Making Sense of the Zimmerman Verdict

[jon_berzerk]

The prosecution's first mistake was trying for 2nd degree murder. No way in the world did they have a chance at proving that Zimmerman planned to kill Martin. They realized it at the end of the trial and tried to convince the judge to instruct the jury to consider a lesser charge but it was an obvious desperate move and it was too late. The wild posturing and acting by the prosecution team did nothing to enhance their case but in fact might have backfired.

obviously manslaughter was an over charge as well

the jury had three choices to choose from

guilty 2nd degree murder

guilty manslaughter

not guilty

 

[Big Black Dog]

I think the State of Florida should feel very embarrassed as a result of this trial. The local police did not intend to bring charges against Zimmerman because the evidence did not support that. So, what happened? Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, black Congresswomen, the President, and a whole host of other race baiters put pressure on the situtation. The Mayor fired the police chief because he refused to bring charges. The governor sent in a "special" prosecutor to handle the case - which by the way, has been accused of wrong doing in this case by hiding evidence - and the political correctness focus on race crowd brought about charges against Zimmerman. In a court of law, Zimmerman was proven to be not guilty. It should be a dead issue at this point but noise is still being made. The State of Florida acted very poorly in this case and I truly hope that Zimmerman will sue them for wrongful prosecution. Also the police chief that was fired should sue because of the way he was terminated from his job so a police chief that would file charges could replace him. This whole thing smells.

 

[wavingrl]

The prosecution's first mistake was trying for 2nd degree murder. No way in the world did they have a chance at proving that Zimmerman planned to kill Martin. They realized it at the end of the trial and tried to convince the judge to instruct the jury to consider a lesser charge but it was an obvious desperate move and it was too late. The wild posturing and acting by the prosecution team did nothing to enhance their case but in fact might have backfired.

obviously manslaughter was an over charge as well

the jury had three choices to choose from

guilty 2nd degree murder

guilty manslaughter

not guilty

they could have brought a charge of bias but chose not to do that.

From the beginning--so much went wrong.

When I have the time--I will reflect even more deeply on the points that were made.

Death penalty/life in prison---working on that. One life, many lives--shaking my head.

All I know that is that I am told not to put myself at risk. During the time of serial rapes I learned that.

 

[Katzndogz]

This was a political show trial that backfired. The media worked up a case based on political pressure and couldn't make it stick. Right now, liberals are convinced that the jury heard evidence and testimony that the jury never heard. It was evidence imagined and promoted by the media.

The jury never heard that Zimmerman had stalked Martin.
The jury never heard that Zimmerman had a long history of racism.
The jury never heard that Zimmerman said the word "coons".
The jury never heard that Martin was a slightly built 12 year old.

The trial conducted in the media was an entirely different trial than the one conducted in the courtroom.

 

[wavingrl]

This was a political show trial that backfired. The media worked up a case based on political pressure and couldn't make it stick. Right now, liberals are convinced that the jury heard evidence and testimony that the jury never heard. It was evidence imagined and promoted by the media.

The jury never heard that Zimmerman had stalked Martin.
The jury never heard that Zimmerman had a long history of racism.
The jury never heard that Zimmerman said the word "coons".
The jury never heard that Martin was a slightly built 12 year old.

The trial conducted in the media was an entirely different trial than the one conducted in the courtroom.

mmm--my mind is elsewhere --read the post 3 times and didn't comprehend.

working on FL's Stand Your Ground/Self Defense laws--'all that they should be' in every state clearly--many anomalies that are not known in lesser states.

sigh--I infer this because that is the state chosen by Neal Boortz. Certain he could have intimidated Trayvon w/o a weapon. Many could and would have. Neither here nor there.

after all this--I still can't picture Trayvon accurately. He played football they said--in pictures--on a horse --I saw that one last night. He looked lanky. No judge of athletic builds--looked like someone who would run not block?

there is nothing of importance in this post. More confusion --still looking for the channel that can cater to my specific needs.

I assume CNN is preparing a documentary of the trial. Maybe I can get something from that.

 

[Pete7469]

The prosecution's first mistake was trying for 2nd degree murder. No way in the world did they have a chance at proving that Zimmerman planned to kill Martin. They realized it at the end of the trial and tried to convince the judge to instruct the jury to consider a lesser charge but it was an obvious desperate move and it was too late. The wild posturing and acting by the prosecution team did nothing to enhance their case but in fact might have backfired.

