The prosecution was unable to prove that Zimmerman had no fear of great bodily injury. (Because of what I'm claiming)
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Verdict reached in George Zimmerman case - Not Guilty
- Thread starter Zep
- Start date
- Status
The prosecution was unable to prove that Zimmerman had no fear of great bodily injury. (Because of what I'm claiming)
No, that's not what you have been claiming.
Do some research please. She left the situation to get a gun and came BACK and fired the gun.
I saw this too. I am hoping there is more to the case than that article covers. I'm extremely skeptical of media coverage though so we will see.
Clockwork5
Member
but were consistent with martin attempting to pummel and zimmerman resisting.
Huh, bring the level of discourse down from hyperbolic indictments of civil rights violations and biased courts and all I get are accusations of bias? Can we all just calm down a bit and treat each other with a bit of civility?
On another note. The false dichotomies between this case and the case of Ms. Alexander is really tedious. Can we please stop making them?
Some irrelevant facts that offer no insight into the actual conflict. Then some uncorroborated witness testimony who is show to be unreliable in cross examination. Then some information about the defendant that is completely irrelevant to this case. And finally some memory discrepancies that can be explained away by his fearful/excited state and over dont overcome reasonable doubt.
It's a wonder why Juries are restricted to only the relevant facts.
How was the Prosecution not doing it's job anyway?
Secondly, I was clearly speaking in a theoretical sense about erring on the side of reasonable doubt. And If you spent like 5 seconds you would see the part over that statement where I thought he probably wasn't innocent but he was apparently found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Also, Innocent is not the same thing as not guilty...everyone really needs to understand this concept.
How is my assumption false? Do you have evidence that the law in this specific case was being unfairly leveled against Martin or for Zimmerman? If not I would caution you against spurious accusations and false assumptions of your own.
If the laws are being fairly applied, ( again any evidence to the contrary or just more conjecture?) then yes arguing about their application is irrational.
Zimmerman was acquitted due to reasonable doubt. Again something my original post covered, but you actually need evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was in fact lying about the events that transpired. The state failed to produce such evidence in court.
Opinions are not fact. Ditto. State fails to provide evidence of a crime.
Reasonable doubt is a pretty important qualifier.
No it proves that...the state failed to prove to a jury that Zimmerman was guilty of a crime in Florida and not in fact, acting in self-defense.
Again with opinions...that segue into unrelated arguments.
Again with your assumptions. The Justice system is a bureaucracy that facilitates the objective application of rules and regulations of Florida to all it's citizens. I never stated otherwise, even if you made the false assumption.
More assumptions without reading my previous post. I never said he was innocent. I said he was legally found not guilty of the crime accused.
Were they not sequestered for such a high profile case? ...just checked the news..yes, yes they were. So now we both know that you don't know basic facts about the case.
Also this is again an example of nothing but ones own opinion.
The jury weight the states evidence and found it lacking. So yes, it was a victory for the rule of law.
2. This ruling changes nothing in Florida considering it rendered a legally uncontroversial decision. And this was a common criminal case, not something sent to the appellate division. So again, nothing changes legally.
3. Ethics of what? That Zimmerman was afforded a fair trial instead of being sent out to be burned at the stake in the court of public opinion? Should he just have been thrown in jail because a portion of the public wanted him to be?
4. All of your above statements are pure opinion and not fact.
What assumption specifically? Was there any indication that the trial was not run fairly. Or that the Prosecution or judge inappropriately favored the defendant? How about any indication that the law inappropriately favored non-black defendants? Or this this just some sad conjecture you want to throw around because the jury didn't deliver the decision you wanted?
1. Again for the second time, at what point did it become evidently clear to you and everyone else that justice was not being applied fairly in this case? When the jury acquitted Zimmerman of all charges?
2. I never did. keep assuming that though. I was always talking specifically about the specific trial. Reread my post if you don't believe me.
....this has nothing to do with my specific discussion of the Zimmerman case. If you want to discuss how socioeconomic factors both tie to race and unfairly influence propensity to end up in jail..I would be happy to. We really should have that discussion. I think it is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. A whole generation of minorities are being disenfranchised both at the voting booth and in economic opportunities due to their status as felons. But again, this general issue has nothing to do with how fair the laws are being applied to Zimmerman.
I'm guessing you talking about assumption of a fair trial like the others?
Sound like a what exactly?
I really think you need to go and reread my post.
On another note. The false dichotomies between this case and the case of Ms. Alexander is really tedious. Can we please stop making them?
Some irrelevant facts that offer no insight into the actual conflict. Then some uncorroborated witness testimony who is show to be unreliable in cross examination. Then some information about the defendant that is completely irrelevant to this case. And finally some memory discrepancies that can be explained away by his fearful/excited state and over dont overcome reasonable doubt.
It's a wonder why Juries are restricted to only the relevant facts.
How was the Prosecution not doing it's job anyway?
Secondly, I was clearly speaking in a theoretical sense about erring on the side of reasonable doubt. And If you spent like 5 seconds you would see the part over that statement where I thought he probably wasn't innocent but he was apparently found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Also, Innocent is not the same thing as not guilty...everyone really needs to understand this concept.
How is my assumption false? Do you have evidence that the law in this specific case was being unfairly leveled against Martin or for Zimmerman? If not I would caution you against spurious accusations and false assumptions of your own.
If the laws are being fairly applied, ( again any evidence to the contrary or just more conjecture?) then yes arguing about their application is irrational.
Zimmerman was acquitted due to reasonable doubt. Again something my original post covered, but you actually need evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was in fact lying about the events that transpired. The state failed to produce such evidence in court.
Opinions are not fact. Ditto. State fails to provide evidence of a crime.
Reasonable doubt is a pretty important qualifier.
No it proves that...the state failed to prove to a jury that Zimmerman was guilty of a crime in Florida and not in fact, acting in self-defense.
Again with opinions...that segue into unrelated arguments.
Again with your assumptions. The Justice system is a bureaucracy that facilitates the objective application of rules and regulations of Florida to all it's citizens. I never stated otherwise, even if you made the false assumption.
More assumptions without reading my previous post. I never said he was innocent. I said he was legally found not guilty of the crime accused.
Were they not sequestered for such a high profile case? ...just checked the news..yes, yes they were. So now we both know that you don't know basic facts about the case.
Also this is again an example of nothing but ones own opinion.
The jury weight the states evidence and found it lacking. So yes, it was a victory for the rule of law.
1. State laws are only applicable in the specific state...so all 49 other states have and continue to be unaffected.
2. This ruling changes nothing in Florida considering it rendered a legally uncontroversial decision. And this was a common criminal case, not something sent to the appellate division. So again, nothing changes legally.
3. Ethics of what? That Zimmerman was afforded a fair trial instead of being sent out to be burned at the stake in the court of public opinion? Should he just have been thrown in jail because a portion of the public wanted him to be?
4. All of your above statements are pure opinion and not fact.
What assumption specifically? Was there any indication that the trial was not run fairly. Or that the Prosecution or judge inappropriately favored the defendant? How about any indication that the law inappropriately favored non-black defendants? Or this this just some sad conjecture you want to throw around because the jury didn't deliver the decision you wanted?
1. Again for the second time, at what point did it become evidently clear to you and everyone else that justice was not being applied fairly in this case? When the jury acquitted Zimmerman of all charges?
2. I never did. keep assuming that though. I was always talking specifically about the specific trial. Reread my post if you don't believe me.
....this has nothing to do with my specific discussion of the Zimmerman case. If you want to discuss how socioeconomic factors both tie to race and unfairly influence propensity to end up in jail..I would be happy to. We really should have that discussion. I think it is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. A whole generation of minorities are being disenfranchised both at the voting booth and in economic opportunities due to their status as felons. But again, this general issue has nothing to do with how fair the laws are being applied to Zimmerman.
