I've been on twitter a bit the last few days as the Zimmerman Case wears down and I have to say - those people who think George Zimmerman will be acquitted are a Loud Arrogant Lot.
It's pretty common for them to argue that this case is about Black Racial Entitlement brought about the the politicization of it Barack Obama and Eric Holder. That poor George Zimmerman is just a pawn in a political game and most recently that Department of Justice is helping fund and plan RIOTS when the prosecution loses.
A division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was deployed to Sanford, Florida in 2012 to provide assistance for anti-George Zimmerman protests, including a rally headlined by activist Al Sharpton, according to newly released documents.See, it's am Obama CON-SPIRA-CY. Government money was spent to help Al Sharpton RIOT.
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/...
Except there wasn't any riot. There was a demonstration where DOJ provided support to the city and the police. If there'd been a pro-Zimmerman Demonstration, the same support would have been provided, if needed. And just how much tax payer money was spent on the massive government boondoggle?
CRS spent $674.14 between March 25-27 related to having been “deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.” CRS spent another $1,142.84 for the same purpose between March 25-28.Wow, that's a whole lot of Riot'n there.
I've been following this case since the news of the first 9-11 tape broke. I've watched all of Zimmerman's Police Interviews, all of his voice stress analysis, and nearly all of the trial.
I think he's going to lose, and I wonder - just how many Wingnut Heads will explode if he does?
It really doesn't matter to them what the facts are or what the evidence is, no matter what - they support George!. I've been arguing the case as I see it for a last couple days bringing up issues - which have been presented in court - indicating that George Zimmerman Clearly Lied about where and when he first encountered Trayvon Martin. It wasn't at the "T" between the two walkways, where he says Trayvon came up behind sucker punched him and knocked him down -it was 25-30 ft away to the south where the body, keys and cell phone were found.
They ignore it.
Trayvon didn't grab Zimmerman's nose and mouth to keep him from yelling for help, you can hear the yelling on the tape clearly plus there was no blood or DNA from George on Trayvon's hands or sleeves. Also there were no prints or DNA on George's gun from Trayvon.
They ignore it.
George Lied. Repeatedly. The fact that he lied, and also his "Asshole Punks" comment show he had malice and was trying to lie to cover it up. He never stopped looking for Trayvon, and when he finally found him he grabbed him, struggled with him - then killed him.
They ignore it.
At least that's how I saw it, and I was concerned that the Prosecution wasn't making that case. But then, tonight, I went back and looked at the Prosecutions Opening Statements and They Did make that case, almost exactly as I described it.
Watching this it seems to me that the Prosecution is much more on track than they've been given credit for.
Chances are the closing today will be more of the same, only with more pointed evidenciary examples - walking step by step through the case to it's conclusion. I think that's a good thing. If they can destroy the veracity or credibility of George's story - if they can show he lied to cover up his guilt there is no credible path to reasonable doubt.
But that's not how Zimmy's fan club sees it.
When I point out to Zimmerman supporters that Rachael Jeantel's testimony completely contradicts George's version of how the fight started, they say they don't believe her because she committed "perjury."
When I point out that perjury requires telling a falsehood about a material fact that is crucial to the case [although that may not matter technically], and why Rachael didn't go to the wake isn't crucial - whereas everything else she said is confirmed by the phone records and physical evidence, specifically that she heard the phone fall on the grass, which is exactly where it was found - they ignore it.
(3) "Material matter" means any subject, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could affect the course or outcome of the proceeding. Whether a matter is material in a given factual situation is a question of law.When I point out that in fact it was George who aided his wife when she committed perjury when they conspired to hide the money they had in their Paypal account in order to get a cheaper bail amount - showing that both of them have a tendency to LIE about material issues before the court - they ignore it.
When I point out that George was essentially hunting and stalking Trayvon, hence he had a right to defend himself they claim "Following isn't against the law", except that doing so repeatedly - in the car, on foot, then again on foot - fits the legal definition of stalking. They ignore it.
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.When I point out that the body is 30 feet away from where George says the fight started, they say - "well, people move around in a fight" - but when I point out that George said it was Pow-Bang-On-the-Ground, and ask what did he do shimmy 30 feet down the path with Trayvon on top of him?" They ignore it.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
When I point out that the screaming stopped when the gun went off, indicating that the person screaming is the one who was shot - yet George's statement claims he was screaming and that he didn't stop when the fired the gun because he didn't think he even hit Trayvon - they ignore it.
They argue that "Creepy Ass Cracker" is proof of Trayvon's "Depraved Mind" and not his concern that he might be about assaulted by a possible sexual predator (who has a cousin who claims she was repeatedly molested by Zimmerman), however they ignore "Fucking Punk Assholes Get Away" as evidence of a "Depraved Mind" by George.
They say Trayvon must have been "high on Dope", yet when you point out that it was on 1.5 nanograms of THC which indicates use several days or even weeks prior - they ignore it.
When I point out that George's injuries certainly weren't life threatening, he didn't have a deviated septum, he didn't require any stitches, and he didn't have signs of a concussion - they ignore it and say all that's required is that he had "Fear of great bodily harm".
