Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Did the State Intentionally Throw the Case?

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:02:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The same prosecutor who made sophomoric mistakes in dealing with the Zimmerman case successfully had an African American woman who fired a warning shot at her abusive husband, who threatened to strangle her, jailed for twenty years. (http://www.cnn.com...). Apparently self-defense did not apply to this African American woman in spite of the fact that she did not kill anybody. (Not surprisingly, the NRA doesn't care about her case either-I wonder why gun rights evaporated for her in their eyes).

This seems to raise two possibilities. Either the prosecutor threw the case in the Zimmerman trial or the justice system doesn't really care about women and minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:24:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's a comment below the article that's of interest:

"What CNN is conveniently not telling you is that when she posted bail after being taken into custody the first time, she was told not to go near her husband. Instead she drove over to his house and got into an altercation with him ending up with him receiving a black eye. This being the man of whom she "feared for her life." Also, the bullet hole was not in the ceiling, but rather lower in the wall leading into the room next door. People on here are too quick to judge and need to learn how to get all the facts before making a decision."

I'm getting sick of reporters giving us the shorthand of stories with highly skewed narratives. See now I was getting annoyed until I read this comment; this is the kind of factor that makes me understand the sentence. Not that I think discharging a firearm without any intent to hurt anyone and NOT hurting anyone should be considered a crime, but if that's the law then the court followed the letter of the law the same way the Zimmerman court followed the letter of the law.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lucky_Luciano
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:32:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:02:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This seems to raise two possibilities. Either the prosecutor threw the case in the Zimmerman trial or the justice system doesn't really care about women and minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.

Or perhaps he performed better during one case than in the other, or that the evidence was stronger in one than in the other. Why do we have to assume the worst?
"Age is not important" - Airmax 2014
"Australia... is that a place?" - Airmax 2014
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:36:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:32:11 AM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:02:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This seems to raise two possibilities. Either the prosecutor threw the case in the Zimmerman trial or the justice system doesn't really care about women and minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.

Or perhaps he performed better during one case than in the other, or that the evidence was stronger in one than in the other. Why do we have to assume the worst?

Because it just may involve 'racism,' that's fvcking why.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:47:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:24:00 AM, 000ike wrote:

Not that I think discharging a firearm without any intent to hurt anyone and NOT hurting anyone should be considered a crime, but if that's the law then the court followed the letter of the law the same way the Zimmerman court followed the letter of the law.

Because putting other people's lives at risk shouldn't be illegal?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:52:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:24:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
Here's a comment below the article that's of interest:

"What CNN is conveniently not telling you is that when she posted bail after being taken into custody the first time, she was told not to go near her husband. Instead she drove over to his house and got into an altercation with him ending up with him receiving a black eye. This being the man of whom she "feared for her life." Also, the bullet hole was not in the ceiling, but rather lower in the wall leading into the room next door. People on here are too quick to judge and need to learn how to get all the facts before making a decision."

I'm getting sick of reporters giving us the shorthand of stories with highly skewed narratives. See now I was getting annoyed until I read this comment; this is the kind of factor that makes me understand the sentence. Not that I think discharging a firearm without any intent to hurt anyone and NOT hurting anyone should be considered a crime, but if that's the law then the court followed the letter of the law the same way the Zimmerman court followed the letter of the law.

I'd like more evidence of this unsubstantiated claim than a comment from an anonymous user. I've seen plenty of speculation on news articles that are blatantly false.

I don't even care about the warning shot. As far as I'm concerned, she had the right to kill anybody who was attempting to strangle her. She was kind enough to fire a warning shot. I wouldn't have been.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:52:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:02:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The same prosecutor who made sophomoric mistakes in dealing with the Zimmerman case successfully had an African American woman who fired a warning shot at her abusive husband, who threatened to strangle her, jailed for twenty years. (http://www.cnn.com...). Apparently self-defense did not apply to this African American woman in spite of the fact that she did not kill anybody. (Not surprisingly, the NRA doesn't care about her case either-I wonder why gun rights evaporated for her in their eyes).

This seems to raise two possibilities. Either the prosecutor threw the case in the Zimmerman trial or the justice system doesn't really care about women and minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.

Royal, law isn't that simple.

No two cases are ever the exact same.
While I agree with you that the Treyvon Martin case didn't exactly go out as expected (how the heck is that self-defense?) No two cases are ever the exact same. Comparing cases ignores the subtle factors that create a guilty or not guilty verdict.

What people say, or do even just the hint of it in the legal process can make all the difference, it's the sad reality.
Thank you for voting!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:53:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:32:11 AM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:02:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This seems to raise two possibilities. Either the prosecutor threw the case in the Zimmerman trial or the justice system doesn't really care about women and minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.

Or perhaps he performed better during one case than in the other, or that the evidence was stronger in one than in the other. Why do we have to assume the worst?

What evidence? She confessed to doing it and explained why she did it. The article says she was convicted because she went back into her house to get her car keys. She was convicted for trying to escape in a reasonable manner instead of fleeing on foot and inevitably having to return.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:56:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:32:11 AM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:02:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This seems to raise two possibilities. Either the prosecutor threw the case in the Zimmerman trial or the justice system doesn't really care about women and minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.

Or perhaps he performed better during one case than in the other, or that the evidence was stronger in one than in the other. Why do we have to assume the worst?

Plus, the prosecutor made a sophomoric "mistake" in the Zimmerman case by trying him for second degree murder instead of manslaughter in spite of the fact that he or she didn't have enough evidence to convict Zimmerman for murder.
Lucky_Luciano
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 8:17:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:56:07 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:32:11 AM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:02:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This seems to raise two possibilities. Either the prosecutor threw the case in the Zimmerman trial or the justice system doesn't really care about women and minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.

Or perhaps he performed better during one case than in the other, or that the evidence was stronger in one than in the other. Why do we have to assume the worst?

Plus, the prosecutor made a sophomoric "mistake" in the Zimmerman case by trying him for second degree murder instead of manslaughter in spite of the fact that he or she didn't have enough evidence to convict Zimmerman for murder.

Prove to me that this mistake was intentional.
"Age is not important" - Airmax 2014
"Australia... is that a place?" - Airmax 2014
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:19:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:56:07 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:32:11 AM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:02:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This seems to raise two possibilities. Either the prosecutor threw the case in the Zimmerman trial or the justice system doesn't really care about women and minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.

Or perhaps he performed better during one case than in the other, or that the evidence was stronger in one than in the other. Why do we have to assume the worst?

Plus, the prosecutor made a sophomoric "mistake" in the Zimmerman case by trying him for second degree murder instead of manslaughter in spite of the fact that he or she didn't have enough evidence to convict Zimmerman for murder.

That's not a mistake, or even a bad thing. It's actually quite smart. Honestly, if I were the prosecutor/DA, I'd do the same thing. That's because by charging him with Murder 2, you also indirectly are charging him with Manslaughter too--the jury had the option of convicting him of Manslaughter even if they didn't buy Murder 2 as an option.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:22:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Or, there's the possibility that literally every jury is different, and even though they all are instructed in a very impartial manner, every single jury and jury member will have a different lens through which he or she will view a case.

Seriously, it's always the jury that decides cases in the end.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
SweetTea
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 5:36:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wow. I hadn't entertained the thought, until I saw this question under Forums. I suppose anything is possible, but probable is another issue.

So much about this case stands out in my mind:

1. A jury of 6? I never heard of it, before this trial.

2. An all-female jury? If one is supposed to be judged by his peers, where were the men at? Surely, one man could have made it on that jury.

3. Not 1 Black jurist? Really? Zimmerman is half White & half Hispanic. The jury managed to have both of those races present. The victim was Black. He deserved to have a voice from the Black community, on that jury.

4. Why, when neither side really addressed manslaughter, was it suddenly thrown in the mix? Was this to help the prosecution? Did the judge feel the prosecution hadn't fulfilled their obligation & added the option? Or was it meant to confuse the jury?

My personal feeling, upon hearing the verdict, was disbelief. I didn't think there was enough to suggest murder, but I certainly felt that the dots could be connected for manslaughter. I feel sympathy for Martin's parents & relief that Zimmerman ISN'T living in my neighborhood.

I'm 53. I went through integration in the Deep South viewed as White, Catholic & a D*mned Yankee. In the 1960's, that was about 1 notch above being Black. I had my faith ridiculed. I took jokes over half of my family being Northerners. And I certainly didn't understand the hatred that was focused on Civil Rights, back then. I've seen it, firsthand. Racism in full-afterburner. It's scary & cruel. It's a zone where even White are pressured & fearful. I can only imagine how unbearable it was for the Black community, back then. Compared to the rest of America, that small Mississippi town was like a different country. Sanford, FL, gave me an eerie feeling of deja vu.

So, did the State throw the case? I would hope not. But from Caylee Anthony to Trayvon Martin, Florida is certainly establishing itself as a state that cares little about the killing of children. I guess we all first saw that years ago, when Adam Walsh went missing. Sad. Really sad.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 8:50:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If anyone thinks the justice system is racist because they didn't throw a half hispanic guy in jail for defending himself, please remember that OJ Simpson is still walking free.

So, Royal, as usual, you have showcased your utter ignorance about everything.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 9:08:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:02:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The same prosecutor who made sophomoric mistakes in dealing with the Zimmerman case successfully had an African American woman who fired a warning shot at her abusive husband, who threatened to strangle her, jailed for twenty years. (http://www.cnn.com...). Apparently self-defense did not apply to this African American woman in spite of the fact that she did not kill anybody. (Not surprisingly, the NRA doesn't care about her case either-I wonder why gun rights evaporated for her in their eyes).

This seems to raise two possibilities. Either the prosecutor threw the case in the Zimmerman trial or the justice system doesn't really care about women and minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.

Actually, you forgot the third:

The prosecutors wanted to look good in front of the cameras so they pressed for second degree murder which they knew was a huge risk versus involuntary manslaughter. They took the risk and failed.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 9:10:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:24:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
Here's a comment below the article that's of interest:

"What CNN is conveniently not telling you is that when she posted bail after being taken into custody the first time, she was told not to go near her husband. Instead she drove over to his house and got into an altercation with him ending up with him receiving a black eye. This being the man of whom she "feared for her life." Also, the bullet hole was not in the ceiling, but rather lower in the wall leading into the room next door. People on here are too quick to judge and need to learn how to get all the facts before making a decision."

I'm getting sick of reporters giving us the shorthand of stories with highly skewed narratives. See now I was getting annoyed until I read this comment; this is the kind of factor that makes me understand the sentence. Not that I think discharging a firearm without any intent to hurt anyone and NOT hurting anyone should be considered a crime, but if that's the law then the court followed the letter of the law the same way the Zimmerman court followed the letter of the law.

Huh, so you're telling me that after a law enforcement official told a person that he/she should not pursue another individual who may be dangerous, he/she continued to pursue the person and started a conflict?

Damn good thing Zimmerman didn't do that.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 9:44:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 9:10:54 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:24:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
Here's a comment below the article that's of interest:

"What CNN is conveniently not telling you is that when she posted bail after being taken into custody the first time, she was told not to go near her husband. Instead she drove over to his house and got into an altercation with him ending up with him receiving a black eye. This being the man of whom she "feared for her life." Also, the bullet hole was not in the ceiling, but rather lower in the wall leading into the room next door. People on here are too quick to judge and need to learn how to get all the facts before making a decision."

I'm getting sick of reporters giving us the shorthand of stories with highly skewed narratives. See now I was getting annoyed until I read this comment; this is the kind of factor that makes me understand the sentence. Not that I think discharging a firearm without any intent to hurt anyone and NOT hurting anyone should be considered a crime, but if that's the law then the court followed the letter of the law the same way the Zimmerman court followed the letter of the law.

Huh, so you're telling me that after a law enforcement official told a person that he/she should not pursue another individual who may be dangerous, he/she continued to pursue the person and started a conflict?

Damn good thing Zimmerman didn't do that.

I don't really have a lot of patience for dishonest shorthand summaries like that. But just briefly: The woman did not initiate conflict by disobeying instruction by law enforcement - and her choice to return to the house is what diminishes the claims of "fear" in her defense. In Zimmerman's case, Trayvon appears to have initiated the conflict, and the fear doesn't become an intervening variable until that physical conflict occurs. Zimmerman did not fear Martin yet choose to pursue him the same way the woman did.

So no. What you wrote is invalid.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 6:23:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 8:17:52 AM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:56:07 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:32:11 AM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:02:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This seems to raise two possibilities. Either the prosecutor threw the case in the Zimmerman trial or the justice system doesn't really care about women and minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.

Or perhaps he performed better during one case than in the other, or that the evidence was stronger in one than in the other. Why do we have to assume the worst?

Plus, the prosecutor made a sophomoric "mistake" in the Zimmerman case by trying him for second degree murder instead of manslaughter in spite of the fact that he or she didn't have enough evidence to convict Zimmerman for murder.

Prove to me that this mistake was intentional.

So you think that the experienced prosecution accidentally filed higher charges, and were incapable of changing the charges for a whole year?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 6:27:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 10:22:34 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Or, there's the possibility that literally every jury is different, and even though they all are instructed in a very impartial manner, every single jury and jury member will have a different lens through which he or she will view a case.

You mean the different lenses of six conservative white women?
SweetTea
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 6:29:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 8:50:07 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
If anyone thinks the justice system is racist because they didn't throw a half hispanic guy in jail for defending himself, please remember that OJ Simpson is still walking free.

So, Royal, as usual, you have showcased your utter ignorance about everything.

The state of Nevada put O.J. Simpson in jail, back in 2008. He could serve up to 33 years for the crime. I suspect Zimmerman will follow suit. Somewhere along the way, possibly not in FL, he'll misuse his firearm & he too will end up in prison.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 6:30:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 9:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/15/2013 9:10:54 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:24:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
Here's a comment below the article that's of interest:

"What CNN is conveniently not telling you is that when she posted bail after being taken into custody the first time, she was told not to go near her husband. Instead she drove over to his house and got into an altercation with him ending up with him receiving a black eye. This being the man of whom she "feared for her life." Also, the bullet hole was not in the ceiling, but rather lower in the wall leading into the room next door. People on here are too quick to judge and need to learn how to get all the facts before making a decision."

I'm getting sick of reporters giving us the shorthand of stories with highly skewed narratives. See now I was getting annoyed until I read this comment; this is the kind of factor that makes me understand the sentence. Not that I think discharging a firearm without any intent to hurt anyone and NOT hurting anyone should be considered a crime, but if that's the law then the court followed the letter of the law the same way the Zimmerman court followed the letter of the law.

Huh, so you're telling me that after a law enforcement official told a person that he/she should not pursue another individual who may be dangerous, he/she continued to pursue the person and started a conflict?

Damn good thing Zimmerman didn't do that.

I don't really have a lot of patience for dishonest shorthand summaries like that. But just briefly: The woman did not initiate conflict by disobeying instruction by law enforcement - and her choice to return to the house is what diminishes the claims of "fear" in her defense. In Zimmerman's case, Trayvon appears to have initiated the conflict, and the fear doesn't become an intervening variable until that physical conflict occurs. Zimmerman did not fear Martin yet choose to pursue him the same way the woman did.

So no. What you wrote is invalid.

Can I have some evidence other than some redneck's comment on a news article? I recently read a comment in which the same type of person that you are citing as fact fabricated evidence of violence in Georgia as a result of the Zimmerman acquittal. Provide some evidence.

Also, even if she did go back, that doesn't prove that she wasn't frightened when she fired the warning shot. The other incident would have occurred at a separate time, and she could have felt differently at that point. I fail to see why she merits a conviction for changing her mind.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 6:32:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is why jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives. I guess she should have allowed the husband to strangle her.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 6:34:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 6:29:03 AM, SweetTea wrote:
At 7/15/2013 8:50:07 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
If anyone thinks the justice system is racist because they didn't throw a half hispanic guy in jail for defending himself, please remember that OJ Simpson is still walking free.

So, Royal, as usual, you have showcased your utter ignorance about everything.



The state of Nevada put O.J. Simpson in jail, back in 2008. He could serve up to 33 years for the crime. I suspect Zimmerman will follow suit. Somewhere along the way, possibly not in FL, he'll misuse his firearm & he too will end up in prison.

I would ignore jimtimmy. He's the resident racist and attention-seeker. If you don't pay him mind, he'll follow you around like a puppy and beg for attention for a little while, but eventually he'll go away.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 6:36:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:02:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The same prosecutor who made sophomoric mistakes in dealing with the Zimmerman case successfully had an African American woman who fired a warning shot at her abusive husband, who threatened to strangle her, jailed for twenty years. (http://www.cnn.com...). Apparently self-defense did not apply to this African American woman in spite of the fact that she did not kill anybody. (Not surprisingly, the NRA doesn't care about her case either-I wonder why gun rights evaporated for her in their eyes).

This seems to raise two possibilities. Either the prosecutor threw the case in the Zimmerman trial or the justice system doesn't really care about women and minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.

There's a third possibility, it could be that it was a different case, with differences of context, evidence, facts, motivations and a different jury deciding.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 6:49:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 6:36:53 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:02:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The same prosecutor who made sophomoric mistakes in dealing with the Zimmerman case successfully had an African American woman who fired a warning shot at her abusive husband, who threatened to strangle her, jailed for twenty years. (http://www.cnn.com...). Apparently self-defense did not apply to this African American woman in spite of the fact that she did not kill anybody. (Not surprisingly, the NRA doesn't care about her case either-I wonder why gun rights evaporated for her in their eyes).

