The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[pioneerpete]

I wonder if Bill Cosby is going to pay off the judgment against Sharpton this time?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think what they may really be worried about is the hearing that is coming up about the evidence they kept away from the defense. The prosecutors have to answer to that. Not gonna be a great day for them.

Especially now that they fired their IT expert.

Who blew the whistle.

Ben Kruidbos

 

[PredFan]

Do you believe that George Zimmerman committed a crime and should have been convicted of a crime?

1. He angrily and aggressively followed a young man because he falsely believed he was a criminal.

2. He then questioned the young man about why he was there, as if he was law enforcement.

3. Finally, he shot the young man dead after they got into a scuffle.

4. His final action may have been to defend himself, but should he have still been found guilty of a crime by aggressively and angrily following this innocent young man in the first place, thereby starting the whole incident?

5. I believe that he "unneededly" started the whole incident, that led to the death of someone who was simply walking home. When your aggressive and angry attitude starts an event that leads to a death, you should be convicted of a crime.

1. How did he "angrily" and "aggressively" follow this young man?

2. Uh, that wannabe cop theory is dead. Blown out of the water many times.

3. Scuffle? Martin was full on beating the man into the ground!

4. I have no idea how to respond to this one... too much stupid in one paragraph.

5. Is unneededly even a word? Damn, I need to back off before I get any more of your stupid on me.

Zimmerman's anger and aggression is clear in the 911 call.

Plus the fact that he was on drugs that can cause aggression and irratibility.

Dude you are about as sharp as a bowling ball.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Zimmerman's anger and aggression is clear in the 911 call.

Plus the fact that he was on drugs that can cause aggression and irratibility.

And you are on drugs that can cause stupidity.

You are a troll.

Troll huh? Well, look who can't get their facts straight?

 

[Gardener]

1. How did he "angrily" and "aggressively" follow this young man?

2. Uh, that wannabe cop theory is dead. Blown out of the water many times.

3. Scuffle? Martin was full on beating the man into the ground!

4. I have no idea how to respond to this one... too much stupid in one paragraph.

5. Is unneededly even a word? Damn, I need to back off before I get any more of your stupid on me.

Zimmerman's anger and aggression is clear in the 911 call.

Plus the fact that he was on drugs that can cause aggression and irratibility.

Dude you are about as sharp as a bowling ball.

Look, another troll.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. How did he "angrily" and "aggressively" follow this young man?

2. Uh, that wannabe cop theory is dead. Blown out of the water many times.

3. Scuffle? Martin was full on beating the man into the ground!

4. I have no idea how to respond to this one... too much stupid in one paragraph.

5. Is unneededly even a word? Damn, I need to back off before I get any more of your stupid on me.

Zimmerman's anger and aggression is clear in the 911 call.

Plus the fact that he was on drugs that can cause aggression and irratibility.

Dude you are about as sharp as a bowling ball.

Wat

 

[Gardener]

And you are on drugs that can cause stupidity.

You are a troll.

Troll huh? Well, look who can't get their facts straight?

Yes, you resort to silly personal attacks.

That trolling.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't see, even Holder/Obama doing this.


It would disappoint me greatly....

Agreed. However. . .

I don't know, the government seems to look for every opportunity to nullify the protections of the Bill of Rights. That being said, in a perfect world, according to most sober people's interpretation of the constitution, I do believe that would be "double jeopardy."

Double Jeopardy Clause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . ."[1] The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

retrial after an acquittal;
retrial after a conviction;
retrial after certain mistrials; and
multiple punishment

Jeopardy attaches in jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn in, in a bench trial when the court begins to hear evidence after the first witness is sworn in, or when a court accepts a defendant's plea unconditionally.[2] Jeopardy does not attach in a retrial of a conviction that was reversed on appeal on procedural grounds (as opposed to evidentiary insufficiency grounds), in a retrial for which "manifest necessity" has been shown following a mistrial, and in the seating of a second grand jury if the first refuses to return an indictment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause

It's not double jeopardy. In this case double jeopardy would apply that the state of Florida can't charge him again. The Fed is of different sovereignty. However, for them to have the ability to prosecute on murder charges, GZ, TM or that neighborhood would have to be state actors or state property. Civil rights charges are only applicable if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt GZ acted in a racist motivation when killing TM. Kind of hard to prove that when he was have been shown to lawfully acting in self-defense.

Ever read the Constitution? It clearly prohibits taking anyone to court more than once, even if the first time was a hung jury. I know people like you think it isn't fair that the state cannot lock up anyone it wants whenever it wants, but you don't get to pretend you are not breaking the rules when you do it.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are a troll.

Troll huh? Well, look who can't get their facts straight?

Yes, you resort to silly personal attacks.

That trolling.

I tried to debate you, hoping you would back up your nonsense. But you didn't bother with a coherent response.

I don't take people like you seriously. When my rep recharges, there's an 850 neg with your name on it. Read my sig.

 

[thanatos144]

No it's not. That's ridiculous.

yes it is murder just means getting killed. whether it is justified or not is the question.

"Murder" is by definition unlawful killing.

Perhaps you are thinking about "homicide", which some use synonymously with "murder" but which actually has a broader meaning of one person killing another.

Honestly I think they mean the same thing. .... It is the word justified that matters

 

[pioneerpete]

Agreed. However. . .

I don't know, the government seems to look for every opportunity to nullify the protections of the Bill of Rights. That being said, in a perfect world, according to most sober people's interpretation of the constitution, I do believe that would be "double jeopardy."

Double Jeopardy Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause

It's not double jeopardy. In this case double jeopardy would apply that the state of Florida can't charge him again. The Fed is of different sovereignty. However, for them to have the ability to prosecute on murder charges, GZ, TM or that neighborhood would have to be state actors or state property. Civil rights charges are only applicable if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt GZ acted in a racist motivation when killing TM. Kind of hard to prove that when he was have been shown to lawfully acting in self-defense.

Ever read the Constitution? It clearly prohibits taking anyone to court more than once, even if the first time was a hung jury. I know people like you think it isn't fair that the state cannot lock up anyone it wants whenever it wants, but you don't get to pretend you are not breaking the rules when you do it.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't think he should face any charges. You would know that if you didn't take offense to me pointing out that you are wrong. Double Jeopardy doesn't apply in this case. You have to read the whole thing my man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Dual_sovereignty_doctrine
Dual sovereignty doctrine[edit]

The "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy arises from the dual nature of the American Federal-State system, one in which states are sovereigns with plenary power that have relinquished a number of enumerated powers to the Federal government. Double jeopardy attaches only to prosecutions for the same criminal act by the same sovereign, but as separate sovereigns, both the federal and state governments can bring separate prosecutions for the same act.

As an example, a state might try a defendant for murder, after which the Federal government might try the same defendant for a Federal crime (perhaps a civil rights violation or a kidnapping) connected to the same act. For example, the officers of the Los Angeles Police Department who were charged with assaulting Rodney King in 1991 were acquitted by a jury of the Superior Court, but some were later convicted and sentenced in Federal court for violating King's civil rights. Similar legal processes were used for prosecuting racially motivated crimes in the Southern United States in the 1960s during the time of the Civil Rights movement, when those crimes had not been actively prosecuted, or had resulted in acquittals by juries that were thought to be racist or overly sympathetic with the accused in local courts.

 

[thanatos144]

I wish Zimmerman would go to a Hispanic nation. I wish him lots of luck.

dont you ever get sick of posting nothing but race baiting posts?

 

[thanatos144]

Coyote...

Trayvon was on top beating Zimmermans head into the ground....Understand?

Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon.

Pretty scary.

You do understand that the definition of stalking requires that the following and harassing continue over a period of time that is a lot longer than one night, don't you?

Did Zimmerman follow Martin? Yes.

Did Zimmerman harass Martin? Possibly, though the evidence I have seen doesn't really support that contention I am willing to admit that Martin could have viewed it that way under the circumstances.

Did Zimmerman stalk Martin. No, he did not. If the prosecution had any evidence that Zimmerman had seen Martin before that night they could have used it to make the case that Zimmerman was deliberately targeting Martin, and used it to bolster their case for murder.

I assume they mean stalking as a cat stalks its prey.... They are still full of shit but that what I understand they mean.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Acquittal excuses:

Zimmerman's still a racist.

Trayvon is an angel.

Still guilty in my book, because Obama said so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not double jeopardy. In this case double jeopardy would apply that the state of Florida can't charge him again. The Fed is of different sovereignty. However, for them to have the ability to prosecute on murder charges, GZ, TM or that neighborhood would have to be state actors or state property. Civil rights charges are only applicable if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt GZ acted in a racist motivation when killing TM. Kind of hard to prove that when he was have been shown to lawfully acting in self-defense.

Ever read the Constitution? It clearly prohibits taking anyone to court more than once, even if the first time was a hung jury. I know people like you think it isn't fair that the state cannot lock up anyone it wants whenever it wants, but you don't get to pretend you are not breaking the rules when you do it.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't think he should face any charges. You would know that if you didn't take offense to me pointing out that you are wrong. Double Jeopardy doesn't apply in this case. You have to read the whole thing my man.

Double Jeopardy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dual sovereignty doctrine[edit]

The "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy arises from the dual nature of the American Federal-State system, one in which states are sovereigns with plenary power that have relinquished a number of enumerated powers to the Federal government. Double jeopardy attaches only to prosecutions for the same criminal act by the same sovereign, but as separate sovereigns, both the federal and state governments can bring separate prosecutions for the same act.

As an example, a state might try a defendant for murder, after which the Federal government might try the same defendant for a Federal crime (perhaps a civil rights violation or a kidnapping) connected to the same act. For example, the officers of the Los Angeles Police Department who were charged with assaulting Rodney King in 1991 were acquitted by a jury of the Superior Court, but some were later convicted and sentenced in Federal court for violating King's civil rights. Similar legal processes were used for prosecuting racially motivated crimes in the Southern United States in the 1960s during the time of the Civil Rights movement, when those crimes had not been actively prosecuted, or had resulted in acquittals by juries that were thought to be racist or overly sympathetic with the accused in local courts.

I don't have to read anything, I know what the courts say, and I know they are wrong.

 

[mudwhistle]

Funny how everyone is so upset about a Hispanic shooting a black man but nobody cares about Aaron Hernandez shooting and killing a brother in cold-blood.

I made this clear when it happened, but it seems nobody cared then either.

We're only supposed to pay attention to the stories the MSM wants us to pay attention to.

 

[Yurt]

marc:

four black guys beat the shit out of a white guy then shoved him to his death into oncoming traffic

what should a white guy do or not do?

prediction: marc will not answer because he is a racist jerk

 

[pioneerpete]

Ever read the Constitution? It clearly prohibits taking anyone to court more than once, even if the first time was a hung jury. I know people like you think it isn't fair that the state cannot lock up anyone it wants whenever it wants, but you don't get to pretend you are not breaking the rules when you do it.

I don't think he should face any charges. You would know that if you didn't take offense to me pointing out that you are wrong. Double Jeopardy doesn't apply in this case. You have to read the whole thing my man.

Double Jeopardy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dual sovereignty doctrine[edit]

The "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy arises from the dual nature of the American Federal-State system, one in which states are sovereigns with plenary power that have relinquished a number of enumerated powers to the Federal government. Double jeopardy attaches only to prosecutions for the same criminal act by the same sovereign, but as separate sovereigns, both the federal and state governments can bring separate prosecutions for the same act.

As an example, a state might try a defendant for murder, after which the Federal government might try the same defendant for a Federal crime (perhaps a civil rights violation or a kidnapping) connected to the same act. For example, the officers of the Los Angeles Police Department who were charged with assaulting Rodney King in 1991 were acquitted by a jury of the Superior Court, but some were later convicted and sentenced in Federal court for violating King's civil rights. Similar legal processes were used for prosecuting racially motivated crimes in the Southern United States in the 1960s during the time of the Civil Rights movement, when those crimes had not been actively prosecuted, or had resulted in acquittals by juries that were thought to be racist or overly sympathetic with the accused in local courts.

I don't have to read anything, I know what the courts say, and I know they are wrong.

Fair enough, but don't suggest that I read the constitution when you haven't read the whole thing. If you want to insult my knowledge, do it with full knowledge.

 

[JQPublic1]

He was overcharged.

But it also seems the standard for self defense in Florida is incredibly low.

One just has to "feel" like one is in danger.

That's pretty dangerous.

Hope the law gets challenged.

Why does everyone overlook the fact that Martin "felt" like HE was in danger? Even the prosecution seemed disinclined to make that a point during the trial. If Martin had a gun he would have been justified in shooting GZ. When Martin began to feel something out of the ordinary with GZ wasn't he covered at that moment by the Fla. SYG? And when he used his fists because he had no gun, was he still not covered by the SYG law? And even if he did bump GZ's head on concrete was he still not operating under the SYG law? When did the tenets of the law shift from TM to GZ? ALl the things TM did to GZ were covered by SYG... ALl of those blows were condoned under SYG and, in effect, were as crucial to SYG as if TM had shot GZ.

Now, some of the right wing Martin haters will say GZ did nothing wrong. I have to differ.
What made GZ think that Martin was suspicious? Was it because Martin was black and wasn't wearing a business suit? The truth? GZ profiled Martin and then followed him in his truck, drove past him and parked ahead of him partially blocking the sidewalk. That kind of behavior was provocative and threatening to say the least. Martin ran past Gz's parked vehicle and being new to the area, missed the path that led to his front door. Meanwhile GZ was ignoring the dispatcher's warnings not to pursue TM but lost him and later was allegedly heading back to his truck when he encountered Martin. By now, Martin had already been covered by SYG but he was too polite. He asked CZ what his problem was and was rebuffed with ' "I don't have a problem." In a darkened area with rain falling and no duty to run, there is no way to know what exactly happened but for any number of reasons Martin proceeded to the next step under SYG and went on the offensive. Too bad he did not have a gun.



The danger in the law stems from the lack of recognition of its protection for people like TM even by the prosecutors who were supposed to be seeking justice for him!

 

[mudwhistle]

*Bearded Spock alert*


We must be living in an alternative Universe when this is considered to be the voice of morality.



Trayvon supporters take to the streets of DC [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller?

Is that the outfit that tried to pin a Pedophilia Charge on a sitting Democratic Senator?

That outfit?

Don't know about that. Must have slipped by me.

I'm just marveling at your weird sense of right and wrong.