Ok, so when I ask why the fact that Trayvon ran away and hid from him doesn't show that he was afraid too - they ignore that too.
When I ask why would Trayvon attack George if not to defend himself from an apparent Stalker and potential predator, they say "Because he was a fighter"! And when I ask when and were did he fight anyone they talk about his text messages and youtube account (which weren't admitted into evidence, and don't showhim fighting only smack talking about it), yet when I bring up George's prior arrest for assaulting an ATF Agent, his being fired from his bouncer job for losing his temper and throwing a woman against wall, or his various domestic violence issues with his ex-fiance, they ignore it.
When I point out that no independent witness, not even Goode, can confirm that Trayvon "slammed" George's head against the concrete or punched him 20 or 30 times, and no one can confirm George's claims that Trayvon saw the gun and reached for it (without leaving any prints or DNA) and then said "You're gonna die tonight, Mother-Fucker!" They ignore it.
When I point out that it was George who had the documented history of violence, the MMA training and at least 50-60 lbs on Trayvon -showing he should have been able to easily push him off (unless he was holding onto Trayvon to keep him from running away again until the cops arrived, then lost his temper and Bang) - They ignore it.
And they think the Jury is going to ignore all of this too. And frankly, they might, or they might not.
I do admit that George stayed just close enough to the primary undisputed facts to tell a convincing story. As such the jury could be convinced and he could escape conviction on Murder 2, although Manslaughter - if the lesser charges is allowed - could be more problematic.
But I'm not going to burning down local stores if that happens. What's the point of that? Matter of fact, Al Sharpton isn't calling for a "Riot" either.
However, what would happen if the Zimmy Fan Club sees all of their illusions dashed before their eyes?
Are they going to argue that the mostly white, all female jury was "too dumb" to know the truth? Too confused by all the DNA and Forensics to see George's obvious innocence? That Obama and the DOJ Paid them off?
Are they going to blame Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, President Obama and all the so-called Race Hustlers who were just itching to RAIL-ROAD poor George in a fit of raging "Reverse Racism" for ridding his neighborhood of another piece of black thug vermin?
Obama doesn't realize he put ppl of color in danger by invoking race card w/#trayvon. Now anyone will think ur going to get revenge.— Bill (@billk77) July 11, 2013
Or worse yet, will they push forward even more draconian voter ID restriction laws, racially discriminatory redistricting, more profiling ala "Stop and Frisk", more open carry laws, more "stand your ground" justifications to shoot first and figure out who you're shooting at later, guns in the schools, gun in the Hospitals, guns on the playground, more excuses for more and more anti-black hysteria and paranoia.
Will some of them figure, it's finally time to start the open shooting war to "Take Back Their America"?
And when they do all that - will that energize the rest of us to Fight Back at the ballot box?
Frankly, I think they might do all the above - and I think that these options (most of whom are already ongoing) are far more likely than a RIOT if things go the other way.
Just remember, nobody rioted when OJ finally got convicted.
But that's just me, what do you think?
Livestream of Trial
10:08 AM PT: Judge Nelson has ruled that the lesser charge of Manslaughter can be included, but not 3rd Degree Murder (which would include "child abuse").
10:45 AM PT: Prosecution has begun their closing. It's DelaRionda instead of Mantei.
10:48 AM PT: Prosecution Points out that Fatal Shot was fired at 7:16:58 pm, minutes after the end of Zimmerman's non-emergency call. (George claimed Trayvon "appeared" immediately after he hung-up, sucker-punched him and knocked him down. Didn't happen like that.)
10:54 AM PT: So far most of Prosec appeal is emotional, not documenting factual evidence or list of Zimmerman's Lies. Slow start.
10:57 AM PT: "It's good for citizens to be involved. But he went over the line, he assumed things that weren't true. They (crooks) would flee and he was sick and tired of it. He automatically assumed that Trayvon Martin was a criminal - and that's why we're here."
10:56 AM PT: "When you think of it, who was more scared? The one walking home, whose being followed by a guy in a truck?"
10:59 AM PT: He doesn't just call the police, he tracks him down.. he follows him, he gets out of the car. This is what led to Trayvon Martin being dead.
11:05 AM PT: Why does the defendant get out of the car if he's afraid of Trayvon Martin? Because he's got a gun. He's going to take care of it.
11:06 AM PT: Is it "Self-Defense" when you've profiled somebody, when you're following somebody? Walking in the rain, isn't against the law.
11:09 AM PT: Why was it necessary for the defendant to keep exaggerating the situation? Why did the defendant keep denying that the "followed him"? Because he knew it would have shown his intent. He said he was trying to find the address? He's the neighborhood watch guy, he's been living there 4 years and he doesn't know the name of the 3 streets?
11:11 AM PT: The body is going to show you what happened. No blood on Trayvon's hands (show pic of Zimmerman's bloody face). The defense is going to tell you the blood was washed away by the rain, but why didn't it wash away on Mr. Zimmerman?
11:20 AM PT: Who started this? Who followed who? Who was armed?
11:23 AM PT: Did what Rachel Jeantel speak the truth? When you think of it, she was the person who was speaking to the victim. We have phone records, there's no dispute they were talking. She could have embellished, should could have "colored" the conversation. She told us what Trayvon said. "Creepy Ass Cracka" Did what she say match up with the evidence? It did.
11:27 AM PT: "I had a dream that the witness would be judged not on the color of her personality but the content of her testimony. Didn't she confirm that defendant was following the victim? Didn't she confirm the defendant confront the victim? What did he say, he was "looking for an address"? Why would someone attack a person looking for an address out of the blue?
11:32 AM PT: "Assholes always get away". Why does he have to say that under his breath? Isn't that an indication of how he feels? Is that a description of the suspect? That's ill-will, that's hated. That's "I'm tired of these criminal and he's not going to get away...
"Fucking Punks" Why was it necessary to utter those words unless he'd determined that Trayvon was a criminal and he's not going to get away
During the ride up in the police car on video he inadvertently mentions the name of the street, then later he claims he doesn't know the name of the street. That is a LIE..
11:33 AM PT: This started further down - It didn't start right at the "T" where the defendant claims it did.
11:35 AM PT: Did it occur as the defendant claims? You have to believe he wasn't following anyone, he was just minding his own business and for some reason the victim decided to attack him. You have to assume victim knocked him to the ground, and poor George never did anything, then at the last moment he was able to take out his concealed gun and shoot him.
11:37 AM PT: There was a fight, there was a struggle. Of the two of them one of them has had 18 months MMA fight training. They rolled around, they fought. But again, you can't take this in a vacuum, why did this occur? Was it necessary to shoot him?
11:39 AM PT: Mr. Good told you that he could not see the defendants hands. Did the defendant have the gun out? Was Trayvon trying to defend himself from that gun? The defendant claims that the victim tried to grab the gun, unfortunately for him, there's no DNA on the gun. He told his friend Mr. Osterman - that night - that the victim "Grabbed the Gun". This is consistent with what Rachael Jeantel told you.
The Defendant claims that Trayvon Martin is the strongest guy in world, he pulledl and pushed him all the way over here where all the items ended up.
11:44 AM PT: Does the victim have the right of self-defense when he's being chased by this person?
11:46 AM PT: One thing these photos show is the absence of blood on the sidewalk.
11:49 AM PT: Why is one of the drawstrings on the vicim's sweatshirt pulled all the way down -was the defending pulling on that?
11:50 AM PT: Where are the victims hands? Under his body. What did the defendant say? He used police jargin, "I was looking for a weapon". And were supposed to believe the victim stayed alive, pulled his hand back in Lifted himself up and pulled them under his body?
11:55 AM PT: How is the defendant is going "Help Help Help" when he has the victims hands on his face, but we can hear him on tape without being muffled. Or is he LYING about that?
12:17 PM PT: If one person is shot dead and the other one lies - why would that person lie? Because he killed they only other eye-witness, Trayvon Martin, who had the right to defend himself.
12:22 PM PT: "He punched me, as soon as he punched me - I fell backwards."
12:24 PM PT: (Trayvon) must have had like ten hands out there.
12:26 PM PT: How did the victim see this (black gun) in the darkness?
12:28 PM PT: Zimmerman: After I shot him, I holstered my weapon - and I said "Stay down, don't move". If he's so scared of the victim, why did he holster his gun? He's trying to convince the police that he didn't intend to kill him.
12:33 PM PT: "When I walked back toward him, and he was walking toward me." He catches himself, after admitting he was walking toward Trayvon - he was still following, he was the aggressor.
12:35 PM PT: Look at the photo, there's some grass and it appears wet on the defendants shoes - as if he was on top at some point. Where are the scratches from the concrete on the back of his jacket? He's trying to make up one lie after another after another.
12:42 PM PT: He told the police over and over he didn't know the name of the street, but then he gave them name right there in the video when the police just let him talk.
12:46 PM PT: Did you see that he directs the investigators to the back of the house, (when there's an address over his shoulder) like the police are just fools?
12:54 PM PT: Prosecution is doing just what I hoped, they're MST3King the Zimmerman Interviews and Tapes, tearing them apart piece by piece, leaves Defense nowhere to go.
1:03 PM PT: Prosecution is playing Hannity Tape - bet he's not happy he's being used to convict George.
1:07 PM PT: HOW DOES HE GET THE GUN OUT? (it's under him, when Trayvon is on top - holding him down, knees at his armpits) How does he manage to get the gun out and get a perfect shot to the heart of a 17-yr man? (Is it possible the gun was already out, and that's why they were fighting in the first place?)
1:22 PM PT: Prosecution Finishes the Closing Argument. I think he did great and covered just about every issue about the credibility of George's story - the foundation of his Self-Defense/Reasonable Doubt. Pundits have argued that prosecution needs to give their "theory of the case", but I think that's obvious - He tracked, stalked and hunted down Trayvon, then when Trayvon tried to defend himself, George killed him.