Black Jurist Claims On ABC That Zimmerman Got Away With Murder. Despicable.

[legaleagle_45]

No, I don't buy that because Zimmerman changed his story so many times that he wasn't credible...

Sure he did Joe. Keep telling yourself that minor changes in details is a sign of a sure liar, but when a person such as Dee Dee admits intentionally lying UNDER OATH, well, that s excusable and all other aspects of her testimony are to be believed.

Um, yeah, actually I kind of do. You want to know why? Because he got on the stand and testified, unlike Zimmerscum.

And this is the key thing. If you are accused of a horrible crime, I want you to look me in the eye and explain yourself. If you don't, I pretty much have good reason to assume you did it.

I see. So what other parts of the Constitution do you think we should ignore?

 

[legaleagle_45]

I agree with this: if you are truly completely innocent, if you have nothing to hide and you are accused of a crime, you would want to take the stand and speak up for yourself, look the jury in the eye and state your case. The fact Zimmerman didn't do that speaks volumes.

I see. What other parts of the Constitution do you think we should ignore?

(Yeah, I know I am being repetitive, but when a person basically says we should ignore the Constitution, what else can you say?)

 

[legaleagle_45]

Um, yeah, actually I kind of do. You want to know why? Because he got on the stand and testified, unlike Zimmerscum.

And this is the key thing. If you are accused of a horrible crime, I want you to look me in the eye and explain yourself. If you don't, I pretty much have good reason to assume you did it.

Irrelevant. Your challenge was to name one instance where a black man shot a white kid and got acquitted. Your challenge was NOT:

Name one instance where a black man shot a white kid and got acquitted when JoeB131 did not think he should have been acquitted.

Nor was it:

Name one instance where a black man shot a white kid and got acquitted when said black did not testify at trial.

You sure like changing the rules of your challenges Joe. I bet you cheat at solitaire, huh?

 

[Kondor3]

"...if you are truly completely innocent, if you have nothing to hide and you are accused of a crime, you would want to take the stand and speak up for yourself, look the jury in the eye and state your case..."

He was well within his Constitutional Rights to refrain from taking the stand and he was also quite probably following the advice of his legal counsel. His choice not to take the stand does not reflect in the slightest upon his innocence or guilt, at-law or even otherwise.

"...The fact Zimmerman didn't do that speaks volumes."

Indeed. It says that Zimmerman and his defense team knew his Constitutional Rights and chose to exercise one of them. Isn't America wonderful, to afford us such Rights?

 

[legaleagle_45]

AH. There is that one case. I wonder what the stats are.on blacks ahooting white kids and getting away with it as opposed to white on black kids shootings.

The Tampa Bay Times maintains a searchable database of SYG cases since 2005. According to their data in cases of white accused versus black victim there were 11 cases. One was convicted, 6 were found "justified" (either not prosecuted or acquitted) and 4 are pending.

In cases where a black is accused of killing a white, 2 were convicted, 4 were found "justified" and 4 are pending.


The database is here:

Stand your ground database | Tampa Bay Times

Sorry, I can not link you to the searches I performed for the above data, as the web page links just return you to the initial database page so you will need to employ the search function for yourself

 

[Pop23]

End of this story is zimmermans life is over as he knew it. Good. It's the least that could happen since this hero shot an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong.

Zona, are you for or against capital punishment?

100% for it. The only negative part about it is, it takes too damn long to kill em. It's costs us $$$. That is annoying.

So you trust the justice system enough to end a mans life, and in your opinion, to do it quickly, but you don't trust it enough to render a not guilty verdict?

Curious how you balance the two, or if you can?

 

[JoeB131]

No, I don't buy that because Zimmerman changed his story so many times that he wasn't credible...

Sure he did Joe. Keep telling yourself that minor changes in details is a sign of a sure liar, but when a person such as Dee Dee admits intentionally lying UNDER OATH, well, that s excusable and all other aspects of her testimony are to be believed.

She did no such thing. She answered a question from a reporter the lawyers COULDN'T ask. (Who do you think threw the first punch?) And that was merely speculation.

[

Um, yeah, actually I kind of do. You want to know why? Because he got on the stand and testified, unlike Zimmerscum.

And this is the key thing. If you are accused of a horrible crime, I want you to look me in the eye and explain yourself. If you don't, I pretty much have good reason to assume you did it.

I see. So what other parts of the Constitution do you think we should ignore?

I kind of subscribe to Abraham Lincoln's view the that Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Joker Holmes should not be allowed to have a gun, no matter what the second amendment says. And neither should George Zimmerman...

