Zimmerman Aquitted

[Raven]

you'd think: that all gated communities would have BUILT IN surveillance camera's
with signs posted..... to that effect

rather than have a single person making rounds....

so far the technology behind the surveillance camera's thus far has been piss pore ..........

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by likwid

And if he wasn't calling the cops every 5 minutes for his left neighbor's dog pissing on the lawn of his right neighbor then maybe they would have taken him seriously and posted patrols.

you would think the reported break ins in the neighborhood would have done that

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

you would think the reported break ins in the neighborhood would have done that

Given the nuisance he made himself, they probably did, found nothing, and stopped coming.

You can only cry wolf so many times before they tell you to pound sand.

[Raider Ronnie]

Meanwhile since the verdict was announced over the weekend there were probably a dozen or more black on black killings throughout the country.
You won't see Obama, Jackson, Sharpton or any of the other extortion experts commenting on any of those killings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Zimmermans call to the police will be one of the main factors in pursuing Fed charges. It proves his intent was to stop a potential crime, not kill a person.

I don't think anyone believes Zimmerman set out to kill someone. Fed charges aren't likely. The prosecution really effed this one up. It sounds like they did nothing to present the story of a kid scared out of his wits.

I can't fathom how people don't see the impact of both race and Stand Your Ground in this case.

What happened after the shooting? Not much of anything, hell the police didn't even really bother to start the investigation until Zimmerman was arrested SIX WEEKS after the incident.

Huh? A 17 year old is shot and the police just assume it was in self defense? They do little to collect evidence or look for witnesses?

Just another black kid who must have been looking for trouble. Nothing to see here, everybody move along...

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think anyone believes Zimmerman set out to kill someone. Fed charges aren't likely. The prosecution really effed this one up. It sounds like they did nothing to present the story of a kid scared out of his wits.

I can't fathom how people don't see the impact of both race and Stand Your Ground in this case.

What happened after the shooting? Not much of anything, hell the police didn't even really bother to start the investigation until Zimmerman was arrested SIX WEEKS after the incident.

Huh? A 17 year old is shot and the police just assume it was in self defense? They do little to collect evidence or look for witnesses?

Just another black kid who must have been looking for trouble. Nothing to see here, everybody move along...

-spence

Where did you hear that the police did nothing for 6 weeks ? After Zimmerman was arrested ?? That doesn't even make sense . Then what was the basis of his arrest ?
I think what you meant to day is they were cautious and deliberate . Unlike .. Oh say the President
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Iceman 6]

There are no real winners in this case.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by The Iceman 6

There are no real winners in this case.

Sure there are winners.
Jackson , Sharpton & other race dividers who use these cases to do nothing more that to promote their cause of extortion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by The Iceman 6

There are no real winners in this case.

Yep, I agree

[buckman]

Stevie Wonder says he won't play in Florida anymore because of the verdict. Wow!!!! That hurts . I missed it, did he stop playing in California after OJ got off?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Where did you hear that the police did nothing for 6 weeks ? After Zimmerman was arrested ?? That doesn't even make sense . Then what was the basis of his arrest ?
I think what you meant to day is they were cautious and deliberate . Unlike .. Oh say the President
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From what I understand the local PD didn't take it very seriously...that was one problem the prosecution had, there wasn't much evidence.

The basis for his arrest was when a new prosecutor charged him for 2nd degree murder six weeks later.

-spence

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by buckman

Stevie Wonder says he won't play in Florida anymore because of the verdict. Wow!!!! That hurts . I missed it, did he stop playing in California after OJ got off?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahhhh...just fly him in and tell him its Georgia...he won't know

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

Huh? A 17 year old is shot and the police just assume it was in self defense? They do little to collect evidence or look for witnesses?

Just another black kid who must have been looking for trouble. Nothing to see here, everybody move along...

-spence

The cops saw the following
- a guy with a broken nose and lacerations to the head (FACT)
- that same guy minutes earlier had called the police about a suspicious person (FACT)
- witnesess saw an altercation (FACT)
- one dead person involved in the altercation. The other person instructed the neighbors to call the police
There were MANY interviews with witnesses. Include Martins mom who said - THATS NOT MY SON SCREAMING ON THE 911 call!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so.....thats murder? No, thats a fight with self defense. BTW - the jury came to the same conclusion.
There is ZERO evidence martin was afraid. Spence - did he call his Dad who was nearby? Did he go to any of the houses? Did he run away and hide? Did he call Police...... NOPE - all evidence points to him confronting Zimmerman. Thats not fear, his response was to confront. I dont blame him (although i would have ran away). He started an altercation with an armed man. Both Zim and Martin made bad decisions. There is none, nada, no evidence Zimmerman broke the law.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

can you take your head out of your arse?

Hahaha.

The cops saw the following
- a guy with a broken nose and lacerations to the head (FACT)
- that same guy minutes earlier had called the police about a suspicious person (FACT)
- witnesess saw an altercation (FACT)
- one dead person involved in the altercation. The other person instructed the neighbors to call the police

Dead 17 year old...Fact.

There were MANY interviews with witnesses. Include Martins mom who said - THATS NOT MY SON SCREAMING ON THE 911 call!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ummm, she testified to just the opposite. Funny thing is they allowed a defense witness to testify if was Zimmerman screaming...the woman's husband wrote a book proclaiming his innocence!

so.....thats murder?

No, but it's likely manslaughter.

No, thats a fight with self defense. BTW - the jury came to the same conclusion.
There is ZERO evidence martin was afraid.

That's not true, he clearly was alarmed by Zimmerman following him given the testimony from the case.

Spence - did he call his Dad who was nearby? Did he go to any of the houses? Did he run away and hide? Did he call Police...... NOPE - all evidence points to him confronting Zimmerman.

Call the police? Hi police, this is a young black man wearing a hoodie and I'm afraid. Click...

Zimmerman made the first move, he's the one who yelled at Martin challenging his right to be there. What happened after that you don't really know.

Thats not fear, his response was to confront. I dont blame him (although i would have ran away). He started an altercation with an armed man. Both Zim and Martin made bad decisions. There is none, nada, no evidence Zimmerman broke the law.

Sure there is, there's a dead 17 year old kid.

It's amazing how quick people are to disparage Martin's character, he smoked dope, he was found with "burglary tools" etc...like the kid deserved it. He was 17 for christs sake. I did a lot of stupid things at that age like we all did.

Great piece by Gene Robinson on this subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...20d_story.html

Black boys denied the right to be young

By Eugene Robinson, Published: July 15 E-mail the writer
Justice failed Trayvon Martin the night he was killed. We should be appalled and outraged, but perhaps not surprised, that it failed him again Saturday night, with a verdict setting his killer free.

Our society considers young black men to be dangerous, interchangeable, expendable, guilty until proven innocent. This is the conversation about race that we desperately need to have — but probably, as in the past, will try our best to avoid.

George Zimmerman’s acquittal was set in motion on Feb. 26, 2012, before Martin’s body was cold. When Sanford, Fla., police arrived on the scene, they encountered a grown man who acknowledged killing an unarmed 17-year-old boy. They did not arrest the man or test him for drug or alcohol use. They conducted a less-than-energetic search for forensic evidence. They hardly bothered to look for witnesses.

Only a national outcry forced authorities to investigate the killing seriously. Even after six weeks, evidence was found to justify arresting Zimmerman, charging him with second-degree murder and putting him on trial. But the chance of dispassionately and definitively establishing what happened that night was probably lost. The only complete narrative of what transpired was Zimmerman’s.

Jurors knew that Zimmerman was an overeager would-be cop, a self-appointed guardian of the neighborhood who carried a loaded gun. They were told that he profiled Martin — young, black, hooded sweatshirt — as a criminal. They heard that he stalked Martin despite the advice of a 911 operator; that the stalking led to a confrontation; and that, in the confrontation, Zimmerman fatally shot Martin in the chest.

The jurors also knew that Martin was carrying only a bag of candy and a soft drink. They knew that Martin was walking from a 7-Eleven to the home of his father’s girlfriend when he noticed a strange man in an SUV following him.

To me, and to many who watched the trial, the fact that Zimmerman recklessly initiated the tragic encounter was enough to establish, at a minimum, guilt of manslaughter. The six women on the jury disagreed.

Those jurors also knew that Martin, at the time of his death, was just three weeks past his 17th birthday. But black boys in this country are not allowed to be children. They are assumed to be men, and to be full of menace.

I don’t know if the jury, which included no African Americans, consciously or unconsciously bought into this racist way of thinking — there’s really no other word. But it hardly matters, because police and prosecutors initially did.

The assumption underlying their ho-hum approach to the case was that Zimmerman had the right to self-defense but Martin — young, male, black — did not. The assumption was that Zimmerman would fear for his life in a hand-to-hand struggle but Martin — young, male, black — would not.

If anyone wonders why African Americans feel so passionately about this case, it’s because we know that our 17-year-old sons are boys, not men. It’s because we know their adolescent bravura is just that — an imitation of manhood, not the real thing.

We know how frightened our sons would be, walking home alone on a rainy night and realizing they were being followed. We know how torn they would be between a child’s fear and a child’s immature idea of manly behavior. We know how they would struggle to decide the right course of action, flight or fight.

And we know that a skinny boy armed only with candy, no matter how big and bad he tries to seem, does not pose a mortal threat to a healthy adult man who outweighs him by 50 pounds and has had martial arts training (even if the lessons were mostly a waste of money). We know that the boy may well have threatened the man’s pride but likely not his life. How many murders-by-sidewalk have you heard of recently? Or ever?

The conversation we need to have is about how black men, even black boys, are denied the right to be young, to be vulnerable, to make mistakes. We need to talk about why, for example, black men are no more likely than white men to smoke marijuana but nearly four times as likely to be arrested for it — and condemned to a dead-end cycle of incarceration and unemployment. I call this racism. What do you call it?

Trayvon Martin was fighting more than George Zimmerman that night. He was up against prejudices as old as American history, and he never had a chance.

-spence

[buckman]

Spence... "After that we really don't know" = not guilty

That article is a total disservice to any black person that has made something of them selfs which is the majority . Pure crap !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Spence... "After that we really don't know" = not guilty

That's not how the law works. The lack of evidence gave Zimmerman's lawyers the ability to tell any story they wanted...the just did a better job then the prosecution.

That article is a total disservice to any black person that has made something of them selfs which is the majority . Pure crap !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reread the second paragraph.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

That's not how the law works.


Reread the second paragraph.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course it is the way the law works. Not proven guilty!

Since I don't agree or judge black people as the writer claims , I'm actually a little offended by this paragraph.
It is ironic however that you want Zimmerman guilty without sufficient evidence .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Of course it is the way the law works. Not proven guilty!

Since I don't agree or judge black people as the writer claims , I'm actually a little offended by this paragraph.
It is ironic however that you want Zimmerman guilty without sufficient evidence .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Had the prosecution done their job there was certainly evidence to support a manslaughter charge.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Had the prosecution done their job there was certainly evidence to support a manslaughter charge.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What evidence was that and would it have proved him guilty without a reasonable doubt?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

What evidence was that and would it have proved him guilty without a reasonable doubt?

The evidence that the police failed to find because they hate black people. Especially teenage ones wearing hoodies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The evidence that the police failed to find because they hate black people. Especially teenage ones wearing hoodies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps read the entire article...then again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

What evidence was that and would it have proved him guilty without a reasonable doubt?

The only evidence presented that he acted in self defense was that he wasn't winning the fight. To assume that alone means he was jumped is absurd, the prosecution simply dropped the ball.

How do they say, he who wins the war gets to write the history?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The only evidence presented that he acted in self defense was that he wasn't winning the fight. To assume that alone means he was jumped is absurd, the prosecution simply dropped the ball.

How do they say, he who wins the war gets to write the history?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is this a drunken rant? because you are making little if any sense

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

is this a drunken rant? because you are making little if any sense

Makes perfect sense. Think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Makes perfect sense. Think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

being condescending doesn't help either...you throw up conjecture and suggest things might have gone differently if not for this or that...so wed to your narrative that the actual facts are irrelevant...just like the media and the hustlers....blinded by an overwhelming desire to make this something that it is not

[scottw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit

What evidence was that and would it have proved him guilty without a reasonable doubt?

Originally Posted by spence

The only evidence presented that he acted in self defense was that he wasn't winning the fight. To assume that alone means he was jumped is absurd, the prosecution simply dropped the ball.

How do they say, he who wins the war gets to write the history?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you didn't answer the question

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The only evidence presented that he acted in self defense was that he wasn't winning the fight. To assume that alone means he was jumped is absurd, the prosecution simply dropped the ball.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It used to be that the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, not that the defendant had to prove that he is innocent.

There was not much actual "evidence" presented by either side other than circumstantial, and that favored the defendant. There was no actual "evidence" available for the prosecution to charge Zimmerman, much less convict him neither of second degree murder or manslaughter.

But we do live in a time of persuasion by opinion. Many opinions have been conjured up about what happened and why--with no connection to actual "evidence." Wild speculations abound about the character of either Zimmerman or Martin. And various scenarios have been created about what happened based on stereotypical characterizations and how these must have determined who did what and why. These opinions mostly depart from analysis by fact and wander into various historical grievances and emotional outrage at perceived injustice. The race industry and the anti-gun and anti-Stand-Your-Ground or other gun rights legislations certainly created another hot-point to attack what they "feel" are inimical to their progressive agenda. Actual facts and law are irrelevant to this case.

This is the method by which we are transformed from a constitutional republic to a centralized bureaucracy. Sacrificing the innocent for the greater good has always been the way of "benevolent" tyrannies.

It is not unlike how the SCOTUS has rewritten the Constitution.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit

What evidence was that and would it have proved him guilty without a reasonable doubt?




you didn't answer the question

No you didn't Spence. The fact that the first thing the jury did before
they started deliberation was ask the judge for a copy of all the evidence
which they deliberated on for 16 hours, showed there was not enough evidence to
convict on either of the charges. While the prosecution was reported to hold
back evidence from the defense there is nothing to show the prosecution held
back any of their own evidence.
Oh and BTW, the male alternate juror was interviewed tonight and was in
complete agreement with the jury's decision and stated the prosecution had no evidence.

[Swimmer]

The person on top doesn't yell for help, he's winning, thats why.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Up to a point.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

That's not how the law works. The lack of evidence gave Zimmerman's lawyers the ability to tell any story they wanted...the just did a better job then the prosecution.

The prosecution had the judge on thier side and still couldn't win. Several prosecutors looked at the evidence over those six weeks until Zimmerman was charge and the prosecutor who charged Zimmerman was the only one that could be pressused into it.

Reread the second paragraph.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device