Scruit

Apparently they can't open the evidence locker so they can't have the ME testimony yet - they are forced to hear the mom's testimony now, then close with ME.

He asked some relevant questions, seeking to establish that her identification of M's voice in the 911 call tainted the other people in the room... But it was nothing but awkwardness when he was trying to get the mom to hypothesize about the circumstances under which M might have caused his own death. You can't rub salt into a mother's wounds in front of a jury full of mothers...

Defense cross needs to be very delicate here. And I don't like some of their questions. How the hell can he ask he if she 'hoped' she hear her son screaming. That's opening the door to some emotional re-direct.

Huh. Only one actual question for the mom - identify the voice. No further questions, subject to recall. Wierd. What are they up to?

M's mom is on the stand first. There goes the theory of having her wrap up the prosecution testimony, leaving an emotional taste in the juror's mouths as the case ends. They still haven't heard from the ME that performed the autopsy, so this can't be the end of the case.

Strange. Nancy Grace is usually so calm.

My son knows that a crash could kill him but of course he cannot fully comprehend that yet. Having said that, I'm not raising him in a bubble, or wrapped in cotton wool. He has been on my bike, been climbing, camping, horse riding, karate (green belt) and all kinds of other dangerous stuff. Nothing I do will guarantee he lives to a ripe old age. Protecting him like an expensive porcelain sculpture will ensure he grows up to be a pussy, though.

There's plenty of speculation that can be done. It's perfectly plausible that Z tried to apprehend M and got the worst end of that confrontation. I'm sure the prosecution will push that theory. Still, absent any evidence of that, the jury cannot convict for that.

My witness list addresses the aspects of the prosecution's case that I see as the most likely to lead a juror to think Z was the bad guy. 1) Z's MMA instructor. To testify about the amount of training Z had and the level of proficiency he attained. Also discuss the decline in proficiency once training has stopped. Discuss the reality that even a trained fighter can lose out if they are sucker-punched. Hypothesize that Z must not have been in a fighting posture when his nose was broken otherwise he could have blocked, suggesting that Z was not expecting a fight. (If he was not expecting a fight then could he really have been the attacker?) Also give testimony to put the jury in the mindset that at the time of the assault Z could not have been expected to make a rational determination of the extent of his injuries. Possibly give a live demonstration of the mount position and show how hopeless it is for the guy on the bottom. Be ready to explain why Z may not have used his trained mount escapes. 2) Z's CCW instructor, or a CCW expert. (Ayoob?) Testify as to the choice of gun, ammo and carry condition (one in the pipe) as being appropriate for self defense. Clearly show that carrying a Kahr PF9 with no round in the chamber is a terrible idea. Explain why a CCW holder would carry a gun going to the store. "Normalize" carrying the gun everywhere. Make the jury understand that carrying a gun does not make you an attacker. Put it in the jury's minds that carrying the gun in this case is perfectly normal. Explain that phrases like "Unholstered" are NOT police-talk, and that normal gun owners use that phrase. 3) Target or credit card representative. It was suggested that Z goes to target every week at the same time. If this is accurate then have a records custodian from Target or the cc company/bank bring records, receipts, etc to show this is true. Show that Z's reason for being outside was not some kind of vigilante patrol, but was his normal shopping routine. 4) Police officers involved in prior arrests in the neighborhood that were attributed to observant witnesses. Show that the TM case was just yet another in a long line, and that it was handled in the same way and prior successful arrests (the stucco guys, etc) Have them testify about the correct way to contact the police under those circumstances (non-emergency number) and provide updates. Head off the prosecution cross about "Are you supposed to chase" by asking those questions yourself, eliciting the appropriate response then follow up quickly with; "Are you aware of any information that would indicate that Z chased?" etc. The goal is to show that Z's actions in calling the police are consistent with a conscientious resident looking out for his neighborhood. 5) Zimmerman himself. AHAHAHHAAHAHAHAH. Just kidding. He has already testified several times by proxy (video, police testimony, his friend's testimony) with no risk of cross. 6) An expert on victims of violent crime. Testify as to the fact when someone is the victim of a violent crime the kind of inconsistencies in the stories that Z told are expected and not evidence of lies. 7) Police recruiter/academy type. Testify about what a "Wannabe" is, and how that person is different from a "want to be". Explain how wannabes think they are already cops by driving ex-police crown vics with the wigwags still working and customize the car to look like an unmarked police car. Differentiate between the scary wannabe and the conscientious resident. Distance Z's actions from the "wannabe" image the prosecution is trying to suggest Z is. Ideally you want this person to testify that carrying a gun and reporting a suspicious person is not being a wannabe, nor is getting out of the truck when the dispatcher asked where M was going. 8) There was some friendship between the mom and someone in a position of authority over the case - I'd like to expose that to show the investigation originaly ruled self defense until nepotism/favoritism/PR made them file charges anyway Can't think of any more right now, except for potentially crossing Sabryna Fulton (M's mom) in a manner that would open the door for testimony on M's bad behavior and how it might contribute to him attacking Z. Closing: I want to see a picture of TM as he was the night of the shooting. Start off with a poster-sized picture of the happy smiling 12yo M and teear off the top layer to reveal the current sized full grown M. Avoid pics that show guns/drugs etc and other ruled-irrelevant factors (*unless mom opens that door) and argue that Z was not attacked by an angelic cherub-faced smiling 12yo, but by a full grown teenager who was ready, willing and fully capable of leaving him for dead on the sidewalk.

