Monday, July 08, 2013

Overheard in the Office...

Me: "I'd love to have the resources to do a short video of a bunch of people, well dressed people in suits and skirts and dress shoes, wearing burlap hoods with eyeholes cut in 'em and standing outside a jail waving torches and making nooses out of microphone cords yelling 'Give us the killer! Send out Zimmerman!'"

RX: "Why, Tamara! You're not saying..."

Me: "Yeah, it's a $#@* media lynch mob."
As the prosecution's half-fast case sputters to a halt, the media's not even pretending to be dispassionate and unbiased reporters of events anymore. One of the morning cheerleaders at NBC all but asked their 'legal expert' if there was any argument the prosecution could use in closing to get this bad, bad man. ABC's analysis doesn't leave much doubt as to where they stand, either.


Bram said...

Did the Defense move for dismissal? The Judge could have done us all a favor and just tossed it out after hearing the Prosecution's terrible case.

Tam said...


"Did the Defense move for dismissal? The Judge could have done us all a favor and just tossed it out after hearing the Prosecution's terrible case."

It would take a judge dedicated enough to the cause of justice to be willing to go into the Witness Protection Program.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the legal experts could remind the talking heads the defense gets their chance to present evidence to the jury as well.



Angus McThag said...

Wow. ABC was actually complaining about innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Just wow.

Anonymous said...

Yes, they did, Bram; however, the judge ruled they had enough to proceed.

Ken said...

Sometimes I think they're getting desperate, because on some level they sense the game is up.

Other times, I think they figure there won't be any meaningful consequences, because the game is rigged.

Al T. said...

As has been noted, the jury can easily convict anyway. The MSM strongly supports an old fashioned legal lynching and is probably hideously disappointed that there's no sex involved. GZ is not even halfway out of the woods yet. I'm also waiting for the prosecutors to use the word "riot" somewhere along the way.

Unknown said...

My own admittedly cynical take: The prosecutors know they can phone it in because the jurors know that big chunks their state will burn if they don't convict Zimmerman.

On the other hand, he's already got plenty of grounds for appeal and I expect them to hand him a couple more before this is over.

Motor-T said...

The very best coverage can be found at Legal Insurrection.

billf said...

I know I should be more sympathetic to the actual people (dead and alive )involved in the case,but I can't help thinking about the huge amount of money and time being wasted,by both sides,and including observers and the media,and the tax dollars that could have been saved.Very un-PC,I know ,but that's who I am.

Anonymous said...

Is the jury sequestered or are they getting daily e-mails, tweets, and face book postings threatening to kill them and all their relations if they acquit?

Scott J said...

Last night as part of a local Fox affiliate's newscast they had three legal analysts on dissecting the trial like it was some sporting event.

That alone was disgusting in a sort of bread and circuses way.

But at the end of the segment all the analysts were asked who they thought "had the upper hand". All three responded "unfortunately, the defense".

One of the three muffed his line and said prosecution initially then interrupted the anchor talking to one of the other analysts to make DAMN sure it was clear he found it unfortunate the defense seemed to be winning the case.

Panamared said...

As a Floridian, I am convinced nobody in MSM has even bothered to look as Florida law. As I understand it, as soon as the defense says self defense, the prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not. On the other hand, the threshold for continuing the case is very low. Considering that this case was brought by the state to quiet the mobs, it's not surprising that the Judge did not acquit.

Mike_C said...

The very best coverage can be found at Legal Insurrection.

Absolutely. Also, Andrew Branca the attorney (and gunnie) guest blogger who has put a staggering amount of work into coverage and analysis of the Zimmerman (show) trial has a new edition of his book The Law of Self Defense which may be worth checking out. No connection, standard disclaimers apply and all that. I'm just grateful for all the work he's put into trial coverage.

JustSomeGuy said...


Legal insurrection was linked above, but here's the article specifically answering your question:

Why Zimmerman's Motion for Acquittal Should Have Been Granted

Unlike brain-dead media vampire cheerleaders lapping at the blood pool and hoping for more, rational folks ought be able to see the prosecution has failed miserably in making their case. If they (as in theory they should) truly believe this case should have been tried then they've failed at the basic functions of their job and should be fired. But they're political twits and nobody will hold them accountable.

The whole thing leaves me in an disgusted, impotent rage.


Anonymous said...

If MSM can elect a POTUS, they can sure as hell convict a PEON. Hope the D has their appeal ready; there's a far better chance for justice in the second go-'round.


Will Brown said...

No one much (and not just in comments here) seems to be taking adequate account of the low information aspect of the low information voter that is the standard norm for the general populace. Yes, the media seems to be pursuing an agenda, but the notion that is somehow sufficient to achieve the desired end isn't supported by history.

In '92, there was a concerted effort to support the media agenda by numerous "public figures" at local events in the various (and varied) local LA social enclaves (which aren't really neighborhoods as such and aren't always divided by race). I'm not seeing reports of any such similar effort in Fla (or anywhere else). Without such an effort, the typical "low information voter" isn't going to be energized to "go to the polls" (ie: riot).

I lived in the SF Valley in '91 and '92 and it was blatantly obvious at the time what was going on. I see none of that happening in this instance, so I think predictions of riot, etc are overblown and an opportunity to assist the media in fear-mongering against those who can be cast as supporting opposition to the media's objective.

The concerns being raised and discussed are valid enough (and a little floridity [is that even a word?] certainly add to blog traffic, but might benefit from a degree of enforced objectivity in the long run (the media not being the only one's on the inter-connected series of tubes with an agenda under pursuit).

Just the observations of someone with thankfully only the slightest of actual experience of massive public disorder, but going on 60 years of watching apparent manipulation of facts and beliefs by the powerful and their tools.

It is a great visual though, Tam.

Goober said...

I think its nothing more than a show trial to appease political demands than anything anyone is seriously pursuing.

That way they can at least say that they tried come election time. One big reason that I'm against popular elections for DAs is stuff exactly like this.

No matter what you think of the case, there was never enough evidence to justify a trial. Even if you think Zimmerman was just out trying to bag him a negro for bragging rights at his next klan rally, you have to accept that politics are the only reason this ever went to trial. There was never even close to enough evidence to justify the costs.

Anonymous said...

A reasonable person should consider it provocative and threatening to be followed in the dark by a stranger. Unless Zimmerman can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin was guilty of something worth harassing him for, by the stand your ground laws a reasonable person should agree that Martin was legitimately defending himself from Zimmerman.

Zimmerman instigated a fight, had it go bad, and then shot Martin. Zimmerman should hang for this.

Billll said...

Hendrix, anyone?

Geodkyt said...

Anonymous @ 2:38PM --

Except that by the time the confrontation occurred, Zimmerman was headed AWAY from Martin, and Martin had headed AWAY from his destination in order to intercept Zimmerman.

Plus, being followed by someone at a distance is NOT an excuse to initiate a physical confrontation.

Thus, even if Zimmerman was STILL following Martin when the physical confrontation happened, Martin would be at fault.

Scott J said...

Apologies to Tam for linking another blog onto hers but what gives Zimmerman the right to claim self defense is that by getting on top and pinning him down Martin removed his ability to disengage from the fight.

Phillip said...

I live less than an hour away from Sanford, and when I hear all the predictions of rioting and such, the only thing that comes to mind is "Yeah, right, maybe if it were winter."

It's too daggone hot here to work up enough energy to riot over something like this. Riots are held OUTSIDE, for pity's sake. When the piece of rebar you're pulling out of the scrap pile is as likely to give you burns and blisters as it is to be used against someone else, you're going to decide that you're not that outraged.

Now if the decision were to come down around 10 at night... maybe. Not likely, but maybe.

mariner said...


I can't help thinking about the huge amount of money and time being wasted,by both sides...

Umm, no.

The State of FloRida is wasting beaucoup money and time.

Zimmerman may be hemorrhaging money, but he's not wasting it.

Ferret said...

The State Attorney's office in Seminole County in partricular has absolutely no compunctions about burning through as much money as it takes to get a conviction. It's not their GD money, after all.

Still, there is a threshold where the prosecutor has to decide whether to break it off or go all-in on the case because their job may be on the line unless somebody goes to jail.

Couple that with the higher proportion of professional and tech workers in the area and they have a limited pool of easily-led jurors to choose from. Having had a front-row seat in jury selections there in the past, I can say that unless you're a dyed-in-the-wool blue collar worker or some Heathrow Hausfrau, you have no worries about being selected.

Anonymous said...

Media agitation is the reason for the trial, providing the usual suspects a cause and a platform.

If their shameless pre-conviction doesn't work, they'll be actively covering the riot...which said coverage will self-fulfill.

Classic case of creating news if there's none to cover. Evil, shameless, self-important bastards.

Ed said...

I am not an attorney and nothing that follows should be considered legal advice.

Martin's parents have already settled with an insurance company in a wrongful death suit:

If George Zimmerman is found not guilty of second degree murder and is found that he was justified in firing his weapon in self defense (inferred from the not guilty verdict), then he would be protected from wrongful death civil suits under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law (see FL 776.032 below):

From FL 776.013:
"776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

From FL 776.032:
"776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1)."

So, given a choice of possibly being beaten into unconsciousness, permanent brain damage, or death, with the real possibility of loss of your concealed weapon when you are unconscious (and as we have seen elsewhere, some mistakenly believe that the responsibility for what is done with that weapon continues after it is stolen from you) do you accept the continued beating or do you shoot? Do you hesitate because of any perceptible differences (gender, age, sexual identity, visibly identifiable handicap) between you and the person who is beating you? What is the reasonable choice? If an off-duty police officer, not in uniform and no outward indication that he was a police officer, was receiving a similar beating, would you expect him to shoot? If an elderly man was receiving the beating, would you expect him to shoot? If a woman was receiving the beating, would you expect her to shoot? George Zimmerman, on the ground taking the beating, chose wisely.

A good discussion on the use of force in self-defense, not just in Florida:

Anonymous said...

The Rodney King riots were long ago. In the age of twitter and flash mobs, I would not expect a riot to need leaders, and would expect future unrest to take place in targeted locations, not the neighborhoods of those feeling downtrodden.

Look to Egypt, Libya, Greece, etc for current examples of rioting in the modern era. The low information voter will have plenty of information via text messaging.

Anonymous said...

Check you facts anon...uprisings in the middle east have zero in common with the riots in Greece and other eu countries like...sweden for crying out loud.

The arab world is and has been at war with internal factions for centuries, while the eu is set aflame by external factions who were invited in for free ice cream and are majorly pissed that it's all been eaten.

What we are in for is a major portion of the former, with a goodly dose of the latter added in.


Anonymous said...

Chaz, you miss my point. The cause of unrest is irrelevant. With text and twitter, flash crowds erupt unexpectedly, and turn into riots. Do not expect rioters to burn their own neighborhoods when they can meet in the vicinity of a more lucrative target and riot there instead.

Anonymous said...

Anon, it is you who has missed the entire gist of Tam's post...the "cause" may be irrelevant, but in this case the catalysts (media, Sharpton, blindly ambitious prosecutors, et al) fuel the yearnin' for the burnin', and the method of spreading the word is what is immaterial. -chaz-