Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[Ulysses G.]

If you think that the right to remain silent will ever be revoked, you are delusional. It ain't going to happen.

[SteeleJoe]

If you think that the right to remain silent will ever be revoked, you are delusional. It ain't going to happen.

Nor should it.

[SteeleJoe]

If the prosecution had had the option to call Zimmerman to testify, then Z would have been cooked. The only change the Supreme Court would need to make is that the prosecution can have the right to call the defendant. The defendant could still have the right to decline to testify.

Whether or not you are correct in your certainty about something which is unknowable, one hopes you aren't basing your notion of fundamentally changing the law just because this one verdict didn't go the way you wish it had.

As for the defendant still having the right to decline to testify, that would only potentially prejudice the jury even more than the current situation can, where the decision not to testify is already implicit and obvious. This is already a genuine but unavoidable problem - you want to exacerbate it.

[F430murci]

If you think that the right to remain silent will ever be revoked, you are delusional. It ain't going to happen.

Basic and fundamental 5th Amendment right. 2nd will be repealed before the 5th.

[Publicus]

Trayvon seriously wanted to be a pilot. He wasn't going to get a police record or a bad reputation in his community or at his schools.

This is about as accurate as most of your posts on this subject.

Much of the new evidence disclosed Thursday in filings by Zimmerman's attorneys comes from Martin's cell phone, including photos showing a semiautomatic pistol and ammunition and small marijuana plants growing in pots. In other pictures, Martin is pictured making obscene gestures in an apparent self-portrait, as well pictures showing him with friends and in other settings.

The text messages include a conversation from November 2011 in which he appears to say his mother has kicked him out of the house after "da police caught me outta skool."

"So you just turning into a lil hoodlum," the person with whom he is texting says.

"Naw, I'm a gangsta," the text message read.

In other messages, text message exchanges appear to be discussing guns.

"U wanna share a .380 w/ (blacked out)," one text message sent from Martin's phone reads. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense

You wanna try to start throwing sh*t against the wall to see what may stick?

Try this:

Zimmerman's 05' arrest Resisting officers & Obstructing justice (a felony) sentence: Anger Man class

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/30/1079338/-Zimmerman-s-05-arrest-Resisting-offices-Obstructing-justice-a-felony-sentence-Anger-Managemet

George Zimmerman's police record has come to light. NBC is reporting He was arrested in 2005 in Orlando Fl. for resisting an undercover alcohol control officer (who was making arrests in a bar), and obstructing justice (a felony). The police report described Zimmerman as interjecting himself into the situation, and when the officer identified himself Zimmerman said "I don't care who you are". When police ordered him to leave again and George replied "<deleted> you!". The police report stated Zimmerman "used violence and battery against the officer".

Zimmerman is a wild and violent nutcase who should never have been allowed to possess a firearm. Another failure of Florida law. A violent person with a violent history - against a police officer - is allowed to possess a firearm. A travesty right there.

[KarenBravo]

Violent nut-jobs can be innocent of a crime, too, you know?

[Publicus]

But if you jump a man in the good ole USA, break his nose and then start pounding his head into the pavement you better make sure he is unarmed first.

Okay, that is funny.

Tasteless.

Crude.

Cruel.

Reflects 100% the nature and lack of character of the gang of Zimmerman the gunman fans swarming all over this thread.

Sick.

[bunnydrops]

Just to be clear

In my state (Oregon) the selection of the jury goes like this.

At random a number of people are selected from the states list of voters. I don't remember the exact number but by law they have to show up at the court house where both sides of the case gets to question each of them in presents of both sides of the case. Each side gets to dismiss a certain number of people until the number needed for the jury is attained, plus 3 for backup. It is not possible for one side to pick a jury that leans only one way.

[F430murci]

Haha, I particularly like this quote:

"But the defendant declining to testify when the prosecution is Constitutionally empowered to call him to testify would significantly affect the law, the judge's instructions to the jury, and the deliberations of a jury."

Does anyone else see how ridiculous this is. The 5th Amendment provides the right against self incrimination. There is nothing in the constitution that "empowers" the prosecution to call anyone, much less the defendant.

Edited July 16, 2013 by F430murci

[F430murci]

Protestors storming streets of LA and throwing stuff at cars. Jumping on cars in intersections. looting. tearing stuff up. Really. Acting like animals.

Report out if Senatobia, Mississippi, about 3 blacks trying kid nap and beating a jogger yelling Tryoin. Okay, seriously. And one wonders why their is profiling.

I will exercise my second amend right and get a better gun.

The sad part is I was mad as hell when the Supreme Court gutted several civil rights acts this past month and, out if the liberals in her, I was the only one that complained about that and that was an issue that really mattered. You know, I say F'em now. No more!

[Publicus]

Violent nut-jobs can be innocent of a crime, too, you know?

No member of the gang of Zimmerman fans and boosters will admit that a jury's verdict can be wrong.

It's well documented by the Innocence Project that many of the innocent have been found guilty and, worse, executed by the state - that's the government, which so many of you are so terrified of except in this case.

A reasonable person also knows based on common sense and reasoning, logic, that a jury can be wrong in setting free a guilty defendant.

No one here wants to face that fact or to try to deal with the reality of it. No one here can face the fact or to try to deal with it.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Publicus

[SteeleJoe]

Violent nut-jobs can be innocent of a crime, too, you know?

No member of the gang of Zimmerman fans and boosters will admit that a jury's verdict can be wrong.

It's well documented by the Innocence Project that many of the innocent have been found guilty and, worse, executed by the state - that's the government, which so many of you are so terrified of except in this case.

A reasonable person also knows based on common sense and reasoning, logic, that a jury can be wrong in setting free a guilty defendant.

No one here wants to fact that fact or to try to deal with the reality of it.

I will fact that fact!

[Publicus]

Violent nut-jobs can be innocent of a crime, too, you know?

No member of the gang of Zimmerman fans and boosters will admit that a jury's verdict can be wrong.

It's well documented by the Innocence Project that many of the innocent have been found guilty and, worse, executed by the state - that's the government, which so many of you are so terrified of except in this case.

A reasonable person also knows based on common sense and reasoning, logic, that a jury can be wrong in setting free a guilty defendant.

No one here wants to fact that fact or to try to deal with the reality of it.

I will fact that fact!

You are one post away from the ignore button.

I'd bet that scares hell out of you

[gl555]

It happens yes but in this case, the verdict just came out and you're using previous wrong convictions just to justify your weak arguments. At this moment, you don't accept the verdict so you say it's wrong. That is so childish and pathetic but reading all your little arguments so far, we're not surprised.

The problem with people like you is the fact that, in your little minds, the jury is always wrong when the verdict doesn't go your way. How sad.

Have you no humanity?

Zimmerman did nothing to try to save Trayvon Martin's life. Zimmerman instead shot Martin to kill him, i.e., shot him in or in the immediate area of the heart, the same area of the chest John Lenon was fatally shot. If Zimmerman had any humanity, he would do all he could to save the life of Trayvon.

Military doctors work to repair the captured enemy wounded and try to save their lives. Zimmerman couldn't try to save a life?! Try?!

It's clear Zimmerman hasn't any humanity for certain people. Yet a good number of posters have great human sympathy and support of Zimmerman, a guy with a gun who set out after a guy without a gun.

I'd like to think you could search hard and dig deep inside you to find some human aspect to this crime, this death, this killing - to think about saving a life. To give it a thought. To give a thought to the possibility of trying to save a human life.

Oh please, cut the bleeding heart routine.

They train you to fire center mass. That's the chest area. Zimmerman may have sucked in his MMA training but he obviously took his firearm training seriously.

Zimmerman defended himself against someone attacking him. The jury has acquitted. That's that.

So there absolutely is no possibility a jury anywhere in the United States, at any time, in any case, could conclude an erroneous verdict.

It's common knowledge that the opposite is a normal part of the jury system, i.e., an innocent person is found guilty by a conscientious jury of peers. The Innocence Project, to cite one high profile organization, has documentation of this from here to the moon. Worse, innocents have been executed by the state.

However, it is extraordinarily difficult to produce instances in which a guilty defendant was set free by a conscientious jury of peers. There is no "Guilty Project" or an equivalent I can think of or find in research.

Yet any reasonable person will know that this has occurred, i.e., a guilty defendant has been found innocent by a conscientious jury of peers - or in a bench trial.

Philosophically, it is generally agreed that it's better that one guilty person go free than an innocent one be wrongly found guilty. Worse, found guilty then executed.

