My Greatest fear will come with the Zimmerman verdict

[Skookum]

I haven't read anything that resembles 'whining', nor do I see how anyone posting here can keep forum readers in the dark.

My reference to whining was boz's repeated claims, in the last Zimmerman case thread, that the case had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.  To my knowledge, neither the 2nd Amendment or racism were argued in court, but it has been obvious from the start that politically and societally, both have been issues.

It is the locking of the prior two threads that kept readers of this forum in the dark, and I assume boz's whing contributed to the lockdown.  If forum management tells me otherwise, I will be happy to admit my error.

All I've seen is people presenting their opinions, in a civil and respectful manner; which is what a FORUM is for.  If you can't stand being disagreed with, or even questioned, start a blog where you can have complete control over what is posted and what is not - Oh wait, isn't that what you're complaining about now?

You, for example, based an opinion rooted in lies spread by a corrupt media and race grievance industry for nearly a year and a half.  I believe I corrected your false assumptions.  If you need more information, I shall be happy to provide it.  I don't assume anyone here is stupid, but lack of knowledge is something we all suffer from and is a condition easily remedied.

As an applied scientist I'm questioned and disagreed with constantly, something I don't run from, because it comes with the job.  I also know that pointing out lies, false assumptions, and flawed logic in no way constitutes an insult, although liars, manipulators, and the illogical like to portray it that way.

A position that must be defended with insults, name calling and cries of foul play is denied the opportunity to stand on its own merit by the very person presenting it.

Because I am defending my position with facts, law, and logic your statement is irrelevant.

[Grendel]

I note that your persistent whining likely played a role in keeping readers of the CZ Forums in the dark prior to and during the trial ? good job.

No need to assume, boz.  You could just read the post and know what it says.  But, it's nice of you to admit you post while uninformed.  How liberal of you.

This may be the most immoral, moronic comment I've ever read on a firearms website.  Please tell me the dog wrote it, not Bob.

I am not going to repeat myself. I would like you to refrain from making the type of comments quoted above. Your opinion on the facts is valued, your need to attack the poster, rather than the argument that disagrees with your view is not.

It's quite a simple request.

[Skookum]

Skook, if you actually read the posts in these threads, I don't think you'd find a lot of disagreement.  It seems like you instead read about 4 words and then try to jump all over some minor issue (e.g., me assuming it's a blog, which it was) and fling around a bunch of insults.

boz, I read before I post.  The only person here that has admitted not reading before posting is you ? fact, not insult.

It's also worth noting that the blogs you're copy/pasting still don't tie the merits of the GZ case to the 2nd amendment (probably because the blogger knows better).  I don't think anyone ever disputed that there could be a general backlash or public opinion battle over this incident.

My first post of the previous Zimmerman thread, started on June 3 and locked by mbott on June (http://www.czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=56383.45), I included the announcement by Prof. Jacobson of Cornell Law School, the founder and owner of Legal Insurrection, that the self-defense lawyer, Andrew Branca, would be covering the trial.  In that announcement Prof. Jacobson said the following:

The Zimmerman trial is the trial of the year because it combines not only the facts of the death of a young man, but also the circus over race relations and 2nd Amendment rights created by prosecutors, the Martin family attorneys, social and traditional media, and political groups with an agenda.

You replied 37 minutes later arguing that it wasn't a 2nd Amendment case.  I assume you posted without reading why Prof. Jacobson says otherwise.  Feel free to take it up with him.  I'm sue you would be welcomed at Legal Insurrection.

Widge doesn't seem to object to the case being discussed here, so you could take it up with him, too.

Zimmerman's lead defense attorney, Mark O'Mara saw it as a 2nd Amendment case, or he wouldn't have asked prospective jurors about their views on the subject:  http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-jury-selection-day-nine-wrap-up/.

And, Al Sharpton, who also saw it as a 2nd Amendment case:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NpFZ_lhOss



 But that's not a direct tie-in to the merits of the criminal charges considered during the trial, which is what people were saying in the other thread.  If you listened to the trial, it's pretty clear they weren't talking about the 2nd amendment and the Constitution.  All that said, if Newtown didn't result in new regulation/legislation, I'm skeptical the GZ incident will, regardless of how much the media misrepresents it and hypes it up.
[/quote]

[skipper]

Skook, typical MSNBC garbage which is the reason it is the lowest rated tv net work in the country. Al Sharpton one of the top master race baiters would be out of business and a poor man if it wasn't for the white on black situations that he could exploit and lie to his followers to create an illusion for a media circus. It would be interesting to know how much money he has made off the TM shooting while traveling around stirring up his believers while also passing the trash can for donations. He along with others have not helped race relations, but why would he and his type care for it is the way they make their living.

As we have all gotten lathered up over this media circus, I hope Boz is right, nothing will change except Sharpton's banking account. 

[bozwell]

My reference to whining was boz's repeated claims, in the last Zimmerman case thread, that the case had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.  To my knowledge, neither the 2nd Amendment or racism were argued in court, but it has been obvious from the start that politically and societally, both have been issues.

It is the locking of the prior two threads that kept readers of this forum in the dark, and I assume boz's whing contributed to the lockdown.  If forum management tells me otherwise, I will be happy to admit my error.

I suppose I should point out that, when you say trial of the year on a given legal issue, I tend to assume that you're referring to the actual legal issues relevant to the trial.  As the US Constitution has nothing to do with a Florida murder trial, I took a contrary position.  It's arguable that this case has civil rights implications as well, but I would take the same position if someone posted this was the "Civil Rights Case of the Year".

Now, if your point was that there could be 2nd amendment implications because the media and political figures were creating a circus out of the case, then we'd be in 100% agreement.  I think it's just hard to see what your point is when your posts are simply pasting in blogs, videos and the like, and then adding some insults calling me ignorant, liberal, attacking trivial things like me assuming you're copy/pasting a blog, etc. - rather than actually explaining your position. 

If you simply said the 2nd amendment wasn't a legal issue directly involved in the trial, but the case could have 2nd amendment repercussions due to the national attention the case was receiving (including certain elements of the media clearly misrepresenting certain aspects of the case) - then we would have been in complete agreement.

[Grendel]

Gentlemen: Move on from the past and in future confine yourselves to the facts concerning this case. I have dealt with the Ad Hominem aspects and I do not want to see any further reference to it.  I will not say this again.

[Skookum]

The racists are claiming Zimmerman's rescue was staged?  How much would one have to get paid to roll one's vehicle over along a highway with one's wife and two children in it just so GZ can look good?

[Skookum]

Stand Your Ground: The ?New? Self-Defense Doctrine That?s 136 Years Young
Legal Insurrection
Posted by Andrew Branca
Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 8:00am
? http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/stand-your-ground-the-new-self-defense-doctrine-thats-136-years-young//#more

Much has been made lately of the self-defense legal doctrine of Stand-Your-Ground, mostly for political purposes unrelated to any actual legal application of the doctrine (for more on this, see here: Stand-Your-Ground: Gun Control Zombies Exploit Grieving Black Community).

Stand Your Ground Does Not Make it Legal to Just Kill on a Whim

Those denouncing Stand-Your-Ground characterize it as something ?new,? a misguided initiative adopted in recent years by state legislatures that has now been clearly demonstrated to have profoundly negative unexpected consequences. ?Why, under Stand-Your-Ground you can shoot and kill someone just because! And it?s totally legal!?

This has become the common refrain of the pro-thug crowd who now begrudgingly concedes that Zimmerman had to be acquitted based on the facts and the law of the case?but the problem, they say, is not the thug, but the law.

Justifiable Killings Spiked in Florida After SYG Adopted ? Self-Defense is Good

But are the consequences of Stand-Your-Ground either negative or unexpected? FBI data shows that there was an increase in justifiable homicides in the aftermath of Stand-Your-Ground, from an annual average of 13.2 during the period 2001-2005, to an average of 42 during 2006-2012. But isn?t that a positive and expected consequence of Stand-Your-Ground?

