Zimmerman trial - Prosecution finished

Wow. I'm a racist? Because I had opinions regarding the process? (Note that I didn't advocate for an outcome.)

For the record, I think the jury came to the right decision. I don't agree with the laws in Florida that permit it, but I'm pretty convinced there was reasonable doubt here. The prosecution had its opportunity to remove that doubt, but couldn't. Thus, Zimmerman had to be acquitted.

Further, I don't think a civil rights case can be made, either. I didn't see the evidence pointing to Zimmerman killing the victim because of his (Martin's) race. That's a big stretch.

I suspect the next phase will be a civil suit, where the burden of proof is lower and Zimmerman can be compelled to testify.

"Racist." Wow. (I've reported the post.)

 

Absolutely you are 100% racist, this is nothing more than a race baiting joke of a trial that you have been happily pushing since day one. You damn well DID advocate for an outcome, your post history is CLEAR of that!

Of course you dont, you never started looking at self defense laws until the "victim" was black and the "perp" was white. You have injected race into this 100%. By the way, this wasnt a law specific to Florida, people have gotten off of THOUSANDS of cases nationwide where they used self defense, the only reason race baiters such as yourself never cared before was because of the color of the "victim" and "perp"'s skin!

Who are you trying to kid?

Burden of proof of what? Just admit you think Martin was an innocent little angel and Zimmerman is an evil Nazi, we all know thats what you are thinking!

Truth hurts, dont it?

 

Yeah, calling Rich racist does take the cake. WTF?

 

Someone calling you name does not make it true. My son came home from school onen day and was pretty upset. Seems there were a couple of girls calling him a fag. It was really starting to get to him. I asked him, "If I look at Annie (our dog) and call her a bear, what is she?" "A dog" he replied. If someone comes up to you and says you're an alien, are you an alien? "No" he said. Well there you go, plus theres nothing wrong with being gay, I think these girls might want your attention or something.

Plus, Lincoln said "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tale a leg? 4 calling the tail a leg does not make it so"

Rich, being called a racist means absolutely nothing anymore. Take it with a grain of salt.

No worries.

 

Ruth Marcus sums it up pretty well: Ruth Marcus: Zimmerman verdict in Martin case shows justice’s flaws - The Washington Post

 

Wow, a mod defending his racist little buddy, what a surprise. Oh no, please dont ban me mr mod, I couldnt live with not being able to post to a board supposedly dedicated to people bettering themselves but is instead nothing more than a circle jerk for hating whitey... I get it, calling the evil white man (Zimmerman) names like murder, racist, etc... is acceptable here, but damn someone if they insult your racist friends. Dont you guys have a New Black Panther Party meeting to go to?

 

Just a reminder, personal attacks violate the forum's TOS.

 

Yeah, you cannot come right out and call someone a name here. You have to use the ever popular *harump* overly-wordy snark attacks that you can easily back off of should the need arise.

It just takes practice.

 

I can't decipher if Rich is a racist or not, he certainly hasn't said anything overtly racist in this thread that I can recall. But do the TOS protect AubTiger from being accused of lyingr? Just curious...because that happened in a very overt way and no one seemed to care.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here but, the FBI doesn't generally bring civil actions and the prosectuion doesn't have any say in a civil action. The Martin's could bring civil actions but I doubt they will be interested in a civil action unless GZ hasn't gotten a huge pot load of money.

 

This tool hasn't added anything of value besides a few laughs at his expense. I suggest that any administrator considering what to do here may want to consider taking the near zero value of contribution into consideration before deciding on the best action.

 

I don't need protecting, but thank you. I know I earned my degrees, my fiancé, family and friends know, my employer knows and the alumni offices at Auburn, Vandy and Harvard know. That enough for me.
I will say this, there are a handful of members on this board that seem to think they can attack others at will, but when something is directed at them they get mighty butt hurt. Being called a "liar" or a "racist" shouldn't be that big of a deal considering this is an anonymous community, right Rich?

 

I just wanna see justice done.
Know justice know peace, no justice no peace!

 

I chuckled.

 

Yep, my wording is off, sorry for the confusion. I was alluding to the fact that many are calling for civil suits and for the DOJ to be involved. My statement about the FBI was that they already spent about 6 months and (I believe) had up to 10 agents investigating whether or not GZ violated TM's civil rights.

Now, that case might indeed still be open, I have read so much about this case I can easily forget some portions, but I think it was closed without finding that GZ violated TM's civil rights.

I did notice on the White House petition site that there is a petition for the DOJ to investigate GZ based on quote: "for violating Trayvon Martin's most fundamental of civil rights - the right to life..." I bet the pro-life people are all over this one. The right to life is a civil right, eh?

 

This comment is absolutely correct in the jurisdictions that have inherited an English legal system. The finding of the truth sits outside the trial in the executive more commonly known as the police. The Inquisitorial system has the investigation sit within the trial and it is designed to find (1) if there was a crime , (2) who did it, and (3) is there sufficient evidence to convict that person of it. Very different systems and most of the world goes with the inquisitorial model.

There is a move here to retry people when fresh evidence that was previously unattainable is available. This usually occurs due to scientific development. The self defense principle is common across all jurisdictions and it generally requires a response commensurate to the threat eg. you cannot shoot somebody if they slap you. The "fear of life" concept has to be reasonable and honestly held. The government held has recently held a media campaign entitled: "One Punch can Kill" because of the killings outside nightclubs in assaults.

We had people convicted of murder here for punching a person once and killing them. From my experience in law enforcement, I found this to be very common. Trauma to the head is potentially lethal and it does not matter whether it is a blunt instrument or a set of knuckles. The head does not know the difference. This is particularly the case where the head is buttressed against a floor or wall etc. We had a case where a police officer was being repeatedly punched to the head while on the ground and she shot and killed her assailant. The Coroner (a judicial officer here, not a pathologist) held that the force was reasonable in the circumstances.

I do not know the complete facts in this case. I guess only the jury does, but I think it is very hard for the jury to get past the self defense in an exchange of force. As a former police officer, I had to live with jury decisions I did not like, but on average they usually got it right. How would you like to be tried? This is the question for us all. If you do not like the jury system, then you have the option of switching to the inquisitorial system that is used in most of Europe with its limitations. Petitioning the executive to over ride the judicial system may not be the best option.