George Zimmerman Trial

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
Where does this concept come from that if you are tried for a crime and found not guilty that you somehow have a lawsuit against everyone? That just isn't a thing. The idea that because he was acquitted the trial should have never occurred is also not a thing.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I disagree...the media screwed the pooch here again...journalism would dictate multiple sources including Mr. Zimmerman himself would be used to verify MR. Zimmerman's ethnicity...thus allowing the media to be a source of fact and reason in the face of folks jumping to conclusions...thus stemming the racial component within hours...that's not what happened here

I agree the gun debate has added to polarization...

I disagree with the characterization of what the president said early on. My expectation would be that he put out the obligatory, lets let justice take its course...nothing more...nothing less. His "if I had a son" sh!t was uncalled for and inflammatory.

in a previous life, I was a newspaper editor and I left the business because journalism ceased being journalism. I completely agree that they bungled the story ... that is what I meant by the media did what the media does (irresponsible reporting to get it out there first). We don't disagree about the media.

We can agree on the president's initial comments. I think he has a responsibility to comment on social issues this important. That is not to say you have to like what he said, but I don't think it was irresponsible. I also think that now that the trial is over, he should foster a debate on race, since that seems to be an extremely huge issue, given the media's whipping up of this thing.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
I disagree...the media screwed the pooch here again ...

I disagree with the characterization of what the president said early on. My expectation would be that he put out the obligatory, lets let justice take its course...nothing more...nothing less. His "if I had a son" sh!t was uncalled for and inflammatory.


I was disappointed in the President's first comments. He was pandering. It's true that if he had a son he would probably look like him. But then again I read that the President looks like his mother. In his first comments he could have noted, "If I had a son he would probably look like Trayvon although as I am bi-racial, like George, my son could have looked like him as well. I have great hope that our justice system will sort through the issues and justice will be served"

I had great hope when Barrack "Barry" Obama became president that he would use his heritage as a bridge between the races instead of a wedge. As a bi-racial man he has a unique viewpoint. He should have learned from President Bush's (the first) untimely comment on the Roddy King beating. The President can't publically take sides in a legal case. The jury makes the decision.
 

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
in a previous life, I was a newspaper editor and I left the business because journalism ceased being journalism. I completely agree that they bungled the story ... that is what I meant by the media did what the media does (irresponsible reporting to get it out there first). We don't disagree about the media.

We can agree on the president's initial comments. I think he has a responsibility to comment on social issues this important. That is not to say you have to like what he said, but I don't think it was irresponsible. I also think that now that the trial is over, he should foster a debate on race, since that seems to be an extremely huge issue, given the media's whipping up of this thing.

Like the murder rate in his own town of Chicago? Or the genocide being perpetrated on and by black males in this country? Or drone killings by our government. Or spying on citizens by our government? The spread of the muslim brotherhood in Egypt and the Mideast?

Let's be honest here, he has purposely chosen to "speak" on issues HE thinks are important. I'm glad he settled that "important issue" with the Beer Summit a couple years ago though.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,365
Reaction score
5,795
Where does this concept come from that if you are tried for a crime and found not guilty that you somehow have a lawsuit against everyone? That just isn't a thing. The idea that because he was acquitted the trial should have never occurred is also not a thing.

Conceptual error.

Big media outlets don't have an open license to wrongly bash someone in a way that puts a target on them as a racist bad guy. Big media made him out to be the devil. The devil has a hard time living a normal life.

The initial pass on pressing charges, terminations, and charges pressed after public outcry (based on media misrepresentation) led to a case that shouldn't have been. That's not a thing.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
Like the murder rate in his own town of Chicago? Or the genocide being perpetrated on and by black males in this country? Or drone killings by our government. Or spying on citizens by our government? The spread of the muslim brotherhood in Egypt and the Mideast?

Let's be honest here, he has purposely chosen to "speak" on issues HE thinks are important. I'm glad he settled that "important issue" with the Beer Summit a couple years ago though.

^+1000. Notice how he doesn't comment on the NSA fiasco because he's "not going to scramble the jets just to get one hacker"...Obama considers the Presidency his and his alone, and uses it to advance his agenda, for better or worse.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
I was disappointed in the President's first comments. He was pandering. It's true that if he had a son he would probably look like him. But then again I read that the President looks like his mother. In his first comments he could have noted, "If I had a son he would probably look like Trayvon although as I am bi-racial, like George, my son could have looked like him as well. I have great hope that our justice system will sort through the issues and justice will be served"

I had great hope when Barrack "Barry" Obama became president that he would use his heritage as a bridge between the races instead of a wedge. As a bi-racial man he has a unique viewpoint. He should have learned from President Bush's (the first) untimely comment on the Roddy King beating. The President can't publically take sides in a legal case. The jury makes the decision.

Mr. Obama should run his thoughts by you...had he said it like you did...well you know the impact.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
in a previous life, I was a newspaper editor and I left the business because journalism ceased being journalism. I completely agree that they bungled the story ... that is what I meant by the media did what the media does (irresponsible reporting to get it out there first). We don't disagree about the media.

We can agree on the president's initial comments. I think he has a responsibility to comment on social issues this important. That is not to say you have to like what he said, but I don't think it was irresponsible. I also think that now that the trial is over, he should foster a debate on race, since that seems to be an extremely huge issue, given the media's whipping up of this thing.

fair enough...he needed to say something...and no I didn't like what he said.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
Obama had no place on this issue. He couldn't win either way. Just keep your mouth shut and focus on your job....

You know, selecting what parts of your new health care law will be implimented to make you look good, spying on US citizens, targeting con groups via your IRS thugs, vacationing, golfing...etc
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Like the murder rate in his own town of Chicago? Or the genocide being perpetrated on and by black males in this country? Or drone killings by our government. Or spying on citizens by our government? The spread of the muslim brotherhood in Egypt and the Mideast?

Let's be honest here, he has purposely chosen to "speak" on issues HE thinks are important. I'm glad he settled that "important issue" with the Beer Summit a couple years ago though.

I have heard the president speak on all the issues in your example. So, speaking on this case was not cherry picking, IMHO. The president has to talk about lots of stuff.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
I have heard the president speak on all the issues in your example. So, speaking on this case was not cherry picking, IMHO. The president has to talk about lots of stuff.

Anyone can "speak" on the issues...what is he doing about it?


but...but....FREE HEALTHCARE!!
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Anyone can "speak" on the issues...what is he doing about it?


but...but....FREE HEALTHCARE!!

The suggestion is that he cherry picked the Zimmerman case at the exclusion of these other issues. He didn't. And if simply speaking about the issue is no big deal, why is it such a big deal that he spoke about the trial .... it's not like he did anything about it.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
Conceptual error.

Big media outlets don't have an open license to wrongly bash someone in a way that puts a target on them as a racist bad guy. Big media made him out to be the devil. The devil has a hard time living a normal life.

The initial pass on pressing charges, terminations, and charges pressed after public outcry (based on media misrepresentation) led to a case that shouldn't have been. That's not a thing.

I agree totally. It was an election year and Obama was courting votes. I don't hear him calling on the justice department to investigate all the other killings in this country (black-on-black, white-on-white, black-on-white, white-on-black, etc.) Sharpton and others made this case a media event. Obama just rode the train to get votes. He, many other politicians, and the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, HLN, CBS, NBC, and ABC had no business interfering with the judicial process. This was mob-rule 21st century style. Instead of crashing the jail and hanging the defendant 19th century style, we let the media and the talking heads make a mockery of our judicial process. The six women on that jury were in the best position to make a decision based upon the law. They were sequestered and not subject to all the hate being spewed by both sides over the airwaves and on the internet, most of which had no factual basis.

If there is anyone that can begin to hold their heads high, it is the parents of Trayvon Martin. They have asked only for fairness and to let the judicial process play out. The law allows them to pursue a civil case if they desire. The media has no business turning Trayvon's death into a racially divisive issue. The jurors did their job professionally and responsibly given the laws they were required to follow.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
The suggestion is that he cherry picked the Zimmerman case at the exclusion of these other issues. He didn't. And if simply speaking about the issue is no big deal, why is it such a big deal that he spoke about the trial .... it's not like he did anything about it.

Other than open the flood gates for the race baiters and establish who he was rooting for.....


Again, he picked a side. Dumb move and he looks like an even bigger idiot as he did after the beer summit when that racist *** professor made up a story...
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
Conceptual error.

Big media outlets don't have an open license to wrongly bash someone in a way that puts a target on them as a racist bad guy. Big media made him out to be the devil. The devil has a hard time living a normal life.

The initial pass on pressing charges, terminations, and charges pressed after public outcry (based on media misrepresentation) led to a case that shouldn't have been. That's not a thing.

Not entirely sure what an open license is, but news outlets do this all the time. Generally speaking, I hate the media and I've often been frustrated with how irresponsible they can be - it just so happens that in this case we are unlikely bedfellows. The media does this to people all the time, and this certainly wasn't the worst I've ever seen. Good luck trying to win a defamation case against a media outlet in this country.

It is amazing to me that you have a dead kid and someone who admitted to the shooting and people think there shouldn't have been a charge. As bad as Florida has been in all this, at least they finally did their duty by letting a jury hear and decide the case. That any law enforcement person would find a dead kid and the evidence immediately available and not pursue charges is insane. Those people in that local police department should have all been fired. If they were a little more interested in prosecuting the case then the shooter would probably be in jail right now.
 
Last edited:

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
I have heard the president speak on all the issues in your example. So, speaking on this case was not cherry picking, IMHO. The president has to talk about lots of stuff.

I haven't.

It was cherry picking. Or more precisely, like BGIF said, it was pandering.

And you're last statement-- says who??? He gets ASKED lots of stuff, but he doesn't have to talk about all of it, let alone make powerful, telling statements about it. How many other shooting victims has he singled out? How many other people the media is talking about has he likened to a family member?
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I haven't.

It was cherry picking. Or more precisely, like BGIF said, it was pandering.

And you're last statement-- says who??? He gets ASKED lots of stuff, but he doesn't have to talk about all of it, let alone make powerful, telling statements about it. How many other shooting victims has he singled out? How many other people the media is talking about has he likened to a family member?

how about all the kids off the Newtown shooting
 

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
how about all the kids off the Newtown shooting

Ok. So he's singled out 2 instances of a shooting. One of which he used the children (although he said he wouldn't use kids, as they were off limits for political gain) to kickstart his gun campaign. He was pandering.

And once again, he was pandering with his TM comments.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Ok. So he's singled out 2 instances of a shooting. One of which he used the children (although he said he wouldn't use kids, as they were off limits for political gain) to kickstart his gun campaign. He was pandering.

And once again, he was pandering with his TM comments.

Don't get what you are upset about. On one hand it is because he never spoke in personal terms about victims of a crime. On the other hand, when he's done it before, he does it too much and for self-serving purposes. Couldn't be that he is a human being with true emotion when innocent people get killed ... couldn't be that he is the leader of the nation and has a responsibility to talk about the most pressing issues of the day ... couldn't be that he has empathy for those involved and is humanizing the issue because that is how he communicates on virtually every issue. Nope. Has to be because he has something to personally gain from talking about the same thing that all of us are talking about. Give me a break. I get that you don't like him and everything he does is horrible, evil, socialist, political garbage, but get your outrage straight. He either never did it before or he did it before. Oh, and just because you didn't hear him speak about something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
It's quite clear at this point that no matter what anyone else thinks, even jurors that were there got every single minute of the trial, you are going to take the counter argument and basically claim they are wrong and//or are ignoring important facts. Have you thought that maybe others are actually right and you are in fact ignoring important testimony and facts?

Don't get what you are upset about. On one hand it is because he never spoke in personal terms about victims of a crime. On the other hand, when he's done it before, he does it too much and for self-serving purposes. Couldn't be that he is a human being with true emotion when innocent people get killed ... couldn't be that he is the leader of the nation and has a responsibility to talk about the most pressing issues of the day ... couldn't be that he has empathy for those involved and is humanizing the issue because that is how he communicates on virtually every issue. Nope. Has to be because he has something to personally gain from talking about the same thing that all of us are talking about. Give me a break. I get that you don't like him and everything he does is horrible, evil, socialist, political garbage, but get your outrage straight. He either never did it before or he did it before. Oh, and just because you didn't hear him speak about something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

It COULD be any of those things...just like it obviously COULD NOT be any of those things.

When did I ever say I don't like Obama or any of those other things about him?? Perhaps I'm just calling a spade a spade-- the dude was pandering. He's done it numerous times.

I'm not upset either.

I quoted NDinL.A. from this morning because I think it still is appropriate. We've heard you go on and on about "could," i.e., hypotheticals. If you want to deal only with could's and hypotheticals, go for it. At a certain point though, enough is enough. Go ahead and experiment with some heroin or crystal meth, promiscuous and unprotected gay sex, frolics in the streets late at night in inner city Chicago, Detroit, or New Orleans, drunk driving, advertising your American heritage in Mexican-American border towns, tightrope walking, or playing with tigers in the jungle. Any of those could be fine. They could also not be.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
It COULD be any of those things...just like it obviously COULD NOT be any of those things.

When did I ever say I don't like Obama or any of those other things about him?? Perhaps I'm just calling a spade a spade-- the dude was pandering. He's done it numerous times.

I'm not upset either.

I quoted NDinL.A. from this morning because I think it still is appropriate. We've heard you go on and on about "could," i.e., hypotheticals. If you want to deal only with could's and hypotheticals, go for it. At a certain point though, enough is enough. Go ahead and experiment with some heroin or crystal meth, promiscuous and unprotected gay sex, frolics in the streets late at night in inner city Chicago, Detroit, or New Orleans, drunk driving, advertising your American heritage in Mexican-American border towns, tightrope walking, or playing with tigers in the jungle. Any of those could be fine. They could also not be.

what a quality post.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
how about all the kids off the Newtown shooting

Was I the only one that missed the President saying, "If I had a son, he'd look just like those boys shot at Newtown" ?


or "Those girls shot at Newtown looked like my daughters."


He could have said the latter as Ana Grace Marquez-Greene had a Black father and Hispanic (Puerto Rican) mother. But he didn't inject race into his comments, did he?
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Was I the only one that missed the President saying, "If I had a son, he'd look just like those boys shot at Newtown" ?


or "Those girls shot at Newtown looked like my daughters."


He could have said the latter as Ana Grace Marquez-Greene had a Black father and Hispanic (Puerto Rican) mother. But he didn't inject race into his comments, did he?

I think we both know that I didn't say that. I said that he talks about his family during troubled times. You can call it pandering if you want -- that is your prerogative. I think he is human and he shows emotion when a tragedy happens, whether it is at a political speech in Arizona, a movie theater in Colorado, a school in Conn. or in at a gated community in Sanford, Florida. Here is his initial statement following the Newtown shootings. He talks about his family as a personal example to demonstrate his empathy and profound sadness . ...

This afternoon, I spoke with Governor Malloy and FBI Director Mueller. I offered Governor Malloy my condolences on behalf of the nation, and made it clear he will have every single resource that he needs to investigate this heinous crime, care for the victims, counsel their families.

We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. And each time I learn the news I react not as a President, but as anybody else would -- as a parent. And that was especially true today. I know there’s not a parent in America who doesn’t feel the same overwhelming grief that I do.

The majority of those who died today were children -- beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them -- birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own. Among the fallen were also teachers -- men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams.

So our hearts are broken today -- for the parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers of these little children, and for the families of the adults who were lost. Our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors as well, for as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children’s innocence has been torn away from them too early, and there are no words that will ease their pain.

As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago -- these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.

This evening, Michelle and I will do what I know every parent in America will do, which is hug our children a little tighter and we’ll tell them that we love them, and we’ll remind each other how deeply we love one another. But there are families in Connecticut who cannot do that tonight. And they need all of us right now. In the hard days to come, that community needs us to be at our best as Americans. And I will do everything in my power as President to help.

Because while nothing can fill the space of a lost child or loved one, all of us can extend a hand to those in need -- to remind them that we are there for them, that we are praying for them, that the love they felt for those they lost endures not just in their memories but also in ours.

May God bless the memory of the victims and, in the words of Scripture, heal the brokenhearted and bind up their wounds.
 
Last edited:

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,365
Reaction score
5,795
Not entirely sure what an open license is, but news outlets do this all the time. Generally speaking, I hate the media and I've often been frustrated with how irresponsible they can be - it just so happens that in this case we are unlikely bedfellows. The media does this to people all the time, and this certainly wasn't the worst I've ever seen. Good luck trying to win a defamation case against a media outlet in this country.

It is amazing to me that you have a dead kid and someone who admitted to the shooting and people think there shouldn't have been a charge. As bad as Florida has been in all this, at least they finally did their duty by letting a jury hear and decide the case. That any law enforcement person would find a dead kid and the evidence immediately available and not pursue charges is insane. Those people in that local police department should have all been fired. If they were a little more interested in prosecuting the case then the shooter would probably be in jail right now.

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.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Just heard on Lawrence ODonnell''s MSNBC show that 4 of the other jurors in the case have written a statement that the juror who was interviewed on CNN did not reflect their views. Here's a blurb from cnn.

(CNN) -- Four jurors in the George Zimmerman trial issued a joint statement Tuesday responding to a fifth juror's interview with CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360." "We, the undersigned jurors, understand there is a great deal of interest in this case. But we ask you to remember that we are not public officials and we did not invite this type of attention into our lives," they said. "We also wish to point out that the opinions of Juror B-37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below." The jurors identified themselves only by their jury pool numbers.
 
Last edited:

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,517
Reaction score
3,260
Just heard on Lawrence ODonnell''s MSNBC show that 4 of the other jurors in the case have written a statement that the juror who was interviewed on CNN did not reflect their views. Here's a blurb from cnn.

(CNN) -- Four jurors in the George Zimmerman trial issued a joint statement Tuesday responding to a fifth juror's interview with CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360." "We, the undersigned jurors, understand there is a great deal of interest in this case. But we ask you to remember that we are not public officials and we did not invite this type of attention into our lives," they said. "We also wish to point out that the opinions of Juror B-37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below." The jurors identified themselves only by their jury pool numbers.

So you're the one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top