And just because he has a right to not incriminate himself, I am free to interpret his REFUSAL to testify as an admission of guilt.

 

[Pop23]

No, I don't buy that because Zimmerman changed his story so many times that he wasn't credible...

Sure he did Joe. Keep telling yourself that minor changes in details is a sign of a sure liar, but when a person such as Dee Dee admits intentionally lying UNDER OATH, well, that s excusable and all other aspects of her testimony are to be believed.

She did no such thing. She answered a question from a reporter the lawyers COULDN'T ask. (Who do you think threw the first punch?) And that was merely speculation.

[

Um, yeah, actually I kind of do. You want to know why? Because he got on the stand and testified, unlike Zimmerscum.

And this is the key thing. If you are accused of a horrible crime, I want you to look me in the eye and explain yourself. If you don't, I pretty much have good reason to assume you did it.

I see. So what other parts of the Constitution do you think we should ignore?

I kind of subscribe to Abraham Lincoln's view the that Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Joker Holmes should not be allowed to have a gun, no matter what the second amendment says. And neither should George Zimmerman...

And just because he has a right to not incriminate himself, I am free to interpret his REFUSAL to testify as an admission of guilt.

Sure you are, but since we know what your true agenda is, we are free to discount your opinion, and you as a gun control hack.

 

[legaleagle_45]

She did no such thing.

Incorrect Joe. She gave a statement under oath to Bernie on April 2, 2012 where she stated that she did not attend the funeral of Trayvon because she was in the hospital. This was a lie. At trial:

But West pressed her on why she decided to lie about her decision to stay home that day. “What you did in order to explain that to Ms. Fulton,” he said, referring to Martin’s mother, “and then to Mr. de la Rionda,” the lead prosecutor in the case, “under oath is that you created a lie and said you had gone to the hospital?”

“Yes,” Jeantel replied.

I kind of subscribe to Abraham Lincoln's view the that Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

And just because he has a right to not incriminate himself, I am free to interpret his REFUSAL to testify as an admission of guilt.

Yep, the Constitution protects your right to be an unamerican, constitution hating asshole. I bet you hate Mom and apple pie as well.

 

[JoeB131]

She did no such thing.

Incorrect Joe. She gave a statement under oath to Bernie on April 2, 2012 where she stated that she did not attend the funeral of Trayvon because she was in the hospital. This was a lie. At trial:

But West pressed her on why she decided to lie about her decision to stay home that day. “What you did in order to explain that to Ms. Fulton,” he said, referring to Martin’s mother, “and then to Mr. de la Rionda,” the lead prosecutor in the case, “under oath is that you created a lie and said you had gone to the hospital?”

“Yes,” Jeantel replied.

So how did that have any bearing on how Martin died. At that point, Martin was already dead.

As opposed to Zimmerscum claiming that he didn't know which street he was on in a place he lived for 8 years, or claiming that Martin jumped him from behind some bushes when there were no bushes.

[

I kind of subscribe to Abraham Lincoln's view the that Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It has everything to do with the issue at hand. The Fifth Amendment is usually interpreted as "Yup, I did it".

And most people draw their own conclusions. Unless they are six racist crackers on a Klan jury.

[

And just because he has a right to not incriminate himself, I am free to interpret his REFUSAL to testify as an admission of guilt.

Yep, the Constitution protects your right to be an unamerican, constitution hating asshole. I bet you hate Mom and apple pie as well.

I love human decency.

If I were wrongly accused of a horrible crime, I would be out there telling my side of the story. Strongly. I would look the jury in the eye and tell them I DIDN'T DO IT.

Zimmerman couldn't do that. He couldn't get on that stand without digging himself in deeper. His lawyers spent 3 weeks sliming a dead child and the last thing they needed was this guy speaking for himself.

 

[skookerasbil]

She did no such thing.

Incorrect Joe. She gave a statement under oath to Bernie on April 2, 2012 where she stated that she did not attend the funeral of Trayvon because she was in the hospital. This was a lie. At trial:

So how did that have any bearing on how Martin died. At that point, Martin was already dead.

As opposed to Zimmerscum claiming that he didn't know which street he was on in a place he lived for 8 years, or claiming that Martin jumped him from behind some bushes when there were no bushes.




It has everything to do with the issue at hand. The Fifth Amendment is usually interpreted as "Yup, I did it".

And most people draw their own conclusions. Unless they are six racist crackers on a Klan jury.

[

And just because he has a right to not incriminate himself, I am free to interpret his REFUSAL to testify as an admission of guilt.

