George Zimmerman - Found NOT Guilty! page 5

194 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by Trickymist98:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Although what Jury would swallow a young black male shooting a white law enforcement officer in training in self defense?

None of them. If he’d shot Zimmerman in self-defense, without a third party witnessing the event, Trayvon would have been convicted of murder and sentenced to life.

Do you have a single piece of evidence to support this claim? I find it hard to believe you have the foresight to know what a jury of unique individuals would do in any situation.

Tricky, she is using sarcastic conjecture.
Largely based on very relevant data.

didn’t sound sarcastic to me. Sarcasm relies just as much on tone of voice as it does actual content of a sentence and thus is a poor tool to use on a messageboard

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Trickymist98:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by Trickymist98:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Although what Jury would swallow a young black male shooting a white law enforcement officer in training in self defense?

None of them. If he’d shot Zimmerman in self-defense, without a third party witnessing the event, Trayvon would have been convicted of murder and sentenced to life.

Do you have a single piece of evidence to support this claim? I find it hard to believe you have the foresight to know what a jury of unique individuals would do in any situation.

Tricky, she is using sarcastic conjecture.
Largely based on very relevant data.

didn’t sound sarcastic to me. Sarcasm relies just as much on tone of voice as it does actual content of a sentence and thus is a poor tool to use on a messageboard

Don’t think it was sarcasm, think it was more a sad indictment of the American legal system.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:

Don’t think it was sarcasm, think it was more a sad indictment of the American legal system.

Pretty much. Trial by jury’s greatest flaw is that it is basically a psychological popularity contest. It depends too much on who is the most convincing, or silver tongued in putting their version of events forwards, and is directly hampered by the deep seated biases of the general population in the area the trial is taking place.

In a state with race-related issues bubbling not too far below the surface, it is no great leap to conclude that a jury randomly formed of ordinary individuals from that area, is likely to be a cross-section of the same tensions and biases towards the popular stereotype the person represents.

Its like how popular science rags don’t represent real science, but rather a dumbed down, easily accessible version of it, jazzed up to appeal to a wide audience demographic. Same principle in microcosm with a jury. The lawyers know this, and take full advantage of it, on top of the basic visual effect a person’s race or gender brings onto the field in the local pop culture.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by dd790:

Don’t think it was sarcasm, think it was more a sad indictment of the American legal system.

Pretty much. Trial by jury’s greatest flaw is that it is basically a psychological popularity contest. It depends too much on who is the most convincing, or silver tongued in putting their version of events forwards, and is directly hampered by the deep seated biases of the general population in the area the trial is taking place.

In a state with race-related issues bubbling not too far below the surface, it is no great leap to conclude that a jury randomly formed of ordinary individuals from that area, is likely to be a cross-section of the same tensions and biases towards the popular stereotype the person represents.

Its like how popular science rags don’t represent real science, but rather a dumbed down, easily accessible version of it, jazzed up to appeal to a wide audience demographic. Same principle in microcosm with a jury. The lawyers know this, and take full advantage of it, on top of the basic visual effect a person’s race or gender brings onto the field in the local pop culture.

Along with what you have said, I still have yet to understand why the jury was made of entirely women. I understand the whole “racism” topic people have brought into this, but changing/altering the jury’s gender and/or race doesn’t seem to make a difference.

 
Flag Post

Except you mention the wounds to the back of his head, not to mention a fractured nose, black eyes, and a small back injury. To say he had no recorded defensive wounds is a bit preposterous.

Defensive wounds typically entail minor cuts and scrapes as the result of pushing, pulling, contact ect. Not so much the result of direct blows. I’m not familiar with the back injury, but if valid that may be a good example.

As an example, Zimmerman said Trayvon muffled him. One would expect small scrapes from the the fingernails along his chin/cheek, potentially his tissue under the nails as well. He also mentions struggling across cement, which should lead to abrasions across the palms, finger tips and such. Having his head grips and flung about should also lead to fingernail scrapes around his his scalp and the back of the head. Landing blows to the head typically would result in bruises and scrapes to the knuckles. Just minor stuff.

I really don’t know all the evidence and whether Zimmerman was motivated by race or not (remember he his Hispanic himself, so this isn’t a cut and dry Caucasian on Black thing), but for the bolded statement, are you referring to this?

I think I may have missed my negative in that, whoops. I meant to say investigators claim of having his head slammed repeatedly against the sidewalk was Not consistent with evidence found. I would suggest Zimmerman was motivated by race not in so far that he wanted to universally punish black people, but carried a prejudice of them as alien felons. More pertinent, I would say the entire justice system is very influenced by race – if we racially invert this story I do not believe the outcome would be at all similar.

Lastly, Zimmerman’s sudden claim to hispanic identity, although not false, is exaggerated and a desperate ploy to deny credulity to potential race motivations. His last name is Zimmerman. The inflation of his hispanic racial background is to deny the notion that he could be racist, as he himself is a minority. Which, in addition to being false as a notion I would say is pretty transparent in it’s exploitation.

As for the grisly photo, it’s not that bad. A one inch cut. Just one. Have you ever cut your head? Bleeds a great deal. I once slit open my forehead brushing against a piece of sheet metal and bled rivers, wrestlers exploit it for drama.

He doesn’t show multiple injuries. He doesn’t show much swelling or any bruising. I’d suggest the wound was either incidental (a fall) or self inflicted. It certainly does not look like the result of having his head bashed repeatedly. I really want to say “like fifty times” but can’t quite source that as a direct quote. Think it was in the interview where he recreated the scene at the scene, would have to check on that one.

 
Flag Post

I’m inclined to agree with you, at least as far as the point that actively following/stalking Martin was in itself an act of aggression.
If Zimmerman had stayed in his car as the police dispatcher suggested, none of this would have happened.

Instead, he ignored the suggestion, actively pursued Martin, possibly confronting him, and was actively getting his ass kicked when he shot Martin.

I still feel there’s an argument to be made that Martin was himself acting in self defense.
He was alone at night, an unknown older man was following him.
When that man left his vehicle and approached, he became a threat.
Martin responded by attacking the threat.

But oh no…the black kid can’t act in “self defense”…when a black person does something like that, it’s obviously an act of pure aggression.

…just ask Marissa Alexander

 
Flag Post

So I’m guessing you were all at the trial and heard all of the testimony first hand? Or you could all be jacking your jaws without any idea of what the facts are………again.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:

I think Zimmerman should have been charged for manslaughter:

He was a neighborhood watch captain, his role was to liaise with the Sanford Police department, not to make direct arrests himself, he was even instructed to not follow the suspect over radio.
So why did it end up in an attack in the first place? – He should not have looked for Trayvon Martin any further in the first place – He was acting beyond his role.

He had already told the police that the boy was ‘checking him out’ and then Trayvon ran. In a later statement he reported Trayvon had been ‘circling his vehicle’ and he locked his car (this is before the boy ran though), however no report of this was given over the phone. I would have definitely mentioned that to the police if I was already on the phone to them – I wouldn’t have the proceeded to remove myself from the car to ‘get a better look’.

Then ‘out of nowhere’ Trayvon appeared, confronted Zimmerman and then attacked him. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise, other than poor witness reports. There is evidence however that Zimmerman was holding a firearm, if Trayvon had already ‘circled his car’ I would consider that as threatening behavior. – So why didn’t Zimmerman pull his firearm immediately to prevent himself from being attacked – It was approved to him for self defense, so why not draw it? – His role was crime prevention, didn’t manage that as well as he could have done.

Now obviously Zimmerman was able to grab the gun first in the fight, so why did he feel the need to pull the trigger immediately. He did choose to shoot the gun but didnt ‘plan’ murder Tayvon, that was an accident (with no evidence to suggest otherwise) but he still felt the need to pull the trigger rather than use it as a threat. If Trayvon had already been attacking Zimmerman, surely at the site of Zimmerman holding a gun would strike enough fear into Trayvon for him to stop, as Zimmerman now has a good reason to shoot him. He didn’t need to pull that trigger though

Zimmerman might not have been in the right ‘state of mind’ to make that decision and ‘panicked’ – seems liable. However as a person who was already studying criminal justice, he should know how to handle situations. He had also no reason to carry a firearm that night. The firearm Zimmerman carried was approved by the Sanford Police Department as a self defense item in 2009 for a loose pit bull. Was there any reason for him to be carrying it 3 years later? Whilst on a trip to the shops? I don’t think there was and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was covered up – wouldn’t look good if the son of a retired magistrate was carrying around a firearm unnecessarily – However the Sanford Police said that he was licensed to carry it…

I think that Zimmerman didn’t plan on killing Trayvon but that situation shouldn’t have arose in the first place, it was preventable and Zimmerman neglected his roles as a neighborhood watch captain who was off-duty and went above and beyond his duties as a civilian, with no good reason as to why he had a firearm in his possession at the time of the incident.

