danivon wrote:Oh for sub judice and Contempt of Court laws...

What amazes me is how many people who know what happened on that night are commenting on this thread! I assume you all gave witness statements...

danivon wrote:

danivon wrote:Oh for sub judice and Contempt of Court laws...

What amazes me is how many people who know what happened on that night are commenting on this thread! I assume you all gave witness statements...

I know Freeman did. I was right behind him.

Yes he was a thug, he had traces of marijuana in him, he called Zimmerman a racial slur, he was kicked out of school, he had pictures of himself with guns, he had gold teeth, he talked about trying to buy guns, he was in many fights ...that sir is a thug!
and regarding how much we know... the entire trial is live streamed, every detail is being reported, I think we can comment on what we do know! This would be akin to saying a jury knew nothing would it not?

fate

No, but it does mean Martin could have avoided the entire incident. He chose the confrontation

The entire incident began with Zimmermans decision to arm himself and follow people as a self appointed vigilante.
Martin did not choose that....
He did choose to confront Zimmerman ... But without Zimmermans poor decisions the confrontation would not hae happened. And without the gun, its doubtful Zimmerman would have chosen to patrol ...

Yes, but what Zimmerman did was LEGAL
You don't like that it was legal, but it does not now give Martin a free "assault card" to beat up on Zimmerman because he was being followed. Let's say I go to Canada, I find you and follow you in my car, maybe I even toss a few insults your way.... does that give you the right to now beat the crap out of me? And if you DO beat the crap out of me, do I have the right to now protect myself or do I simply need to suck it up and take it? After all, I "started" it by following you.

If your wife cheats on you, does that give you the right to beat her up? After all, she started it didn't she?

I saw the judge permitted prior actions of Zimmerman--specifically, his education--to come in as evidence. I think it's problematic. It would have been fine as rebuttal AFTER Zimmerman testified to show he was not being truthful.

I wonder if the judge will allow prior acts of Martin, especially if his mother testifies to his character.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Trayvon was not a man, yet...

Yet another truth.

Not so. He's old enough to join the service (with a waiver).

And why would he need a waiver? Waiting . . . Oh, fine, I'll look it up.

federal law (10 U.S.C., 505), the minimum age for enlistment in the United States Military is 17 (with parental consent)

Oh, he would need a waiver from his parents because he was still a child. Nice use of cognitive dissonance though!

Your attitude about the loss of another child to gun violence is astounding. Perhaps if he was still in his mother's womb you'd be mourning the loss.

The law is the law, old enough to be tried as an adult (if he were alive and on trial of course)
the law in Florida:

a juvenile is anyone under the age of 18. Florida allows prosecutors, not judges, to decide whether a juvenile will be tried as an adult. For discretionary waiver, the minimum age is 14 years old in order to be tried as an adult. For direct filing, the age depends on the crime but no minimum age is set for capital offenses (offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment). As to statutory exclusions, the minimum age again varies with the crime, but is usually 16 years old. A “once an adult always an adult” policy is enforced as long as the minor was convicted and sentenced.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... adult.html

Calling this thug a "child" is a bit of a stretch.

geojanes wrote:Nice use of cognitive dissonance though!

A child?

Oh yeah, forgot. Under the President you love and admire, a child is anyone under the age of 26.

Your attitude about the loss of another child to gun violence is astounding. Perhaps if he was still in his mother's womb you'd be mourning the loss.

Hogwash. Cheap. Beneath you. I could just as easily say you'd be thrilled if he'd been aborted.

Here's the thing: you need to stop pretending he was innocent. He could have avoided the whole thing and likely should have.

Did he deserve to die? No.

Do I wish he didn't die? Yes.

Do I know if Zimmerman is criminally responsible? No.

That's why we have trials.

But, to pretend he was some naive kid who didn't know about fighting or weapons or how to use racial epithets to describe people is to stick your head in the sand.

While some of this is supposition, much of it is pre-trial fact. It is obvious to me that some folks have been out to hang Zimmerman and this just shows how far they've gone.

