SteveAJones Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 That's a joke right? A jury? As I stated before, I would NEVER have a jury trial if innocent because jury's vote with emotion, not objectively. Jury's suck and any innocent person who chooses a jury trial over a trial by judge is insane or stupid. But than again I guess OJ was innocent too right? Of course OJ was innocent because, according to you, "A jury of peers weighed the evidence, deliberated the judges instructions and found him NOT GUILTY of murder." Nice to finally get that cleared up, I will call the Brown & Goldman family's and let them know. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" helped Simpson to be found not guilty of murder in his criminal trial. Simpson was found guilty of wrongful death in the subsequent civil trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Again, the 911 call is vague at best, sure he said he lost him, that does not mean he did not continue to try and find him. This is what I mean, everything you said is just conjecture, no evidence, no proof. By the same token, your take is just conjecture, as well. There's no evidence or proof that Zimmerman DIDN'T head back towards his vehicle before being confronted by Trayvon. What we do know, is when the 911 operator said "we don't need you to do that [follow Martin]", he replied, "OK". Does that mean he stopped? No. Does that mean he kept looking? No, also. There's no evidence either way. But Zimmerman's account and witness testimony follows the evidence that they DID have much more closely than alternative scenarios put forth by the prosecution. It was the Prosecution who needed to get a verdict based on emotion rather than facts. Emotion favors Trayvon. Logic favors Zimmerman. Now, on to the reason I would react as I stated. I am a very mellow guy by nature but my older brother was the exact opposite. He was a drug addict who killed at least one person in a drug deal gone bad in 1985. I was around many of his friends and situations growing up, usually trying to protect him from himself and those he dealt with. I found out the hard way who REALLY wins in a fight, that is, the guy who lands the first punch and keeps on punching. I trained as a martial artist since I was six because I was small for my age and was always bullied until I learned to fight back. However kids are easy, show a bit of skill and they back off. Drunk or drugged adults don't work that way. You hesitate with the wrong guy and its over baby, no matter how good of a fighter you are. Those MMA guys, fuck em, get them into a street fight with a brawler and their ass is going down guaranteed. This is my reason for attack in such a situation. If someone approaches me at night with a gun I will preemptively act otherwise I may not get the chance should I hesitate. This also proved true while I was in the Marines and served in some bad places. He who hesitates is lost, sad fact but it is the deliberate person who always come out on top. I ain't no tough guy and I have never looked for a fight, but if one comes for me I will not hesitate. Now before you turn what I said around and claim that may be exactly what Zimmerman did, Zimmerman said otherwise as part of his defense. The only fact that matters is an adult male willingly armed himself and stalked an unarmed teenager who was exactly where he was supposed to be, not breaking any law. Since Zimmerman instigated the confrontation through his actions, Martins death becomes manslaughter with all the facts we currently have. That's all legitimate, and I feel likewise should I find myself beyond the point of alternative escape. Hesitation is definitely the first step towards defeat. But now we're on a tangent of how you or I might respond in similar circumstances, which is rather pointless to this discussion, to be fair. Other than the fact that whether you or I would attack pre-emptively would be based on age / experience, whereas a typical 17 year-old wouldn't have that much experience (unless he truly was a beginner thug, as many have suggested) to make a decision like that. But that decision to attack COULD be explained, as I mentioned earlier, by many typical 17 year-olds with the "10 feet tall and bulletproof" mentality many of us probably remember at a similar age. I know I do. As an added perspective, take a look at worldstarhiphop.com, as well as their Facebook pages, where you'll find endless cellphone videos of mindless and vicious attacks by black youth against other black youth. It's practically all they post - other than sexually-explicit cellphone videos - day in and day out. These videos have become so prevalent that today's youth are coming to view random attacks and unprovoked sucker-punches as an everyday part of life. So suggesting Trayvon approached Zimmerman and initiated a confrontation that escalated into an attack, or simply initiated an attack, is not only not inconceivable, but is actually a pretty fair bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Knebs Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 we only have Zimmerman's account, and since he was fighting for his life in the courtroom there is a very good chance his side of the story was biased. In addition to Zimmerman's account, the record has the Prosecution's account. Plural. In addition, Zimmerman's civil rights were violated AND and currently being violated. Sure bias exists in both versions and in the jury. While bias exists, it did not get in the way of the jury following due process as they were instructed and arriving at a unanimous decision. Lawfully and in clear conscious. The Martin's son made catastrophic choices for which he alone is responsible. The Zimmerman's son was assaulted and feared for his life and survived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) The Martin's son made catastrophic choices for which he alone is responsible. The Zimmerman's son was assaulted and feared for his life and survived. Like I said before, I agree with the verdict but take no joy in it. If anything, the take away from it for me is in America you can't even walk down the street in a gated community without ending up dead or in court. Edited July 19, 2013 by SteveAJones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Knebs Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Gates keep the criminals in.... he said tongue in cheek maybe. We were taught in law class that each of us has a civil right guarateed to us: "...should my person or interests be threatened, the ability to defend what is mine shall not be infringed." This was actually a test question wherin we wrote 4000 word essay responses. To pass, we had to cite the proper governing laws, historical timelines and associated precedents. Basically, if what is yours is threatened- you are expected to stand up for what is yours, not appease and capitulate the assault. Those and that which is entrusted to you, is counting on you to defend them. If I seek out what is not mine, the expectation is that my efforts will be repelled with force sufficient to convince me to cease and desist. I do have several firearms near me at all times and I do conceal and carry. If something goes down out of my control, I want to be the one to go home to family who is counting on me to come home. To appease, is not an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeppy668 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) I understand what you are saying however no one but Martin and Zimmerman know what happened or who assaulted who first. This is why the law should follow the facts presented and not allow the jury to rule based on opinion alone which is what happened. The jury made the best decision based on the evidence that was presented. There was specific evidence that the prosecution was not allowed to use during the trial but it's unlikely that would have changed anything. The fact is George Zimmerman, while guilty of acting irrationally and ultimately killing Trayvon Martin, did not brake the laws in Florida based on the evidence and arguments made by the state prosecution. I personally believe Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was black, wearing a hoody and was not recognized as a member of the gated community. And based on prior neighborhood crime (which was conducted in the majority by black individuals), Zimmerman's profiling of Martin is rational. However, I believe he acted irrationally in pursuing Martin. From there, it's dicey about what actually happened. There's a good chance Martin attacked Zimmerman for no reason just as there's a good chance Zimmerman's weapon was visible to Martin and that's why he attacked Zimmerman. But again, based on the evidence presented, there was plenty of reasonable doubt and that's why the jury made the right decision. If you want to blame someone for this, blame our media culture that turned this case upside down from the beginning. I think it was wrong the Sanford police department waited 44 days to detain Zimmerman but I don't excuse the media for using that to turn this into a race war. Like I've said, the problem is the "Stand Your Ground" law. While the law itself did not play a significant role in the prosecution, it has created the atmosphere for "shoot first, asking questions later." That's something we must look at vehemently. Edited July 19, 2013 by zeppy668 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Knebs Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) The media is the dog eating the dog food provided by those whose agenda is so heavily invested in "racism" and a guilty verdict. "Stand Your Ground" was not on trial, it is on trial in the media. This law exists to give protected clarity to the right to defend yourself and not be afraid. It was drafted and enacted into law as as response to criminals encroaching on the freedoms and rights of honest people. Honest people pushed back on crime and their lawmakers gave this clarity in response. The undertow is this: the rights of the individual need to be minimized to accomodate the good of the whole population. Socialism. The angle is to make it a crime to be individual and behave as an individual. The "greater good" is supposed to motivate and drive the behaviour of the person- as a part of the global utopian village. It's the "greater good" that people not have guns. It's "fair" that wealth is redistributed to those who don't have as much. Crimes have been committed and reparations need to be made. Ahhhhh- so its about the money. Who makes money on the "money" and "trusts" and "managing the reparations" ? Wall Street. Investment Bankers. "The City/Square Mile" Reparations pays good. Sometimes even those who were victims see a little bit of the money too. http://ictj.org/our-work/transitional-justice-issues/reparations Edited July 19, 2013 by Dallas Knebs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) So suggesting Trayvon approached Zimmerman and initiated a confrontation that escalated into an attack, or simply initiated an attack, is not only not inconceivable, but is actually a pretty fair bet. Agreed. Jeantel warned Trayvon that Zimmerman could be a gay pervert rapist, so Trayvon probably decided to put some "whoop ass" on this "creepy ass cracker". Wonder who was profiling whom? Edited July 19, 2013 by cryingbluerain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagittarius Rising Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 The Sanford Police are to blame for the media circus, if they would have done their job in the first place this whole incident would not have made it to the public forum. Now, regarding those awesome juries. Do I really need to list just the high profile cases of the past 20 years where the jury completely screwed up, ignored evidence, or simply did not like a defendants and convicted them only later to be exonerated? Let me just list one glaring example of a jury and court system going horribly wrong: The West Memphis 3. If I need to say more than that there is obviously no convincing anyone as logic and sense are beyond grasp. And this is only one example!!! Again, juries are a complete waste, most other first world countries have done away with them or use "professional" juries where the members are educated in the law and procedure. Only a guilty person will benefit from a jury trial which Zimmerman surely did. The fact is the jurors could not identify with Trayvon Martin in any way and the prosecution completely dropped the ball in using his parents to paint a picture of the boy. Further, the defense was able to have its cake and eat it too in this case. Zimmerman did not use the stand your ground defense because if he did he would have had to take the stand in a pre-trial conference, something his defense team did not want Georgie boy to do under ANY circumstance, hmmm, wonder why? However, when the jury went into deliberations, the judge instructed them to include the stand your ground law as a justifiable defense. Huh??? I still would like someone to explain how THAT was legal in any way? Judicial misconduct? Sure looks like it to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Knebs Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) the prosecution completely dropped the ball in using his parents to paint a picture of the boy I still would like someone to explain how THAT was legal in any way? Judicial misconduct? Sure looks like it to me. agreed. The prosecution didn't have a ball to begin with. Could not find motive. Decided not to charge Zimmerman, were then forced to from higher up authorities. The judge handed a "get out of jail free card on appeal" to Zimmerman on the jury instructions. Clearly mishandled it. She thought she was helping the jury with options. Nope. The NAACP was asked for the names of any of the 23 young black people that were gunned down in Chicago during the Zimmerman trial and were unable to name a single one. Edited July 19, 2013 by Dallas Knebs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagittarius Rising Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) The NAACP was asked for the names of any of the 23 young black people that were gunned down in Chicago during the Zimmerman trial and were unable to name a single one. I agree, that is some fucked up shit right there. If you are going to talk the talk, you must walk the walk. I find both sides of this issue guilty on that one. The fact is, just like in rape trials, the victim should not be painted as the criminal. I just do not agree with such a defense and it should not be allowed. Just like the Goetz trial in NY, I don't care what those punks did before the incident (criminal record), I just want to know what happened during this incident only. Allowing inflammatory history does not necessarily go to cause or outcome, after all a criminal can reform and then be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Some other famous acquittals of guilty persons: Lizzie Borden Claus Von Bulow William Kennedy Smith OJ Simpson And of course the winner would be...Robert Blake. Great job with those, nothing like a jury trial to acquit the guilty, especially if they have money which all, including Zimmerman (through donations) had. Edited July 19, 2013 by Sagittarius Rising Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 The fact is the jurors could not identify with Trayvon Martin in any way Once again you state opinion as "fact" and appeal to emotion rather than logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LedZeppfan77 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Rick, the Feds are looking into whether Trayvon Martin's civil rights were violated, which is permissible despite the not guilty verdict. My understanding is the FBI had run a concurrent investigation for over a year, interviewing some 30 witnesses in an effort to prove Zimmerman was a racist and came up with nothing. As a matter of fact, I believe I heard one media report he had mentored several black youths. But Al Sharpton, among others do not want to let this go. It's done. It's a tragedy all the way around and as a parent my heart breaks for Trayvon's parents. However, it was a fair trial, the jury has spoken based on the evidence -not opinion as Sagg implied in an earlier post. I get sick of the fucking race card being played every damn time they can. Sharpton is a sack of shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 However, when the jury went into deliberations, the judge instructed them to include the stand your ground law as a justifiable defense. Huh??? I still would like someone to explain how THAT was legal in any way? Perhaps because the judge was permitting the jury to consider if the defendant had committed manslaughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 The fact is, just like in rape trials, the victim should not be painted as the criminal. Once AGAIN, opinion is stated as fact (that Trayvon Martin was the victim). I submit to you he was the aggressor...and the fatality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Knebs Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 And of course the winner would be...Robert Blake. Robert Blake was at Chappaquiddick...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Egad,... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23382880 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Egad,... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23382880 His statement wasn't controversial. Young African-American males do get profiled in a way that their white and Asian-American peers don't. Even good kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Egad,... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23382880 Anything to fan the flames.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf I wouldn't consider the New Century Foundation a credible information source and I'm not the only one. However, you just confirmed what I'd already suspected about you by posting a link to that racist claptrap. http://archive.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/jared_taylor/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=taylor http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/american-renaissance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) I wouldn't consider the New Century Foundation a credible information source and I'm not the only one. However, you just confirmed what I'd already suspected about you by posting a link to that racist claptrap. http://archive.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/jared_taylor/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=taylor http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/american-renaissance Whatever you say,....keep making excuses,... Edited July 19, 2013 by Anjin-san Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP78 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 asians commit more crimes than whites ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagittarius Rising Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Robert Blake was at Chappaquiddick...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident Woops, your right, forgot about Ted Kennedy. Though he was never put on trial so it does not count. However, due to money and connections he got to avoid trial all together even though he was guiltier than OJ & Robert Blake combined!!! That dud was a serious blight...and I am a liberal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP78 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 i guess that's why it was ok to shoot that japanese student Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.