OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[geneh_33]

You said in every football game I've ever seen. Most of the football games I've seen are NFL games, and I have virtually never seen a man that size blow up anyone.

You've never ever seen a 158 lb guy kick somebody's ass that outweighs him by 42 lbs? Seriously?

You haven't watched much football, boxing, wrestling or martial arts in your time then.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

That would depend on what actually happened. The truth.

Since your scenario is hypothetical you would have to give me total detail of everything that the prosecution could and could not prove. You would have to give me ALL of the "facts" surrounding the case before I could possibly answer your question.

It doesn't depend on what actually happened any more than the actual case did. We don't know what happened in this case. But let's say the facts are identical to the ones we have, the only difference being that Zimmerman was shot instead of Martin.

 

[threelittleturds]

Manslaughter was on the table if you didnt know

I was under the impression that the prosecution didn't bring up the manslaughter or 3rd degree murder charges until Thursday, and they had closing arguments Friday? The court said manslaughter was OK but said no to 3rd degree murder.

They were not on the table the entire time, the prosecution dropped it at the last minute.

Which is why the Jury was like, so, what about this manslaughter business? They weren't clear because the prosecution made a case for 2nd degree murder and then at the very end said, oh by the way, you can convict him of these lesser charges if you don't like our 2nd degree murder case.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

You've never ever seen a 158 lb guy kick somebody's ass that outweighs him by 42 lbs? Seriously?

You haven't watched much football, boxing, wrestling or martial arts in your time then.

You need to pay closer attention. You said I have seen a 158 pound man take out a man 42 pounds heavier in every football game I have seen. That's false. I'm not saying I've never seen a smaller guy take out a bigger one, just that very few NFL games demonstrate that phenomenon.

 

[geneh_33]

Im not understanding that position.....

Well, I also stated that I didn't think they would have been able to prove it was manslaughter either, just that manslaughter would have been easier to prove if they could.

The prosecutors should have been able to see from the evidence that murder two was definitely not going to happen.

 

[geneh_33]

It doesn't depend on what actually happened any more than the actual case did. We don't know what happened in this case. But let's say the facts are identical to the ones we have, the only difference being that Zimmerman was shot instead of Martin.

I've never thought about it that way. I will have to think about it, go over all the evidence and tell you what I think.

I don't render verdicts quickly or easily.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I was under the impression that the prosecution didn't bring up the manslaughter or 3rd degree murder charges until Thursday, and they had closing arguments Friday? The court said manslaughter was OK but said no to 3rd degree murder.

They were not on the table the entire time, the prosecution dropped it at the last minute.

Which is why the Jury was like, so, what about this manslaughter business? They weren't clear because the prosecution made a case for 2nd degree murder and then at the very end said, oh by the way, you can convict him of these lesser charges if you don't like our 2nd degree murder case.

It doesn't matter. It was a lesser included charge. The jury wasn't instructed on the elements of the possible charges until right before closing arguments. Perhaps the prosecution didn't do a good enough job of explaining and emphasizing the lesser charge, but the point of a lesser included charge is that the jury is generally not presented with the charge until they are instructed at the end of the evidence.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I've never thought about it that way. I will have to think about it, go over all the evidence and tell you what I think.

I don't render verdicts quickly or easily.

I eagerly await your response.

 

[geneh_33]

It doesn't depend on what actually happened any more than the actual case did. We don't know what happened in this case. But let's say the facts are identical to the ones we have, the only difference being that Zimmerman was shot instead of Martin.

It does depend on how much of what actually happened can be and cannot be proven in a court of law. That is what every case is dependent upon.

And unfortunately for the prosecution in this country the onus of proof is entirely on them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty. They couldn't do it so he walks. I have no problem accepting that.

Why do you? Do you want to be locked up for life because the evidence pointed toward your guilt or because they evidence proved you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[jarrod49]

How do you know he wasn't backing off while he was shot .....The shot could have been anywhere up to a foot and a half away and the trajectory is consistent with that..... All you are going by is the word of the shooter and he was looking down 30 years in prison ....just maybe he had reasons to not divulge that fact ?

actually I just saw the testimony from the CSI lady that said that tests proved that the gun was flush with the hoodie.

 

[threelittleturds]

It doesn't matter. It was a lesser included charge. The jury wasn't instructed on the elements of the possible charges until right before closing arguments. Perhaps the prosecution didn't do a good enough job of explaining and emphasizing the lesser charge, but the point of a lesser included charge is that the jury is generally not presented with the charge until they are instructed at the end of the evidence.

I think it matters in this case because the jury clearly didn't understand what manslaughter was, they asked for a clarification. I think the judge said they could be told specifics but not a generalization, so they just decided that since they didn't understand it they wouldn't consider it and moved on. You said it though, the prosecution didn't do a good enough job of explaining and emphasizing the lesser charges.

Which I guess is my point, just because it was on the table doesn't mean they made a strong case for it... obviously in this case they didn't if the jury was left wondering what it was.

 

[geneh_33]

You need to pay closer attention. You said I have seen a 158 pound man take out a man 42 pounds heavier in every football game I have seen. That's false. I'm not saying I've never seen a smaller guy take out a bigger one, just that very few NFL games demonstrate that phenomenon.

No, you need to start generalizing. You are straying from the point in this case. Zimmerman and Martin weren't playing football. I asked you if you have ever seen a smaller man beat a man that outweighed him by 42 lbs and you responded with this. FAIL.

So you agree with me that a smaller man can beat up a bigger man. Thank you. That was my point. So you can't use the old, "How does a 158 lb man take down a 200 lb man" argument. That bird don't fly and you know it. So stop all of this crap about pro football and get back on point.

 

[jarrod49]

I already posted this but at the time of the incident trayvon was 5 foot 11 and weighed 158, and Zimmerman was 5 foot 7 and weighed 185, that's only 25 lbs difference and trayvon was 4 inches taller. that's not that big of a difference, don't know where you folks are getting that he was over 200 lbs.

 

[geneh_33]

I eagerly await your response.

Why? Why, when you obviously don't value my opinion very much?

The prosecution would have had to prove Martin was guilty of murder or manslaughter. Considering that the only eye witness would have testified that Martin was on top, suggesting he was in control of the scuffle and that Martin, while being on top, didn't need to use a gun to defend himself in an offensive position, I would think that murder or manslaughter would be provable, but perhaps not beyond a reasonable doubt.

It would have been a more interesting trial, I think, because the defense would have been in the precarious position of defending a man who was on top and killed a man while he was on top in a scuffle.

If all the facts were the same then I think murder one would be provable.

1. Trayvon is on top.
2. Trayvon has a gun and knows he has a gun before the scuffle begins while Zimmerman does not know it.
3. Trayvon is not a neighborhood watchman but is on top in a scuffle with a neighborhood watchman. That looks pretty bad right there.
4. Trayvon pulls out his gun and kills Zimmerman.

It should be provable that Trayvon killed Zimmerman with intent to do so. If not then why would he have pulled a gun and used it when he was the one in an offensive position? If not then why would he have attacked Zimmerman, got on top of him and then killed him?

I'm not sure if I would have voted guilty had I been on the jury. But what I am sure of is that I would have been in the minority because I think the other jurors would be pushing at least manslaughter at me in light of the evidence.

 

[NinerSickness]

Nose was not Broken , how come you cannot accept that fact ?

I'm not accepting nor refuting anything. I was going by the ABC news story that said he had a broken nose. Do you have a source to refute that?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

It does depend on how much of what actually happened can be and cannot be proven in a court of law. That is what every case is dependent upon.

And unfortunately for the prosecution in this country the onus of proof is entirely on them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty. They couldn't do it so he walks. I have no problem accepting that.

Why do you? Do you want to be locked up for life because the evidence pointed toward your guilt or because they evidence proved you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

I don't have a problem accepting it as a matter of law. I think the law is flawed.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

No, you need to start generalizing. You are straying from the point in this case. Zimmerman and Martin weren't playing football. I asked you if you have ever seen a smaller man beat a man that outweighed him by 42 lbs and you responded with this. FAIL.

So you agree with me that a smaller man can beat up a bigger man. Thank you. That was my point. So you can't use the old, "How does a 158 lb man take down a 200 lb man" argument. That bird don't fly and you know it. So stop all of this crap about pro football and get back on point.

Hardly. This was your statement:

Yes, a 158 lb man can and has before overpowered another man who outweighs him by 42 lbs. It happens in every football game you will ever see.

That's a silly statement, as very few NFL games in the last three decades or more have had players under 160 playing in them. That was the only point I was making. Of course a smaller man can win a fight with a larger man.

 

[geneh_33]

actually I just saw the testimony from the CSI lady that said that tests proved that the gun was flush with the hoodie.

You cannot go by what you hear one witness say, no matter how credible that witness is. You need to review all of the testimony, especially the eyewitness testimony. Then you need to see how all of the evidence presented "fits together." If it doesn't all fit together, and all of the evidence presented by both sides rarely will, you then need to filter out the pieces of the puzzle that don't fit. Once you've done that if you can't see the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then you vote NOT GUILTY.

 

[jarrod49]

if you have not seen this article its a very good read

Let?s talk about dead black children | The Matt Walsh Blog

Let’s talk about dead black children

Posted on July 14, 2013 by TheMattWalshBlog

I want to say something to the people who are taking to the streets or, more commonly, to the Internet, to express their outrage that an impartial female jury found a Hispanic man not guilty of committing a crime the State couldn’t prove. I need to tell you about something. I really hope you read this and think about it. You say that you’re angry and heartbroken about this case. You tell me you aren’t what you appear to be — vengeful and vindictive — that you are, instead, sincerely distressed and grief stricken because a black child is dead. You tell me that you feel as though nobody cares about Trayvon Martin’s demise because he was a black kid. You tell me you just want justice for the innocent and reparation for the helpless soul that has been slaughtered. The NAACP has asked Obama to impose double jeopardy on Zimmerman because he infringed on Martin’s “right to life.” That’s an exact quote. Right to life.
Ok. Well, I don’t agree with your assessment of this case, and I think you’re still repeating long debunked bits of propaganda. I think if you actually looked at the evidence presented you might come to a different conclusion. But I don’t want to have that argument here. In fact, I’m going to take you at your word. You’re saddened by the death of a black child. That’s all. And I believe you. And it’s because I believe you that I think you will be very interested in what I have to tell you:
Thousands of black children die every day. They die in our cities, growing up in fatherless homes, surrounded by a culture that promotes gangsterism as a substitute for true manliness. Only instead of dying at the hands of a Hispanic neighborhood watchmen, they die in the gutter, gunned down in cold blood by other black kids. They die and nobody demands justice, nobody takes to the street, nobody protests, nobody even blinks. Certainly nobody asks that we have a discussion about why these boys are dying and what steps should be taken within their community to end the blood shed. They die. They die by the thousands. They die and the millionaires in the rap industry, who actively encourage the poisonous and deadly lifestyle that leads to their deaths, and profit off of it, have the audacity to act saddened when one solitary black teenager passes away somewhere down in Florida. Thousands of black kids die for nothing — NOTHING — and the NAACP falls silent, Al Sharpton is nowhere to be found, no hash tags on Twitter or discussions on cable news. They just die and that’s the end of it. Did you know about this? Did you realize this was happening? I assume you didn’t.
But this isn’t the whole story. Being a black child in this country is a dangerous proposition. That has nothing to do with neighborhood watchmen. Did you know that 16 million black babies have been slaughtered in this country in the past four decades? 16 million. 16 million. Did you realize this was happening? I assume you didn’t. If you did, I expect you’d be shouting about it from the roof tops — given your great and righteous concern for the fate of black children. Yes, abortion has claimed 16 million black lives in the last 40 years. 16 million black babies have ended up in dumpsters and hazardous waste containers. Black people are only 13 percent of the population but they account for almost 40 percent of all abortions. Abortion doctors kill more black people in a week than the KKK has in the past century. If not for abortion, the black population would be 36 percent larger than it is currently. I’m called racist because I agree with the Zimmerman verdict, yet I’m the one who wishes with every fiber of my being that abortion wasn’t legal and, therefore, millions more black people could populate our nation. The NAACP has suddenly discovered the “right to life,” which I guess means they’ll soon be picketing Planned Parenthood clinics. Thank God. Praise Jesus. Finally the organizations that pretend to care about black civil rights have finally decided to defend the most important civil right of all.
Hundreds of white abortion doctors have become millionaires by killing black babies. Did you know that? I assume you didn’t. If you did, you’d be marching on Washington to end the slaughter of black lives by white abortionists. But not all abortionists are white, of course. Did you hear about Kermit Gosnell? I assume you didn’t. If you did, you’d know that he took advantage of minority women, murdered their babies, mutilated their reproductive organs, spread disease, and even caused some of their deaths. You’d know that this man actually segregated his waiting room and gave better, cleaner and safer service to wealthy whites. He did this for 30 years and nobody stopped him. If you knew about this, given your passionate concern for racism and racial profiling, you would have screamed bloody murder when you found out that Gosnell operated this way for three decades without being shutdown.
So I’m glad to hear that you are overcome with compassion and empathy for the lost lives of innocent black children. Welcome to the cause, friend. Some of us have been fighting against these atrocities for many years. We are happy to have you finally marching beside us. In solidarity, let us go to the places where black lives are lost en masse every day — the inner cities and the abortion mills — and let’s fight for them together.

 

[geneh_33]

I don't have a problem accepting it as a matter of law. I think the law is flawed.

Well, I think you are having a problem admitting that you are wrong. Most people do so you aren't alone in that regard.