George Zimmerman Trial

[Bogtrotter07]

I never smoked joints and talked trash about kicking *** when I was 17... just saying.

Doesn't mean anything either way but yeah...

Yes, but you were a model teen. Or a teen model. I can't remember which.

 

[irishpat183]

I guess if it you want to take 'assumption' far enough, we don't know what he thought about or whether TM confronted anybody.


Let alone, if any contact occurred, whether it was a 'fist fight' as you characterized, or a fight for ones life. After all the world is a much more dangerous place, even than when you were a kid, Pat!

Of course. I'm simply saying that we are looking at GZ as the default aggressor...because he followed someone?

Especially in that neighborhood? How is THAT so unreasonable to people? YOu know why? Because it was postioned that way by the media. We had every freaking civil rights blowhard down in FL when this initially happened getting the race war going. They had ZERO facts and yet had already convicted GZ of "killing a kid" (I didn't know he was over 10 years old, judging by the pictures, unitl about a month into the hoopla)....How the F**K is that "reasonable"?!?!?!!?

How dare he check out a suspicious person in his neighborhood!!! And how dare he confront them and ask what they're doing walking around in the dark with a hoodie on in the rain! And then, How dare he shoot someone when they're on top of him and he fears for his life!

^When you say it out loud....it doesn't sound all that ridiculous, does it?

 

[irishpat183]

Yes, but you were a model teen. Or a teen model. I can't remember which.

ACamp is soooooo dreamy

 

[Bogtrotter07]

ACamp is soooooo dreamy

Yes, exquisitely so!

 

[connor_in]

1 Oh GZ did not confront him? He did not leave the 911 operator with the words, "they always get away"? Which 2could lead a reasonable mind to assume he intended to make sure this guy didn't "get away". All of that is "unreasonable" to you? Well people go to jail every day with farther stretches of logic. I feel very safe, even with my weight, all the way out on this limb.

1) You can prove this?
2) could...lead...assume...intend - we convict people of murder two on this? What happened to the beyond a reasonable doubt thing?

PS: I too have never smoked pot or claimed to have kicked anyone's a** in either my younger or more recent days

 

[ACamp1900]

So the CJ students at my school are using my hallway for a mock murder investigation right now... the 'suspect' is described by a fellow employee 'witness' as a "white guy"... One of the CJ students (black female) asked the witness the following question.... "Is this a white guy white guy... or a George Zimmerman fake 'creepy a$s cracker' Mexican-white guy?'''

I about feel out of my chair when I heard that. lol

I am literally teared up over it... I know this case isn't something to laugh at... but that was damn funny.

 

[irishpat183]

So the CJ students at my school are using my hallway for a mock murder investigation right now... the 'suspect' is described by a fellow employee 'witness' as a "white guy"... One of the CJ students (black female) asked the witness the following question.... "Is this a white guy white guy... or a George Zimmerman fake 'creepy a$s cracker' Mexican-white guy?'''

I about feel out of my chair when I heard that. lol

I am literally teared up over it... I know this case isn't something to laugh at... but that was damn funny.

Hilarious....But sad at the same time.

 

[Redbar]

1) You can prove this?
2) could...lead...assume...intend - we convict people of murder two on this? What happened to the beyond a reasonable doubt thing?

I am not saying he should be convicted of murder 2, I personally would never want to sit on a jury in a case like this, and I am pretty sure neither side would want me. I am trying to wrestle with philosophical issues in a forum not to try, hear, or judge this case. What I find interesting is the philosophical issues and the implications that arise from the case. I could not care less about what one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt in this forum. Justice and a court proceeding are not always the same thing. All I am saying is anyone who wants to champion Justice as: what a lawyer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, should have no issue at all with the outcome of the OJ Simpson trial. I can totally disagree with everything about that case and still vote not guilty. Same here, I can not like the stand your ground law, the implications, the defendant, what it could lead to and still think that GZ is innocent of murder 2. However anyone who says that TM's family did not deserve their day in court, or GZ should not have had to stand trial, or the only reason this case was brought is because a,b, or c, is way off base.

 

[ACamp1900]

These CJ students are busting me up... now they supposedly found pot at the crime scene... and one of the students smiles and says "We can't verify that is actually pot unless we test it... correct?"

sorry, I have to share and don't know where else to put this... not trying to highjack...

