Really? Why don’t you make him a serial-killing cannibal while you’re at it. Or maybe an Al Queda spy or something. That would really make ol’ Georgie look good.
How pathetic.
[quote=“hmarvin, post:9461, topic:619125”]
What’s amazing is the sentence “I thought it was just a fight”. If I thought a friend was in a fight I’d call the police immediately particularly if I thought my friend was frightened of the person in question which is something she also stated in other videos.
The case is being presented as a morality play in race relations: an armed white* man decided that a young black man “didn’t belong here” and “looked like he was up to no good”, and the young black man ended up shot dead. Cue archive footage of Selma marchers, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. giving a speech, and a chorus of “We Shall Overcome”. A lot of people are predisposed to believe Zimmerman guilty just because of the circumstances.
*sorta, kinda, well not black at any rate
If the charges were going to be thrown out, they would have been thrown out already. It’s pointless to be hoping for such a thing at this late stage of the game, and the fact that you do have this hope suggests that you’re living in a fantasy realm.
(bolding mine)
The provocation doesn’t have to be criminal to be relevant. Multiple pieces of evidence show that Zimmerman’s behavior provoked Martin to fear for his life, which means we can’t look at the scraps on his head and automatically conclude GZ had a legitimate reason to shoot the kid. If he provoked Martin into standing his ground, then that renders his already insignificant injuries to laughable nothingness (which means broken or not, his nose is an non-issue) and it makes his explanation for why he didn’t retreat from Martin sorely lacking.
It takes a massive amount of deliberate obtuseness not to get this. How about you walk down a dark street and see what happens when a big, (black), burly man rushes out of car after you. I can’t imagine you just standing there and waiting until the guy hurt you before you moved to hurt him first. And so let’s suppose you hit him. Get him good in his nose. If that guy ends up shooting you, and then claims that it was you–an unarmed pedestrian–who had unleashed an attack against him, would you not expect the jury to factor in the fact the guy ran up on you after creeping behind you in his car for several minutes? Of course you would expect them to.
That is what is going to happen here.
It’s understandable if people feel that way based on a few newspaper reports or whatever, but when they’ve seen all the laws and the evidence, it isn’t.
Well no shit. Still doesn’t mean a person who is following this case from their laptop can look at the evidence and matter-of-factly declare the evidence is below the reasonable doubt standard. A juror can be convinced of Zimmerman’s guilt by one piece of evidence or all it. No judge can prevent that from happening, so if you’re hoping for this to happen along with the charges being dropped, don’t hold your breath.
Of course the judge can stop it. That’s what they’re there for. They can dismiss the case, or set aside a guilty verdict, if the evidence is insufficient. That said, a juror cannot be convinced of guilt in a murder case by a single piece of evidence. That is quite literally impossible. There are too many separate elements to the charge. The jury simply can’t decide on a whim, and anyone like you who thinks they can would not be allowed to serve.
Of course they can. There is no just such thing as the Thought Police. I mean, horror of horrors, a juror could actually be convinced of Zimmerman’s guilt without hearing any evidence. They could take one look at his face and conclude that he is a murderer. I’m sure this happens every day. Alternatively, they could take one look at him and conclude he’s innocent as a kitten. Few jurors will admit to making their decisions like this. Doesn’t mean that they don’t, though.
I’m sorry this fact of life upsets you, but its the costs to populating jury boxes with human beings rather than algorithm-based machines. You can’t always control them.
You really don’t get it, do you? You want Zimmerman convicted because you don’t like his face, and you think that’s how the legal system works? You’re horribly wrong. The jury may only convict based on the evidence, and if they do otherwise the verdict will be overturned.
You’re correct that this system sometimes fails, but with the minute analysis this case will receive, that is fortunately not possible here.
I’m glad you’ve finally acknowledged that you want him convicted in spite of the evidence, though. It’s been obvious for some time, but it’s good to have proof of your contempt for justice.
Why yes. My view on Zimmerman has nothing to do with me thinking he shot an unarmed kid for no good reason, and all to do with my hate for his face. Glad you’re catching on.
Well it’s clearly not because he shot Martin for no reason… Or are you really going to continue pretending that his injuries weren’t caused by Martin, and that the beating people witnessed was a figment of their imagination? At absolute best, you want him convicted because you don’t think people should have the right to protect their neighbourhood and defend themselves. I doubt even that is true, I think you’ve just assumed that because he killed a black guy, he’s a racist murderer, and you’re willing to ignore the evidence and the law to support your dangerous, deluded assumptions.
um, no, they can’t convict him without evidence. This has been explained to you. How do you not understand such a simple legal premise? They literally can’t do it.
And the idea that Martin might have been frightened doesn’t entitle him to attack someone. You don’t get to beat people up because you think their strange. Putting that aside he had to go out of his way to confront Zimmerman. He is the one who does the confronting and nothing in the conversation indicated a threat. His actions show he was anything BUT frightened of Zimmerman. He had already confronted Zimmerman once and this was narrated on the phone.
In short, you’re hoping the Jury will believe “something” yet you have no evidence of substance that would show Martin was threatened or attacked by Zimmerman which leaves us with the well documented evidence that Zimmerman was attacked by Martin and done so for a significant period of time.
I believe people tend to forget that the judge can more or less have a final say if things should smell fishy.
This is a small excerpt from a write-up, it doesn’t include actual law entries :
*
"Generally any presiding judge (the judge that ran the trial) can set aside a jury’s guilty verdict if they find it is against the weight of the evidence or not based on relevant law. A judge cannot overturn a not guilty verdict.
In the U. S., a court may overturn a jury verdict of “Guilty” and enter a judgment of acquittal or order a new trial in a criminal case. The basis for such action includes situation where the jury has brough in a verdict that is not supported by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This may happen where a jury is prejudiced against a defendant or makes a mistake in its fact finding or application of the law to the fact after the court jury instruction.":*
It goes beyond the final verdict, a judge won’t allow bullshit conjecture without something to go on. The prosecution can’t make up scenarios of things that might have happened without the evidence to back it up. It won’t be allowed in court.
So they can’t suggest that Martin didn’t beat up Zimmerman unless they have evidence there was a 3rd person there. They can’t say Zimmerman punched Martin or threatened to kill him unless they have evidence.
Exactly. The jury won’t even hear most of the foolish speculation that’s been happening in this thread and elsewhere. They will have to judge solely on the actual evidence, as that’s all they’ll hear.
[quote=“Magiver, post:9464, topic:619125”]
At this point, it appears DD has only a vague idea of what might have happened. Notice also, for someone who’s known Trayvon since they were both young. She doesn’t spell his name correctly. and it’s difficult to accept it as a pet name.
By the way, just before the shooting, Trayvon was enrolled at Carol City. He wasn’t given a ten day suspension, he got kicked out of his regular school. Trayvon was permanently expelled, for whatever reason.
Good thing George shot him.
Well, that’s kinda the point of self defence. Whilst it’s not exactly good, it’s better than the victim of an unprovoked attack (Zimmerman in case it’s not clear) being hospitalised or killed.
So then, Martin was expelled because he was going to beat up George in a week?