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 3 of 5]

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

When you start "shifting the burden to the defense",  who do you think that's going to hurt most,  Sal?
The Zimmermans?  Or the horde of poor black defendants with public defenders who will slide down that slippery slope right on into prison cells?  lol



Last edited by Bob on 7/15/2013, 10:52 am; edited 1 time in total

2seaoat



As a parent who instructed their kids not to speak to strangers, I would now instruct my kids if they are approached by a stranger to run like hell. I do not think Black parents can give that instruction. A black kid running faces the chance of getting shot just because they are running......the assumption of wrong doing and then the interfacing with law enforcement......and certainly they should not run while running on a bike......that is an automatic death sentence. If I was a black parent in Florida with a young kid, I would sit them down and explain that you cannot run, you cannot stand your ground and protect yourself, you cannot cry out for help because nobody will leave their home..........son curl up in a ball and pray to god because he will be the only one who can help you.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:

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

You're confusing things, Bob.

There is no presumption of innocence here.

Trayvon Martin is DEAD.

Zimmerman KILLED him.

That much has been established.

If at this point, the defense wants to claim self-defense, the burden should be on them to prove it with a preponderance of evidence, which in a case like this, would include the testimony of the shooter.

It's not like Trayvon could dispute Zimmerman's version.

And, it hasn't always been this way.

ALEC and the NRA pushed through these changes in the law in 2005.

Before then, when claiming self-defense, the burden of proof was on the defense.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

nochain wrote:
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.



No different than FT blaming the police.

Jessie Jackson doesn't believe it was a fair trial because Zimmerman was not tried by a jury of Trayvon's peers...WTF!

2seaoat



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.


I do not think he is being biased.  I listened to defense counsel discuss how confusing Florida's jury instructions for manslaughter have become.  I have talked about this earlier, and can not stress this enough.   Most states I am familiar with other than Florida, give a clean manslaughter instruction

1     was the victim dead
2     was the act or acts of the defendant responsible

the affirmative defense instruction of self defense is given and follows on a separate instruction, and basically allows the jury to determine if the act was justifiable.

Since 2005 with stand your ground, the jury instructions are long and complex as you are dealing with multiple concepts which often are contradictory.

This case will fade in the next few years, but there will be 10 more cases where someone will kill somebody and these complex instructions which the jury asked for help understanding are not Sal arguing that just this case was unfair, rather that Florida law needs to be simplified.   It certainly was a bridge too far in some of the discussions on this forum.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:As a parent who instructed their kids not to speak to strangers, I would now instruct my kids if they are approached by a stranger to run like hell.  I do not think Black parents can give that instruction.  A black kid running faces the chance of getting shot just because they are running......the assumption of wrong doing and then the interfacing with law enforcement......and certainly they should not run while running on a bike......that is an automatic death sentence.  If I was a black parent in Florida with a young kid, I would sit them down and explain that you cannot run, you cannot stand your ground and protect yourself, you cannot cry out for help because nobody will leave their home..........son curl up in a ball and pray to god because he will be the only one who can help you.

That may or may not be all true. 
But it is completely ignoring why the Zimmermans are out there to start with.
It is a fact,  not bigotry,  that young black people have a much higher propensity to commit crimes of assault and property crimes. 
No,  Martin was not committing a crime.  But a lot of Martins are committing crimes.

If you and Sal think this whole thing can be solved just by being against what Zimmerman was doing (and I'm agin that too),  then you're just dreaming.   Because even if you do take all the Zimmermans off the streets,  you still have the crime.

Guest


Guest

Joanimaroni wrote:
nochain wrote:
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.



No different than FT blaming the police.

Jessie Jackson doesn't believe it was a fair trial because Zimmerman was not tried by a jury of Trayvon's peers...WTF!

     There's always someone else to blame...'flawed' blaming the police is so ignornant that it's not worth commenting on....

Sal

Sal

It's a pretty simple concept.

If you kill someone and want to claim self-defense, you should have to explain why it was self-defense.

The prosecution should not to have to explain why it wasn't self-defense.

That's absurd, and the definition of an unfair burden ...

... but, that's the law in FLA and 16 other states thanks to the NRA and ALEC.

They want America to be the wild, wild, west where 50% of the population are cowboys and the other 50% are packing in the hopes of not becoming a victim of one of the cowboys.

2seaoat



No different than FT blaming the police.


Sal's comments are dead cinch correct. The Florida law which the jury had to deal with is confusing. The very act of asking for help understanding the manslaughter instruction confirms Sal's concerns.

