Trayvon Martin Death Investigation

[quote="Artie60438"]

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Quote :

I have no way of knowing whether he will collect damages, but he most certainly has a case.

You have this expert opinion because obviously you are an expert in civil law?....

[b]No, not claiming any expertise.
But if the woman who burned her crotch with McDonald's coffee had a case, then so does Zimmerman.

She had actual physical injuries,Zimmerman has none. As I said before...

Quote :

Loss of earnings? Nope,he was unemployed at the time. Physically injured as a result? Nope! Forced to go into hiding as a result? Nope,he already was in hiding long before the NBC mistake.

Has it dawned on you yet that all this is probably just a an attempt to garner sympathy for this parasite and perhaps encourage some more suckers to send him more money?

In fact,I've just caught his attorney lying...."Due in large part to NBC's actions, George has had to live in hiding, in fear for his life," the Florida man's lawyer stated.
GZ went into hiding immediately after the alleged murder,long before NBC made their mistake.

Artie60438 wrote:

She had actual physical injuries,Zimmerman has none.

Yes, she did – injuries she inflicted upon herself.

Artie60438 wrote:

GZ went into hiding immediately after the alleged murder,long before NBC made their mistake.

Mistake?!?!?
Only a total shit-for-brains would fail to realize that what NBC did was entirely intentional.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

She had actual physical injuries,Zimmerman has none.

Yes, she did – injuries she inflicted upon herself.

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[6] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[19]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

Artie60438 wrote:

GZ went into hiding immediately after the alleged murder,long before NBC made their mistake.

Quote :

Mistake?!?!?
Only a total shit-for-brains would fail to realize that what NBC did was entirely intentional.

So you were there in the room when the tape got edited? Who knew?

You conveniently ignored the fact that I caught Zim's lawyer lying People that have a legitimate case don't make threats in the media that they're going to sue,they just file suit.
Zimmerman's threats are for one reason....to attract low-information trolls like yourself to try and help them make their case. Mission accomplished!

happy jack wrote:

Amazing.
Hot coffee can burn you.

Well yes and no.
Actually it depends on how hot the coffee is.
The McDonald's coffee was dangerously hot at over 180 degrees, hotter than than the coffee at other restaurants and what's brewed at home.
McDonald's dangerously hot coffee and it's callousness lost the case.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.masonlec.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Cass6_How-Hot-Do-You-Like-It.pdf

Now you know.

happy jack wrote:

so it can be said - "Hot coffee doesn't burn people, stupid people mishandling hot coffee burn people."

Exept the defense tried that stupid argument and failed miserably.
I see this went over your head:

Quote :

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
...Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

Case rested.
Do you enjoy walking into doors?

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

so it can be said - "Hot coffee doesn't burn people, stupid people mishandling hot coffee burn people."

Exept the defense tried that stupid argument and failed miserably.

An idiotic NRA talking point warped into to a new level of stupidity.....the answer to all of Jacko's discussion problems

Case rested.
Do you enjoy walking into doors?[/quote]
I believe he prefers stepping on rakes

Artie60438 wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

so it can be said - "Hot coffee doesn't burn people, stupid people mishandling hot coffee burn people."

Exept the defense tried that stupid argument and failed miserably.

An idiotic NRA talking point warped into to a new level of stupidity.....the answer to all of Jacko's discussion problems

Case rested.
Do you enjoy walking into doors?

I believe he prefers stepping on rakes[/quote]



I see that you've taken the time to comment on my statement.
Care to refute it?

happy jack wrote:

Unfortunately, edge, the temperature of the coffee was not the problem!

Well, yes it was and it is precisely the reason that the temperature is now down to 158 degrees fahrenheit. The jury said so and the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful. That's why McDonalds lost.
You see jack, if YOU were right McDonalds would have won the case. The jury and the judge proved you wrong.

Quote :

"...manufacturers of chain saws..."

Another stupid analogy that doesn't work. jack, you really do suck at making analogies.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

so it can be said - "Hot coffee doesn't burn people, stupid people mishandling hot coffee burn people."

Exept the defense tried that stupid argument and failed miserably.

An idiotic NRA talking point warped into to a new level of stupidity.....the answer to all of Jacko's discussion problems

Case rested.
Do you enjoy walking into doors?

I believe he prefers stepping on rakes

Senor Piñata wrote:

[[b]I see that you've taken the time to comment on my statement.
Care to refute it?

Nope,Edge is doing just fine. We take turns,Senor

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Unfortunately, edge, the temperature of the coffee was not the problem!

Well, yes it was and it is precisely the reason that the temperature is now down to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

[b]No, the temperature was not the problem. The fact that the woman was stupid enough to squeeze a flexible cup containing hot coffee in her crotch was the problem.

Do you understand the concept of "accident"? Had the temperature of the coffee not been scalding hot she would not have sustained severe burns.

edge540 wrote:

The jury said so and the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful. That's why McDonalds lost.
You see jack, if YOU were right McDonalds would have won the case. The jury and the judge proved you wrong.

happy jack wrote:

A judge and jury also said that O.J. was innocent, didn’t they?
'Nuff said.

Your ignorance is breathtaking.

edge540 wrote:

Quote :

"...manufacturers of chain saws..."

Another stupid analogy that doesn't work. jack, you really do suck at making analogies.

happy jack wrote:

The analogy works just fine. The problem appears to be that you do not possess the ability to grasp the analogy. What you are doing is blaming inanimate objects – the analogy, the coffee, guns, etc. – when what is actually to blame is simple human incompetence and stupidity – the woman’s, and yours.

Right,so using your latest idiotic analogy,children that burned themselves or lost a finger by sticking their hands in an "Easy Bake Oven" would just be a result of incompetence,stupidity,or bad parenting,correct? Same goes for when a child hangs his or her self by getting tangled up in the cords of blinds,right?
How about when "Ford Explorers" rolled over and caused serious injuries or death? Just chalk it up to stupid driving skills,right?

happy jack wrote:

The analogy works just fine. The problem appears to be that you do not possess the ability to grasp the analogy. What you are doing is blaming inanimate objects – the analogy, the coffee, guns, etc. – when what is actually to blame is simple human incompetence and stupidity – the woman’s, and yours.

Wrong again.
No, the problem IS that you do not possess the ability to grasp the fact that I AM BLAMING people who acted in a reckless, callous and willful manor and not inanimate objects. It's the corporate assholes at McDonalds who are the greedy, opportunistic and very stupid people.
They insisted on selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured"- in other words, it was too fucking hot.

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Right,so using your latest idiotic analogy,children that burned themselves or lost a finger by sticking their hands in an "Easy Bake Oven" would just be a result of incompetence,stupidity,or bad parenting,correct?

[b]If a child is injured by a toy designed specifically for children, and that toy had been designed with inherently dangerous features, then I would have to say that it would be a combination of product liability along with stupidity and negligence on the part of the parent or the child’s adult custodian for allowing the child to play with a dangerous toy.

The parents that bought the oven have a reasonable expectation that the toy is safe. It's an implied warranty.

[quote="Artie60438"]

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Right,so using your latest idiotic analogy,children that burned themselves or lost a finger by sticking their hands in an "Easy Bake Oven" would just be a result of incompetence,stupidity,or bad parenting,correct?

[b]If a child is injured by a toy designed specifically for children, and that toy had been designed with inherently dangerous features, then I would have to say that it would be a combination of product liability along with stupidity and negligence on the part of the parent or the child’s adult custodian for allowing the child to play with a dangerous toy.

The parents that bought the oven have a reasonable expectation that the toy is safe. It's an implied warranty.

Yes, the parents do have a reasonable expectation that the toy is safe, which is why I said that this would be a case of product liability. But while they may have a reasonable expectation that the product is safe, they have no absolute guarantee that the product is safe. And any parent with an ounce of common sense and concern for his or her child would not take an 'implied warranty' at its word and would assess the safety of the product based upon his or her own ideas of what constitutes 'safe' or 'unsafe'. Adults need to act like adults in cases such as these.

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Right,so using your latest idiotic analogy,children that burned themselves or lost a finger by sticking their hands in an "Easy Bake Oven" would just be a result of incompetence,stupidity,or bad parenting,correct?

[b]If a child is injured by a toy designed specifically for children, and that toy had been designed with inherently dangerous features, then I would have to say that it would be a combination of product liability along with stupidity and negligence on the part of the parent or the child’s adult custodian for allowing the child to play with a dangerous toy.

The parents that bought the oven have a reasonable expectation that the toy is safe. It's an implied warranty.

Yes, the parents do have a reasonable expectation that the toy is safe, which is why I said that this would be a case of product liability.

But you once again want to also blame the parents.

Quote :

But while they may have a reasonable expectation that the product is safe, they have no absolute guarantee that the product is safe. And any parent with an ounce of common sense and concern for his or her child would not take an 'implied warranty' at its word and would assess the safety of the product based upon his or her own ideas of what constitutes 'safe' or 'unsafe'. Adults need to act like adults in cases such as these.

Easy bake ovens were introduced in 1963. The recall wasn't until 2007. There would be no reason for a parent to have suspected that anything was wrong with them.

