OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[geneh_33]

Again, that's not the standard. The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin was NOT afraid for his life. And you're assuming in this scenario that Martin got the gun entirely. What's to say they weren't wrestling for the gun? Not to mention, of course, that you have simply chosen to believe - despite conflicting testimony - that Martin was on top when he was shot.

Of course now you want to throw in this assumption that Martin may not have gotten the gun entirely. That is why I was telling you that you need to provide me with all the details ahead of time, when you first asked the question. It is also why I do not like What If's.

I have chosen to believe the same thing the jury chose to believe. They elected to go with the only eyewitness.

When you have conflicting testimony you have to go with the most reliable witness. There was only one eyewitness and the defense was unable to shed discredit upon that testimony, therefore it is reasonable to go with that witness. You certainly can't go with both, you have to make a choice.

Look, I tire of debating this What If with you. If you want to go with Not Guilty that is fine by me. It makes zero difference, really, since it didn't happen that way.


It does not and cannot change the verdict in this case. The evidence presented FAILED TO CONVICT. Just accept that fact and move on and you'll feel better about it, I promise. That is what I did after a jury failed to convict OJ Simpson. You move on. You forget about it. Or you'll just driver yourself full of hatred and/or crazy. It aint worth it, man.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Of course now you want to throw in this assumption that Martin may not have gotten the gun entirely. That is why I was telling you that you need to provide me with all the details ahead of time, when you first asked the question. It is also why I do not like What If's.

I have chosen to believe the same thing the jury chose to believe. They elected to go with the only eyewitness.

When you have conflicting testimony you have to go with the most reliable witness. There was only one eyewitness and the defense was unable to shed discredit upon that testimony, therefore it is reasonable to go with that witness. You certainly can't go with both, you have to make a choice.

Look, I tire of debating this What If with you. If you want to go with Not Guilty that is fine by me. It makes zero difference, really, since it didn't happen that way.


It does not and cannot change the verdict in this case. The evidence presented FAILED TO CONVICT. Just accept that fact and move on and you'll feel better about it, I promise. That is what I did after a jury failed to convict OJ Simpson. You move on. You forget about it. Or you'll just driver yourself full of hatred and/or crazy. It aint worth it, man.

No, you are the one making assumptions. I provided you with the facts: precisely what they are except Zimmerman ended up dead. Based on that hypo, we don't know what happened with the gun. You are making the assumption that Martin got it entirely. You are viewing the evidence - or absence of evidence in this case - in such a way as to favor the version of the story that satisfies your view of it. It's a natural reaction, and folks on both sides are doing it.

You have no idea what the jury believed, other than that they weren't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty. You are simply convincing yourself that your view is the correct one.

 

[NinerSickness]

Crimson, what was the testimony that conflicted with Jonathan Good saying a darker-skinned person was "straddling" over a lighter-skinned person?

He also said "that's what it looked like" when asked if the person on top was "raining blows down" on the bottom one.

I've yet to see any statement refuting this account.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Crimson, what was the testimony that conflicted with Jonathan Good saying a darker-skinned person was "straddling" over a lighter-skinned person?

He also said "that's what it looked like" when asked if the person on top was "raining blows down" on the bottom one.

I've yet to see any statement refuting this account.

I don't have time to go through transcripts at this time, so I'm relying on third-party accounts. From the Reuters article that you linked to earlier:

Three residents have told the court that they saw someone who appeared to be Zimmerman on top during the incident.

I already linked to a Christian Science Monitor article that said much the same thing.

 

[NinerSickness]

I don't have time to go through transcripts at this time, so I'm relying on third-party accounts. From the Reuters article that you linked to earlier:

Three residents have told the court that they saw someone who appeared to be Zimmerman on top during the incident.

I already linked to a Christian Science Monitor article that said much the same thing.

I've yet to see a single name except Jonathan Good who actually saw the fighting. I just watched his testimony, and he gave quite a bit of detail including "arms going downward" and saying which arm was facing which way when he saw the fight. If anyone has an extremely strong opinion about the case and hasn't seen this testimony, you really should watch this testimony before you continue:

 

[RoboticDreams]

I'm too lazy to read through 17 pages of posts about this topic, but I did want to offer my brief perspective, along with some background. I've been a lawyer for about 20 years, 15 of those years I was a public defender and have actually had trials where I raised self defense as an issue. When the burden is on the prosecutor to prove the absence of self-defense (as in Florida I believe and Washington State) it can be a very powerful defense. I have no idea whether Zimmerman should have been acquitted or not and neither does anyone else unless some 49er fan here was a juror and sat through the entire trial, watching the demeanor of the witnesses, etc. What I will say is that I find it distressing that white people who kill black people, celebrities, rich people all seem to enjoy the presumption of innocence and jurors seem to most times hold the state to the stringent standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Others who don't fall into those categories aren't so lucky and I think that's the true travesty.

What I find distressing is that black celebrities are paying homage to Trayvon without giving thought to why this happened. Because he is black they are in immediate defense mode. Hmm, why?

 

[SEC Official]

Side note I have a concealed carry permit and I carry just hardly ever concealed. I carry a full size colt 1911 where its plainly visible. The reason being I never want to actually have to use it. The sight of it on my hip has been more than enough to persuade the criminal element to go pick on softer targets.

Would be nice to have open carry here...it is a HUGE deterrent.

In fact open carry may have saved Trayvon's life.. because I doubt he would pushed the issue if GZ was wearing his firearm in the open (that is just speculation.. but reasonable in my opinion).

 

[SEC Official]

What I find distressing is that black celebrities are paying homage to Trayvon without giving thought to why this happened. Because he is black they are in immediate defense mode. Hmm, why?

Yeah I agree, it bothers me that they are doing this when we really don't know what happened...

What if a video came out tomorrow of the incident that clearly shows Trayvon attacking GZ as he claimed... all the celebs would have egg on their face (or more of it... since most already have a nice layer on).

 

[MHSL82]

Ok. I understand your point and its a valid one. I just dont believe GZ feared his life was in danger and I could be absolutely wrong. Like you have stated, every person is wired differently, and we will never know the whole story

Reasonable doubt? Not making a statement, just asking.

 

[MHSL82]

Wasn't his story that he feared for his life after Martin started to kick his ass, he then reached for his gun and then Martin reached for it too? Or was it that Martin reached for his gun first?

Either way, it wasn't the fight that made him fear for his life... it was when Zimmerman felt Martin was going for his gun.

 

[MHSL82]

The problem that we have with the case is that GZ did not have to put himself in the situation, he was told by 911 to walk away. If he has a right to "stand his ground" then why does Martin not have a right to "stand his ground" when being approached by a stranger?

Trayvon didn't seek him out, no matter what his background was and regardless of him wearing his hood. Zimmerman put himself in harms way. Putting yourself in a position to have to "fear for your life" shouldn't give you the right to kill. He could have walked away and let the real police do their job.

If Martin felt his life was threatened, then it would apply. If he thought he'd have been followed longer, harassed, etc., that law doesn't apply. Not saying he's guilty or Zimmerman is innocent, just answering literally why he isn't afforded that same right. He might have a right somewhere to defend himself, but I don't know if that was the same, per se, as what he did. Not saying it wasn't; I just don't know.

 

[MHSL82]

Moments like this remind me how awesome it is to be white.

Chalk up another win forTeam Caucasian !

Is this a thought as to how there is racism against the minorities, in general if not here? Or are you referring to Zimmerman being found not guilty because he's white? Because, he's not white, FYI if that's what you were implying.

 

[JMedlock5186]

Wow Just wow. Chalk one up to a fair trial. If you were in the same position as GZ you would have wanted the trial to be conducted fairly only examining the evidence and not using emotion. Some of you are ifnorant as hell and I think that the 6 pages of internet tough guy on how hard some of you think you are was really good reading material, too bad I didnt print it out in case I run out of Toilet paper. It is funny that some of you insist on fighting and acting hard on this matter. The fact is that a young man lost his life. the other fact was that there was no evidence to support a MURDER charge, like others have said GZ is a coward, and He will answer to God if it was mmore than self defense.

 

[Kinzu]

If he had been found guilty the majority of reports, tweets, and facebook post would be about how defending yourself is now a crime. This is just like the OJ and Anthony trial in that no matter the outcome no one wins.

I can't stand how this trial turned into a race issue though. According to Zimmerman's father George prom date was an African-American girl. What black hating racist takes a colored girl to a date in a very public setting among their peers? (and yes I know that whole sentence sounds racist, but I'm not going to sugar coat it) Then again it could not be true, but why make that statement when there had to be at least 100 witnesses that could debunk it.

