The Aftermath of the Trial

[testarosa]

Thank you, Gatsby, for taking the trouble to watch the CBC report. I would be surprised if many other readers here did.

Naturally, I disagree completely with your interpretation of it, but I must thank you for some new information which was not in the report:


Apparently your knowledge of recent world history does not extend to King Leopold being one of the most evil human beings who has ever lived -- right up there with Hitler and Stalin!! His monstrous exploitation of the "Belgian" Congo, and brutalizing and torturing and murdering its people, are legendary -- and the founder of Sanford, Florida, you have revealed, was his staunch ally!!

I did not expect that the history of Sanford could be more loathsome than was revealed in the CBC news report, but, thanks to you, I now know how its vileness surpassed my worst imaginings!!

You might consider reading Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness to gain a tongue-tip taste of the horror which King Leopold and his ally, Henry Sanford, unleashed.

Kidding me right, so you think modern day Sanford can be connected to someone or something that existed way back then ? WOW what a stretch that is for modern times in which we all live in today in this nation.

I certainly think it has considerable relevance in the light of the long and unremitting history of racism in the Sanford region, as was so clearly revealed in the CBC National News report.

Watch the news report linked above and judge for yourself.
.

You're really pissing off people with ties to Sanford with this continually calling them racists thing.

 

[Vox]

' Prosecutor John Guy's first words to jurors recounted what Zimmerman told a police dispatcher in a call shortly before the fatal confrontation with Martin: "F------ punks. These a-------. They always get away."'

Not an objective perspective.

and? which word is a racist one?

 

[Oldstyle]

' Prosecutor John Guy's first words to jurors recounted what Zimmerman told a police dispatcher in a call shortly before the fatal confrontation with Martin: "F------ punks. These a-------. They always get away."'

Not an objective perspective.

What's amusing is that the Prosecution tried to make that call proof that George Zimmerman was out of control that night...a rabid vigilante out for street justice!!! But when you listen to the entire call the thing that stands out is Zimmerman's lack of passion. He's not angry. He's a little frustrated because the Police can't seem to catch the people who are committing the break-ins that are plaguing the neighborhood but other than that one outburst, which wasn't as emphatic as the Prosecutor tried to make it seem in his opening, George Zimmerman is completely calm...speaking in a level voice as he answers the dispatcher's questions. He's not screaming...he's not yelling...he's not excited. He's just a guy trying to do the right thing and report a suspicious person.

As for whether the perspective is "objective"? The neighborhood was being targeted by teens for break-ins. The Police had been called to that area almost 500 times that year alone. There was obviously a problem! If Zimmerman is calling the Police to report the guy who's cleaning the pool as being "suspicious" then his "perspective" would be suspect...but he's calling to report a strange teen walking around the neighborhood in the rain who appears to be looking in people's houses...EXACTLY the type of person who WAS breaking into homes there!

 

[PMZ]

' Prosecutor John Guy's first words to jurors recounted what Zimmerman told a police dispatcher in a call shortly before the fatal confrontation with Martin: "F------ punks. These a-------. They always get away."'

Not an objective perspective.

What's amusing is that the Prosecution tried to make that call proof that George Zimmerman was out of control that night...a rabid vigilante out for street justice!!! But when you listen to the entire call the thing that stands out is Zimmerman's lack of passion. He's not angry. He's a little frustrated because the Police can't seem to catch the people who are committing the break-ins that are plaguing the neighborhood but other than that one outburst, which wasn't as emphatic as the Prosecutor tried to make it seem in his opening, George Zimmerman is completely calm...speaking in a level voice as he answers the dispatcher's questions. He's not screaming...he's not yelling...he's not excited. He's just a guy trying to do the right thing and report a suspicious person.

As for whether the perspective is "objective"? The neighborhood was being targeted by teens for break-ins. The Police had been called to that area almost 500 times that year alone. There was obviously a problem! If Zimmerman is calling the Police to report the guy who's cleaning the pool as being "suspicious" then his "perspective" would be suspect...but he's calling to report a strange teen walking around the neighborhood in the rain who appears to be looking in people's houses...EXACTLY the type of person who WAS breaking into homes there!

It would appear that you are no more objective about the taking of a human life than he was/is.

 

[PMZ]

' Prosecutor John Guy's first words to jurors recounted what Zimmerman told a police dispatcher in a call shortly before the fatal confrontation with Martin: "F------ punks. These a-------. They always get away."'

Not an objective perspective.

and? which word is a racist one?

Why do you bring up racism?

 

[PMZ]

'

Yes, and no one really knows what happened !!

A classic example of feeble-minded Americans raving and defending their ignorance !!

.

Yes we do!

Civilized countries have this thing called a Jury system

A Jury said Zimmerman did nothing legally wrong

That's all that matters

No go back to the global warming threads and let the grown ups handle this.

Why would anyone believe that that for which there is insufficient evidence to prove illegality is "all that matters"?

 

[PaulS1950]

Why would anyone believe that that for which there is insufficient evidence to prove illegality is "all that matters"?

Maybe because one is presumed innocent until they are proven guilty?
You remember, our whole judicial system is based on that premise.
If there is not enough evidence to convict someone then the presumption of innocence remains.

In this case not only was there not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman on any of the charges but the preponderance of evidence completely agreed with his account of the events in question.

He was found not guilty of any crimes - thus the presumption of innocence remains.

 

[numan]

Yes, and no one really knows what happened !!

A classic example of feeble-minded Americans raving and defending their ignorance !!

It's obvious what happened.

You're the only one who can't figure it out.

Neither of your sentences is true.

One can be pretty sure that the more things that are "obvious" to a person, the lower the IQ of that person is.

The only person who really knows what happened in that incident is Zimmerman -- and while what he claims may be true, he is an interested party, and what he claims can hardly be accepted without corroborating evidence -- and sufficiently certain evidence is unattainable.

.

 

[Oldstyle]

' Prosecutor John Guy's first words to jurors recounted what Zimmerman told a police dispatcher in a call shortly before the fatal confrontation with Martin: "F------ punks. These a-------. They always get away."'

Not an objective perspective.

What's amusing is that the Prosecution tried to make that call proof that George Zimmerman was out of control that night...a rabid vigilante out for street justice!!! But when you listen to the entire call the thing that stands out is Zimmerman's lack of passion. He's not angry. He's a little frustrated because the Police can't seem to catch the people who are committing the break-ins that are plaguing the neighborhood but other than that one outburst, which wasn't as emphatic as the Prosecutor tried to make it seem in his opening, George Zimmerman is completely calm...speaking in a level voice as he answers the dispatcher's questions. He's not screaming...he's not yelling...he's not excited. He's just a guy trying to do the right thing and report a suspicious person.

As for whether the perspective is "objective"? The neighborhood was being targeted by teens for break-ins. The Police had been called to that area almost 500 times that year alone. There was obviously a problem! If Zimmerman is calling the Police to report the guy who's cleaning the pool as being "suspicious" then his "perspective" would be suspect...but he's calling to report a strange teen walking around the neighborhood in the rain who appears to be looking in people's houses...EXACTLY the type of person who WAS breaking into homes there!

It would appear that you are no more objective about the taking of a human life than he was/is.

A human life was "taken" that night because Trayvon Martin made a decision to escalate things to a physical confrontation with a sucker punch and then escalated that confrontation even further by getting on top of the man he just knocked down and beating him as he lay on the ground.

I'm saddened by the loss of life but I'm not overlooking what happened simply because a handgun took a teen's life. As I've said many times before...if the Police had arrived shortly BEFORE George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin...that young man would have gone to jail on an assault and battery charge. Trayvon Martin committed a crime against another person. The fact that he was later shot by the person he committed that crime against doesn't change that.

This would not have happened if Martin hadn't punched Zimmerman in the face. The Police would have arrived. They would have sorted out who was who and everyone would have gone on their merry way. That didn't happen though because for some reason Trayvon Martin thought a sucker punch was the correct response to someone following you at a distance. His parents and all the rest of you Zimmerman "haters" should stop and think about how a young teen arrived at that response. It wasn't George Zimmerman's "I don't have a problem with you." that warranted a punch to the face. So what made Trayvon Martin think THAT was an appropriate course of action?

 

[PaulS1950]

Neither of your sentences is true.

One can be pretty sure that the more things that are "obvious" to a person, the lower the IQ of that person is.

The only person who really knows what happened in that incident is Zimmerman -- and while what he claims may be true, he is an interested party, and what he claims can hardly be accepted without corroborating evidence -- and sufficiently certain evidence is unattainable.

Numan,
There is one eye witness to the fight and another that heard the incident. Both were having recorded conversations with 911 operators at the time. There is the coroner's report that Martin had no injuries other than bruised knuckles and the gunshot wound. There is the non-emergency conversation that Zimmerman had with the dispatcher that was also taped. There is a multitude of evidence that was admitted in the case that along with the witness testimony that corroborates Zimmerman's story. There was no evidence that Zimmerman committed any crime.

That was sufficient information for the jury to find Zimmerman not guilty. That you refuse to accept the evidence and findings in this case shows that you have opinions that you are unwilling to change in the face of the evidence or that you are completely ignorant of the evidence, in which case you should be open enough to at least get the facts of the case in order to make an informed decision of the outcome.

 

[numan]

'
Paul, you are just being silly. Everything you mention is circumstantial.

There is no public evidence of what may or may not have started the fight.

In the absence of that, no one really knows what happened.

There was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. That does not mean that he is not culpable. He may, indeed, be innocent of murder or manslaughter, but the evidence does not prove it !!

.

 

[Oldstyle]

What evidence of any kind indicates that George Zimmerman is "culpable"? I assume you're talking of culpable negligence?

 

[Oldstyle]

"Recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences)"

You're equating getting out of a vehicle and following someone at a distance while talking with the Police as "recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death"? How does following someone at a distance NOT show reasonable caution when you know the Police are coming? Zimmerman makes no attempt to confront the person he suspects of being a burglar. So how does following and observing possibly put another person at risk of injury or death? It's just as absurd an argument as a Murder II or Manslaughter charge.

 

[PaulS1950]

'
Paul, you are just being silly. Everything you mention is circumstantial.

There is no public evidence of what may or may not have started the fight.

In the absence of that, no one really knows what happened.

There was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. That does not mean that he is not culpable. He may, indeed, be innocent of murder or manslaughter, but the evidence does not prove it !!

.

If Zimmerman threw the first punch why were there no bruises on his hands?
The question before the jury was:
Was Zimmerman in fear for his life when he used deadly force?
There was evidence provided that showed Zimmerman was not emotionally and morally capable of being an aggressor. There was evidence presented that Zimmerman would rather help someone than injure them or take advantage of them.
We know (or have evidence) that Zimmerman shot Martin.
We know (or have evidence) that the shot was fired while Martin was on top of Zimmerman and that the gun was within 4 inches of Martin fired at a 90 degree angle front to back - not up or down at him but directly at him from the vertical perspective.
That places Martin on top of Zimmerman and as the witness testified Martin was repeatedly punching Zimmerman.

We are not concerned with events that happened before the confrontation but those matters were entered into evidence as well. Martin was followed for a short time before getting away and back "at his house" and that Zimmerman after losing Martin started back toward his car and got to within 30 yards of it before the confrontation. That requires that Martin left the position "at his house" and either followed or got ahead of Zimmerman and initiated a confrontation. That adds to the "background" of the incident but ultimately has little bearing on the actual attack and Zimmerman's use of deadly force in self defense.

There is a lot of evidence if you care to look or even listen to the trial - it was posted on streaming video for the whole world to see. All the evidence is there. There is also so "grandstanding by the prosecutor filled with a number of "what if's" that bear no resemblance to the long list of evidence but then he had nothing but emotion to use to convict an innocent man - Yes, he is considered innocent until proven guilty. The facts of the case stand on their own and support Zimmerman's account of what happened. There is no evidence that supports any other story.

The fact that I agree with the evidence and the jury nearly shows that I am not the one that is silly.

 

[numan]

'
Can't you read? I have said over and over, I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or not.

I assert that no one else truly knows what happened, either.

Virtually everything written in these leagues and leagues of emotional, prejudiced invective, pro and con, is simply meaningless trash, from the point of view of what objectively happened.

So many people are incapable of separating their emotions from rational evaluations, and are totally unworthy to be citizens of a free republic.

So they richly deserve what they have gotten.

.

 

[BobPlumb]

'
Paul, you are just being silly. Everything you mention is circumstantial.

There is no public evidence of what may or may not have started the fight.

In the absence of that, no one really knows what happened.

There was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. That does not mean that he is not culpable. He may, indeed, be innocent of murder or manslaughter, but the evidence does not prove it !!

.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defense. Zimmerman may be as guilty as sin, but legally he is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

'
Can't you read? I have said over and over, I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or not.

I assert that no one else truly knows what happened, either.

Virtually everything written in these leagues and leagues of emotional, prejudiced invective, pro and con, is simply meaningless trash, from the point of view of what objectively happened.

You people are incapable of separating your emotions from rational evaluations, and are totally unworthy to be citizens of a free republic.

So you richly deserve what you have gotten.

.

At least you admit to not being able to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion. Good thing you weren't on the jury.

 

[Oldstyle]

'
Can't you read? I have said over and over, I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or not.

I assert that no one else truly knows what happened, either.

Virtually everything written in these leagues and leagues of emotional, prejudiced invective, pro and con, is simply meaningless trash, from the point of view of what objectively happened.

You people are incapable of separating your emotions from rational evaluations, and are totally unworthy to be citizens of a free republic.

So you richly deserve what you have gotten.

.

The "prejudiced invective" has come from you...you pompous ass! Anyone who doesn't see things your way, you label as too stupid to grasp your "brilliance".

 

[PMZ]

'
Paul, you are just being silly. Everything you mention is circumstantial.

There is no public evidence of what may or may not have started the fight.

In the absence of that, no one really knows what happened.

There was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. That does not mean that he is not culpable. He may, indeed, be innocent of murder or manslaughter, but the evidence does not prove it !!

.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defense. Zimmerman may be as guilty as sin, but legally he is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

Many here assume that the legal standard establishes reality. It does not in any way. Every year many cases where the legal standard judged "guilty" are overturned. Why would anyone expect the legal standard to be less error prone in the other direction? The Constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy is not because anyone thought that a "guilty" judgement defines reality. Only that less than that would allow cases to go on forever.

 

[PMZ]

For GZ's story to be the whole truth, one must believe that he was a random victim. He did nothing to provoke, he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am incredulous that people would accept that as a reasonable position. There may be no evidence that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that that could be the case, but common sense says that it is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible.

Clearly the legal standard defies common sense.