Whistleblowing IT Director Fired By FL State Attorney 569
An anonymous reader writes "Ben Kruidbos, the IT director for the Florida State Attorney's Office who'd spoken up when important cellphone evidence he'd extracted from Trayvon Martin's cellphone was withheld by the state from the defense, was fired by messenger at 7:30 PM Friday, after closing arguments in the Zimmerman case. He was told that he could not be 'trusted to set foot in this office,' and that he was being fired for incompetence. Kruidbos had received a merit pay raise earlier this year. The firing letter also blames him for consulting a lawyer, an obvious sign of evil."
Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Do good ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually socialism is pretty close to what you had during cold war in US because you had to care for your people to win it. High taxes on the rich, fairly solid safety net for the poor. It was there in the 60s and 70s. And it was dismantled in 90s after cold war ended.
It's funny when propaganda says the exact opposite of what actually ends up happening, and people swallow it. And then think they're "thinking against what government wants us to think".
You may also want to note that least corrupt countries in the world are socialist, while most corrupt are capitalist.
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly.
The safety net is bigger and more expensive than ever.
Significant parts of it came into existence only in the 60s and 70s, not coincidentally followed by inflation in the early 80s as demand for services put pressure on supply constrained by high marginal tax rates and regulations. We risked an Argentine-style economic collapse. Reagan was only able to get reforms passed with Democrats in control of congress because there was no other way to save the welfare state. Democrats knew something had to be done.
But anyway, what won the cold war was self-confidence in the West and self-doubt in the East. The Soviet Union voluntarily gave up on communism. I think that means they won, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, right at the height of the Cold War? Yeah I think that's what he said.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ridiculous. The early 80's is when inflation ended. Inflation started in the '60s due to LBJ's guns and butter program and exploded in the '70s due to the oil price shock.
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Informative)
Social security, and welfare existed long before the 60's. Food stamps and medicare are from the 60's, however, welfare was scaled back decades ago when Clinton was in office. So your notion that the safety net has exploded is patently false. That said, the costs have certainly shot up. Medicare has skyrocketed due to the crazy increases in medical costs. Social security has shot up in spite of the fact that the benefits have been reduced because people are living longer. Welfare and unemployment are up because unemployment is up.
The inflation in the 80s was primarily because of oil, food prices, and a falling dollar, and a reduction in productivity levels. Marginal tax rates had nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Welfare was altered, but hardly scaled-back. The forms of welfare may have changed, though. Today even "Obamaphones" are available to the poor.
High marginal rates prevent increases in productive capacity for several reasons including a lack of profitability in expansion, and a lack of capital accumulation for the formation of new produ
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
lol...your argument might make sense if it weren't for the fact that marginal tax rates were much higher in the 50s but inflation was low. Sorry but history is just not on your side...at all.
Also, a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare seems like a pretty significant change to me.
Oh, and one more thing, the "obamaphones" are not paid for with taxes. Additionally, the program was created before Obama was even running for president. If anything, they are bushphones.
Perhaps you live on a different planet than I do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Do good ... (Score:4, Interesting)
"The Soviet Union didn't "give up" on anything. They were one of the world's leading powers with all the benefits of such."
Hardly. They were only "one of the world's leading powers" because they were willing to starve their own citizens in order to be one. (Unless, of course, they were ranking members of the Party.)
Their economy started sucking immediately after the "peoples' revolution" and never recovered. They managed for quite a while but economically, things were NEVER good under "Communist" Russia. Communist in quotes because in practice they -- and everybody else for that matter -- never came anywhere near an actual Communist political / economic system. They only made it as far as very bad Socialists.
And the main reason they managed to be a world power for as long as they did, was because of massive access to natural resources. If the U.S. had ever had anything like the resources the Soviets controlled, the world would be 100% American now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please clarify the "starving" thing. It's true that early in the Soviet Union's formation, Stalin allowed territories that didn't follow his policies to starve.
But, one can make the case that Republicans want to do the same to poor and minorities since they don't vote Republican. Some extreme Republicans want to let states suffer after disasters rather than have the federal gov't "bail them out".
It's not just a Soviet thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Stalin "allowed" territories to starve?!? No, Stalin deliberately removed as much food as he could from the Ukraine through forced collectivisation in order to exterminate Ukrainian nationalism [loc.gov]
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Informative)
Nazism and Facism, for example are types of Socialisms (despite the unwillingness of some in accepting it mostly due to ignorance).
No. That is wrong. And while it's cute calling people who disagree with your bad facts "ignorant," that won't save you. Socialism runs the state's economic machinery for the benefit of the populace. This is its primary defining feature. Fascism runs the state for the benefit of the ruling party. This is its defining feature. The two are irreconcileable, which is why Fascists outlawed trade unions.
Re: (Score:3)
If you agree that socialism generally segues into fascism (while continuing to pretend to be socialist) once the ruling party becomes entrenched, then I agree with you.
Re: (Score:3)
What utter nonsense.
Farms were well looked after long before capitalism turned up. Farms can flourish in a communist state.
"true" communism protects the farms for the people, wouldn't you think?
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... both capitalists and socialists dislike labor unions...
Just. Stop. Right. There.
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Interesting)
My boy came a cropper off his bike the other day, made a right mess of himself. Took him to the emergency ward at a nearby hospital for immediate patching up, and we took him to our local GP for a checkup a couple of days later. Coincidentally he had a dentist's appointment (booked months beforehand) this week so the dentist was able to give his mouth an exam as well because he got a mouthful of stones and his gums got lacerated.
Hospital care, visit to the doctor, and dental care all in one week.
