Trayvon Martin

Blockhead wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

"they" always get away wasn't racial at all

And what context was that In? Do you know? "they" could have easily been used to describe CRIMINALS, you know, the ones that the neighborhood complained about before the Martin incident... :roll:
Let also forget the media race baiting by showing you...
1. Making GZ "whiter" then he really was by doctoring pictures.
2. Releasing GZ photo to the public, which was a mug shot.(frowing)
3. Editing audio/call tapes
4. Releasing TM photo the the public as a pre-pubescent innocent school boy with a great big smile on his face. and labeling him as "eating skittles and drinking Arizona ice tea"
5. President OBAMA say "If he had a son, he would look just like Martin". (which conveniently, after this was said was when GZ was actually charged of a crime)
6. With-holding all of the TM photos of him holding a gun, smoking weed, being suspended from school for fighting, buying guns Illegally.
The biggest issue in this case is the medias portrayal of both individuals. The way they put the case out there blatantly added to the race hunt that ensued.

I completely agree with you here. The media butchered this thing. Luckily, the race card seems to have worn off a bit.

This trial is joke. The media wants people to perceive this trial as a ‘racial’ matter. When in fact that the main issue of the case has been lost on the public. The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law of Florida. There would not have been a fight had Zimmerman adhered to the Stand Your Ground law and not pursued Martin.

Can you claim the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law if you make it a point to follow, harass, provoke, and engage a person? Does not that person, fearful of what is happening, also have the right to protect him/her self once confronted?

QUESTION for the Posters: Knowing all you feel you know about this case – What would have happen had Zimmerman not pursued Martin? For me, I see that

--Martin would have went home?

--Police may have caught up with Martin, probably had Martin take them to where he was staying for verification, then, still would have taken him to the station for additional questioning, then called his relatives to come get him and take him home.

Yet, without Zimmerman’s pursuit of Martin, Martin would have went home that night, instead of being killed.

So, the only question before the Court and the Jury should have been, did Zimmerman overstep the laws of Stand Your Ground, and, if so, is it murder or manslaughter?

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i don't view everyone with the concealed carry permit as an aggressor. i will say that someone carrying a gun MIGHT be more inclined to start something since Mr. Colt 45 has his back...

You're off. When I carry I avoid confrontation because of two reasons, the first I don't want to have to use it, the second because of your statement. Most are conscious to the fact that there are trolls everywhere trying to get rights banned. No point giving you guys more to argue with.

it was a general statement. you can not honestly sit there and tell me that every concealed carry holder is going to act as you do. i am sure that that gun makes a lot of them braver and more willing to confront someone or get involved in a heated situation. case in point, zimmerman. a shitty fighter, knowing he had a gun approached martin. i am willing to bet that had zimmerman not had a gun, he would have never gotten out of his car.

puremagic wrote:

This trial is joke. The media wants people to perceive this trial as a ‘racial’ matter. When in fact that the main issue of the case has been lost on the public. The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law of Florida. There would not have been a fight had Zimmerman adhered to the Stand Your Ground law and not pursued Martin.

Can you claim the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law if you make it a point to follow, harass, provoke, and engage a person? Does not that person, fearful of what is happening, also have the right to protect him/her self once confronted?

QUESTION for the Posters: Knowing all you feel you know about this case – What would have happen had Zimmerman not pursued Martin? For me, I see that

--Martin would have went home?

--Police may have caught up with Martin, probably had Martin take them to where he was staying for verification, then, still would have taken him to the station for additional questioning, then called his relatives to come get him and take him home.

Yet, without Zimmerman’s pursuit of Martin, Martin would have went home that night, instead of being killed.

So, the only question before the Court and the Jury should have been, did Zimmerman overstep the laws of Stand Your Ground, and, if so, is it murder or manslaughter?

Following someone doesn't mean you lose your right to self-defense, right?

All of this "it wouldn't never happened if Zimmerman just went home or didn't follow him" stuff is nonsense.

So what is prosecution gonna come up with in the closing statement? are they gonna use just one or all of
1. Zimmerman using mini flashlight as a weapon
2. Zimmerman hitting himself with a branch
3. Zimmerman bumping into a branch
4. Zimmerman executing TM
5. Zimmerman being an MMA expert
6. Zimmerman shooting while being pounded, thinking his injuries arent bad and he just wants to waste a kid
7. Zimmerman shooting while TM is backing off after seeing the gun
8. Zimmerman being a racist
9. Zimmerman being a wannabe cop

The prosecution still completely out of a story to replace Zimmerman?

The state is trying to put in any possible theory as to how this went down, and hoping the jury bites on any one of them. They change the possibilities everytime the state proves a new point.
Meanwhile the defense has stuck to one story, proven it time and time again, and never deviated.

Blockhead wrote:

Your correct is doesn't change what evidence has been presented...
Which is funny because now the prosecutors are changing their argument
They were arguing Zimmerman was ontop....now they are saying Trayvon was ontop...
Not only that but the judge thew out all the text messages, saying any 7 year old could "hack" his phone password and his text application password and send those tests. So yes, the MEDIA is creating a bias, and the judge has seem to also conformed to this bias as well.
Are you even paying attention to this trial?

So your answer is: yes, prosecutors and judges are spineless sycophants who lack integrity and are bowing to the whims of a belligerent and ill-informed media? Cool. No bias there and I'm sure that "lack" of bias doesn't jade or influence how you view the trial I'm apparently not paying attention to.

As a prosecutor myself, I'd take offense if the commentary wasn't from an anonymous internet source.

Carry on.

Heard a really reasoned discussion on the trial so far with Judge Alex Ferrer on Opie & Anthony this morning. They start out with some general talk and the Casey Anthony trial. Zimmerman trial discussion starts around 22:45:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8WQJQtJ9as

vant0037 wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Your correct is doesn't change what evidence has been presented...
Which is funny because now the prosecutors are changing their argument
They were arguing Zimmerman was ontop....now they are saying Trayvon was ontop...
Not only that but the judge thew out all the text messages, saying any 7 year old could "hack" his phone password and his text application password and send those tests. So yes, the MEDIA is creating a bias, and the judge has seem to also conformed to this bias as well.
Are you even paying attention to this trial?

So your answer is: yes, prosecutors and judges are spineless sycophants who lack integrity and are bowing to the whims of a belligerent and ill-informed media? Cool. No bias there and I'm sure that "lack" of bias doesn't jade or influence how you view the trial I'm apparently not paying attention to.

As a prosecutor myself, I'd take offense if the commentary wasn't from an anonymous internet source.

Carry on.

In this case, Its fairly evident... Try looking at this objectively.
Ill ask again, why are the prosecutors changing their argument continually to fit whatever evidence is presented?
since your a prosecutor, ill ask you a question, since your paying so much attention to this trial. :roll:
Why is the judge asking Zimmerman if he wants to take the stand? His lawyers were trying to speak on his behalf and she would not listen to them...
Somebody is out for blood...
Hopefully your not biased and you can answer this question honestly

Blockhead wrote:

In this case, Its fairly evident... Try looking at this objectively.
Ill ask again, why are the prosecutors changing their argument continually to fit whatever evidence is presented?
since your a prosecutor, ill ask you a question, since your paying so much attention to this trial. :roll:
Why is the judge asking Zimmerman if he wants to take the stand? His lawyers were trying to speak on his behalf and she would not listen to them...
Somebody is out for blood...
Hopefully your not biased and you can answer this question honestly

The judge is asking Zimmerman if he wants to take the stand because it's his and only his decision to do so. His attorneys cannot waive that right for him and they cannot "speak" on his behalf. They can advocate for him, they can argue his cause, but his right to testify is his and his alone. The judge is likely inquiring about whether he'll testify or not because to testify, he needs to waive his right to remain silent, something that would be put on the record in open court. If he chooses to remain silent and not testify, a waiver could also be put on the record, waiving his right to testify.

Not everything is a conspiracy just because you don't understand it.

Incontrovertible facts show that Zimmerman had previously called about "suspicious black males." Incontrovertible facts show that Zimmerman and Martin got into a confrontation. Incontrovertible facts show that Martin is dead by Zimmerman's hand.

Does that mean he's guilty? I have no idea; that's what trials are for.

To argue that he's not guilty because X, Y, or Z is one thing; to argue that he shouldn't even stand trial is another. Believe me, self-defense cases are always close calls and always emotional. It seems a lot of people are upset that he's even standing trial, forgetting the danger in deciding if someone is guilty or innocent from the sidelines. You don't know what happened any more than I do, but with the uncontested facts as we know them, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that a crime may or may not have been committed. Keep in mind: probable cause to stand trial means there are facts that point to guilt. Probable cause is a LOWER standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So the fact that he was charged and at trial you believe there's not enough evidence to convict isn't a sign that there's bias in the charging process, it's a sign that our system of checks and balances is working.

I'd rather have a jury deliberate over whether the exception applies 100 times out of 100, rather than have an officer unchecked and arbitrarily deciding if someone gets charged on a case-by-case basis. Inevitably, there will come situations where the officer acts in ill will, makes a mistake, or would change his or her mind if further investigation happened. In this case, the officers forwarded the case, and based on the facts as we knew them, a charge was issued. That's our process.

Arguing that he's not guilty because there's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial is one thing. Arguing that the media has influenced the chargingdecision because there's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial is a misunderstanding of our criminal justice system.

As I've said all along, if he's acquitted, our system has worked and he's entitled to his freedom. If he's convicted, it's because a jury believed the State had met its burden and found that Zimmerman couldn't meet a sufficient threshold to prove he acted in self-defense.