The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[QuickHitCurepon]

You pay word games to justify shredding the Constitution? Shame on you.

It seems evident that your statements about defending American freedoms were little more than bravado and that you would spit upon the Constitution like Bush and Obama and their cronies.

Immie

Calm down. I don't entirely blame you for your position. I don't entirely like it either, but catastrophic injustices should be corrected. I don't know if the feds will do this or not, as most believe there is a lot of ambivalence whether they can or not. I am just stating common sense guidelines to show that it is still a real possibility, and I cited the Rodney King case to back me up, which for some odd reason you have totally ignored, even though you clicked on the reply earlier that was talking about King and double jeopardy.



I guess I need to repeat it for Immie's sake: Why then didn't double jeopardy preclude the officers from being charged in federal court? I know the cases are different, ok? But as long as the civil rights charges don't match the acquittals in any way, what's the problem?

Maybe it's fate. For the sake of all the Immies and half-Immies out there, maybe we need even a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on this case and a little new ground in law to rest their troubled minds.

Rodney King - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The officers

The Los Angeles district attorney charged officers Koon, Powell, Briseno and Wind with use of excessive force. Sergeant Koon, while he did not strike King, only having deployed the Taser, was, as the supervisory officer at the scene, charged with "willfully permitting and failing to take action to stop the unlawful assault."

The California Court of Appeals removed the initial judge, Bernard Kamins, after it was proved Kamins told prosecutors, "You can trust me." The Court also granted a change of venue to the city of Simi Valley in neighboring Ventura County, citing potential contamination due to saturated media coverage.

Though few people at first considered race an important factor in the case, including Rodney King's attorney, Steven Lerman, the sensitizing effect of the Holliday videotape was at the time stirring deep resentment in Los Angeles, as well as other major cities in the United States. The officers' jury consisted of Ventura County residents: ten white; one Latino; one Asian. Lead Prosecutor Terry White was African American. On April 29, 1992, the jury acquitted three of the officers, but could not agree on one of the charges against Powell.[9]

Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley said, "The jury's verdict will not blind us to what we saw on that videotape. The men who beat Rodney King do not deserve to wear the uniform of the L.A.P.D."[30] President George H. W. Bush said, "Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I and so was Barbara and so were my kids."[31]

Los Angeles riots and the aftermath

The acquittals are considered to have triggered the Los Angeles riots of 1992. By the time the police, the U.S. Army, Marines and National Guard restored order, the riots had caused 53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damage to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses. Smaller riots occurred in other cities such as San Francisco, Las Vegas in neighboring Nevada and as far east as Atlanta, Georgia. A minor riot erupted on Yonge St., in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, as a result of the acquittals.

Federal trial of officers

After the riots, the United States Department of Justice reinstated the investigation and obtained an indictment of violations of federal civil rights against the four officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The federal trial focused more on the evidence as to the training of officers instead of just relying on the videotape of the incident. On March 9 of the 1993 trial, King took the witness stand and described to the jury the events as he remembered them.[32] The jury found Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon guilty, and they were subsequently sentenced to 32 months in prison, while Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseno were acquitted of all charges. ...

I am not sure you are following the discussion. I have stated repeatedly that they might go around the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. That does not mean that I support them doing that. Both Rodney King and OJ Simpson are prime examples of what an out of control government will do and because of those examples we should be doing everything we can to put a stop to it... if we value our freedoms that is.

Why didn't they apply in the case of Rodney King? Well, as stated before we have an out of control legal system that believes (much like you, it seems) that the Constitution only applies when and how they want it to apply. In the case of OJ Simpson, we had a government that did not like being beaten at their own game, much the same as what is transpiring with Zimmerman.

Just because the legal system screwed some defendants does not mean that we should cheer them on when they are considering doing so again.

Immie

Harassment is illegal you know but rarely enforced. Maybe it's time for the slightest of change there.

Harassment Law & Legal Definition

Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement

In case you are unfamiliar with politics, the Constitution has and will be amended from time to time. Just exactly how much can people be followed around in ambiguous circumstances? Where does harassment begin?

