Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ?

Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ?

+10
Slicef18
Markle
Sal
no stress
nadalfan
Joanimaroni
2seaoat
Floridatexan
Hospital Bob
TEOTWAWKI
14 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 5]

Slicef18

Slicef18

Joanimaroni wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:I have noticed some take pride in what Zimmerman did extolling the virtue of protecting his neighborhood from perceived encroachment by shady outside elements.
Others see Zimmerman as a coward that used a gun in a fist fight.
While others see him as a cold-blooded murderer.

The emotions are sure spread out and intense here , Why?

Because the police didn't do their jobs.

Let's play the blame game.......


Did Trayvon's parents do their job?

His mother according to Trayvon "kicked" him out. When you see disturbing signs in a teen you have to act proactively. The kid needed intervention and help....don't just turn them over to the other parent and ignore serious problems. Counselors? Ministers? School Guidance Counselor? Anything....did they do anything?

This was a teen in a downward spiral....exhibited by multiple school suspensions, truancy, marijuana possession, interested in obtaining a gun, fighting, involved in a fight club, defacing school property, possession of questionable jewelry in his locker.



http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18449794-zimmerman-defense-releases-texts-about-guns-fighting-from-trayvon-martins-phone?lite

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331100/No-angel-George-Zimmermans-attorneys-want-villainize-Trayvon-Martin-photos-smoking-pot-texts-fighting.html

You raise a good point about poor parenting for Trayvon. Today poor parenting skills is largely the result of an entire nation of adults that were raised with television being their babysitter and mothers joining the workforce in mass. America's consumption of new products required two incomes to keep up with the Jones. In the meantime television kept children entertained and quiet. Parenting skills were lost for millions.

nadalfan



Sal wrote:
nadalfan wrote:
What I feel is not anger, it's a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach.    
Initially, the idea of a kid walking home from the store, not committing a crime, and then getting killed, should be disturbing to anyone.  But, we didn't know the whole story.  So, at first, all I wanted was a trial.  I didn't know if Zimmerman's story was true. However, as I watched the trial and the evidence presented, I was convinced that his story just didn't add up; he lied.  
I have imagined my own son in that situation; it could have been him that night innocently walking back from the store.
I hoped the jury would find him guilty of manslaughter, but even if he had, that sick feeling in my stomach would not have been gone.  This whole situation points to something sick in society, from the utter lack of humanization of Trayvon by some, the devaluation of his life. the disregard and disrespect of his family, to the acceptance, approval, and sometimes applause of this killing.

I am having a difficult time expressing what I feel, because I am having a difficult time coming to grips with what ha happened and what this says about us as a society.


What you're feeling is the result of a dawning realization that African-American lives are still not valued as highly in this country as other lives.

It was apparent from Zimmo's preconceived misconceptions, to the police department's failure to make an immediate arrest and botching of the initial investigation, to the dismissal of Rachel Jeantel's testimony by EVERYBODY, to the reaction of 50% of the citizenry to the trial and its outcome.

This country has not come as far as we thought in regards to race relations, and in fact, may have just taken a huge step back.
You're right. I'm so disgusted by the lack of empathy for this young man who had a right to defend himself, by the immediate assumptions about who he was, by the carefree dismissal of his rights while defending Zimmerman's, by the acceptance of Zimmerman's right to profile and follow Trayvon, and by the accepted conclusion that Zimmerman had no fault in this even though he set everything in motion that led to the death of this young man.
And if it's not about race, like many claim, how do we not imagine our own son in that situation? Is it because we have an inability to see parallels between this young black teenager and our own?
Even if I believed Zimmerman had told the truth or felt that the verdict was just, how can ANYONE be comfortable with what happened that night? How can we not question who we are that we accept that the shooting of this kid is excusable? I honestly don't understand.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Markle wrote:
Bob wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Apparently african americans hate hispanic americans... but not quite as much as they hate caucasian americans.