The first mistake was bringing this up for trial at all.

They should have held a press conference, and TRUTHFULLY detailed the events as the evidence came out in the trial, and then EXPLAINED to the mobs of racist malcontents that GZ was guilty of no wrong doing.

This was a show trial, it reeked of something from 1920's "progressive" europe, except that GZ wasn't "found" guilty and didn't disappear forever into some "camp".

I hope GZ sues the snot out of the prosecution and the media, and wins BIG.

 

[FA_Q2]

Self defense makes little sense, it was Zimmerman's action that instigated the confrontation. If he was too scared or too weak or simply a coward, he should have waited for the police to support his profiling.

"I don't think the import of this is being appreciated. Effectively, I can bait you into a fight and if I start losing I can legally kill you, provided I "believe" myself to be subject to "great bodily harm."It is then the state's job to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that I either did not actually fear for my life, or my fear was unreasonable. In the case of George Zimmerman, even if the state proved that he baited an encounter (and I am not sure they did) they still must prove that he had no reasonable justification to fear for his life. You see very similar language in the actual instructions given to the jury..." Trayvon Martin And The Irony Of American Justice - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-zimmerman-prosecutor-corey.html#post7538186

FRIDAY.mp4 - YouTube

Not true at all. You are making the conjecture that Z baited him into a fight. That is something that you simply cannot prove considering the evidence. Martin did not have to go back and engage Z. Simple as that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Young black men with a thuggish bent are not intimidated by the rival gang bangers they meet every day, a thug would not have been intimidated by a creepy ass cracker.

 

[midcan5]

Self defense makes little sense, it was Zimmerman's action that instigated the confrontation. If he was too scared or too weak or simply a coward, he should have waited for the police to support his profiling.

"I don't think the import of this is being appreciated. Effectively, I can bait you into a fight and if I start losing I can legally kill you, provided I "believe" myself to be subject to "great bodily harm."It is then the state's job to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that I either did not actually fear for my life, or my fear was unreasonable. In the case of George Zimmerman, even if the state proved that he baited an encounter (and I am not sure they did) they still must prove that he had no reasonable justification to fear for his life. You see very similar language in the actual instructions given to the jury..." Trayvon Martin And The Irony Of American Justice - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-zimmerman-prosecutor-corey.html#post7538186

FRIDAY.mp4 - YouTube

Not true at all. You are making the conjecture that Z baited him into a fight. That is something that you simply cannot prove considering the evidence. Martin did not have to go back and engage Z. Simple as that.

No conjecture at all, Zimmerman stalked the boy, kinda simple, after being asked to stand back he continued. When someone follows you, what's your reaction? Do you call mommy? Only Zimmerman knows what happened and given Martin was a kid, Zimmerman is both a coward and a sissy. I guess carrying a 9mm made him a real man, huh? He could not even fight fair. Had he stood back with his gun, this would not have happened. Unless the coward pissed his pants so badly he'd shoot from a distance. You apologists for the sissy, pretend cop are sickening.

Your teenage son or daughter is walking home in the rain, it is growing dark, she is on the phone with a friend and eating the candy she just bought from a nearby convenience store. The hood is up on her jacket when a man starts following her in his car. She mentions this to a friend on the phone. Your son keeps walking. Soon your daughter walks behind a building, and the man in the car gets out and follows her. Your son does not know what motivates the follower. Soon they are so close, fear of each other causes a scuffle. Your daughter does not realize the man is armed with a gun. She fights the man to the ground and in the melee he is injured. He pulls a gun and kills your daughter. How do you feel? What gave him the right to follow and pursue your son or daughter. What motivated him to follow.

 

[Oddball]

Uh-huh.....Martin was just "minding his own bidness", skulking around in a gated community where he didn't live.

 

[dilloduck]

Self defense makes little sense, it was Zimmerman's action that instigated the confrontation. If he was too scared or too weak or simply a coward, he should have waited for the police to support his profiling.

"I don't think the import of this is being appreciated. Effectively, I can bait you into a fight and if I start losing I can legally kill you, provided I "believe" myself to be subject to "great bodily harm."It is then the state's job to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that I either did not actually fear for my life, or my fear was unreasonable. In the case of George Zimmerman, even if the state proved that he baited an encounter (and I am not sure they did) they still must prove that he had no reasonable justification to fear for his life. You see very similar language in the actual instructions given to the jury..." Trayvon Martin And The Irony Of American Justice - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-zimmerman-prosecutor-corey.html#post7538186

FRIDAY.mp4 - YouTube

Not true at all. You are making the conjecture that Z baited him into a fight. That is something that you simply cannot prove considering the evidence. Martin did not have to go back and engage Z. Simple as that.

No conjecture at all, Zimmerman stalked the boy, kinda simple, after being asked to stand back he continued. When someone follows you, what's your reaction? Do you call mommy? Only Zimmerman knows what happened and given Martin was a kid, Zimmerman is both a coward and a sissy. I guess carrying a 9mm made him a real man, huh? He could not even fight fair. Had he stood back with his gun, this would not have happened. Unless the coward pissed his pants so badly he'd shoot from a distance. You apologists for the sissy, pretend cop are sickening.

Your teenage son or daughter is walking home in the rain, it is growing dark, she is on the phone with a friend and eating the candy she just bought from a nearby convenience store. The hood is up on her jacket when a man starts following her in his car. She mentions this to a friend on the phone. Your son keeps walking. Soon your daughter walks behind a building, and the man in the car gets out and follows her. Your son does not know what motivates the follower. Soon they are so close, fear of each other causes a scuffle. Your daughter does not realize the man is armed with a gun. She fights the man to the ground and in the melee he is injured. He pulls a gun and kills your daughter. How do you feel? What gave him the right to follow and pursue your son or daughter. What motivated him to follow.

He doesn't need a right to follow you numbskull. What motivated him to follow? He was trying to prevent crime and get the information that the dispatcher asked for.

Not guilty no matter how dramatically you twist it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Self defense makes little sense, it was Zimmerman's action that instigated the confrontation. If he was too scared or too weak or simply a coward, he should have waited for the police to support his profiling.

"I don't think the import of this is being appreciated. Effectively, I can bait you into a fight and if I start losing I can legally kill you, provided I "believe" myself to be subject to "great bodily harm."It is then the state's job to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that I either did not actually fear for my life, or my fear was unreasonable. In the case of George Zimmerman, even if the state proved that he baited an encounter (and I am not sure they did) they still must prove that he had no reasonable justification to fear for his life. You see very similar language in the actual instructions given to the jury..." Trayvon Martin And The Irony Of American Justice - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-zimmerman-prosecutor-corey.html#post7538186

FRIDAY.mp4 - YouTube

Not true at all. You are making the conjecture that Z baited him into a fight. That is something that you simply cannot prove considering the evidence. Martin did not have to go back and engage Z. Simple as that.

No conjecture at all, Zimmerman stalked the boy, kinda simple, after being asked to stand back he continued. When someone follows you, what's your reaction? Do you call mommy? Only Zimmerman knows what happened and given Martin was a kid, Zimmerman is both a coward and a sissy. I guess carrying a 9mm made him a real man, huh? He could not even fight fair. Had he stood back with his gun, this would not have happened. Unless the coward pissed his pants so badly he'd shoot from a distance. You apologists for the sissy, pretend cop are sickening.

Your teenage son or daughter is walking home in the rain, it is growing dark, she is on the phone with a friend and eating the candy she just bought from a nearby convenience store. The hood is up on her jacket when a man starts following her in his car. She mentions this to a friend on the phone. Your son keeps walking. Soon your daughter walks behind a building, and the man in the car gets out and follows her. Your son does not know what motivates the follower. Soon they are so close, fear of each other causes a scuffle. Your daughter does not realize the man is armed with a gun. She fights the man to the ground and in the melee he is injured. He pulls a gun and kills your daughter. How do you feel? What gave him the right to follow and pursue your son or daughter. What motivated him to follow.

^ Ignorant and stupid false original premises get you every time.

There was NO "stalking."

There WAS "following" but those two words are different for a reason. They do not mean the same thing.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Can we discuss the Zimmerman verdict without the vitriol and sarcasm?

Do you expect racial strife?

Do you understand the verdict although you did not agree with it?

Can you understand the viewpoints of others who disagreed with you? although the verdict validated your viewpoint?

Can you agree to disagree with others without being rude?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still say that Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck and the life of TM could have been spared. Is there anyone out there who wanted an acquittal agree with me on that one small point?