After all, a homicide that has been ruled justifiable is, by definition, one in which the person who killed was justified in doing so. Under American law, that means (with very rare exception) that the person they killed was reasonably perceived to be representing an imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm. That aggressor was subsequently killed by the use of defensive force.

What alternative outcome would the opponents of Stand-Your-Ground desire? That the defending victim of the aggressor be the one that was killed? Or perhaps merely maimed? Raped, Beaten down?

Highly aggressive acts of violence carry an inherent threat of death occurring to one of the participants, but the two participants are not operating on the same moral plane. The innocent defender is right in his use of defensive force, the aggressor is not. The innocent defender did not choose the initiation of violence, the aggressor did. If death must strike one of them, it is infinitely better that it strike down the thug than the law-abiding citizen.

To put it another way, it?s hard to get too worked up about an increase in the number of justifiable homicides occurring if the right people?the aggressors who initiated the deadly fight on an innocent?are doing the dying. When that?s the case, Stand-Your-Ground is working just fine, and the justified homicides will stop when criminal aggressors stop committing acts of aggravated violence on lawfully armed citizens. It?s the criminals? call.

The Venerable ?New? Doctrine of Stand-Your-Ground

What about this concept that the Stand-Your-Ground doctrine is somehow ?new.? It?s certainly true that a number of states in the last couple of decades have adopted explicit Stand-Your-Ground statutes. Florida?s was adopted in 2005, and my neighboring state of New Hampshire just adopted their version in 2011, overriding the veto of the Democratic governor, and many other states have adopted similar legislation in the intervening years.

In fact, however, Stand-Your-Ground is far older than today?s mainstream media and racial activists?but I repeat myself?would have you believe. A quick review of my own notes shows the earliest reference to the Stand-Your-Ground doctrine dates back to when the United States numbered a mere 38 states, the Indiana case of Runyon v. State, 57 Ind. 80 (1877). In that case the court noted:

The tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed, to avoid chastisement or even to save a human life . . . [Therefore,] [t]he weight of modern authority . . establishes the doctrine that when a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in reasonable exercise of his right of self-defence, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.
(As quoted in: Of the Enemy Within, The Castle Doctrine, and Self-Defense.)

Other venerable cases supporting are found strewn widely around the closing of the 19th century: People v. Lewis (a California case from 1897), Boykin v. People (a Colorado case from 1896), Ragland v. State (a Georgia case from 1900), State v. Hatch (a Kansas case from 1896), and State v. Partlow (a Missouri case from 1887).

So, it?s pretty clear that Stand-Your-Ground has been around a very long time. Indeed, it has always been the majority doctrine in the United States, with only a minority of states adopting a generalized duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. Even today, only 17 states apply such a duty.

Why the Pendulum from SYG to Duty to Retreat, and Back to SYG?

But what about the states that have more recently gone Stand-Your-Ground, and were previously ?duty to retreat? states by either statute or court decision? Why the change? After all, the moral imperatives that argue for Stand-Your-Ground have existed in America for at least 136 years, yet these states had moved away from the Stand-Your-Ground doctrine despite these imperatives. What drove the change from Stand-Your-Ground to ?duty to retreat?? And what drove the change back again?

The shift away from Stand-Your-Ground and towards the generalized duty to retreat was predicated on the notion that all life is precious, and before a defender can take the life of an attacker he must first exhaust every other option. And sometimes they really mean every other option. You hear that sentiment expressed by the anti-Stand-Your-Ground folks today. Listen to the pro-thug faction talking about the Zimmerman case and you?ll soon hear someone lament that poor George should have exhausted his brains on the sidewalk before being justified to use deadly force to stop Martin?s vicious attack. After all, it was just an ?ass-whuppin.? Indeed, much of the State?s prosecution of Zimmerman was based on the (legally ludicrous notion) that Zimmerman?s injuries were too minor to justify his use of deadly force in self defense. (To see why this notion is ludicrous, click here: Zimmerman Update ? How Much Injury Is Required Before Self-Defense is Justified?)

So, what happened? Why the shift back?

"An Unarmed Society is an Impolite Society?

First, as is typical of liberal policies, even (especially?) when well intended, they had massive and genuinely negative unexpected consequences. A criminal who knows he can seize physical control of his immediate surroundings with no fear of death or grave bodily harm being visited upon him is emboldened to do exactly that. You get more violent aggression from the criminal element of society, not less, when you force law-abiding citizens to cede control to violent criminals. It?s Heinleins?, ?An armed society is a polite society,? turned topsy-turvy.

Duty to Retreat Greatly Facilitates the Destruction of Otherwise Solid Claims of Self-Defense

Second, the imposition of a generalized duty to retreat made defeating almost any claim of self-defense child?s play for hyper-aggressive prosecutors. In a fight for your life your attention is focused sharply on staying alive?at least, if you survived we can assume that was the case. After allocating the cognitive bandwidth to staying alive, there?s often not a whole lot left to allocate to identifying and carefully assessing the prospects for safely retreating down that particular path, or through that particular door, or behind that particular obstacle.

But in the cool, safe environs of a court room, the Prosecutor will point to ALL of these avenues of escape and demand the jury ask why not one of them were pursued?why they were not even attempted? And if he can convince them that a reasonably safe avenue of retreat existed and you failed to take advantage of it, failed to meet your generalized duty to retreat, before using deadly force, your use of that force is not justifiable under the law. Your entire claim of self-defense collapses out from under you, and instead your conduct has become an unlawful killing.

(Note: There are some duty-to-retreat states that do not entirely strip you of your right to claim self-defense if you failed to take advantage of a reasonably safe avenue of retreat. Under the doctrine of ?imperfect self-defense? they allow you to mitigate what would have been a murder conviction to manslaughter. Recall that in the Zimmerman trial George was actually facing more jail time if convicted of the ?lesser included charge? of manslaughter than if he was convicted of murder.)

States Became Fed-Up With Negative Consequences of Duty to Retreat, Switched Back to SYG

As prosecutors increasingly began to leverage this avenue of attacking self-defense claims, and society observed ever more miscarriages of justice with law-abiding defenders receiving lengthy, sometimes life-long, prison sentences because of the generalized duty to retreat, pressure gradually grew to return to the always more popular doctrine of Stand-Your-Ground.

And now you know the rest of the story.

[Skookum]

Citing George Zimmerman's Acquittal As a Reason to Repeal 'Stand Your Ground' Laws Is a Non Sequitur

reason.com
Jacob Sullum | Jul. 29, 2013 4:25 pm
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/29/citing-george-zimmermans-acquittal-as-a

Today Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin's mother, said she believed Florida's "stand your ground" self -defense law "assisted the person who killed my son to get away with murder." She did not explain how, which is hardly surprising, since George Zimmerman's defense was not based on the absence of a duty to retreat for people attacked in public places. Rather, it was a classic self -defense claim that could have been successful in any state. Fulton nevertheless insists "we have to change these laws so people don't get away with murder."

It is not hard to understand why a grieving mother might want to give her son's death some meaning by tying it to a broader cause, no matter how illogical the connection. But the leaders of the National Bar Association (NBA), the African-American lawyers' group that sponsored the event in Miami at which Fulton spoke, surely know better. They nevertheless are throwing their support behind a campaign to repeal "stand your ground" laws, citing Martin's shooting as justification. "Stand your ground laws must fall," says NBA President John E. Page. "It is time to stand up?stand up against 'stand your ground' laws and stand up in the memory of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, and so many others whose killings were carried out by gun violence and justified by these senseless laws. We must not allow anyone to succumb to violence at the hands of vigilantes who devalue human life."

When The Miami Herald 's Marc Caputo pointed out that Zimmerman could have successfully used exactly the same defense before Florida's "stand your ground law" was enacted in 2005, Page replied. "Why do you need the law then? There is a common-law right to protect yourself." But since that common-law right was all that Zimmerman needed to be acquitted, why is Page citing his case as an example of the injustices caused by "stand your ground" laws? Page's response is tantamount to admitting that his publicity campaign is based on a lie.

The shooting of Jordan Davis, which Page also mentioned, seems like a more promising example. Davis, a black teenager, was a passenger in a Dodge Durango on which Michael David Dunn, a middle-aged white man, fired at a Jacksonville gas station last year. Dunn had asked Davis to turn down the loud music playing on the SUV's stereo, which led to an argument that ended in Davis' death. Dunn claimed he saw someone aim a shotgun at him from a window of the vehicle, although police did not find any weapons. This is a case where the absence of a duty to retreat might be important, since Dunn arguably could have left the gas station instead of drawing his gun. But it is a bit premature to say that Dunn's killing of Davis was "justified" by the "stand your ground" law, since he was charged with first-degree murder the day after the shooting and has not been tried yet.

Bizarrely, the NBA statement also mentions Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old girl who was killed by gunfire at a Chicago park in January. The suspects, 18-year-old Michael Ward and 20-year-old Kenneth Williams, told police they mistook Pendleton's friends for members of a rival gang. It is true, though not widely recognized, that Illinois imposes no duty to retreat on people attacked in public places. But unless Ward and Williams plan to claim they shot Pendleton in self-defense after she attacked them, it is hard to see what "stand your ground" has to do with this case.

Enough with the phony examples.  If critics of "stand your ground" laws can find cases where people really did get away with murder because of the changes made to Florida's self-defense law in 2005, they should talk about those. When they say "stand your ground" laws should be repealed to honor the memories of Trayvon Martin and Hadiya Pendleton, they are literally talking nonsense.

And yes, it is still nonsense if you cite the jury instructions or the interview with Juror B37, neither of which shows that Zimmerman's acquittal hinged on his utterly irrelevant right to stand his ground while he was pinned to it and pummeled.

[skipper]

Now, the real story is surfacing which starts with the prosecutor. This seems to be a problem in Florida.

 
Florida Prosecutor Indicted For Falsifying Arrest Warrant against George Zimmerman:
Florida State's Attorney Angela Corey has been indicted by a citizens' grand jury, convening in Ocala, Florida, over the  falsification of the arrest warrant and complaint that lead to George Zimmerman being charged with the second degree murder of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.
The indictment of Corey, which was handed down last week (see www.citizensgrandjury.com), charges Corey with intentionally withholding photographic evidence of the injuries to George Zimmerman's head in the warrant she allegedly rushed to issue under oath, in an effort to boost her reelection prospects. At the outset of this case, black activists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who whipped up wrath against Zimmerman, demanded that he be charged with murder, after local police had thus far declined to arrest him pending investigation.
Following Corey's criminal complaint charging Zimmerman, legal experts such as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz condemned her for falsely signing an arrest affidavit under oath, which intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence consisting of the photographs showing the injuries Zimmerman sustained, and rushing to charge him with second degree murder under political pressure. Dershowitz called her actions unethical and themselves crimes (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge- article-1.1080161).
Larry Klayman, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor, a Florida lawyer since 1977, and now the "citizens' prosecutor" who presided over the Ocala grand jury said this: "The Supreme Court has confirmed that the grand jury belongs to the American people, not the three branches of government. (504 U.S. 36, 48 (1992) (quoting United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991)). By indicting Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, the people are exercising their God given rights, recognized by our Founding Fathers, to mete out justice when the political and legal establishment subverts the rule of law. Hopefully, this indictment will serve as a warning to the political and legal establishment that they are not above the law. Ironically, Corey will now be tried and likely convicted for her alleged crimes -- which resulted in Zimmerman being charged under false pretenses, now coming home to roost during Zimmerman's on-going trial. Corruption MUST NOT be tolerated, particularly by law enforcement officers who are elected by the people to serve their ends, not the law enforcement officer's political ends."

 
Sources:     http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/02/3481286/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey.html

 
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey-criminally-indicted-by-cit

 
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130702-905033.html
 

 http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2013/aug/2/angela-corey-being-sued-whistleblower-she-fired/
 

Just shows how political and racial the charges were. Does not look good for those directly involved in the prosecution. GZ may have a solid suit against Florida.





 
 
 

[Yer]

Now, the real story is surfacing which starts with the prosecutor. This seems to be a problem in Florida.

 
Florida Prosecutor Indicted For Falsifying Arrest Warrant against George Zimmerman:
Florida State's Attorney Angela Corey has been indicted by a citizens' grand jury, convening in Ocala, Florida, over the  falsification of the arrest warrant and complaint that lead to George Zimmerman being charged with the second degree murder of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.
The indictment of Corey, which was handed down last week (see www.citizensgrandjury.com), charges Corey with intentionally withholding photographic evidence of the injuries to George Zimmerman's head in the warrant she allegedly rushed to issue under oath, in an effort to boost her reelection prospects. At the outset of this case, black activists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who whipped up wrath against Zimmerman, demanded that he be charged with murder, after local police had thus far declined to arrest him pending investigation.
Following Corey's criminal complaint charging Zimmerman, legal experts such as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz condemned her for falsely signing an arrest affidavit under oath, which intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence consisting of the photographs showing the injuries Zimmerman sustained, and rushing to charge him with second degree murder under political pressure. Dershowitz called her actions unethical and themselves crimes (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge- article-1.1080161).
Larry Klayman, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor, a Florida lawyer since 1977, and now the "citizens' prosecutor" who presided over the Ocala grand jury said this: "The Supreme Court has confirmed that the grand jury belongs to the American people, not the three branches of government. (504 U.S. 36, 48 (1992) (quoting United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991)). By indicting Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, the people are exercising their God given rights, recognized by our Founding Fathers, to mete out justice when the political and legal establishment subverts the rule of law. Hopefully, this indictment will serve as a warning to the political and legal establishment that they are not above the law. Ironically, Corey will now be tried and likely convicted for her alleged crimes -- which resulted in Zimmerman being charged under false pretenses, now coming home to roost during Zimmerman's on-going trial. Corruption MUST NOT be tolerated, particularly by law enforcement officers who are elected by the people to serve their ends, not the law enforcement officer's political ends."

 
Sources:     http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/02/3481286/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey.html

 
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey-criminally-indicted-by-cit

 
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130702-905033.html
 

 http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2013/aug/2/angela-corey-being-sued-whistleblower-she-fired/
 

Just shows how political and racial the charges were. Does not look good for those directly involved in the prosecution. GZ may have a solid suit against Florida.

Thank you for this very well put together and informative post Skipper

[skipper]

Thanks Yer, I only past it on after receiving and verifying the information because of the huge interest by us gun owners in the outcome of the Zimmerman court case. As it turns out this case was tainted early on by  the "Reverends" applying political pressure and playing the race card with the help of the Florida Prosecutor. Actually this does not surprise me with the huge media coverage plus the high profile people trying to railroad GZ, which may come back to bite them.

[Skookum]

Unfortunately, an indictment by a citizen grand jury has no legal weight, but it does help draw attention to an injustice.

I think Zimmerman's wife's trial for perjury is scheduled for this month ? another case where Corey overcharged, to coerce George to cop a plea.  It should be interesting.

[skipper]

Unfortunately, an indictment by a citizen grand jury has no legal weight, but it does help draw attention to an injustice.

I think Zimmerman's wife's trial for perjury is scheduled for this month ? another case where Corey overcharged, to coerce George to cop a plea.  It should be interesting.

Too bad the citizen grand jury has no legal weight. I have to admit there is some pleasure to see GZ suing Sharpton and others for hammering him relentlessly on national tv.
Hope he wins this one:
http://www.examiner.com/article/zimmerman-s-lawsuit-against-al-sharpton-nbc-and-the-martin-family-attorneys?cid=taboola_inbound

[Skookum]

It will be sweet to see the racists at MSNBC and Crump Law settle for unspecified millions.  It will be sweeter to see it go to trial.

Shellie Zimmerman's perjury trial is scheduled to start Aug 21 ? http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/next-up-florida-v-shellie-zimmerman/.  It will be interesting to see if the State will let this go to trial, as they are asking for another ass kicking if they do.