George Zimmerman Trial

[Rhode Irish]

Rhode Irish... I hope you never sit on a jury that has been charged with determining my fate.

The prosecution has the responsibility to prove that the defendent has committed a crime. That does not mean that they can guess how anything that night occurred. And sadly, their whole case was based on assumptions. And assumptions do not prove anything.

What started as a local story was grabbed onto by the left wing liberal media - insert NBC - and the race trading so called civil right leaders of the country - insert Al Sharpton here - and convicted the defendent before the first shred of any evidence was displayed. And sadly, our own President got in on the act.

When the race card is pulled out in any case, then logical thinking goes out the window. Pressure to even bring a case was tremendous and should never have been brought forth based on the evidence they had. Convicting a person on that basis and that basis alone is what will be criminal in this case. And if the defendent is aquitted, wonder if there will be pressure to prosecute any people that riot afterwards. Surely NBC, Al Sharpton, and the President would step forth calling for prosecution of those individuals. Surely...

First of all, no you don't need to prove everything that happened on a minute by minute basis. You can convict based on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences. You guys watch too much TV.

Second, who cares why people initially paid attention to the story? Regardless of the race of the two individuals involved, a grown man shot an unarmed kid who was walking through the neighborhood minding his own business because he mistook him for a criminal. The clear impression that many got when the story first came to our attention was that the local police were content to sweep the incident under the rug to save themselves the aggravation of dealing with it thoroughly. It's a tough case, and Florida law - as stupid as it may be - makes getting a murder conviction difficult. But the justice system owes the public at least an investigation and likely a trial when an adult shoots and kills a kid in the street. And to me, you need more than the defendant's statements to dislodge the presumption that he is at fault when there is no controversy over whether he is the one that pulled the trigger.

 

[T Town Tommy]

First of all, no you don't need to prove everything that happened on a minute by minute basis. You can convict based on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences. You guys watch too much TV.

Second, who cares why people initially paid attention to the story? Regardless of the race of the two individuals involved, a grown man shot an unarmed kid who was walking through the neighborhood minding his own business because he mistook him for a criminal. The clear impression that many got when the story first came to our attention was that the local police were content to sweep the incident under the rug to save themselves the aggravation of dealing with it thoroughly. It's a tough case, and Florida law - as stupid as it may be - makes getting a murder conviction difficult. But the justice system owes the public at least an investigation and likely a trial when an adult shoots and kills a kid in the street. And to me, you need more than the defendant's statements to dislodge the presumption that he is at fault when there is no controversy over whether he is the one that pulled the trigger.

"It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have."

James A. Baldwin


You can take from that what you want. We can agree to disagree on this case.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I take that to mean that I am glad you and a few others on this board don't have any power.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I take that to mean that I am glad you and a few others on this board don't have any power.

Actually, I would want you as foreperson on my jury. Except that wouldn't happen because you would get excused and I don't see myself moving north-east.

All that notwithstanding, I agree. Not looking at this case specifically, (I have seen it before, someone gets in over their head and someone gets hurt). The overview, of this case is a very important question that needs to be answered. Forget about any arguments of unrestricted gun ownership being a guaranteed right under the constitution; or at least equate it to free and unrestricted travel. Does the constitution put the right of gun ownership in the hands of every unqualified idiot? Does a raging manic depressive personality, an anti social personality, a person with an IQ too low to efficiently operate on their own in society all have the right to own and carry weapons?

If you look at free and unrestricted travel, it is clear. States license motor vehicle drivers. Ohio has since 1940. My father drove in 1930 when he was 12. He admitted that he and his friends were "a menace to society." This is a question, because it all comes down to equal protection under the law. And does restriction equal addition by subtraction. At two times, around the Second World War, and in recent economic hard times, the percent of population that drives has dipped, either with more regulation or higher cost. Both times roads became safer. A great majority of people who aspire to carry would not be able to make the proper choices required to use the weapons effectively. A portion of those people contribute to the biggest health related risks of the whole gun issue; accidental shootings and death.

I want to be able to carry. I do not hold a grudge against anyone who is qualified who wants to carry. But the gun manufacturers run the gun lobby, and most free thinkers have abdicated their positions within the gun rights groups. This Zimmerman case is a poster child for what proper restriction could do to help lower the body count, now that the rate of deaths by firearms are overtaking the rate of deats caused by motor vehicles.