There is an alternative, The Trayvon Protection Act:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ration-create-trayvon-protection-act/PLK3PkCS

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Man, the lengths that you liberals will go to "get" George Zimmerman is scary. The guy gained all that weight because he's cowering inside somewhere because he's frightened some loon like you will attack him. You all act like a lynch mob...and then you say that Zimmerman is a "nut case" because he's afraid of you?

What this latest accident points out is the even after all he's gone through, George Zimmerman STILL cares enough about others to try and help them. Quite frankly, Esmerelda...we need MORE George Zimmerman's and fewer you's.

LOL Oh, thanks. I've never murdered anyone. We need more murderers? More trigger happy, gun toting folks on prescription anti-depressants? More people who blow away unarmed, innocent civilians? Really? How about I get armed and go after you, as you need more people like Zimmerman, armed and dangerous?

What a coincidence. George Zimmerman never "murdered" anyone, either . . . or did you miss that whole "acquitted" thing? Need me to define the word "acquitted" for you, twerp?

No, YOU are wrong. The acquittal proved to many only that Zimmerman was street-smart enough not to leave enough clues or evidence of the murder/manslaughter for it to proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Kondor3]

George Zimmerman is fit enough to save four people from an over turned vehicle. but not fit enough to get a skinny teenager off of him?

I'm guessing that the four people injured in the overturned vehicle did not jump George and try to bash his brains into the sidewalk first, though, waddya think?

 

[Lakhota]

Watch A Preacher Succinctly Explain What Everyone Missed About The Trayvon Martin Case

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OsxLk2WXoPA]Why is America afraid of Trayvon Martin? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Billo_Really]

I love how the same people bitching that we need a limited government, are defending a man who gave us a perfect example of what a surveillance state looks like!

 

[TemplarKormac]

I love how the same people bitching that we need a limited government, are defending a man who gave us a perfect example of what a surveillance state looks like!

From a guy who thinks surveillance is the pathway to freedom...

 

[horselightning]

Calm down. I don't entirely blame you for your position. I don't entirely like it either, but catastrophic injustices should be corrected. I don't know if the feds will do this or not, as most believe there is a lot of ambivalence whether they can or not. I am just stating common sense guidelines to show that it is still a real possibility, and I cited the Rodney King case to back me up, which for some odd reason you have totally ignored, even though you clicked on the reply earlier that was talking about King and double jeopardy.



I guess I need to repeat it for Immie's sake: Why then didn't double jeopardy preclude the officers from being charged in federal court? I know the cases are different, ok? But as long as the civil rights charges don't match the acquittals in any way, what's the problem?

Maybe it's fate. For the sake of all the Immies and half-Immies out there, maybe we need even a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on this case and a little new ground in law to rest their troubled minds.

Rodney King - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not sure you are following the discussion. I have stated repeatedly that they might go around the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. That does not mean that I support them doing that. Both Rodney King and OJ Simpson are prime examples of what an out of control government will do and because of those examples we should be doing everything we can to put a stop to it... if we value our freedoms that is.

Why didn't they apply in the case of Rodney King? Well, as stated before we have an out of control legal system that believes (much like you, it seems) that the Constitution only applies when and how they want it to apply. In the case of OJ Simpson, we had a government that did not like being beaten at their own game, much the same as what is transpiring with Zimmerman.

Just because the legal system screwed some defendants does not mean that we should cheer them on when they are considering doing so again.

Immie

Harassment is illegal you know but rarely enforced. Maybe it's time for the slightest of change there.

Harassment Law & Legal Definition

Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement

In case you are unfamiliar with politics, the Constitution has and will be amended from time to time. Just exactly how much can people be followed around in ambiguous circumstances? Where does harassment begin?

There is an alternative, The Trayvon Protection Act:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ration-create-trayvon-protection-act/PLK3PkCS

No offense. But this is calling for segregation again. It also seems to be a slap in the face to the civil rights movement and all who faught to eradicate it. I do not think this is the solution to the problem.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I am not sure you are following the discussion. I have stated repeatedly that they might go around the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. That does not mean that I support them doing that. Both Rodney King and OJ Simpson are prime examples of what an out of control government will do and because of those examples we should be doing everything we can to put a stop to it... if we value our freedoms that is.

Why didn't they apply in the case of Rodney King? Well, as stated before we have an out of control legal system that believes (much like you, it seems) that the Constitution only applies when and how they want it to apply. In the case of OJ Simpson, we had a government that did not like being beaten at their own game, much the same as what is transpiring with Zimmerman.

Just because the legal system screwed some defendants does not mean that we should cheer them on when they are considering doing so again.

Immie

Harassment is illegal you know but rarely enforced. Maybe it's time for the slightest of change there.

Harassment Law & Legal Definition

Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement

In case you are unfamiliar with politics, the Constitution has and will be amended from time to time. Just exactly how much can people be followed around in ambiguous circumstances? Where does harassment begin?

There is an alternative, The Trayvon Protection Act:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ration-create-trayvon-protection-act/PLK3PkCS

No offense. But this is calling for segregation again. It also seems to be a slap in the face to the civil rights movement and all who faught to eradicate it. I do not think this is the solution to the problem.

can you believe 70 people have signed that

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

No offense. But this is calling for segregation again. It also seems to be a slap in the face to the civil rights movement and all who faught to eradicate it. I do not think this is the solution to the problem.

Yea, I posted it sarcastically and to show the futility of opposing no action, etc.

 

[Billo_Really]

From a guy who thinks surveillance is the pathway to freedom...

I don't think that. I don't think that at all. And there's nothing in any of my posts that would lead someone to believe that. Yet you said that.

You're a perfect example of a right-winger not caring about the truth. You make up bullshit, just to discredit someone. Which also shows how much the pro-Zimmerman crowd is full of shit and could care less about the actual facts of the incident.

That a fuckin' armed, racist prick, went looking for trouble and found it.

 

[Snookie]

Calm down. I don't entirely blame you for your position. I don't entirely like it either, but catastrophic injustices should be corrected. I don't know if the feds will do this or not, as most believe there is a lot of ambivalence whether they can or not. I am just stating common sense guidelines to show that it is still a real possibility, and I cited the Rodney King case to back me up, which for some odd reason you have totally ignored, even though you clicked on the reply earlier that was talking about King and double jeopardy.



I guess I need to repeat it for Immie's sake: Why then didn't double jeopardy preclude the officers from being charged in federal court? I know the cases are different, ok? But as long as the civil rights charges don't match the acquittals in any way, what's the problem?

Maybe it's fate. For the sake of all the Immies and half-Immies out there, maybe we need even a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on this case and a little new ground in law to rest their troubled minds.

Rodney King - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not sure you are following the discussion. I have stated repeatedly that they might go around the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. That does not mean that I support them doing that. Both Rodney King and OJ Simpson are prime examples of what an out of control government will do and because of those examples we should be doing everything we can to put a stop to it... if we value our freedoms that is.

Why didn't they apply in the case of Rodney King? Well, as stated before we have an out of control legal system that believes (much like you, it seems) that the Constitution only applies when and how they want it to apply. In the case of OJ Simpson, we had a government that did not like being beaten at their own game, much the same as what is transpiring with Zimmerman.

Just because the legal system screwed some defendants does not mean that we should cheer them on when they are considering doing so again.

Immie

Harassment is illegal you know but rarely enforced. Maybe it's time for the slightest of change there.

Harassment Law & Legal Definition

Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement

In case you are unfamiliar with politics, the Constitution has and will be amended from time to time. Just exactly how much can people be followed around in ambiguous circumstances? Where does harassment begin?

There is an alternative, The Trayvon Protection Act:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ration-create-trayvon-protection-act/PLK3PkCS

thanks. I have signed the petition. I will tweet the petition.

 

[Snookie]

From a guy who thinks surveillance is the pathway to freedom...

I don't think that. I don't think that at all. And there's nothing in any of my posts that would lead someone to believe that. Yet you said that.

You're a perfect example of a right-winger not caring about the truth. You make up bullshit, just to discredit someone. Which also shows how much the pro-Zimmerman crowd is full of shit and could care less about the actual facts of the incident.

That a fuckin' armed, racist prick, went looking for trouble and found it.

right on billo. I know what you mean about them making up outlandish bs. Take away their lies and they have no game. Lying is their only game.

 

[Oldstyle]

George Zimmerman is fit enough to save four people from an over turned vehicle. but not fit enough to get a skinny teenager off of him?

The difference being...none of those four people sucker punched him in the face. Duh?

 

[Oldstyle]

It's amusing to watch...you spend all those hours spewing nonsense about what a depraved individual George Zimmerman is...and then he does something noble for complete strangers and it makes your rants seem petty and shrill. Gotta love it...

 

[Immanuel]

Calm down. I don't entirely blame you for your position. I don't entirely like it either, but catastrophic injustices should be corrected. I don't know if the feds will do this or not, as most believe there is a lot of ambivalence whether they can or not. I am just stating common sense guidelines to show that it is still a real possibility, and I cited the Rodney King case to back me up, which for some odd reason you have totally ignored, even though you clicked on the reply earlier that was talking about King and double jeopardy.



I guess I need to repeat it for Immie's sake: Why then didn't double jeopardy preclude the officers from being charged in federal court? I know the cases are different, ok? But as long as the civil rights charges don't match the acquittals in any way, what's the problem?

Maybe it's fate. For the sake of all the Immies and half-Immies out there, maybe we need even a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on this case and a little new ground in law to rest their troubled minds.

Rodney King - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not sure you are following the discussion. I have stated repeatedly that they might go around the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. That does not mean that I support them doing that. Both Rodney King and OJ Simpson are prime examples of what an out of control government will do and because of those examples we should be doing everything we can to put a stop to it... if we value our freedoms that is.

Why didn't they apply in the case of Rodney King? Well, as stated before we have an out of control legal system that believes (much like you, it seems) that the Constitution only applies when and how they want it to apply. In the case of OJ Simpson, we had a government that did not like being beaten at their own game, much the same as what is transpiring with Zimmerman.

Just because the legal system screwed some defendants does not mean that we should cheer them on when they are considering doing so again.

Immie

How did an out of control government have anything to do with OJ Simpson?

In my opinion his third trial was a "gotcha, you kicked our ass in the first trial. Now we will settle the score".

They (the State of Nevada this time) "knew" he was guilty of the Brown/Goldman murders and therefore they went after him with the intention of righting the wrong done in the earlier trial. They went after him and gave him 33 years, basically life imprisonment for something that would have gotten anyone except the most hardened criminal nothing more than probation.

It was "revenge persecution" and yes I meant persecution as opposed to prosecution which would also have fit.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Calm down. I don't entirely blame you for your position. I don't entirely like it either, but catastrophic injustices should be corrected. I don't know if the feds will do this or not, as most believe there is a lot of ambivalence whether they can or not. I am just stating common sense guidelines to show that it is still a real possibility, and I cited the Rodney King case to back me up, which for some odd reason you have totally ignored, even though you clicked on the reply earlier that was talking about King and double jeopardy.



I guess I need to repeat it for Immie's sake: Why then didn't double jeopardy preclude the officers from being charged in federal court? I know the cases are different, ok? But as long as the civil rights charges don't match the acquittals in any way, what's the problem?

Maybe it's fate. For the sake of all the Immies and half-Immies out there, maybe we need even a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on this case and a little new ground in law to rest their troubled minds.

Rodney King - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not sure you are following the discussion. I have stated repeatedly that they might go around the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. That does not mean that I support them doing that. Both Rodney King and OJ Simpson are prime examples of what an out of control government will do and because of those examples we should be doing everything we can to put a stop to it... if we value our freedoms that is.

Why didn't they apply in the case of Rodney King? Well, as stated before we have an out of control legal system that believes (much like you, it seems) that the Constitution only applies when and how they want it to apply. In the case of OJ Simpson, we had a government that did not like being beaten at their own game, much the same as what is transpiring with Zimmerman.

Just because the legal system screwed some defendants does not mean that we should cheer them on when they are considering doing so again.

Immie

Harassment is illegal you know but rarely enforced. Maybe it's time for the slightest of change there.

Harassment Law & Legal Definition

Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement

In case you are unfamiliar with politics, the Constitution has and will be amended from time to time. Just exactly how much can people be followed around in ambiguous circumstances? Where does harassment begin?

There is an alternative, The Trayvon Protection Act:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ration-create-trayvon-protection-act/PLK3PkCS

Sure it can be amended, but not at your whim. Nor can it be ignored at your whim.

You seem to think that if you do not like the outcome of a trial that the government should have a do-over. I Wonder how you would feel if it were you that was found not guilty and 20%, if that much, of the population screamed for you to be tried again. Somehow, I am convinced you would be singing a different tune.

Immie

 

[Esmeralda]

It's amusing to watch...you spend all those hours spewing nonsense about what a depraved individual George Zimmerman is...and then he does something noble for complete strangers and it makes your rants seem petty and shrill. Gotta love it...

"Noble"? Your criteria for nobility is pretty damn low. He stopped at the scene of a one car accident where no one was injured and helped some people exit the vehicle. Another passerby did the same thing. If that equates to nobility, it lowers the bar very, very low. You all are trying to make a hero out of this guy who is anything but. And the only reason you even know about him or support him is because you are pro-gun: anything to further the cause of every dim witted, dumb ass American toting lethal firearms.

 

[Foxfyre]

And it is extremely difficult to make a case for harrassment when somebody has a perfect right to go wherever he or she chooses on a public sidewalk whether or not somebody else worries that he or she might be followed. There is no law that prevents any of us from following anybody. I do it all the time when I think somebody is headed some place I need to go. I have done it when somebody seemed to look or be behavingly suspicious to me. And I have done it inadvertently with no intention to actually follow. How many of us have observed a car following us for some distance, making the same turns as we did, etc. and then noted that they turned into a driveway when they got where they were going or turned off someplace. The following was purely coincidental.

If following somebody on a public sidewalk is considered harrassment, then we all could be charged with harrassment.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I am not sure you are following the discussion. I have stated repeatedly that they might go around the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. That does not mean that I support them doing that. Both Rodney King and OJ Simpson are prime examples of what an out of control government will do and because of those examples we should be doing everything we can to put a stop to it... if we value our freedoms that is.

Why didn't they apply in the case of Rodney King? Well, as stated before we have an out of control legal system that believes (much like you, it seems) that the Constitution only applies when and how they want it to apply. In the case of OJ Simpson, we had a government that did not like being beaten at their own game, much the same as what is transpiring with Zimmerman.

Just because the legal system screwed some defendants does not mean that we should cheer them on when they are considering doing so again.

Immie

Harassment is illegal you know but rarely enforced. Maybe it's time for the slightest of change there.

Harassment Law & Legal Definition

Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement

In case you are unfamiliar with politics, the Constitution has and will be amended from time to time. Just exactly how much can people be followed around in ambiguous circumstances? Where does harassment begin?

There is an alternative, The Trayvon Protection Act:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ration-create-trayvon-protection-act/PLK3PkCS

Sure it can be amended, but not at your whim. Nor can it be ignored at your whim.

You seem to think that if you do not like the outcome of a trial that the government should have a do-over. I Wonder how you would feel if it were you that was found not guilty and 20%, if that much, of the population screamed for you to be tried again. Somehow, I am convinced you would be singing a different tune.

Immie

Why are you so afraid that our government should take any interest in civil rights?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Does anyone expect that our government would find a totally new type of civil rights abuse right out of the blue, without having some attempt to correct it locally?