It's not limited to that.  Every group of human beings hates every other group.  It holds true for races,  religions,  ethnicities,  nations,  regions of nations,  sexual orientations,  economic classes,  and even the skinny hate the fat and the fat hate the skinny.

Gross lie.

Speak for yourself.



Okay,  I will speak for myself.  I do it too.  
And so do you.  You just proved it with the post you made right after that one.  lol

Guest


Guest

Joanimaroni wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:I have noticed some take pride in what Zimmerman did extolling the virtue of protecting his neighborhood from perceived encroachment by shady outside elements.
Others see Zimmerman as a coward that used a gun in a fist fight.
While others see him as a cold-blooded murderer.

The emotions are sure spread out and intense here , Why?

Because the police didn't do their jobs.

Let's play the blame game.......


Did Trayvon's parents do their job?

His mother according to Trayvon "kicked" him out. When you see disturbing signs in a teen you have to act proactively. The kid needed intervention and help....don't just turn them over to the other parent and ignore serious problems. Counselors? Ministers? School Guidance Counselor? Anything....did they do anything?

This was a teen in a downward spiral....exhibited by multiple school suspensions, truancy, marijuana possession, interested in obtaining a gun, fighting, involved in a fight club, defacing school property, possession of questionable jewelry in his locker.



http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18449794-zimmerman-defense-releases-texts-about-guns-fighting-from-trayvon-martins-phone?lite

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331100/No-angel-George-Zimmermans-attorneys-want-villainize-Trayvon-Martin-photos-smoking-pot-texts-fighting.html

 cheers cheers cheers cheers     There you go again with that talk of personal responsibility....self accountability and PARENTING!....Everyone seems so focused on calling Trayvon a child/juvenile and are surprised somehow that a teenager can commit crimes and/or be involved in questionable behavior...Remember the 'baby faced' King Brothers and what they were capable of doing?....Just because the background of Martin wasn't allowed in the court proceedings doesn't mean they didn't happen and weren't part of the problem...

nadalfan



newswatcher wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:I have noticed some take pride in what Zimmerman did extolling the virtue of protecting his neighborhood from perceived encroachment by shady outside elements.
Others see Zimmerman as a coward that used a gun in a fist fight.
While others see him as a cold-blooded murderer.

The emotions are sure spread out and intense here , Why?

Because the police didn't do their jobs.

Let's play the blame game.......


Did Trayvon's parents do their job?

His mother according to Trayvon "kicked" him out. When you see disturbing signs in a teen you have to act proactively. The kid needed intervention and help....don't just turn them over to the other parent and ignore serious problems. Counselors? Ministers? School Guidance Counselor? Anything....did they do anything?

This was a teen in a downward spiral....exhibited by multiple school suspensions, truancy, marijuana possession, interested in obtaining a gun, fighting, involved in a fight club, defacing school property, possession of questionable jewelry in his locker.



http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18449794-zimmerman-defense-releases-texts-about-guns-fighting-from-trayvon-martins-phone?lite

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331100/No-angel-George-Zimmermans-attorneys-want-villainize-Trayvon-Martin-photos-smoking-pot-texts-fighting.html

 cheers cheers cheers cheers     There you go again with that talk of personal responsibility....self accountability and PARENTING!....Everyone seems so focused on calling Trayvon a child/juvenile and are surprised somehow that a teenager can commit crimes and/or be involved in questionable behavior...Remember the 'baby faced' King Brothers and what they were capable of doing?....Just because the background of Martin wasn't allowed in the court proceedings doesn't mean they didn't happen and weren't part of the problem...
So, if you believe Zimmerman's account, the parents are responsible for what happened that night? His brother is a senior in college, seems like a decent kid, how come they didn't go wrong with him? Maybe his mother sent him to his dad's to get away from what she perceived as bad influences...I call that good parenting.
Why are some attacking his parents? So many are willing to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, but not Trayvon or his family, does that help in accepting what happened?
As you know, I don't buy Zimmerman's story, so his behavior prior to that night which Zimmerman knew nothing about, is irrelevant.
Are teenagers capable of horrible crimes, no doubt, but in this case, Trayvon did not commit a crime.

