Quote :

"You're judging guilt based on what you think is wrong. Not by what is legally wrong."

You're allowed to judge by what you think it's wrong. It's called jury nullification.

And what's "legally wrong" is often open to interpretation, hence the need for judges, juries, and trials.

4/16/2012 9:19:28 PM

Around Blacks, I recommend that you never relax.

4/16/2012 9:26:02 PM

For Skack and the other zimmerman defenders. How does his story of getting out of his truck to check a street sign and getting jumped end up with him shooting a martin behind someones house. I am really curious to see how in your mind you can rationally think of a way that they would end up behind someones house if all he was doing was getting out of his truck to check a street sign.

I just don't understand why so many of you are just blatantly trying to find a way to believe what zimmerman is saying. His story is shaky at best and he has a HUGE incentive to lie.

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

4/16/2012 9:26:52 PM

^^^^I've already made it clear that I'm not just talking about the law.

And now I will make it clear that I'm not interested in conversing with you--the guy who talks about difference between black people and niggers, like he's Chris Rock or something.

Nice chatting with you though!

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 9:29 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2012 9:29:25 PM

They're just trying to make any attempt to make it work, because otherwise it would ruin their worldview.

What you're witnessing here is a "just-world hypothesis." To borrow from Wikipedia:

Quote :

"The just-world hypothesis (or just-world fallacy) is a cognitive bias referring to the common assumption that situations and situational outcomes are caused or guided by some universal force of justice, order, stability, or desert. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is people's tendency to attribute consequences to, or expect consequences as the result of, a cosmic power responsible for the righting of past wrongs, injustices, or imbalances. The premise of the fallacy popularly appears in English in the form of various figures of speech, which often imply a negative reprisal of justice, such as: "You got what was coming to you," "What goes around comes around," and "You reap what you sow." There are a few modes of reinterpretation that could make an event fit the belief in a just world. One can reinterpret the outcome, the cause, and/or the character of the victim. In the case of observing the injustice of the suffering of innocent others, one major way to rearrange the cognition of an event is to interpret the victim of suffering as deserving of that suffering. Specifically, observers can blame victims for their suffering on the basis of their behaviors and/or their characteristics. This would result in observers both derogating victims and blaming victims for their own suffering. Much psychological research on the belief in a just world has focused on these negative social phenomena of victim blaming and victim derogation in different contexts. Researchers have looked at how observers react to victims of rape and other violence. In a seminal experiment on rape and belief in a just world by Linda Carli and colleagues, researchers gave two groups of subjects a narrative about interactions between a man and a woman. The description of the interaction was the same until the end; one group received a narrative that had a neutral ending and the other group received a narrative that ended with the man raping the woman. Subjects judged the rape ending as inevitable and blamed the woman in the narrative for the rape on the basis of her behavior, but not her characteristics. These findings have been replicated repeatedly, including using a rape ending and a 'happy ending' (a marriage proposal). Other researchers have found a similar phenomenon for judgments of battered partners. One study found that observers' labels of blame of female victims of relationship violence increase with the intimacy of the relationship. Observers blamed the perpetrator only in the most significant case of violence, in which a male struck an acquaintance."

4/16/2012 9:31:50 PM

left: George Zimmerman                              right: Trayvon Martin

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2012 9:32:57 PM

Quote :

"I would think one or two "slams" on the pavement would be sufficient for that. "

I find that unlikely.

Quote :

"You're allowed to judge by what you think it's wrong. It's called jury nullification."

Haha, that's a one-way street, though. You can't convict where no law was broken just because you don't lime how something went down.

4/16/2012 11:33:30 PM

Quote :

"And what's "legally wrong" is often open to interpretation"

haha the fuck it is.

4/16/2012 11:42:21 PM

Quote :

"For Skack and the other zimmerman defenders. How does his story of getting out of his truck to check a street sign and getting jumped end up with him shooting a martin behind someones house. I am really curious to see how in your mind you can rationally think of a way that they would end up behind someones house if all he was doing was getting out of his truck to check a street sign."

1.

Quote :

"You're making the mistake of thinking I'm siding with Zimmerman when I'm not. "

2.

Quote :

"I know we'll probably never know exactly what happened and, unlike most people, I accept that fact. Martin is dead and even if he were alive there are always three sides to every story. I look forward to seeing all of the evidence as it is presented at the trial."

4/17/2012 12:32:43 AM

Me too.

I'm just glad there is a trial.

It took a shitstorm of outrage for it to happen. Do you people not realize that? You complain about all the news coverage, about Al Sharpton, about the hoodie wearing senators.

But do you not realize that if none of that shit happened... if no one said anything.. that this case would have never went to trial? It would have been swept under the rug. Zimmerman would just be sleeping in his same bed while Martin rotted in the ground.