OK, armchair lawyers... You are tasked with defending Zimmerman. The prosecution is about to rest (they will probably call one or two filler witnesses then time it so that jury goes to their weekend sequestration with M's mother crying on the stand as the last image in their minds.. Think of football coaches managing the last minutes of the clock) What witnesses do you call? What do you ask them? Consider the risk that they have to be cross-examined by the prosecution.

You wanna be a chew toy - knock yourself out. Good luck using that gun when you are being rag-dolled by that dog. Luckily the law says you don't have to be bitten to use deadly force, and the standard for dogs is to prevent "harm", so he's legally in the clear.

So if the officer was wrong for stopping the guy then he should just allow himself to be bitten? What if they were right to detain the man? They accuse him of interfering with the scene they were already working by yelling and continually taking the officers' attention away from the folks they were already detaining. Considering they had rifles out, the folks they were already detaining must have been pretty dangerous?

You cannot assume the cop has any such extensive knowledge of rottweiler behavior. Nor can you assume the cop does not have different experiences based upon his prior interactions with dogs that would make him act more defensively.

If you got the dent removed then would a dab of touch-up be discreet enough?

Dings are easy. Chips typically mean paint.

duplicate

duplicate

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conniption Definition of CONNIPTION: a fit of rage, hysteria, or alarm <went into conniptions>

What is a knibshit? Did you mean a conniption? One day I saw a man standing at the end of my BACK garden looking at my son who was about 4 or 5 at the time. The area he was standing was right on the line between my property and an area of swampy wasteland. I walked out into the garden to get a closer look and once the guy saw me step out the door he set off running towards a building that is owned by the same person who owns the wasteland. A check on familywatchdog identified that an employee of the business there was a registered child sex offender. I don't believe that child sex offenders* can be rehabilitated. Life in prison is the only reasonable course of action. (* = I make a huge distinction between a grown person who victimizes a prepubescent child versus a case in which the "victim" and "offender" are close to the same age and in a consensual relationship)

From: http://dogbitelaw.com/legal-rights-of-rescuers-who-incur-dog-bites/self-defense-when-a-dog-attacks-a-person.html I am not not presenting this as THE definitive legal authority, but assuming this is accurate for the sake of this discussion.... The level of risk posed by the dog that justifies deadly force is not is not "equal of lesser force", nor is it "deadly force". It is the much lower standard of "harm", with a little sprinkle of "reasonable" for good measure. Examining the factors listed: a) Did the dog's action lead the officer to believe that the animal would inflict harm? I believe so. b) Was the destruction of the dog reasonable compared to the level of harm it was was apparently about to inflict? Considering even a good chomp on the hand can be life-altering injury, I have to say I believe it was reasonable. Even worse, the dog could have continue to attack and maul him much worse, but that is speculative - it could have snapped at the air and then withdrawn - also speculative. Judging by the evidence before us, I believe the level of harm the dog looked like it was about to inflict warranted the immediate cessation of the dog's attack using deadly force. c) Did the officer believe that the only way to stop the harm was to destroy the animal? This is a sticky point because at the exact moment the officer was lunged at the gun was in his hand and he had no change to transition to another weapon. His options then were to shoot, evade, get bitten or hold his ground and hope the dog didn't bite. I do agree that the dog was present (and displayed a lunge already) for long enough that the officer should have had time to choose a less lethal weapon *IF* one was available to him, and it WOULD have been effective without exposing him to greater harm. So, should he have had OC in his hand for the second lunge? Or a taser? Or an asp? I don't know, and would defer to the opinions of people who know much more than I do about defending dog attacks. Another way to judge this case... If you are out with your CCW and this dog lunges at you like that, would YOU shoot it? I would.

Questions: 1) What hypothetical charge would he invoke "self defense" as a defense against? Animal cruelty? Vandalism? 2) Does he have to be in fear of being killed to use self defense, or does he just have to be in fear of "Death or serious injury"? 3) Does he have to allow himself to be bitten to justify the attack, or can he preemptively defend himself?

People are issuing death threats against the officer, all police officers, the department etc. In fact, an unrelated local business who happens to have an employee of the same name as the public information officer (?) at the police department is receiving death threats from people who have obtained their phone number thinking it is the police department.

The standard by which you can use deadly force against an animal is much lower than with a human. If the officer thought he was going to be injured then he was entitled to use any force to stop it. There is a reasonableness test in there too, but he doesn't have to fear death to use deadly force. Did the officer have OC? Did he have a taser? Did he have time to transition from his sidearm to another weapon when the dog lunged the second time? SHOULD the officer have reached for a less-lethal weapon when the dog lunged for the first time so that he had his less lethal option ready to go? What if he missed with the taser,or it was otherwise ineffective, given that he doesn't have a second shot? What if he missed with the OC? What if he missed with his sidearm and struck a bystander? Why didn't he release the (compliant) detainee to get control of his dog? What if he HAD released the detainee only for the detainee to run, or even sic the dog on the officers? How do you spell "sic" when it comes to ordering a dog to attack someone? All valid questions.

Thanks for this still frame - it very clearly illustrates the actions of the dog at moment the officer chose to shoot.

I don't have a problem with the officer shooting. There may be discussion surrounding whether they should have detained the man in the first place and I have no information on that - but in terms of responding to the dog lunging I would say the officer did what he needed to do to stay safe. The 3 follow-up shots may cause some heartburn, but to me they were close enough to the first shot to be part of a single defensive action wherein it was reasonable to assume a single shot may not stop the dog. All in all, horrible situation and I feel for the dog and owner, but the dog was placed in a situation where it clearly made a threatening lunge at a person and that person (officer or not) had the right to stop the dog using deadly force.