 

[Golden_Domer]

I am not saying he should be convicted of murder 2, I personally would never want to sit on a jury in a case like this, and I am pretty sure neither side would want me. I am trying to wrestle with philosophical issues in a forum not to try, hear, or judge this case. What I find interesting is the philosophical issues and the implications that arise from the case. I could not care less about what one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt in this forum. Justice and a court proceeding are not always the same thing. All I am saying is anyone who wants to champion Justice as: what a lawyer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, should have no issue at all with the outcome of the OJ Simpson trial. I can totally disagree with everything about that case and still vote not guilty. Same here, I can not like the stand your ground law, the implications, the defendant, what it could lead to and still think that GZ is innocent of murder 2. However anyone who says that TM's family did not deserve their day in court, or GZ should not have had to stand trial, or the only reason this case was brought is because a,b, or c, is way off base.

Just a minor point--the stand your ground law isn't being invoked as a defense in this case, just your garden-variety self-defense.

 

[Golden_Domer]

I am not saying he should be convicted of murder 2, I personally would never want to sit on a jury in a case like this, and I am pretty sure neither side would want me. I am trying to wrestle with philosophical issues in a forum not to try, hear, or judge this case. What I find interesting is the philosophical issues and the implications that arise from the case. I could not care less about what one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt in this forum. Justice and a court proceeding are not always the same thing. All I am saying is anyone who wants to champion Justice as: what a lawyer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, should have no issue at all with the outcome of the OJ Simpson trial. I can totally disagree with everything about that case and still vote not guilty. Same here, I can not like the stand your ground law, the implications, the defendant, what it could lead to and still think that GZ is innocent of murder 2. However anyone who says that TM's family did not deserve their day in court, or GZ should not have had to stand trial, or the only reason this case was brought is because a,b, or c, is way off base.

I would also add that if and when the not guilty verdict gets handed down, all those people saying GZ was acquitted because of the race of one or both parties, the race/gender make-up of the jury, etc. is way off base.

 

[irishpat183]

I am not saying he should be convicted of murder 2, I personally would never want to sit on a jury in a case like this, and I am pretty sure neither side would want me. I am trying to wrestle with philosophical issues in a forum not to try, hear, or judge this case. What I find interesting is the philosophical issues and the implications that arise from the case. I could not care less about what one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt in this forum. Justice and a court proceeding are not always the same thing. All I am saying is anyone who wants to champion Justice as: what a lawyer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, should have no issue at all with the outcome of the OJ Simpson trial. I can totally disagree with everything about that case and still vote not guilty. Same here, I can not like the stand your ground law, the implications, the defendant, what it could lead to and still think that GZ is innocent of murder 2. However anyone who says that TM's family did not deserve their day in court, or GZ should not have had to stand trial, or the only reason this case was brought is because a,b, or c, is way off base.

We do know the only reason he was arrested was polical/public pressure. otherwise, he would've been arrested from the very begining. But he broke no law.

And the law isn't about what a "family deserves"...it's about justice as you mentioned. And if he didn't commit a crime (which, by law, he didn't) why does he have to stand trial?

 

[connor_in]

I am not saying he should be convicted of murder 2, I personally would never want to sit on a jury in a case like this, and I am pretty sure neither side would want me. I am trying to wrestle with philosophical issues in a forum not to try, hear, or judge this case. What I find interesting is the philosophical issues and the implications that arise from the case. I could not care less about what one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt in this forum. Justice and a court proceeding are not always the same thing. All I am saying is anyone who wants to champion Justice as: what a lawyer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, should have no issue at all with the outcome of the OJ Simpson trial. I can totally disagree with everything about that case and still vote not guilty. Same here, I can not like the stand your ground law, the implications, the defendant, what it could lead to and still think that GZ is innocent of murder 2. However anyone who says that TM's family did not deserve their day in court, or GZ should not have had to stand trial, or the only reason this case was brought is because a,b, or c, is way off base.

I know you and others have been in the realm of philisophical and moral and I have tried to sty within not just the legal but actually just this trial. I have done this because that is where we are right now and I am trying to be practical about what is currently happening. I am not championing our justice system as a great and perfect thing (and I am not saying that you are saying I am championing it either). Personally, our justice system is terribly flawed and it generally tries to bend over backward to try to keep that one innocent guy out of jail at the expense of letting off a bunch of guilty of at least something guys too. I have said before that I hope that the jury can come back with recommendations of a lesser charge (others have said it can, but I am not sure legally if they can or can't). I say this because with the evidence available I don't think you can convict murder two, but I think that some form of manslaughter shouldn't be to hard.

Morally, he killed someone and he admits to that...that means that ultimately it is between him and God and he will get what he has earned in the next life.

 

[GoIrish41]

We do know the only reason he was arrested was polical/public pressure. otherwise, he would've been arrested from the very begining. But he broke no law.

And the law isn't about what a "family deserves"...it's about justice as you mentioned. And if he didn't commit a crime (which, by law, he didn't) why does he have to stand trial?

The reason he was arrested -- finally -- was because he should have been arrested in the first place. Shooting someone through the heart is almost always enough to get a guy arrested.

 

[Golden_Domer]

I know you and others have been in the realm of philisophical and moral and I have tried to sty within not just the legal but actually just this trial. I have done this because that is where we are right now and I am trying to be practical about what is currently happening. I am not championing our justice system as a great and perfect thing (and I am not saying that you are saying I am championing it either). Personally, our justice system is terribly flawed and it generally tries to bend over backward to try to keep that one innocent guy out of jail at the expense of letting off a bunch of guilty of at least something guys too. I have said before that I hope that the jury can come back with recommendations of a lesser charge (others have said it can, but I am not sure legally if they can or can't). I say this because with the evidence available I don't think you can convict murder two, but I think that some form of manslaughter shouldn't be to hard.

Morally, he killed someone and he admits to that...that means that ultimately it is between him and God and he will get what he has earned in the next life.

No, it doesn't matter what GZ is charged with, the jury would have to overcome the assertion of self-defense. Unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense, then he cannot be convicted of anything. Even manslaughter.

Take a look at Florida's Standard Jury Instruction 3.6(f) for Criminal Cases:

"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."

 

[Golden_Domer]

The reason he was arrested -- finally -- was because he should have been arrested in the first place. Shooting someone through the heart is almost always enough to get a guy arrested.

"The reason he was arrested...was because he should have been arrested in the first place." Read that out loud. lol

And no, the reason he wasn't arrested in the first place was because the police did not have enough probable cause to overcome GZ's claim of self-defense. Funny that they only found probable cause after weeks of outcries from protestors, media and politicians and after the Chief of the Sanford Police Department was forced to step down. The probable cause affidavit has even been criticized by many legal experts for conveniently leaving out relevant facts pertaining to GZ's claim of self-defense. To say that there was no outside pressure to arrest and charge Zimmerman in this case is a naive position to take.

 

[irishpat183]

The reason he was arrested -- finally -- was because he should have been arrested in the first place. Shooting someone through the heart is almost always enough to get a guy arrested.

^Please don't oversensationalize or anything......

 

[irishpat183]

"The reason he was arrested...was because he should have been arrested in the first place." Read that out loud. lol

And no, the reason he wasn't arrested in the first place was because the police did not have enough probable cause to overcome GZ's claim of self-defense. Funny that they only found probable cause after weeks of outcries from protestors, media and politicians and after the Chief of the Sanford Police Department was forced to step down. The probable cause affidavit has even been criticized by many legal experts for conveniently leaving out relevant facts pertaining to GZ's claim of self-defense. To say that there was no outside pressure to arrest and charge Zimmerman in this case is a naive position to take.

Thank you. He wasn't arrested because he did nothing illegal.

Only when The Rev got down there, and with the threat of riots, did they arrest him. Only to watch this get thrown out in a few days, BTW.

So we're still gonna see riots, unfortunately

 

[ND NYC]

well, if my teenage son is shot dead and no one is even brought up on any charge whatsoever i would do EVERYTHING i could to get justice.

i guess some here would just take the local police dept word for it.

btw i am white.

 

[Wild Bill]

Thank you. He wasn't arrested because he did nothing illegal.

Only when The Rev got down there, and with the threat of riots, did they arrest him. Only to watch this get thrown out in a few days, BTW.

So we're still gonna see riots, unfortunately

I agree, and it'll get ugly. Hope we're wrong.

 

[Redbar]

I would also add that if and when the not guilty verdict gets handed down, all those people saying GZ was acquitted because of the race of one or both parties, the race/gender make-up of the jury, etc. is way off base.