Guest


Guest

Assault is a crime.

2seaoat



Did Trayvon's parents do their job?

Wow. I could see this posted after a 17 year old girl was raped. The perp claimed consensual sex and the media focused on the victims facebook page and how she was going to swinger parties and was doing drugs.

The jury was given a confusing jury instruction which the national rubber association had passed a law which said that if a woman smiles at you it is consent and you cannot be convicted of rape. The jury finds NG.

Somebody comments about the poor job the girls parents did........

The victim is always going to have someone blaming them.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Trayvon Martin is not the only teenager who does those things you mention, newswatcher.
And black teenagers are not the only ones who do it either.
As a teenager I did a lot of the same kind of stuff.  And when I was exactly the age of Trayvon,  I was inside a car that was wrecking a lot of other cars in a high speed police chase.  So at Trayvon's age,  I had already been involved in a crime.  Trayvon didn't even have that distinction.

Who Trayvon was which led up to all this is not relevant to what happened because he was not committing any crime.  He was walking home from a convenience store.  That's all.

The issue for me is two things.
One,  should an armed Zimmerman be stalking people on foot.
And two,  when Zimmerman and Martin collide,  did Martin assault Zimmerman.

For me,  the answer to the first question is easy.  I don't think that should be happening.
But I don't know what the answer to the second question is.  And I don't think anybody does.  And when we don't know the answer,  there is by definition,  a "reasonable doubt".  And I agree with the principle that you don't convict when there is reasonable doubt.
Why?  Because you and I could be in the same situation.  And if we aren't guilty,  then we don't want to be convicted when there's reasonable doubt either.

Nekochan

Nekochan

The jury so far has not spoken about their deliberations. So we don't know what their thinking is about it. However, the fact that they found Zimmerman Not Guilty, I believe, tells us that either they:

1. Felt that Zimmerman acted in self defense which means that they believe that Trayvon was beating on him. This is assault and battery, which is a crime.

2. They, in the least, thought that there was not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman wrongly killed Trayvon.

So either you accept the jury's decision or you don't. I have said all along that I felt the jury had more information than anyone to be able to make a fair determination based on the facts and evidence. One thing I think is for sure.. they did not base their verdict on a fear of rioting or retaliation in the event of a not guilty verdict.

Guest


Guest

This was a pretty simple case the media whipped up into a national affair. Zimmerman went to trial and was found not guilty. Not satisfied with the letting the legal system work because they didn't get the result they wanted the NACCP now wants federal action taken. Now a nonprofit political group is able to dictate when to conduct an investigation to the federal government. What a world....

"Under pressure from the NAACP, Justice Dept. agrees to investigate George Zimmerman over possible civil rights violations, but FBI documents show agents have so far found no evidence of racial bias despite dozens of interviews."

Nekochan

Nekochan

The Feds need to let this be. Civil rights violation? Really? What would it accomplish besides stirring up hate and discontent between Hispanics and blacks? Heck, whites would be sitting back saying...what the hell!?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Nekochan wrote:

1. Felt that Zimmerman acted in self defense which means that they believe that Trayvon was beating on him.  This is assault and battery,  which is a crime.

Well if they go by the law, they don't even have to believe that's what happened. Just that it's "reasonably possible" that it happened.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Bob wrote:
Nekochan wrote:

1. Felt that Zimmerman acted in self defense which means that they believe that Trayvon was beating on him.  This is assault and battery,  which is a crime.

Well if they go by the law,  they don't even have to believe that's what happened.  Just that it's "reasonably possible" that it happened.


Exactly true.  Which led me to my second condition that there was not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman wrongly killed Trayvon.    They ( or some of the jurors) may even think that Zimmerman should not have shot Trayvon.  But there is not enough evidence of wrong doing to convict him of manslaughter.