 

[GoIrish41]

It was that big group of people yelling with Al Sharpton back in March. The DOJ spent money to help organize it.

You can call it a mob if you would like, I'll call it a group of concerned citizens exercising their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble. Even when there was no arrest made in the Trayvon Martin case, there was no violence. They were peaceful demonstrations afforded to people in the Constitution. I don't hear anyone referring to Glenn Beck's rallies against Obamacare and the IRS as angry mobs. Occupy Wall Street sites across the country weren't referred to angry mobs. The same people who claim that it is ridiculous that race has been inserted into this case unnecessarily are (wittingly or unwittingly) inserting racisim into it. Discussions about the inevitable riots that will occurr if these angry black people who are predisposed to violence don't get their way is profoundly offensive, and it strikes me as the same type of profiling Zimmerman was guilty of -- only on a larger scale.

 

[Ndaccountant]

You can call it a mob if you would like, I'll call it a group of concerned citizens exercising their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble. Even when there was no arrest made in the Trayvon Martin case, there was no violence. They were peaceful demonstrations afforded to people in the Constitution. I don't hear anyone referring to Glenn Beck's rallies against Obamacare and the IRS as angry mobs. Occupy Wall Street sites across the country weren't referred to angry mobs. The same people who claim that it is ridiculous that race has been inserted into this case unnecessarily are (wittingly or unwittingly) inserting racisim into it. Discussions about the inevitable riots that will occurr if these angry black people who are predisposed to violence don't get their way is profoundly offensive, and it strikes me as the same type of profiling Zimmerman was guilty of -- only on a larger scale.

Did anyone on the thread actually say that?

 

[kmoose]

I just don't. Maybe if he didn't get shot, Martin would be able to tell his side of the story. But like I said, common sense tells me that if one guy is geared up to fight crime and the other guy is just walking home to eat his skittles, then probably the guy looking to bust criminals is the one that started the altercation.

While I admit that this video appears to be a little biased, in it's presentation, it does bring up some good points. Most important, in my mind, is; if Trayvon felt threatened, and really was just a kid not looking for any trouble, then why didn't he just enter his father's house and be done with the situation? Or did he perhaps stick around and wait for Zimmerman to catch up to him, for the purpose of initiating a confrontation?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0ZMQRXr3Ers" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[GoIrish41]

Did anyone on the thread actually say that?

not in those words, but the thought of the ineveitable riots that will happen in Florida following an unfavorable decision speak to it.

 

[irishpat183]

Rhode Irish... I hope you never sit on a jury that has been charged with determining my fate.

The prosecution has the responsibility to prove that the defendent has committed a crime. That does not mean that they can guess how anything that night occurred. And sadly, their whole case was based on assumptions. And assumptions do not prove anything.

What started as a local story was grabbed onto by the left wing liberal media - insert NBC - and the race trading so called civil right leaders of the country - insert Al Sharpton here - and convicted the defendent before the first shred of any evidence was displayed. And sadly, our own President got in on the act.

When the race card is pulled out in any case, then logical thinking goes out the window. Pressure to even bring a case was tremendous and should never have been brought forth based on the evidence they had. Convicting a person on that basis and that basis alone is what will be criminal in this case. And if the defendent is aquitted, wonder if there will be pressure to prosecute any people that riot afterwards. Surely NBC, Al Sharpton, and the President would step forth calling for prosecution of those individuals. Surely...

Awesome post. And right on the money.

 

[irishpat183]

You can call it a mob if you would like, I'll call it a group of concerned citizens exercising their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble. Even when there was no arrest made in the Trayvon Martin case, there was no violence. They were peaceful demonstrations afforded to people in the Constitution. I don't hear anyone referring to Glenn Beck's rallies against Obamacare and the IRS as angry mobs. Occupy Wall Street sites across the country weren't referred to angry mobs. The same people who claim that it is ridiculous that race has been inserted into this case unnecessarily are (wittingly or unwittingly) inserting racisim into it. Discussions about the inevitable riots that will occurr if these angry black people who are predisposed to violence don't get their way is profoundly offensive, and it strikes me as the same type of profiling Zimmerman was guilty of -- only on a larger scale.

LOL...We'll see how "peaceful" they are if they don't get their way.

And are you forgetting the attacks carried out on white people in the name of trayvon!?!?!? There are 14 cases of retaliation crimes documented...so far. So to say that there was "no violence" is ignorant.

And nobody said "black people". You ASSUME we ment black people when we said "mob". So who's really the racist?

 

[FLDomer]

not in those words, but the thought of the ineveitable riots that will happen in Florida following an unfavorable decision speak to it.

There have been threats to riot. It clearly isn't unfounded when the local police are prepping for it along with support from the states largest Sheriff's force (Broward County).

I dont know where you live GoIrish41 but the tension in Sanford and surrounding communities, is there, and noticeable.

 

[irishpat183]

Actually, I would want you as foreperson on my jury. Except that wouldn't happen because you would get excused and I don't see myself moving north-east.

All that notwithstanding, I agree. Not looking at this case specifically, (I have seen it before, someone gets in over their head and someone gets hurt). The overview, of this case is a very important question that needs to be answered. Forget about any arguments of unrestricted gun ownership being a guaranteed right under the constitution; or at least equate it to free and unrestricted travel. Does the constitution put the right of gun ownership in the hands of every unqualified idiot? Does a raging manic depressive personality, an anti social personality, a person with an IQ too low to efficiently operate on their own in society all have the right to own and carry weapons?

If you look at free and unrestricted travel, it is clear. States license motor vehicle drivers. Ohio has since 1940. My father drove in 1930 when he was 12. He admitted that he and his friends were "a menace to society." This is a question, because it all comes down to equal protection under the law. And does restriction equal addition by subtraction. At two times, around the Second World War, and in recent economic hard times, the percent of population that drives has dipped, either with more regulation or higher cost. Both times roads became safer. A great majority of people who aspire to carry would not be able to make the proper choices required to use the weapons effectively. A portion of those people contribute to the biggest health related risks of the whole gun issue; accidental shootings and death.

I want to be able to carry. I do not hold a grudge against anyone who is qualified who wants to carry. But the gun manufacturers run the gun lobby, and most free thinkers have abdicated their positions within the gun rights groups. This Zimmerman case is a poster child for what proper restriction could do to help lower the body count, now that the rate of deaths by firearms are overtaking the rate of deats caused by motor vehicles.

No, it's not. There are accidents all the time involving highly trained people. At some point, sh*t just happens.

Zimmerman could be a very well trained guy and this still might've gone down the same way.

The "poster" child would be some untrained idiot. But it seems that GZ had some training as he was abel to carry.

And I don't ever see gun deaths overcoming car deaths....I know there have been some projections...but I just can't see that happening. And do they count people getting hit by cars in those projections?

 

[irishpat183]

That guy has some serious man pebbles writing that.

Is he wrong?

 

[GoIrish41]

LOL...We'll see how "peaceful" they are if they don't get their way.

And are you forgetting the attacks carried out on white people in the name of trayvon!?!?!? There are 14 cases of retaliation crimes documented...so far. So to say that there was "no violence" is ignorant.

And nobody said "black people". You ASSUME we ment black people when we said "mob". So who's really the racist?

So, you are suggesting that you didn't mean black people when you said "mob?" Okay. I suppose you are also suggesting that the 14 attacks on white people were carried out by a racially mixed group folks, too. I'm the racist, got it.

Your use of the word "mob" suggests that as a group, this "mob" visited violence upon 14 white people. If you are saying that 14 crimes have been committed in the name of Trayvon, that is not really the same thing as saying an angry mob committed violent acts is it? During these 14 "documented" cases, are you suggesting that people were assaulted and, when arrested the suspects gave statements that the reason they did it was "for Trayvon?" Or, were there 14 cases of violent crimes against white people during that time period that have been associated by someone to the Trayvon case? Who "documented" these cases?

 

[GoIrish41]

There have been threats to riot. It clearly isn't unfounded when the local police are prepping for it along with support from the states largest Sheriff's force (Broward County).

I dont know where you live GoIrish41 but the tension in Sanford and surrounding communities, is there, and noticeable.

I don't live there, but up here in Pennsylvania where I live, the only people I have heard talk about riots are on Fox News, the people who watch Fox News and a handful of people on this thread who think that they are inevitable if the "mob" doesn't get its own way. Heck, there are even people suggesting that if the decision goes the other way, it is only because the courts are somehow conspiring with the "mob" to miscarry justice. Don't doubt there is tension, but prep for a riot and talk of riots are neither one riots. There were 44 days when people though NOTHING was going to be done -- not even an arrest -- and there were no riots. Why is everyone so sure there will be riots?

 

[irishpat183]

So, you are suggesting that you didn't mean black people when you said "mob?" Okay. I suppose you are also suggesting that the 14 attacks on white people were carried out by a racially mixed group folks, too. I'm the racist, got it.

Your use of the word "mob" suggests that as a group, this "mob" visited violence upon 14 white people. If you are saying that 14 crimes have been committed in the name of Trayvon, that is not really the same thing as saying an angry mob committed violent acts is it? During these 14 "documented" cases, are you suggesting that people were assaulted and, when arrested the suspects gave statements that the reason they did it was "for Trayvon?" Or, were there 14 cases of violent crimes against white people during that time period that have been associated by someone to the Trayvon case? Who "documented" these cases?

Was there not a large gathering of people protesting and calling for violence? That qualifies as a mob, like the OWS was.

Trayvon Martin Shooting Allegedly a Motive In Three New Crimes


There are three of them.

‘Justice for Trayvon’: Alabama Man in Critical Condition After Mob Beating

Trayvon Martin case looms over beating of 78-year-old Ohio man | Fox News

Another two....


I can keep going.

 

[FLDomer]

I don't live there, but up here in Pennsylvania where I live, the only people I have heard talk about riots are on Fox News, the people who watch Fox News and a handful of people on this thread who think that they are inevitable if the "mob" doesn't get its own way. Heck, there are even people suggesting that if the decision goes the other way, it is only because the courts are somehow conspiring with the "mob" to miscarry justice. Don't doubt there is tension, but prep for a riot and talk of riots are neither one riots. There were 44 days when people though NOTHING was going to be done -- not even an arrest -- and there were no riots. Why is everyone so sure there will be riots?

Bingo you don't live here and I am saying, and I am sure jmurphy can atest, it's not just on FOX news. There was an article in local papers and have been mentions on local news and just the other day an article about Sanford PD and BSO working together to get prepared if there are riots. I pray there are no riots but God helps those who help themselves and why not be prepared for a REAL threat, instead of the worst happening and being caught with your pants down. The 44 days before the arrest mean jack **** compared to attention that the case has gotten and the clear lines that have been drawn.

Just yesterday I was picking my kids up from day care and I heard a young lady speaking with someone about the case and how that "lil boy was murdered by this white cat"...and when she saw me walk past, with a smile on my face, she quickly ended her conversation with, "I'll call you back when I get in the car".

 

[irishpat183]

I don't live there, but up here in Pennsylvania where I live, the only people I have heard talk about riots are on Fox News, the people who watch Fox News and a handful of people on this thread who think that they are inevitable if the "mob" doesn't get its own way. Heck, there are even people suggesting that if the decision goes the other way, it is only because the courts are somehow conspiring with the "mob" to miscarry justice. Don't doubt there is tension, but prep for a riot and talk of riots are neither one riots. There were 44 days when people though NOTHING was going to be done -- not even an arrest -- and there were no riots. Why is everyone so sure there will be riots?

Of course. The liberal up east telling everyone else that they're racist and there is nothign to worry about...even though he's 1000 miles away from the action.

Same thing when it comes to immigration.


And there has been threats of riots! Come on, GoIrish...are you kidding me? So people should just brush off threats of violence? Please tell me how LA worked out after rodney king.....and you don't think that's a possiblity

 

[IrishLax]

While I admit that this video appears to be a little biased, in it's presentation, it does bring up some good points. Most important, in my mind, is; if Trayvon felt threatened, and really was just a kid not looking for any trouble, then why didn't he just enter his father's house and be done with the situation? Or did he perhaps stick around and wait for Zimmerman to catch up to him, for the purpose of initiating a confrontation?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0ZMQRXr3Ers" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yeah, this has always been the sticking point to me that Trayvon started the fight. He could easily have just continued to go home or outrun fat & short George Zimmerman on foot when he exited the vehicle. His GF on the stand said that she told him to go home... but instead he didn't listen to her, and decided to turn around to confront Zimmerman. The fact that the voluntarily turned around and went to confront Zimmerman was entered into evidence on the stand by his GF who has no motive to make something like that up.

