George Zimmerman Trial Thread (Found Not Guilty Jesus help us...)
Options
Comments
-
You ? still getting trolled by the media in 2013...SMH
-
-
charles barkley a ?
-
CHARLES BARKLEY: Well, I agreed with the verdict. I feel sorry that young kid got killed. But they didn't have enough evidence to charge him. Something clearly went wrong that night. Clearly something went wrong. I feel bad for anybody who loses a kid, but if you looked at the case and you don't make it -- there was some racial profiling, no question about it. But something happened that changed the dynamic of that night, and I know -- that's probably not a popular opinion among most people but just looking at the evidence I agreed with the verdict.
I just feel bad because I don't like when race gets out in the media because I don't think the media has a pure heart, as I call it. There are very few people have a pure heart when it comes to race. Racism is wrong in any, shape, form -- a lot of black people are racist too. I think sometimes when people talk about racism, they say only white people are racist. There are a lot of black people who are racist. I don't like when it gets out there in the media because I don't think the media has clean hands.
MARIA BARTIROMO, CNBC: I'm glad you made that point.
BARKLEY: Obviously I feel sorry that young kid got killed but just judging by the evidence, I don't think that guy should have went to jail the rest of his life. Something happened bad that night, obviously.
BARTIROMO: I like what the juror said, they both should have walked away. And if there is a shadow of a doubt, there is a shadow of a doubt.
BARKLEY: And let me tell you, Mr. Zimmerman was wrong to pursue -- he was racial profiling. I think Trayvon Martin, ? rest his soul, I think he did flip the switch and started beating the hell out of Mr. Zimmerman. But it was just a bad situation. And like I said, the main thing I feel bad for, it gives every black and white person who is racist a platform to vent their ignorance.
That's the thing that bothers me the most because I watched this trial closely and I watch all these people are television talking about it. A lot of people have a hidden agenda. You know, they want their racist views, whether they are white or black --
BARTIROMO: The bias comes out.
BARKLEY: The bias, it definitely comes out. It was a bad situation, we all lost. And I feel bad for his parents. You don't ever want to see anybody lose a kid. (CNBC Closing Bell, July 18, 2013) -
Darth Sidious wrote: »
Actually, it's 48%
The study finds that women and blacks were most likely to be infected. HSV-2 prevalence was nearly twice as high among women (20.9 percent) than men (11.5 percent), and was more than three times higher among blacks (39.2 percent) than whites (12.3 percent). The most affected group was black women, with a prevalence rate of 48 percent.
Overall, 1 in 6 people in the U.S. have HSV-2 (Genital Herpes Virus) -
50% chance of catching them, 100% chance she has AIDS.
So what's new with the "movement"? I didn't look today.
I don't think you understand what AIDS is. -
-
Thats ? up @numbaz a ? cant catch a break in amerikkka
-
numbaz...80's baby wrote: »You're supposed say, "I know i'm black and I know I fit the profile but my hands are in the air. I'm innocent sah! Please don't shoot! I stay around the corner! I'm really a nice guy!"
you have to explain yourself to some random ass top flight ? ass ? you don't know because you fit the description. Or, you'll die because they were "scared" and other black ppl broke into houses before.
These dudes' sympathetic divisions of their autonomic nervous systems are in full ? mode, prepared for war 'n' ? when you're just trying to get to point A to point B.
Gotta calm 'em down and reassure 'em that everything will be alright. There, there.
-
CHARLES BARKLEY: Well, I agreed with the verdict. I feel sorry that young kid got killed. But they didn't have enough evidence to charge him. Something clearly went wrong that night. Clearly something went wrong. I feel bad for anybody who loses a kid, but if you looked at the case and you don't make it -- there was some racial profiling, no question about it. But something happened that changed the dynamic of that night, and I know -- that's probably not a popular opinion among most people but just looking at the evidence I agreed with the verdict.
I just feel bad because I don't like when race gets out in the media because I don't think the media has a pure heart, as I call it. There are very few people have a pure heart when it comes to race. Racism is wrong in any, shape, form -- a lot of black people are racist too. I think sometimes when people talk about racism, they say only white people are racist. There are a lot of black people who are racist. I don't like when it gets out there in the media because I don't think the media has clean hands.
MARIA BARTIROMO, CNBC: I'm glad you made that point.
BARKLEY: Obviously I feel sorry that young kid got killed but just judging by the evidence, I don't think that guy should have went to jail the rest of his life. Something happened bad that night, obviously.
BARTIROMO: I like what the juror said, they both should have walked away. And if there is a shadow of a doubt, there is a shadow of a doubt.