You’re entirely wrong. It doesn’t matter whether or not you’re supposed to prevent stuff like that. When a guy, much bigger than you, is beating the crap out of you banging your head against the cement and you have a fireman (for whatever reason is irrelevant), he barely pulled the trigger. I don’t think panicking made him shoot this guy, either. I think that the fact that he shot him proves he wasn’t panicking, he knew what to do.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by samuro2:
Originally posted by livingrival:

You’re entirely wrong. It doesn’t matter whether or not you’re supposed to prevent stuff like that. When a guy, much bigger than you, is beating the crap out of you banging your head against the cement and you have a fireman (for whatever reason is irrelevant), he barely pulled the trigger. I don’t think panicking made him shoot this guy, either. I think that the fact that he shot him proves he wasn’t panicking, he knew what to do.

Okay, (other than the “fireman” part) ya’ve given your opinion….NOW BACK IT UP.

Most every point ya make is—in MY opinion—utter bullshit.
.

Originally posted by jhco50:

So I’m guessing you were all at the trial and heard all of the testimony first hand? Or you could all be jacking your jaws without any idea of what the facts are………again.

Mirror, mirror on the wall.
LOL

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by dd790:

Don’t think it was sarcasm, think it was more a sad indictment of the American legal system.

Pretty much. Trial by jury’s greatest flaw is that it is basically a psychological popularity contest. It depends too much on who is the most convincing, or silver tongued in putting their version of events forwards, and is directly hampered by the deep seated biases of the general population in the area the trial is taking place.

In a state with race-related issues bubbling not too far below the surface, it is no great leap to conclude that a jury randomly formed of ordinary individuals from that area, is likely to be a cross-section of the same tensions and biases towards the popular stereotype the person represents.

Its like how popular science rags don’t represent real science, but rather a dumbed down, easily accessible version of it, jazzed up to appeal to a wide audience demographic. Same principle in microcosm with a jury. The lawyers know this, and take full advantage of it, on top of the basic visual effect a person’s race or gender brings onto the field in the local pop culture.

You do know the prosecution had a say in who would be picked for the jury? It was a collaborative effort by the defense and the prosecution.

 
Flag Post

chair pattons, chair pattons every where

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Trickymist98:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by dd790:

Don’t think it was sarcasm, think it was more a sad indictment of the American legal system.

Pretty much. Trial by jury’s greatest flaw is that it is basically a psychological popularity contest. It depends too much on who is the most convincing, or silver tongued in putting their version of events forwards, and is directly hampered by the deep seated biases of the general population in the area the trial is taking place.

In a state with race-related issues bubbling not too far below the surface, it is no great leap to conclude that a jury randomly formed of ordinary individuals from that area, is likely to be a cross-section of the same tensions and biases towards the popular stereotype the person represents.

Its like how popular science rags don’t represent real science, but rather a dumbed down, easily accessible version of it, jazzed up to appeal to a wide audience demographic. Same principle in microcosm with a jury. The lawyers know this, and take full advantage of it, on top of the basic visual effect a person’s race or gender brings onto the field in the local pop culture.

You do know the prosecution had a say in who would be picked for the jury? It was a collaborative effort by the defense and the prosecution.

No fucking shit?
I bet vika wasn’t at all aware of this.
I’m most happy someone has now clued her in.
Thank gawd for the well-informed.

But yes,
this selection process strongly influences the outcome of the trial.

 
Flag Post

When a guy, much bigger than you, is beating the crap out of you banging your head against the cement and you have a fireman (for whatever reason is irrelevant), he barely pulled the trigger

Trayvon was a 17 year old boy, Zimmerman was 28. Zimmerman even weighed around 25 pounds more than him. Plus the only witness to the violent attack was Zimmerman himself.

I think the possession of a firearm is relevant, it cost a life. How do you know he barely pulled the trigger?

