Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 33 to 40 of 68

Thread: George Zimmerman not guilty.

  1. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,052

    Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    A little something about the jury.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...immermanTrial#

  2. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    912

    Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    Why am I not surprised by the "plethora" of incorrect statements by jolau (and Cats... and a few others pertaining to this case). The evidence, specifically the non emergency call made by Zimmerman, clearly indicates that Zimmerman was already out of the car before the operator (Sean) asked if he was following Martin, and when Zimmerman stated yes, Sean said "We don't need you to do that", at which point Zimmerman stated OK, and you can tell by his voice that he was not chasing down Martin as the phone call to Sean proceeded for likely another minute with Zimmerman discussing with Sean where to meet the police, etc. It is also important to note that Sean requested "twice" that Zimmerman essentially keep an eye on Martin. Sean stated "let us know if he does anything else", and when Zimmerman said that Martin was running, and then that he lost sight of Martin, Sean had asked "Which way did he go?" It is not a wild leap for Zimmerman to assume that he should get additional information, and exit his car. It is also important to note that from the last time Zimmerman saw Martin, and while he continued to speak to Sean... it was a full 4 minutes until the fight started, and about 2 of those minutes were with Zimmerman on the phone with Sean, discussing details... Regardless, the fact that Zimmerman exited his car does not matter anyway, unless the prosecution had proven that Zimmerman was acting with a depraved mind, which they did not as the jury readily rejected this (needed for murder 2), right away... and rightly so. Irrespective of Zimmerman's "f*** punks" and "these a*** s, they always get away", neither statements were made with any particular malice as is clear by Zimmerman's tone... likely no more so than when Martin referred to Zimmerman as a "white-a**-cracka" in his conversation with Rachel J. Once murder 2 was ruled out, then only manslaughter could be considered, and the only thing for the jury to consider was the moment of the shooting, not what led up to the shooting. The prosecution had the burden of proof to show to the jury that Zimmerman did not fear for his life or great bodily harm (and he did not even have to sustain any injuries for this fear to be real). However, Zimmerman did sustain injuries and the jury determined it was "reasonable" for him to fear for his life or great bodily harm and he was found not guilty by reason of self defense. This had absolutely NOTHING to do with "Stand Your Ground", which means that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat, but O'Mara made clear months ago that they would not be using Stand Your Ground as their defense, because this was, in fact, a simple self defense case, as Zimmerman was not ABLE to retreat without meeting force with force... it was never an option for him. Zimmerman was surprised by being sucker punched, according to his statements, and even if you do not find Zimmerman credible, it is still evidence. Even though the jury instructions listed Stand Your Ground in the self defense portion, the defense, at least, never argued this.

    There is also NO evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin. Rather, per Rachel, the evidence shows Martin first spoke to Zimmerman (which agreed with Zimmerman's statements). There is absolutely NO evidence that Zimmerman inflicted any injuries to Martin besides the bullet wound, while there is ample evidence to show Zimmerman was being beaten up. There is absolutely NO evidence that Zimmerman made Martin aware at any time, until right before the shot, that Zimmerman was armed, and in fact, it is only Zimmerman's perception that Martin became aware of the gun as he thought Martin was reaching for it.

    There IS eyewitness evidence by the closest neighbor (John) that Martin was on top of Zimmerman...this is where the final portion of the fight occurred and Martin's body was found. Other witnesses were further away and it further makes no sense to think Zimmerman might have been on top as Martin had no injuries (except gunshot wound) whereas Zimmerman showed via his injuries that he was being pummelled. Even if you are one of those that do not find Zimmerman's injuries "severe enough", it doesn't matter. All that matters is if the jury found it "reasonable" that he was in fear for his life or great bodily harm. I know I would be in fear if I was being hit and having my head bashed into the concrete. And for those claiming that Martin did not have Zimmerman's blood on his hands, and there was no blood found on the sidewalk, well, it was raining, and they never bagged Martin's hands. Furthermore, the outer sweatshirt of Martin's was so moldy by the time it was examined by forensics, DNA that might have been found on it was likely destroyed.

    Furthermore, although not in evidence as the judge did not allow it, there are text messages on his phone of Martin's propensity to fight and it is known that he was having a few rough years (suspensions, drugs, etc.). He was also caught at one point with stolen jewelry in his backpack and a screwdriver. My point is that for those who claim Martin was not doing anything wrong walking home, well, we really don't know that for sure. All we have is what Rachel and Zimmerman stated. Rachel did not mention that Martin stated that he might have been casing houses, but I don't believe she was asked either. Zimmerman claimed Martin was acting suspicious. Perhaps he was, and it may very well have NOTHING to do about race, with the exception that recent burglaries in the neighborhood had been committed by teenage black young men. Zimmerman did not initially describe Martin as black, only answered that he was when asked by Sean. And yes, I know all about Zimmerman's few scuffles with the law in his early twenties... over 5 years before. Regardless of the statements I have made in this paragraph, the jury did not need this info to render a not guilty verdict.

    For those claiming that Zimmerman called the non-emergency number historically about young black men, well, this is true if you only consider the calls the state chose to play. There are other calls that they did not play that have nothing to do with young black men.

    Jolau, your KOS link about the jury and their visits during sequesteration are full of speculation as to what "might have been discussed". The jury swore to the judge every day and after every break that none had discussed the case with others. Either you believe them or you don't, apparently you don't as you are unhappy with the verdict.

    For those still claiming Zimmerman is guilty, well, he was found NOT GUILTY in a fair court of law. And for those who state, that doesn't mean he's innocent... correct, it doesn't, but there is a presumption of innocence in this country until there is a verdict of guilty. Does that presumption of innocence disappear when one is found not guilty? Strange to me. Those siding with Martin in this case are not aware of the facts as the media has GREATLY distorted them, and they are still doing so. Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson are shameless in the lies they tell. The only way to know what really happened with this case (from a spectator's POV who was not there), was to have watched the trial. Period. If you did not and you are forming your opinions based upon what MSNBC, CNN, FOX and other media outlets are saying, even NPR, then rest assured you have been misled. If you are forming your opinions from reading KOS... you are being even more misled. Jolau... that is you. If you want to really know what happened and have not watched the trial, check out Jeralyn's posts on Zimmerman at Talk Left, The Politics of Crime.
    Last edited by minicooper; 8.1.13 at 3:09 PM.
    MC

  3. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Posts
    3,516

    Post Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    Exactly... guilty does not mean innocent. Presumption of innocence is only for prior to the criminal part of a trial... and for the prosecution to prove, but not mean the court declares any one innocent if not found guilty.

    Like in the OJ case. OJ was found not guilty, but was later sued for wrongful death in a civil suit.

    A criminal trial's jury is charged with the limitations of state statutes and the wording of such. Zimmermann's jury was correct, IMHO, of their verdict, but IF there is a civil case brought forth we'll see if he has a good outcoming then.

  4. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,052

    Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    Unfortunately, "Stand Your Ground" defines "Self Defense" in Florida.

    That is the problem, you have an ameture "night watchman", not even one that belongs to any officially recognized night watchman program. (How this particular community got this Zimmerman to be their "night watchman", I don't know). He had no partner or other person he could have been in communication with to back him up, no formal recurrent training as to how to approach a "suspicious person". Not even a camera or anything to record what was going on.

    There were so many things on Zimmerman's part that could have prevented this from occuring, including not persuing Trayvon in the first place like he was told to (Again, disregarding 911 is unprofessional), identifying himself as a night watchman, informing Trayvon that the cops were coming, etc.

  5. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    912

    Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    Jolau, you need to listen to the trial re: the watchman. Perhaps some of your questions would be answered instead of just spouting things you hear from misleading blogs like KOS.
    MC

  6. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,052

    Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    Then how do you explain this? I had serious doubts about Zimmerman's professionalism, and how he handled himself and this proves it.

    http://www.lawofficer.com/article/ne...-association-0

    And no, I would not call this a "misleading blog".

  7. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    14,676

    Post Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    Once again, if people actually read the facts of this case, they would know that Zimmerman had nothing to do with Neighborhood Watch, he was referred to as a "volunteer community watch captain".

  8. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    3,052

    Re: George Zimmerman not guilty.

    Even that statement implies he should have known better.

    And brings up another question, if he was the "captain" in a position of leadership, then where were the people working under him?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •