Zimmerman not guitly

[TomCanuck]

Originally Posted by hal53

yup, the prosecution blew it, takes people awhile to see that though, easier to jump on the racist etc. band wagon without looking into the facts..

Blew what? A famous African American once sang, "Nothin from Nothin leaves Nothin!"

The procecution had nothing to blow period.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by TomCanuck

Blew what? A famous African American once sang, "Nothin from Nothin leaves Nothin!"

The procecution had nothing to blow period.

they never gave the jury enough to prove reasonable doubt, plus the "stand your ground law" was not debated near enough, they got lucky when the judge allowed the manslaughter charge after the fact, then they couldn't convince the jury of that either.....so???.....

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

After some thought I see the prosecutor screwing up their job. While I stand by what I stated earlier had I done the job they should of used the premise that Trayvon was innocently walking home when stalked, felt threatened and tried to protect himself from the instigator. Then they may of been able to argue that Trayvon was threatened by George, took a position of defensible confrontation and George accelerated his aggression by killing Trayvon.

Might of made a difference.

Of course the only problem with your theory is that it is not supported by any facts.

[TomCanuck]

Originally Posted by hal53

they never gave the jury enough to prove reasonable doubt, plus the "stand your ground law" was not debated near enough, they got lucky when the judge allowed the manslaughter charge after the fact, then they couldn't convince the jury of that either.....so???.....

Defence don't have to prove anything, burden is on the state.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by hal53

they never gave the jury enough to prove reasonable doubt, plus the "stand your ground law" was not debated near enough, they got lucky when the judge allowed the manslaughter charge after the fact, then they couldn't convince the jury of that either.....so???.....

There prosectutions job isn't to prove reasonable doubt. It's the defenses job, which was quite easy to do. The stand your gound law wasn't debated because Zimmerman didn't claim stand your ground, he claimed simple self defense. You can't stand your ground when you are on your back getting beat, it becomes self defense at that point.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

After some thought I see the prosecutor screwing up their job. While I stand by what I stated earlier had I done the job they should of used the premise that Trayvon was innocently walking home when stalked, felt threatened and tried to protect himself from the instigator. Then they may of been able to argue that Trayvon was threatened by George, took a position of defensible confrontation and George accelerated his aggression by killing Trayvon.

Might of made a difference.

They could have said that Trayvon was innocently walking home when stalked, felt threatened and tried to protect himself, but there is no proof of this. It very well MAY have happened, we'll never know, but if there is no definite proof, then there is definte reasonable doubt.

Based on all the evidence we've seen, it's hard to imagine an angle the prosectution could have used to get a manslaughter conviction, let alone a 2nd degree murder conviction. The state is supposed to believe that a conviction is likely before they prosecute I believe.. This is what leads many to believe that this trial shouldn't have even taken place and was motivated by something other than a search for justice.

[Gust]

Notice how portly or chubby is now as compared to then, well, while Trayvon was dumbed down and paranoid on THC, George was hopped up on Aderall and Temazepam.

Long-Term Effects of Adderall

Using Adderall over an extended period can increase the risk of critical cardiovascular problems and strokes. There are also significant mental health issues associated with the long-term use of Adderall, such as depression, hostility and paranoia.

Some people using Temazepam have engaged in activity such as driving, eating, or making phone calls and later having no memory of the activity.

Of course George could have used this as a defense in the immensely long court case (21 days). It also brings up the CCW question on background checks on the mentally instable out there.

http://skydancingblog.com/2012/05/15...and-temazepam/

Pics of George then (skinny, head shaved, jibhead) and now (babyfaced, bigboy burger coifed hair) ;

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

They could have said that Trayvon was innocently walking home when stalked, felt threatened and tried to protect himself, but there is no proof of this. It very well MAY have happened, we'll never know, but if there is no definite proof, then there is definte reasonable doubt.

Based on all the evidence we've seen, it's hard to imagine an angle the prosectution could have used to get a manslaughter conviction, let alone a 2nd degree murder conviction. The state is supposed to believe that a conviction is likely before they prosecute I believe.. This is what leads many to believe that this trial shouldn't have even taken place and was motivated by something other than a search for justice.

I believe the right verdict for US law was returned. I was just saying turning the self defence argument against Zimmerman may of been a better approach.

Zimmerman was the aggressor originally. He stalked the guy, confronted him, then engaged in a fight. There were many points along the way... And at the insistence of the police could of broken the confrontation and did not. This was just stupid actions and not criminal so he got off.

It would be interesting to have seen if the jury would of said Trayvon was protecting himself versus Zimmerman.

If you think about a scenario where someone is following you... Your choice is reasonable to assume ill intent. Then your option is run, hide or stand your ground. If you feel a threat is imminent given the circumstance, swinging first would be reasonable.

Just a though but moot since a decision was rendered.

Still had they tried... Since Zimmerman was the aggressor the verdict may of been different.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by JamesB

Of course the only problem with your theory is that it is not supported by any facts.

I disagree

Zimmerman followed Trayvon

Indisputable.

He was also told to stop and increased the actions by getting closer until a fight broke out.

Also facts in a court is all about timing and presentation. Who was trying to protect themselves? Zimmerman from a guy he was stalking... or Trayvon from the guy that was stalking him.

Think about it. Just an interesting point is all. Still moot.

[Redfrog]

Maybe be more selective when it comes to jurors.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I believe the right verdict for US law was returned. I was just saying turning the self defence argument against Zimmerman may of been a better approach.

Zimmerman was the aggressor originally. He stalked the guy, confronted him, then engaged in a fight. There were many points along the way... And at the insistence of the police could of broken the confrontation and did not. This was just stupid actions and not criminal so he got off.

It would be interesting to have seen if the jury would of said Trayvon was protecting himself versus Zimmerman.

If you think about a scenario where someone is following you... Your choice is reasonable to assume ill intent. Then your option is run, hide or stand your ground. If you feel a threat is imminent given the circumstance, swinging first would be reasonable.

Just a though but moot since a decision was rendered.

Still had they tried... Since Zimmerman was the aggressor the verdict may of been different.

I suspect that if Zimmerman was killed, and Martin claimed that he swung because he was legitimately afraid for life or limb, than there MAY have been reasonable doubt and he MAY have gotten off. I don't know if he would though.. It may be hard to claim that you HAD to attack someone because they followed you.. a jury may doubt that you feared for your life.. as opposed to Zim, where there were injuries, it was pretty easy to see how he could have feared.

You can bet that there wouldn't be protests in the the streets though.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I disagree

Zimmerman followed Trayvon

Indisputable.

He was also told to stop and increased the actions by getting closer until a fight broke out.

Also facts in a court is all about timing and presentation. Who was trying to protect themselves? Zimmerman from a guy he was stalking... or Trayvon from the guy that was stalking him.

Think about it. Just an interesting point is all. Still moot.

He wasn't told not to follow, and even if he was, he was under no obligation to stop. It wasn't a legal demand, and therefore, he broke NO law by continuing.

It's easier to see how Zim was defending himself as opposed to Martin. Only one person got their bums handed to them before the final shot.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Maybe be more selective when it comes to jurors.

That's hilarious! haha

[silver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Zimmerman was the aggressor originally. He stalked the guy, confronted him, then engaged in a fight.

Pure conjecture, most of it. There is evidence he followed TM. There is no evidence he stalked him. Ditto with confronting him. There is evidence he defended himself, is that the same as engaging someone?

Remember now, post your sources, no sources-it didn't happen.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Maybe be more selective when it comes to jurors.

Good one. Very funny.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by silver

Pure conjecture, most of it. There is evidence he followed TM. There is no evidence he stalked him. Ditto with confronting him. There is evidence he defended himself, is that the same as engaging someone?

Remember now, post your sources, no sources-it didn't happen.

Lol

I am just saying the prosecution should of represented the situation differently to counteract Zimmermans self defence argument.

It is all in the presentation. One persons follow is another persons stalked. Call it following for arguments sake. If you followed me long enough I would take it as a threat. How one deals with that threat differs. Conceivable if Trayvon had a gun... Felt threatened by the follow and killed Zimmerman would that be self defence?

[silver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Lol

I am just saying the prosecution should of represented the situation differently to counteract Zimmermans self defence argument.

It is all in the presentation. One persons follow is another persons stalked. Call it following for arguments sake. If you followed me long enough I would take it as a threat. How one deals with that threat differs. Conceivable if Trayvon had a gun... Felt threatened by the follow and killed Zimmerman would that be self defence?

It's all in the presentation, someone concerned with presenting facts would use follow, someone trying to whip up emotions and slanting the outcome would use stalking.

It would only be self defense in your scenario if Zimmerman attacked him.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Lol

I am just saying the prosecution should of represented the situation differently to counteract Zimmermans self defence argument.

It is all in the presentation. One persons follow is another persons stalked. Call it following for arguments sake. If you followed me long enough I would take it as a threat. How one deals with that threat differs. Conceivable if Trayvon had a gun... Felt threatened by the follow and killed Zimmerman would that be self defence?