I don’t think panicking made him shoot this guy, either. I think that the fact that he shot him proves he wasn’t panicking, he knew what to do.

Erm……yeah.

 
Flag Post

Ok, so a hispanic man shoots a black kid. Yet, this happens almost every day, just with a white man shooting a black kid, or a black man shooting a white kid. What is this shit? I can care less about zimmerman or trayvon, what about the black man who shot a baby? You dont see that on the news.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Dokan42:

Ok, so a hispanic man shoots a black kid. Yet, this happens almost every day, just with a white man shooting a black kid, or a black man shooting a white kid. What is this shit? I can care less about zimmerman or trayvon, what about the black man who shot a baby? You dont see that on the news.

Yeah!
You really don’t!
Like that link you posted to show us the story of this outrageous murder: I don’t see it!
It’s a conspiracy, man!

 
Flag Post

Zimmerman is innocent.

He was declared innocent in court.

To argue otherwise is to argue with the infallible will of the American Justice System.

Also nobody cares about how you managed to misinterpret the issue.

It was always about how the police didnt bother doing anything and just took Big Z’s word for it.

Saying “OMG BUT TEHY NO COVAR THIS OTHAR STORY OMG NEWS R RACIST!!!” is irrelevant to the case.

 
Flag Post

At the end of the day, black on black crime makes up like 90% of the murders in the black population.

 
Flag Post

I spent the past three days watching the case in full. It was boring and I wanted to kill myself.

Zimmerman was also charged with Manslaughter. The jury found him not guilty of manslaughter and of 2nd degree murder.

FBI investigations and police investigations of Zimmerman found no indication of racism. Trayvon Martin’s leading witness, Rachel Jeantel openly admitted that Trayvon Martin referred to George Zimmerman as a cracker. The only evidence for racial profiling in this case is on the end of Trayvon Martin.

A look into Trayvon Martin’s record indicated he was suspended for graffiti. Jewelry and a screwdriver (a burglary tool) was found in his backpack. He claimed the jewelry was from a friend. No evidence existed that he stole it. The jewelry was impounded. The jury had access to this information, which, while not found to be criminal in any way, is highly suggestive.

George Zimmerman has a criminal record of aggression, particularly domestic violence.

According to the evidence we all have, neither party was innocent. Both could have diffused the situation many times. There exists no evidence to suggest Zimmerman’s account is incorrect. His account says he was on his way back to his vehicle when Trayvon confronted him.

Whether or not Zimmerman’s description of events is how they actually transpired is irrelevant. The only legally pertinent information is the following known facts:

1) Zimmerman had lacerations on his head and a wet back.
2) Witness testimony from half a dozen witnesses suggest Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman before the shot was fired. Afterward, George was on top.
3) The area had many burglaries recently; most of the culprits had gotten away.
4) George was neighborhood watch captain.
5) The yellings of help were useless since the voices were unidentifiable.
6) Zimmerman had a permit to carry his gun.
7) Trayvon was at a store a mile away from his complex. From the time he left to the time he was shot, over 45 minutes had transpired, three times the time necessary to walk a mile.
8) The weather conditions were rainy.

There may be a few other smaller facts I forgot. It was a long and boring case, leave me alone. According to the facts we have, which is all the admissible legal evidence at our disposable, the prosecution should never have even had a case. This was a cut and dried case.

There was never enough evidence to convict George Zimmerman of murder nor of manslaughter. There was also inconclusive evidence to suggest he was innocent. This is why he was found not guilty (a different verdict than innocent).

The jurors did a fantastic job keeping level heads and making the right verdict. It may not resonate with everyone, but it was the proper legal verdict to reach.

This case was also never about Stand Your Ground. It was never brought up in the case. Neither by the prosecution nor the defense.

Anything else anyone tries to suggest is merely speculation, and beating a dead horse. Can we please move on from this?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by lrn2grammar:

I spent the past three days watching the case in full. It was boring and I wanted to kill myself.

Zimmerman was also charged with Manslaughter. The jury found him not guilty of manslaughter and of 2nd degree murder.

Odd… it’s not on the charge sheet! http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/11/zimmerman.charges.pdf

FBI investigations and police investigations of Zimmerman found no indication of racism. Trayvon Martin’s leading witness, Rachel Jeantel openly admitted that Trayvon Martin referred to George Zimmerman as a cracker. The only evidence for racial profiling in this case is on the end of Trayvon Martin.