I'm guessing you talking about assumption of a fair trial like the others?
This part:
Sound like a what exactly?
I really think you need to go and reread my post.
DragonSworne
Banned
How much influence do you guys think the Hannity interview had on the jury?
Don't people in the south buy into anything Fox news says and treats it as the truth solely because it was on fox new, regardless of plausibility?
Showing that fox news interview might have been a huge mistake. There is a huge bias favoring that news channel in the south.
Don't people in the south buy into anything Fox news says and treats it as the truth solely because it was on fox new, regardless of plausibility?
Showing that fox news interview might have been a huge mistake. There is a huge bias favoring that news channel in the south.
An expert on gunshot wounds hired by the defense testified Tuesday that George Zimmerman's account of how he fatally shot Trayvon Martin is consistent with the forensic evidence.
Former chief medical examiner in San Antonio claims gun powder on Trayvon Martin's body verifies he was on top of Zimmerman.
DiMaio testified that lacerations to the back Zimmerman's head were consistent with his head striking a concrete sidewalk. Later, when looking at photos of Zimmerman's injuries taken the night of the shooting, DiMaio identified six separate impacts to Zimmerman's face and head. He said a nose injury could have come from being punched.
eBay Huckster
Member
yeah it's almost like i've read dimaio's actual testimony instead of a summary already, otherwise i wouldn't be posting at all circa page 33
Like the hat?
Banned
I don't see how they could have proved it any better than they did. Zimmerman was caught lying numerous times and none of his blood was on Trayvon martins hands.
http://youtu.be/v1HCtIyImtk
It's like 30 minutes long, but somewhere in there West talks about how he eventually finds evidence within the phone calls to deduce that Trayvon came back.
Anyone who shoots a firearm in the commission of a forcible felony is subject to a 20 year minimum sentence. This would have included Zimmerman if there had been sufficient evidence to convict him. The defendant in the other case had no affirmative defense and there was plenty of evidence. If you are suggesting that 10-20-life is a ridiculous law, I'm sure almost everyone here agree.
I never said that.
A rational human being? Though the problem arises of, where does that leave you?
I am not arguing the law of Florida here. This is not a courtroom.
I am making a moral judgement.
Again, 20 years for a woman who didn't kill anybody versus a proven murderer who walks free.
Oh and as for the woman who got 20 years for firing warning shots and trying to use stand-your-ground law as a defense, she shot multiple shots randomly in the air. Those shots could you know...randomly hit innocent people who did nothing to her. Though I think 20 years is a bit excessive.
Except legally Zimmerman is not a murderer at all. The prosecution had no evidence in proving it was murder or manslaughter while the defendants had substantial evidence proving the shooting was for self-defense.
Except legally Zimmerman is not a murderer at all. The prosecution had no evidence in proving it was murder or manslaughter while the defendants had substantial evidence proving the shooting was for self-defense.
Yes. You did.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=70279376#post70279376
That's douchbaggy as fuck, bro
DragonSworne
Banned
Plenty of evidence? So she should have killed her husband then and she would have been free because there wouldn't be enough evidence then.
Zimmerman followed Martin after he had made attempts to get away from him. Zimmerman initiated the whole thing.
Zimmermans damage is consistent with one punch, as in a single punch. Stand your ground laws are also not relevant because Zimmerman was following Martin.
You forgot to mention Zimmerman sexually molesting a family member, domestic violence allegations and attacking a cop.
Either way, irrelevant.
LOL... and here I thought it was because a kid got killed.
Stated the facts... they spent their whole time trying to cast doubt regarding the event.
And thanks to that, a kid is dead and a killer is free.
Dr. Feel Good
Banned
I fully expected Rodney King riots this morning. What's the deal?
There is no reason to conflate these two cases; they have about as much to do with each other as any random two Florida criminal cases involving a firearm.
Whether you folks agree or disagree on the verdict, you have to realize that the media doesn't exist anymore in this nation. Its a oligarchical enterprise to placate the masses. You see it with Snowden. You saw it in this verdict (knowing Florida's laws are difficult to deal with on its face).
You guys don't even get it? You live in the Imperium (of Man). Its crept for years starting from the mid 60's but has been full on blown since Snowden stated what he did for NSA (but others have stated it earlier). You have no such thing as Civilization. How can it be possible?
You guys don't even get it? You live in the Imperium (of Man). Its crept for years starting from the mid 60's but has been full on blown since Snowden stated what he did for NSA (but others have stated it earlier). You have no such thing as Civilization. How can it be possible?
Terareflection
Member
It does if you're are black.
Their son was there too, would have been difficult to argue for self defense having offed both. She would have also had to fake some injuries and perhaps find witnesses willing to commit a perjury, because even in Florida successfully invoking self defense is a bit more difficult than some people in this thread are asserting.
I was referencing a specific subset of people that wanted him in jail. I'm sorry if it appeared to broadly include everyone.
Also, no offence, but is English your second language?
Dude Abides
Banned
I guess those black people just aren't quite as violent and crazy as you thought.
fastford58
Member
The deal is you aren't giving a certain group of people enough credit and assuming they are going to wild out rather than be rational human beings?
This is another thing about this whole affair that pisses me off. The (excited) expectation from some that blacks all over the country will riot like animals.
Is it disappointing to you that nationwide blacks didn't take the bait?
He stopped following Martin when the police told him to.
Everybody can form their own opinions, call him a killer, whatever you want but it is by legal fact that Zimmerman is not a murderer. Martin's family can't even sue him but that doesn't matter since Trayvon's mom trademarked her son's name, she's going to make so much money.
Oh boy....
Dr. Feel Good
Banned
Never thought black people specifically, riots in general for justice. Who's the racist now?
Dude Abides
Banned
That's funny, I was going to ask you the same question based on this bit of tortured syntax.
Sure, Rodney King-style rainbow riots.
Well yeah, it came off exactly like "fuck everyone who disagrees with the verdict. justice won. laws are unchanging and perfect. anyone who's mad just wanted blood. They are a mob, after all" There was nothing 'specific' about it.
And what if its my fourth?
You gonna tell me good job? lol
childplease
Banned
Police are better prepared now.
The incompetence and under staffing of the LAPD during the rodney king riots was embarrassing.
You had alot of scared officers who were afraid to go to work while they city they swore to protect was destroyed.
They should have nutted up, get help from neighboring Leo departments , suit up the riot gear and get to cracking skulls.
With good aggressive policing countless injuries and millions of dollars could have been saved during the LA riots. You just gotta nip it in the butt early.
Wow........
iamshadowlark
Banned
AlimNassor
Banned
GZ is a guilty man, but, I don't understand the people screaming this is a race issue. Is anytime a white man kills a black man or vice versa a race issue? No.
What? The first post was a really garbled mess.
LoL, has the Grammer defense force arrived? I never claimed to have perfect grammer.
My head really hurts.
No. I was just curious. Apparently, it wasn't the most appropriate question.
Edit,
Sorry I wasn't descriptive enough. I hope my later posts were more clear.
Put a pin in that till the other case in Florida goes to trial with the guy who shot the black teen sitting in his car playing music loud. Couple weeks or so after the Trayvon shooting. Guess what he is claiming.
Sensible black people knew that would solve nothing and prove a lot of ill thought out opinions about them 'true'.
Good to see that hotheads didn't start no shit. As certain places in the media were itching for orgasmic riot action.
Dude Abides
Banned
Just saying if you write like a high school freshman you might want to refrain from taking shots at other people's language skills.
Show us proof that he did. Innocent until proven guilty.
AlimNassor
Banned
Wow. Why do I have come here? Anything you say now gets you labeled as a racist. Hey did you know blacks weren't the only ones rioting in LA? Lot of white people were rioting too, every race rioted because they were sick of Police brutality.
- Status