Expense to me, total: zero
Living in a socialist country that looks after its citizens: priceless
Re: Do good ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Obvious troll is obvious.
Actually I do have comprehensive private health insurance because you're crazy if you're a parent and don't, but got waved off each time I pulled out my wallet. "Nup, you're good."
But that's beside the point. The point is, in a civilized society fellow citizens look after each other. My taxes have paid for the care of every other kid that came off his bike too.
Socialism: it works, bitches.
Re: Do good ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, that's sort of how it's intended to work. Sometimes you're you, sometimes you're your neighbour, in the long run it cancels out. And with no profiteering middlemen it actually works out cheaper.
Re: Do good ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, here in Sweden, my partner's emergency surgery a couple of years ago cost us a grand total of 4000 SEK (call it US$750). About a third of this was for cab fare to and from the hospital. Most of the rest was registration fees.
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Socialist countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand are quite low on the corruption index, far better than capitalist america.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Um.... did you go to that link and stop to think that most of the countries in Africa, South America, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc... are socialist and also rank much lower on that corruption index than the U.S.?
What you're link really shows is that established first world countries are less corrupt than 2nd and 2rd world countries that haven't quite figured out the rule of law yet. There are obviously a few exceptions, but that's much more the pattern.
If you were going on sheer count of socialist vs not-as-so
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you, we needed some input from a typewriter owner.
Re: (Score:3)
He is the holder of a very low UI.
Nah, not really.
Oh grow up (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously the OSW "99%" whining is really, really stupid.
So let's do a bit of analysis: You have to be making over $400,000 per year (or have multiple millions in the bank) to be in the top 1% in the US. Everything under that is, by definition, "the 99%". The median income in the US is about $50,000 which would be "the 50%".
So, what is life like there? Well I have a fairly good idea, what with making around that. At that income you can afford to own your own house. Not a huge one, but plenty of space. You can afford to have a car that is nice, and in good working order, you don't have to fight with a junker. You can have all the appliances of modern life: dishwasher, fridge, washer/dryer, A/C, stove, etc, etc. You can get more food than you can or should eat, even if you eat out semi-regularly. You can have entertainment, like a bigscreen TV, surround sound, modern computer, broadband Internet, etc. You have enough money you can afford to put some in savings, to deal with unexpected events and not be thrown into debt by them.
In other words, you can have a damn good life. I want for nothing, I have an exceedingly good standard of living on a global scale and I am very, very grateful for it. Do "the 1%" have it better than me? Sure, but I am not "fighting scraps" (I presume you meant fighting for scraps). I am sitting in my air conditioned home, typing on my nice 30" computer screen while contemplating which of my many food options I wish to avail myself of for dinner. That is not a bad life in any way, shape, or form.
So seriously, stop with the uninformed bitching. Stop with this class warfare "1%" type shit. There IS an income inequity problem in the US and we do need to look at it. However it is not a case of "all of us vs them" nor is it valid to pretend that everyone who isn't the most privileged of the elite are starving in the streets.
Also, when you start talking equality, you might want to look on the global scene. You may well BE "the 1%" globally. Starts are a little hard but the median GDP in terms of purchasing power parity is like $12,000. So you can say if you want true equality that anyone making more than that, including you probably, need to give up their money.
No, you grow up (Score:4, Insightful)
At that income you can afford to own your own house. Not a huge one, but plenty of space.
I've never been able to afford to buy a house, despite several years of an apparently "upper middle class income". For one thing, my employment isn't stable enough, despite having a BS in Computer Science and being very, very good at what I do.
You can afford to have a car that is nice, and in good working order, you don't have to fight with a junker.
My cars are 21 and 26 years old. They're in good working order because I've paid through the nose to keep them maintained.
You can have all the appliances of modern life: dishwasher, fridge, washer/dryer, A/C, stove, etc, etc.
I bought the fridge ~10 years ago on a payment plan. I bought the washer/dryer used from an appliance-repair shop. Everything else in your list came with the (rental) house.
You can get more food than you can or should eat, even if you eat out semi-regularly.
I cook most of my own food, to keep costs down. I buy 50 pound bags of pinto beans for $30. I make a lot of meatloaf and chili.
You can have entertainment, like a bigscreen TV, surround sound, modern computer, broadband Internet, etc.
My widescreen TV is 6 years old, and my newest computer is 7 years old. I have a surround-sound system, but it doesn't fit in my current house.
You have enough money you can afford to put some in savings, to deal with unexpected events and not be thrown into debt by them.
That's all I seem to save up for — periods of unemployment. Retirement is an impossible dream.
I want for nothing, I have an exceedingly good standard of living on a global scale and I am very, very grateful for it.
You won't have it for long. The federal government is bankrupt several times over, and the federal bank is now inventing money out of thin air (not even printing it...it just changes a number in a computer), giving the money away at 0% interest to prop up the stock market, and buying government debt with the money it just created out of thin air. This is not sustainable. The only reason the U.S. gets away with this is that Europe is presently in worse shape.
Do "the 1%" have it better than me? Sure, but I am not "fighting [for] scraps".
I apply for job after job, several of which I match perfectly, and hear nothing back. The book Why Good People Can't Get Jobs [amazon.com] provided some catharsis — at least I don't have to feel so paranoid and cynical — but it doesn't actually help to know any of this. I sure feel like I'm fighting for scraps.
Someone once said they'd rather be lucky than smart. Amen to that.
Re: (Score:3)
I hear what you say but honestly I'm like the guy you responded to. I make about 60 grand a year and live pretty well, especially once I got my kids grown and out of my house. I've always had a job though so I've really been blessed. I was on employment one time in the last 35 years for about 11 weeks but other than that it was all full time employment. Where I live generally there is plenty of work and anyone who wants a job has one although it isn't always what they like nor high paying. My son start
Re:No, you grow up (Score:5, Insightful)
You feel like you are "fighting for scraps" because your big screen TV is 6 years old, you have a surround sound system but you don't like it, and your fridge 10?
See this is what I'm talking about with needing to take a more global look at things. Oh no, you don't have all new conveniences, whatever shall you do! I don't either, for that matter. My fridge is about 10 years old, and I've no wish to replace it as it keeps working great. My microwave is over 30 years old, it was given to me a long time ago and just keeps on trucking. Again, no reason to replace it as it still works great. Having a good life doesn't mean buying everything new all the time. In fact a big part of it can be managing your money by spending it smartly on things as needed and keeping what works.
Then of course you have to go with the silly doom and gloom "You won't have a good life soon!" shit and show a rather poor understanding of economics.
Look man, sorry that your life is not working out as well as you believe it should but you also should maybe do a little research and see how good you have it compared to the majority of the world's population.
Also consider that maybe, just maybe, you are part of the problem with your ability to get and keep a job. Layoffs are something that everyone is likely to face from time to time, but if you keep losing your job, if you are always having problems finding one, well then perhaps you are doing something wrong. I don't know much about you so I can't say what, but perhaps some introspection is in order. It is like the people who perpetually have bad relationships yet never seem to consider they may have a part of that.
Re:Oh grow up (Score:4, Insightful)
So let's do a bit of analysis: You have to be making over $400,000 per year (or have multiple millions in the bank) to be in the top 1% in the US. Everything under that is, by definition, "the 99%". The median income in the US is about $50,000 which would be "the 50%".
Median income is not representative of what most people would consider 'average' income. Let me illustrate by example; Consider the following 15 numbers --
1,3,2,5,4,2,4,5,7,15,7,5,3,53,74
The average is (rounded up) 13. However, the odds of you making average are better are only 1 in 5. 4 out of 5 times, if you're given one of those random numbers, you're going to be getting a "lower than average" number. This is essentially the heart of the OWS movement, and people like you who argue about "median" income are woefully undereducated about the realities of the wealth inequity distribution problem in the United States.
The rest of your argument is essentially based on this incompetent analysis of the situation -- using the average as though it still has relevance. If income distribution followed a standard gaussian distribution, perhaps, maybe, you could make the argument you're making -- but it isn't. It looks like a bathtub curve -- many at the low-end, diminishing into the middle before falling to nearly nothing from the middle to near the end of the y axis before skyrocketing upwards. It's pretty much the inverse of a gaussian distribution.
And making a "global" versus "local" comparison is apples to oranges. People in America deserve the wealth they are working for -- our economy is still largely closed, despite globalization. That is to say, the majority of what is produced is consumed here, and that our economy imports much more than it exports. What that means is, per unit of labor, the majority of the fruits of said labor remain domestic. However, the fruits of those labors are not being distributed equitably, and this is the heart of the OWS movement's position, and it is one worthy of closer consideration. Our wealth inequity -- that is, the spread between our poor and our rich, is staggeringly high -- higher than almost any other country on the planet.
Saying "People in Africa have it worse than you do, so shut up" is intellectually disengenuous -- it is a strawman argument. You are substituting a complaint about laborers not receiving due compensation with a comparison to people worse off. Well, there will always be someone worse off. That doesn't make what is happening to those "better off" less wrong.
Re:Oh grow up (Score:5, Informative)
The average is (rounded up) 13. However, the odds of you making average are better are only 1 in 5. 4 out of 5 times, if you're given one of those random numbers, you're going to be getting a "lower than average" number.
You just explained why the average figure is meaningless...
He used the median instead of the average, so what is your argument?
It seems that even though you are perfectly capable of understanding that the average is a meaningless figure and that median should be used, you are still focused on the average.
At no point did you even make an attempt to show that those at or above the median (the 50%) are having a hard time. They aren't having a hard time, but you pretend and argue as if they are. Thats dishonesty on your part. Dishonesty is never backed by reason that passes scrutiny, for if your argument was a reasoned one that passed scrutiny then you wouldnt need to be dishonest.
I'm guessing jealousy. Jealousy is the unreasoned motive for your dishonesty.
Re: (Score:3)
You're either naive or are trying to be deliberately misleading. That "median income" figure is median HOUSEHOLD income, where a household is approximately 2 parents and 2.3 kids. Being single and making $50K is a world apart and isn't even remotely comparable. You're not even taking location and cost of living differences.
The "1% shit" exists for a reason. We ARE fighting for scraps. The vast majority of the wealth in this country is controlled by the elite few, and every year they control more while the
Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Get 'em
Maybe - he'd have to find a lawyer that will do it on a contingency basis, and it would have to have some potential for a really big cash settlement/judgement before one will touch it. OTOH, maybe there's a lawyer who figures it'd be good for a little publicity - who knows?
Either way, it would take months, if not years, before the guy saw any justice/money/compensation/etc. Unfortunately, no CxO in his/her right mind would even think of hiring the guy in the interim, given the toxicity of the events and who is backing the potential defendants (seriously, would you want to catch the attention of the AG's office, potentially exposing your company to "extra scrutiny" if they felt like playing dirty pool against the guy? Didn't think so.)
Chilling effects all around, truth be told - he'll ahve to move out of the reach of that office before he could even hope to find a job, let alone pursue a lawsuit. Unless the state governor gets involved and (IMHO rightfully) fucks over the AG execs who did this to him, the dude is kinda fucked.