The presentation needs to agree with the facts. The defense would look every bit as weak providing a false narrative. In you example the defense would very likely question why Martin did not just go home and call 911 if he felt threatened.

[Redfrog]

I just heard that Zimmerman has changed his name to Ben Ghazi.

The white house will likely not mention him again.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

He wasn't told not to follow, and even if he was, he was under no obligation to stop. It wasn't a legal demand, and therefore, he broke NO law by continuing.

It's easier to see how Zim was defending himself as opposed to Martin. Only one person got their bums handed to them before the final shot.

Actually in the testimony and 911 tapes Zimmerman was told not to follow by the police. It is standard practice for them to say that... Mostly to stop the situation from getting worse.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by silver

It's all in the presentation, someone concerned with presenting facts would use follow, someone trying to whip up emotions and slanting the outcome would use stalking.

It would only be self defense in your scenario if Zimmerman attacked him.

I bet a good lawyer could easily make a case that following was an aggressive stance. I was not sure the guy following me did not have a weapon. I could not risk it therefore fearing for my life I acted first. Homeowners have killed people through the door cause the thought the sound of knocking was attempted break and enter.

Definitely a plausible argument in the USA

[riden]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Actually in the testimony and 911 tapes Zimmerman was told not to follow by the police. It is standard practice for them to say that... Mostly to stop the situation from getting worse.

He wa told "we don't need to do that" by an operator and according to the National Post, the prosecutor admitted that was ambigous in his closing arguments.

[silver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I was not sure the guy following me did not have a weapon. I could not risk it therefore fearing for my life I acted first.

In order to use lethal force, there has to be a definable threat. The situation as you describe is Murder 2

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by silver

In order to use lethal force, there has to be a definable threat. The situation as you describe is Murder 2

I agree but there are instances of I felt threatened was deemed self defence. Same as my example. I am not saying it would of worked... I just think the case was proved well as self defence... Hence the prosecutor needed a different approach to have a remote chance of winning.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by riden

He wa told "we don't need to do that" by an operator and according to the National Post, the prosecutor admitted that was ambigous in his closing arguments.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...von_martin.php

He knew what the 911 operator was saying.

However you are correct on the transcript.

http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-...-police/vGZq9/

George doesn't sound like a vigilante on the call.

A good example of George knowing to stop and the defence covering that up well.

[Roughneck Country]

I think this ones beat to death, waiting on the next big trial

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

I think this ones beat to death, waiting on the next big trial

Well you can bet the ranch that it won't be this story.

Obama is silent. Wonder why?

"You probably won't recognize me or even know my name.



I was the 13-month old baby who was shot in the face at point blank range by two Black teens who were attempting to rob my mom who also got shot. A Grand Jury of my mommy and daddy's peers from Brunswick GA determined the teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty because they were too young... too bad, I was given a death sentence by them for being too young, White, innocent, defenseless and in the 'wrong' neighborhood where I lived.

My mommy and daddy made the mistake of being White and living in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder was not ruled a Hate Crime. The Justice Department never even investigated my death, or if my rights were violated. President Obama didn't take so much as a single moment to acknowledge my murder or honor me.

I am one of the youngest murder victims in our great nation's history, but the media doesn't care to cover the story of my tragic demise. Michelle wasn't heartbroken. President Obama has no children who could possibly look like me, so he doesn't care and the media didn't care because my story is not interesting enough to bring them ratings so they can sell commercial time slots.

There is not a White equivalent of Al Sharpton because if there was he would be declared racist, so there is no one rushing to Brunswick GA to demand justice for me.



There is no White Panther party to put a bounty on the lives of those Black guys who murdered me. I have no voice, I have no representation and unlike those who shot me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller - I no longer have my life.

So while you are seeking justice, rioting and demonstrating for Treyvon Martin, please remember to seek justice for me too. Tell your friends about me, tell you families, get tee-shirts with my face on them and make the world pay attention, just like you're doing for Treyvon Martin.

Thank you,
My name was Antonio Santiago."

[JamesB]

Here is another self defense shooting we are hearing nothing about:

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top...tt-not-guilty/

[greylynx]

Guess What. Zimmerman gets his gun back, and still can carry CCW.

But, with Barky Obama involved will this become a case of double jeopardy?

Also, The boys in the hood have it in for this "white Latino". A new term created by the liberal news media. So that would make Barky Obama a "black white". I find the Higgs Bosen portion of EMF more easy to understand.

.

[silver]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Guess What. Zimmerman gets his gun back, and still can carry CCW.

.

I thought the feds were hanging on to his handgun, considered it to be potential evidence in future legal action.