Worst of all, however, is the fact that ALL of these foundational claims of the affidavit for probable cause were known to be untrue at the time the affidavit was sworn to and filed with the court.

Keeping in mind the foundational and demonstrably false “facts” that were included in the affidavit, we can take a look at some critical information that was left out of the affidavit.

Noting blandly that “a struggle ensued” between the two men, the affidavit fails to acknowledge the almost total absence of injuries on Martin (absent, of course, the gunshot wound that ended the fight), except for cuts on his hands consistent with having struck a blow. Similarly, no mention was made of Zimmerman’s far more extensive injuries, including abrasions, contusions, and lacerations all around his head, consistent with having had his head beaten against a concrete sidewalk (as Zimmerman claimed was the case), nor Zimmerman’s bloody and broken nose, the initial blow that left Zimmerman dazed, on his back, and vulnerable to Martin’s unrelenting (until shot) aggravated assault. Further, no mention was made of any fact consistent with Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. Nor was that very claim of self-defense mentioned.

Do I think he's blameless? No, but that's not the same as "guilty."

Here is an interesting article discussing apparent mistakes made by the Prosecution. Interesting because I hadn't realized exactly how bad things were going for the Prosecution.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Here is an interesting article discussing apparent mistakes made by the Prosecution. Interesting because I hadn't realized exactly how bad things were going for the Prosecution.

Amazing thing: if the jury finds him guilty of manslaughter, the penalty is the same as for 2nd degree murder . . . very odd.

I find it odd that liberals are so set on him being found guilty. Is it because he was armed or because the young man was black? It has to be one of those because no one listening to the evidence could be so invested in a "guilty" verdict.

Btw, I'm not on the "innocent" bandwagon. I'm just of the "innocent until proven guilty" camp, and the prosecution has not disproved self-defense, which they must under Florida law.

fate

I find it odd that liberals are so set on him being found guilty.

Guilty of what though?
I'd say he was guilty of reckless endangerment, causing death. Is that a possibility in a count of lesser charges that the judge might allow?
If he is not guilty then, in Florida at least, self appointed vigelantes will have been given the green light to patrol neighborhoods with their weapons and accost whomever they think looks suspicious.

There is a reason that society chose to appoint and train "officers of the law" and professional police services to uphold the laws they create..... George Zimmerman, and the needless death of Trayvon Martin, illustrates that reasoning perfectly.
He is being punished, I suppose, in that his life as he knew it has forever changed.

rickyp wrote:fate

I find it odd that liberals are so set on him being found guilty.

Guilty of what though?
I'd say he was guilty of reckless endangerment, causing death. Is that a possibility in a count of lesser charges that the judge might allow?
If he is not guilty then, in Florida at least, self appointed vigelantes will have been given the green light to patrol neighborhoods with their weapons and accost whomever they think looks suspicious.

However, the evidence does not show that Zimmerman "accosted" Martin.

And, you've already set aside Florida's self-defense law, which puts an even higher burden on the prosecution. It's amazing that you call someone who called 911 a "vigilante." I don't think you understand the word. A true "vigilante" would not call 911.

It's hard to take the article cited by the archduke seriously as the guy takes up at least half the article as a diatribe against the inefficiency of the state. Is the writer even a lawyer?
I don't know that liberals are cheering for zimmerman's conviction. But they are insistent that a young black mans life not be devalued (and of course we have concerns about stand your ground laws). Even on these pages it is interesting how quickly he is described as a thug. As far as I am concerned, let the chips fall where they may. The one thing that disturbs me about Zimmerman is his coldness. Even if he think he was entirely justified in shooting Trayvon one would expect a little emotional impact from taking another's life
On the opposite side conservatives do not particularly like the case because they don't want it to be used to restrict their guns and of course they think our society is already color-blind (which it most certainty is not--being a white male still has its privileges which of course makes me want to laugh when I hear charges of reverse discrimination)
Given the facts of the case don't know that Zimmerman should be convicted, but I do know he should have been charged and that did not happen until there was liberal pressure.