Irrelevant (to either side of the case)… going out now, will address the rest later, if I can be arsed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by donseptico:
Originally posted by lrn2grammar:

Zimmerman was also charged with Manslaughter. The jury found him not guilty of manslaughter and of 2nd degree murder.

Odd… it’s not on the charge sheet! http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/11/zimmerman.charges.pdf

Yet, he did stand trial for both counts.
“The verdict was returned by a jury of six women who worked into the night on their second day of deliberations. They also had the option of convicting Zimmerman of second-degree murder or of the lesser crime of manslaughter.”

That they acquitted him of manslaughter speaks volumes about this incident.

 
Flag Post

Very odd… must have been at the court’s instruction… e.g. he’s been charged with A… but you could also consider B if you find insufficient evidence for A.

 
Flag Post

FBI investigations and police investigations of Zimmerman found no indication of racism.

I find how readily he assumed a random black youth was a criminal a little curious. Also how he readily denigrated him in his police transcripts. I can’t say whether Zimmerman consciously held any convictions of that regard, but I would have to suggest he carried a great deal of prejudice.

A look into Trayvon Martin’s record indicated he was suspended for graffiti. Jewelry and a screwdriver (a burglary tool) was found in his backpack. He claimed the jewelry was from a friend. No evidence existed that he stole it. The jewelry was impounded. The jury had access to this information, which, while not found to be criminal in any way, is highly suggestive.

And suppose he was a criminal? I don’t really see that as having any bearing on the matter at hand. Zimmerman himself did not have access to this knowledge. Nor can I really advocate shooting teenage miscreants as sentencing.

According to the evidence we all have, neither party was innocent. Both could have diffused the situation many times. There exists no evidence to suggest Zimmerman’s account is incorrect. His account says he was on his way back to his vehicle when Trayvon confronted him.

The lack of physical supporting evidence is evidence suggesting his account is incorrect. Nor do I see attacking a man who has stalked you across twelve blocks over fifteen minutes as a breach of innocence. Assuming he did so at all. Which there is no more reason to do then the alternative.

His account also flounders about exactly where Trayvon came from, nor does it attest for how he got there, nor does it attest for the live recording moments before Trayvon became involved in an altercation. Or do you think he attacked him while on his cellphone?

Whether or not Zimmerman’s description of events is how they actually transpired is irrelevant.

Considering that would constitute evidence, and pretty deliberate perjury, I see it as pretty relevant.

7) Trayvon was at a store a mile away from his complex. From the time he left to the time he was shot, over 45 minutes had transpired, three times the time necessary to walk a mile.

I haven’t seen any distance measured from the 711 to his complex, if you could cite to that that would be super convenient. Although, if it was a mile away and he walked there and back, it would be two miles covered.

There may be a few other smaller facts I forgot. It was a long and boring case, leave me alone. According to the facts we have, which is all the admissible legal evidence at our disposable, the prosecution should never have even had a case. This was a cut and dried case.

You think? So, anytime someone is killed without a witness standing by to take notes, we should just call it self defense by the surviving party? The constant contradiction of Zimmerman’s case by smaller details, his own inability to maintain a consistent story, his recorded hostility to the victim, and the general lack of known’s make it pretty note worthy.

There was never enough evidence to convict George Zimmerman of murder nor of manslaughter. There was also inconclusive evidence to suggest he was innocent. This is why he was found not guilty (a different verdict than innocent).

I agree that manslaughter should have been off the table from the get go. He certainly intended to shoot Trayvon, there is no illusion of that being an accident. A second degree murder conviction in lieu of further evidence I suppose I must consider going too far.

That said, I consider that a fair reference point for the failure of the justice system and gun security. The man is either hostile, incompetent, or some combination thereof, enough to be a public menace. A willful murderer or not, he is a danger to society.

The jurors did a fantastic job keeping level heads and making the right verdict. It may not resonate with everyone, but it was the proper legal verdict to reach.

Completely disagree. At least so far as ‘a level head’. Did you see the interviews with Juror X? An embarrassing display of over identification.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Can you two please take it to the shouts/pms whatever already?

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator