what was the taco truck doing there?

this is all a mexican conspiracy!!!

4/12/2012 10:43:31 AM

The taco truck is too funny

4/12/2012 10:46:20 AM

are you sure he wasn't working on that taco truck?

4/12/2012 10:47:40 AM

he may have stepped away following the smell of sweet tea and skittles

4/12/2012 10:48:46 AM

dude wanted to taste the rainbow

4/12/2012 10:56:06 AM

Quote :

"moron, your thinking is weird. you can't reach your own hip if you are lying on the ground and someone is on top of you? it is weird that IF Z was the one screaming, he would stop completely and immediately after shooting T dead? we are not robots. you have been watching too many movies."

It's very easy to restrict someone's arms if you're on top of them. If you can't see that it would be difficult to draw a gun and point it at te chest of someone allegedly pummeling you, then I don't know what to say.

I'm not saying its impossible in general, but zimmermans account and what is in the recording don't cleanly line up.

Quote :

" wait, you are saying you would continue screaming (like a vagina?) after shooting the aggressor dead, but you are insulting people for staying inside their houses because they didn't want to get involved in a street fight with 2 large people, one of whom was armed? WTF?! "

In general I'm the kind of peron that would help someone screaming for help. The bystander effect is responsible for many tragedies. It's a failing of humanity. So yes, people are lame for standing around doing nothing.

And if I shot someone I would yell for someone to help, and imagine most people would yell something. But even if zimmerman was just oddly quiet, the other aspects of his story don't it the call either.

The overarching point though is that there are several aspects of this call that don't line up with zimmermans story and you really only have to understand one of them to see why the led investigator thought Zimmerman was lying and pushed for charges, and why this new prosecutor is aiming for 2nd degree murder.

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 10:57 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 10:57 AM. Reason : N]

4/12/2012 10:56:22 AM

Regarding Zimmerman's brother and his statements in the media:


While i agree that Zimmerman's initial actions of calling the police were most likely done in the mindset of a good samaritan, it's impossible to deny (as was done on air with peirs morgan) that had Zimmerman not profiled and pursued Trayvon, this tragedy wouldn't have happened like this.


Maybe this entire story should be a reminder not to interject yourself into potentially ambiguous situations like this that you are not legally authorized or trained to handle?

4/12/2012 10:57:45 AM

Z and M were lovers

it was a quarrel

the gun was supposed to scare him

4/12/2012 10:57:46 AM

i agree, there was no reason for Z to follow T as long as T was not doing wrong (trespassing, harassing residents, vandalizing, etc). he could have just observed him, and nobody would be dead today.

4/12/2012 11:07:58 AM

Quote :

"had Zimmerman not profiled and pursued Trayvon"

How do you know he was profiling?

4/12/2012 11:09:56 AM

he did observe him

as he turned toward him and then sprinted away

so he tried to keep observing him

and they had cupcakes behind one of the houses

Trayvon didn't like the flavor of the icing and complained

so George shot him

true story

4/12/2012 11:10:43 AM

We have been over that. Multiple times.

4/12/2012 11:13:18 AM

^Then once more won't hurt.

4/12/2012 11:14:01 AM

I heard that Trayvon's mom was ringing the dinner bell and George was driving by on his taco truck and offered to find Trayvon.

is that not what happened?

4/12/2012 11:15:26 AM

I heard Trayvon was walking while eating skittles and he ran into Zimmerman walking while eating tacos. They bumped into each other and T got skittles in Z's taco or Z's taco got into T's Skittles. They fought over the new invention Skacos Tittles until one of them was fatally shot...and so the world would have to wait for the great taste of tacos and skittles together.

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 11:20 AM. Reason : I like Tittles much better.]

4/12/2012 11:18:30 AM

almost.

I heard they called it Tittles instead.

4/12/2012 11:19:38 AM

no one on the planet can ever be sure if what they know (and come to know during the trial) is the truth or not.

and that's what's unfortunate about this.

4/12/2012 11:20:27 AM

^ They will never know but have already made up their minds.

4/12/2012 11:22:11 AM

Quote :

"They fought over the new invention"

Skittles Locos Tacos?

4/12/2012 11:22:40 AM

oh my Jesus I would fight over that too

4/12/2012 11:22:58 AM

I'd fight over a choco taco

4/12/2012 11:23:41 AM

I got your choco taco

4/12/2012 11:25:08 AM

bow chica wow wow

4/12/2012 11:25:35 AM

Stylin' n Profilin'

Quote :

"In general I'm the kind of peron that would help someone screaming for help. The bystander effect is responsible for many tragedies. It's a failing of humanity. So yes, people are lame for standing around doing nothing. "

bitch you aint the type to do shit

and you say "in general" this is probably a specific situation where you would realize it is in your best interest to lock yourself in the house, stay clear of the windows, and call the police

cuz not only would you probably get smashed on, but youd be the dumbass that uses his own prejudice of the situation and start attacking the one you perceive to be the bad guy

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM. Reason : e]

4/12/2012 11:27:25 AM

type of person to post about it on the internet

4/12/2012 11:29:46 AM

Quote :

"I got your choco taco"

Made me lol.

4/12/2012 11:30:56 AM

4/12/2012 11:31:33 AM

i was just rewarded with an egg for my brilliant post

4/12/2012 11:31:47 AM

I heard Trayvon wanted a Doritos Tacos Locos from the taco van, even though they had the necessary ingredients of tacos and Doritos and a Loco Zimmerman. Zimmerman wasn't going to have any of that so he shot him.

4/12/2012 12:37:05 PM

My gut instinct on that lawyer withdrawal press conference was at least arguably right:

http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/ncclaw/?p=3495

Quote :

"Although the big news today in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case is that Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder, I want to focus on something that happened earlier in the week: attorneys Craig Sonner and Hal Uhrig held a news conference to announce that they had lost contact with Zimmerman and no longer represented him. As far as I can tell from media reports and from watching most of the full video (available here), Sonner said that “[a]s of the last couple days [Zimmerman] has not returned phone calls, text messages or emails. He’s gone on his own. I’m not sure what he’s doing or who he’s talking to. I cannot go forward speaking to the public about George Zimmerman and this case as representing him because I’ve lost contact with him.” Apparently they had last spoken to Zimmerman on Sunday, and they announced their withdrawal on Tuesday. In the interim, they said, Zimmerman had called the prosecutor’s office asking to speak to her, had called Sean Hannity and spoken to him, and had set up a website allowing supporters to make donations towards his expenses. Uhrig said that Zimmerman was “in our opinion . . . not doing well emotionally,” was “emotionally crippled,” was “probably suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome” and “may not be in complete control of what’s going on.” Sommers described him as being in “hiding,” and Uhrig suggested that he was not in Florida, though he remained in the United States. They did say that they continued to believe in Zimmerman’s innocence. A number of commentators have suggested that the lawyers’ statements at the press conference violated the rules of legal ethics. One even said that “[t]he [video] clip [of the press conference] will be useful in legal ethics classes under the heading ‘HOW NEVER TO BEHAVE.’” I don’t know anything about Florida’s Rules of Professional Conduct – the relevant portion of the Florida Bar’s website is down, but a version of the rules seems to be available here – and this isn’t a Florida legal blog. But it’s interesting to analyze the lawyers’ conduct under North Carolina’s rules. First, did their conduct violate Rule 1.6, which provides that “[a] lawyer shall not reveal information acquired during the professional relationship with a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by [specific circumstances not applicable here]”? This duty extends to former clients, Rule 1.9(c)(2), so the lawyers can’t argue that their withdrawal ended the duty. And it extends not just to information acquired from the client, but to “all information acquired during the representation, whatever the source.” Rule 1.6 cmt. 3. So the fact that the lawyers presumably learned about Zimmerman’s phone calls to the prosecutor and to Hannity from someone other than Zimmerman is irrelevant. And since the lawyers denied being in recent contact with Zimmerman, he can’t have authorized the disclosure. Therefore, nothing else appearing, their disclosure of that information during the press conference would violate the rule. The argument that Sonner reportedly has made is that “[n]othing was discussed that wasn’t already in the media.” If that’s true, it may be a defense, either on the grounds that a lawyer cannot “reveal” what is already known, or on the grounds that a lawyer is impliedly authorized to “admit a fact that cannot properly be disputed.” Rule 1.6 cmt. 5. As far as I can tell, though, it isn’t true: the lawyers spent 45 minutes talking about the case and answering a barrage of media questions. They addressed their relationship with Zimmerman (including the fact that Sonner agreed to represent him pro bono up until charges were filed, and that Zimmerman had told Sonner that he would turn himself in if a warrant issued against him), recent actions by Zimmerman, and their opinion of Zimmerman’s mental state. Much of that doesn’t seem to have been previously known to or covered by the media. So the lawyers’ conduct appears to have violated Rule 1.6. Second, did their conduct violate Rule 1.16, which governs the termination of representation? It appears that the withdrawal itself was proper, since Zimmerman apparently stopped communicating with his lawyers and started doing things, like contacting the prosecutor and the media, that the attorneys had advised him not to do. Zimmerman’s failure to communicate with the lawyers may have been a failure to fulfill an obligation to the lawyers, Rule 1.16(b)(6), and his efforts to contact the prosecutor and the media constituted taking action that the lawyers considered imprudent, Rule 1.16(b)(4), either of which provide grounds for withdrawal. However, upon withdrawal, a lawyer is required to “take all reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences to the client,” Rule 1.16 cmt. 9, and portraying Zimmerman as emotionally unstable and in “hiding” outside Florida arguably harmed Zimmerman’s position. The lawyers might have believed that an unexplained withdrawal would have hurt Zimmerman even more, so I don’t think this possible violation is a slam dunk, but one certainly could conclude that the lawyers’ actions were designed to protect their own reputations rather than to benefit Zimmerman, and if so, their conduct also violated Rule 1.16. Finally, did their conduct violate Rule 3.6, which concerns publicity and media matters? The rule prohibits extrajudicial statements that a lawyer knows or should know will be disseminated in the media and that have a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.” A comment to the rule states that it is “more likely than not” that such an effect will result from statements about “the character, credibility, [or] reputation . . . of a party.” Rule 3.6 cmt. 5. Whether or not the lawyers’ statements about Zimmerman can properly be said to concern his “character” or “credibility,” it’s reasonable to suggest that they will negatively influence potential jurors’ views of Zimmerman. The comments suggest that Zimmerman is out of control and emotionally unstable, which is exactly the image of Zimmerman that the prosecution can be expected to paint at trial. So, what should the lawyers have said? Something like this: “We are no longer representing George Zimmerman. We’re sorry, but we can’t answer any more questions about this matter.” And then, silence."

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 1:04 PM. Reason : Sorry guys, forgot to bold so you would know what to read. tl/dr]

4/12/2012 1:01:24 PM

Quote :

"In general I'm the kind of peron that would help someone screaming for help. The bystander effect is responsible for many tragedies. It's a failing of humanity. So yes, people are lame for standing around doing nothing."

After a gunshot went off? Nope. You'd be an idiot to get involved in that fight. You'd call the cops and lock the doors, like any reasonable person would.

4/12/2012 1:05:04 PM

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/12/zimmerman.affidavit.pdf?hpt=hp_t1
Affidavit of police investigators used as probable cause



Looks like the prosecution is going to say that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. I'm not sure what this means for Zimmerman's account of not seeing Trayvon, and then Trayvon running up on him from behind.

4/12/2012 6:15:34 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure what this means for Zimmerman's account of not seeing Trayvon, and then Trayvon running up on him from behind."

lolwut. So how does that jive with that 911 call where he admits to following him and is told something akin to "We don't need you to do that."

He saw him from the car.
Called 911.
Stopped following the kid when told not to.
Went home in fear for his safety.
Got back to his house.
Looked both ways before nervously getting out of the car.
Then the kid jumped out from his hiding place from behind a bush like a tiger going in for the kill.

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 6:41 PM. Reason : -]

4/12/2012 6:39:17 PM

Quote :

"1:20 p.m. ET: Trayvon Martin's mother Sybrina Fulton, who said on the "Today" show early Thursday that she believed Zimmerman's fatal shooting of her son was an "accident," has retracted those comments. "George Zimmerman stalked my son and murdered him in cold blood," told MSNBC in a separate interview. "I believe it was an accident," Fulton told Ann Curry in the initial interview. "I believe that it just got out of control and he couldn't turn the clock back.""

I'm not happy with this editing done. I had hoped this trial would be done respectably.

4/12/2012 6:59:31 PM

Is this new information that Zimmerman got out of the car at his house? Or are you being sarcastic?

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 7:00 PM. Reason : what his mom says really doesn't matter to me]

4/12/2012 7:00:04 PM

What his Mom says is important to me, because it shows the route this case will take, and the manipulation of "evidence" to get it there. I much prefer the whole "let the evidence fall where it will, and don't put a spin on it" tactic. For her to do a 180 in just a few hours means someone else was pulling those strings on her statement. And I don't like that.

4/12/2012 7:02:35 PM

If he is found not guilty, it will be worse than the LA riots, so you know damn well he will be railroaded into a guilty verdict. Now to be clear, he may very well be damn guilty, or he may be innocent, but any hope of a fair trial where he could get off is done now. Whether you like the guy or not, its a sad day in America when terroristic threats will sway a prosecutor to ensure a verdict one way or the other.

4/12/2012 7:29:56 PM

^the problem is that zimmerman could have clearly avoided the whole incident. he decided to ignore the dispatcher...so i dont feel bad for him one bit...

4/12/2012 7:31:17 PM

shut the fuck up, that has nothing to do with anything.

4/12/2012 7:34:04 PM

^


why dont you go cry for zimmerman in a corner?

and damn zimmerman has slimmed down, i guess all that guilt can starve a man.


[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 7:43 PM. Reason : .]

4/12/2012 7:38:13 PM

It's not about Zimmerman. It's about the rule of law and critical thought.

4/12/2012 7:43:21 PM

^i dont give a damn, i was stating my fucking opinion that the guy is an idiot and he brought all this on himself.

if you dont want to get charged with a crime dont go chasing kids with guns, you got it?

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 7:46 PM. Reason : who gives a fuck, it's T-Dub, not a court of law up in here]

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 7:49 PM. Reason : .]

4/12/2012 7:45:28 PM

fine then, my opinion is that you're a weak-minded dipshit and thus part of the crumbling of our society.

following him isn't what got him charged with a crime.

Quote :

"Imagine how many people would be alive if we didn't have violent reactions to stupid shit. Some guy following you around isn't an excuse to beat the guy up, no matter how sketched out you are. Equally, some kid telling you to mind your own damn business when you ask him why he's walking around "your neighborhood" isn't a reason to beat him up (or kill him) either. Realistically, even if everything else up to that point had happened the same exact way, Martin would be alive today if someone hadn't decided to get hands on""

that pretty much sums up my opinion. Z following him and keeping an eye on him was perfectly reasonable. M getting pissed and wanting him to mind his own business was likewise perfectly reasonable.

Trayvon Martin is dead not because Z was following him, but because one of the two of them bowed up and got things out of hand.

4/12/2012 7:52:42 PM

^it's about common sense, you dont go looking for trouble and not expect shit to go crazy.

society is crumbling because jackasses think they could chase kids and shot them when shit gets tough.

like i said, go cry for zimmerman outside his cell.

4/12/2012 7:56:47 PM

I don't think it's out of line to say that he didn't make a great decision following him and reporting him for basically nothing. He clearly had a wannabe cop impulse.

It's true, it has nothing to do with the murder charge one bit, but if he is indeed found guilty (and really no one has any clue about ALL the facts of the case as of now) I won't feel one bit of pity for him.

[Edited on April 12, 2012 at 8:00 PM. Reason : x]

4/12/2012 8:00:17 PM

Quote :

"I don't think it's out of line to say that he didn't make a great decision following him and reporting him for basically nothing. He clearly had a wannabe cop impulse."

This is true. THAT BEING SAID, Zimmerman had no duty whatsoever to obey what the EMS dispatcher says. The dispatcher likely has a GED and no actual knowledge of what to do in emergency situations. So, the "disobeying" the dispatcher shouldn't even be evidence used to get to probable cause.

4/12/2012 8:12:42 PM

apparently the dispatcher was alot smarter than zimmerman who thought it's a good idea to follow someone for a no real reason.

4/12/2012 8:35:44 PM

I don't care if the dispatcher was a genius who specialized in neutralizing suspicious situations. Zimmerman still had no legal obligation to listen to what he had to say.

4/12/2012 8:37:57 PM

yep, and following Martin is not what caused Martin to get shot.

4/12/2012 8:40:00 PM

^do you know what common sense is?

4/12/2012 8:41:07 PM