FT blaming the police, I think is an incorrect restatement of her position. In any murder investigation there are mistakes made. Not bagging the hands, not putting the clothing in paper rather than plastic, and how the perp was interviewed should have included that first evening a demonstration of the positioning of the victim and Mr. Zimmerman. It was not done. Where I differ with FT is that none of these were so outside the range of normal police investigation and chain of custody to be responsible for the trial being unfair. The trial was the best of what America has to offer.

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote: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.

Seaoat, if you want to argue some more, you still haven't explained what you meant or how wrong you were when you said: If you doubt self defense, you must convict. That's about the dumbest thing I've seen posted in some time on this forum.

Now, I am not talking about an affirmative defense, no matter how much you're hung up on your legal lingo. I am not saying that Trayvon was proven guilty of anything. No matter how much you want to think so. I actually said that one or more jurors might have even thought that Zimmerman should not have shot Trayvon. But someone on here said that Trayvon didn't commit a crime. Well, assault and battery is a crime and even O'mara asked in his closing argument--What if Trayvon had survived? What would HE had been charged with?

And I didn't say that the jury has to explain a damn thing. They did their job and they should be able to get back to their lives. I just said that we don't know what their discussions were like during deliberations or their methods in coming to their decision.


Sal

Sal

Nekochan wrote:even O'mara asked in his closing argument--What if Trayvon had survived?  What would HE had been charged with?


Stealing one of Zimmo's bullets?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Seaoat even blames the police for the Boston bombing.  To seaoat, the police are the bad guys,  and the bomber is just "that kid".  lol

I hope the Seaoats don't get their way.  Because when I don't have that police barrier between me and the perps ,  I'm gonna be forced to get out there with a gun like Zimmerman.  And I aint lookin forward to having to do that.  I'd rather remain inside here in this comfy recliner with the computer keyboard in my hands and the tv on in the background and a drink on the table beside me (after 4PM of course).  lol

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
Nekochan wrote:even O'mara asked in his closing argument--What if Trayvon had survived?  What would HE had been charged with?


Stealing one of Zimmo's bullets?

Or if no shot were fired... who would've been charged?

Martin had scuffed knuckles and no other injuries... Z had a bloody nose and abrasions to the back of his head.

2seaoat



If you and Sal think this whole thing can be solved just by being against what Zimmerman was doing (and I'm agin that too), then you're just dreaming. Because even if you do take all the Zimmermans off the streets, you still have the crime.


Just like 80% of America believes that Banksters and Wall street folks and their derivatives and phoney mortgage paper should be prosecuted, they were not.......sometimes the interface of criminal laws and politics happens, and politics loses. When gun peddlers appeal to wimps(I have been a life time hunter and gun owner and NEVER considered carrying a concealed weapon until I aged and became Sick....so now I am a certified wimp) who can have legislatively passed a license to kill people and the threshold is that persons fear......well I liken that to the travesty of not one wall street criminal or bankster criminal being indicted.....money and politics drive our criminal statutes. Until those who care about black kids can change the legislation which allows for better clarity in self defense, and certainty that if you peddle phoney paper and steal 5 trillion there is no crime........no the interface of criminal statutes, the decision to prosecute, and the discussion of crime is often political.

2seaoat



Seaoat even blames the police for the Boston bombing

Thank you for accurately summing up my position. I must also blame the police for why the Cubs have not won the series in a 100 plus years. I do understand your fears Bob, you are exposed to more danger than me I suppose.....I just choose to live my life with courage, it is a free choice, and a black kid walking down the street is not a criminal in my mind....but he looks like somebody I have coached, took camping, and taught how to kick a soccer ball.....fear for me is a system of government which after a crime one guy on foot shuts a four million person metropolitan area down because no dogs were brought to track the perp, rather people at gun point were dragged from their homes......a wee bit different than saying the police were responsible for the bombing.....but that took no courage to say and it would be consistent.........

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

 O'mara asked in his closing argument--What if Trayvon had survived?  What would HE have been charged with?

That's a damn good question, neko. 

Firstly,   Zimmerman wouldn't be on trial for murder/manslaughter since there would be no murder/manslaughter.

But since the question assumes that Zimmerman did shoot Martin (just that Martin survived),  it would all come down to the same situation this trial had to struggle with,  being what happened when Martin and Zimmerman confronted each other.

Except with one BIG difference.  Martin would be with us to be able to tell his side of the story.  Either through his lawyers or on the witness stand.

And since there would be no death involved,   you and I may not have ever even heard about it because it probably wouldn't have been reported nationally.

2seaoat



Or if no shot were fired... who would've been charged?

Martin had scuffed knuckles and no other injuries... Z had a bloody nose and abrasions to the back of his head.


So you think a jury would find Martin Guilty of a crime if Martin had lived?

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Or if no shot were fired... who would've been charged?