Yep, the Constitution protects your right to be an unamerican, constitution hating asshole. I bet you hate Mom and apple pie as well.

I love human decency.

If I were wrongly accused of a horrible crime, I would be out there telling my side of the story. Strongly. I would look the jury in the eye and tell them I DIDN'T DO IT.

Zimmerman couldn't do that. He couldn't get on that stand without digging himself in deeper. His lawyers spent 3 weeks sliming a dead child and the last thing they needed was this guy speaking for himself.

trial's over s0n.....nobody cares anymore.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, Spambot, Zimmerman got caught with a gun in texas while speeding...

Anyone want to take bets on when this guy is going to get caught again?

 

[PMZ]

It's pretty amazing how effectively the NRA organized their 'bots to support their ' all whites carry' sales campaign.

 

[Kondor3]

Hey, Spambot, Zimmerman got caught with a gun in texas while speeding...

Anyone want to take bets on when this guy is going to get caught again?

Got caught?

The guy was in-transit within the State of Texas, his Florida-issued firearms license was sufficient for someone in-transit, he disclosed the presence of the gun to the officer at the very beginning of the traffic-stop encounter, and he was let go, and his firearm remained in his possession afterwards.

Oh, and, by the way... here is a link to the State of Florida Division of Licensing web-page which specifies, officially, the various States which reciprocally honor Gun Carry Permits issued by the State of Florida...

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html

Now... pull up a map of the United States, and list the number of States through which Zimmerman would be driving, on his way to Texas.

Alabama... Mississippi... Louisiana... and Texas itself... and we can even throw-in Georgia, in case he took the scenic northern route rather than traveling west through the Panhandle.

You will find that each and every one of those States honors Florida's Gun-Carry Permit.

Translation: Zimmerman was legally in possession of that gun both while in Texas and while in transit TO Texas by automobile.

Oh, and, Texas (and many other States) law requires, as part of their Reciprocal Gun-Carry Permit Honoring agreements, that gun-owners disclose their possession of a firearm to law enforcement officers at the beginning of any encounter.

Which is exactly what Zimmerman did.

Translation: He followed both the spirit and letter of the law, with respect to Gun-Carry across State Lines, as stipulated by law.

Not exactly what I'd call 'getting caught'.

But maybe you use a different dictionary than the rest of us.

"Uhhhhh... that's real retarded, sir."

The tag-line (Zimmerman was caught) even sounds a little like something Rachel Jeantel would say.

And we all know how reliable her testimony was...

Epic Fail, mine good colleague...

Epic Fail.

 

[Kondor3]

"...So how did that have any bearing on how Martin died..."

It has no bearing whatsoever upon how Martin died.

It merely reinforces the idea that that Jabba-the-Hut cow of a star prosecution witness was a lying piece of shit.

"...If I were wrongly accused of a horrible crime, I would be out there telling my side of the story. Strongly. I would look the jury in the eye and tell them I DIDN'T DO IT..."

That is you.

You are not he.

Zimmerman exercised his Constitutional Right not to take the stand; quite possibly upon the advice of his legal defense team.

The exercising of that Right says NOTHING about Zimmerman's guilt nor innocence at-law.

That's the beauty of our legal system.

Really weak mojo there, Joe, but, then again, you're so-called 'case' is dying a swift and ignominious death, so a grasping at straws (and insignificant straws at that) is understandable, if not also agreeably amusing.

Next slide, please.

"...His lawyers spent 3 weeks sliming a dead child..."

Correction: his lawyers spent some of their time drawing attention to the less-than-stellar track record of a near-adult teenager; a track-record that that teenager had compiled through his own conscious, bad choices.

Someone who had traces of drugs in his system from prior ingestion, who was currently serving the latest of three recent school-suspensions, who was big enough to have been tried as an ADULT had Martin killed Zimmerman, and who had sufficient body-mass and strength to pin Zimmerman to the sidewalk and begin pounding on Zimmerman's head.

His lawyers did what ANY good legal-team worth its salt would have done: correctly and skillfully portray the Other Guy as being of highly questionable Moral Fiber and Character (although that didn't require much effort) and capable of inflicting the damage upon him that Zimmerman's testimony and injuries claimed.

Had his lawyers done otherwise, they might as well have been working for the Prosecution.

Dog bites man. No surprises here. They did their job. Heck... Martin did most of their job for them in that narrow context, long before the night of the incident.

Any other flashes of brilliance to share with the class on this subject, this morning?

 

[Kondor3]

It's pretty amazing how effectively the NRA organized their 'bots to support their ' all whites carry' sales campaign.

The NRA has 'bots'?

They're conducting an 'all whites carry' campaign?

They've organized those 'bots' to support it?

Cool.

I must have missed the memo.

How was this 'organizing' accomplished?

When was this 'organizing' accomplished?

What is the gauge by which we measure the size and effectiveness of this 'organizing'?

In what way is this 'organizing' manifesting itself substantively?

Dang... and here I was looking forward to something more serious from the Gun-Grabbers.

Always a Fun Day when they get their backs up and start pissing and moaning about the Second Amendment.

Or yammering-on about NRA-driven Kornspiracies.

 

[legaleagle_45]

She did no such thing.

Incorrect Joe. She gave a statement under oath to Bernie on April 2, 2012 where she stated that she did not attend the funeral of Trayvon because she was in the hospital.

So how did that have any bearing on how Martin died. At that point, Martin was already dead.

At the point Zimmerman told the police he was looking for an address, Martin was already dead. OH, you mean at what time frame the testimony refers? As if that makes any difference concerning the VERACITY of the witness. What does make a difference is one was under oath and the other was not. Another distinction is one involves the deliberate fabrication of an intentional lie. LOL, Joe, you are just full of excuses. When are you going to admit you were wrong? This thread started with you making a challenge to find an instance of a black man shooting a white kid and getting acquitted. Then you claimed that the criteria should be changed for some reason, then you tried to explain differences that really did not exist except in your own bigoted brain.

Here is the point Joe. SHE LIED UNDER OATH, thus she can not be trusted with respect to any other testimony that she gives. You said that she did "no such thing". You were wrong and now you are trying to deflect from your error. Man up Joe. Take responsibility for being wrong instead of dreaming up stupid excuses.

As opposed to Zimmerscum claiming that he didn't know which street he was on in a place he lived for 8 years, or claiming that Martin jumped him from behind some bushes when there were no bushes.

There were bushes Joe. You like being wrong all the time, huh? You want me to prove you wrong again so you can try to make even more excuses for your lies?

It has everything to do with the issue at hand.

Not a darn thing Joe.

The Fifth Amendment is usually interpreted as "Yup, I did it".

By idiots such as yourself, but that still has nothing to do with the constitution "not being a suicide pact."

[And most people draw their own conclusions. Unless they are six racist crackers on a Klan jury.

So now attacking the jury. It is your position I take it that the black Hispanic juror is a racist cracker and a member of the klan? LOL

And just because he has a right to not incriminate himself, I am free to interpret his REFUSAL to testify as an admission of guilt.

Yep, the Constitution protects your right to be an unamerican, constitution hating asshole. I bet you hate Mom and apple pie as well.

I love human decency.

Says the guy who says:

Unless they are six racist crackers on a Klan jury.

You are a hypocritical idiot. Have a nice day, Joe.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Hey, Spambot, Zimmerman got caught with a gun in texas while speeding...

Anyone want to take bets on when this guy is going to get caught again?

He was legally entitled to have the weapon Spambot. So it seems that the only thing that he did which was illegal was speeding.

You go right ahead and cry a river Joe.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey, Spambot, Zimmerman got caught with a gun in texas while speeding...

Anyone want to take bets on when this guy is going to get caught again?

That's right.....he got "caught".......speeding!!! The cop said "Hey....what a coincidence!!" and let him go!! I watched the vid and damn near split my sides laughing.

s0n.....time to obsess on something different. Nothing more to see here. Anyway....to guys like you and the other hyper-progressives, the white guy is always guilty no matter what the facts are. Nobody cares about the opinions of the fringe on this case anyway......especially at this point. You should consider working for Sharpton.

 

[PMZ]

It's pretty amazing how effectively the NRA organized their 'bots to support their ' all whites carry' sales campaign.

The NRA has 'bots'?

They're conducting an 'all whites carry' campaign?

They've organized those 'bots' to support it?

Cool.

I must have missed the memo.

How was this 'organizing' accomplished?

When was this 'organizing' accomplished?

What is the gauge by which we measure the size and effectiveness of this 'organizing'?

In what way is this 'organizing' manifesting itself substantively?

Dang... and here I was looking forward to something more serious from the Gun-Grabbers.

Always a Fun Day when they get their backs up and start pissing and moaning about the Second Amendment.

Or yammering-on about NRA-driven Kornspiracies.

When I read a bunch of posts, taking an extreme position, using the same words and ideas, I assume a common source. When the gist of the patter is promoting gun ownership among whites I assume that source to be the NRA doing the job that their owners, gun manufacturers, pay them to do.