I also understand, that if someone is being beat you up, defending yourself is a natural progression of the altercation, even shooting the person who is beating you.

Can you agree with the other side on the on the points of argument?

Nobody wins here except a politically motivated press and some race baiters. Much of the argument for Zimmerman is really an argument against the politicization of this case. I react calmly to calm arguments and I tend to get irritated when I'm accused of racism because I think Zimmerman's jury acted professionally and followed the evidence. The prosecutors star witness, Rachel Jeantel, is more responsible for Zimmerman's freedom than any societal racist undercurrent.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Dispatcher testified he could not and did not tell Zimmerman not to follow.

 

[wavingrl]

Dispatcher testified he could not and did not tell Zimmerman not to follow.

I've heard someone on tape many times saying, 'We don't need you to do that.'

At some point that issue was clarified--not illegal to follow, dispatcher not authorized to speak for LE--give an order. That sort of thing.

Over and over again.

It will continue.

Unless someone can clearly establish what was going on in that specific community--break ins, need for Neighborhood Watch--there's not much more for me to think about.

The people I know with CCP's are different from George Zimmerman--hard to be certain exactly what each might have chosen to do but basically contact LE and let them take it from there. That's how they are. Some have military backgrounds and whatever.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Dispatcher testified he could not and did not tell Zimmerman not to follow.

I've heard someone on tape many times saying, 'We don't need you to do that.'

We do not need you do that is not an order.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Young black men with a thuggish bent are not intimidated by the rival gang bangers they meet every day, a thug would not have been intimidated by a creepy ass cracker.

I'm curious. Being a black man myself, I can't help but wonder if folks (such as yourself) who jump up on your soap box and decry the evils of the "crackers" and the senseless murder of this little angel Trayvon Martin will, in turn, run to Chicago and decry the senseless murder of 500 black men and women over the past year? Or, do they not really "count", as they were perpetrated by other blacks?

The hypocrisy of the left continually amazes me.

 

[PaulS1950]

Zimmerman was not following Martin when the confrontation took place. Zimmerman was headed back to his car after having lost Martin. Martin approached him and then attacked him in a criminal assault. If my son had done that I would have buried him and apologized to Zimmerman. There are always consequences for the actions you take. Zimmerman will have to live the rest of his life knowing that he has killed. Even when done in self defense that is not an easy thing to do. Martin committed a felony and got the ultimate punishment. Both will suffer the consequences for their actions.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Zimmerman was not following Martin when the confrontation took place. Zimmerman was headed back to his car after having lost Martin. Martin approached him and then attacked him in a criminal assault. If my son had done that I would have buried him and apologized to Zimmerman. There are always consequences for the actions you take. Zimmerman will have to live the rest of his life knowing that he has killed. Even when done in self defense that is not an easy thing to do. Martin committed a felony and got the ultimate punishment. Both will suffer the consequences for their actions.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, as with any mob mentality, common sense goes the way of the dinosaur. There are now cries for the Feds to get involved and find "something - ANYTHING" to charge Zimmerman with.

I'll continue to ask this question again and again until I get a decent answer: When are we going to express the same anger and outrage over the hundreds and hundreds of deaths in major metropolitan cities done by blacks TO blacks that we "seemingly" have against a man who shot an attacker whom he felt was going to kill him?

I'd LOVE to see hoodies with the 500 names of black men and women who have died in Chicago at the hands of other blacks this year alone......I'd LOVE to see all these liberal, do-gooders who come out of the woodwork to express their feigned "outrage" go to Chicago and demand an end to this nonsense. Where are they? They would rather cover their faces with masks and destroy private property than to actually affect "change".

Hypocrites - all of them.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Young black men with a thuggish bent are not intimidated by the rival gang bangers they meet every day, a thug would not have been intimidated by a creepy ass cracker.

I'm curious. Being a black man myself, I can't help but wonder if folks (such as yourself) who jump up on your soap box and decry the evils of the "crackers" and the senseless murder of this little angel Trayvon Martin will, in turn, run to Chicago and decry the senseless murder of 500 black men and women over the past year? Or, do they not really "count", as they were perpetrated by other blacks?

The hypocrisy of the left continually amazes me.

Is that what Fox " News " tells you "? Katzndogz is not "left" and the are plenty of people in the black communnity who trying to stop violence but they are no match for the NRA gun pushers.