Scruit

This video is uncensored and show a dog being shot and dying in pain. Don't watch if you're not ready for that. From what I can see: 0:00-2:12 Man with dog is standing on the edge of a large police situation, filming with a cellphone and shouting at the officers. 2:12-2:28 Two of the officers walk towards the man, so he puts in his in a car (windows down). 2:28-2:38 Man approaches officers in a compliant manner and allows himself to be cuffed. 3:00-3:09 Something escalates the situation. The officers get more rough with the guy and he starts yelling (not necessarily in that order). Dog starts barking from the car. 3:09-3:11 Dog escapes from car, runs towards the officers/man, but stops about 5' short. Police move away from the dog. 3:11-3:17 The dog sniff around there the officers were stood. 3:17 The dog lunges towards one officer (Not clear if it snapped or tried to bite) 3:18-3:21 The dog goes back to sniffing around the ground about 5' from the officers. The man tries to shoo the dog away 3:22 The dog barks / lunges towards an officer's hand, Officer shoots the dog once in mid-lunge. 3:23-3:24 The officer backs up, firing three more times. 3:25-3:35 The officer keep his pistol trained on the dog. The dog is clearly not a threat and struggles. Discuss. I'm not going to comment on the legality of the police talking to / cuffing the man as I don't know their reason for that. I'm discussing JUST the officer shooting the dog. Key questions: - Was it reasonable for the officer to believe he was about to be bitten? - If yes, was it reasonable for the officer to fire a shot to stop that bite? - Was it reasonable to fire the 3 follow-up shots? No holster-sniffers who thing the police never do anything wrong... No dog-humpers who think that dogs never do anything wrong... No anti-police types who think the police never do anything right. Stipulating to the fact the the death of the dog is tragic and would ideally never have happened... Assuming (until we hear otherwise) the the officers detaining the man was lawful... Was this a good shoot or a bad shoot?

7

I get that ANY release of info is bad - I was expanding that thought to consider the actual impact.

Then why did you ask why difference it makes?

SSN is a risk of identity theft they can mitigate with an alert on his credit file. Old address is useless because he's not there any more Current in-hiding address is where the people who are promising to kill him if he's acquitted will go to, er, kill him.

Was it his current address in-hiding where his family is? or his useless Sanford address?

Following someone does not justify getting your ass beat. It might not be smart, and it might be a likely result depending on who you follow and when, but it still does not justify said beating. The operator told Z that "We don need you to (follow)". Then subsequently asked where M was and where he was going. Z explained in an interview the night of the shooting that he was not told to stay in the car, was just told not to follow M. He further stated that he left his car to go look for a street name so he could tell the police where to meet him, not because he was following M. It's something I would consider to be a "convenient" excuse if not for the fact that he used it right after the shooting. I give extra credibility to anything that a suspect say right after the event (before he had a chance to talk to anyone except the police) compared with stuff he says much later (after he's had a chance to think of a good story). If he was chasing M then M would have a case for defending himself, but I've not seen any credible evidence of that (the lady who heard the running never mentioned it before in any prior statement or deposition - it was surprising new testimony at the trial). This is what I mean by trusting things said before the person has a chance to think of a good story. I an VERY dubious of new testimony now that was never mentioned before. The other thing in Z's favor is that that both he, and his neighborhood, had a recent established pattern of calling in tips about suspicious persons and they had discovered/prevented crimes and resulted in arrested. That pattern matched how Martin was handled. They had an arrest soon before the shooting where people in the area called in a suspicious person(s) and they followed at a distance - the police arrived and made the arrest(s),. Without the following they would have got away. The fact that Z was continuing what had proven to be an effective technique for handling suspicious persons definitely works in his favor.

Did anyone hear that big bang sound? That was Police Investigator Serino dropping a hand grenade into the middle of the prosecution case... Basically, during a police interview they bluffed Zimmerman by suggesting the event was on video. His reaction was "Thank God". The investigator said he believes that Z was honestly relieved at the thought of video of the confrontation. And this guy is a prosecution witness. The prosecution team filed a motion for some aloe for that buuuurn.

Please explain the recent changes...?? Self Defense is one of the "Standard Defenses" to all crimes that are not Strict Liability, and it nullifies the Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) that is a required part of the prosecution. I think you are referencing Castle Doctrine wherein there is a rebuttable presumption that a person who breaks in to your home or car without permission is there to do you harm. This places more burden on the prosecutor as they now have to prove that you knew you were not in danger, rather than you proving that you were. I believe the threshold is still preponderance, though... Florida goes one stop further and creates the "Stand your Ground" law which states that you do NOT have the duty to flee, and can meet deadly force where and when it is used against you. This is not relevant in this trial, though, as Zimmerman claims he had no opportunity to flee.

Saved this for a separate response There's plenty that hurt Z in this trial: - Z is on record as having taken MMA classes 3xwk in 2011. I want to know how long he trained for and how proficient he became. It makes me wonder if he should have been able to escape a mount from a lighter person. I did 6mo of jiu-jitsu and there's not a single person in our class who is 50lbs lighter than me that I cannot escape mount from underneath. The difference is that the well-trained fighters who are lighter than me will be able to capitalize on me escaping mount - that is, I may be able to roll them, but we'll land with me in am armbar or side control. If he turns out to have 2 years of MMA training then I'd ask if he REALLY felt his life was in danger. If he did MMA for a few weeks then quit then his training is already long gone. - The audio from Rachel Jeantel where Z allegedly asked; "what are you doing here?" If the jury believes this then it will go bad very quickly. - The fact that Z followed M after being asked not to. Not illegal, but not wise either. I have been in Z's shoes before reporting a crime in progress - and when I asked if I should try to stop it the cops said no, and I listened to them. - Testimony from one witness that she heard two people running, one after the other close together. Z "following" M is not a violent act that justifies M attacking Z - however if Z was "running" after M then that could easily justify M defending himself. - Z was on the bottom in some testimony, and on the top in others. It will take keen focus to separate those things. Z was on top after the shooting, and M was face down - if the testimony that Z was on top is consistent with that then Z is ok, but if any believable testimony put Z on top before then then it would be inconsistent with Z's claim that he was punched to the ground then was on the bottom from that point on. - Any inconsistency between the story he told each police officer and the version he tells now will be scrutinized. If what he told the cop 5 mins after the shooting matches all the evidence now then he's golden. If his testimony has evolved then he has some major explaining to do. - The injuries he suffered were superficial. Although you do not have to allow yourself to be seriously injured before you can use deadly force in self defense, many jurors will ask if the blows that caused those injuries could really have made him believe his life was in danger - especially someone who has "trained in MMA 3x a week" These are just the raw points, and they have been addressed at trial so far... But you asked for testimony/evidence that could hurt Z...

(I added numbers above to organize my responses) 1) I maintain two different opinions on these types of trials... Did they do it? and Will they be convicted? I vacillated at first as the evidence rolled in sporadically. Anyone who has a CCW has a different understanding of deadly force self defense than most. We understand terms like means, motive, opportunity, duty to flee, duty to not escalate. I recognized early on that in order for the shooting to be ruled self defense they would have to clearly demonstrate that Z believed M was able and willing to use deadly force and that Z was innocent in starting the fight. This is a complex case with many facets - it's like a fractal, the closer you look at individual points the more those points break out into complex sub-points... So, based on the evidence so far I have yet to see anything that refutes Z's version of events. I currently believe he is factually innocent - but am open to new evidence. I also believe that he will be found not guilty based upon the progress of the trial. 2) There are two different standards of evidence at play. The prosecution must prove Z guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". That is a very high standard. Z must prove he was acting in self-defense "By preponderance". Which means "is it more likely than not that he was defending himself." The two questions for the jury are: - "Who caused the physical fight?" Did Z do something to make M think we was under imminent risk physical harm. Following is not enough, it would have to be something like Z getting within fighting range and taking a fighting posture. If the jury believes Z caused the physical fight then they may conclude that Z is not able to use deadly force, therefore the self-defense claim fails. - *IF* the jury believes that Z did nothing illegal and that it was M that caused the fight, then they have to ask if it was reasonable for Z to fear that he was likely to die or suffer serious injury. If both of those questions qo Z's way, then he would have to be acquitted of both Murder 2 AND the lesser-included-offense of Manslaughter. 3) Even Martin's family is saying (now) that Z didn't profile M *racially*. They say he was profiled *criminally* (ie, Z assumed M was a criminal and treated him like a criminal). I'm no fan of racism. Every human is equal. I do understand that public pressure has changed the course of this case - I just hope that it's influence stops at the door of the courtroom - both ways (I don't want an innocent man to be a scapegoat based solely upon the race of his victim, nor do I want an guilty man acquitted based solely upon the race of his victim) 4) I'm English and I like tea. Haters gonna hate.

Some of the talking heads are speculating that the defense won't even put on a case - they will allow the case to rest with the prosecution - so sure are they that the prosecution's case is hopeless. The Martin family attorney said their clients are now prepared for 'any outcome' of the trial, which suggests to me that they are also recognizing how poorly the case is going for the prosecution.

The progress of the Zimmerman trial IS the topic at hand, no?

Roughly translated as "I'm not looking at the evidence, but I am making a conclusion regardless. If you don't care enough to look at the evidence then your opinion on guilt or innocence is worthless. I have been watching the liveblogs of the trials and some of the testimony live. - 2 witnesses put Z on top -- One of those said she knows it was Z on the top because the person on top was bigger and she guesses M's size from the 12yo pic on the news. M was actually 5-6" taller than Z, making M the bigger person, making her testimony support Z instead -- One said Z shot martin in the back three times. This is obviously false, rendering her testimony useless. -- One witness claimed to have not formed an opinion have any bias on the case, yet she signed a petition to "Prosecute the murderer of TM". Her testimony is now highly suspect. - One prosecution witness definitely put Z on the bottom in an MMA "Ground and Pound" based upon "the guy on the bottom had lighter skin and was wearing red" and said it was Z who was calling for help - The responding officer testified that Z said; "I was calling for help but nobody came to help" - The phsysican's assistant said that whatever Z did to stop his attack probably saved his life - Rachel Jeantel testified that she heard the scuffle start, but that was 4 minutes before the fatal shot - she cannot account for those 4 minutes. Z's story is that he went looking for a street sign or address to tell the police where he was but couldn't find one for minutes. A neighbor witness said there are no visible signs or street addresses near where the attack happened. - Z states he stopped following once the operator told him to, but then the operator twice asked him where M was, where he was going. Z stated he go out of the car to find a street address but couldn't find one until he walked to the next road over. Once he told the operator the address he walked back to his truck and M attacked him from behind.

All the evidence the jury can see is being published as the jury sees it. Take a look.

Hey Magz - interested to hear your opinion on how the trial is going...

They need to differentiate between public urination and indecent exposure. The former being not of a sexual nature. I'm ok with it remaining illegal, but nobody should be labelled a sex offender for it.

TBH, if the "victim" says it never happened then I don't care what the offense was, as long as the "victim" is not being coerced NOW into denying the crime. If the judge is happy that the crime did not happen then he's good as far as I'm concerned. He took a plea deal in 1995. That means he cannot get it overturned now regardless of how good any evidence of his innocence is. Best he can hope for is to get the "victim" to support him in a request for a pardon.

The original offense was in 1995, not related to his 6 year old daughter. The victim in the 1995 case testified that the man is innocent of what he was convicted of, and that she was coerced by police into incriminating him. The alleged offense against the daughter was by the man's 19yo son. This was proven to be lie perpetrated by the mother to create a reason why the father should not have custody.

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/Sex-offender-awarded-custody-of-6-year-old-213445461.html?hpt=ju_bn5 "The child" in this case is his own child. Bullet points from the story: - Father got sex offender status in 1995 - Mother was aware of this when they got married - Mother and father married and living in Bakersfield. Mother moved to Oklahoma after becoming pregnant with the couple's only child. They divorced in 2008, and mother had custody of their daughter - Father filed for custody after Knight stopped allowing him to see his daughter - Both the father, and the alleged victim, said the 1995 thing never happened, and that the victim was encouraged to day incriminating things against the father by the police - Mother accused of fabricating a story that the father's other son recently molested the child in order to keep custody - Judge awarded the father full custody Discuss.

I had the same situation. Snapped a rod clean in half. Put a junkyard motor of the same mileage in the car.

The OJ trial was a debacle too. In that case it was clear to see that key evidence was unreliable, multiple blood samples taken with the same swatch etc. Furhman's credibility went to crap when he denied ever using the N-word, only to have a tape of him practically singing a chorus-line of N-words on a radio show surfaced. The glove thing was a mess (I believe the glove had been stored in a manner that made it shrink). That was a case that was NOT PROVEN by the state. Same with Casey Anthony - there was definitely something dodgy going on byt he state simply failed to meet the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard. This is distinctly different from the Zimmerman trial in which the defense is ACTIVELY PROVING it's case. (and the prosecution is actively proving the defense's case too)

They were quoted as saying that the never claimed that Zimmerman *racially* profiled Martin - they have said all along that Martin *criminally* profiled Martin. That's at odds with what I have read all year - the claim was always that Z profiled M because he was black...? Is that not the case? Now they are saying that Z assumed M was a criminal and followed him, scaring M into starting a ground£ of Z, which he lost when Z shot him...? The case is falling apart like a joke car in a silent movie comedy...

I'm quite sure they'd report him as a martian if it got them more ratings.

Well, considering Zimmerman is hispanic not white, it'll be interesting to see where any rage might be directed. Hopefully people respect the decision of the court.