I agree completely.

 

[ND NYC]

prosecutors have asked to include manslaughter and aggravated assault to the case.

they have to know a murder 2 conviction "ain't happenin"

 

[Golden_Domer]

well, if my teenage son is shot dead and no one is even brought up on any charge whatsoever i would do EVERYTHING i could to get justice.

i guess some here would just take the local police dept word for it.

btw i am white.

As would any self-respecting parent. The problem is that other, irresponsible, outside influences turned this into a racial issue. They were out for blood, not justice.

 

[Redbar]

As would any self-respecting parent. The problem is that other, irresponsible, outside influences turned this into a racial issue. They were out for blood, not justice.

Who are these irresponsible, race baiters, that are out for blood, that you refer to?

 

[NDFan4Life]

Who are these irresponsible, race baiters, that are out for blood, that you refer to?

More than likely, the racist hate-mongers Jesse and Al.

I'm just guessing here though.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I have heard many talk about the "facts." None of these facts about TM have been established except that trace amounts of THC were found in his system.

The facts are as follows:
1) A 'white' man with a gun pursued a 'black' teenager without a gun.
2) The teenager died.

Those are the "facts."

I will postulate that if the skin color of the man had been 'black' in this situation, or any other, he would already be on his way to fry. Or if the teenager had been white . . .

My thoughts? At the end of the prosecution the lead prosecutor told the whole story. He said something about two men involved, I think he said, "There are two people involved here. One of them is dead, and one of them is a liar. . . "

Rotroh. That is when you knew the prosecutor wasn't out for the win. After all he is a white guy in a white world. He wants and will get a tie. Zimmerman will either plead for reduced sentence, or be convicted of a lesser crime.

I think second is fitting but not provable with the police forces embarrassing procedures, and this doltish prosecution.

As far as Zimmerman. I have no respect and nothing but contempt for him. He is either the most incompetent, stupid blithering idiot, for god's sake, they only gave Barney Fife one bullet; or he is a cunning strategist the was able to coalesce the perfect storm.

 

[Redbar]

More than likely, the racist hate-mongers Jesse and Al.

I'm just guessing here though.

Funny.

 

[Booslum31]

"The reason he was arrested...was because he should have been arrested in the first place." Read that out loud. lol

And no, the reason he wasn't arrested in the first place was because the police did not have enough probable cause to overcome GZ's claim of self-defense. Funny that they only found probable cause after weeks of outcries from protestors, media and politicians and after the Chief of the Sanford Police Department was forced to step down. The probable cause affidavit has even been criticized by many legal experts for conveniently leaving out relevant facts pertaining to GZ's claim of self-defense. To say that there was no outside pressure to arrest and charge Zimmerman in this case is a naive position to take.

I like what you have to say here. I read above somewhere that GZ should have shot a round into the air. IMO that's hard to do when someone is between you and "the air". I'm stranded in Boston's Logan airport (I know that NEVER happens) watching CNN...it's clear CNN wants GZ to fry. Why do they care so much?

 

[Golden_Domer]

I have heard many talk about the "facts." None of these facts about TM have been established except that trace amounts of THC were found in his system.

The facts are as follows:
1) A 'white' man with a gun pursued a 'black' teenager without a gun.
2) The teenager died.

Those are the "facts."

I will postulate that if the skin color of the man had been 'black' in this situation, or any other, he would already be on his way to fry. Or if the teenager had been white . . .

My thoughts? At the end of the prosecution the lead prosecutor told the whole story. He said something about two men involved, I think he said, "There are two people involved here. One of them is dead, and one of them is a liar. . . "

Rotroh. That is when you knew the prosecutor wasn't out for the win. After all he is a white guy in a white world. He wants and will get a tie. Zimmerman will either plead for reduced sentence, or be convicted of a lesser crime.

I think second is fitting but not provable with the police forces embarrassing procedures, and this doltish prosecution.

As far as Zimmerman. I have no respect and nothing but contempt for him. He is either the most incompetent, stupid blithering idiot, for god's sake, they only gave Barney Fife one bullet; or he is a cunning strategist the was able to coalesce the perfect storm.

I stopped reading after that "fact." lol.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I stopped reading after that "fact." lol.

Excuse me. People that don't look at color usually miss that. (Legally he is white or Caucasian.)