Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

George Zimmerman Guilty !

inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:02:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



It doesn't matter, I would rather let the occasional OJ Simpson or George Zimmerman get away than have thousands (or millions) falsely convicted because of a justice system that is willing to convict people on inconclusive evidence.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:11:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:02:57 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



It doesn't matter, I would rather let the occasional OJ Simpson or George Zimmerman get away than have thousands (or millions) falsely convicted because of a justice system that is willing to convict people on inconclusive evidence.

Interesting. But he should go to a Federal court instead.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:16:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:11:54 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:02:57 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



It doesn't matter, I would rather let the occasional OJ Simpson or George Zimmerman get away than have thousands (or millions) falsely convicted because of a justice system that is willing to convict people on inconclusive evidence.

Interesting. But he should go to a Federal court instead.

What else can he be charged with besides Murder 2 and Manslaughter? It's a double jeopardy, he can't be charged with Murder 2 or Manslaughter in any court ever again for this particular case, end of story.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:20:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 11:58:41 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Well then she should have stuck to her guns and hung the jury.

Instead she caved. She can't complain. She had all the power.

ummmm yeah, no. That wasn't the core of her argument. She was saying that the law supported his acquittal, and she was directed to act according to the letter of the law, but that her personal opinion disagrees with the law. You comment is a truncated assertion that doesn't reflect the situation before her.
"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
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:32:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:20:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:58:41 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Well then she should have stuck to her guns and hung the jury.

Instead she caved. She can't complain. She had all the power.

ummmm yeah, no. That wasn't the core of her argument. She was saying that the law supported his acquittal, and she was directed to act according to the letter of the law, but that her personal opinion disagrees with the law. You comment is a truncated assertion that doesn't reflect the situation before her.

That's fair, but read my comment above.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:33:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:11:54 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:02:57 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........

It doesn't matter, I would rather let the occasional OJ Simpson or George Zimmerman get away than have thousands (or millions) falsely convicted because of a justice system that is willing to convict people on inconclusive evidence.

Interesting. But he should go to a Federal court instead.

For what, a hate crime?
You can't prove what happened, so how the hell are you going to prove intent of hate?

Was Trayvon suspected because of:
1. the color of his skin (hate crime, maybe)
2. his age (not a hate crime)
3. his clothes (not a hate crime)
4. his actions/demeanor (what was he actually doing at the time)(not a hate crime)
5. his not being from the area (most likely not a hate crime, if GZ knows everyone in the neighborhood)
6. some combonation

There is no way a reasonable doubt isn't there.
My work here is, finally, done.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:34:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Admittedly, I think that one aspect of juries that I think needs to be brought back/recognized is that in the past, juries have not only been there to determine the defendant's guilt (or lack thereof) according to the law, but also to be a source of judgment of the law and its validity itself.
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
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:37:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:34:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Admittedly, I think that one aspect of juries that I think needs to be brought back/recognized is that in the past, juries have not only been there to determine the defendant's guilt (or lack thereof) according to the law, but also to be a source of judgment of the law and its validity itself.

Doesn't/didn't/shouldn't it only work one way, though?
If a law is unfair, the jury can nullify, but they shouldn't be overzealous and convict someone when they shouldn't (damn DWI, I want him to go down for murder, not vehicular manslaughter).
My work here is, finally, done.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:37:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:32:33 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:20:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:58:41 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Well then she should have stuck to her guns and hung the jury.

Instead she caved. She can't complain. She had all the power.

ummmm yeah, no. That wasn't the core of her argument. She was saying that the law supported his acquittal, and she was directed to act according to the letter of the law, but that her personal opinion disagrees with the law. You comment is a truncated assertion that doesn't reflect the situation before her.

That's fair, but read my comment above.

I agree with you. I'd rather someone guilty go free than someone innocent be convicted. I just thought CP's comment and attitude were unfair to the juror.
"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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:40:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:37:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:34:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Admittedly, I think that one aspect of juries that I think needs to be brought back/recognized is that in the past, juries have not only been there to determine the defendant's guilt (or lack thereof) according to the law, but also to be a source of judgment of the law and its validity itself.

Doesn't/didn't/shouldn't it only work one way, though?
If a law is unfair, the jury can nullify, but they shouldn't be overzealous and convict someone when they shouldn't (damn DWI, I want him to go down for murder, not vehicular manslaughter).

Oh no, of course. I think the verdict was completely fair. But I'm just commenting on the fact that that juror does still bring up an important subject for discussion, even if it doesn't apply in this case: is it right that we are becoming more strict with juries to look solely at the case rather than also judge the law in question?
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
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:44:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



I think the reality that everyone struggles with is that Trayvon would be alive today if George did not confront him, which was what lead up to the fight and shooting death.

Unfortunately in FL, the confrontation that started it all can't even be considered as neglect for a man slaughter charge. This is a failure of the FL legislative branch and conservatism, not the court or jury.

Fortunately a civil case has different standards and there is no way that Zimmerman will not be held responsible for his part. He will never pay the damages that will be awarded and he will never get jail time, but he is not exactly getting a picnic in the park either.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:06:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:44:37 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



I think the reality that everyone struggles with is that Trayvon would be alive today if George did not confront him, which was what lead up to the fight and shooting death.

Unfortunately in FL, the confrontation that started it all can't even be considered as neglect for a man slaughter charge. This is a failure of the FL legislative branch and conservatism, not the court or jury.

Fortunately a civil case has different standards and there is no way that Zimmerman will not be held responsible for his part. He will never pay the damages that will be awarded and he will never get jail time, but he is not exactly getting a picnic in the park either.

But Zimmerman didn't confront him. If Zimmerman did the confrontation, he would have been convicted of manslaughter. Martin likely jumped out and attacked him. Who ever started the violence is at fault, and the evidence does not suggest that Zimmerman started the violence. So the only way for this conflict to not have occurred is if Zimmerman didn't even try to look out for his neighborhood, which is a pretty ridiculous thing to suggest.
"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
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:16:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:40:34 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:37:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:34:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Admittedly, I think that one aspect of juries that I think needs to be brought back/recognized is that in the past, juries have not only been there to determine the defendant's guilt (or lack thereof) according to the law, but also to be a source of judgment of the law and its validity itself.

Doesn't/didn't/shouldn't it only work one way, though?
If a law is unfair, the jury can nullify, but they shouldn't be overzealous and convict someone when they shouldn't (damn DWI, I want him to go down for murder, not vehicular manslaughter).

Oh no, of course. I think the verdict was completely fair. But I'm just commenting on the fact that that juror does still bring up an important subject for discussion, even if it doesn't apply in this case: is it right that we are becoming more strict with juries to look solely at the case rather than also judge the law in question?

How can you say that the final verdict was fair, when the reasonable doubt rule doesnt conclusively prove that you are innocent. =)
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:18:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:06:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:44:37 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



I think the reality that everyone struggles with is that Trayvon would be alive today if George did not confront him, which was what lead up to the fight and shooting death.

Unfortunately in FL, the confrontation that started it all can't even be considered as neglect for a man slaughter charge. This is a failure of the FL legislative branch and conservatism, not the court or jury.

Fortunately a civil case has different standards and there is no way that Zimmerman will not be held responsible for his part. He will never pay the damages that will be awarded and he will never get jail time, but he is not exactly getting a picnic in the park either.

But Zimmerman didn't confront him. If Zimmerman did the confrontation, he would have been convicted of manslaughter. Martin likely jumped out and attacked him. Who ever started the violence is at fault, and the evidence does not suggest that Zimmerman started the violence. So the only way for this conflict to not have occurred is if Zimmerman didn't even try to look out for his neighborhood, which is a pretty ridiculous thing to suggest.

George Zimmerman GOT OUT of his car and went after Trayvon Martin under suspicion. Now why did he disobey a direct order from a police officer. =)
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:28:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:16:49 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:40:34 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:37:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:34:39 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Admittedly, I think that one aspect of juries that I think needs to be brought back/recognized is that in the past, juries have not only been there to determine the defendant's guilt (or lack thereof) according to the law, but also to be a source of judgment of the law and its validity itself.

Doesn't/didn't/shouldn't it only work one way, though?
If a law is unfair, the jury can nullify, but they shouldn't be overzealous and convict someone when they shouldn't (damn DWI, I want him to go down for murder, not vehicular manslaughter).

Oh no, of course. I think the verdict was completely fair. But I'm just commenting on the fact that that juror does still bring up an important subject for discussion, even if it doesn't apply in this case: is it right that we are becoming more strict with juries to look solely at the case rather than also judge the law in question?

How can you say that the final verdict was fair, when the reasonable doubt rule doesnt conclusively prove that you are innocent. =)

I agree that George Zimmerman acted irresponsibly, but are you denouncing the Innocent until proven guilty clause here? Because if you are, that's a whole different argument, and I would be glad to have a debate on why innocent until proven guilty is valuable to any fair and logical justice system.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:29:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:18:04 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:06:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:44:37 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



I think the reality that everyone struggles with is that Trayvon would be alive today if George did not confront him, which was what lead up to the fight and shooting death.

Unfortunately in FL, the confrontation that started it all can't even be considered as neglect for a man slaughter charge. This is a failure of the FL legislative branch and conservatism, not the court or jury.

Fortunately a civil case has different standards and there is no way that Zimmerman will not be held responsible for his part. He will never pay the damages that will be awarded and he will never get jail time, but he is not exactly getting a picnic in the park either.

But Zimmerman didn't confront him. If Zimmerman did the confrontation, he would have been convicted of manslaughter. Martin likely jumped out and attacked him. Who ever started the violence is at fault, and the evidence does not suggest that Zimmerman started the violence. So the only way for this conflict to not have occurred is if Zimmerman didn't even try to look out for his neighborhood, which is a pretty ridiculous thing to suggest.

George Zimmerman GOT OUT of his car and went after Trayvon Martin under suspicion. Now why did he disobey a direct order from a police officer. =)

I think you mean dispatcher. Also, dispatchers aren't allowed to give orders, just recommendations, think about it, if a dispatcher gave an order that lead to someone's death, they would be liable, wouldn't they?
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:52:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:06:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:44:37 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



I think the reality that everyone struggles with is that Trayvon would be alive today if George did not confront him, which was what lead up to the fight and shooting death.

Unfortunately in FL, the confrontation that started it all can't even be considered as neglect for a man slaughter charge. This is a failure of the FL legislative branch and conservatism, not the court or jury.

Fortunately a civil case has different standards and there is no way that Zimmerman will not be held responsible for his part. He will never pay the damages that will be awarded and he will never get jail time, but he is not exactly getting a picnic in the park either.

But Zimmerman didn't confront him. If Zimmerman did the confrontation, he would have been convicted of manslaughter. Martin likely jumped out and attacked him. Who ever started the violence is at fault, and the evidence does not suggest that Zimmerman started the violence. So the only way for this conflict to not have occurred is if Zimmerman didn't even try to look out for his neighborhood, which is a pretty ridiculous thing to suggest.

I use the word "confront" loosely. There is an argument that following someone close enough that they know they are being followed is a form of intimidation. Secondly, nobody knows what actually happened as we only got one side of the story. Lastly, it clearly did not need to happen. Had Georgie made a better choice it would not have happened. Granted, based upon the law it would have been wrong to convict him.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:55:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:52:43 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:06:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:44:37 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



I think the reality that everyone struggles with is that Trayvon would be alive today if George did not confront him, which was what lead up to the fight and shooting death.

Unfortunately in FL, the confrontation that started it all can't even be considered as neglect for a man slaughter charge. This is a failure of the FL legislative branch and conservatism, not the court or jury.

Fortunately a civil case has different standards and there is no way that Zimmerman will not be held responsible for his part. He will never pay the damages that will be awarded and he will never get jail time, but he is not exactly getting a picnic in the park either.