You couple that with the fact that Zimmerman was getting his butt kicked and it seems more plausible to me that Martin to blame for escalating the conflict.

With that being said, there are some parts of Zimmerman's account of the fight that just don't really pass the veracity smell test when you examine them under the microscope. But do I think he approached Martin with the intent of starting a fist fight? Not really. I think it's more plausible that the person with a history of assault that was 4" taller was the one looking to throw down because he was pissed about being followed.

 

[GoIrish41]

Was there not a large gathering of people protesting and calling for violence? That qualifies as a mob, like the OWS was.

Trayvon Martin Shooting Allegedly a Motive In Three New Crimes


There are three of them.

‘Justice for Trayvon’: Alabama Man in Critical Condition After Mob Beating

Trayvon Martin case looms over beating of 78-year-old Ohio man | Fox News

Another two....


I can keep going.

Find one from a reputable news source.

Also, I don't recall a large mob calling for violence. I recall a large group protesting a lack of justice. I recall Martin's parents specifically saying they want their day in court and NOT violence.

 

[FLDomer]

Find one from a reputable news source.

Also, I don't recall a large mob calling for violence. I recall a large group protesting a lack of justice. I recall Martin's parents specifically saying they want their day in court and NOT violence.

Whats reputable, NBC? They proved they have no agenda to push...

 

[Irish Houstonian]

"It is more important that innocence be protected than guilt be punished."

O'Mara maybe just summed up the entire trial.

 

[GoIrish41]

Let's go with AP, which feeds all the other news sources. Let's find an original report from the Associated Press, which is in locations throughout the country, that says there 14 "documented" cases that demonstrate a direct retaliation for Tryavon Martin.

 

[GoIrish41]

This attorney is giving a much better closing argument than the prosecution did. I don't agree with him, but it is just a better than yesterday's rather disjointed presentation.

 

[Golden_Domer]

Ex-Sanford police chief: Zimmerman probe 'taken away from us' - CNN.com

You guys need to read this and watch the video. Like I was saying, but for irresponsible outside influences, there would be no sham criminal trial.


Bill Lee: "I had one of the city commissioners come to me on two different occasions and say 'all we want is an arrest.'"

"It was (relayed) to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn't care if it got dismissed later," he said. "You don't do that."

I feel bad for Mr. Lee. He tried to resist political pressure and lost.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Ex-Sanford police chief: Zimmerman probe 'taken away from us' - CNN.com

You guys need to read this and watch the video. Like I was saying, but for irresponsible outside influences, there would be no sham criminal trial.


Bill Lee: "I had one of the city commissioners come to me on two different occasions and say 'all we want is an arrest.'"

"It was (relayed) to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn't care if it got dismissed later," he said. "You don't do that."

I feel bad for Mr. Lee. He tried to resist political pressure and lost.

Oh absolutely. A friend of mine likened this case to the Duke Lacrosse Trial, and that is just spot-on.

 

[irishpat183]

Find one from a reputable news source.

Also, I don't recall a large mob calling for violence. I recall a large group protesting a lack of justice. I recall Martin's parents specifically saying they want their day in court and NOT violence.

So you're saying these didn't happen? LOL

Nice defense.

 

[irishpat183]

Let's go with AP, which feeds all the other news sources. Let's find an original report from the Associated Press, which is in locations throughout the country, that says there 14 "documented" cases that demonstrate a direct retaliation for Tryavon Martin.

There are links to the original local stories...Feel free

 

[irishpat183]

Oh absolutely. A friend of mine likened this case to the Duke Lacrosse Trial, and that is just spot-on.

It's exactly the same.

 

[connor_in]

Lupica: Let’s hope Zimmerman won’t get away with it - NY Daily News

OK which one of you IE posters is really Mike Lupica?