George Zimmerman Trial

[magogian]

The "Justice Department" has become something Orwellian under the Obama administration.

In response to the acquittal of Zimmerman, the

U.S. Department of Justice on Monday afternoon appealed to civil rights groups and community leaders, nationally and in Sanford, for help investigating whether a federal criminal case might be brought against George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, one advocate said.

The DOJ has also set up a public email address to take in tips on its civil rights investigation.

Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law – who earlier in the day joined calls for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, said that later in the afternoon, she joined a U.S. Department of Justice conference call to discuss the prospects.

“They were calling on us to actively refer anyone who had any information,” that might build a case against Zimmerman for either a civil rights violation or a hate crime, Arnwine said. “They said they would very aggressively investigate this case.”

Arnwine said the call was convened at about 3:30 p.m. by Tom Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, and included representatives from the FBI, and several federal prosecutors, she said. DOJ officials also said they would open a public email address so people could send in tips on the case.

George Zimmerman: DOJ solicits help from civil rights leaders in Zimmerman investigation - OrlandoSentinel.com

Of course, this is after an extensive FBI investigation already concluded that Zimmerman was not motivated by racism in any way.

This is how Obama's lackeys choose to use the might of the US government. All against one acquitted criminal defendant.

Freaking scary as ****.

During the Zimmerman trial, some 4 black African Americans young men were killed in Chicago. But God forbid anything be done about that.

 

[magogian]

The media cause that you sympathize with altered the facts leading to a public perception and outrage that landed him a murder trial. They skewed video and details to pin him as a racist killer.

The below was just a few pages back but all too conveniently forgotten:

March 27, 2012 - NBC News Edits 911 Audio to Make Zimmerman Look Racist

On the storied Today Show, NBC News told America Zimmerman said this on the 911 call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

When the truth is that the unedited audio actually went like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

After the fraudulent editing was discovered by the New Media (first by Breitbart News), former NBC News president Steve Capus would claim that the edit was "a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call."

Eventually, several NBC producers would be fired (without being named), and Zimmerman would file a lawsuit against NBC; it remains unresolved.

March 28, 2012 - ABC News Falsely Claims Zimmerman Wasn't Injured Night of Shooting

The day after NBC News released its falsified 911 bombshell, ABC News released a phony, hyped-up story of its own. Using grainy surveillance video of Zimmerman at the police station on the night of the shooting, ABC News claimed, "A police surveillance video taken the night that Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman."

Obviously, if true, this would go a long way towards proving Zimmerman was not in fear of his life the night of the shooting and had lied about being beaten up.

The only problem is that the ABC News story was not true -- not even close. The network didn't bother to enhance the video before breaking the news. Had they, Zimmerman's bloody head would have been quite apparent.

It would take four days for ABC to retract its falsehood.

April 1, 2012 - The New York Times Maliciously Edits Zimmerman's 911 Call

Although the NBC News malicious edit of Zimmerman's 911 call broadcast on the Today Show had already been loudly and publicly debunked, days later the New York Times did the same thing on its front page.

By rearranging the words of the call, the Times falsely made it look as though Zimmerman had profiled Trayvon as black:

Here is the 911 call transcript:

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

911 DISPATCHER: Okay. And this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?

ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.

And here is what the Times reported:

“Hey, we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood,” Mr. Zimmerman said to start the conversation with the dispatcher. “And there’s a real suspicious guy.”

This guy seemed to be up to no good; like he was on drugs or something; in a gray hoodie. Asked to describe him further, he said, “He looks black.”

 

[pkt77242]

The media cause that you sympathize with altered the facts leading to a public perception and outrage that landed him a murder trial. They skewed video and details to pin him as a racist killer.

The absence of a case is why they didn't charge. Public outrage landed the state an unwinnable case.

So the media skewed the fact that Zimmerman followed someone, called 911 and was told not to follow them, continued to follow them and confronted them, and then sometime during the confrontation determined that he was afraid for his life and shot TM. Sounds just about right. Do I think that GZ was guilty of 2nd degree murder? Nope. Do I think he was guilty of manslaughter? possibly. Do I think that the prosecution absolutely sucked? Most definitely.

 

[phgreek]

So the media skewed the fact that Zimmerman followed someone, called 911 and was told not to follow them, continued to follow them and confronted them, and then sometime during the confrontation determined that he was afraid for his life and shot TM. Sounds just about right. Do I think that GZ was guilty of 2nd degree murder? Nope. Do I think he was guilty of manslaughter? possibly. Do I think that the prosecution absolutely sucked? Most definitely.

ok I hafta do this...

That prosecutor claimed he's tried some huge number of murder cases and only lost like two. So ask yourself...are the investigators that good in FL? Are the murderers just more standup, or dumb? Does this prosecutor Cherry-pick cases a bit?

Me thinks Mr. Zimmerman dodged a bullet (no pun intended) because based on the dichotomy that is this prosecutors skill as compared to his record...I am almost forced to conclude Florida Courts = Kangaroo/Star Chamber kinda sh!t,...Seriously how is that guy batting .900.

 

[GoIrish41]

The below was just a few pages back but all too conveniently forgotten:

March 27, 2012 - NBC News Edits 911 Audio to Make Zimmerman Look Racist



March 28, 2012 - ABC News Falsely Claims Zimmerman Wasn't Injured Night of Shooting



April 1, 2012 - The New York Times Maliciously Edits Zimmerman's 911 Call

How do you know any of those reports are accurare? ... You know, bacause of how bad the media is?

 

[drayer54]

So the media skewed the fact that Zimmerman followed someone

Entirely legal and not all that odd considering his role on the neighborhood watch and the recent crime trend.

, called 911 and was told not to follow them,

Still legal...

continued to follow them and confronted them,

Legal and not a uncontested accusation. There is the "you got a problem now" story out there. Doesn't mean it must be true... but it could be.

and then sometime during the confrontation determined that he was afraid for his life and shot TM.

You're neglecting to mention some head injuries and a possible attack, but still legal and validated by a sequestered jury of his peers. Legal....

Sounds just about right. Do I think that GZ was guilty of 2nd degree murder? Nope. Do I think he was guilty of manslaughter? possibly. Do I think that the prosecution absolutely sucked? Most definitely.

The prosecution did what they could with the evidence they had. What evidence did they not present? What mistakes did they make? They had to present the big girl and they had to present the neighbor, both of which sunk the case from the get go. There was no solid evidence, which is why they didn't want to prosecute it from the outset.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Entirely legal and not all that odd considering his role on the neighborhood watch and the recent crime trend.


Still legal...


Legal and not a uncontested accusation. There is the "you got a problem now" story out there. Doesn't mean it must be true... but it could be.



You're neglecting to mention some head injuries and a possible attack, but still legal and validated by a sequestered jury of his peers. Legal....


The prosecution did what they could with the evidence they had. What evidence did they not present? What mistakes did they make? They had to present the big girl and they had to present the neighbor, both of which sunk the case from the get go. There was no solid evidence, which is why they didn't want to prosecute it from the outset.

I don't understand the "no evidence" thing people keep saying. He started following the kid and he shot the kid. That is all the evidence I would need if I was on the jury. The prosecution failed to argue forcefully enough against the absurd story that the defense put forth to justify the shooting.

 

[NDinL.A.]

I don't understand the "no evidence" thing people keep saying. He started following the kid and he shot the kid. That is all the evidence I would need if I was on the jury. The prosecution failed to argue forcefully enough against the absurd story that the defense put forth to justify the shooting.

Then you'd be an awful juror. The no evidence thing is kind of a big deal in this country.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I don't understand the "no evidence" thing people keep saying. He started following the kid and he shot the kid. That is all the evidence I would need if I was on the jury. The prosecution failed to argue forcefully enough against the absurd story that the defense put forth to justify the shooting.

"Clear your mind must be, if you are to discover the real villains behind this plot.”

Rhode Irish... your obvious distain for the jury verdict is telling as your arguments are getting weaker with each post. While I believe there is a need for communication on the underlying issues involving this case, I don't believe it includes remarks that simply aren't factual and solely based on one's beliefs and not on the evidence that was produced in a court of law.

 

[kmoose]

So the media skewed the fact that Zimmerman followed someone, called 911 and was told not to follow them, continued to follow them and confronted them, and then sometime during the confrontation determined that he was afraid for his life and shot TM. Sounds just about right. Do I think that GZ was guilty of 2nd degree murder? Nope. Do I think he was guilty of manslaughter? possibly. Do I think that the prosecution absolutely sucked? Most definitely.

Some might feel it is splitting hairs, but Zimmerman was never told "Don't follow that guy." He was told that the police didn't need him to do that. The reason I bring it up is that saying that he followed Trayvon, after being told not to, puts the impression out there that Zimmerman was some kind of loose cannon who was hell bent on being a vigilante, to the point where he defied the orders of police.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Then you'd be an awful juror. The no evidence thing is kind of a big deal in this country.

You've misconstrued my point. The argument that there was no evidence is dumb. There was plenty of evidence. The fact that the defendant shot the kid wasn't even in dispute. The dispute was over whether the killing was justified, and I don't believe it was. The defense's version of event is implausible.

 

[GoIrish41]

Then you'd be an awful juror. The no evidence thing is kind of a big deal in this country.

If the interview with the juror on CNN is to be believed, they didn't pay attention to the evidence that was presented anyway. According to her, she found the most credible witness to be the lead investigator, who inappropriately gave his opionion as to whether Zimmerman was telling the truth. The judge instructed jurors to disregard that portion of his testimony, but the juror suggested that because she found him credible and his opinion was that Zimmerman was being honest that was key to arriving at a not guilty verdict. She acknowledges that he exercised poor judgement and that he should have remained in his car, but overcame that lapse by concluding that "George's heart was in the right place." She also appeared to have a fairly glaring bias against Martin's girlfriend because of her apparent lack of education and poor communication skills (neither of which have anything to do with evidence or ability to recount what she witnessed the night of the shooting). She even went so far as to say she felt sorry for her because of it, and admitted that, at times, she didn't understand her colloquial expressions, and chocked that up to the environment in which she lived (no matter what that means it smacks of something offensive). She concluded that it must have been Zimmerman on top because he is the one who had injuries, which is not bore out by any evidence. People who don't have anything to do with the case can give their opinions about what they thing and they are jumped on by people talking about a lack of evidence, but when the actual juror who was deciding the case told the world what happened in the jury room, nobody raises an eyebrow. All this talk about the sanctity of the evidence presented in this case strikes me as a bit ironic.

 

[NDinL.A.]

All this talk about the sanctity of the evidence presented in this case strikes me as a bit ironic.

Even more ironic is when you are presented with ANY evidence that thwarts your position, you quickly dismiss it, no matter its validity, and add your (unprovable) 'theory'. Hell, you even admitted that your argument is far stronger than anyone else's argument, even those with law degrees in FL who watched every single minute of the trial (which you admitted that you didn't do).

On this thread, you're the random nobody at home letting everyone know that you know WAY more than Brian Kelly and his staff, while questioning every little thing he does that doesn't work with 1000% perfection. Sad, really.

 

[GoIrish41]

Some might feel it is splitting hairs, but Zimmerman was never told "Don't follow that guy." He was told that the police didn't need him to do that. The reason I bring it up is that saying that he followed Trayvon, after being told not to, puts the impression out there that Zimmerman was some kind of loose cannon who was hell bent on being a vigilante, to the point where he defied the orders of police.

I am one who believes it is splitting hairs. Clearly the intent of that statement by the operator was "don't follow him," and Zimmerman admitted as much when he gave his video statement to the police. That is why he made up the ludicrous story about walking a block through the darkness to find an address that he simply had to back up a few steps to see on the front door of the home in front of which his car was parked. To many of us the impression that Zimmerman was a loose cannon hell bent on being a vigilante is clear AND supported by evidence. The operator, if I'm not mistaken, even testified as to why she worded the statement "we don't need you to do that" ... it was to protect the police department against possible legal action if she directed the caller to do anything. It is disingenuous to suggest that she did not mean for Zimmerman to stop following, IMO. I think we all knew what she meant.

 

[FLDomer]

I am one who believes it is splitting hairs. Clearly the intent of that statement by the operator was "don't follow him," and Zimmerman admitted as much when he gave his video statement to the police. That is why he made up the ludicrous story about walking a block through the darkness to find an address that he simply had to back up a few steps to see on the front door of the home in front of which his car was parked. To many of us the impression that Zimmerman was a loose cannon hell bent on being a vigilante is clear AND supported by evidence. The operator, if I'm not mistaken, even testified as to why she worded the statement "we don't need you to do that" ... it was to protect the police department against possible legal action if she directed the caller to do anything. It is disingenuous to suggest that she did not mean for Zimmerman to stop following, IMO. I think we all knew what she meant.

Yet this is why it worded like such and it is done that way intentionally. A 911 operator can not tell a caller what to do as a matter of fact, for liability purposes.

 

[Rhode Irish]

GoIrish - your point about the sanctity of the evidence is spot on. The defense is supposed to say anything they can to raise some doubt in the jurors' minds. Just because they posited a theory or one of their witnesses offers testimony doesn't mean that is "evidence" in the way the word is being used here (as a synonym for indisputable fact; clearly it is evidence in the technical sense).

 

[GoIrish41]

Even more ironic is when you are presented with ANY evidence that thwarts your position, you quickly dismiss it, no matter its validity, and add your (unprovable) 'theory'. Hell, you even admitted that your argument is far stronger than anyone else's argument, even those with law degrees in FL who watched every single minute of the trial (which you admitted that you didn't do).

On this thread, you're the random nobody at home letting everyone know that you know WAY more than Brian Kelly and his staff, while questioning every little thing he does that doesn't work with 1000% perfection. Sad, really.

Did I really? When did I do that? I have consistently said that what makes more sense to me is X. I never once said that my argument was "far stronger than anyone elses'". I don't care who is a lawyer and who isn't when it comes to what makes sense to me. A story either makes sense or it does not, and Zimmerman's doesn't. That said, I have learned a lot listening to the legal distinctions made by the attorneys on the board and have consistently appreciated their feedback. In fact, I have a couple of dozen "reps" in this thread from people on this board complimenting me for remaining level headed and providing clear arguments (many from people who do not agree with my point of view, and some from those lawyers you are talking about). Nice try. Now, why don't you go back to your idiocy of telling everyone who is and isn't a horrible parent and stop trying to pick a fight with me.

I don't even understand your last paragraph, so I won't even comment on it.

 

[GoIrish41]

Yet this is why it worded like such and it is done that way intentionally. A 911 operator can not tell a caller what to do as a matter of fact, for liability purposes.

Agree, but to claim that Zimmerman didn't understand (even though he said he did) that the operator was telling him to stand down is silly.

 

[kmoose]

Agree, but to claim that Zimmerman didn't understand (even though he said he did) that the operator was telling him to stand down is silly.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I never said that Zimmerman didn't understand anything. I simply said that some people (including you) are twisting the words of the operator to paint Zimmerman as some kind of rogue, thereby bolstering your theory that he was hell bent on killing Martin, no matter what.

By the way, the operator also told him, "...let me know if he does anything else..." So someone could make the argument that Zimmerman had reason to follow Martin, that reason being that the police had instructed him to let them know if Martin did anything else.

 

[FLDomer]

Agree, but to claim that Zimmerman didn't understand (even though he said he did) that the operator was telling him to stand down is silly.

SHE WASNT "telling" him to stand down is my point! Suggestions are not orders.

 

[GoIrish41]

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I never said that Zimmerman didn't understand anything. I simply said that some people (including you) are twisting the words of the operator to paint Zimmerman as some kind of rogue, thereby bolstering your theory that he was hell bent on killing Martin, no matter what.

By the way, the operator also told him, "...let me know if he does anything else..." So someone could make the argument that Zimmerman had reason to follow Martin, that reason being that the police had instructed him to let them know if Martin did anything else.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. My point was simply that Zimmerman knew what the operator meant when she said "We don't need you to do that." I don't think that I've misrepresented what she said at all. I'm just acknowledging what her words meant (which I think were crystal clear), and because of the meaning of those words, Zimmerman's actions make him look like a rogue. And now you are putting words in my mouth -- I never suggested that he was hell bent on killing Martin. What I have said is that the only reason that he went into the darkness after Martin is because he knew he had an ace up his sleeve in the form of a gun tucked into his belt.

When it became clear that Zimmerman was still following Zimmerman, the operator did continue asking quetions about Martin's actions. I don't think she should have done that (particularly since she likely opened the police up to legal action she was trying to protect them from with the vague language in the first place).

 

[kmoose]

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. My point was simply that Zimmerman knew what the operator meant when she said "We don't need you to do that." I don't think that I've misrepresented what she said at all. I'm just acknowledging what her words meant (which I think were crystal clear), and because of the meaning of those words, Zimmerman's actions make him look like a rogue. And now you are putting words in my mouth -- I never suggested that he was hell bent on killing Martin. What I have said is that the only reason that he went into the darkness after Martin is because he knew he had an ace up his sleeve in the form of a gun tucked into his belt.

When it became clear that Zimmerman was still following Zimmerman, the operator did continue asking quetions about Martin's actions. I don't think she should have done that (particularly since she likely opened the police up to legal action she was trying to protect them from with the vague language in the first place).

Well, which is it? Did she clearly tell Zimmerman to stand down, or did she potentially expose her department to legal action for at least tacitly approving of Zimmerman following Martin?

 

[GoIrish41]

SHE WASNT "telling" him to stand down is my point! Suggestions are not orders.

It was clearly the intent of her comment. Now we are back to what Kmoose said in the first place about splitting hairs. Sure, she didn't implicity "tell" Martin to stand down, but she clearly meant ... stop following him. We all speak English and we all know that when someone says "we don't need you to do that" they want you to stop doing it.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Did I really? When did I do that?

ME: Have you thought that maybe others are actually right and you are in fact ignoring important testimony and facts?

YOU: No.

All you have done is shot down ANYONE who has FACTS and EVIDENCE and twisted their words and logic to make them look incorrect, and make your theory the absolute correct one. Go read your posts again. When people have presented you with facts, you quickly dismiss them as ignoring other evidence. You never do that though...you know all. Yes, you have remained calm, and yes, people have repped you (perhaps you forgot that I repped you twice on this thread???). But I stopped repping you once it became abundantly clear that you believe you are the smartest guy in the room and that even though there are people at the trial who have more info than you do in this case, their evidence and their theories about what happened are absolutely wrong. Lawyers in FL have clearly laid out facts and how the law works, and you still have argued against their facts.

Nice try. Now, why don't you go back to your idiocy of telling everyone who is and isn't a horrible parent and stop trying to pick a fight with me.

The hell? When did I tell everyone who is and isn't a horrible parent??? I said that Trayvon's parents were horrible parents, and I stand by that a million times over. Didn't say anything about any other parents. (You want to talk reps, I have several from people agreeing with me.) If you want to defend their parenting skills, you know, letting a kid who reportedly had been suspended 3 times and had missed 53 days of school that year and was on 10 day suspension BUT THEY STILL LET HIM OUT AT NIGHT WITH A NICE CELL PHONE, well hey, that's your idiocy.

Not picking a fight, just calling you out on your own hypocricy. You probably have over 100 posts on this thread shooting down other people's opinions and facts, but if someone does it forcefully to you it's 'picking a fight'? Nope. Just talking.

I don't even understand your last paragraph, so I won't even comment on it.

Read it again. You know more than everyone, even lawyers. Make the connection, it's not hard.

 

[drayer54]

You've misconstrued my point. The argument that there was no evidence is dumb. There was plenty of evidence. The fact that the defendant shot the kid wasn't even in dispute. The dispute was over whether the killing was justified, and I don't believe it was. The defense's version of event is implausible.

The defense showed his wounds that support the story, a witness that TM was on top, a counter to the claims that the voice was TM, character witnesses, an expert to prove that the angle of entry supports the story presented by GZ, and a bunch of experts to explain that GZ is a wuss.

 

[irishpat183]

GoIrish, like the angry mob that I see backing up our freeways...fails to see that there is no case here and GZ did nothign wrong. Nothing up to the point of the fight, matters. It really doesn't. People would STILL be calling for GZ's head if we had some video of the incident and TM attacked GZ. Becauce its all based on race...it's a show. And you fell for it...hook, line, and sinker.

You've been duped. Don't worry, we all have.

 

[FLDomer]

It was clearly the intent of her comment. Now we are back to what Kmoose said in the first place about splitting hairs. Sure, she didn't implicity "tell" Martin to stand down, but she clearly meant ... stop following him. We all speak English and we all know that when someone says "we don't need you to do that" they want you to stop doing it.

Haha, not my wife. "You dont need to buy that for me..." lol

 

[irishpat183]

The defense showed his wounds that support the story, a witness that TM was on top, a counter to the claims that the voice was TM, character witnesses, an expert to prove that the angle of entry supports the story presented by GZ, and a bunch of experts to explain that GZ is a wuss.

And then there is this...actually evidence of TM beating up GZ. Again...IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HAPPENED LEADING UP TO THE FIGHT.

It is a SELF DEFENSE case, not stand your ground. And I wish the dumbasses on the news networks (and Holder) would stop mentioning stand your ground. Sheesh


Even more reason to point to this case and see the idioicy of it.

 

[irishpat183]

It was clearly the intent of her comment. Now we are back to what Kmoose said in the first place about splitting hairs. Sure, she didn't implicity "tell" Martin to stand down, but she clearly meant ... stop following him. We all speak English and we all know that when someone says "we don't need you to do that" they want you to stop doing it.

Again...these are the same peole that tell you not to fire at an intruder in your home and wait for the police.


They suggest. They are not authority. Nor are they in the position of the person their suggesting to.

DEAD ISSUE.

 

[GoIrish41]

ME: Have you thought that maybe others are actually right and you are in fact ignoring important testimony and facts?

YOU: No.

It was a joke dude. Are you that humorless that you can't recognize a joke?

All you have done is shot down ANYONE who has FACTS and EVIDENCE and twisted their words and logic to make them look incorrect, and make your theory the absolute correct one. Go read your posts again. When people have presented you with facts, you quickly dismiss them as ignoring other evidence. You never do that though...you know all. Yes, you have remained calm, and yes, people have repped you (perhaps you forgot that I repped you twice on this thread???). But I stopped repping you once it became abundantly clear that you believe you are the smartest guy in the room and that even though there are people at the trial who have more info than you do in this case, their evidence and their theories about what happened are absolutely wrong. Lawyers in FL have clearly laid out facts and how the law works, and you still have argued against their facts.

Please find one instance when I simply dismissed any one who has "facts" and "evidence". This is a discussion board. When people disagree, they present opposiing points of view. A good discussion involves explaining why you have a point of view and not the other point of view. If that offends you, you really should find a new hobby other than hanging out on a discussion board. What is not appropriate on discussion boards is unsolicited personal attacks on a person who is having a discussion with others. That is what derails a discussion quicker than anything else. ... That and when people make statements so ignorant and insensitive that they are impossible to ignore -- like Martin had horrible parents, just days after the trial for the murder of their dead son. Many have argued that Martin was not a "kid" at all but for the purposes of your argument, he is and should have been grounded and his cell phone taken away. But being a young black person walking at 7:10 p.m. through a neighborhood where he was a resident of a guest who owns a home there, you are arguing that it was appropriate for Zimmerman to assume he is a scary, hoodie-wearing, black thug whom everyone should stop referring to as a kid because some other black teens robbed a house in the neighborhood at some time in the past. "Facts" are not what Zimmerman says. That is his version of the facts, and when someone speaks about his story as if it is a fact, I point that out. Is that what is p*ssing you off? What about all those "facts" and "evidence" you hold in such high regard? Shouldn't someone point out when assumptions are being made ... or is just me who is making assumptions? Give me a freakin break.