[OAW]

That was my point exactly. Just because GZ thinks he's innocent that doesn't necessarily mean he is innocent.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

That was my point exactly. Just because GZ thinks he's innocent that doesn't necessarily mean he is innocent.

OAW

The jury is no doubt noticing it, however, and that goes a long way towards a Not Guilty verdict.

[subego]

More specifically, it speaks to Zimmerman's intent.

I know I sound like a broken record here, but the prosecutors chose to charge him with something where they have to prove intent.

Zimmerman's statement adds a hefty dollop of reasonable doubt he committed murder.

[OAW]

It's in the jury's hands now.

GZ is facing Murder 2 and the lesser included charge of Manslaughter. The prosecution proved that he lied about several material aspects to his story in which he claims self-defense. Just one notable example being GZ's claims that TM tried to smother him bloody nose, mouth and all yet had none of GZ's blood on his hands. So one would have to be willfully obtuse to conclude otherwise. His own attorney conceded during his closing argument that GZ exaggerated about the level of force TM was using against him during the fight. And we have the uncontroverted testimony of Rachel Jeantel who heard TM yelling "Get off! Get off!" the moment the physical confrontation began. Which points to GZ trying to detain TM ... so the "a*shole"/"f*cking punk" wouldn't get away. So TM was well within his rights to defend himself by punching him in the face. And it was demonstrated repeatedly that if TM was straddling GZ's chest with his knees by his armpits as he repeatedly claimed was the case ... it would have been physically impossible for TM to see GZ's weapon let alone for GZ to pull it out at that moment. So either GZ already had the gun out prior to when he claimed (and TM was on top yelling for help while trying to control GZ's gun arm) ... or TM got off GZ and was backing away enabling him to reach his weapon.

In any event, a Manslaughter conviction is appropriate given the evidence. Especially since the only way to find GZ acted in "self-defense" is to buy his account of the fight despite the fact that he was demonstrated to be a liar. We shall see ....

OAW

[Shaddim]

I thought they neglected to cover TM's hands until he reached the morgue? He sat out in the rain for a while, and then there was the ride all the way there. A lot of things can happen en route.

You really don't see any holes in the prosecution's case? Seriously? I see canyons on both sides.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I thought they neglected to cover TM's hands until he reached the morgue? He sat out in the rain for a while, and then there was the ride all the way there. A lot of things can happen en route.

Well if one is going to buy into the theory that the rain washed away the blood .... not some of it or most of it .... but all of it from TM's hands but magically left blood all over GZ I suppose that's possible. Personally, I find it ludicrous. Especially since the photos of TM's dead body at the scene showed no blood. Even the defense backed away from the "rain discrimination" theory during closing arguments and went with the theory that it must have been wiped off accidentally as his body was being handled. I call BS.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You really don't see any holes in the prosecution's case? Seriously? I see canyons on both sides.

In my view the prosecution's case doesn't have to be "airtight" to eliminate reasonable doubt. No one saw the physical confrontation begin. There was no eyewitness to that. All we have is GZ's account and his credibility is deficient to say the least. But there was an earwitness to it. And while her command of standard English was lacking that doesn't mean she wasn't truthful and her testimony was uncontroverted. That along with GZ's proven pattern of deception makes it pretty clear to me that TM did not run away in fear from GZ one minute and then turn into "Super Thug" the next and sucker punch GZ on a humbug. Common sense says that GZ pursued TM and put his hands on him in an attempt to detain the "f*cking punk" so he wouldn't "get away". These are his words. Not mine. Which is corroborated by TM saying "Get off! Get off!". Think about it ... why would TM say that after he sucker punched GZ and he is already on the ground? Do I think he intended to kill TM at that moment? No. I think he wanted to keep him there until the police arrived. I think he believed he was doing the right thing even though he erroneously assumed TM was "up to no good". The problem is that TM justifiably viewed him as a "creepy" dude that was stalking him through the neighborhood so he fought back. Once the fight jumped off it gets murky. But what we do know for a fact is that GZ was NEITHER getting "pummeled" 25-30 times in the face NOR having his head repeatedly bashed into the concrete. That is utter and complete BS. As I said even his attorney admitted that was an exaggeration. But the kid obviously got a few good licks in. And as I said from the beginning, once he took a few shots instead of fighting like a man GZ went out like a little bitch by pulling a gun and shooting the kid. Which is made even worse by the fact that if GZ had kept his punk a*s in the car like he was supposed to he wouldn't be on trial and TM wouldn't be pushing up daisies. It's called "Neighborhood WATCH" for a reason. And that's the bottom line.

