Posted on 07/03/2013 11:00:28 PM PDT by Red Steel
Edited on 07/04/2013 3:10:35 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
George Zimmerman's team plans to put on "a lot of witnesses," defense attorney Mark O'Mara told WKMG-Channel 6 Tuesday night.
Those witnesses will include family members, friends, neighbors and an expert on a timeline for the night Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, O'Mara told Tony Pipitone.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
You know what? I think most people are past being afraid of speaking their minds. Just don't slander anybody or threaten violence.
Do you remember where on Martin they found zim DNA? I saw the testimony, but too many tests for me to remember.
“this was also explained by the specialist because the gun surface was too hard”
The gun specialist go the trigger-pull question wrong when asked what Zimmermans pistol pull was and if it was within factory spec’s. Zimmerman was packing a double/double semi and the “specialist stated that it pulled 4.75 lbs. she also stated that was within Normal factory settings. Actually, virtually all double/doubles are set between about 7~ 10 lbs. most singles such as the 1911 and its variants are factory set around 3.5 ~ 4.5 lbs. the defense did not challenge this, probably not a big deal anyway as most folks care less about this statistic.
I just hope that the defense not rest its case until the truth about the DeeDees comes out.
It's not her fault. The police department issues the ribbons, and they admit to using WWII surplus ribbons from the army/navy store.
It is hard to believe I know, but it is certainly not the officer's fault.
“being on three jury’s recently, young folks are the worst”
I’m with you on that. I sat on a 3-week trial in Ventura, CA, where more than half the jury were in their early 20s — arrogant, liberal, shallow, stupid, mouthy, and ready to take on the world. It was one of the most awful experiences of my life. In the jury room there was more discussion of, and more weight was given to, the way-cool high heels of one attorney, and the extreme goober-like appearance of another attorney. Those issues actually impacted their decision; facts were not a big consideration.
“GZ has made a statement thar TM tried to take the gun from him.”
I believe that what GZ actually said was that TM “grabbed FOR” or “grabbed AT” the gun. If so, then he most likely didn’t actually touch it.
The State's witness was NOT ordered or forced to wear them by any regulation. She WANTED to wear them, perhaps to influence the jurors as to her credibility...and therefore she was a faker twice over.
The ribbons, many from WW2 seventy-some years ago, were NOT "appropriated from military designs"....they are GENUINE military service ribbons that somehow find their way to military surplus stores....perhaps the DOD cleaning out stockrooms.....or the surplus stores bought them from pawn shops. Old ribbons, medals and uniforms are often purchased for Halloween costumes, collections, etc.
But the CONTEXT in which this State's witness wore them is wrong....as evinced by the outrage of vets across the country when they saw her on TV.
The rest of your post is incorrect in so many aspects that I don't have the time or desire to parse it.
Needless to say, the Sanford PD has put an immediate stop to such misleading displays of U.S. military ribbons being worn on PD uniforms by some cops in its department.....and the Chief is taking steps to produce the department's own legitimate service awards in lieu of issuing 'stolen honor' ribbons bought second-hand at the Army-Navy surplus store.
Leni
but the jury will never know this.
like that doctor wearing the i voted sticker.
She was not ORDERED by her superiors to wear the WW2 and other ribbons. It was HER choice.
So why was it her superior's fault....or the "department's" fault...alone?
In actuality, it was HER fault, enabled by a faulty and unofficial departmental conceitery.
That's why the error in judgement is being swiftly rectified by the Chief as we speak...er, type.
I, myself, certainly wouldn't be so presumptuous or devious as to wear military awards issued for bravery, combat, etc. in a war that took place before I was even born. I would display them in a place of honor in my home, for example, but not on my own chest....and certainly not in a courtroom or on national TV.
They were worn by the State's shill witness to lend "creds" to her testimony, nothing more.
Leni
As I stated in my initial post, I had not seen any showing that the ribbons were unauthorized. To be honest - I still have only seen your assertion.
Assuming your assertions are true, then the police officer should be reprimanded to the fullest extent allowed by the Sanford PD operating procedures. Wearing an unauthorized ribbon on a uniform is certainly a punishable offense.
You state that the “PD” bought the ribbons. Does that mean that the department purchased them, or that the officer did? If the department did, then how did the officer end up with them? In your last paragraph you state that the chief is “taking steps to produce the department’s own legitimate service awards in lieu of issuing ‘stolen honor’ ribbons”. That sounds like the officer was given the award by the department - which is the crux of my position.
Can you provide a link to a story that shows that the ribbons are actual ribbons awarded to a soldier that found their way to a surplus store and were subsequently purchased and worn by the officer?
Your account is the only one I have seen that alleges the ribbons are unauthorized, although I have read several threads where the ribbons’ military background was identified and cited as a problem.
I’m sorry that you feel my conditional response was so full of error that it is unworthy of parsing, but I am trying to understand the entirety of the situation.
Both had tons of armed volunteer employees on the rooftops during that time....being a customer of L.A. Cold, I could never quite get 'confirmation' that they also had paid sharpshooters uptop.
I guess FLA laws are different than Indianas'.
'Separation-of-witnesses' means that anyone to be called as a witness in the case cannot be in the courtroom during the testimony and arguments of other witnesses.
Why are the thugs parents even in the room? ................................................ FRegards
Wearing miltary medals and ribbons and such are NOT illegal on police uniforms, or my sweat shirt, for that matter. Just don't wear ones you haven't earned on your uniform if you're in the military service. That's a no-no.
If you haven't perceived the gist of my too-numerous and detailed posts on this matter, I'm sorry. I don't have time to spend on everything you manage to bring up. Plus I don't want to spam this thread with long, drawn-out discussions that lead nowhere.
If I read anything more on this subject I'll certainly ping you. Or maybe you can write to the Sanford police chief for his explanation.
I think the article linked to this post pretty much covered the subject, maybe not as deep as you'd like....but enough to illuminate most thinking people on why the State's shill witness won't wear those ribbons on her uniform again when testifying on the stand.
Thanks for the intereststing debate.
Leni
Capt. James McAuliffe with the police department in Sanford, Fla., told Marine Corps Times on Wednesday that they immediately suspended their current awards system and will no longer use Defense Department ribbons when honoring their police officers.
The ribbons were authorized - but the policy is now changed. That matches my assessment of the probable situation. The officer was not "faking" anything.
The problem lies with the department, not the specific officer. She was within her department's guidelines for use of the ribbons.
I have to get on a plane for an international trip. Have a good day, FRiend.
Yes, this photo suggests that one should get a rifle, before buying a handgun.
Again, does she look likes she is old enough to be a WWII vet?
There will very probably be a motion to dismiss, but BEFORE the defense begins its arguments. However, the Judge appears to be bought and paid for, so it will most probably be turned down.
After recent events in Egypt, they may re-think that.
Manslaughter is not a verdict that can be brought in this trial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.