BARKLEY: And let me tell you, Mr. Zimmerman was wrong to pursue -- he was racial profiling. I think Trayvon Martin, ? rest his soul, I think he did flip the switch and started beating the hell out of Mr. Zimmerman. But it was just a bad situation. And like I said, the main thing I feel bad for, it gives every black and white person who is racist a platform to vent their ignorance.
That's the thing that bothers me the most because I watched this trial closely and I watch all these people are television talking about it. A lot of people have a hidden agenda. You know, they want their racist views, whether they are white or black --
BARTIROMO: The bias comes out.
BARKLEY: The bias, it definitely comes out. It was a bad situation, we all lost. And I feel bad for his parents. You don't ever want to see anybody lose a kid. (CNBC Closing Bell, July 18, 2013)
this is real ? ... thinkin about it objectively he made a lot of good points... I still disagree with the verdict tho.. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Here's the problem with your argument as I highlighted with the pigeon example.can'tyoutell wrote: »Your analogy is missing the fact that the pigeon was following the bird before we stopped observing.
proof
[proof] Show IPA
noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
We have evidence that he was pursuing Trayvon before the call ended. We know he got out of his car. He started walking, he even says this himself. An altercation happens 40 feet from his car. This clearly demonstrates he was following him. There are no reasonable alternatives to explain these facts.
The alternative is he got out of the car to look at the street sign. That's the alternative. That's what he said, and that is the only other possibility for this particular case. Now let me show you, again, why I ruled out that alternative. I have a part time driving job right now, where I have to remember lots of streets. When I come to street I don't know, I don't park 40 feet away to look at it. I can either drive up close to look at it, or drive up close to it, get out, and then look at it (never done the latter.) If it is dark and I have to find an address and can't see them on houses, I may get out to get a closer look. Zimmerman wasn't looking for an address, he was checking the street sign. This alternative can safely be ruled out. It just does not make as much sense as the other version of the story.
Observed/Testified: Zimmerman can be heard getting out of his car (point 3) during the non-emergency call. He was asked if he was following Treyvon and said "Yeah".
Unknown: It is not known how far he traveled from point 3 during this time.
Observed/Testified: Treyvon lost Zimmerman as he ran.
Unknown: It is not known how far Zimmerman or Treyvon traveled during this time.
Observed/Testified: At least 3 minutes and 52 seconds pass between the time Zimmerman says "He ran" and the time Treyvon's call with Rachel Jeantel disconnects as she hears the beginning of the confrontation at point 5.
Unknown: The locations, traveling paths, and traveling speeds of Zimmerman or Treyvon during the time leading up to the confrontation are not known.
So, despite all of these unknowns, you're assuming that the only possible scenario was for Zimmerman to walk directly from point 3 to point 5 in the during the 4-5 minutes between him being asked if he was following Treyvon till the time the confrontation occurred? And Treyvon could only travel from point 4 to point 5 during the 4-5 minutes that passed, despite him running according to Zimmerman during the non-emergency call and according to Rachel Jeantel's testimony?
You're claiming Zimmerman had to take 4-5 minutes to travel 40 feet?
(40 ft/300 seconds)*12 inches=1.6 inches/second
(40 ft/240 seconds)*12 inches=2 inches/second
This gives Zimmerman an average speed between 1.6 inches per second (0.09MPH) and 2 inches per second (0.11MPH); less than 4 times the speed of a garden snail (Source: Natural History Magazine, March 1974, copyright 1974; The American Museum of Natural History; and James G. Doherty, general curator, The Wildlife Conservation Society).
Making these assumptions--despite so many unknowns--to reach this conclusion is none other than speculation bruh.
Not to mention that the speed required for a direct path here is absurd.
This is why I said it wasn't established.
could it be that he was hiding because he didnt know who was chasing him?
if someone is following me and i run an i turn to see how far they are behind me....if they still folowing me..i may just hide. so how come goerge didnt go back to his truck for the 4minutes that passed?
he had 4 minutes to go back to the truck...an since when did it take 4 minutes for police to come outside of the hood?
then...maybe trayvon saw the guy didnt look too threatening an came out of hiding to ask why was he folowiing him.
george may have started his interrogation an they got into an aurgument and the rest is history.
now while i agree the fukk used the law to his advantage...but not act like common sense was not an option here. george had the protection of his dad, and friends on the force and the people that don't like black people including the fat chick that couldn't leave the house.
an before someone says it wasnt racial....why is it that everyone thats happy with the verdict think he was a thug....not that he was doing something wrong...but they think he was a thug, what makes or made him a thug?
one of you keblers or fiat anser this...what made the young man a thug to get this whole thing rolling. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Here's the problem with your argument as I highlighted with the pigeon example.can'tyoutell wrote: »Your analogy is missing the fact that the pigeon was following the bird before we stopped observing.
proof
[proof] Show IPA
noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
We have evidence that he was pursuing Trayvon before the call ended. We know he got out of his car. He started walking, he even says this himself. An altercation happens 40 feet from his car. This clearly demonstrates he was following him. There are no reasonable alternatives to explain these facts.
The alternative is he got out of the car to look at the street sign. That's the alternative. That's what he said, and that is the only other possibility for this particular case. Now let me show you, again, why I ruled out that alternative. I have a part time driving job right now, where I have to remember lots of streets. When I come to street I don't know, I don't park 40 feet away to look at it. I can either drive up close to look at it, or drive up close to it, get out, and then look at it (never done the latter.) If it is dark and I have to find an address and can't see them on houses, I may get out to get a closer look. Zimmerman wasn't looking for an address, he was checking the street sign. This alternative can safely be ruled out. It just does not make as much sense as the other version of the story.
Observed/Testified: Zimmerman can be heard getting out of his car (point 3) during the non-emergency call. He was asked if he was following Treyvon and said "Yeah".
Unknown: It is not known how far he traveled from point 3 during this time.
Observed/Testified: Treyvon lost Zimmerman as he ran.
Unknown: It is not known how far Zimmerman or Treyvon traveled during this time.
Observed/Testified: At least 3 minutes and 52 seconds pass between the time Zimmerman says "He ran" and the time Treyvon's call with Rachel Jeantel disconnects as she hears the beginning of the confrontation at point 5.
Unknown: The locations, traveling paths, and traveling speeds of Zimmerman or Treyvon during the time leading up to the confrontation are not known.
So, despite all of these unknowns, you're assuming that the only possible scenario was for Zimmerman to walk directly from point 3 to point 5 in the during the 4-5 minutes between him being asked if he was following Treyvon till the time the confrontation occurred? And Treyvon could only travel from point 4 to point 5 during the 4-5 minutes that passed, despite him running according to Zimmerman during the non-emergency call and according to Rachel Jeantel's testimony?
You're claiming Zimmerman had to take 4-5 minutes to travel 40 feet?
(40 ft/300 seconds)*12 inches=1.6 inches/second
(40 ft/240 seconds)*12 inches=2 inches/second
This gives Zimmerman an average speed between 1.6 inches per second (0.09MPH) and 2 inches per second (0.11MPH); less than 4 times the speed of a garden snail (Source: Natural History Magazine, March 1974, copyright 1974; The American Museum of Natural History; and James G. Doherty, general curator, The Wildlife Conservation Society).
Making these assumptions--despite so many unknowns--to reach this conclusion is none other than speculation bruh.
Not to mention that the speed required for a direct path here is absurd.
This is why I said it wasn't established.
could it be that he was hiding because he didnt know who was chasing him?
if someone is following me and i run an i turn to see how far they are behind me....if they still folowing me..i may just hide. so how come goerge didnt go back to his truck for the 4minutes that passed?
he had 4 minutes to go back to the truck...an since when did it take 4 minutes for police to come outside of the hood?
then...maybe trayvon saw the guy didnt look too threatening an came out of hiding to ask why was he folowiing him.
george may have started his interrogation an they got into an aurgument and the rest is history.
now while i agree the fukk used the law to his advantage...but not act like common sense was not an option here. george had the protection of his dad, and friends on the force and the people that don't like black people including the fat chick that couldn't leave the house.
an before someone says it wasnt racial....why is it that everyone thats happy with the verdict think he was a thug....not that he was doing something wrong...but they think he was a thug, what makes or made him a thug?
one of you keblers or fiat anser this...what made the young man a thug to get this whole thing rolling.Gold_Certificate wrote: »This was not established either. -
-
A few things that make no sense to me
1.) The screams for help where kind of rhythmic or on cadence. It's kinda hard to scream for help in specified intervals when ur getting ur head blammed into the concrete like GZ claims.
2.) If ur standing over someone or "straddling" them MMA "ground & pound" style when u get shot ur likely to fall on top of them. So they're basically saying Trayvon took a shot to the heart & then got up & fell back...C'MON SON?!?!? He likely woulda fell on top of GZ & there likely would've been TM's blood on him somewhere.
Speculation on my part, but just some common sense as well...which obviously wasn't used. -
I wonder how much money Zimmerman would get if he put his sidearm up for sale on Ebay?
-
Obama is speaking
-
Obama speaking that real ?
-
He pleaded guilty to get manslaughter instead of second degree murder, so claiming self-defense was no longer available to him.In addition to Marissa Alexander, look up CeCe McDonald who was sentenced last year for defending herself against a white neo-? .
-
I wonder how much money Zimmerman would get if he put his sidearm up for sale on Ebay?
I hope he gets millions. More money for the Martin family. -
I concede there was no proof that George Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, which is what I originally believed was needed for a conviction. But I still have a problem with the following. That is harassment. I know the legal definition is slightly different, but the base definition is (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct.
I believe if you harass someone and a physical confrontation results, you hold liability for that confrontation. Am I crazy for thinking this? Gold_Certificate, what say you? -
If it doesn't meet the legal definition for being a crime, then it doesn't count.can'tyoutell wrote: »I concede there was no proof that George Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, which is what I originally believed was needed for a conviction. But I still have a problem with the following. That is harassment. I know the legal definition is slightly different, but the base definition is (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct.
I believe if you harass someone and a physical confrontation results, you hold liability for that confrontation. Am I crazy for thinking this? Gold_Certificate, what say you? -
? just got real w/ that obama freestyle speech
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
If it doesn't meet the legal definition for being a crime, then it doesn't count.can'tyoutell wrote: »I concede there was no proof that George Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, which is what I originally believed was needed for a conviction. But I still have a problem with the following. That is harassment. I know the legal definition is slightly different, but the base definition is (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct.
I believe if you harass someone and a physical confrontation results, you hold liability for that confrontation. Am I crazy for thinking this? Gold_Certificate, what say you?
It doesn't have to be legal to be a consideration though. But again, people have different opinions on what harassment is, especially when they are intellectually dishonest, so you're right. The harassment law needs changing, because it is to protect people from harassment, and I can't see how what Zimmeman did wasn't harassment. -
Gold Certificate-She pleaded "no contest" to physically attacking Gray and Gray had injuries, so it's more than hearsay; and it does not support her claim that she feared him.
It was not illegal for her to wait in the house afterward, but it didn't support her claim that she feared "imminent peril of death or great ? harm". The law doesn't require that she be injured either, but lack of injuries doesn't support the claim that she was attacked. Witnesses can be unreliable/subjective, but the presence of corroborating witness testimony can support a claim. This was the case with John Good's testimony:
Pleading no contest is not an admittance to guilt. There was an altercation that is a fact. Whether Gray had injuries of not Is also not evidence of guilt, those injuries could have been sustained during the physical altercation between the two. Injuries are just that, injuries, it would not be wise to impose insinuate or suggest that by the physical appearance of them, that =automatic guilt of the other party involved.
Waiting in the home afterwards could also be lend credence to her testimony. Had she left, it could strongly be argued she was fleeing; which is a typical action of someone who has just committed a crime.
It wasn't determined that there were a " lack of injuries". All injuries are not visible to the eye.
Concerning witnesses and their testimonies, Gray's son said in court that he saw his dad attacking Alexander. His testimony would be very credible, moreso than good's who couldn't actually see exactly what was taking place.
It was dark, raining, and he ? out and went back into the house when he realized there was a serious altercation taking place.
Whether the bullet was fired into the air or the wall is another red herring. She never denied firing the shot, and if she said air first instead of wall, it doesn't discredit her story. The event was traumatic and she may not have remembered exactly where she aimed. Zimmerman feigned ignorance on a series of things when questioned more than once about the specific details that happened that night. It is not uncommon for a person to forget each detail, and each time the question is asked over a series of times, the answers don't remain exact as the first time it was asked.Gold Certificate-Now, this doesn't mean she couldn't have feared "imminent peril of death or great ? harm", but at the immunity hearing, the burden of proof was on her. This is why her immunity was denied, because she lacked anything supporting her claim other than her own changing testimony.
I'd blame her lawyer, her lack of supporting evidence was revealed to the prosecution at the immunity hearing. Giving the prosecution the upper hand during the trial.
Then, by turning down the plea, she received the mandatory sentence under Florida's "10-20-Life" rule
I'm not privy to what went on at the immunity hearing specifically, I cant comment on that.
True, her lawyer did a poor job of defending her. When she didn't accept what the prosecution offered, they went for the ? , I guess to show her how its really done. Figuratively. Still doesn't prove her to be guilty of any crime, and a jury returning with a verdict that quick is insane. It prob took that long just to read the instruction. Sounds like they found her guilty without ever giving/ considering her the benefit of the doubt
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiRGLZTk4Rg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-2beYgnaIg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzmqygYEV6MThis discussion has been closed.