This wasn't you writing your views, but quoting things about how they're there not to win but to get justice only (my paraphrase). I don't think this case was tried that way, and I don't mean outside pressures, but just the need to win, following rules or not. I hope it doesn't represent how most prosecutions are run. If I ever got in trouble, I'd want an ethical person like I consider Oculus to be to try my case.

In contrast, I was banned from Crooks and Liars from simply stating facts like the fact that Al Sharpton has a track record, the Tawana Brawley case shows he will promote a hoax. In this case,  he once again didn't do his homework and has gotten people worked up about the wrong thing.

What got me interested in the Martin/Zimmerman case in the first place was realizing how the media almost systematically withheld information and didn't report the facts.

But what got me interested in and made me take time out to follow the actual court case as it unfolded, was Mark O'Mara. The way he handled himself and his dignity was admirable - as it has been ever since.

I learned a lot in general from following the case but even more in particular from listening to and watching him. His closing statement was truly enlightening and must have had quite an impact on the jurors as it did on me.

The problem is the rhetoric has been extended to this case when there is absolutely no evidence that this was what the case was about.  There IS evidence, however, that GZ did not think Martin was suspicious merely because he was black, that he called the NEN merely because he was black, or that Martin ended up dead merely because he was black. In fact, background evidence suggests the exact opposite - GZ was very comfortable and friendly with members of the AA community and certainly did not hold racist views towards them.

Accordingly, the undersigned (on behalf of my client) formally and respectfully requests that you commission a State Attorney from another circuit to conduct an investigation as to whether or not the Office of the State Attorney for the 4th Judicial Circuit acted unlawfully in the termination of Mr. Kruidbos.

Kruidbos v Corey

Contrary to the provisions of Florida Statutes 92.57, KRUIDBOS was terminated by Defendant on Thursday July 11, 2013 in retaliation for having testified on June 6, 2013, pursuant to a subpoena, before the circuit court in and for Seminole County in State v. Zimmerman, Case No. 2012-001083-CFA. The nature of Plaintiff's testimony related to the suspected violation by the State Attorney's Office of its reciprocal discovery obligations under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and under Florida and federal law. A copy of the subpoena is attached hereto as "Exhibit A". A copy of the letter of termination is attached hereto as "Exhibit B".

Kruidbos Whistleblower Complaint to OIG

Contrary to the provisions of Florida Statutes 112.3187, Mr. Kruidbos was the victim of retaliatory action by the SAO on Friday, July 11, 2013 when he was terminated from employment. Mr. Kruidbos was terminated for having testified (pursuant to a subpoena) before the circuit court in and for Seminole County, on June 6, 2013. The nature of his testimony related to the possible knowing violation, by the State of Florida (the SAO), of its reciprocal discovery obligations (under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and under Florida and federal law) in a criminal prosecution. Such a violation falls within the
inherent authority of the circuit court to sanction the conduct and actions of parties and attorneys before the court.

I also live in a condo, with an HOA, in Florida which may give me a perspective a little different than some.

For those of you who don't know VC is a mostly libertarian, and somewhat conservative site, that has views from the far left to the far right.  It is rare to see a post deleted there and bashing is not uncommon.

With the disclaimer out of the way here is a Cliff Notes summary of the Zimmerman case with some parts almost directly plagiarized from VC.

Zimmerman was first described on VC as a registered Democrat active in a local protest against the police treatment of the police officer's son who beat up a homeless black guy.  Zimmerman spoke at a local black church and distributed flyers to raise awareness of the police department not being more sensitive to blacks.  He was a minority by the standards used at VC and the term "white Hispanic" was derided when used to describe him.  Early on a local NAACP official spoke out supporting Zimmerman for his sensitivity in dealing with blacks.

Once discovery started there was a great deal of discussion of the time line, physical evidence, and Florida law which seemed to support Zimmerman's self defense claim.  Perhaps more importantly the point was made that most DAs would not charge given the known facts since a hung jury seemed the best hoped for outcome for a DA.