IMHO, it stands as a very good reason why you'll never get me to work for any law firm, government (let alone prosecutor's) office, or suchlike. Unless you find a lot of good juicy skeletons in their closets early on (and keep the evidence secure), the boss(es) there would pretty much own your ass, ethics be damned.
Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Either way, it would take months, if not years, before the guy saw any justice/money/compensation/etc. Unfortunately, no CxO in his/her right mind would even think of hiring the guy in the interim, given the toxicity of the events and who is backing the potential defendants
A CxO in their right mind would be able to hire the guy...it takes integrity to stand up to a superior for what's just and what's legal; understanding the risk that you might be fired for it.
Integrity, Intelligence, and Energy are the the most important characteristics to look for in a good employee, and Integrity is the hardest to find -- but the most important one.
Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. (Score:4, Informative)
I agree, but if you do find a CxO with that kind of integrity, well, you really found a rare bird.
Meanwhile, I'm watching Ms. Corey spew out excuses for having just lost the case. Seems the jury proclaimed Mr. Zimmerman Not Guilty [cnn.com].
So not only will she have to put up with pissed-off constituents (both for Mr. Zimmerman because she pulled these hijinks, and again because she lost), now she'll likely have to put up with the potential lawsuit from the former IT dude in TFA.
I find it extremely interesting that she's *still* trying to press her case for locking the guy up, in spite of having just lost. It tends to support the allegations about her in TFA more than ever, truth be told.
Re: (Score:3)
Oooh, excellent point. It calls to mind the old saying "Sincerity in business is very important. When you can fake sincerity, you've got it made."
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. He'll probably lay low and pursue it after a change in administration.
Re: (Score:3)
Stupid racists.
Department of Redundancy Department
Re: Do good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're claiming that inquiring whether the prosecutor, intentionally or not, withheld evidence from the defense is bad?
That has NOTHING to do w/ anyone's guilt or innocence, it has EVERYTHING to do with the rule of law. FTA: "Kruidbos said he became concerned that lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda might not have turned over Kruidbos’ report to defense attorneys." This man saw a potential violation, and questioned it. If that evidence HADN'T been turned over to the defense, it could have been grounds for an appeals court to overturn any possible conviction.
The entire American (and western world) legal system is based on the principle that a defendant has the right to all information the government may try to use against him/her, AND any information that could cast doubt on the prosecutor's evidence or interpretation of the facts; it's called exculpatory evidence. Whether it's relevant to the case is up to the (presumably impartial) judge, and then the jury if the judge allows it to be presented. Now that may not always be fair to the victim and their family, but it's the law, and everyone in the legal system, police, lawyers, judgets, etc is bound to uphold it.
Let me give a similar, but counter hypothetical example: What if the police had a rock-solid forensic expert who could positively identify some of the other evidence (e.g. the screams on the phone), and conclusively prove ZImmerman was innocent (not saying this exists... follow me here)? And they withheld that and still charged him with murder. Would it be right to bring that up? Obviously it would!
There's NO DIFFERENCE between that hypothetical and this actual situation, both are cases of the defendant potentially being denied their right to exculpatory evidence, to be vetted by the judge for relevance and bias.
Re: Do good ... (Score:4, Informative)
The defense didn't know about it until literally about 2 days before the trial. They only knew about it at all because of this whistle-blower.
They tried to use the evidence in the trial, but the judge wouldn't let them because they didn't have witnesses on their witness list already who could testify that the texts/pictures were from Martin (i.e. Authenticate them as having come from Martin). In the process, the Judge ignored a legal precedent that because they were found on Martin's own cell phone, they could be presumed to be his enough to let the jury decide.
Of course, the defense hadn't had any time to go find and depose all the witnesses needed to authenticate the evidence, because they only learned about the evidence right before the trial because the prosecution actively hid it's existence from them. The prosecution not intending to use the evidence in court is irrelevant. They have a duty to tell the defense about ANY evidence they find that may help the defense. Of course the prosecution isn't going to use it if they think it's bad for their case. That doesn't mean they don't have to tell the defense about it during discovery, which was well before this whistle-blower let the world know about it.
This whole situation was one of several where if Zimmerman had actually been convicted, his lawyers would have had en excellent case to have the verdict thrown out on appeal because of reversible error by the judge.
So sue 'em. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hope he does. it's obviously not incompetence and blaming for seeking legal advice is just stupid to use as reasoning for incompetence.
"that if they feel like there is wrongdoing,” they should not disclose it or seek legal guidance from a private attorney.
“If they do speak to an attorney, then they are dead,” he said. “The State Attorney’s Office will do whatever is necessary to not only terminate them, but destroy their reputations in the process.”
coming from state attorneys office that's actually pretty funny. saying it like that covers also seeking advice on illegal working conditions and what have you..
Re:So sue 'em. (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope he does sue, and that he wins. It may be an uphill battle though. Prosecutors have tremendous discretion in how they conduct cases, and enormous protection under the law, although it looks to me like this is well over the line. Besides suing, he should consider bringing a complaint before the Bar. Not turning over possible exculpatory evidence would seem to be an ethics violation.
I can't say this is surprising though since the prosecution appears to be motivated more my politics than the actual legal situation.
In Audio Recording, Department of Justice Official Urges Protesters to Seek ‘Justice’ for Trayvon Martin [pjmedia.com]
Branco Cartoon – Fanning the Flames [legalinsurrection.com]
Racial politics supported by State power come down on George Zimmerman [legalinsurrection.com]
Re:So sue 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides suing, he should consider bringing a complaint before the Bar. Not turning over possible exculpatory evidence would seem to be an ethics violation.
