Zimmerman trial - Prosecution finished

Is anyone else watching this? The prosecution has not brought/shown any substantive evidence or information to support what they are saying. The prosecution never brought out anything, relevant to the shooting, that the local authorities didn't have when they decided there was no criminal case. They have just decided to spin a case, with no basis, into a prosecution by using dramatics and theatrics and public opinion rather than facts and evidence. It has subverted and weakened the entire judicial process.

It's been an interesting and fun ride to watch this thing unfold.

 

Cory, I haven't said anything about the trial.

From what I know of the encounter, I don't see a Murder 2 charge holding up. It's a stretch. But it isn't a stretch to imagine the jury convicting him on manslaughter. He killed a kid--and didn't have to.

 

This where the self defense angle comes in. If you watched the trial you would know that GZ was heading back to his car after the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that" follow TM and GZ actually said "OK", on his way back to the truck to wait for the police that he called to show up GZ was attacked by TM. Forensic evidence showed that TM was on top of GZ at the time of the gunshot, there's more witness's testimony that the screams for help were from GZ and not TM. Again, evidence supports GZ versions of the events. He killed a kid which is the unfortunate thing, but he did have to in order to save his own life, I believe.

You still seem stuck on other people's opinions. Are you unable to follow the case and form your own?

 

True, he could have simply resigned himself to death as the thug bashed his head into the concrete.

 

I'm amused that people seem to be getting so insulting because they have somehow confused this case with politics, what's wrong with America, what's wrong with the liberal media or some other silliness. Get a grip. I believe that the jurors will try to follow the law and do what they are supposed to do. If he's found guilty of anything (which I doubt) then he is most probably guilty at least beyond a reasonable doubt in the jury's collective mind. If he's found not guilty then it means the prosecution could not prove their case to the jury's satisfaction.

 

Well, its good to know that you don't think doctored 911 tapes and and falsified images put forth by the media is not a bad thing. I used to watch MSNBC. This trial, as I have stated in the past, is why I do not anymore. When someone (the media) is lying about evidence, ginning up non-extisting evidence, and clearly pushing only one side of the story and that concerns people you call that "silliness"?

Did you watch the trial?

 

It is legal to kill another human being under certain conditions.

 

Whether George Zimmerman is acquitted or convicted, and I am not making any predictions before hearing closing arguments and reading the jury instructions, the legacy of this case will be that the media never gets it right, and worse, that a group of lawyers, with the aid of a public relations team, who had a financial stake in the outcome of pending and anticipated civil litigation, were allowed to commandeer control of Florida’s criminal justice system, in pursuit of a divisive, personal agenda.

Their transformation of a tragic but spontaneous shooting into the crime of the century, and their relentless demonization of the person they deemed responsible, not for a tragic killing, but for “cold-blooded murder,” has called into question the political motives and ethics of the officials serving in the Executive branch of Florida’s government, ruined the career of other public officials, turned the lives of the Zimmerman family, who are as innocent as their grieving clients, into a nightmare, and along the way, set back any chance of a rational discussion of the very cause they were promoting, probably for years.

 

Thank you, Bill. This case is about a guy accused of murder. The acts and facts surrounding it are racially tinged, but that's pretty normal. To say, as some have, that there is other meaning to Zimmerman's indictment or (if it happens) his conviction (or acquittal) is absurd. This is a criminal case and not much more.

 

The police investigate and found no grounds for arrest...normal when the evidence indicates a just shooting.

The case was forwarded to the appropriate state attorney who declined to prosecute...normal when the state attorney knows they have no case and where this tragedy should have ended.

Enter the rabble rousers, including the sitting President of the United States...highly unusual and indicative of the way this event became politically and racially charged.

The Govorners of Florida then shopped around Florida for a special prosecutor, found one in Jacksonville who then proceeded to further politicize and grandstand. Even went so far as to way over charge the accused (they tried to fix that. Here at the end, cause this case has no real merit).

I'm not politicizing this case, that was done in sound bites and back rooms.

 

IMO and regrettably, an instance of a politicized justice system no matter the final verdict...

 

I said that I thought that Zimmerman would be convicted. I still do. I recognize that I could be wrong but here is my reasoning. A kid is dead and clearly this was done by Zimmerman. That's uncontested. There is conflicted testimony. Stories have changed. Expert witnesses that disagree. Stupid drama in the courtroom. In the end the kid is dead and Zimmerman killed him.

Before anyone starts screaming "HAVE YOU BEEN FOLLOWING THE TRIAL?!?" I can tell you that I have not. I watch the news almost everyday and I am aware of the inherent bias of that information source. The kid is dead and six women are going to decide who's responsible. I think they're going to blame the guy with the gun. You might think that it's stupid. You might think that it's wrong, unjust whatever, but don't forget how surprised people were when OJ was acquitted. People are wrongfully convicted all the time. We hear it on the news every week how some new DNA evidence resulted in the release of a convict. I'm not trying to say what I think SHOULD happen. I'm saying what I think WILL happen. If Zimmerman is acquitted I'll be happy to say I was wrong and I'll sleep just fine. If he's convicted I'll sleep equally well. The fact is that this situation occurs in every state every day. Bad people are let loose and decent people are jailed. If you're outraged at this trial where was your outrage a year ago or five years ago when it was someone else on trial? At least Zimmerman has the advantage of a high-priced fancy legal team unlike many others. If they fail to get him off you'll be unable to say that justice was not served because justice is a process, not an outcome. If he's acquitted I will feel that justice has been served based on the same thinking. A fair trial by a jury of his peers.

 

Well, I certainly won't ask if you are watching the trial, but wouldn't you want all the information available to make an informed decision? In your first paragraph you state things that simply are not true: 1. Conflicted testimony? Yes on the prosecutions part. 2. GZ story has not changed. He's sticking by what he told police that night, and the following day on his walk-through. Forensic evidence and witness testimony also back up GZ's side of the story. 3. Experts witness's that disagree, yes and whats funny is they are on the prosecutions side. Defense has all been consistent.

Again, there is no way a reasonable person can see the evidence, watch the trial, and still come to the conclusion that anything other than full acquittal is some how "justice".

I can see that my repeated pleas to watch the trial and get actual information (like we all said we couldn't wait to do when we started discussing this last year on Abner's hysterically incorrect and pre-judgemental thread) are met with "cow staring at fence post" like stares. I get it.

But willful ignorance of the events and sticking by old (wrong) and doctored (by the media and Crump and his grievance team) evidence is just plain stupid.

 

Please don't put false words in my mouth. It is being disrespectful and not really interesting from a discussion point view.

I have not watched the trial. I watched the whole OJ Simpson trial and decided that I wasted way more of time on it than it was worth. I have read articles about this trial on many days but I'm not really interested in the blow by blow detail.

This is a trial about a killing. This is not a trial about MSNBC or how any other news agency might be practicing journalism. My point about getting a grip is that this is a murder trial and I think that some people seem to be taking this personally when it really shouldn't be personal since I don't think that any of us are friends or related to the Zimmermans or the Martins. I just think the conversation could be elevated.

Some things that I would find interesting to discuss might be
- Why the judge ruled a certain way on something specific.
- What are the most convincing arguments made.
- Why Zimmerman apparently lied on Hannity about not being familiar with the stand your ground law in Florida.
- Perhaps contrasting coverage of the trial on different medias or Fox versus MSNBC versus CNN or something.
- etc

 

What I find distasteful is this intense need to be "right" about this trial. There are a few posters--all of whom insist this guy is innocent--that are so wrapped up in the outcome that they've already staked out their positions on each side of the verdict. If he's acquitted, then justice was served. If convicted, it will be wrongly so. And if you can't see that, you're an idiot, or willfully ignorant, or have an agenda, or you're a liberal, etc. The idea that others might interpret the case differently, yet honestly, isn't legitimate to them. Nor is the notion that one might keep an open mind. Nor is the idea of letting the jury decide and accepting the outcome.

If you aren't vocally supportive of acquittal, you're worthy of their scorn. It's schoolyard bullying, and it is just as ignorant.

 

Yes, anytime someone doesn't agree with a liberal it's schoolyard bullying and ignorance!!! It's a travesty!!! Rich, you should be outraged, OUTRAGED!

 

This is what I'm talking about. I didn't ask anyone to agree with me. In fact, I'm not offering a perspective with which to agree or disagree. Except the ignorance part. But I guess that was obvious.

 

oooooutraaaaaaged!

 

New drinking game: Every time the state says "child" you take a drink. We'll be plowed in no time.

No sir, I have a "child". He plays video games, cries when he scrapes his knee, is scared of girls, and still genuinely hugs his grandma. My "child" does not smoke weed, try to buy guns illegally, make gang signs in pictures, get kicked out of school, fight for fun, or drink sizzurp.