1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Prosecution throwing the Zimmerman trial?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by r3dt@rget, Jul 3, 2013.

  1. #1
    I was watching CNN last night (I know right) and one of the lawyers who was analyzing the trail kept on about how this trail was meant to fail to convict Zimmerman. While it sounds crazy, so far it seems that is exactly what is going to happen. The prosecution witnesses have essentially given Zimmerman their seal of approval. They seem to be damaging to the prosecutions case that Zimmerman was a racist hell bent on vigilante justice by chasing down black kids in his neighborhood.

    Only one thing in this case matters, and that is who started the scuffle that put Zimmerman on the ground and forced him to pull his gun and shoot. The prosecution has made no progress in poking significant holes in Zimmermans story.

    Thoughts on the case so far? Thoughts on the situation that night?
    r3dt@rget, Jul 3, 2013 IP
  2. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,403
    Likes Received:
    71
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    130
    #2
    Zimmerman was found not guilty of all charges. I have no idea how that happened. Maybe you're right and the prosecution threw the case. At the very least, based on what I've been reading the prosecution was incompetent.
    Corwin, Jul 13, 2013 IP
  3. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #3
    After watching a lot of the case, it was clear that the prosecution didn't throw it. They just had nothing to work with. There was no way to prove him guilty. There is a reason no arrest was made for 44 days, and why the governor needed to appoint a special prosecutor. The DA refused to charge him because of no evidence that said his story was wrong.
    r3dt@rget, Jul 13, 2013 IP
  4. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,403
    Likes Received:
    71
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    130
    #4
    Corwin, Jul 14, 2013 IP
  5. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #5
    What a lovely unbiased look at the trail. I don't know what's worse. People in the media with some influence on how people think writing crap like that, or protesters in California burning American flags over the verdict last night.

    You can't argue whether the verdict was right or wrong in this case. It was clear from any perspective that the prosecution lacked any solid evidence to show that Martin didn't start the fight. All the rest of the evidence proved that Martin was on top, punching Zimmerman. It was also proven Martin was on top leaning over Zimmerman when he got shot. There is no question that there was reasonable doubt.

    But the violence in Chicago and elsewhere continues, unnoticed. When is the black community going to protest over the murders there? When is the media going to cover black on black violence? This trial shows the true reality of race in the US.
    r3dt@rget, Jul 14, 2013 IP
  6. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,403
    Likes Received:
    71
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    130
    #6
    No, it's "clear" that from any perspective the prosecution failed to PROVE that Martin didn't start the fight. And it's also "clear" that Martin didn't start the fight. Remember, the 911 call made it "clear" that Zimmerman went after Martin and not the other way around, right?

    You are going to have to explain this "evidence" to me. What evidence was presented that "proved" Martin was on top, punching Zimmerman? Remember, we are talking "evidence" (as opposed to "testimony")
    Corwin, Jul 14, 2013 IP
    ryan_uk likes this.
  7. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #7
    What did the 911 call prove? It proved that Zimmerman followed Martin. Following someone is not illegal. Following someone is not a physical fight. You can't assault someone because they are following you. Martin decided to take it to the next level and assault Zimmerman. Multiple witnesses described Martin beating up Zimmerman, on top of him. His injuries also support that. If it was true Martin started the physical fight, and Zimmerman reasonably felt he could suffer death or serious bodily injury, Zimmerman had the legal right to use lethal force to defend himself. None of the facts or testimony showed that Zimmerman was not defending his life when he shot Martin. If you can't prove that, you can send a man away for life in prison.

    The evidence was in the burn marks on Martins clothing. During testimony an expert explained that the marks from the gun going off showed that Martins clothing was 2-4 inches from his body during the shot. A prosecution expert also agreed. That would go along with Zimmermans story that Martin was on top of him when he shot. Put that with the witnesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and that is probably the best support for his story there was.
    r3dt@rget, Jul 14, 2013 IP
  8. grpaul

    grpaul Active Member

    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    36
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #8
    How do you know he didn't "start the fight"? Were you there?

    How did Zimmerman go after him? In what way?

    Gashes on the back of his head?

    The way the shirt fell?
    grpaul, Jul 15, 2013 IP
  9. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,925
    Likes Received:
    191
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #9
    From my point of view, after seeing all the evidence presented, and that which was not allowed in court, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense was an insurmountable task for any prosecution. That isn't to say the prosecution couldn't have done a much better job than they did, but I simply can't see how you get there from here with the evidence available. In fact, most of the bloodthirsty, revenge driven pundits I see who wanted a conviction regardless of the evidence, criticize the prosecution for not playing up racial issues more, and driving the jury to make an emotion based finding, rather than a fact based finding.

    Now this whole fiasco moves into uncharted and somewhat disturbing waters for any fan of civil liberties. The federal government has now reopened it's case against Zimmerman to determine if he broke any federal civil rights laws (Shot Trayvon because he was black). I'm aware that federal laws and state laws are different things, but to me, that seems to be a blatant violation of our constitutional protection against double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same crime).

    Further complicating matters is the possibility of civil suit being brought against Zimmerman for wrongful death. A civil suit doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense, only that a preponderance of the evidence makes it 51% likely that he wasn't acting in self defense. This is where a portion of Florida statute associated with the stand your ground legislation may come in to play, immunizing Zimmerman from civil suit based on his acquittal for self defense. I'm unclear on whether Zimmerman still benefits from immunity based on his use of a jury trial, rather than a judge's decision which is apparently how stand your ground hearings are normally run.

    Again, to my way of thinking, this is all way to litigious and benefits nobody but the trial lawyers and the state. Most defendants in Zimmerman's shoes get railroaded by the state and end up serving time. A man accused of a crime should face his accusers in court, have a jury decide his fate, and if acquitted, be able to go on living his life without years worth of bankrupting harassment. One event, one trial, one verdict per charge, end of story.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2013
    Obamanation, Jul 15, 2013 IP
    GamingOn, ryan_uk and browntwn like this.
  10. browntwn

    browntwn Prominent Member

    Messages:
    8,305
    Likes Received:
    831
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    385
    #10

    Testimony before a jury is evidence. How much weight to give one piece of evidence over another is up to the jury. You are making a distinction where one does not exist.
    browntwn, Jul 15, 2013 IP
  11. browntwn

    browntwn Prominent Member

    Messages:
    8,305
    Likes Received:
    831
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    385
    #11
    I agree he should not stand for Federal trial on the same incident. As for a civil trial it happens all the time and I do not see a problem with it. There are very different standards and rules to determine civil liability and criminal liability. Once you are found guilty criminally, it is almost assured you can/will be found liable civilly. However, the opposite is not true. There are many cases where someone is not held criminally responsible for a variety of reasons but they can and should be held civilly accountable. I do not think there is anything wrong with that dual civil/criminal system.
    browntwn, Jul 15, 2013 IP
    ryan_uk likes this.
  12. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,403
    Likes Received:
    71
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    130
    #12
    But if you had listened to the 911 call - well, never mind, it's pretty clear you didn't listen to it, did you? If you had, you would have known that Zimmerman intended to accost Martin.

    And yes, deliberately following someone can be illegal. For starters, think stalking, harassment. When you physically interfere with the person you are following, you have now committed a crime. Understand?

    Stop being childish.

    There is a presumption of innocence, right? So your question is totally ignorant.

    The proper question to ask is "How do you know he started a fight?"
    Answer: Zimmerman admitted he approached Martin and interfered with him. Got it?

    Testimony before a jury is a form of evidence, and it is the weakest form of evidence. Testimony as evidence is a lot weaker than video or audio recordings, or physical evidence. Especially in today's courtrooms that are basically lying contests.

    Which testimony did you believe about Martin? Was he walking alone? Or was he looking through windows, as one person testified? Or was he hiding in the bushes, as someone else testified?

    Which testimony do you believe? The one that fits your bias, right?
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2013
    Corwin, Jul 15, 2013 IP
  13. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #13
    A phone call that shows Zimmerman following Martin is not a punch. You can't simply say that Zimmerman committed murder simply because he chose to follow Martin and because he followed Martin he must have been the one who started the fight.

    It doesn't matter which testimony I believe or you believe. The jury was made up of people chosen based on their lack of prior knowledge of the case. Their open minds decided that the evidence was not sufficient to convict him of the charges. End. Of. Case. He is free and innocent. Unless you are withholding some damning evidence that shows Zimmerman initiated the fight, there is no reason to believe his story isn't true.

    I hope the police give him his gun back soon. He is going to be needing it with all these crazies protesting and burning American flags over the verdict. Honestly I don't see how people can be so racially blind. Black kids kill black kids everyday throughout the country, but only this story receives coverage and national attention because a hispanic that looks like a white guy killed a black guy.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2013
    r3dt@rget, Jul 15, 2013 IP
  14. grpaul

    grpaul Active Member

    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    36
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #14

    Oh boy. . . He started a fight, because he was getting approached by Zimmerman? With arguments like that, you could have been a part of the horrible prosecution!

    If someone was beating the sh*t of you in the way Martin was - what would YOU do?!

    Grow up.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2013
    grpaul, Jul 15, 2013 IP
  15. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,925
    Likes Received:
    191
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #15
    Of the two of them, the only one who knew the cops were on their way was Zimmerman. It seems logical that for him to start the fight, he would have had to have premeditated shooting Martin with his gun with a devious plan to claim self defense after either kicking Martin's ass or shooting him. None of this is consistent with Zimmerman's character, nor does he strike me as bright enough to concoct such a plan.

    Martin had every right to stand his ground, and even more, the right to use lethal force to defend himself if he believed he was in immediate risk of grave physical harm. Nobody alive was there to witness the start of the fight besides Zimmerman, so ignoring Zimmerman's account of the tale, and imagining Trayvon was truly in fear for his life so he attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman had every right to fear for his life, making it, once again, self defense.

    In other words, without considering the character of the two parties involved, both could reasonably claim self defense and win. Once one considers the character of the parties involved, its a pretty open and shut case in favor of Zimm.
    Obamanation, Jul 15, 2013 IP
  16. matt_62

    matt_62 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,331
    Likes Received:
    276
    Best Answers:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #16
    if someone was following me around carrying a gun (or looked like he might be carrying a gun) I too would take steps to defend myself if I had no other alternatives.

    What is more suspicious? someone walking around in the rain, or someone following someone walking around in the rain?

    From everything that I have read though, regarding the court case, it sounds as if the correct decision was made in the courts. BOTH of them, could have done things differently.
    I cant help but ask, IF this was a plains clothes police officer, what would have happened? No doubt the same thing would have happened, and you would have had a cop either have their life in danger, or in the courts trying to justify their actions that kept them alive.

    People keep saying that this entire thing was racially motivated, and I have to agree. If zimmerman was black, the kid might not have attacked him.
    matt_62, Jul 15, 2013 IP
  17. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,925
    Likes Received:
    191
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #17
    One picture says it all.
    [​IMG]
    Obamanation, Jul 19, 2013 IP
    GamingOn likes this.
  18. grpaul

    grpaul Active Member

    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    36
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
  19. matt_62

    matt_62 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,331
    Likes Received:
    276
    Best Answers:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #19
    yeah, i am now expecting him to start driving a batmobile, as well as wearing a cap and a mask.

    Problem is he cant use the letter "Z" for his signature (as thats for zorro)...

    Is it a bird, is it a plane, no its ZIMMERMAN!
    matt_62, Jul 22, 2013 IP
    Bushranger likes this.
  20. superrichguy

    superrichguy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,955
    Likes Received:
    46
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #20
    What is up with Obama not speaking out about the two black kids that shot a white baby in the face? Is that not racist, shouldn't he give a speech about that as well since he is the judge and jury as it may seem?
    superrichguy, Jul 22, 2013 IP
    matt_62 likes this.