George Zimmerman Trial Thread (Found Not Guilty Jesus help us...)
Options
Comments
-
This Zimmerman case, just goes to show how dumbed down society has become. During the trial, the defense tells the jury not to speculate but that's EXACTLY what they were doing. Not one of those witnesses knew exactly what happened, but there were facts that were overlooked.
The 911 call, Zimmerman reporting someone he feels is suspicious, him getting out of his car, him being told not to follow, and him killing an unarmed child at point blank range. Those are the facts. There is no doubt about that.
In what world that you know, will the only living real witness knowing he could be facing death/life in prison, admit to initiating and then acting on the confrontation and murdering someone? I wont wait, there are none. that's why defense attorney's stay getting paid.
You can make up all the theories in the world on this to make the story into what you want it to be, but the facts were right there, all along.
-
someone linked me this last night..
-
real talk though, one of the reasons i would hate to be black is because it seems like if you dont agree with the majority opinion of blacks, you get labeled an outcast (ie: "? "). its like black people expect all blacks to have the same mindset. no other race is like that, certainly not whites anyway. you cant really progress if youre constantly shunning anyone who thinks differently.
-
real talk though, one of the reasons i would hate to be black is because it seems like if you dont agree with the majority opinion of blacks, you get labeled an outcast (ie: "? "). its like black people expect all blacks to have the same mindset. no other race is like that, certainly not whites anyway. you cant really progress if youre constantly shunning anyone who thinks differently.
you could help us out by changing you avi....stop posting on a mostly black site...
eat a dikk and lick a wall socket -
real talk though, one of the reasons i would hate to be black is because it seems like if you dont agree with the majority opinion of blacks, you get labeled an outcast (ie: "? "). its like black people expect all blacks to have the same mindset. no other race is like that, certainly not whites anyway. you cant really progress if youre constantly shunning anyone who thinks differently.
its really nothing for you to be worried about or even have a slight concern, you'll never be black. -
real talk though, one of the reasons i would hate to be black is because it seems like if you dont agree with the majority opinion of blacks, you get labeled an outcast (ie: "? "). its like black people expect all blacks to have the same mindset. no other race is like that, certainly not whites anyway. you cant really progress if youre constantly shunning anyone who thinks differently.
you could help us out by changing you avi....stop posting on a mostly black site...
eat a dikk and lick a wall socket
[img]http://www.troll.me/images/conspiracy-keanu/what-if-i-dont-give-a-? .jpg[/img] -
Hyde Parke wrote: »real talk though, one of the reasons i would hate to be black is because it seems like if you dont agree with the majority opinion of blacks, you get labeled an outcast (ie: "? "). its like black people expect all blacks to have the same mindset. no other race is like that, certainly not whites anyway. you cant really progress if youre constantly shunning anyone who thinks differently.
its really nothing for you to be worried about or even have a slight concern, you'll never be black.
you dont have to be black to have a logical observation about black people. i wasnt pointing out what i did to diss black people, i just find it weird/interesting. -
Hyde Parke wrote: »real talk though, one of the reasons i would hate to be black is because it seems like if you dont agree with the majority opinion of blacks, you get labeled an outcast (ie: "? "). its like black people expect all blacks to have the same mindset. no other race is like that, certainly not whites anyway. you cant really progress if youre constantly shunning anyone who thinks differently.
its really nothing for you to be worried about or even have a slight concern, you'll never be black.
you dont have to be black to have a logical observation about black people. i wasnt pointing out what i did to diss black people, i just find it weird/interesting.
Logical observation...lol you feast on youth culture and you are all the sudden a sociologist -
Hyde Parke wrote: »real talk though, one of the reasons i would hate to be black is because it seems like if you dont agree with the majority opinion of blacks, you get labeled an outcast (ie: "? "). its like black people expect all blacks to have the same mindset. no other race is like that, certainly not whites anyway. you cant really progress if youre constantly shunning anyone who thinks differently.
its really nothing for you to be worried about or even have a slight concern, you'll never be black.
you dont have to be black to have a logical observation about black people. i wasnt pointing out what i did to diss black people, i just find it weird/interesting.
what you are pointing out is your lack of knowledge by speaking on things you have observed through a filtered lense. you don't have to be black to observe, true, but by default you have no connection whatsoever to the observation, you are the observer, not the observed. so all that is left is your perception, albeit an irrational one. -
-
playmaker88 wrote: »Hyde Parke wrote: »real talk though, one of the reasons i would hate to be black is because it seems like if you dont agree with the majority opinion of blacks, you get labeled an outcast (ie: "? "). its like black people expect all blacks to have the same mindset. no other race is like that, certainly not whites anyway. you cant really progress if youre constantly shunning anyone who thinks differently.
its really nothing for you to be worried about or even have a slight concern, you'll never be black.
you dont have to be black to have a logical observation about black people. i wasnt pointing out what i did to diss black people, i just find it weird/interesting.
Logical observation...lol you feast on youth culture and you are all the sudden a sociologist
im a sociologist cause of my degree, duh -
Hyde Parke wrote: »Hyde Parke wrote: »real talk though, one of the reasons i would hate to be black is because it seems like if you dont agree with the majority opinion of blacks, you get labeled an outcast (ie: "? "). its like black people expect all blacks to have the same mindset. no other race is like that, certainly not whites anyway. you cant really progress if youre constantly shunning anyone who thinks differently.
its really nothing for you to be worried about or even have a slight concern, you'll never be black.
you dont have to be black to have a logical observation about black people. i wasnt pointing out what i did to diss black people, i just find it weird/interesting.
what you are pointing out is your lack of knowledge by speaking on things you have observed through a filtered lense. you don't have to be black to observe, true, but by default you have no connection whatsoever to the observation, you are the observer, not the observed. so all that is left is your perception, albeit an irrational one.
ill agree no one can really speak for everyone, so youre right to a point, that doesnt completely make what i said or have observed untrue. -
Hyde Parke wrote: »Hyde Parke wrote: »real talk though, one of the reasons i would hate to be black is because it seems like if you dont agree with the majority opinion of blacks, you get labeled an outcast (ie: "? "). its like black people expect all blacks to have the same mindset. no other race is like that, certainly not whites anyway. you cant really progress if youre constantly shunning anyone who thinks differently.
its really nothing for you to be worried about or even have a slight concern, you'll never be black.
you dont have to be black to have a logical observation about black people. i wasnt pointing out what i did to diss black people, i just find it weird/interesting.
what you are pointing out is your lack of knowledge by speaking on things you have observed through a filtered lense. you don't have to be black to observe, true, but by default you have no connection whatsoever to the observation, you are the observer, not the observed. so all that is left is your perception, albeit an irrational one.
ill agree no one can really speak for everyone, so youre right to a point, that doesnt completely make what i said or have observed untrue.
Your observations are guided by your perceptions... -
You can dispute Good's ability to see/hear and Zimmerman's testimony, but it still remains that Good's testimony was consistent with Zimmerman's testimony, and consistent with Zimmerman's injuries. Sure, maybe Zimmerman's injuries were self-inflicted, maybe his testimony was entirely concocted, maybe Good was completely wrong in everything he said he saw and heard, and maybe neither Treyvon nor Zimmerman were inflicting any damage upon each other during the alleged fight that took place; but, the prosecution had disprove Zimmerman's claim beyond a reasonable doubt, so these speculative "maybes" weren't enough.Hyde Parke wrote: »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
Alexander didn't have the luxury of such corroborating evidence to support her claims. She had the witness accounts of Gray and his sons--which changed greatly from the time of the incident to the deposition--she had no recorded injuries supporting the claim that she was attacked, she didn't call to report the incident like Gray did--which was a problem for her because Gray's 911 call also contradicted her claims--she didn't have anything showing the garage door wasn't working, she didn't have a bullet hole in a location that supported her claim that she wasn't attempting to hit anyone, and she didn't behave in a manner that showed she feared Gray in the months after the incident. One can argue that none of this disproves her claims, but the burden of proof was on her at the immunity hearing.
Zimmerman's defense skipped the immunity hearing and presented their case for the first time during the trial; Alexander's did not, so the prosecution had great insight into what they would argue prior to the trial. My guess is the prosecution focused on this lack of supporting evidence, and then claimed that an unarmed man trying to leave a home with his children was not a threat to an armed woman; making a compelling case to the jury. -
Hyde Parke wrote: »Hyde Parke wrote: »real talk though, one of the reasons i would hate to be black is because it seems like if you dont agree with the majority opinion of blacks, you get labeled an outcast (ie: "? "). its like black people expect all blacks to have the same mindset. no other race is like that, certainly not whites anyway. you cant really progress if youre constantly shunning anyone who thinks differently.
its really nothing for you to be worried about or even have a slight concern, you'll never be black.
you dont have to be black to have a logical observation about black people. i wasnt pointing out what i did to diss black people, i just find it weird/interesting.
what you are pointing out is your lack of knowledge by speaking on things you have observed through a filtered lense. you don't have to be black to observe, true, but by default you have no connection whatsoever to the observation, you are the observer, not the observed. so all that is left is your perception, albeit an irrational one.
ill agree no one can really speak for everyone, so youre right to a point, that doesnt completely make what i said or have observed untrue.
its completely true to you, its just not a fact. it is up to you to resolve that conflict. -
real talk though, one of the reasons i would hate to be black is because it seems like if you dont agree with the majority opinion of blacks, you get labeled an outcast (ie: "? "). its like black people expect all blacks to have the same mindset. no other race is like that, certainly not whites anyway. you cant really progress if youre constantly shunning anyone who thinks differently.
you could help us out by changing you avi....stop posting on a mostly black site...
eat a dikk and lick a wall socket
[img]http://www.troll.me/images/conspiracy-keanu/what-if-i-dont-give-a-? .jpg[/img]
ill shoot you in ya ? face....you looking threatening to me now -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You can dispute Good's ability to see/hear and Zimmerman's testimony, but it still remains that Good's testimony was consistent with Zimmerman's testimony, and consistent with Zimmerman's injuries. Sure, maybe Zimmerman's injuries were self-inflicted, maybe his testimony was entirely concocted, maybe Good was completely wrong in everything he said he saw and heard, and maybe neither Treyvon nor Zimmerman were inflicting any damage upon each other during the alleged fight that took place; but, the prosecution had disprove Zimmerman's claim beyond a reasonable doubt, so these speculative "maybes" weren't enough.Hyde Parke wrote: »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
Alexander didn't have the luxury of such corroborating evidence to support her claims. She had the witness accounts of Gray and his sons--which changed greatly from the time of the incident to the deposition--she had no recorded injuries supporting the claim that she was attacked, she didn't call to report the incident like Gray did--which was a problem for her because Gray's 911 call also contradicted her claims--she didn't have anything showing the garage door wasn't working, she didn't have a bullet hole in a location that supported her claim that she wasn't attempting to hit anyone, and she didn't behave in a manner that showed she feared Gray in the months after the incident. One can argue that none of this disproves her claims, but the burden of proof was on her at the immunity hearing.
Zimmerman's defense skipped the immunity hearing and presented their case for the first time during the trial; Alexander's did not, so the prosecution had great insight into what they would argue prior to the trial. My guess is the prosecution focused on this lack of supporting evidence, and then claimed that an unarmed man trying to leave a home with his children was not a threat to an armed woman; making a compelling case to the jury.
you present a good argument, but all the things you have pointed out regarding evidence can be viewed from many different angles. None of those things alone stand on their own. It is an algorithm of a good prosecution/defense, presentation, jury consultant, jury selection, client appearance, and so on. I don't think Goods testimony weighed that heavily with the jury, listening to juror b37, she took Serino's testimony of believing Zimmerman to be telling the truth as very powerful. She said this, even though the judge advised the jury to strike that statement from his testimony. In the end, I believe if you are looking for the truth, you wont find it in a courtroom. -
you could help us out by changing you avi....stop posting on a mostly black site...
eat a dikk and lick a wall socket
Your version of Stormfront?
-
This is what makes the difference in burdens so important. Unknowns and alternative interpretations benefit the side without the burden of proof.Hyde Parke wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You can dispute Good's ability to see/hear and Zimmerman's testimony, but it still remains that Good's testimony was consistent with Zimmerman's testimony, and consistent with Zimmerman's injuries. Sure, maybe Zimmerman's injuries were self-inflicted, maybe his testimony was entirely concocted, maybe Good was completely wrong in everything he said he saw and heard, and maybe neither Treyvon nor Zimmerman were inflicting any damage upon each other during the alleged fight that took place; but, the prosecution had disprove Zimmerman's claim beyond a reasonable doubt, so these speculative "maybes" weren't enough.Hyde Parke wrote: »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
Alexander didn't have the luxury of such corroborating evidence to support her claims. She had the witness accounts of Gray and his sons--which changed greatly from the time of the incident to the deposition--she had no recorded injuries supporting the claim that she was attacked, she didn't call to report the incident like Gray did--which was a problem for her because Gray's 911 call also contradicted her claims--she didn't have anything showing the garage door wasn't working, she didn't have a bullet hole in a location that supported her claim that she wasn't attempting to hit anyone, and she didn't behave in a manner that showed she feared Gray in the months after the incident. One can argue that none of this disproves her claims, but the burden of proof was on her at the immunity hearing.
Zimmerman's defense skipped the immunity hearing and presented their case for the first time during the trial; Alexander's did not, so the prosecution had great insight into what they would argue prior to the trial. My guess is the prosecution focused on this lack of supporting evidence, and then claimed that an unarmed man trying to leave a home with his children was not a threat to an armed woman; making a compelling case to the jury.
you present a good argument, but all the things you have pointed out regarding evidence can be viewed from many different angles. None of those things alone stand on their own. It is an algorithm of a good prosecution/defense, presentation, jury consultant, jury selection, client appearance, and so on. I don't think Goods testimony weighed that heavily with the jury, listening to juror b37, she took Serino's testimony of believing Zimmerman to be telling the truth as very powerful. She said this, even though the judge advised the jury to strike that statement from his testimony. In the end, I believe if you are looking for the truth, you wont find it in a courtroom.
This was illustrated with the jury instructions:
-
? -
-
hopefully they end slavery in the prisons. the 13th amendment protects it
-
^^^^^
yeah, this is handed to the jury after they have sat through a presentation filled with factual and infactual information. They then go into the jury room accompanied with their past, views, experiences, prejudices to make a decision with those instructions. -
George Zimmerman won’t be getting his gun back anytime soon, thanks to the Dept. of Justice--they've placed a hold on all of the evidence related to the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/19/doj-puts-hold-on-zimmermans-gun-as-it-pursues-civil-rights-investigation/ -
Black America's Real Problem Isn't White Racism
http://news.yahoo.com/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism-070000529.htmlIn New York from January to June 2008, 83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of all gun assailants. Forty-nine of every 50 muggings and murders in the Big Apple were the work of black or Hispanic criminals.
. . .
After researching the FBI numbers for "Suicide of a Superpower," this writer concluded: "An analysis of 'single offender victimization figures' from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial ? is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study."
I can understand the ? thing, I wouldn't want to ? a black chick either.
This discussion has been closed.