OAW

[OAW]

Prosecution Rebuttal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HUe...4X3KAyeNXn-_9w

OAW

[OldManMac]

Zimmerman got away with murder. Zimmerman jury reaches a verdict - CNN.com

[Waragainstsleep]

I haven't been following this case at all but reading just that last article about the verdict and the summary it gives, it certainly seems like Zimmerman should be punished for something. Is vigilantism a crime where this happened?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I haven't been following this case at all but reading just that last article about the verdict and the summary it gives, it certainly seems like Zimmerman should be punished for something. Is vigilantism a crime where this happened?

The jury ruled it was self-defense, meaning they believe that Martin started the fight and made GZ fear for his life.

In the state of Florida civil suits aren't possible if self-defense is proven, either. I'm not really sure if anything can be done to GZ now. The NAACP is howling about federal civil rights violations, but that won't float, as the only person who showed racist inclinations was Martin.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I haven't been following this case at all but reading just that last article about the verdict and the summary it gives, it certainly seems like Zimmerman should be punished for something. Is vigilantism a crime where this happened?

Define vigilantism.

Not a challenge, I only want to be sure we're on the same page.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The jury ruled it was self-defense, meaning they believe that Martin started the fight and made GZ fear for his life.

Not necessarily. More likely, they just thought there was sufficient ambiguity for reasonable doubt. We don't know that they believed Zimmerman, we only know they didn't fully accept the prosecution's claims.

The fact that they asked for clarity on the manslaughter charge tells me they didn't believe Zimmerman, and made their decision for other reasons.

Anyone think the family of Trayvon Martin will pursue a civil action? They could crowd-source the expense overnight.

[Waragainstsleep]

Well that article didn't specify any particular reason that Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious so it looks like racial profiling which of course is something commonly associated with law enforcement. He then went against police instructions and confronted someone and then somehow was outflanked by him on the way back to the car (because he managed to jump out of some bushes). Apart from his story sounding completely unbelievable, the fact remains if he hadn't stuck his nose in and then ignored police instructions, Martin wouldn't have died. I'm just not sure that who threw the first punch is as relevant as it might usually be.

Acquitting someone who picks a fight, then kills in self-defence seems like a very dangerous precedent to set.

[OreoCookie]

The jury verdict is very much a disappointment for me, justice was not served.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Anyone think the family of Trayvon Martin will pursue a civil action? They could crowd-source the expense overnight.

Who cares about a civil suit? What could Martin's family sue for anyway, it's not like Zimmerman is OJ Simpson with a few millions on the bank.

[OAW]

Thought I read somewhere that Florida shields defendants from civil suits that successfully claim self defense. The NAACP has started a petition to get the DOJ to file federal civil rights violation charges against Zimmerman. Similar to what happened after the Rodney King trial. We'll see if that happens. If for no other reason than the amusement of watching conservatives collectively set their hair on fire in response.

OAW

[pooka]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The jury verdict is very much a disappointment for me, justice was not served.

Pardon, but what the **** does that even mean? And why are all of you so emotionally invested in this case? It sure as shit isn't about "justice". Let this be a lesson to prosecutors... When you don't have enough evidence to sway a 1st year arm chair lawyer, maybe you should settle for manslaughter (from the beginning).

This shit is more annoying than listening to white people argue about baseball (or Euro-weenies with futeball).