Martin had scuffed knuckles and no other injuries... Z had a bloody nose and abrasions to the back of his head.


So you think a jury would find Martin Guilty of a crime if Martin had lived?

I highly doubt there would've been a jury trial. Likely a plea for something less than assault... like disorderly or affray.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:Seaoat even blames the police for the Boston bombing

Thank you for accurately summing up my position.   I must also blame the police for why the Cubs have not won the series in a 100 plus years.  I do understand your fears Bob, you are exposed to more danger than me I suppose.....I just choose to live my life with courage, it is a free choice, and a black kid walking down the street is not a criminal in my mind....but he looks like somebody I have coached, took camping, and taught how to kick a soccer ball.....fear for me is a system of government which after a crime one guy on foot shuts a four million person metropolitan area down because no dogs were brought to track the perp, rather people at gun point were dragged from their homes......a wee bit different than saying the police were responsible for the bombing.....but that took no courage to say and it would be consistent.........

 About that part above I put in bold text. 
When anyone,  a kid,  an adult, a muslim,  a christian,  an athiest,  a cop,  a civilian,  a male,  a female,  a black,  a white,  a queer,  or a straight, 
sets off a bomb in the middle of a large crowd of people in the middle of a big city who are innocently watching a marathon race happen,  and that blows hundreds of those innocent people to smitherens,  killing some and blowing off the arms and legs of others;  that is not just another crime. 

And if that crime had happened in downtown Pensacola,  it would make me be goddamn happy to know that this whole fucking place was being put under lockdown until the bomber was in custody no matter what fucking age he was.  If I lived in the neighborhood where the bomber was suspected of being located,  and an army of cops wanted to come in my house and search every fucking nook and cranny of it,  I would say "come right on in".

2seaoat



it would make me be goddamn happy to know that this whole fucking place was being put under lockdown

I would prefer to enable the citizens to participate and find the perp. As soon as the lockdown was lifted a citizen did in fact find the perp. It is one thing to be against stupid mind numbing bumbling, and all together another to be against the police. However, I am glad you vote for stupid and think that only the police have magic powers and posses eyes.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:

I would prefer to enable the citizens to participate and find the perp. 

 That sentence is so at odds with your position on the particular trial we've been discussing here,  that I shouldn't even have to point out what the contradiction is.  But I will anyway.

NOW it looks like you want to replace the police with a bunch of Zimmermans,  seaoat. 

My god will you please make up your mind.  lol

2seaoat



I highly doubt there would've been a jury trial. Likely a plea for something less than assault... like disorderly or affray.

So if Martin lived and could give his perception of Zimmerman, do you think he would not be able to match Zimmerman's lies. Do you think that he would be incapable of telling a story that he feared for his life or great bodily harm as he had run and zimmerman followed and upon the two meeting Zimmerman by his own admission reached into his pocket for his phone.........is self defense only limited to folks who carry guns? This discussion is like coming upon an accident and seeing one car damaged declaring that the other car was responsible for the accident. Again, the finding of an act to be justifiable does not make the other persons act or acts criminal......geez.....I do not know if I can do this again.

Guest


Guest

First look up affray... then we can talk.

2seaoat



That sentence is so at odds with your position on the particular trial we've been discussing here, that I shouldn't even have to point out what the contradiction is. But I will anyway.

NOW it looks like you want to replace the police with a bunch of Zimmermans, seaoat.

My god will you please make up your mind. lol




No it is completely consistent with what I argued for eight years on the PNJ and here. Citizen participation is essential. We need citizens not to retreat into their cocoons. I just believe that the rules of a neighborhood watch concerning carrying firearms is a good rule. Eyes and ears is one thing, wimps with concealed firearms profiling and actually confronting perps is entirely another thing. The homeowner used common sense and his eyes. He did not go into the house and get a gun and blow the person in the boat away......no my position is consistent. I have advocated for reverse 911 for eight years and Gunz and I have had the debate about citizens not being able to help......sorry, you need to be paying attention Bob because you have in sequence misstated two of my positions which were clear..........senility.......or has this fear thing hit a raw nerve.......I suspect a little of both.

2seaoat



First look up affray... then we can talk.


Then lets talk, because I do not need to look up affray because it is irrelevant if a minor child being followed in the dark had the requisite fear to stand their ground and use whatever force necessary to protect themselves. You see folks.....stand your ground is a double edged sword had Martin lived and simply said I feared great bodily harm......and you can list any crime you can imagine, but Florida says sorry charlie........stand your ground negates the criminal statute book.........and the level of proof to assert that defense is below a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.........We can thank the gun merchants for the wimp manifesto......why that poor child....fearing imminent great bodily harm.......

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 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