This seems to raise two possibilities. Either the prosecutor threw the case in the Zimmerman trial or the justice system doesn't really care about women and minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.

There's a third possibility, it could be that it was a different case, with differences of context, evidence, facts, motivations and a different jury deciding.

You're right-nobody was murdered and a woman saved her life. What a terrible thing for her to do. How dare she save her own life?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:10:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:02:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The same prosecutor who made sophomoric mistakes in dealing with the Zimmerman case successfully had an African American woman who fired a warning shot at her abusive husband, who threatened to strangle her, jailed for twenty years. (http://www.cnn.com...). Apparently self-defense did not apply to this African American woman in spite of the fact that she did not kill anybody. (Not surprisingly, the NRA doesn't care about her case either-I wonder why gun rights evaporated for her in their eyes).

This seems to raise two possibilities. Either the prosecutor threw the case in the Zimmerman trial or the justice system doesn't really care about women and minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.

Somebody's probably already said this - the state was given a case that every legal professional knew they couldn't win. So they didn't throw anything. The question is, why were they given the case? Who pressured them to do this?
This space for rent.
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:12:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
After seeing the female DA with brown curly hair at the post-verdict press conference (I can't remember her name) I wondered why she seemed so satisfied. There is a part of me that wonders if she knew that the trial was lost, was satisfied with the verdict because she knew the same thing that the NY Giants football star knew... that it was only a matter of time before "the hood" caught up with Zimmerman. When I saw that stupid young prosecutor with the unnaturally squared head tell the jury to "vote their hearts," however, I knew the case was lost. Was it intentional? I have no idea, but in order to prove that they weren't "voting their hearts" the jury had to exonerate Zimmerman because doing anything else would have been overcast with doubt. That young prosecutor's bar credentials should be subject to review, but that's just my opinion.
Tsar of DDO
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:33:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 6:34:09 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:29:03 AM, SweetTea wrote:
At 7/15/2013 8:50:07 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
If anyone thinks the justice system is racist because they didn't throw a half hispanic guy in jail for defending himself, please remember that OJ Simpson is still walking free.

So, Royal, as usual, you have showcased your utter ignorance about everything.



The state of Nevada put O.J. Simpson in jail, back in 2008. He could serve up to 33 years for the crime. I suspect Zimmerman will follow suit. Somewhere along the way, possibly not in FL, he'll misuse his firearm & he too will end up in prison.

I would ignore jimtimmy. He's the resident racist and attention-seeker. If you don't pay him mind, he'll follow you around like a puppy and beg for attention for a little while, but eventually he'll go away.

I love how you are trying to give off the illusion that you are trying to avoid contact with me. A person genuinely trying to ignore someone wouldn't call someone they are trying to avoid contact with a "racist" and "attention seeker" who is like a puppy. Instead, they would just ignore them.

Anyways, you are one of the least intelligent people on this site who says (being totally serious) stupid things on a daily basis.

Other leftists are smart sometimes, but you have never had an intelligent thought.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:40:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 6:32:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This is why jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives. I guess she should have allowed the husband to strangle her.

So instead of having multiple ordinary people determine someone's guilt such that there are people to "check" each other during deliberations, we should instead allow a single person who is of a higher status than everyone to make such decisions with no way for them to be checked? Okay.

Also, they weren't all white women. And I think that you are just WAAAAAAAAAAAY too quick to call them conservative just because they acquitted Zimmerman. Honestly. Juries are instructed to look at actual things like evidence, facts, details, and the possibility of reasonable doubt, not just the one fact that a half-white guy shot a black kid.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:44:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 6:27:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/15/2013 10:22:34 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Or, there's the possibility that literally every jury is different, and even though they all are instructed in a very impartial manner, every single jury and jury member will have a different lens through which he or she will view a case.

You mean the different lenses of six conservative white women?

No. First of all, see my previous post for the "six conservative white women," comment.

Second, what I'm saying is that all juries are different, so the one looking at the woman's case will by nature be ever-so-slightly different than Zimmerman's jury. So of course they won't look at the two cases with the exact same perspective. Plus, the fact is the two cases are just different themselves, different enough to the point that we can't isolate race as the defining issue, as much as you'd love for it to be.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus