Zimmerman trial - Prosecution finished

Here you go...

February 26, 2012 - George Zimmerman Shoots and Kills Trayvon Martin
Zimmerman claims self-defense. After an investigation, the police agree and decide not to press charges.

March 8, 2012 - The AP Falsely Describes Zimmerman as "White"
The story of the grieving parents of Trayvon Martin demanding Zimmerman be arrested first achieves national attention on March 8 when CBS This Morning runs a report.
Later that same day, the Associated Press throws the first log on the racial fire by inaccurately describing Zimmerman as white.

March 13, 2012 - NBC's Al Sharpton Uses MSNBC Platform to Stoke Phony Racial Narrative
Breitbart editor-in-chief Joel Pollak:
Sharpton devoted a portion of his program on MSNBC, PoliticsNation, to the Trayvon Martin case. He interviewed Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, who reiterated the accusation that Zimmerman was “white”: “We think Trayvon Martin didn’t know who the heck this white man was who approached him before he got killed.”
Earlier that same day, Sharpton's National Action Network released a statement calling for...
...a “complete and thorough investigation” into Martin’s death. He added: “[W]e are told that racial language was used when the young man reported his suspicions to police[.]”
The story about Zimmerman's use of racial language was false.

March 13, 2012 - ABC News Reporter Claims Trayvon Shot Because "He Was Black"
About ten days before Al Sharpton and President Obama would launch the Zimmerman story into the stratosphere, Matt Gutman, an ABC News correspondent based in Miami, Florida, was already (and without a shred of evidence) laying the track for a racial narrative.
Gutman covered the case for the network, and his Twitter feed at the time was full of falsehoods, innuendo, and irresponsible speculation. In one tweet, Gutman came right out and claimed Trayvon was shot "bc [because] he was black."
Gutman would also recklessly accuse Zimmerman of "stalking" and shooting down Trayvon.


March 19, 2012 - CBS News Falsely Claims Zimmerman Is White
A small detail that the Obama administration and the media apparently missed was that the white versus black racial narrative they were preparing to invest so much into was missing just one thing: a white person.
Proof of this is that CBS News falsely claimed Zimmerman was white about a week before the story exploded.
In their venomous zeal, the media and Democrats likely assumed that someone with the last name Zimmerman had to be white. But they were wrong, as Zimmerman is Hispanic.
Never ones to back off a good narrative, rather than use this revelation to tamp down tensions or correct their reporting, the media simply made up out of whole cloth a new racial category: the "white Hispanic."

March 22, 2012 - Zimmerman Described as a "White Hispanic" by The New York Times
Just in the nick of time, before the story was engineered to explode the very next day with the Sharpton rally, The New York Times put its stamp of approval on the term "white Hispanic."


March 21, 2012 - CNN Falsely Accuses Zimmerman of Saying "F**king Coon"
Knowing full well the phony racial storm brewing around the Zimmerman case was about to have gasoline thrown on it the next day, CNN went to extraordinary lengths to claim Zimmerman had uttered the racial slur "coon" when he had not.
This has to be watched to be believed.
CNN wouldn't officially retract their defamation until April 5th, long after it was too late.

March 22, 2012 - NBC's Al Sharpton Goes to Florida
Though the police had investigated the shooting and saw no reason to charge George Zimmerman, in March of 2012, President Obama's reelection chances looked dim. He would need the crucial swing state of Florida to win another four years, and nothing brings out the Democrat vote like a good old racial bonfire.
With the help of thousands of dollars from Obama's Justice Department, it was then that Rev. Al Sharpton (anchor of MSNBC's Politics Nation) held his incendiary rally:
At the protest, Sharpton was flanked by Martin's parents. "Trayvon could have been any one of our sons," he said. "Trayvon could have been any one of us."
He continued:
"We are tired of going to jail for nothing and others going home for something. Zimmerman should have been arrested that night ... you cannot defend yourself against a pack of Skittles and iced tea. Don't talk to us like we're stupid! Don't talk to us like we're ignorant! We love our children like you love yours. Lock him up!"
Sharpton said that he would stay on the case.
"We cannot allow a legal precedent to be established in this city that tells us it is legal for a man to kill us, tell any story he wants, and walks out with the murder weapon," he said.


March 23, 2012 - President Obama Repeats Sharpton's Talking Point
The day after Sharpton held his rally and said, "Trayvon could have been any one of our sons," President Obama made huge news when he stepped before the cameras, demanded action in the Zimmerman case, and famously said, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon."
In just two days, a network news anchor and an American president had blasted the Zimmerman case into the nation's top story and did so based on a racial narrative without a shred of evidence to support it. Almost every other major news outlet would now commit every journalistic sin imaginable to fabricate evidence.

March 24, 2012 - Reuters Describes Zimmerman as a "White Hispanic"
To keep the white versus black narrative alive, Reuters jumps on the ridiculous "white Hispanic" bandwagon.
Many others would follow.


March 27, 2012 - NBC News Edits 911 Audio to Make Zimmerman Look Racist
On the storied Today Show, NBC News told America Zimmerman said this on the 911 call:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
When the truth is that the unedited audio actually went like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
After the fraudulent editing was discovered by the New Media (first by Breitbart News), former NBC News president Steve Capus would claim that the edit was "a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call."
Eventually, several NBC producers would be fired (without being named), and Zimmerman would file a lawsuit against NBC; it remains unresolved.

 

And some more...

March 28, 2012 - ABC News Falsely Claims Zimmerman Wasn't Injured Night of Shooting
The day after NBC News released its falsified 911 bombshell, ABC News released a phony, hyped-up story of its own. Using grainy surveillance video of Zimmerman at the police station on the night of the shooting, ABC News claimed, "A police surveillance video taken the night that Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman."
Obviously, if true, this would go a long way towards proving Zimmerman was not in fear of his life the night of the shooting and had lied about being beaten up.
The only problem is that the ABC News story was not true -- not even close. The network didn't bother to enhance the video before breaking the news. Had they, Zimmerman's bloody head would have been quite apparent.
It would take four days for ABC to retract its falsehood.

March 28, 2012 - Boston Globe Falsely Describes Zimmerman as White
By late March it was widely known that George Zimmerman was Hispanic. This did not stop the Boston Globe from using its pages to describe him as "a white neighborhood watch captain."
This error has never been corrected.


March 29, 2012 - NBC's Chris Matthews Contradicts Guest to Claim Zimmerman Not Injured
By the next day, ABC's false story about Zimmerman not being injured had already gone viral. However, some were already doing the job ABC apparently didn't want to do: enhancing the video. A guest on MSNBC's Hardball told the show's host, Chris Matthews, that his enhancement did show bruises on the back of Zimmerman's head. MSNBC even broadcast the enhancement, which clearly showed cuts and bruising.
Regardless, during the same show, Matthews stridently claimed:
George Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon Martin after Trayvon broke his nose and repeatedly slammed the back of his head into a concrete sidewalk, but newly released video tape of Zimmerman arriving at the police station--we're looking at it there--appears to show no evidence of a broken nose or obvious wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head.

Late March, 2012 - Zimmerman's "Black Friend" Vilified by Media
Even though Zimmerman is Hispanic and there was no evidence of any racial motivation behind his actions, the media's racial-hysteria was, at this point, in full bloom. To try and tamp things down, Joe Oliver, a black reporter who had worked with CNN and an Orlando television station, started doing the national media interview rounds to speak on behalf of his friend, George Zimmerman.
The counterattack in the media (CNN, New York Times, and MSNBC, among others) was exceptionally vicious, personal, and effective.
Oliver went away.

April 1, 2012 - The New York Times Maliciously Edits Zimmerman's 911 Call
Although the NBC News malicious edit of Zimmerman's 911 call broadcast on the Today Show had already been loudly and publicly debunked, days later the New York Times did the same thing on its front page.
By rearranging the words of the call, the Times falsely made it look as though Zimmerman had profiled Trayvon as black:
Here is the 911 call transcript:
ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
911 DISPATCHER: Okay. And this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?
ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.
And here is what the Times reported:
“Hey, we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood,” Mr. Zimmerman said to start the conversation with the dispatcher. “And there’s a real suspicious guy.”
This guy seemed to be up to no good; like he was on drugs or something; in a gray hoodie. Asked to describe him further, he said, “He looks black.”
The print edition of the story was even worse than the online edition.

April 9, 2012 - PBS Anchor Gwen Ifill Describes Zimmerman as "White"
Desperate to keep a non-existent racial narrative alive, during a broadcast of the PBS Newshour Gwen Ifill falsely stated:
Martin, who was black, was on his way to a convenience store in a mostly white gated community when George Zimmerman, who is white, shot and killed him after a disputed altercation.
Note Ifill's reporting of Zimmerman's gated community. The condos in Zimmerman's neighborhood sell for about $120,000.

April 11, 2012 - George Zimmerman Is Arrested, Charged with Second Degree Murder


After the arrest, and as the trial date neared the following year, NBC would allow Al Sharpton to turn his primetime MSNBC show into a platform dedicated to convicting Zimmerman.
CNN would continue to refer to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" and broadcast all of Zimmerman's personal information, including his social security number, address, and telephone number.

 

I think accusations of racism against fellow degreeinfo posters is a bit too harsh! Indeed, there was too much emotion on this thread and elsewhere! If one looks at the case from a legal perspective instead of an emotional one, its as Spock says, "fascinating!"

 

The killing was justifiable homicide and the trial was a politically driven exercise in futility.

The jury is disgusted with what they saw.

 

1) One's opinion of this matter does not necessarily reflect his or her views on race. One can think Martin was completely innocent or a bonafide thug without necessarily believing that his character had anything to do with his race. One can think that Zimmerman was completely innocent or a racist, vigilante, wannabe cop without believing that these qualities were a function of his race.

2) Not commenting on other examples of self-defense is irrelevant. These other examples didn't have the "advantage" of receiving an avalanche of media attention. Assuming that a person is racist for failing to comment on relatively unknown cases is just an egregious and erroneous playing of the race card.

Legally speaking, the jury made the right decision. There WAS reasonable doubt. Could Zimmerman have avoided the scenario? Absolutely. However, the state did not have sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's actions were criminal.

 

My point is, you still have to prove it and that takes mucho money! If we learn anything from this case it is the necessity to PROVE IT!

 

The judicial system isn't about finding the truth, but it's about who can present the most compelling argument, which is why someone who has been found "not guilty" can never be retried -- ever.

 

Nope, not at all. Its just a coincidence that 90% of the people that thought that Zimmerman was a monster happen to be black and 90% of the people who thought he was innocent happen to be white, and how everyone talking about how Zimmerman was a racist dirtbag all happen to ignore the racism coming out of Martin's mouth.

Now Im playing the race card? Pathetic! And absolutely not commenting on other self defense cases IS 100% ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT! The ONLY reason this case went anywhere is because the "victim" was black and the "perp" was white, or hispanic, or whathave you.. I will give you one such example of something more egregious than this that had the roles been reversed it would have been national news in a second.
Roderick Scott, a 6'3 230lb black person thought some teenagers were breaking into his car. He called police, grabbed his gun, left his house to confront them. He got outside and pointed a gun at the teenagers in the street which he thought were breaking into his car. All three white teenagers sat there and looked at him. One teenager said "Ill get him" and started running toward him. He shot the teenager THREE times from 30 feet away, the "child" died. Verdict? Self defense! SO he interjected himself in to a situation instead of waiting for the cops, and shot and killed an unarmed child from a distance away. Now if you think this shitstorm was bad of a person shooting someone while being beaten down is bad, just try switching the races in that situation and see what Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would say...

Sadly this is the only thing we can agree on.

 

I agree! Often the most compelling argument costs big money!

 

After the jury found Zimmerman not guilty, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "This isn't over with. The [U.S.] justice department will now take a look at it." :ugh:

Audio Clip:
Harry Reid on Zimmerman Trial: 'This Isn't Over,' DOJ Going to Take a Look - YouTube

 

In a civil case (which this is not), the burden of proof is--as you imply--a preponderance of the evidence. That is, one side's argument is better than the other.

In a criminal case, however, the bar is necessarily much higher. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is to say, is there some other plausible explanation for the events besides the guilt of the accused? Not whether or not he did it, but whether or not the state has excluded other reasonable explanations. This case was riddled with doubt. The jury decided there was enough to acquit.

As for being retried, it's trickier than that. He cannot be retried on the same charges, but he could be tried on other charges stemming from the same event. The case doesn't exonerate him and immunize him from prosecution. That's why the civil rights case could go forward. Also, he could face a civil suit over the matter, which has a lower burden of proof (see above). Just ask O.J.

 

DOJ urged to press civil rights charges against Zimmerman DOJ urged to press civil rights charges against Zimmerman

You guys keep believing this had anything to do with justice...your freedoms are no longer defined by the rule of law. Your a frog in a pot of water...wake up before we're all cooked. They called for an arrest and got it, called for a trial and got it, called for a verdict....and got it.

You need to understand the far reaching implications of this precarious path.

 

1) I said "necessarily" for a reason. In practice, yes, there seems to be a pattern of opinion based on race. I am a white male (with 1/4 Puerto Rican heritage, but I have never self-identified as Hispanic. Based on the initial reports last year, I thought that Zimmerman was guilty. As evidence emerged, my view changed. My point is that one's opinion does not have to be determined by race.

2) I think that calling someone a racist for being unaware of other incidents is unfair. If you did not intend to "play the race card", though, I apologize. Most of us don't have the time or inclination to research all of the similar events that have occurred recently.

3) I do agree that in your scenario that if a black teenager had been shot by a white man that it would have attracted more attention.

4) This post seems to have a different tone than your last post. I fear I may have misunderstood you, and for that I do apologize.

 

OJ = Orange jumpsuit.

 

Zimmerman has given us 14 pages of discussion in this thread, perhaps we can give him a DegreeInfo honorary degree.

 

We could award one posthumously to Tray. He seems to have studied mma, urban chemistry, race relations, and social media extensively.

 

Precisely. My birth certificate says white, and I identify with being a "white" Hispanic. Hispanic is merely a grouping. I also speak two white man languages, English and Spanish.

Abner

 

According to the law it's not different.