So, think twice before you cry foul about "omg sharpton race card wtf!!!!" because sometimes it is necessary for people to get mad and complain when they see injustice.

4/17/2012 1:18:52 AM

Quote :

"Haha, that's a one-way street, though. You can't convict where no law was broken just because you don't lime how something went down. "

Of course you can, it has happened several times in the past, and will continue to happen into the future. Or are you suggesting a jury has never found an innocent person guilty of something?

Quote :

"haha the fuck it is. "

Yeah, youre right. Juries always make the right decisions

[Edited on April 17, 2012 at 2:06 AM. Reason : ]

4/17/2012 2:05:39 AM

Quote :

"It took a shitstorm of outrage for it to happen. Do you people not realize that? You complain about all the news coverage, about Al Sharpton, about the hoodie wearing senators. But do you not realize that if none of that shit happened... if no one said anything.. that this case would have never went to trial? It would have been swept under the rug. Zimmerman would just be sleeping in his same bed while Martin rotted in the ground."

I'm not so sure this is true. Reading the police reports linked earlier in the thread, it reads to me like they brought him in for questioning and between his claims of self defense and the stories from the witnesses (recall that the one eye witness corroborates Zimmerman's claim and, at least according to one or two of the news stories linked earlier, the police say that some witnesses have changed their stories from the time they were first questioned) that they didn't have enough to charge him, so they let him go. In the mean time, they worked on putting together a better case. I mean it took a little over a month and a half to arrest him and charge him right? How long does it normally take to build a case against someone? I can't imagine that a month and a half is that far outside the average.

4/17/2012 6:56:56 AM

^ It took 3 months in the Brad Cooper case. Completely different scenario I know. I do think it's totally reasonable to wait for coroner's reports to come back, witness interviews, and detective work in a situation like this. You only get one chance to make the murder charge stick, so you better get it right the first time.

[Edited on April 17, 2012 at 2:23 PM. Reason : s]

4/17/2012 2:22:18 PM

^^ That depends, is the hypothetical person we're talking about here Black or not?

4/17/2012 2:39:14 PM

Quote :

"^ It took 3 months in the Brad Cooper case. Completely different scenario I know. I do think it's totally reasonable to wait for coroner's reports to come back, witness interviews, and detective work in a situation like this. You only get one chance to make the murder charge stick, so you better get it right the first time. "

I think what most people are taking exception with is the amount of "detective work" that went into the initial investigaton. Did they take a single picture of the crime scene?

4/17/2012 2:44:10 PM

Quote :

"Of course you can, it has happened several times in the past, and will continue to happen into the future. Or are you suggesting a jury has never found an innocent person guilty of something?"

Are you just being obtuse? Of course jury nullification is sometimes justiiable. Convicting someone--due to error or ideology--when no crime has been committed, us wrong.

[Edited on April 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM. Reason : ^ no, if that was it, people like me wouldn't be like "what the fuck? Slow down."]

4/17/2012 4:54:42 PM

Quote :

"Did they take a single picture of the crime scene?"

Unknown, but according to the police reports linked earlier, the officers on scene, after they were unable to resuscitate Martin taped off the area and then called in in "Major Crimes". Given as I mentioned before that Zimmerman was indeed brought in for questioning, despite the narrative to the contrary (in fact, in reading some of the earlier links in this thread, that fact is explicitly stated, so I'm not even sure how that idea even got started), I'm inclined to believe, without evidence to the contrary, that "Major Crimes" did their job.

4/17/2012 6:39:27 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/legislative-committee-moves-away-from-stand-your-ground-laws/2012/04/17/gIQAN1ytOT_story.html?hpid=z6

ALEC starting to distance themselves from the Stand Your Ground Law

[Edited on April 17, 2012 at 7:15 PM. Reason : f]

4/17/2012 7:14:34 PM

Quote :

"Unknown, but according to the police reports linked earlier, the officers on scene, after they were unable to resuscitate Martin taped off the area and then called in in "Major Crimes". Given as I mentioned before that Zimmerman was indeed brought in for questioning, despite the narrative to the contrary (in fact, in reading some of the earlier links in this thread, that fact is explicitly stated, so I'm not even sure how that idea even got started), I'm inclined to believe, without evidence to the contrary, that "Major Crimes" did their job."

It remains to be seen. It would allay quite a lot of the frustration. Hopefully it will come to light when the trial gets going.

4/17/2012 7:39:26 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-case-exclusive-photo-shows-bloodied-back/story?id=16177849#.T5FQs9lWBIQ

4/20/2012 10:48:04 AM

Interesting.

4/20/2012 10:55:45 AM

Yeah, it's going to be next to impossible for them to prove second degree murder and deny bail given the requirements of this hearing. Even if they could, they probably would be wise not to since it would reveal to the defense what their strategy will likely be during the actual criminal trial.

So far, from the hour or so I've watched on TV they aren't doing a very good job, and Zimmerman's lawyer did a nice job of picking apart the probable cause affidavit, including getting one of the investigators to admit that he had no way of knowing who initiated the conflict and that saying Zimmerman initiated the confrontation with Martin was something they couldn't actually prove.

Again, I don't know that Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, but I don't think there's anywhere near enough to support a second degree murder charge let alone enough to convict.

4/20/2012 11:01:15 AM

should have pursued a lesser charge..

4/20/2012 11:47:27 AM

Pressure from people like Al Sharpton and massive media coverage made that all but impossible. It didn't take much of a legal mind to tell you that denying bail was going to fail.

If Zimmerman was really smart he'd request a trial by a judge instead of a jury. There is literally no way he can expect to have an unbiased jury. Almost everyone has an opinion on this case despite almost no one knowing what the evidence says.

4/20/2012 11:54:30 AM

Quote :

"So far, from the hour or so I've watched on TV they aren't doing a very good job, and Zimmerman's lawyer did a nice job of picking apart the probable cause affidavit, including getting one of the investigators to admit that he had no way of knowing who initiated the conflict and that saying Zimmerman initiated the confrontation with Martin was something they couldn't actually prove."

If there's no way to prove who initiated the conflict, how can Zimmerman back up his claim of self defense?

Does Florida just take people at their word when they claim it? How do they ever get murder convictions without security camera footage?

4/20/2012 1:19:59 PM

^See this is where most people including jurors get it wrong. Not saying Zimmerman is clear of any fault here, but its the prosecutions obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty and was not acting in self defense. It is not up to Zimmerman's attorney to prove self defense, only to cast to reasonable doubt.

4/20/2012 1:52:25 PM

I was under the impression that claiming "self defense" in this situation was an affirmative defense...

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 2:04 PM. Reason : K]

4/20/2012 2:03:13 PM

And we've been trying to tell you you're wrong, but you don't want to listen.

4/20/2012 2:44:37 PM

It is an affirmative defense, so Zimmerman does have to prove the elements that would make it self defense were present. And I think in that case, the fact that we've heard that Martin had no bruising or lacerations on his hands would work in Zimmerman's favor. He would likely argue that his own injuries combined with a lack of injuries to Martin indicate that Martin attacked first, that he had the upper hand through the entirety of the conflict, and was so overwhelming that Zimmerman had reasonable fear for his life.

The state on the other hand still has to prove that it was murder, and without being able to prove who started the fight, Zimmerman probably has the better claim.

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM. Reason : asdfg]

4/20/2012 2:48:29 PM

It generally is, but not in Florida, apparently.

4/20/2012 2:49:36 PM

Wow, Zimmerman's attorney basically DESTROYED the prosecution today.

They get the arrest warrant because the lead investigator, who's affidavit was the main reason for getting Zimmerman arrested, said in it that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, then today on the stand he says he has no clue who started it and there is no evidence to support who started the fight.

LOL.


I wouldn't be shocked if this shit just gets thrown the fuck out and never even makes it to trial.

They basically just admitted on the stand that they have no clue who started the fight, which is the most IMPORTANT part if this case.

Also, the investigator said that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin, then today on the stand, said that there is no evidence to support this.

The prosecution are looking like a bunch of idiots right now.

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM. Reason : ,]

4/20/2012 2:50:26 PM

source? Not saying I don't believe you just want to see it myself.

4/20/2012 2:55:09 PM

Just watched the hearing on Fox News. I'm sure it's on YouTube or any news site by now.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/20/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html




[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2012 2:59:14 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/20/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html


[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 3:01 PM. Reason : Lol^]

4/20/2012 3:00:34 PM

The video in that doesn't show the investegater's testimony.

4/20/2012 3:02:37 PM

Yeah, I watched it on CNN. Can't find it in full anywhere.

Good article:

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/04/prosecutors-cas.html

Quote :

"During further questioning by O'Mara, Gilbreath admitted that the state has no evidence who started the fight. There is also no evidence that Zimmerman didn't walk back to his car after chasing Martin on foot, as the defendant has claimed."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-20/news/os-george-zimmerman-bond-hearing-20120420_1_special-prosecutor-angela-corey-robert-zimmerman-son

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2012 3:21:55 PM

Am I the only one that really won't be bothered by the result of the trial? The only reason that I was upset about this fiasco in the first place was that there was not going to be a trial. Someone was killed and another man admitted to doing it. Whether or not is was in self defense, the killer needs to stand before a jury of his peers.

I understand that you are innocent until proven guilty, but the Zimmerman admitted to being "guilty" of killing a man and claimed self defense. As stated earlier self defense is an affirmative defense and that's why I feel that he should have to defend himself in court. The prosecution will still have to prove "murder" without a reasonable doubt.

tl;dr Don't care what the verdict is, just glad there is a trial.

4/20/2012 3:36:02 PM

NOT IN FLORIDA

Quote :

"Someone was killed and another man admitted to doing it. Whether or not is was in self defense, the killer needs to stand before a jury of his peers. "

Plenty of people never get arrested in self defense cases.

Just because you kill someone, doesn't mean you will be arrested.

Which is something some of you are failing to realize.

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 3:51 PM. Reason : ,]

4/20/2012 3:51:08 PM

So you think anyone who uses self defense should go to trial? Scary and wasteful.

4/20/2012 3:51:37 PM

So an armed robber is shot and killed in a gas station... the clerk should have to hire legal counsel and go to trial? I think not.


^,^^ agreed.

4/20/2012 4:01:34 PM

Quote :

"Am I the only one that really won't be bothered by the result of the trial?"

Honestly, I will be bothered if the result of the trial is either it being thrown out (or completely mishandled by the prosecutors) or if (without new and compelling evidence) it results in a murder 2 conviction. In the first case because justice would have been mishandled, both from a malicious prosecution if there is no evidence and an incompetent prosecution if there is evidence but the prosecutors are essentially taking a dive. In the latter case, I just don't think there is enough reason to think this was murder 2 to justify such a conviction, and I think that without further compelling evidence a murder 2 conviction would be mostly political.

Quote :

"Someone was killed and another man admitted to doing it. Whether or not is was in self defense, the killer needs to stand before a jury of his peers."

This is only necessary if there is doubt that it was self defense. In this case there was, but there is no reason to send every self defense case to court. A co-worker's family member recently shot dead an intruder who was breaking into his house, in broad daylight, after he was warned. There will be no trial as it is clear self defense, and there needn't be. You only need a trial if you believe a crime has been committed, and not every killing is a crime.

Quote :

"NOT IN FLORIDA "

YES IN FLORIDA. First off, an affirmative defense is a defense in which you admit to some or all of the circumstances as described by the prosecutor but present further evidence that a crime was not committed based on mitigating circumstances. By definition the claim of self defense is an affirmative defense against murder 2, no matter what state you are in. Secondly, stand your ground, castle doctrine or any other similar law in florida does nothing to change that self defense is an affirmative defense. What it does change is a) the requirement to retreat from an attack and b) it makes prosecutors more cautious about prosecuting a self defense case (they must have more to go on than just a dead person) and c) it provides civil and criminal immunity (and compensation) to someone who has defended themselves legally, but if the police reasonably believe that the person in question committed a crime, then they can still prosecute.

Part of what makes any incompetence on the part of the prosecutors in this case so bad, in addition to not serving the interests of justice, is that it may put the state of florida on the hook for compensating Zimmerman.

tldr: Stand your Ground is not diplomatic immunity.

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 4:42 PM. Reason : asg]

4/20/2012 4:26:59 PM

I honestly don't see what they plan on doing at trial if they have no evidence who started the actual fight, and no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's claim that he had stopped following and was heading back to his car.

So basically no evidence regarding the two most important parts of this case.

4/20/2012 4:32:31 PM

It appeases the public... and and a trial helps organize people so they know when to amass in large crowds to await a ruling.

4/20/2012 4:40:20 PM

The judge still might throw out the case if a preponderance of the evidence suggests self defense.

4/20/2012 5:21:15 PM

What if there is no evidence to support the self defense claim, and no evidence to support it was murder/manslaughter???

4/20/2012 5:24:38 PM

But we do have evidence it was self defense. We have an eye witness saying it was. The man being charged with the crime

For a dismissal it takes is a preponderance of the evidence. Just that it was more likely than not. The charges can be sustained if we have another eye witness saying otherwise, if we have evidence showing it was otherwise, or if have evidence to prove the defendant is lying and assume lying is evidence of a guilty conscience.

4/20/2012 5:37:39 PM

Sorry I wasn't more clear on my opinion that someone who uses the self defense defense should have to stand stand trial. I should have qualified that with what was said by 1337 b4k4:

Quote :

"This is only necessary if there is doubt that it was self defense. In this case there was, but there is no reason to send every self defense case to court. "

Hope this clears up my stance

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 7:51 PM. Reason : sp]

4/20/2012 7:50:59 PM

Quote :

"It appeases the public... "

Like the Rodney King trail? oh wait...

4/20/2012 10:30:59 PM

Quote :

"rodney king trail"

4/20/2012 11:06:35 PM

Kinda hard to have an opinion either way when there's a dearth of verifiable evidence.

4/21/2012 6:55:12 PM