I barely followed the case at all, but I read he called the cops supposedly before approaching Trayvon. Why call the cops if the intent was to stalk the boy down and kill him?

Also read a forensic expert backed up Zimmermans claim that Trayvon was standing over him when he was shot based on the gun powder.

Like others have said you can't simply convict people because you don't like them or think they are guilty. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution and not up to public opinion. The only thing the jury could know for sure was that Trayvon and Zimmerman met face to face and Trayvon was shot. Zimmerman gave his side of the story and the prosecution was unable to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for Plaxico and Vick it's so dumb and really racist to bring them up. Plaxico was carrying a gun without a permit in a very public place. Vick had people testify against him and eventually admitted to fighting dogs on his property and training them for such. There was actual evidence to convict them not including the fact they both admitted to their wrong doing.

In any case right or wrong Zimmermans life will never be the same again. He is guilty as sin in the court of public opinion, and unfortunately for him in that court proof and evidence don't mean shit.

 

[yossarian]

What about OJ Simpson? Tell me about how Simpson was presumed guilty and convicted by the jury because he was presumed guilty and therefore convicted?

Tell me about why the judge disallowed damning evidence against Simpson and how the judge allowing evidence that condemned that stupid detective of being a racist hurt Simpson by presuming him guilty?

Go back and look at my post, I also said that celebrities get the benefit of the doubt as well.

 

[SEC Official]

I can't stand how this trial turned into a race issue though. According to Zimmerman's father George prom date was an African-American girl. What black hating racist takes a colored girl to a date in a very public setting among their peers? (and yes I know that whole sentence sounds racist, but I'm not going to sugar coat it) Then again it could not be true, but why make that statement when their had to be at least 100 witnesses that could debunk it.

What bothers me the most is GZ spent a good deal of his time helping the African American community... he STARTED raising money for a homeless man, mentored kids, etc. One of his best friends is black...

What most of the country has wrong is just because GZ thought Trayvon was a thug (and honestly, living in Miami and acting the way he did.. and GZ being such a pussy... I would be willing to bet GZ didn't have the balls to jump Trayvon.. and he wasn't a "little kid" like most portray.. he was bigger than GZ).

I am sure if GZ saw a piece of white trash, meth head dressed like a ghetto thug walking down the street, he would have done the same thing... and this case would have never made the news past week 1.

African American community should be ashamed for making this about race... when there is not one iota of evidence or proof it was.

Thugs are thugs... regardless of color. The only mention of race was when the 911 operator asked him a direct question.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

If Martin felt his life was threatened, then it would apply. If he thought he'd have been followed longer, harassed, etc., that law doesn't apply. Not saying he's guilty or Zimmerman is innocent, just answering literally why he isn't afforded that same right. He might have a right somewhere to defend himself, but I don't know if that was the same, per se, as what he did. Not saying it wasn't; I just don't know.

No, it would apply if the state can't prove the contrary. That's the fundamental problem with the law. In a case like this, there were only two witnesses to how this all went down. One is dead. Zimmerman thus benefits from removing the key witness for the prosecution.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Is this a thought as to how there is racism against the minorities, in general if not here? Or are you referring to Zimmerman being found not guilty because he's white? Because, he's not white, FYI if that's what you were implying.

So what is he? I see a lot of people saying he's not white. Well, then he's not Hispanic, either. I guess he's just "other"?

 

[jonvi]

A person not intelligent enough to realize they are not indestructible will end up getting killed. Especially in a state where people are allowed to carry. A smarter person would have kept walking away....or even run away. But that evidently didn't happen.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Wow Just wow. Chalk one up to a fair trial. If you were in the same position as GZ you would have wanted the trial to be conducted fairly only examining the evidence and not using emotion. Some of you are ifnorant as hell and I think that the 6 pages of internet tough guy on how hard some of you think you are was really good reading material, too bad I didnt print it out in case I run out of Toilet paper. It is funny that some of you insist on fighting and acting hard on this matter. The fact is that a young man lost his life. the other fact was that there was no evidence to support a MURDER charge, like others have said GZ is a coward, and He will answer to God if it was mmore than self defense.

That's true. But there was substantial evidence to support a manslaughter charge.