[OAW]

Can't say I didn't see it coming. If there was any doubt before we know now that in Florida at least you can stalk an unarmed kid minding his business through a neighborhood, initiate a confrontation that was EASILY avoided, and instead of fighting like a man you go out like a little BITCH and pull a gun as soon as you take a few licks. You emerge from a fist fight that you started with a freaking BAND-AID and a kid ends up with a bullet in his chest. You get proven to be a liar on numerous material aspects to your story in open court while the kid is pushing up daisies. And yet ... you walk. Common sense notwithstanding.

But let's be honest here. The prosecution dropped the ball. Given the "dynamics" of this case they were never going to win on points. They needed a knockout and they simply didn't deliver. Simply pointing out all of Zimmerman's lies and exaggerations was never going to be enough. The only story that kept getting told repeatedly was his own. And the prosecution needed to present an alternative story that better fit the evidence. Namely that Zimmerman pulled his gun long before he claimed he did, because it would have been physically impossible according to his story. And while young Trayvon may have been on top at the end he was the one screaming for help trying to control dude's gun arm to keep him from shooting. And clearly he lost that struggle. But they neglected to do that. And instead of throwing their primary witness under the bus by trying to explain away her lacking skills with standard English while totally failing to mention that she speaks 3 languages quite unlike most Americans ... perhaps in their closing argument they should have reiterated her UNCONTROVERTED testimony. The last words she heard Trayvon Martin say was "Get off! Get off!" Which speaks volumes to anyone inclined to listen.

RIP young brother. And may God bring comfort and peace to your family.

OAW

[Shaddim]

WHA?! GZ wasn't a "real man" because he didn't want to take a beatdown? It was okay that Martin turned around and came back to confront GZ, and jumped him, when GZ was checking to see what a guy in a hood was doing wandering around the community?

No, no, let's take the worst possible scenario, go batshit over it, and then bitch and moan when the law doesn't match up with your feelings of what justice should be. They never proved who was screaming "get off", but if GZ was such a "little bitch", it seems that he'd be the one most likely. "Oh, the screaming stopped when the gun went off", only a person who is unaccustomed to firing a handgun would try to make that point, it's loud and often startles/silences most people.

[OAW]

You only say TM "turned around" because you believe GZ's bullshit. Even though he's caught on tape saying that he approached TM before he changed his tune. No witness testified that TM jumped GZ. And again, GZ has been proven to be lying about numerous material aspects to his story. Yet still ... your description of TM's actions are fundamentally rooted in GZ's word and his word alone.

And what constitutes "proof" for who was yelling "Get off!"? Rachel Jeantel testified that it was TM. Again, it was uncontroverted testimony! Even GZ never claimed he said that. But you say it was "never proved". Oh. Ok. And if walking "in a hood" while it's raining outside is an issue well then that speaks for itself.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You only say TM "turned around" because you believe GZ's bullshit. Even though he's caught on tape saying that he approached TM before he changed his tune. No witness testified that TM jumped GZ. And again, GZ has been proven to be lying about numerous material aspects to his story. Yet still ... your description of TM's actions are fundamentally rooted in GZ's word and his word alone.

And what constitutes "proof" for who was yelling "Get off!"? Rachel Jeantel testified that it was TM. Again, it was uncontroverted testimony! Even GZ never claimed he said that. But you say it was "never proved". Oh. Ok. And if walking "in a hood" while it's raining outside is an issue well then that speaks for itself.

OAW

I guess you shouldn't be walking around in a hood, cutting through a neighborhood at night, on to other people's property (without a real need), during a time when there's been a rash of break-ins allegedly committed by black men. You might get shot. "Proven to be lying"? Obviously it wasn't "proven" in court.

Rachel Jeantel? The woman who had already been caught in lie (perjuring herself) and was hostile on the stand? I can't imagine why the jury would find her to be less than credible. That's shocking.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Who cares about a civil suit? What could Martin's family sue for anyway, it's not like Zimmerman is OJ Simpson with a few millions on the bank.

Are you kidding? Zimmerman's book deal is probably signed already.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It was okay that Martin turned around and came back to confront GZ, and jumped him, when GZ was checking to see what a guy in a hood was doing wandering around the community?

It's one thing to think there is reasonable doubt. It's quite another to buy into Zimmerman's self-serving bullish!t like it's Gospel.

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I guess you shouldn't be walking around in a hood, cutting through a neighborhood at night, on to other people's property (without a real need), during a time when there's been a rash of break-ins allegedly committed by black men. You might get shot.

From the horse's mouth: Martin guilty of "walking while black."

Oh, and he was "armed" too, because the sidewalk under his fncking feet is now considered a weapon. Sigh.

[subego]

A pause for a message from our sponsor...




And now, back to our scheduled programming, already in progress.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

It's one thing to think there is reasonable doubt. It's quite another to buy into Zimmerman's self-serving bullish!t like it's Gospel.

It's another to just assume that he's lying, because it fits with what you want. Because he's an Hispanic man, with a gun, and he should pay. All the justice-deniers are screaming that Zimmerman wasn't credible, yet the jury obviously found that he was, despite the AG's and prosecution's despicable behavior and courtroom shenanigans. The disconnect here is, the jury wasn't forcefed photos of an adolescent Trayvon all day long (that wasn't what he looked like anymore), nor did they become indoctrinated via the hysterical rants of Nancy dis-Grace. Likely it would have been far worse if the Defense had been allowed to show what Martin looked like at the time of the shooting, and could have come forward with the pictures of Martin smoking pot, holding a handgun, and giving the whole world the finger.

There's a lot of "gospel" going `round, and obviously it all comes down to whom a person is predisposed to believe.

[subego]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough last time... Will you pay more attention if I'm in red?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's another to just assume that he's lying, because it fits with what you want. Because he's an Hispanic man, with a gun, and he should pay.

Christ.

All the justice-deniers are screaming that Zimmerman wasn't credible, yet the jury obviously found that he was...

No, they didn't. I already told you that. "Not guilty" doesn't mean "we believed the defendant." You have no excuse for this kind of ignorance.

Likely it would have been far worse if the Defense had been allowed to show what Martin looked like at the time of the shooting...

Are you telling me the judge refused to allow the jurors to know what the victim looked like? Bullsh!t.

...and could have come forward with the pictures of Martin smoking pot, holding a handgun, and giving the whole world the finger.

Sure. That would be totally relevant.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Christ.

Stop being a prat and try to have a meaningful talk.

No, they didn't. I already told you that. "Not guilty" doesn't mean "we believed the defendant." You have no excuse for this kind of ignorance.

Obviously they believed him enough to let him walk, since the prosecution's witnesses and evidence were obviously lacking. It wasn't just for shits and giggles.

Are you telling me the judge refused to allow the jurors to know what the victim looked like? Bullsh!t.

She refused to allow recent photos of TM using drugs or holding an illegal firearm (or even allow testimony about Martin trying to illicitly purchase said handgun).

Sure. That would be totally relevant.

Showing that he was very possibly becoming a dangerous thug was relative.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The jury verdict is very much a disappointment for me, justice was not served.

It was served to the prosecutors for malfeasance. That isn't just?

[Chongo]

“The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin," NAACP President Ben Jealous wrote in a letter to Holder shortly after the verdict was announced.

Really. That sound odd coming from an organization that supports something that kills more black children each year than guns do, and at $500-$1000 each.

[Waragainstsleep]

I'm not sure the jury had to believe Zimmerman's story in order to see reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

[Shaddim]

Wait, hold on. How does that make sense? The jury: believed the prosecution, didn't believe the defense, thought GZ didn't act in self-defense, yet still came back and acquitted Zimmerman of all charges in 17 hours? They all wanted to leave because they were going to miss Dancing With the Stars and a Not Guilty verdict was the quickest way to ensure their escape? I'm spending more time deciding about whether I want to buy an SUV than they did in weighing all the facts of that case.

The people who are angry over this verdict are the ones who wanted GZ's head before the trial even started. I agree that this turned out to be about race, because that's the way it's been pitched by most in the black community and the Left. The former because they want a white (actually Hispanic) guy to burn for killing such a lovable young thug like Martin, and the latter because they dislike the Florida gun laws and see it as a means to an end.

[The Final Dakar]

I have a real problem saying whether or not justice was served. In the legal sense, I think it was. Morally, I think it was a failure (Yes, even if you believe Zimmerman's story). The police also bear responsibility in this, as their investigation ranged from disinterested to incompetent (and possibly racist).

I think it also bears consideration that Zimmerman was acquitted without having to rely on the Stand Your Ground law. However I think it also illustrates an axiom I've heard before in regards to guns and self-defense: It's far better to kill your attacker than to wound them. Without Martin to give his own version of events (or to force Zimmerman to testify) all that was left was a lot of circumstantial evidence.

Hilariously (or sadly), I hear a lot of debate on Zimmerman and whether he had to do an affirmative defense of his self-defense claim. But if his story was to be believed, Martin attacked him (because he felt his life was in danger) but since he died he didn't get his trial about his attempt at self-defense.

I don't fault anyone for thinking Travyon was less than an angel given some of the things on his record. But I am curious how they rectify those infractions against Zimmerman's own history.

The worst part of this case is that the opinions on guilt or fault are so clearly divided by politics. If both guys were white or Zimmerman used a knife instead of a gun, I bet we'd have some pretty major changes in point of view from both sides.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by pooka 

Pardon, but what the **** does that even mean? And why are all of you so emotionally invested in this case? It sure as shit isn't about "justice". Let this be a lesson to prosecutors... When you don't have enough evidence to sway a 1st year arm chair lawyer, maybe you should settle for manslaughter (from the beginning).

It's called empathy. A lot of us wouldn't want to be stalked by a wannabe Batman if we were in Martin's shoes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The worst part of this case is that the opinions on guilt or fault are so clearly divided by politics. If both guys were white or Zimmerman used a knife instead of a gun, I bet we'd have some pretty major changes in point of view from both sides.

That really bugs me too. For a situation where it's pretty impossible to know what happened, people are real damn sure of themselves.

I stand by my beef with the prosecutors, but as to the actual events? No frigging idea.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

It was served to the prosecutors for malfeasance. That isn't just?

What does that have to do with anything? How a prosecutor handles a case has nothing to do with the outcome. I wasn't claiming the prosecution (in lieu of the people) did not have the chance to present its case fairly, that's clearly not the case. I just happen to think that Zimmerman killed Martin unlawfully and should serve time in jail for that, the verdict goes absolutely against my grain.

Originally Posted by pooka 

Pardon, but what the **** does that even mean? And why are all of you so emotionally invested in this case?

Because it's one of the few cases each year which has grabbed the mind share of the people, partly because it points to several issues which move to society. Why do you react to my post so violently?

Originally Posted by pooka 

It sure as shit isn't about "justice". Let this be a lesson to prosecutors... When you don't have enough evidence to sway a 1st year arm chair lawyer, maybe you should settle for manslaughter (from the beginning).

To me it is precisely about justice: I'm not the right person to ask about minutiae of the prosecution's strategy, e. g. whether it wouldn't have been better to convict someone for manslaughter. I'm not a lawyer. But you don't have to be a lawyer to have a clear sense of justice.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What does that have to do with anything? How a prosecutor handles a case has nothing to do with the outcome.

You have 100% lost me.

If how a prosecutor handles a case has nothing to do with the outcome, why have one?


(I'm guessing my question doesn't jibe with the intent of your statement, but I can find no other reasonable interpretation. As I said, you've lost me)

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Stop being a prat and try to have a meaningful talk.

You insinuate that I'm a racist without a smidge of justification, while at the same time moaning that the entire prosecution was based on racism (a ludicrous viewpoint). Pathetic.

Nothing you post makes the slightest bit of sense anymore. You're utterly unhinged.

BTW, calling me a "prat" is name-calling and against the rules of MacNN.

Obviously they believed him enough to let him walk, since the prosecution's witnesses and evidence were obviously lacking. It wasn't just for shits and giggles.

Christ, you're thick. "Reasonable doubt" doesn't require the jury to believe the defendant. You have no excuse to be so damn ignorant about your own legal system.

She refused to allow recent photos of TM using drugs or holding an illegal firearm (or even allow testimony about Martin trying to illicitly purchase said handgun).

Oh, so she didn't ban current photos of Martin, only photos with irrelevant and prejudicial detail? Yet again, you are hopelessly ignorant of how the law works.

Showing that he was very possibly becoming a dangerous thug was relative.

Even if that were true, it's completely, utterly, obviously, and legally irrelevant to the case.

Your inexcusable lack of knowledge combined with a bloated sense of your own correctness makes you extremely unpleasant to deal with.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You insinuate that I'm a racist without a smidge of justification, while at the same time moaning that the entire prosecution was based on racism (a ludicrous viewpoint). Pathetic.

Nothing you post makes the slightest bit of sense anymore. You're utterly unhinged.

BTW, calling me a "prat" is name-calling and against the rules of MacNN.

Of course it makes sense, but you're too enamored with your hatred of me to understand that. It's funny how you pick through the posts, looking for mine, just so you can vent your feelings of self-loathing and resentment. How are you keeping your White Guilt from breaking your back every day?

Christ, you're thick. "Reasonable doubt" doesn't require the jury to believe the defendant. You have no excuse to be so damn ignorant about your own legal system.

Christ, you've actually gotten worse in your absence. I've seen the way jury trials work, it's about who they believe and who they like.
17 hours... that's the important stat here. The prosecution's case was so thin, and so poorly handled, they didn't even need to wait through the weekend.

Oh, so she didn't ban current photos of Martin, only photos with irrelevant and prejudicial detail? Yet again, you are hopelessly ignorant of how the law works.

Prejudicial? Like photos of him acting like a thug and a truant. Yeah, those have no bearing on whether he picked a fight with Zimmerman.

Even if that were true, it's completely, utterly, obviously, and legally irrelevant to the case.

Only to someone like yourself (ignorant, frustrated).

Your inexcusable lack of knowledge combined with a bloated sense of your own correctness makes you extremely unpleasant to deal with.

The pot keeps saying I'm black... If you behaved any more like a tool, you'd have Craftsman tattooed across your forehead. Ironic.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I've seen the way jury trials work, it's about who they believe and who they like.

Maybe this one followed the way trials are supposed to work. Its possible they had some direction from the judge. If someone pointed out in simple terms that "if there is reasonable doubt, you have to let him off" then they may have felt they had no choice.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Prejudicial? Like photos of him acting like a thug and a truant. Yeah, those have no bearing on whether he picked a fight with Zimmerman.

If Zimmerman going out of his way and against police advice to confront Martin can't be consider damning, I'm not sure old photos can be either. Besides that, acting like a thug, pretending to be a thug, or just looking like one? (I didn't see them)

[Shaddim]

The more I ponder this, the more I feel subego is right, more than anything this is an indictment of the wretched state of affairs in the Fla AG's office. What an incredible waste of time and resources.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Maybe this one followed the way trials are supposed to work. Its possible they had some direction from the judge. If someone pointed out in simple terms that "if there is reasonable doubt, you have to let him off" then they may have felt they had no choice.

As I said before, 17 hours. That's very telling, and indicated the prosecution seriously dropped the ball and the jury was heavily swayed by the defense.

If Zimmerman going out of his way and against police advice to confront Martin can't be consider damning, I'm not sure old photos can be either. Besides that, acting like a thug, pretending to be a thug, or just looking like one? (I didn't see them)

Martin was; expelled from school, known to be shopping for a firearm (photos taken with him holding the one he was trying to purchase), doing drugs, a history of brawling, and numerous run-ins/arrests as a minor. Thug. Of course, it isn't all his fault, not really, his parents are to blame. They did a piss-poor job raising him.

[ghporter]

It seems to me that the prosecutors, apparently underinformed about the efficacy of their evidence, decided to only charge Zimmerman with the most serious charges they could think of, rather than also charging him with the included offenses of assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter 2 and 3, etc. The timeline seems to support multiple events that could support charges, yet they only used the overall event.

Whether Zimmerman was "right" in the end of the altercation, he appears to have precipitated it by his behavior. That alone should be an offense, however it is considered legally.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by pooka 

Pardon, but what the **** does that even mean? And why are all of you so emotionally invested in this case? It sure as shit isn't about "justice". Let this be a lesson to prosecutors... When you don't have enough evidence to sway a 1st year arm chair lawyer, maybe you should settle for manslaughter (from the beginning).

This shit is more annoying than listening to white people argue about baseball (or Euro-weenies with futeball).

Thank you!

[pooka]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Because it's one of the few cases each year which has grabbed the mind share of the people, partly because it points to several issues which move to society. Why do you react to my post so violently?

I hate to be that guy, but this place is tiresome. I mean, I know I contribute little or nothing to this forum anymore, but this is somewhat of a joke. No offense to some of the fine folks here, but the remedial discourse at times is just lame. I know, I know. Look at this ****in' hipster, right?

I'm sorry for giving you in particular a hard time. It's not you (all), it's me. I just feel like I could write a bot to account for 78% of the content here. Sometimes I'm given hope, and then shit like this happens and I watch rational people suspend their critical thinking functions, rally around the cause du jour and start projecting/ascribing/blaming whatever their mind's vagina spews. I guess that what Dakar calls "empathy". I have no problem with people believing in things. When those feelings get too strong and people start doing stupid shit based on them, I tend to shake my head and walk away. It's why I find arguing with women so frustrating at times. There is no resolution. Just a lot of bitching and moaning. Walk into a debate about climate science with a fundie and I think you'll understand. None of you KNOW anything about anything. Well, besides in your hearts. And that to me is gay. It's not even fun to mock. I have no purpose here.

For the record, I believe Zimmerman saw Martin in the gas station rest room. He stood next to him at a urinal, grew insanely jealous at the sight of his sizable penis, followed him home and shot him in cold blood.

From CNN:

Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, while standing with the disappointed prosecution team, seemed to tip her hat to that reality.
"I never could quite understand people, even people with law degrees, who had not read all of the police reports, who had not read all of the witness statements, yet who came up with opinions one way or the other," she said.

[OAW]

The Zimmerman verdict is an undeniable reminder that "legal" justice and "moral" justice are not always the same thing. But even from a "legal" justice perspective, I don't think it's a stretch to say that those who are unsurprised yet still disappointed with the outcome know on a visceral level that if the roles had been reversed the outcome would have been very different. This case below is a prime example of why.

A group of unarmed white teens, one of Puerto Rican descent, shows up in the middle of the night outside a black teen's home hurling threats, racial slurs, and profanities toward him. Apparently, because they believed a false rumor that the black teen was responsible for an Internet chat room message threatening to rape a girl they all knew. This much is not in dispute as the prosecution acknowledged it in court. The son wakes up his father and says that they are coming to kill him. The father retrieves his pistol ... given to him by his grandfather who was chased out of Alabama by the Klan no less ... heads outside and confronts the group of teens. To defend his family and his home. The white teen of Puerto Rican descent either lunges for the gun or tried to smack it away depending on who you want to believe. And the father shoots him in the face killing him. Accidentally he claims. Maybe. Maybe not.

My point here is that dude was convicted for manslaughter and for the pistol (again a family heirloom) being unlicensed. And it didn't matter that the father and his family had a "reasonable fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm" from the mob outside their house. The prosecution's reasoning? The man should have tried to calm the unarmed teenagers or simply locked his doors and waited for the police. Imagine that.

Man Convicted for Shooting Teenager | NYTimes.com

OAW

[pooka]

Originally Posted by OAW 

...know on a visceral level that if the roles had been reversed the outcome would have been very different. .

Pure speculation on your part. Perhaps the prosecutor of that case was successful in their efforts to railroad an innocent man. Perhaps the jury consisted of Puerto Rican dads that would do anything to protect their own. Perhaps there isn't enough information to properly define one product variant of a particular t-shirt type on any common e-commerce platform much less make an educated guess of what actually happened with the known variables (aka: evidence).

You know/believe/ascribe based on your (admitted?) biases. A lot of people do. I for one would rather see consistency, logic, structure, etc in the application of the law instead of "****in' white people don't go to jail for this shit"

But then again, I'm different in that empathy (or one's mind's vagina) rarely interferes with my critical thinking capabilities.

[pooka]

Or perhaps my own biases and experiences have tainted my world-view. I mean, have you ever been on the receiving end of an overzealous prosecutor or law enforcement officer that has bent the truth to serve their version of the narrative? I mean, I've been in court a LOT in the past and often plead guilty to just about everything that I actually did. It was funny to me. That being said, the level of bullshit that was spewed boggled my tiny brain.

Again, I do not give a flying **** about this case. The tired role assignment, predictability and spoon-fed drivel that has been displayed is just comical. And sad.

On point - I think you're absolutely right. If roles had been reversed, you would be rooting for the other team. I hate sports. I'll let you big kids play.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Obviously they believed him enough to let him walk, since the prosecution's witnesses and evidence were obviously lacking. It wasn't just for shits and giggles.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you believe neither Martin nor Zimmerman's story, legally, you have to let Zimmerman walk.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

She refused to allow recent photos of TM using drugs or holding an illegal firearm (or even allow testimony about Martin trying to illicitly purchase said handgun).

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but she also didn't allow things like ZImmerman's history with his ex-fiancé and his assaulting a police officer to be submitted either.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by pooka 

But then again, I'm different in that empathy (or one's mind's vagina)

Hahaha, I figured something like this would manifest. Being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes uses your brain's vagina!

[pooka]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Hahaha, I figured something like this would manifest. Being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes uses your brain's vagina!

Eh, you figured what? I'm quite capable of stepping back and looking at problems/issues/puzzles from alternative view points. The moment "feelings" come into play (forgive my grasp of English, but I don't consider empathy and perspective to be interchangeable), I attribute it to one's mind-vag. Or as OAW would say, the part of your brain that makes you act like a bitch.

Tangentially related, this is probably why I loathe Captain Kirk's character on Star Trek. Feelings, gut instinct and hunches work great in movies, Lifetime scripts and mythology. In reality, the Enterprise would be a far more efficient and effective vessel with Spock at the helm.

[OAW]

Pure speculation huh? The statistics show otherwise ...

White people who kill black people in 'Stand Your Ground' states are 354 per cent more likely to be found justified in their killing than a white person who kills another white person, according to research.

...

The result was drawn from a study using FBI data conducted by John Roman, a senior analyst at Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center. He examined racial disparity using data on 43,500 homicides from 2005 to 2009 - the most recent years for which data was available, reported PBS. He narrowed the sample to about 5,000 homicides by only analysing killings in which there was a single shooter and a single victim, both of whom were strangers to each other.

Roman looked specifically at 'justified' homicides - defined as the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony, committed by private citizens.

He discovered that killings of black people by whites were more likely to be considered justified than the killings of white people by blacks. Frontline then asked him to analyse the data and look for findings between states which had Stand Your Ground versus those without the laws. Under the Stand Your Ground law, which was approved in 2005 and applies in over 30 states, people fearing for their lives can use deadly force without having to retreat from a confrontation, even when it is possible.

Breakdown of the killings: The figures represent the percentage likelihood that the deaths will be found justifiable compared to white-on-white killings.

White people who kill black people in 'Stand Your Ground' states are 354% more likely to be cleared of murder: Fresh questions over self-defence law in wake of Zimmerman verdict | Mail Online

Not that I expect you to be swayed by a pendulum swing in the data like that though. I'm sure you will simply dismiss the obvious with a litany of "perhaps this" and "perhaps that".

OAW