Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index

George Zimmerman

  • Posted on
  • by freeman3
User avatar
Neal Anderth
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 897
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 15 Jul 2013, 1:46 pm

I came by to give you all some recognition for the decision going your way. Cheers!

Also for future reference and clarification, can I trust that you'll respect the decisions of the court when they contradict your opinion on a matter?
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Jul 2013, 1:53 pm

freeman3 wrote:Entirely wrong on this case? I made arguments as to why Zimmerman should have been convicted-- I don't know how what a jury decides affects those arguments. You made predictions on whether he was going to be convicted--I did not.


From page 6:

Sounds like he should be convicted to me.


Okay, if you want to say that's not a prediction, go right ahead.

Page 5:

By the way, I am not convinced by Abram's analysis. Clearly, murder cannot be proven so that's out. But manslaughter is still very much in. Zimmerman shot an unarmed man. Far as I am concerned, the only justification for Zimmerman is his uncorroborated claim that Trayvon was hitting his head against the cement. No witness saw this. The injuries to Zimmerman's head, which were very minor, almost certainly happened when he fell to the ground. Zimmerman's clothes were wet, indicating that the struggle took place on the grass. Also noteworthy is that there was no DNA under Trayvon's fingernails. How could Trayvon have been slamming his head into the pavement without getting his DNA under his fingermails (particularly when Zimmerman's head was shaved). Zimmerman lied about not following Trayvon and I don't believe his story that he did not confront Trayvon (that makes no sense given his background, his wannabe cop persona, and his comments to the 911 operator). Zimmerman also lied about not knowing about the Stand Your Ground Law. There is no DNA from the cuffs on Travyon's hoodie (which you would expect if Travyon were smacking him repeatedly) and there was DNA on his hoodie and underneath sweatshirt (which I guess was from Zimmerman using his hands to push Travyon off). There is no DNA from Trayvon on the gun
If I were on that jury I would to hear from Zimmerman to explain these inconsistencies. He shot an unarmed man; a broken nose is not great bodliy injury nor is some scapes on his head.The only way Zimmerman gets off is is Trayvon was bouncing his head off of the pavement. And I don't think is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence so far. If Zimmerman gets off, you are basically that if you are losing a fistfight you can shoot someone.
Also Abrams fails to point out that Zimmerman must subjectively and objectively (that is what by reasonably) have a fear of death or great bodily injury. Even if he felt that fear, if it is not reasonable given his injuries and what has happening at the time, then he is still guilty


Time after time, you dismissed 3rd party analysis. You took the worst-possible view of the evidence and allegations the State presented, and you all but said Zimmerman deserved conviction--even without hearing all the evidence, as the jury did.
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Jul 2013, 1:55 pm

Neal Anderth wrote:I came by to give you all some recognition for the decision going your way. Cheers!

Also for future reference and clarification, can I trust that you'll respect the decisions of the court when they contradict your opinion on a matter?


I'm not celebrating.

It is what it is.

This had nothing to do with a "court" and everything to do with a jury. This one went by the law. Many want something the law doesn't provide for: a presupposition of guilt so that presumed "justice" may be exacted.
User avatar
GMTom
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 15 Jul 2013, 2:45 pm

Didn't go "my way" either. Yes, I evaluated the facts and saw this case had no possible other outcome and I was appalled by the railroading the media, the state and the federal government gave this case. It was nothing but grandstanding despite the facts and the jury saw through the clutter.

So I picked the right side to agree with, but it wasn't anything I was holding dear to me, if he was convicted, I would have cried foul no doubt! So, no, I will not simply accept when someone gets something obviously wrong. The OJ jury came back with a wrong verdict, I did not simply accept that, for those that think THIS jury got it wrong (they should first examine the facts and ignore all the rest) they can feel free to complain themselves!
User avatar
freeman3
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Jul 2013, 4:31 pm

DF, there is a significant difference between the definition of "should" and the definition of "will". So not only am I saying that it is not a prediction but it clearly is not. As far for my not having all of the evidence: (1) that certainly did not stop you from giving an opinion, and (2) more importantly , the jury gets to decide the case but they don't have a veto on my opinions. Five white and one minority women agreed with you--not a huge surprise. And I did not dismiss third party analysis; I analyzed the case. Am I just to admit my opinions on what the case showed were wrong because a jury (not really a jury of Trayvon Martin's peers but they so seldom are) disagreed with me?
By the way, I thought I would cite another shooting of an unarmed black man reaching for his waistband. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Poli ... scar_Grant
In that one, the officer grabbed a gun instead of a Taser. He was convicted of involuntary manslaughter (and sentenced to two years, the sentence range was 2-14 years, which wound up being time served--case was actually held in Los Angeles before a judge I have been in front of)
How about this one?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/john-henry-spooner-trial_n_3600984.html
Here is a more comprehensive list. http://www.theroot.com/multimedia/beyon ... nd-unarmed

Still waiting for DF to post the case where an unarmed white guy gets shot. by the police or average citizen..
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Jul 2013, 4:57 pm

freeman3 wrote:DF, there is a significant difference between the definition of "should" and the definition of "will". So not only am I saying that it is not a prediction but it clearly is not. As far for my not having all of the evidence: (1) that certainly did not stop you from giving an opinion, and (2) more importantly , the jury gets to decide the case but they don't have a veto on my opinions. Five white and one minority women agreed with you--not a huge surprise. And I did not dismiss third party analysis; I analyzed the case. Am I just to admit my opinions on what the case showed were wrong because a jury (not really a jury of Trayvon Martin's peers but they so seldom are) disagreed with me?
By the way, I thought I would cite another shooting of an unarmed black man reaching for his waistband. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Poli ... scar_Grant
In that one, the officer grabbed a gun instead of a Taser. He was convicted of involuntary manslaughter (and sentenced to two years, the sentence range was 2-14 years, which wound up being time served--case was actually held in Los Angeles before a judge I have been in front of)
How about this one?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/john-henry-spooner-trial_n_3600984.html
Here is a more comprehensive list. http://www.theroot.com/multimedia/beyon ... nd-unarmed

Still waiting for DF to post the case where an unarmed white guy gets shot. by the police or average citizen..

Are you kidding? You must be.
User avatar
freeman3
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Jul 2013, 5:40 pm

If that's an argument that's pretty weak..If you have something to disprove any of what I just posted, let's hear it. Last time you came up with a white guy who got hit by a car--surely you can do better than that.
User avatar
Ray Jay
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 15 Jul 2013, 6:40 pm

I think we have to distinguish between racism and racist institutions. Perhaps Zimmerman is a racist; perhaps he isn't. My gut is the former. But so what. There are plenty of racists, and misogynists and anti-Semites, and anti just about any group in our society. I've met all of these types. I also generally agree with Freeman's larger point that there are subconscious biases galore in the human psyche.

But that's different than institutional racism. The verdict shows no evidence of institutional racism. There was a trial. The state gave their all to the case. The judge listened. There's no evidence that the jurors are racist. The stand your ground laws are pro gun and pro property, but they aren't racist. However, there is now a large chorus in the media talking about institutional racism. Has there been any evidence of that?
User avatar
Archduke Russell John
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 15 Jul 2013, 6:50 pm

Ray Jay wrote:I would think that no double jeopardy, innocent until proven guilty, and full respect for a jury trial were bedrock beliefs of the ACLU.

Double Jeopardy is an interesting concept that many people misunderstand. Under Double Jeopardy you can not be charged by the same court system (for lack of a better term) for the same crime. However, the state and Federal systems are different courts for purposes of double jeopardy.

Basically, if a person commits an act that violates both state and federal law, they can be tried in both even if found not guilty in one of them first. It is called the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine.
User avatar
freeman3
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Jul 2013, 7:12 pm

Archduke is absolutely right--remember the two Rodney King trials? It does seem a bit unfair, to be honest. But at least in the Rodney King trial there were state actors (the police) so there was more cause for the federal government to step in. But Zimmerman is not a state actor, so I will be interested to see what theory the federal government has for bringing a federal case.
User avatar
GMTom
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 15 Jul 2013, 7:35 pm

so now the jury of white women was unfair? BOTH sets of lawyers picked the jury, they certainly had blacks and Hispanics and men and college kids and seniors and so on to pick from. I was called for jury duty a few weeks ago, a triple murder/arson case, they called over 400 on day one alone, you name it, we had that type to pick from. No doubt it was no different here, the layers selected what they felt would work for their case. If they picked no men, no blacks, no martians, then that was their CHOICE, it most certainly was not racist and most certainly does not allow others to now claim it was wrong.
User avatar
GMTom
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 15 Jul 2013, 7:47 pm

unarmed white guy gets shot by police 16 times
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Unar ... 98791.html

another unarmed white dude shot in Austin
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/loca ... cer/nXkWj/

simply type "unarmed white man shot" in Google, plenty of examples, this is not just a black thing ...sorry try again.
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 16 Jul 2013, 12:18 am

RJ, the state did not give 'their all' to the case from the start. The reason for the original protests was that they dropped it early on. That was were the allegations of institutional racism came from. I'm not sure that it means that parts of the state - police or prosecutors - were instituionally racist.

It certainly is not as clear cut as in the Stephen Lawrence case (where killers were convicted eventually only because our law allows double jeopardy in exceptional circumstances). Even now, 20 years on, we find that the police were spying on the bereaved family to find 'dirt' on them.
User avatar
Rudewalrus
Statesman
 
Posts: 64
Joined: 28 Mar 2005, 11:58 am

Post 16 Jul 2013, 2:52 am

freeman3 wrote:a jury (not really a jury of Trayvon Martin's peers but they so seldom are)


I didn't follow this case, and don't know the details, so I won't comment on the justice/injustice of the verdict. I will note, however, that Freeman missed one here:

George Zimmerman was on trial; he was entitled to a jury of his peers, not Trayvon Martin's.
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 16 Jul 2013, 4:07 am

Surely in theory Zimmerman's peers and Martin's peers should be equivalent. I have to say that an all female jury of 6 seems unbalanced and small. I believe that 5 has been found to be an unconstitutional number.