ why he was following him, making it appear that GZ had traveled all the way to Brandy’s apt. The encounter never took place near Brandy’s apt. DD leaves a whole lot to be desired with her telling of her story, and the timeline. But she did say that TM first approached GZ. That is clear.

      The incident didn’t happen near Trayvon’s father’s house, it happened starting close to the T, evidence drops there prove that such as GZ’s flashlight and keys. Since Trayvon was the attacker, why would there be any TM evidence near the T? Trayvon was still on his feet, and was ready to go at GZ. From what I’ve read, the actual MMA style beat down happened about 40 ft. from where GZ was sucker punched, after turning to answer Trayvon’s question, according to his account. Imagine someone coming up from behind, and asking you if you have a problem, or why are you following me, turning around and being sucker punched in the face that spread your nose across your face? The medical report from GZ’s doctors office called it something like an internal broken nose, meaning that the broken bones and blood vessels in your nose are bleeding internally, and obstructing your oxygen flow. GZ stumbled for several feet, 40 is what I’ve read, and then went down. In my opinion, George was confused and disoriented at that point. He probably didn’t even remember he had a gun at his side then. Why didn’t GZ pull his gun then and shoot Trayvon, after being sucker punced in the nose? He took the beating hoping that the police would arrive at any second. They didn’t. The next head blow could have been the fatal one, or the one that sent him into unconciousness. If George was the vigilante some have portrayed him to be, when he got out of his vehicle to look to see where Trayvon had gone, when he realized that he had no sight of Trayvon, and even refused to give his own address to NEN, saying that he didn’t know where Trayvon had gone, so he didn’t want a possible lurking Trayvon to know where he lived. At that point GZ could have drawn his gun for protection, he didn’t. He thought that another one had gotten away, just as so many others had in the past. George said that all these punks get away. He was correct. Not only did they get away from his calls to the NEN or 911, they always seemed to get away from other callers. George wasn’t the only one calling the police, there were many many other calls from other residents. The lady that had to hide in her bathroom with her baby, as she watched the burglars entering her house, even watched the burglars get away out her back door with computers etc. as the police were coming in the front door. I don’t know if those burglars were ever caught. It seems the police didn’t do a whole lot to try to chase them down, hence George saying they always get away.

      Remember the older black lady from the RTL talking to a reporter saying that the 800lb. elephant in the room is that the most of the arrests, and those sighted were young black males>

      analyst, I have not posted what I have to try to convince you to send that $25,000 to the GZ legal defense fund. As much as the defense fund so desperately needs the money, I am loath to wnat to beg for anything, and I honestly believe you are putting the posters here in that position. You carried on last night about how wealthy you are, how you considered financing the whole legal case for GZ, and weighted how much money you could make on the civil proceeds if you did that. You shared your gated community stoies about where guests stay, who is allowed, and who is not. You shared that you kicked a dishelved and wobbly man out of your gated community because he asked you for money. Yes the GZ defense fund is desperate, yer they are. Have you ever considered that GZ and so many others don’t have the disposal funds that you do? Have you ever considered that George Zimmerman is a normal middle class citizen that took up the mantle as a neighborhood watch, and is now facing murder charges for looking out for his neighbors? You said that you live in a gated secured community where you and your neighbors are protected by armed security. How much hypocracy is that? That is surely a whooooosh. I really don’t appreciate your obvious game of having others grovel at your feet, trying to fight for money for GZ. It is unbecoming, trashy, arrogant, and an obvious attention getting scheme, just for the money. In my opinion, your money would not be offered in good faith. I’m sure you would want something in return for it.

      • Wow. That’s quite a few assumptions you’ve made about me. I’ve been fortunate in life to have assembled a few extra bucks, but so what. It’s not a big deal to me – my comments about underwriting the defense or living in a gated community were for reference and for relevance. I would never brag about my ‘wealth’: NOKD, as we say.

        A few folks who have known me casually only to somehow find about my ‘riches’ have been ‘astonished’ due to my humility, quite frankly. And if you met me in person you would probably think I’m a bum due to my propensity for wearing ‘holy’ blue jeans and wrinkled shirts. Pretentious I am not, and I wouldn’t dream of mentioning money except on the relative anonymity of the Internet. (Oh, and our guards are un-armed, so I’ll add $2,500 to the check I just wrote to the GZ Legal Defense fund if you can point me to a post where I’ve claimed otherwise.)