Last edited by Nekochan on 7/15/2013, 10:12 am; edited 2 times in total

Guest


Guest

nochain wrote:This was a pretty simple case the media whipped up into a national affair. Zimmerman went to trial and was found not guilty. Not satisfied with the letting the legal system work because they didn't get the result they wanted the NACCP now wants federal action taken. Now a nonprofit political group is able to dictate when to conduct an investigation to the federal government. What a world....

"Under pressure from the NAACP, Justice Dept. agrees to investigate George Zimmerman over possible civil rights violations, but FBI documents show agents have so far found no evidence of racial bias despite dozens of interviews."

       Going to be a little difficult....The FBI interview several witnesses and those involved in the case and came to the conclusion that 'race' was not a factor in this incident even though Holder will certainly attempt to come to a different conclusion in order to waste even more money to prosecute a found innocent citizen...

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

But this "reasonable" doubt concept is not cut and dried.
Because how do we determine when doubt is reasonable and when it's not reasonable.
The law doesn't give us a computer program to plug all the info into which will pop out the answer and tell us either reasonable or not reasonable.
And I'm not completely confident that our brains can always do that computation and get the right answer. lol

Nekochan

Nekochan

Bob wrote:But this "reasonable" doubt concept is not cut and dried.
Because how do we determine when doubt is reasonable and when it's not reasonable.
The law doesn't give us a computer program to plug all the info into which will pop out the answer and tell us either reasonable or not reasonable.  
And I'm not completely confident that our brains can always do that computation and get the right answer.  lol

Oh Bob...do you really want to start up this reasonable doubt discussion again!Shocked 

But...I think you're right.  And through this trial and the verdict I think you've brought up some excellent points. Humans make mistakes in fights, in altercations, in decisions they make every day ..... and so even on juries. But it's the best we have.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Nekochan wrote:

Oh Bob...do you really want to start up this reasonable doubt discussion again!Shocked 


Well I don't want to do round 2 of the bob/seaoat wrastlin match if that's what you mean.  lol

But what I'm talking about now doesn't pertain to that.  I'm now just talking about this concept of "reasonable doubt" in general.  And I don't think there can be enough discussion about that.  Because that concept is as important to the criminal justice system as air is to breathing.
The whole dang thing is predicated on it.  Whether people walk or go to jail is dependent on it.  
And how it became the bedrock principle should be known (I don't know).
And why it was the one chosen amongst other principles should be known (I don't know enough about that either).
And how we determine when doubt is reasonable or not reasonable should also be known. And I'm not clear on that either.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Markle wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:I have noticed some take pride in what Zimmerman did extolling the virtue of protecting his neighborhood from perceived encroachment by shady outside elements.
Others see Zimmerman as a coward that used a gun in a fist fight.
While others see him as a cold-blooded murderer.

The emotions are sure spread out and intense here , Why?

Rather than working to bring people together, President Barack Hussein Obama and his comrades have worked diligently to further divide our nation.  Between races, between socio-economic groups, religion, nationality and any other way possible.

The goal then is to make as many of those people believe that they are victims and dependent on government for their very existence.  Having stolen their independence, self respect and very souls, nothing stands between him and HIS vision of a managed, socialist society.



Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? - Page 2 Sylvester-liar-wish-icoulduseadeal-com2

Sal

Sal

The situation met the simple criteria for a charge of manslaughter.

One way for Zimmerman to beat the charge is to claim self-defense and mitigate the killing as a justifiable homicide.

At this point, the burden should be on Zimmerman's defense to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was justified.

This should be as simple as Zimmerman taking the stand and explaining himself.

The burden should not be on the victim, because Zimmerman KILLED him.

Unfortunately, FLA law is fucked up thanks to the NRA and ALEC.

2seaoat



This is assault and battery, which is a crime.


No, for the tenth time, a self defense affirmative defense has a lesser standard than proving a crime. It is an affirmative defense. To assume that because a self defense affirmative defense was successful that this proves the victim was guilty of a crime is absurd. Could Martin have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt of making the first strike in light of all the lies, well perhaps, but it is entirely consistent that the jury could have a reasonable doubt that Martin committed a crime, and still believe that Zimmerman's fears at some point in the scuffle allowed him to use deadly force. It is amazing after hours and hours of thread the most basic concepts and tenets are misunderstood and continue to be misunderstood.

We do not need to wait to the jury explains anything. The state proved manslaughter. The affirmative defense of self defense was given as an instruction. The jury found that Zimmerman by the instructions was justifiable in using deadly force with makes the second count of the act or acts not met, and the defendant was NG. To jump to these conclusions that a jury would have found Martin guilty of assault or battery is mere speculation. There is no doubt that there was a struggle, but to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin committed a crime because a jury agreed that it was justifiable use of force is not the same standard. A person can certainly speculate about what ifs.....but that is different than concluding there was a crime.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Nekochan wrote:
Bob wrote:
Nekochan wrote:

1. Felt that Zimmerman acted in self defense which means that they believe that Trayvon was beating on him.  This is assault and battery,  which is a crime.

Well if they go by the law,  they don't even have to believe that's what happened.  Just that it's "reasonably possible" that it happened.


Exactly true.  Which led me to my second condition that there was not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman wrongly killed Trayvon.    They ( or some of the jurors) may even think that Zimmerman should not have shot Trayvon.  But there is not enough evidence of wrong doing to convict him of manslaughter.

Hold that thought..."wrongly killed". Is it basically wrong to kill someone? Who provoked whom? That's what bothers me...a tendency to believe Zimmerman's story, whether it's made out of whole cloth or not...and to automatically blame the victim...his age, when a lot of kids have trouble...his parents and their parenting skills...his reaction to being followed through the complex by a total stranger...and where is the evidence that he attacked Zimmerman? Confirmation bias...it's ugly.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:[font=Arial Black]The situation met the simple criteria for a charge of manslaughter.

One way for Zimmerman to beat the charge is to claim self-defense and mitigate the killing as a justifiable homicide.


Apparently the jury disagreed with your learned assessment. You do realize the trial is over?

Sal

Sal

nochain wrote:

Apparently the jury disagreed with your learned assessment.

No they didn't.

The law is fucked up.

The jury followed the law.

You can't even follow a simple thread.

Imbecile.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal wrote:

At this point, the burden should be on Zimmerman's defense to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was justified.

This should be as simple as Zimmerman taking the stand and explaining himself.


See I think,  as smart as you obviously are,  you're so prejudiced in favor of Martin and against Zimmerman that you don't even realize what you're now suggesting.

Firstly,  the supreme law of the land,  the U.S. Constitution,  says "no person...  shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". 
There's a reason for that.  It's because,  without that protection,  the door opens to so much potential abuse of people's rights.  And it wouldn't impact on just the Zimmermans,  it would impact on a helluva lot of Martins as well. 
Teo made a very good observation the other day.  He said it's not wise to want to completely change a law just in knee-jerk reaction to one incident.  And if you think about it I bet you'll agree with that because you're too smart not to.

And then there's your other comment about "the burden should shift to the defense".
See there again,  because of one criminal case,  you're actually wanting to change "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent".
The presumption of innocence is an even more established principle than the burden of proof,  Sal  lol

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
nochain wrote:

Apparently the jury disagreed with your learned assessment.

No they didn't.

The law is fucked up.

The jury followed the law.

You can't even follow a simple thread.

Imbecile.

Quit being a biased moron Sally. Your hypocrisy is astounding, get a not guilty verdict IN THIS CASE and it's the law that's wrong. So sorry Sally that you can't pick and choose and change law to fit your warped agenda.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 5]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum