General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsZimmerman Prosecution Opening Statement: "F**king Punks"
Last edited Mon Jun 24, 2013, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)
The prosecutor in the case opened with the words of George Zimmerman..."fucking punks"....uncensored, on LIVE TV, REPEATEDLY!
Chuck Todd jumped in apologizing for the language, saying they needed to implement a 7 second delay.
My thoughts: People everywhere NEEDED to hear that in an uncensored way so they know EXACTLY who Zimmerman is! Good for the prosecution!!!!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)except what he could see, and he was ANGRY.
Nimajneb Nilknarf
(319 posts)Not 911.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Zimmerman to say - then it's good enough for us to hear.
If it was okay for Zimmerman to say - then it is good enough a word/phrase for us to hear.
He said it - he needs to own it - WE need to own it - and if anyone needs the vapors or salts because of the words being 'repeated' then this case is not for them.
lolly
(3,248 posts)Then that makes the prosecution's case.
It is/was an offensive statement to make about a 17-year old boy about whom nothing was known at the moment except his race and the fact that he was walking by himself at night.
So I hope it does offend the jurors.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)It does a good job of showing how on the offense Zimmerman was. He definitely decided at that moment - Trayvon was not a human being - he was a "one of them".
freshwest
(53,661 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)And had he shot from his vehicle on a public street it would have been a cut and dried drive by shooting. He has that in him.
He has it in him.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)The prosecution is coming out strong with the truth. About him getting out of the car with a fully loaded semi-automatic is very telling.
It shouldn't be censored. This is what Z said and is the reason TM is dead. Z was hunting a stereotype in his mind, not a person.
All those who have stood up for Z and slandered TM need to think who it is - and what it is - they are defending.
malaise
(269,020 posts)the seven second delay
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)we wont be able to figure it out. The whole bleeping thing is idiotic.
PennsylvaniaMatt
(966 posts)If you're watching a murder trial on cable TV on a Monday morning, you've heard swear words before...
Who the hell are they kidding!?!?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)of times he said fuck and apparently it exceeded their limit.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Unfuckingacceptable!
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)to write 'f**k' on their airplanes because it's obscene." -Apocalypse Now (1979)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...arbitrary sometimes are you?
MADem
(135,425 posts)However, to be serious, your larger point is valid. Bleeping the word doesn't make it go away, especially nowadays, when the bleep only half the word, so you can tell that it is the fu.. word, and not the sh.. word!
PatSeg
(47,475 posts)on The Daily Show. You can barely tell they've been bleeped. We really need to get over this whole "good words", "okay words", and "bad words".
There have been times when someone on TV slips up and says a "no-no" word and I often don't notice it until I see the reactions of other people.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)Romney's was best.
PatSeg
(47,475 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)About how by saying "the 'n' word" that's just white people getting away with saying nigger. And you've put the actual word in our head so "by saying "the 'n' word" you're making me say it in my head". (@ 6:13)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Words are only symbols. They are not the meaning and in fact can have multiple meanings. What's more important is the meaning. But people think that substituting a different word somehow makes things ok. For example it's not socially acceptable to say Betty and John went on a date and fucked in the back seat of their car. You can say the "slept together" in the back seat. And the n-word is worthy of a dissertation. How liberals think they are accounting for their "white guilt". But it's a giant cop-out.
I need to express more about this but I am not good at it. We liberals should be able to use words if they are not being used in a pejorative manner.
SamKnause
(13,107 posts)Chuck Todd jumped in................
I wish he would jump somewhere.
Watching MSM is like watching an ass kissing contest.
They repeat the news word for word.
Scripted and censored to perfection.
P.S. The U.S. needs to get over people using the word FUCK !!!!
P.S.S. I truly appreciate the handful of journalists that go above and beyond.
They are to be admired.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Sometimes the truth is unpleaseant to hear, but it needs to be heard EXACTLY as it happened. "Fucking punks", said by Z, goes to establish his mindset. He had judged Martin as guilty BEFORE the confrontation. Z was agressive with a confrontational mindset.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)nt
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)and the prosecution team seems willing to do it, good for them!
Nimajneb Nilknarf
(319 posts)Dash87
(3,220 posts)Fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck
I also find this odd in a society where it's okay to simulate blowing peoples' brains out on TV, not that that should be censored either.
warrior1
(12,325 posts)oh my god. telling a joke!
warrior1
(12,325 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)Not just a knock knock joke but a knock knock joke which insinuated that the jury were the most uninformed and ignorant people on the face of the planet.
Somehow I think he should spent some of that big money he's been raising on a better lawyer.
grok
(550 posts)Hard to say if he is a net plus to the defence. Not that pretty either unlike the guy opening for the persecution.
However, he is very good at laying out the facts clearly. He was the guy instrumental in getting the prosecution's expert witnesses removed.
ET Awful
(24,753 posts)Ser Illyn Payne
(sorry for the reference for those who have no idea who he is
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)Sorry for the reference as well.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)the angry guy with the gun, the one who started this by calling an innocent kid with some Skittles a punk, and who stalked him, and killed him".
I can't imagine a defense attorney that opens with something that can hang in a juror's mind like that.
I can see where he, from his reasoned viewpoint, thinks that is going to be a good way to induce questioning in a juror's mind.
But if I were the prosecutor I would thank heaven for the gift, and when I do my closing statements it would end with reminding them of that joke, and giving them a punch line they could take into the deliberation with them.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Skittles alone wouldn't have caused Zimmerman to, er, defend himself.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)jeanmarc
(1,685 posts)That's the words that often come to mind when watching Chuck Todd. I don't see a problem with the language, Chuck.
MADem
(135,425 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)commercial interruptions. Like the trial might be over at 4:30 or 5 and HLN will not be done till 9- 9:30, LOL, because they pause every 10 minutes for commercials.
Wild about Trial is usually pretty good for streaming.
MADem
(135,425 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)show the last hour or so little clip after little clip during their prime time shows. But if you catch Dr Drew, or that Vinnie Pollan at 10, by then they will have the highlights/ wrap up too. Right now HLN is probably 1 1 1/2 hours behind the live stream.
Yes, I got sucked in and watched half of the Arias trial. And wish every trial had juror questions now.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I have to say, the defense attorney is not winning me over. He's coming off as smarmy, and I don't buy his "You are getting sleeeeeeeeeeepy...." voice. I hear tension behind that 'fake calm' 'tude he's trying to project.
I didn't see the prosecutor's bit, but damn--my nervous terrier with the irritating bark could do a better job than the defense is doing right now...!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Pocket hose anyone? Yeah, they just are ending for the day now on HLN, so it's a little more than 2 hours behind.
SO JVM is doing a recap now. Se is annoying, but I missed most of it. The prosecutions opening statement was from the Assistant- and everyone's saying it's because he is very good looking and it's an all woman jury. He was very good- the opening with that bit about "fucking punks" was brilliant, and he delivered it very well.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)PennsylvaniaMatt
(966 posts)As a prospective prosecutor, this opening statement is horrendous.
A knock knock joke? That was offensive to the jury and insensitive to everyone else...He is making a mockery of the legal system
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)reflection
(6,286 posts)I had forgotten how good it was. Tomei's Academy Award was well-deserved. Fred Gwynn was excellent also.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)of the whole thing, other people won't take it seriously. Sick people.
I hope West fucked his client good with that joke, because it could have come out of GZ's mouth. Fuck the both of them.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)just to slow things down, get another year or two postponement because his client is cooked.. or maybe he's just not a capable attorney.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)24/7 coverage? Nope, they are still on Jody.
Zimmerman's lawyer is trying to put everyone to sleep by replaying the damning tape 10 times.
chelsea0011
(10,115 posts)the defenses attorney says "another thing I forgot to say". Did he even think his opening statement through? Pretty bad job he is doing.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)nevermind I found it
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The judge barred the prosecution from using the words "vigilante, profiling, and cop wanna-be". So, in using Zimmerman's own words, part of evidence on tape, he created in the jury's minds the exact image of a vigilante cop wanna-be who was profiling a black teen walking home at night.
John2
(2,730 posts)entire argument to say Zimmerman is guilty. Someone is going to use those hostile words, and all of a sudden his defense on what happened, was that he was scared of the victim? There is no evidence to say Zimmerman was afraid of Martin until after he claims he killed him. His whole confrontation with Martin, including with initial contact showed hostility towards the victim. Then you add his past history of violence, doesn't show Zinmmerman was afraid of violent encounters. Just observe his facial attitude in Court. He shows no remorse of killing anyone. He will do it again if they let him get off.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I don't know how much of his past history of violence is ruled as admissible evidence, though. Perhaps Judge can use it in sentencing phase. Of course speculation of potential future violence won't be admissible, unless part of a court-ordered psychiatric exam report.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)RepubliPunk can't stand the smell of his own scat.
marew
(1,588 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)"Zimmerman prosecutors can use terms `profiling' and `vigilante,' judge rules"
SANFORD, Fla. The terms "profiling," "wannabe cop" and "vigilante" will be permitted in opening statements Monday by prosecutors in the George Zimmerman trial, a judge ruled Friday.
Seminole Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson, however, warned prosecutors to stay away from the more specific term "racial profiling."
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/21/194605/zimmerman-prosecutors-can-use.html#.UciU5Bgo75o#storylink=cpy
erpowers
(9,350 posts)It seems to me that the George Zimmerman Defense is trying to blame the dispatcher for Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle. At one point in the opening statement the defense lawyer said the dispatcher asked Zimmerman which way Trayvon Martin was running, but Zimmerman could not drive his vehicle in the area where Martin was running, so Zimmerman had to get out of his vehicle. The defense lawyer keeps stating that the dispatcher was asking Zimmerman where Martin was going. It seems the defense is trying to say that if the dispatcher had not been asking Zimmerman where Martin was going Zimmerman would not have gotten out of his vehicle.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)SCVDem
(5,103 posts)Cartoons are olay, real life, no!
senseandsensibility
(17,056 posts)Are they going to show the whole thing?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)mwrguy
(3,245 posts)They are kindred spirits.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)It's one thing to know it happens in this country, but this was so obvious and egregious. To not even examine what had happened but just let this guy exterminate a young man's life. No matter how this trial goes, at least Zimmerman didn't just get to saunter the fuck off.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They showed them a picture of their dead son the way someone would ask, "Is this your dead cat?"
The entire attitude of the cops was that this wasn't that big a deal. You know DAMN well it wouldn't be that way if it had been a young white woman chased down and shot in the heart at close range.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)That's one of the many reasons Zimmerman's defenders piss me off.
No consideration for the shitty way this was all handled in the first place, the lack of sensitivity for Trayvon's family, and the total lack of acknowledgement of the double standard for a young black male being shot by some random creep when parallel cases with white people get wall to wall coverage/investigation.
Innocent people don't stalk and hunt down humans right on the fucking street. Bottom line.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)During the Civil Rights marches the signs read "I AM A MAN" because the racists considered black people to be WORSE than animals. That kind of attitude is still operating in many minds.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)That'll leave a mark.
to the prosecution!!!
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)On HLN
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)I'm depending on the unbiased reporting of my fellow DUers.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Ka hrnt
(308 posts)I worry some people here are setting themselves up for a huge letdown. This NYT article summed it up in the last sentence:
"In part because there were no witnesses and Mr. Zimmermans injuries support his account, the prosecutors face a much higher legal hurdle than defense lawyers do."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/us/zimmerman-trial.html?_r=0
And they already start with the very high hurdle of "reasonable doubt". Witnesses are nearly useless and the physical evidence jibes with Mr. Zimmerman's story. Unless the prosecution has something big up its sleeve, I don't see how they can possibly get a conviction.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)WTF is there to really understand???
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)is legal, but fighting for your life with your fists is not?
Really?!
Skittles
(153,164 posts)Trayvon was "standing his ground" and he was killed by a vigilante gun humper
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Lone_Star_Dem
(28,158 posts)I'm not saying I expect an outcome either way, but justice would be to hold Zimmerman accountable for his actions.
Renew Deal
(81,860 posts)That's the defense. So it's not so clear how this case will turn out. I think there's a 50% chance of conviction. Zimmerman could be seen as a sympathetic figure by a jury. He could be seen as a simple minded guy who cared about his neighbors and ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. It wouldn't surprise me that if he comes out not guilty for "murder" that people will say he was overcharged. So this thing isn't so simple.
I'm with the prosecution an am hoping for a conviction, but it's no guarantee.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)I seriously doubt if Trayvon had been ANYTHING other than a black male teenager this would be considered "not that simple"
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and a story where he follows someone on purpose- then "accidentally" following to retrieve an address not requested where he wasn't located and didn't intend to stay- to answer the dispatcher where he was? The dispatcher told him not to go after him, and he did- now he blames the dispatcher, LOL.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)Unfortunately, the only person left alive that knows what really happened that night is Zimmerman.
As long as his story about what happened after he encountered Martin isn't directly contradicted by the physical evidence, he'll be acquitted.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)No they don't. He didn't have ANY damage to his skull. I hope he doesn't walk. After seeing OJ and Casey Anthony walk, some people are fooled by defense attorneys.
tblue37
(65,383 posts)leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)I hope somebody writes an ANGRY LETTER.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)They need to hear the thing in its entirety and I am sorry if anyone got so fucking overwhelmed or fucking anxious or are going to have difficulties explaining to their kids what the big fucking deal is with the f* word. It is HOW it is used, in my fucking opinion.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)The prosecutor reminded the jury that Martin's hands had no blood on them. Not Zimmerman's and not Martin's. Neither were Martin's hands bruised. That is the physical evidence and not some theory. But I have a theory. Martin had a cell in one hand and the bag with iced tea and skittles in the other. When Martin asked Zimmerman "why are you following me" Zimmerman's answer was unsatisfactory and Martin hit Zimmerman in the face with the bag he was carrying. No bruises and no DNA on Martin's hands. That likely snapped Zimmerman's head back so when he hit the ground his crown could have hit the edge of the sidewalk and inflicted the head wounds. At that point more words were exchanged, prompting the neighbor to call 911, and Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Zimmerman as Martin pleaded for his life. That lines up with the physical evidence though it doesn't establish it as a fact. The defense is claiming that the police forensic team washed Martin's hands before checking them for blood. That sounds desperate and certainly does not match up with the physical evidence. Day 1, advantage prosecution.
John2
(2,730 posts)a mystery? If the evidence does not support Trayvon was the person gave Zimmerman the injuries, then who, how, and when did they occur? Did anybody see Zimmerman before the fight?
When did Zimmerman load his gun and put it in the firing position? What type of gun was this, not to have different firing positions? So he had a loaded gun at his side in the firing position?
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)In theory, his head was snapped back from the blow that caused the bloody nose and his head hit the edge of the sidewalk in that position as he went down.
A round was in the chamber as Zimmerman was riding around in his vehicle. I have heard nothing about whether the safety was on or not but I kind of doubt that it was on. Don't know the brand offhand but it was a semi-automatic pistol. The fact that he fired only 1 shot indicated he knew Martin was hit hard and it wasn't going to take more rounds to bring him down.
We also know there was loud shouting that prompted a neighbor to call 911 but the shouting apparently subsided as the neighbor responded to the dispatcher then suddenly this high pitched scream that the neighbor thought was "help", a very short pause and another scream that ends instantly when the shot is heard. That would happen if the person shot was the person screaming. It could coincidently happen that the shooter stopped screaming at the sound of a shot but is a much, much lower possibility since the duration of the sound of the shot is probably only about 1/8 of a second.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)could be opening statement in U.S. v George W. Bush
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Raine
(30,540 posts)governed by the FCC the way the over the over the air networks are. It's purely up to them, I suppose they are worried about offending viewers and more importantly (to them) sponsors and losing those dollars.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)Raine
(30,540 posts)said both fuck and shit!
progree
(10,908 posts)George Zimmermans defense attorney kicked off the first day of trial in the high-profile case with a knock-nock joke. Don West admitted that his approach was a bit weird in the context of the death of Trayvon Martin, but told jurors in his opening statement that they are the perfect audience for the bit:
[font color = blue]WEST: Let me say, I would like to tell you a little joke. I know how that may sound a bit weird in this context under these circumstances. But I think youre the perfect audience for it. As long as you dont if you dont like it or dont think its funny or inappropriate that you dont hold it against Mr. Zimmerman. Hold it against me if you want, but not Mr. Zimmerman. I have your assurance you wont.
Heres how it goes: Knock knock. Whos there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? All right. Good. Youre on the Jury.
(the courtroom was dead silent, not even any changes of facial expression at first -Progree)
Nothing? Thats funny. After what you folks have been through the last two or three weeks.[/font]
Watch it:
MORE: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/06/24/2202081/george-zimmermans-lawyer-opens-trial-with-a-knock-knock-joe/
progree
(10,908 posts)(Comment courtesy of Facebook's Little Daryl https://www.facebook.com/phatboy2012
-- he got 1060 likes so far)
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)Now that was funny. I'm talking about the one with the mustache. His expression as he looks toward the cute is,"WTF is this"? The cute one looks like he wants to laugh at the absurdity of the joke.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)there's Chuck todd.