[quote="Artie60438"]

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Right,so using your latest idiotic analogy,children that burned themselves or lost a finger by sticking their hands in an "Easy Bake Oven" would just be a result of incompetence,stupidity,or bad parenting,correct?

[b]If a child is injured by a toy designed specifically for children, and that toy had been designed with inherently dangerous features, then I would have to say that it would be a combination of product liability along with stupidity and negligence on the part of the parent or the child’s adult custodian for allowing the child to play with a dangerous toy.

The parents that bought the oven have a reasonable expectation that the toy is safe. It's an implied warranty.

Yes, the parents do have a reasonable expectation that the toy is safe, which is why I said that this would be a case of product liability.

But you once again want to also blame the parents.

Quote :

But while they may have a reasonable expectation that the product is safe, they have no absolute guarantee that the product is safe. And any parent with an ounce of common sense and concern for his or her child would not take an 'implied warranty' at its word and would assess the safety of the product based upon his or her own ideas of what constitutes 'safe' or 'unsafe'. Adults need to act like adults in cases such as these.

Easy bake ovens were introduced in 1963. The recall wasn't until 2007. There would be no reason for a parent to have suspected that anything was wrong with them.

Yes, I do want to place partial blame on parents.
As a parent myself, I would have to say that I would feel pretty guilty when, upon my child asking, "Dad, why do I only have seven fingers and everyone else has ten?", my only response would be, "Well, you see, honey, there was this infallible 'implied warranty' ....".
Again, it is the responsibility of the parent to be the final judge as to what is safe for his or her child.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Easy bake ovens were introduced in 1963. The recall wasn't until 2007. There would be no reason for a parent to have suspected that anything was wrong with them.

Yes, I do want to place partial blame on parents.
As a parent myself, I would have to say that I would feel pretty guilty when, upon my child asking, "Dad, why do I only have seven fingers and everyone else has ten?", my only response would be, "Well, you see, honey, there was this infallible 'implied warranty' ....".
Again, it is the responsibility of the parent to be the final judge as to what is safe for his or her child.

So you're trying to tell us that you would have bought a toy that had been sold for 43 years, with well over 16 million sold with no problems,and you would have immediately realized that it was unsafe?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

So you're trying to tell us that you would have bought a toy that had been sold for 43 years, with well over 16 million sold with no problems,and you would have immediately realized that it was unsafe?

[b]I would not "immediately realize(d)" anything. However, I would immediately examine and assess the potential dangers of the product to see if the product meets my standards of safety, not the standards of safety set by some arbitrary bureaucrat; that is what a competent parent does.

So are now telling us you're an expert on toy safety and would have caught the flaw that every professional missed?

2 peas in a pod,both hotheaded idiots.....
George Zimmerman’s brother’s media tour leads to Twitter tirade in Trayvon case Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/09//v-fullstory/3042361/george-zimmermans-brothers-media.html#storylink=cpy

Quote :

George Zimmerman’s brother Robert is on a media drive to clear his family’s name, and is vowing to have an attorney for Trayvon Martin’s family disbarred.

Seven months after the killing of unarmed high school junior Trayvon Martin, the killer’s family is on a national media crusade to clear the family’s name.

What began as a series of routine media interviews denying that George Zimmerman is a racist blew up into a Twitter rant Monday night. Zimmerman’s brother, Robert Zimmerman Jr., took to social media after midnight and vowed to make it his life’s work to have one of the Martin family attorneys disbarred. He said he would expose the lawyers and their publicist, “one by one, day by day.”

“I hope GOD grants you a long life so you live to repent for what you have done,” Robert Zimmerman Jr. wrote in a tweet directed to Natalie Jackson, one of the lawyers for the slain teen’s family.

In another, he wrote: “My Life’s work = you WILL be held accountable for your words/actions. You AINT seen NOTHIN’ yet... I will see U disbarred.”

The flap underscored the heated rhetoric still notable regarding an incident that polarized the nation, and the extent to which legal advisors in the case were blamed for it. The threats posted online also highlighted the difficulty the Zimmermans have had managing their message, and the defense team’s inability to control the client — or his family.

Defense attorney Mark O’Mara said he cringed when he saw a relative of his client acting out on the web, and said the new media tour was launched without George Zimmerman’s knowledge. His message to Robert Jr: “Be careful with my case.”

“I have been cautious with how we act in this case and now someone with the same last name who does not act with the same constraints is out there — and I have no control over him,” O’Mara said. “They felt it was time to let the world know that the Zimmerman family is a good family. That goal is a noble goal.

“But they do have to be sensitive to the environment in which we are telling this story. No matter what, George is still at risk here. And we still have a dead young man — that’s fresh on everyone‘s mind. That frustrates me.”

The family’s media campaign follows months of public relations debacles.

Last month, Zimmerman’s best friend published a book riddled with errors that offered a new accounting of how Trayvon died. It wound up on the prosecution’s evidence list.

Zimmerman’s neighbor, who did more than 100 TV interviews on Zimmerman’s behalf, was arrested on a DUI charge, and the video of his arrest was posted on the Internet. A co-worker was discredited on national television when it seemed he hardly even knew Zimmerman.

The family did very few interviews, but complained vehemently about their portrayal in the press. In July, Zimmerman’s parents, Robert and Gladys, launched a website to raise money for their life in hiding and to share details about their son, who they described as a longtime altar boy who donated blood, mentored black children and collected clothes for the homeless.

After Zimmerman’s best friend published his book that included a scene that depicted the so-called “most hated man in America” as wildly paranoid against blacks, Robert Jr. took control of the family image himself.

In an email sent to several reporters last week, Robert Jr., 31, said his family sent him to Los Angeles to do a series of local television interviews aimed at “reintroducing the Zimmerman family.” He stressed that he was the only authorized spokesman for the family.

“For far too long, we have kept silent about our plight at the hands of those who made assertions about our family members that were false,” he wrote. “Many assertions made about my brother have now proven to be false as well.”

The family believes they were skewered by the “national media machine” that did not uncover hard facts, but instead was manipulated into destroying the Zimmermans’ lives. He made a reference to what critics have dubbed the “scheme team:” attorneys Jackson and Benjamin Crump and Orlando publicist Ryan Julison.

Conservative critics accuse the three of orchestrating a false narrative about the case for their own profit, presumably a payout from the insurance policy of the homeowner’s association where Zimmerman lived.

In the past week, Robert Jr. appeared on Geraldo Rivera’s show, Univision’s Despierta America, and several radio and TV shows out of Los Angeles. His assignment: to read a condolence letter to Trayvon’s parents and paint his brother as a married, working, college student who was attacked by Trayvon and libeled in the press.

Robert Jr. denied a request by The Miami Herald for an interview.

On Monday, he appeared on Piers Morgan Tonight with his mother, her face obscured. Gladys Zimmerman froze at probing questions and offered condolences only after she was pressed by the show’s host.

Once the show was over, Robert Jr. reacted strongly to tweets referring to comments his mother made about a 2010 case of a homeless black man beaten by a Sanford cop’s son. Her son, Gladys Zimmerman said, was the only one who helped the man.

The homeless man was represented by Jackson, the Martin family lawyer, who grew up in Sanford and has a solid Twitter following that enjoys her sarcastic remarks about the case. On Monday, she alluded to him being a “murderer” and suggested that his brother’s CNN appearance was a fundraising drive.

That’s when Robert Jr. responded with a series of tweets threatening her license. She quipped back: “Please see my Rule #1: Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference — Mark Twain.”

In an email Tuesday, Robert Jr. stood by his twitter tirade.

“I don’t want her to be able to use her position as an attorney to assassinate anyone else’s character or to ever hurt anyone else’s family,” he said.

Jackson dismissed the spat, saying she could not be sure if the person who posted the threats was really Zimmerman’s brother.

“I don’t take stuff personally from family members,” Jackson said in an interview. “I do criminal defense work and I understand how families react. I don’t think people should attack them or threaten them in any way. It’s stressful when someone you love is possibly going to jail for life.”

Attorney Crump said he preferred not to comment on the tweet directed at him by Zimmerman’s brother.

“We are trying to stay focused on holding the killer responsible for the death of Trayvon. We’re trying to keep it there,” he said. “Name-calling doesn’t get us anywhere.”

If an innocent teen hadn't been gunned down and lost his life this make for a
great pitch for a crazy sitcom. Keep talking you morons and see how much it helps your case. Ask Drew Peterson how well his media tour worked out for him

Zimmerman Forced to Keep GPS

Quote :

George Zimmerman was rebuffed by a Florida judge in his request today to remove the GPS tracking device he must wear and be allowed to leave Seminole County so that he would not have to live in hiding while awaiting trial for shooting unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman, who is currently out of jail on a $1 million bond, appeared in court today, noticeably stockier, clad in a dark suit and presumably a bulletproof vest as he typically wears in public.

In seeking permission to remove the tracking device, defense attorney Mark O'Mara put Adam Vincent, Zimmerman's probation officer, on the stand. Vincent testified that Zimmerman has always complied with the terms of his probation.

O'Mara argued that Zimmerman has "shown himself where he should be free" and should not be restricted to Seminole County because it does not allow him to speak with attorneys, expert witnesses or to help his attorneys prepare for the upcoming trial.

I guess poor Georgie never heard of a telephone or Skype.