Did you think that Reich was the only "critical listening" wacko?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- ... s-defense/

John G:

Who does Bernie put on the stand to testify to what parts of that?

John G:

Who does Bernie put on the stand to testify to what parts of that?

I'm sure he'll pack as much into his opening statement as he can get away with (as will opposing counsel, no doubt), but eventually even Nelson is going to tell him he can't testify himself.

So he needs someone else to in order to get it in front of the jury.

Who does he pick to say what?

BDLR's anticipated story:

GZ Background: Neighborhood Watch, prior calls to police about youth burglars, Neighborhood Watch meeting, training, not supposed to pursue or carry gun, GZ lives in neighborhood, familiar with neighborhood and streets. GZ criminal justice training. Knows the law. Implication: GZ knows how to conform his story to requirements of law.

NEN call: GZ profiled TM as a criminal because he was walking in the rain with a hoodie: fuarking punk, azzholes always get away. GZ followed, even after dispatcher told him not to follow. Looking for an address excuse is BS, GZ was still pursuing TM. BDLR will reference NEN call as containing running and wind noise from running. BDLR will reference GZ's prior calls to cops, purchase of gun as demonstrating GZ's evolution into crazed vigilante who wants to stop azzhole fuarking punk from always getting away.

TM returning from 7-11: This is a big problem. I think W8 would get shredded. Chad might fold and his story is inconsistent with purchase of a single WMFJC and a bag of skittles. Not two drinks and no snack for TM. There is also the half time basketball game problem and why Chad didn't hear shooting and sirens and other commotion. The 7-11 video shows a scary hooded, pants sagging thug. 3 stooges drug deal might surface. So if I were BDLR, I would be inclined to skip the 7-11 trip and have cop testify about what was found at scene of shooting: WMFJC and candy. Not really pertinent where or why he bought items. No drugs, burglary tools, stolen property, no bag for carrying burglary tools or stolen property and no weapons. Just simple facts: We found dead kid with WMFJC, skittles, lighter, a small amount of money (no drugs or big drug dealer cash), headphones, cell phone, button. No gang tattoos, has his momma's name on his arm. Nothing consistent with any intention to commit a crime. Dead kid was staying with father and girlfriend in the neighborhood. [That simple little last part might be a problem, maybe just have cop testify that he subsequently located TM father staying in neighborhood and looking for missing kid. Don't want to open the door into why TM was staying in the neighborhood. Maybe Nelson helps out by banning mention of anything bad about TM.]

Timeline: If GZ was returning to his truck after NEN call, he would have been at his truck. GZ had no intention of returning to his truck as evidenced by telling dispatcher to have the cops call him upon arrival, rather than meet him at his truck. "have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at" GZ was hunting TM, didn't want "fuarking azzhole punk to always get away" If I was BDLR, I would make that my mantra. Try to say it as many times as possible. GZ evolved into an obsessed gun toting Neighborhood Watch vigilante, falsely profiled TM as a criminal, and consistently pursued him to keep "the fuarking azzhole punk from always getting away." Depraved state of mind.

Confrontation / Fight: TM body and phone 30 or 40 feet away from T where GZ alleges he was attacked. GZ chased TM down the T. Witness heard confrontation moving in that direction. GZ advancing, chasing fuarking azzhole punk to prevent him from always getting away. TM retreating. No GZ blood found in vicinity of T. TM has only one tiny cut on his knuckle. Inconsistent with administering MMA beating. GZ has minor scrapes on head, inconsistent with beating head repeatedly against sidewalk. GZ sustained broken nose after he chased TM down and attempted to keep him from getting away. GZ started the fight. Sybrina & Cutcher - TM was screaming for help. Poor little boy was screaming for help. [I think Nelson would be doing BDLR a favor if she banned the flaky voice experts. Cross-ex and rebuttal would be extremely ugly, and would make it appear that BDLR is engaged in a desperate attempt to BS the jury. Don't put Tracy on the stand for voice ID. Just Sybrina and Cutcher.] I would also call W 6 so that the jury won't be surprised later, dark, not sure who was screaming for help, guy in red was on the bottom, but didn't see or hear blows struck, didn't hear head hitting sidewalk. Austin saw somebody on the ground, doesn't know anything else, didn't see anybody on top throwing blows, didn't hear blows or head hitting sidewalk.

Medical / Gunshot: Kid is dead, shot in the heart by Z's gun. Shot placement intended to kill, not merely disable or stop attack. GZ shot to kill.

Aftermath: GZ astride TM, holding his hands apart, down, still trying to prevent the fuarking, azzhole punk from trying to get away. GZ still obsessed, depraved: keep fuarking azzhole punk from trying to get away. Depraved Neighborhood Watch vigilante gone wild. Not trying to help TM, not lying or sitting on ground as if he had a serious head injury or had sustained repeated blows to the head. GZ lucid and nonchalant, tells neighbor to call wife and tell her he just shot somebody, tells cop he shot the kid. No big deal, not agitated or distraught or dazed or confused. [BDLR has already filed motion to exclude GZ's "I was screaming but nobody would help." as a self-serving statement. This is a very important motion, imho.] GZ declined medical treatment beyond cleaning up blood from superficial abrasions.

Then rest and see if defense puts GZ on the stand. Cross GZ with inconsistent statements if he testifies. Make him look absurd. You've lived in the neighborhood for how long? You are Neighborhood Watch and regularly patrol neighborhood. You have previously called police numerous times, yet you still don't know the names of the streets? Serious injury? Fear for your life? You thought you were sustaining life threatening blows to the head, but you refused to go to the hospital. Isn't it true that you had determined in your mind that TM was a "fuarking punk" ? Isn't it true that you had determined in your mind that TM was an "azzhole who always gets away" ? Isn't it true that you had determined in your mind that TM was a criminal intending to commit a crime in the neighborhood? Isn't it true that you called the police because you believed in your mind that TM was a criminal intending to commit a crime in the neighborhood?

It might be good to see Chip... do a "Chip" on it.... point by point counter argument

It might be good to see Chip... do a "Chip" on it.... point by point counter argument

The counter argument is that there is no evidence that GZ started the physical conflict and that the location of the physical evidence corroborates GZ's statement that he was attacked by TM at the T while returning to his vehicle. Following TM to attempt to maintain visual observation (as arguably requested by NEN dispatcher) is not a crime. Self-defense does not require actually suffering serious physical injury, but rather reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Basically the position taken by the SPD from the outset: GZ should not have been charged in the absence of probable cause.

I just don't think that adding a bunch of absurd easily rebuttable BS (W8 and voice experts) strengthens the state's case.

It take it that the Defence can introduce George's version of events via LE witnesses to interviews with GZ... including video of LE interviews and "re-enactment" etc?

George's version of events might come in through his recorded statements under a Florida statutory "past recollection recorded" exception to the hearsay rule.

DCA 5 case:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district- ... 31633.html

May 20, 2013 at 9:31 am

I know that the State will try to offer some scenario regarding what happened, and that scenario will ostensibly meet the three-pronged test for second-degree murder. But, without Witness 8, what actual evidence does the State have to prove their scenario is correct.

A scenario is not legally sufficient, and the jury instructions will read accordingly. So even if Nelson fails to acquit due to lack of evidence, and even if the jury fails to acquit on self-defense, and convicts on second-degree murder, that conviction would absolutely get overturned on appeal, if the State fails to produce any evidence.

Without Witness 8, the State simply has no evidence about what happened after Zimmerman hung up the phone with NEN, and before the witnesses’ 911 calls began. (Well, there’s GPS and ping-log location data, but the State is mysteriously withholding that evidence; I can’t imagine why…)

May 20, 2013 at 9:52 am

One of the things that really bothers me about this case is myself knowing that had I been in the shoes of the accused, faced with the exact same situation of a stranger moving quickly towards me in the dark even without also hearing threatening language from them, they would have been shot by me several times even before any battery began. On closing the distance to “danger close” in those circumstances, I would have been pulling the trigger, not talking or reaching for a phone. So every argument about the extent of injuries as being too much emphasized as a significant factor for argument is entirely irrelevant to me personally, since I know what I would do. Most firearm owners are disinclined to engage in hand to hand combat as a first response, and that happens only after running out of ammunition. There seems to be a really bizarre misconception by the general public what threat level constitutes an assault to a reasonable person, and what level of response to such assault constitutes lawful self defense. The wrong ideas that too many people have about common sense and polite interactions with other people particularly in an environment of darkness where it is one on one, is an absence of situational awareness that will get them killed, leaving their estate and next of kin to do all the complex legal analysis about why that damn fool got shot dead. Self defense is not something which must be a last resort and last ditch effort to protect oneself, and that is not what the law says about self defense. It is better to be polite to other people and not make stupid false moves that can get another person reacting defensively to a perceived threat. Because once that somewhat nuanced threshhold for action has been passed, that person who reasonably believes they are threatened has a legal right to use deadly force. They don’t have to wait to be a victim of a battery first before making up their mind to shoot, and most never would wait that long. Based upon a lot of the opinions expressed by ignorant people, it is recognized that the lack of manners and lack of survival conscious common sense they show themselves, when they declare how much they identify with the deceased, then they are saying loud and clear they are stupid enough to get themselves killed the same way for equally stupid threatening behavior to which anyone could legally respond using deadly force. There must be a “stupid gene” that many people have just inherited.

Heck, use them all. I want to see BDLR flapping his wings and saying that because George said "more like skipping" that means he is lying. West will slaughter him on that.

May 20, 2013 at 9:52 am

snip

There seems to be a really bizarre misconception by the general public what threat level constitutes an assault to a reasonable person, and what level of response to such assault constitutes lawful self defense.

snip

May 20, 2013 at 9:31 am

I know that the State will try to offer some scenario regarding what happened, and that scenario will ostensibly meet the three-pronged test for second-degree murder. But, without Witness 8, what actual evidence does the State have to prove their scenario is correct.

A scenario is not legally sufficient, and the jury instructions will read accordingly. So even if Nelson fails to acquit due to lack of evidence, and even if the jury fails to acquit on self-defense, and convicts on second-degree murder, that conviction would absolutely get overturned on appeal, if the State fails to produce any evidence.

Without Witness 8, the State simply has no evidence about what happened after Zimmerman hung up the phone with NEN, and before the witnesses’ 911 calls began. (Well, there’s GPS and ping-log location data, but the State is mysteriously withholding that evidence; I can’t imagine why…)