But Zimmerman didn't confront him. If Zimmerman did the confrontation, he would have been convicted of manslaughter. Martin likely jumped out and attacked him. Who ever started the violence is at fault, and the evidence does not suggest that Zimmerman started the violence. So the only way for this conflict to not have occurred is if Zimmerman didn't even try to look out for his neighborhood, which is a pretty ridiculous thing to suggest.

I use the word "confront" loosely. There is an argument that following someone close enough that they know they are being followed is a form of intimidation. Secondly, nobody knows what actually happened as we only got one side of the story. Lastly, it clearly did not need to happen. Had Georgie made a better choice it would not have happened. Granted, based upon the law it would have been wrong to convict him.

Agreed.........
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 2:01:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:52:43 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:06:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:44:37 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



I think the reality that everyone struggles with is that Trayvon would be alive today if George did not confront him, which was what lead up to the fight and shooting death.

Unfortunately in FL, the confrontation that started it all can't even be considered as neglect for a man slaughter charge. This is a failure of the FL legislative branch and conservatism, not the court or jury.

Fortunately a civil case has different standards and there is no way that Zimmerman will not be held responsible for his part. He will never pay the damages that will be awarded and he will never get jail time, but he is not exactly getting a picnic in the park either.

But Zimmerman didn't confront him. If Zimmerman did the confrontation, he would have been convicted of manslaughter. Martin likely jumped out and attacked him. Who ever started the violence is at fault, and the evidence does not suggest that Zimmerman started the violence. So the only way for this conflict to not have occurred is if Zimmerman didn't even try to look out for his neighborhood, which is a pretty ridiculous thing to suggest.

I use the word "confront" loosely. There is an argument that following someone close enough that they know they are being followed is a form of intimidation. Secondly, nobody knows what actually happened as we only got one side of the story. Lastly, it clearly did not need to happen. Had Georgie made a better choice it would not have happened. Granted, based upon the law it would have been wrong to convict him.

I know that nobody knows concretely what actually happened, but I think we can extrapolate what is likely to have happened from the evidence. Most of us have conceded that it's most likely that Trayvon initiated the violence - this is what automatically vindicates the self-defense argument. Now the issue is that GZ had poor judgment. I'm not even ready to accept that either because, if GZ's story is true, then all he was doing was trying to see the street name when he left his car - and that story coincides well with the audio. He wasn't physically chasing after Trayvon, getting himself in a mess, and then shooting his attacker based on a confrontation that's his fault.
"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
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 2:07:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 2:01:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:52:43 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:06:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:44:37 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



I think the reality that everyone struggles with is that Trayvon would be alive today if George did not confront him, which was what lead up to the fight and shooting death.

Unfortunately in FL, the confrontation that started it all can't even be considered as neglect for a man slaughter charge. This is a failure of the FL legislative branch and conservatism, not the court or jury.

Fortunately a civil case has different standards and there is no way that Zimmerman will not be held responsible for his part. He will never pay the damages that will be awarded and he will never get jail time, but he is not exactly getting a picnic in the park either.

But Zimmerman didn't confront him. If Zimmerman did the confrontation, he would have been convicted of manslaughter. Martin likely jumped out and attacked him. Who ever started the violence is at fault, and the evidence does not suggest that Zimmerman started the violence. So the only way for this conflict to not have occurred is if Zimmerman didn't even try to look out for his neighborhood, which is a pretty ridiculous thing to suggest.

I use the word "confront" loosely. There is an argument that following someone close enough that they know they are being followed is a form of intimidation. Secondly, nobody knows what actually happened as we only got one side of the story. Lastly, it clearly did not need to happen. Had Georgie made a better choice it would not have happened. Granted, based upon the law it would have been wrong to convict him.

I know that nobody knows concretely what actually happened, but I think we can extrapolate what is likely to have happened from the evidence. Most of us have conceded that it's most likely that Trayvon initiated the violence - this is what automatically vindicates the self-defense argument. Now the issue is that GZ had poor judgment. I'm not even ready to accept that either because, if GZ's story is true, then all he was doing was trying to see the street name when he left his car - and that story coincides well with the audio. He wasn't physically chasing after Trayvon, getting himself in a mess, and then shooting his attacker based on a confrontation that's his fault.

False. Zimmerman initiated the incident just by being the aggressor..........He disobeyed a direct order from the police and used intimidation factors to arouse Trayvon Martins defense. So whos the one who has the right to defend here. Martin or Zimmerman, because apparently this guy could have been a criminal kidnapping a child.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 3:17:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 2:01:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:52:43 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:06:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:44:37 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



I think the reality that everyone struggles with is that Trayvon would be alive today if George did not confront him, which was what lead up to the fight and shooting death.

Unfortunately in FL, the confrontation that started it all can't even be considered as neglect for a man slaughter charge. This is a failure of the FL legislative branch and conservatism, not the court or jury.

Fortunately a civil case has different standards and there is no way that Zimmerman will not be held responsible for his part. He will never pay the damages that will be awarded and he will never get jail time, but he is not exactly getting a picnic in the park either.

But Zimmerman didn't confront him. If Zimmerman did the confrontation, he would have been convicted of manslaughter. Martin likely jumped out and attacked him. Who ever started the violence is at fault, and the evidence does not suggest that Zimmerman started the violence. So the only way for this conflict to not have occurred is if Zimmerman didn't even try to look out for his neighborhood, which is a pretty ridiculous thing to suggest.

I use the word "confront" loosely. There is an argument that following someone close enough that they know they are being followed is a form of intimidation. Secondly, nobody knows what actually happened as we only got one side of the story. Lastly, it clearly did not need to happen. Had Georgie made a better choice it would not have happened. Granted, based upon the law it would have been wrong to convict him.

I know that nobody knows concretely what actually happened, but I think we can extrapolate what is likely to have happened from the evidence. Most of us have conceded that it's most likely that Trayvon initiated the violence - this is what automatically vindicates the self-defense argument. Now the issue is that GZ had poor judgment. I'm not even ready to accept that either because, if GZ's story is true, then all he was doing was trying to see the street name when he left his car - and that story coincides well with the audio. He wasn't physically chasing after Trayvon, getting himself in a mess, and then shooting his attacker based on a confrontation that's his fault.

It is all speculation. His stated reason for not knowing the street name where he lived close by for 3 years and performed regular neighborhood watch was because he has a bad memory from taking ADD medicine. Possible, sure. Likely, probably not. More likely was that he was juiced up on adrenalin and not thinking in a well manner. Who knows?
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 4:32:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 3:17:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 2:01:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:52:43 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:06:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:44:37 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



I think the reality that everyone struggles with is that Trayvon would be alive today if George did not confront him, which was what lead up to the fight and shooting death.

Unfortunately in FL, the confrontation that started it all can't even be considered as neglect for a man slaughter charge. This is a failure of the FL legislative branch and conservatism, not the court or jury.

Fortunately a civil case has different standards and there is no way that Zimmerman will not be held responsible for his part. He will never pay the damages that will be awarded and he will never get jail time, but he is not exactly getting a picnic in the park either.

But Zimmerman didn't confront him. If Zimmerman did the confrontation, he would have been convicted of manslaughter. Martin likely jumped out and attacked him. Who ever started the violence is at fault, and the evidence does not suggest that Zimmerman started the violence. So the only way for this conflict to not have occurred is if Zimmerman didn't even try to look out for his neighborhood, which is a pretty ridiculous thing to suggest.

I use the word "confront" loosely. There is an argument that following someone close enough that they know they are being followed is a form of intimidation. Secondly, nobody knows what actually happened as we only got one side of the story. Lastly, it clearly did not need to happen. Had Georgie made a better choice it would not have happened. Granted, based upon the law it would have been wrong to convict him.

I know that nobody knows concretely what actually happened, but I think we can extrapolate what is likely to have happened from the evidence. Most of us have conceded that it's most likely that Trayvon initiated the violence - this is what automatically vindicates the self-defense argument. Now the issue is that GZ had poor judgment. I'm not even ready to accept that either because, if GZ's story is true, then all he was doing was trying to see the street name when he left his car - and that story coincides well with the audio. He wasn't physically chasing after Trayvon, getting himself in a mess, and then shooting his attacker based on a confrontation that's his fault.

It is all speculation. His stated reason for not knowing the street name where he lived close by for 3 years and performed regular neighborhood watch was because he has a bad memory from taking ADD medicine. Possible, sure. Likely, probably not. More likely was that he was juiced up on adrenalin and not thinking in a well manner. Who knows?

Cool.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 5:35:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:20:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:58:41 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Well then she should have stuck to her guns and hung the jury.

Instead she caved. She can't complain. She had all the power.

ummmm yeah, no. That wasn't the core of her argument. She was saying that the law supported his acquittal, and she was directed to act according to the letter of the law,

I could be wrong about this, but doesn't the letter of the law also allow "reverese" jury nullification?
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 6:06:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
She is Hispanic. GZ is Hispanic.

Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........

Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 6:09:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:44:37 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



I think the reality that everyone struggles with is that Trayvon would be alive today if George did not confront him, which was what lead up to the fight and shooting death.
He would also be alive if he had not attacked GZ with a concrete block.
He would also be alive if he had done the sensible thing and ran or got help instead of calling GZ a "creepy a*s cracker" and attacking him.

Unfortunately in FL, the confrontation that started it all can't even be considered as neglect for a man slaughter charge. This is a failure of the FL legislative branch and conservatism, not the court or jury.

Fortunately a civil case has different standards and there is no way that Zimmerman will not be held responsible for his part. He will never pay the damages that will be awarded and he will never get jail time, but he is not exactly getting a picnic in the park either.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 9:48:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just drop it

He thought he was doing right.
He was scared for his life.
Why should he be crucified like you people say just because he MIGHT not have actually died.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 7:00:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 6:09:34 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:44:37 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:47:33 AM, inferno wrote:
Says the second Juror, miss B29. Now she obviously is a minority, which means that her perception of race may be much different than the other ladies in this case, who were Caucasian.
Not only did she believe Zimmerman got away with murder, but she also believes that she followed the law. However, that does not mean justic was served as people are often found not guilty in reasonable doubt cases every single day. Not guilty just means you havent been caught. Do you agree. See video here.........



I think the reality that everyone struggles with is that Trayvon would be alive today if George did not confront him, which was what lead up to the fight and shooting death.
He would also be alive if he had not attacked GZ with a concrete block.
He would also be alive if he had done the sensible thing and ran or got help instead of calling GZ a "creepy a*s cracker" and attacking him.

Unfortunately in FL, the confrontation that started it all can't even be considered as neglect for a man slaughter charge. This is a failure of the FL legislative branch and conservatism, not the court or jury.

Fortunately a civil case has different standards and there is no way that Zimmerman will not be held responsible for his part. He will never pay the damages that will be awarded and he will never get jail time, but he is not exactly getting a picnic in the park either.

Trayvon Martin is not on trial. It is also very difficult to acertain what really happened since he is dead and we only have one person's somewhat mixed up accounting of what happened via police statements.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 7:08:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 9:48:08 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Just drop it

He thought he was doing right.
He was scared for his life.
Why should he be crucified like you people say just because he MIGHT not have actually died.

All suppositions on your part. Also, if the law was based upon thinking one was doing right we would all be in trouble. I agree though that it should have never went to trial as there was never any hope of convicting him.

Let this be a lesson to us all. The hero story is all fine and dandy, but when one starts getting into law enforcement too deep, it can often lead to trouble. I bet police departments have tons of stories of people who think they are doing good who just end up getting themselves or others into trouble. Even the police get themselves into trouble and they are trained for it.

In this instance I just don't see how anyone can have an opinion on who was in the right/wrong. There is just not enough evidence leading up to the fight to make a reasonable judgement.