Close. The ethics violation is a relatively minor issue.
Yes it is an ethics violation, but more importantly it is also a violation of both the US Constitution and the Florida State Constitution.
It is an unfortunate trend, but prosecutors and police across the country have been facing ever-increasing claims of withholding evidence. Really, the defense should be given access to all information.
Even in this case there was a tussle about the evidence being actually withheld, and the judge agreed that they withheld it and demanded everything be handed over ... but no penalty was given to the state for their violation.
Sadly violations are usually discounted as being accidental oversights and punishments against prosecutors are non-existent. It ought to result in immediate disbarment of the lawyers involved since the violation fundamentally destroys justice, but there is no incentive for the "good old boys" club to change.
Re:So sue 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
"It ought to result in immediate disbarment of the lawyers involved since the violation fundamentally destroys justice"
This.
My view is that it should be "an eye for an eye". In other words, people caught deliberately corrupting justice, by testifying falsely, or withholding evidence, etc. are putting others in danger of anywhere from jail to even the death penalty. So... the punishment for doing so should be exactly the same punishment faced by the defendant.
When a policeman on the witness stand could face life in prison unless they tell it straight... watch them start telling it straight.
I think that would be an excellent solution to this problem. Ethical and just. People who deliberately put others in jeopardy should face exactly the same jeopardy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The main issue is that the Prosecution withheld material information from the defense, denying the accused a "Fair Trial" which means they now have legitimate grounds to apeal and overturn any conviction made. In fact, if the evidence that the prosecution failed to provide to the defense shows a clear case of innocence, the prosecution can be sanctioned by the court for failing to abide. Keep in mind that judges do not like their time wasted by some witch hunt and if that is the case, the prosecution is goi
Re:So sue 'em. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So sue 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So sue 'em. (Score:5, Funny)
The solution is simple then: never, ever give raises.
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the disingenuity that drove Martin Luther King Jr to refer to "Right to Work" as one of the greatest frauds perpetrated against the american people.
Re: (Score:3)
Florida governor Rick Scot is a nightmare from the right wing. He had no business ordering a trial or arrest of Mr. Zimmerman. The county sheriff refused to arrest Mr. Zimmerman as it was clear that no crime had taken place. The county prosecutor had no interest in causing an arrest of an innocent man. The sheriff was fired and the governor assigned a special prosecutor. A criminal investigation is already under way and there is a serious violation of Mr. Zimmerman's civil liberties. Governor Scot belongs
Re:He won't. His firing is legitimate. (Score:5, Interesting)
Was the computer assigned to him to be wiped clean as part of his duties as IT Director? The letter doesn't say.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:He won't. His firing is legitimate. (Score:4, Insightful)
"You can't do that."
Sure you can. As long as you back up the files that you are required by law to keep, you can do any damned thing you want with a hard drive.
"BULL SHIT."
As a former IT manager myself, I can tell you that it's probably anything BUT bullshit. Somebody leaves for another job? Back up important stuff, wipe the hard drive, install everything fresh. Sometimes maybe 2-3 machines in one day, depending on the size of the office you are managing.
Re:So sue 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
He can't sue.
Florida is a "At Will Employment" state. The only thing you can sue for here is Discrimination. In Florida, you can be fired for anything, with or without reason, and you can quit, with or without reason.
Emphasis mine. What you said is not strictly true. You can be fired without reason, but if you provide a reason then it can't violate the numerous federal laws on the matter. For example, you can't fire someone for race, religion, sex, etc.
In this case they appear to have given a reason, and the reasons would seem to violate federal whistle blower laws, so he can sue.
Re: (Score:3)
He can sue for slander. Also, at will states do honor employment contracts and there may be something within the employment contract that could allow him to sue.
Loud and clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Loud and clear (Score:5, Informative)
The US government is sending a message: "We don't like whistle-blowers".
The Florida government is sending a message: "We don't like whistle-blowers".
Re: (Score:3)
Any chance they'll get this one branded a traitor by the end of next week?
Re:Loud and clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Any chance they'll get this one branded a traitor by the end of next week?
Come now. Haven't you been paying attention to the US for the last 12 years?
They're going to label him a terrorist.
Re: (Score:3)
"You have proven to be completely untrustworthy. Because of your deliberate, wilful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted..."
Already been done, it seems.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the Florida AG initiated this whole trial because the Obama's office specifically egged them on into doing it (in spite of clearing the guy initially), I suspect that the US government gets to take on a piece of the blame for anything having to do with this trial, albeit indirectly, since they pretty much started it.
(...mind the flames and impending down-mods, campers!)
Re:Loud and clear (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Loud and clear (Score:5, Informative)
In Florida, transparency is not up to the whim or grace of public officials. Instead, it is an enforceable right.
From the website of the Office of the Attorney General of Florida titled Open Government [myfloridalegal.com]. The irony is strong in this one.
Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like the Florida State Attorney's Office has some s'plainin' to do. Withholding evidence from the defense is really, super unethical; I wouldn't be surprised if you could be disbarred for it. This is a highly politicized case, and it's not surprising that the state really wants to win it to save face, but really guys? Doing that kind of shit under the color of public authority is fucked up. Like Nifong (see Duke lacrosse) fucked up..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... (Score:5, Interesting)
A Brady violation is a big, big deal. And it's usually NOT a good idea to piss off the guy who has proof of wrongdoing - they just ensured that he will be a quite eager witness at their disbarrment proceedings.
Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
So when it comes down to it, the case against Zimmerman hinges in no small way on intent. To show intent, they bring out character issues. Okay. I get that. So what about the defense's right to defend their case? The defense's case hinges in non small way on Zimmerman being attacked by a violent person. To prove that case, the character of the assailant is relevant evidence. At every turn, however, the evidence of character of the assailant has been blocked. It is EXTREMELY important and denies Zimmerman a fair trial when his defense case is self-defense. How can anyone prove it if they can't easily show that he was being attacked by a violent person? Lots of evidence shows that, but it wasn't allowed. Why?
Obligation to keep it confidential? When a miscarriage of justice is being perpetrated, it is a citizen's duty to report it. And suppression of evidence is a serious crime. The government is not "priviledged." If you think so, it's a problem. And there is no indication he gave evidence to anyone. It would seem he only reported that it exists.
Additionally, evidence of being a drug user was certainly important. 1. It was in his system. 2. He was not carrying "Iced Tea" he was carrying two ingredients for making "Lean." That's huge. Once again, proving the character of the assailant is key to the defense's case. It's the nation's legal responsibility that all charged receive a fair trial.
Re: (Score:3)
Would someone that eats babies be more or less likely to assault someone?
The defence was that Zimmerman acted in self defence. That meant he was the victim of an assault. Demonstrating that Martin had a history of violence makes it more plausible that he would indeed have attacked Zimmerman.
What Zimmerman knew that night was that he was assaulted. Martin's character is important in assessing the truth of that, not in assessing whether it was right to shoot him.
Re: (Score:3)
Zackly. It's fine for the prosecution to portray Zimmerman as a "wanna be cop" but when the defense wants to portray sweet, angelic Trayvon as a wanna be (if not actual) gangsta, all of a sudden, the judge has a case of the vapours.
Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... (Score:5, Interesting)
YES! The Victim caused his own death. It's a key and important factor in all of this. The claim is self-defense. Without the ability to show that the victim was also an drug-using, assailant with a history of violence and other criminal behavior, how can anyone ever prove self-defense? What evidence could serve to prove self-defense? Well, I suppose there was the uninjured body of Trayvon Martin... uninjured except for that bullet wound. Then there's all the head and face wounds all over Zimmerman. There was that eye-witness too. None of those matter right?
Blaming the victim is an important and relevant part of ensuring a fair trial. Just because someone is a victim does not mean they were completely innocent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, so we're judging the victim here!
So you have already decided the outcome of the trial already.
If Martin straddling Zimmerman when he was shot (as the forensic evidence says he was) then he is not the victim, he was the perp.
Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... (Score:5, Informative)
And it's defense, not defence.
Either spelling is acceptable. The people who invented the language spell it with a 'c'.
Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... (Score:4, Informative)
It's worth knowing that the "evidence" is comprised of the personal photographs of the victim of the crime:
Are you saying that someone holding a gun is "evidence" even though there was no gun belonging to Trayvon Martin found at the scene? Or is the fact that he's a young black man holding a gun prima facie evidence that Trayvon must have really been a thug so he deserved to be killed for walking down the street with an iced tea and pack of Skittles? And, "a text message referring to a gun transaction"? Again, what would any of this have to do with the fact that George Zimmerman shot an unarmed person?
What exactly is any of this "evidence" of? What are you trying to say, son?
Re: (Score:3)
I will say that photographs of a kid holding a gun and text messages telling him to not get into any more fights is evidence that it is not just some kid with a pack of skittles.
The prosecution was trying to present this as if Trayvon was some innocent 5 year old with a box of candy who was gunned down by a racist while minding his own business. The complete picture is that this kid was 17, more then capable of fighting, more then capable of putting Zimmerman in a position in which he feared gross bodily ha
Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, I think the state had a pretty good manslaughter case against Zimmerman, but with all the antics they've been pulling, they are just asking to get an acquittal or an overturn on appeal. You can't go and give a guy a good performance eval and a raise, and then suddenly fire him and claim that he's a bad employee when he reveals that you may have been messing with evidence.
The worst part? Sounds like the evidence wasn't really relevant.
I hope this guys successfully sues these idiots.
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score:4, Interesting)
they are just asking to get an acquittal or an overturn on appeal
What would be really disconcerting: What if they're trying to screw up the case? I mean, they weren't exactly enthusiastic about even arresting or trying Zimmerman in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Hanlon's (or Heinlein's [wikipedia.org]) Razor:
"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, I think the state had a pretty good manslaughter case against Zimmerman
While I think Zimmerman should have stopped following Martin once the police were contacted, following someone on a public street is not actually illegal in any way in Florida. Legally Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong there. Then he was promptly jumped and attacked by Martin. Had Martin used his fists alone I would absolutely want to see Zimmerman punished, but Martin didn't stop there. Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head into the pavement, something that can cause death or permanent disabling injury. He was, in effect, using the concrete as a deadly bludgeoning weapon. Zimmerman wouldn't have had a chance to try to flee considering he was on the ground getting pounded. That lead to Martin being shot. Correct me if I have any of that wrong (not liking it doesn't make it false...).
I think it's a damned shame that Martin got himself killed at such a young age. If it were up to me there would have been no conflict, or the mere sight of a gun would have scared him off and it would have ended there, but let's be clear about this: if you want to violently attack a stranger who has not initiated violence against you, you are taking a risk. It's a poor choice to make and all the sadness in the world about what happened doesn't suddenly make this a wise move.
Punishing Zimmerman doesn't change this reality, but it might make others who get attacked choose victimhood because they are afraid of the legal consequences of defending themselves. We already have states where homeowners hesitate to shoot a home invader because they might get in serious trouble, and all this does is lower the risk of burglarizing the law-abiding which in turn can only make burglers more bold. If being a violent criminal is a great way to remove oneself from the gene pool, I am absolutely fine with that. I have no sympathy for those who initiate violence. They live by the sword and sometimes they die by the sword. That's their choice. They are not victims. I reserve my sympathy for victims.
The worst part? Sounds like the evidence wasn't really relevant.
What is the value of refusing to let the jury hear this evidence? If it is truly irrelevant then it shouldn't influence their decision anyway. What damage could be done that the judge was trying to prevent by disallowing it?
Incidentally it certainly can't be worse than the photos shown of Martin when he was twelve years old, an obvious attempt to make him look as helpless and childish as possible to further demonize Zimmerman rather than showing him as he actually was, big enough and strong enough to do some damage to another man and old enough to know better. When people have to resort to these kinds of emotional appeals and outright distortion and propaganda tactics to make their case, I have to assume it is because the facts are against them.
Re: (Score:3)
Zimmerman followed because the operator was asking specific questions about the person he was calling in about. He stopped following when told. What did he do wrong exactly?
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score:4, Insightful)
Getting one's head bashed into the ground is a "life threatening situation" even here in liberal leaning Canada.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, that was AFTER Zimmerman strapped on a gun, got out of his car and followed Martin. Each one of those 3 actions is proscribed by neighborhood watch guides.
An easier way to see it is if Martin had been a woman. Zimmerman has a gun and starts following a woman. She uses pepper spray and while he's blinded, she kicks him. So he shoots her. No one would be sympathizing with Zimmerman.
What guide is that exactly? (Score:3)
Each one of those 3 actions is proscribed by neighborhood watch guides.
Oh really. What "guide" is that? Or is it something you are simply parroting because someone else claimed it was so on the internet?
Nothing like that in this guide [ca.gov].
An easier way to see it is if Martin had been a woman. Zimmerman has a gun and starts following a woman.
Yes, it's pretty clear to me that had a woman thrown Zimmerman to the ground and started beating him senseless simply for following her and asking why she was there, he sh
Re: (Score:3)
Why is she kicking him instead of fleeing and calling for help?
The response has to be proportional to the threat. When the threat is a verbal confrontation and the response is slamming a man's head into the ground, you lose ability to claim victim status.
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score:4, Insightful)
No, An easier way to see it is if a North Korea detonated a nuclear weapon in a major US city. What? You don't see the analogy because I changed the facts to make it completely inapplicable? Well, if you can do that, so can everyone else.
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score:5, Informative)
I think you have that wrong. The prosecution was trying to say that when the shot was fired, there was a distance between the two that would have allowed Zimmerman to retreat instead of shooting. Expert witnesses in the field of forensics say the evidence matches Martin being on the top of Zimmerman and the gun being between 2 and 4 inches with the muzzle touching his shirt. The muzzle touching the shirt is what clinches it as gravity would cause the shirt to fall away from the body. This is how the gun was X inches away but touching the shirt, in a position of being over top of someone, the shirt falls away from the body towards the gun which was held by the person on the ground and under the one shot.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/09/forensic-expert-says-zimmerman-on-bottom-fired-at-close-range/ [dailycaller.com]
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/28/prosecution-witness-in-zimmerman-trial-testifies-martin-on-top-in-fight/ [hotair.com]
I'm not sure where or how, but there is a lot of misinformation out there about this. I know the mass media has already been caught doctoring the 9/11 recordings to make things sound different then what happened. They have posted pictures of Martin at age 12 instead of 17 in attempts to gain sympathy or whatever for him. We have documents declaring the US government being involved and aiding protesters for some reason. It is as if there is a concerted effort to cause a problem at the ending of this trial in order to push some political agenda or something.
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score:4, Insightful)
What matters is that it seems Zimmerman followed him, confronted him,
Except, that is not what the evidence and the testimony showed. The testimony showed that Zimmer followed Martin, and that Martin confronted Zimmerman
and was probably not realistically in fear of his life when he shot him.The whole "slamming on the pavement" thing has been contested. There really isn't hard evidence of what happened.
You seem unclear on the American legal system. Zimmerman is considered innocent until proven guilty. In fact, there was hard evidence Zimmerman's head had been slammed into the sidewalk. His wounds were consistent with that. But, that is actually irrelevant because there was no hard evidence that it didn't happen and that is what the prosecution had to provide. Zimmerman never had to prove his innocence, rather the prosecution had to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
As to the excluded evidence, it goes to the character of the victim and the claims of the prosecution. The prosecution's whole case revolved around the idea that Martin was an innocent victim who did nothing wrong, wouldn't attack anyone, and was unjustly targeted and murdered. They put forth Martin as a good kid who wouldn't commit a crime, wouldn't hurt anyone, and wouldn't be the aggressor. The excluded evidence cast doubt on that characterization. It showed that Martin could have been the aggressor and wasn't such a good kid after all.
Actually, whether or not Martin was a thug has bearing as it directly effects the prosecutions case. The prosecution case revolved around the idea that Martin would never have been and was not the aggressor, but that isn't the way thugs act. If Martin was a thug, then he might have attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman claimed.
By the way, it was Martin on drugs, not Zimmerman.
Early on in your post, you state "I think they probably could make the case. Murder no way, but Manslaughter ", but then later you say "I don't care enough to go and review the evidence". You are making statements based on ignorance and it really sounds like you believe Zimmerman should have been treated as guilty until proven innocent.
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score:5, Interesting)
[i]The worst part? Sounds like the evidence wasn't really relevant.[/i]
I watched the coverage gavel to gavel of the Zimmerman trial. What was on Trayvon Martin's phone is maybe the most damaging information of all to the State's case. It is incredibly damaging to Trayvon Martin and his family and introduces criminal findings against them.
The State withheld evidence that Trayvon Martin was dealing and using drugs, dealing illegal firearms, and was in possession of an illegal firearm. And that Trayvon Martin was into fighting and beating people up and had punched someone in the nose earlier that month. And that he had assaulted a public bus driver and the police showed up but the driver was told to continue his route and not press charges.
There is also significantly strong evidence that Trayvon Martin's father was working with his son to acquire illegal weapons and that his father's nickname 'Fruit' was used amongst organized gang circles. There are texts that mention buying and selling pistols. And even a photo of Trayvon holding an illegal pistol. The photo is all over the internet and is not hard to find. The State withheld all of this and forced the defending attorneys to run around in circles to obtain the phone data.
The judge also ruled that none of the phone data on Trayvon Martin's phone was admissible. Why? Because there was no hard proof that Trayvon was actually the one operating the phone when those messages were sent and received. And that "anyone could have been operating Trayvon's phone at any time". The phone was DOUBLE password protected and took the State an entire year to crack. But the State said in court that even a "seven-year-old child could have cracked the phone and sent those messages". The judge agreed.
This case is disgusting. It is clear from top to bottom that it was rigged. When you have even the President of the United States deliberately poisoning the jury pool by commenting on the situation without knowing any discovery evidence years before a trial begins it is unreal. The State of Florida is out of control. This entire affair was a political theater event designed to win some elections.
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Even if the guy was the antichrist and his favorite hobby was raping babies, how does it change the facts?
There was an overzealous "watch" guy stalking an unarmed man coming back from the store. At no point did the victim ever do anything that warranted harassment or stalking. Zimmerman is the one who initiated the confrontation, the one who caused it and the one bearing full responsibility for the events that followed.
The fact that the victim might have
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What are you talking about? Self defense is an affirmative defense which means Zimmerman has to prove that it was self defense. Remember, the burden of proof is on the claimant. The state just has to show there is reasonable doubt to his defense. If Zimmerman had said he didn't do it then the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. In this case he admits he did it.
From findlaw:
"To see how one of these defenses works, let's look at the pending Trayvon Martin trial. George Zimmerman w
Bonus! (Score:3)
Oh, look. They want to pay him and his attorneys a lot of money! Great 'retirement' option!
Idiots.
The truth of the case (Score:5, Funny)
Obama hired Zimmerman to shoot Trayvon so he wouldn't have to pay child support.
Trayvon didn't just "look like" his son...
More proof the entire trial (Score:5, Interesting)
Good discussion of IT ethics threadjacked by GZ (Score:3, Insightful)
You knuckleheads couldn't resist, could you? Perfectly good discussion of "when do you, as an IT person, have a moral and possibly legal obligation to intercede when unethical shenanigans goes on with your area of expertise," and you turn it the Twitter feed on Nancy Grace about an unremarkable trial in some shithole in Florida.
I remember when /. wasn't /b/
They should have never let you AOLusers on the real internet, just kept you in the box pink dialup sandbox.
Show Trial (Score:5, Insightful)
The Zimmerman trial has been nothing short of a farce from the get go. It is reminiscent of Soviet-era show trials because the race baiters have turned this into a witch-hunt.
1.The original probable cause affidavit was so riddled with mistakes and inaccuracies that even a 1L (first year law student) wouldn't make such a mistake. To put speculations in an affidavit and then to swear, under of penalty of perjury, that they are facts is perpetrating fraud upon the court. Affidavits are not places where you speculate or state what your gut feeling is or what you think might have happened. It is a place to state facts. In addition, deliberately omitting evidence from the affidavit that is exculpatory in nature is unethical. Even Alan Dershowitz, who is about as left as you can get, blasted their handiwork.
2.The media has been doing their damnedest to make this about race. Every thing from inventing new terms, like white hispanic, to altering Zimmerman's photo to make him appear whiter and only showing pictures of Trayvon Martin when he was much younger to make him appear more angelic and innocent. In addition, they have been working tirelessly to plant the idea of having riots into peoples minds by continuously bringing it up.
3.The prosecution's entire side was a joke. I mean, Rachel Jeantel changed her story so many times that you would need an entire notebook to keep track of all of them. It was also painfully obvious that she had been coached by the prosecution. The other "witnesses" weren't much better.
4.There is no evidence for murder and the prosecution knows it. Even if the jury convicts (most likely, out of fear for their life or just plain idiocy since jurors are picked based on their emotional susceptibility rather than their intelligence), it will be overturned so fast on appeal that they won't even know what hit them. The case for manslaughter isn't much better and introducing that AFTER the defense has rested is highly unethical on the part of both the judge and the prosecution.
5.Speaking of the judge, she is a life long democrat and has demonstrated very clear evidence of bias. When George Zimmerman refused to testify, she disparaged and criticized him. A defendant has the right not to testify and it is highly unethical for a judge to browbeat a defendant for that because you are not allowed to make a negative inference from an exercise of the 5th amendment.
6.Now we get evidence that the prosecution is, once again, withholding exculpatory evidence. To go after the whistleblower, who blew the whistle on their unethical and illegal activities, just demonstrates how truly execrable the prosecution is.
Regardless of what you think of George Zimmerman, regardless of what you think of Trayvon Martin, regardless of who you think is to blame, regardless of whether you think George Zimmerman was racist, you should not be supporting such a mockery of justice. Everyone accused of a crime deserves their change to have a proper, fair, and just trial. This is nothing of the sort; it is a show trial and a political witch hunt.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)