As time passed more of Zimmerman's personal history came out and it seemed obvious he was not just a Democrat, but a somewhat liberal one who took a black girl to his HS prom, mentored black children, was active in liberal causes.  This seemed to be an example of the Democrats once again forming a circular firing squad.

Once Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder with a possible 30 years to life and Zimmerman admitted he voted for Obama someone commented that while they would like to see someone who voted for Obama get 30 to life realistically he would probably get off.

I anticipate that she will be here to clean up this thread and the sooner the better.

Early on in the case I followed the news by Google, and it was like watching a wave as something from AP, Reuters, or Orlando Sentinel moved across the globe.

Crump and Julison put out the initial story via just 4 journalists, and it was pretty much the same from each so the rest of the media all had the same story, same images, with minor editing for space.

1.  Not guilty is not the same as a finding of innocence, but innocence is also not ruled out.  
   
2.  If you review the jury instructions, based upon the evidence presented at trial, it is very difficult to see where the jury was wrong about the law and/or facts (evidence presented at trial)..  Wondering what facts you might think they were "wrong" about or what "law" they were wrong about).
   
3.  Referencing this case, the Zimmerman case, how is the law at "fault", allowing a huge loophole for self-defense claims?  If you are referring to Stand Your Ground, and that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat, well, the evidence indicates Zimmerman was unable to retreat as he was being pinned and beaten by Trayvon Martin.  Stand Your Ground had very little to do with this case and it was not used by the defense at trial...
   
4.  "May" is a cloudy word.  I suppose you are suggesting there was "implicit" racism in the Zimmerman case?  I guess the new "meme" is that many don't really know they are behaving in a racist fashion, but they are, because some African Americans perceive it to be so.  Therefore, this is applied to Zimmerman's case.  For anyone interested in this "meme", please read "It's the Little Things:  Everyday Interactions that Anger, Annoy and Divide the Races" by Lena Williams, written from an African American perspective.  I read it years ago and was literally shocked at some white behaviors that are perceived by blacks that suggest racism.
   
5.  Sorry, no law may be sufficient for some self-defense claims?  Don't understand.  Please elaborate.  IMHO, the right to defend one's self is important and should remain.  Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.
   
6.  I disagree with you about Zimmerman having moral culpability, but I predict this  relates back to the implicit racism issue.

There are blogs, often associated with mainstream media, that can have hundreds or thousands of comments. What's the use of that? No one can read them all.

Frankly, people who agree with Jeralyn often repeat the same stuff, too. But I understand that some people, like me, want to give voice to their opinions and talk to like-minded people on issues in which the MSM is doing it wrong.

I have yet to see Jeralyn limit someone who was stating actual factual information and news that pertained to the topic. People who get banned generally have been warned.

NABJ is also a job fair. I guarantee that people looking for jobs don't want to be the outlier on a prominent case like this. Networking is hugely important in a field where the job market is tight.

It seems to me that many people are effectively arguing that this is what the law should be. But I haven't seen any of them advocate legislation to that effect. I see them wimping out to an irrelevant demand for SYG repeal.

Loury: This kid, Trayvon Martin, is a poster child. . . . If you wanna be against 'stop and frisk', if you wanna be against citizen vigilante-ism, if you wanna be against police brutality and excess, he's a poster child case. No doubt about it.

Btw, the comment section has some of my earliest work on the Zimmerman case, before I posted on it here. It might be amusing reading for those who have accused me of having an anti-Zimmerman 'agenda'.

I am not an angry person, but this case is under my skin and when I hear "stalk" or "he should not have gotten out of his truck" my fingers fly and I can be a paragraph in before I rephrase my comment.

Some things do seem to be slowly sinking in, but at the same time the core of the case is dropping off a lot of peoples radar with most of the Crump/Julison narrative still intact.

Seriously? "Your contrary views...are not of interest here."

O'Mara had just been on the job about a week and I know discovery wasn't applicable yet, but what information did he have? Would he have been given police reports by then? Or able to review the investigation the SPD had done?

I'm wondering because of that "no lawyer should ask a question unless he knows the answer" saying. Did O'Mara know what info Galbreath had when he was questioning him about what evidence he had?