        I sure as heck don’t want anyone groveling at my feet and I find that to be a ludicrous construct. My offer was very sincere (again, I’ve just written one check) – I just really needed help with my conundrum because I want to help GZ (more), but with a clear conscience.

        • So far, this has been a fairly respectful exchange but why did you ever bring up the donation in the first place? Some would look at that as.. well you know what they might think and I am now wondering myself. If I made a post to my friends here saying I would make a big donation but only if.. (fill in the blank) I would be chased out of town. To me, its simple.. either make the donation or quit quibbling about it and mixing it up with YOUR morals. If you want recognition, you are in the wrong place even if you give them a million bucks. Often large contributions are mentioned on the site and I have NOT seen anything over $500 in recent times but those who are curious will be watching to see what you do.

      • It is unbecoming, trashy, arrogant, and an obvious attention getting scheme, just for the money.

        Again, wow. I just re-read this little attack. How dare you? You accused me last night of being dishonest and now this? Have you no decency?

        • Actually analyst, I seem to have more decency than you do. As an adult, I don’t need to beg others to define proper moral values to me, or to convince me of anything with respect to the same. Again, you live a much different life style than probably most of us here. I haven’t seen anyone in the less than 1% asking why one should donate or nat to a fund that so desperately needs money to stop the very highly immoral railroading of an innocent man. Of course you are still torn whether that man is innocent or not. Hey, he may have blown his vast and enormous wad in Las Vegas. Do you realize how you sound analyst? I really don’t think you live in the same world that most of Americans live in. You said that you considered funding GZ’s legal defense expenses, after you calculated what return you would get from his civil suits. That’s moral values? And then you ask for the people here to try to put forth moral values that would cause you to donate a “big fat check” to his defense fund. Again, you are a phony in need of some attention analyst. No one here can define, convince, or cajole you into what your internal moral values should be, but apparently are in a state of influx, maybe.

          I did in fact accuse you last night of being dishonest. You know darn well that if you came out posting, on many of the GZ sites, saying that you couldn’t morally justify GZ getting out of the truck with a loaded weapon. Had you stated that position at the get go, when you started commenting on the case, you know darn well that you would have been a goner on those sites. That is what makes you dishonest analyst. You have apparently posted in a manner that was less than up front, wanting to remain a poster on some websites without getting banned. I will reiterate yet again about my own position. I do not change or adjust my opinions or beliefs depending on where I post. My positions are what they are no matter where I write them. If I am banned because of something I say, so be it. I am honest and don’t adjust to please the site owner or moderators. That is why I was banned by the CTH. No problem, I’ve been thrown out of classier bars than that. No biggie.

          With all your wealth and demands, you are no better than me or anyone else here sir. Money can’t buy you love, or moral values.

          • You are sadly confused. And envious, too, I’m afraid.

            I would have behaved differently than GZ, but that doesn’t make me think what he did is illegal. Can you not reconcile that simple concept?

            My position, re: the legality of what GZ did has not changed. He did something stupid, in my opinion, not illegal. It’s really as simple as that…

          • And to paraphrase Buckley: Call me a phony one more time and I’ll XXXXX you in your XXXXX face.
            ———
            First Edit: No threatening others, even if quoting someone else’s threat.

  13. Nettles, mea culpa if I’ve hijacked your blog. I find this to be the finest site on the net to exchange ideas re: this case with some brilliant, caring, and reasonable people. And Jordan, too. 😉 I have a lot of compassion for the current situation in which GZ finds himself; and I’m trying to erase any vestiges of doubt I have about his moral culpability related thereto, because I would really be excited to cut O’Mara a big fat check. Cub Scout’s honor! (Oh, and I was an Altar Boy, too – just like GZ)

    • Short of knowing Zimmerman personally, I don’t think you can erase vestiges of doubt about his general character, and even if you did know him, I think it’s possible to still wonder if there was a lapse the night of Feb 26, 2012. But see his reaction to Sherman Ware, and his approach in other NEN calls, and what his neighbors have to say … I have a hard time thinking he had any inkling distance would close between him and the suspicious guy. Naive to a fault. Still is, a bit, I think.

      • Yet more good points, cboldt. I had read the transcripts of the NEN call several times since its release, but only in the past few months did I listen to the audio file. And in GZ’s defense, I was very suprised at the vocal quality (it certainly wasn’t ‘deep’ as DeeDee described it) and the near-lack of animosity present. Again, if he just hadn’t said ‘…f*cking punks…’ A throw-away aside, I’m pretty sure, but damn what a minefield of doubt that phrase presented.

    • No need to explain. I’m quite impressed on how you have commented your thoughts on this without being disagreeable.

      For the same reason you are reluctant to cut a check, I think the state talked themselves into why they can charge with these facts. I also believe the family of Trayvon hold GZ morally responsible. It’s that attitude that led to his death, imo. Had they made that boy accountable and suffer some consequences for his actions/choices, he might be alive today. Leaving him unsupervised in a City with money in his pocket while serving a school suspension says a lot about his parents morals and priorities. So let’s put that onto George’s shoulders to take care of TM’s bad choices.

      OT, I think OJ Simpson killed his wife and her friend. I think what the state did to him on the robbery charge was done based on their moral indignity. No way, Simpson should have gotten 33 years in jail. Most feel ok about it b/c he appeared to have gotten away with murdering two people.

      It’s very dangerous to start playing games in the justice system to get the desired outcome b/c you think the defendant had it coming.

      I don’t get why everyone isn’t on the same side (I get the family wanting dirty pool if that is what it takes) but I don’t get anyone else wanting to get a conviction that way.

      The donations are to ensure the GZ gets justice. To me that means if he’s guilty, he gets found guilty and if he’s not, he gets acquitted.

      For the State to play hide the ball as they have done, well God help the next defendant, who you might want to see walk free.

      No, if morally some feel its wrong to level the playing field with donations, then I’ve got to say, morally those some are bankrupt.

      I’m working on my post to prove GZ did indeed go looking for an address. I’m still at work though. Might not get my response done tonight after all, but know its coming.

      • As I told cboldt, I’m most likely to make some donation due to the reasoned arguments put forth by you and a few others on this site. Can’t go ‘all-in’ as I still have doubt stemming from ‘…f*cking punks…’ and ‘…they always get away…’ – these possibly sow the seeds of some pretty damning fruit. Again, in my humble opinion, ma’am. And I look forward to reading your argument re: the house number!

        • “They always get away with it ” is a fact expressed often by professionals in criminal justice system. Every day the papers remind us that the majority of burglaries are committed by repeat offenders, individuals with 6,7, 8 felonies on record. Unsupervised felons breaking into homes to fund their drug addiction, and minors committing burglaries because they will face diversion not time. Even if arrested, it does not mean the DA will charge the case, with the courts so overwhelmed, charges are plead down routinely. Check the local recidivism rates for burglaries before misunderstanding the meaning of GZ accurate observation.

          • I’m working toward that goal, Nettles, but some of the comments directed at me have reawakened my less charitable side. I had no idea the orthodoxy here would become so quickly monolithic…

            • This is just my opinion, but I do not find an orthodoxy monolith here.

              Some commenters are more vociferous in their musings than others.

              The tone set by the blogess of this site is pretty decent.

          • Nettles, you know who you are dealing with right? Hahaha. Perhaps instead you should put up a link to donations for your complete awesomeness as well. Level playing field on the moral fortitude end of things? Lololol.

      • I don’t care if Zimmerman was looking for an address, or was looking for a sign of the suspicious guy. My balance point is whether or not he intended to get close enough to the suspicious guy to talk to him. I use that as a measure of distance, obviously, if he intended to get close enough to talk, then it’s reasonable to infer he intended to get close enough for restraint, and it’s pretty easy to pigeonhole that in the bravado/hero box.

      • The sad part is that there are very many good people who don’t have the resources or notoriety to get the about 60 years of impeccable legal expertise offered by MOM/West. There are very few attorneys who would take on such a case, without compensation at this point, only because it is the right thing to do.

        There is a very good book, entitled “Three Felonies a Day” which turns out to be the average number of crimes an unknowing citizen commits each day and could be charged with, should the government choose to do so. Many defendants don’t have the money available to take on the essentially unlimited resources of the government, so they end up taking a plea deal. Clearly, the prosecutors thought that gz would be taking a deal, and when he didn’t, they charged Shellie too, hoping that would make him “man up” to protect his wife. What the prosecution did not count on was the utter tenacity of MOM/West. While many lawyers give the legal profession a bad name, here are two who are ethical and righteous.

        The opposition makes much of the fact that gz had a choice in leaving his truck, but it is clear from the evidence that Trayvon had a later choice to just go into the house. Yet he didn’t do that. He went back to confront gz.

        • “Three Felonies a Day” is considered to be an excellent must read for Patriots (and other citizens, too.) I have not read the book, but somewhere on the net, is an excellent synopsis.

    • analyst- If you were really wanting to cut O’Mara a big fat check you would have already done it. No one here on this site can touch your own morality issues, as much as you would love that to be the case. Your moral values are your own that cannot be explained by anyone else. analyst, I think you are a phony.

      • i tend to agree with you pinecone. Yet it does seem to have lead to a reasoned discussion of the pros and cons. We have been through the evidence so much, that it seems logical to us. Imagine if you will, 6 jurors who have to hear all of the information from scratch! I thought it interesting that MOM wants jurors who know the facts of the case. That shows he is not afraid of the facts and, with a client who is clearly not guilty, that is the way it should be. If gz were convicted of 2nd degree murder it would be a loss for our system of justice. This might not be the civil rights case of the century as trumpeted by Crump (later reduced to civil rights slash equal justice) but it is certainly a case which puts the entire criminal judicial system on trial. So far, the bad guys are winning!

      • For the third time: wow! A phony? Moi?

        Why don’t you zoom in on my avatar and get back to me. I’ll be happy to send Nettles a notarized copy of my current Consolidated Financial Statement. Copy of my Centurion card, perhaps? Gee whiz…

        Self righteous much, pinecone?

        • That’s the problem analyst. I could care less if you were George Soros with his bank account, or maybe Zuckerberg. I don’t give a crap how much money you have, and how you decide to spend it. I do have a problem with your use of your financial position in trying to persuade others that your vast wealth can buy a large donation to the Zimmerman defense fund IF. As I said last night, you are in all intents and purposes waging a contest with your come on. Either you will send the donation you claimed you have the wallet to afford, or you won’t. The sign of good character is in people who don’t look for aclimation for their good deeds. They just do it, and no one else is the wiser. That is classy analyst. Begging for definitions of what you should have already figured out long ago is disingenious. I am not a good speller, deal with it.

          • You’re your own worst enemy. As I noted a moment ago, you seem hung up on money a lot more than I. And while I’ve already altered my position and written one check to the defense team, you seem to be stuck on stupid – refusing to accept that my offer could have been sincere. QED.

            If I’d have known class envy was such an issue in this case, I might have worded my conundrum differently. However, I was raised not to care about the size of one’s bank account nor the color of one’s skin.

            Prejudice is prejudice. Don’t fear the mirror, pinecone. It won’t hurt for long.

          • One last reply and then I’m done with you and this site: I’ve anonymously donated an extraordinary amount of money to charity. How dare you insinuate that I’m looking for aclimation[sic]. You, yourself, are truly disingenuous and infra dignitatem.

          • you go pinecone! Wow, he even has a fancy avatar. Well, that proves it. He really, really must be rich.

            No one in his right mind would be doing this–getting moral advice from a blog? This person is an obvious troll. But he now has the honor of being the first one Nettles ever had to censor–and for threatening someone at that. Quite the sophisticated phony, that one.

        • But you claimed below that you don’t focus on your wealth analyst, right. I won’t paraphrase Buckley I’ll quote him directly just for you analyst-

          “”I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”

          Have a good night analyst. You frankly aren’t worth me staying up any longer for.

        • I think the $25 gs should be paid to Nettles for the pain and suffering she has endured from this jackass.

  14. How many in watching the last hearing re: Questions you can ask potential Juror, thought MOM was on the verge of asking Nelson if he could see the questions she also intends to ask a potential Juror? It’s like he was leaning to ask …. and then didn’t.

  15. Just got through watching Sharpton/MOM on MSNBC’s Politics Nation. First if there is a reply, it would be the last half of the show. Now, my first observation is that I think many of the people that are going to cover the trial, including Sharpton, know nothing about the law in Florida re: self-defense. It’s like they have a mental block. It doesn’t matter how many times you explain … they still don’t get it. Second, I really hate when MOM does the “of course we don’t want the shootings of black teens to be swept under the rug” routine in order to appease the black interviewer. We’ve said, time and time again, if it would have been a BLACK older male that shot Trayvon under the exact same circumstances this would not be a national case. MOM continues to get caught up in statements that go along with the lip service treatment by the black community and activists when it comes to murder and black teens. If they would attack black male on black male murder with the ferocity that they do white on black murder …. maybe this country could move forward in peace and respect for each other. I would love to ask MOM … in your experience with these black teens getting murdered and nobody cares … what percentage of those black teens were killed by a white? As you can see, MOM does get under my fingernails at times. MOM should have shut Sharpton down and say … look … this case is not about race no matter how much you want it to be.

    • I have to say I was underwhelmed by MOM on Sharpton, although I have to admit that I understand what he was doing.

      He will not try the facts of this case on TV, he will do that in the courtroom. Plus, it is difficult dealing on an intellectual level with Rev. Al whose understanding of the facts and the law is very limited. And he was deferential in the utmost to Al.

      Since he was interviewed on remote, he probably did not see visuals accompanying the segment.

      I do feel that he should assert GZ’s innocence during such interviews so that it is clear to the informed and uniformed that the defense is not based on some technicality, but on the facts of GZ’s innocence.

      • I have to say I agree with you. I’m 100% behind MOM, but would have liked to have seen some more forceful responses. He was too quick to agree with Sharpton in some areas.

      • When he intentionally failed to mention that George said OK when he played the audio. that was your clue that everything else was going to be BS. Why did he leave that out? Never mind.

    • MOM pandering was nauseating. I had to eat a bowl of cherries just to save myself from grinding my teeth and the sour feeling just listening to Sharpton’s manipulations.

      • It is very easy to get po’s at MOM when he does this crap. In NO WAY whatsoever does this benefit George. In fact., it hurts him badly when MOM agrees with anything the other side says that they can hold onto in order to continue spouting their BS and lies. Shame on him for this!! Boooo!!!!

        • I have to admit, I didn’t have a great feeling after this interview either. I had no problem with most of it until the end when Mr. O’Mara gave agreement that rallying to get an arrest was the right thing to do.

          After talking it over with others I’ve soften on my initial reaction some.

          How many times have you watched Political Nation this year Jordan? Counting yesterday, I’ve watched once. I’m not a viewer of that show and I’d lay money down 99% of GZ supporters aren’t regular watchers of that show either.

          We were not the target audience then. I watch Mr. O’Mara handle Ryan very well on HLN after the hearing. He pushed back nicely without appearing aggressive.

          So Mr. O’Mara is talking to an audience that is pissed right now at him for bringing forward some negative information about Tray’s behavior before he died. Even some reputation evidence.

          I get so mad at the state when I think about this b/c the phone was in their possession. This information should have been in their discovery. The way they hid the ball forced the defense to bring forward the negative information and gave ammunition to the other side the defense is a slime-ball. Having the public think that doesn’t help George.

          So in last night’s interview, this was a chance for all of them thinking the defense is dirt, to not appear argumentative and tell them they did this wrong and that wrong. The comment that bugged me the most came at the very end of the interview and Sharpton had said we are out of time.

          Mr. O’Mara is media savvy. He’ll adjust his message to the target audience.

          So thinking about the interview targeted at the audience, that is not us, did Mr. O”Mara perhaps change some minds the defense is not out to smear Trayvon Martin? But rather putting the facts out there.

          To that extent, I think he did. I’ll now go back to never watching Political Nation again.

          • For the record, I have watched the show before but only when something inspired me to do so in advance. What O’Mara did was reinforce the beliefs of the audience. NONE of them would now ever consider the other side so he utterly failed in that regard.

            MOM achieves NOTHING by speaking to you and me. We are NOT the ones he needs to focus on. It’s those on the other side and others who remain on the fence. Where are those folks who remain on the fence?

            • After you watch Ben Crump’s interview that was done tonight, I’d like your thoughts.

              Thanks to O’Mara’s interview some actual facts came up in Crump’s interview tonight. Sharpton gave Crump only half the time he gave O’Mara.

    • I support the defense but I admit that O’Mara irks me to no end by patronizing folks like Al and NEVER standing up to him and others. Why not say? Al, you clearly do not understand the law, so when you do, let’s talk. According to you everyone should be arrested immediately when someone is killed. Do you have any idea how many blacks would be in jail if they did that? Careful or you may get what you want.

      O’Mara does not help George when he agrees with other side about anything and especially in cases in which he gives 3 answers, one of which supports Al and is the only one his side will remember.

      Phooey with that.

  16. The stark contrast between George defending a black homeless man and Trayvon and his thug cohorts beating one up while videotaping it for fun….is why I care about this case.

    Anyone who thinks George character doesn’t blow away the drugged out, failing school, constantly fighting teen is the worst judge of characters you’ll ever meet. To give the out of control teen every single benefit of the doubt conceivable takes stupidity to unheard of heights.

    • “Anyone who thinks George character doesn’t blow away the drugged out, failing school, constantly fighting teen is the worst judge of characters you’ll ever meet. To give the out of control teen every single benefit of the doubt conceivable takes stupidity to unheard of heights.”

      I would like for as many bloggers could at one time, all at once, deluge fred leatherhams site with this one most incredible true statement….great comment!!!

    • There is an anonymous donor who is considering a large donation to Zimmerman’s defense, but is undecided due to uncertainty about Zimmerman’s judgment in so far as it led to Zimmerman being in a predicament. I don;t know if stupidity in judgment counts against Zimmerman, or if the error has to be one in the nature of bravado/heroic intentions.

      I got to wondering if O’Mara would consider something akin to a contingent fee agreement, whereby a donor is repaid contingent on Zimmerman being acquitted, and Zimmerman winning a defamation judgment (or getting a settlement) that covers more than legal expenses. That’s of course not merely a moral judgment, it folds in something like business risk.

      My motivation for donation is animus against the prosecutor.

          • Bingo! Thank you coreshift.

            Dizzy, the anonymous donor is asking for posters to convince him that it was not immoral for GZ to get out of his truck with a loaded weapon. He claims he is having moral dilemas within himself, and wants others here to convince him that GZ was morally correct in what he did. His posts have mostly been, do you know how wealthy I am? He considered funding GZ entire defense, and already figured out how much money he could make if he was promised 10% of whatever GZ got in his civil lawsuits. Now it is a moral question to him if he gives the $25,000 or not. None of it makes any sense.

      • well you should know that contingent agreements based upon the outcome of a criminal case are unethical and unauthorized under the RPC.

    • Thank you. I didn’t like the interview overall. Way too agreeable that the actions taken by Sharpton and others were justified in getting his client brought up on these charges. One of the reasons I’m here is because those actions were wrong and if not challenged will send a message this works.

      No the system works and the message should be sent to allow it to work. The actions of the rally’s brought charges where none should have been brought. and now some try to school the potential jurors on how to get on the jury to get a conviction.

      The public was lied to and continues to be lied to.

        • idk why MOM would act like that with the Reverend. Praise God. He was very aggressive with Crump and the media after the hearing.

          In a way, he perhaps is walking a fine line. He wants to get his message across, so he has to pander a bit to the media. MOM is becoming very media savvy as he goes along. Perhaps he is hoping to suck the good reverend in until he lays a bomb on him and his racial message. Remember, MOM was personable with Crump at first, but now seems to lay into him every chance he gets. He clearly has Crump on the run. IMHO, sharpton is a known phony and completely discredited as an ethical attorney.

          • nah, i think dman and sundance are over the top in their criticism of MOM. It is easy to engage in Monday morning quarterbacking and i think MOM is clever in his use of the media. He probably realizes that he gets more bees with honey than with vinegar and he wants to get invited back. He knows he can have a lot more influence by not burning bridges at the beginning of the relationship. (Yet to me MSNBC is a complete joke, especially because of loudmouthed idiots like Sharpton.)

            Remember that MOM was the President of the local bar I believe and you can tell that MOM truly believes in respect for all people involved in the judicial process. As a true professional, MOM believes that you can be raging adversaries in court yet be professional, courteous and even amicable outside the courtroom. I have not hear the entire interview yet, so i will post after listening to the whole thing.

      • I consider this to be a serious blow to the case. You cannot take back what he said to support what they did to affect an arrest .What the hell is wrong with him?

  17. On the part where Rev. Al says something to the effect of “IS IT RIGHT for police to have THE POWER NOT TO CHARGE”? I assume he is ALL FOR them having THE POWER TO CHARGE when it comes to a non-black shooting a black teen. That said, neither Rev. Al or MOM touched upon the SPD wanting it to go before a Grand Jury. It was the State that swooped down and eliminated THAT from happening when they filed their phony deficient Probably Cause Affidavit. Why weren’t they willing to let it go to a Grand Jury, Rev. Al?

Leave a 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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s