Concretely, however, it is difficult to accept that a jury can be wrong, that juries have been wrong. In the reality of the moment, it is difficult to accept that an innocent unarmed boy can be targeted by an armed character who is on the margin of society and be killed by the person in a gross instance of the excessive use of force.

You evade the core matter. The fact is juries do deliver erroneous verdicts. The list is very long, as the Innocence Project has documented and continues to document on an continuing basis.

A reasonable person can conclude that juries in delivering wrong verdicts do set free guilty defendants. That's the issue you are evading and prevaricating over, that you won't address, that you refuse to recognize, admit, deal with.

It's your weak point in the Zimmerman verdict and you don't know how to deal with it. You're helpless and lost so you must avoid the matter.

[watcharacters]

People seriously need to get a grip.

The fact that Trayvon Martin wanted to be a pilot or was shot in the same part of his body as John Lennon was, is so irrelevant as to be laughable.

The fact that he smoked weed and painted graffiti is very nearly as absurdly without pertinence.

The efforts to smear Zimmerman with allegations - true or not - about his cousin or smear Martin with allegations about being an aspiring criminal are not only irrelevant but rather than funny, truly disgraceful. People should be embarrassed both for the way it maligns and for the way it highlights the paucity of their argument for their position.

1) NONE of you knows for sure what happened and why. People keep claiming they do and that they have sufficient facts to do so, but that is simply not true.

2) Evidence suggests that Zimmerman's story could be true or largely so.

3) Evidence does NOT prove that it is true - and doesn't have to - nor does it disprove another scenario in which Zimmerman's actions are illegal and/or immoral. (Or at best, that Martin attacked Zimmerman out of fear for his life - justified or not - and it was HE who was acting in self defense - in such a case, with an armed man, one would be justified in trying to beat that person as badly as possible - even to death: in which case it was a matter of poor judgement on both sides rather than either one out to do wrong).

4) The prosecution failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of what he was charged with.

5) The jury has not, with their verdict, told us that they believe Zimmerman did no wrong, merely that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

I look forward to the day - well into the future I'm afraid - when the Supreme Court rules that in litigation involving criminal murder or manslaughter, the defendant(s) are liable to testify, due to the fact that the deceased who was killed cannot present any evidence or information. That kind of decision actually might not be in the distant future.

The Supreme Court can interpret the 5th and any other amendments as they see fit. That's always been the case. This absolute exemption of the defendant testifying on Constitutional grounds needs to be limited due to the fact that the deceased is unable to present the other side. That's the major reason Zimmerman got off on both the murder 2 charge and the manslaughter charge. He should have been convicted on the manslaughter charge at the minimum, but could not be as matters presently stand.

If the prosecution had had the option to call Zimmerman to testify, then Z would have been cooked. The only change the Supreme Court would need to make is that the prosecution can have the right to call the defendant. The defendant could still have the right to decline to testify. But the defendant declining to testify when the prosecution is Constitutionally empowered to call him to testify would significantly affect the law, the judge's instructions to the jury, and the deliberations of a jury.

.

Sincerely, it's my personal hope you have no other impact on anything in the USA, if that's your home country, other than a single vote.

While I'm not always happy with the fifth amendment's application, the suggestion it be abandoned makes me want to puke in the lap of those who desire that. And if ti comes to pass, thankfully I'll surely be long dead and only ashes in some field in Thailand.

Yeah, Publicus, throw away a lot that thousands and thousands have fought and died for to defend so that a personal agenda can be satisfied.

[gl555]

Haha and if the Supreme Court doesn't do that, you're going to whine again about them being wrong?

People seriously need to get a grip.

The fact that Trayvon Martin wanted to be a pilot or was shot in the same part of his body as John Lennon was, is so irrelevant as to be laughable.

The fact that he smoked weed and painted graffiti is very nearly as absurdly without pertinence.

The efforts to smear Zimmerman with allegations - true or not - about his cousin or smear Martin with allegations about being an aspiring criminal are not only irrelevant but rather than funny, truly disgraceful. People should be embarrassed both for the way it maligns and for the way it highlights the paucity of their argument for their position.

1) NONE of you knows for sure what happened and why. People keep claiming they do and that they have sufficient facts to do so, but that is simply not true.

2) Evidence suggests that Zimmerman's story could be true or largely so.

3) Evidence does NOT prove that it is true - and doesn't have to - nor does it disprove another scenario in which Zimmerman's actions are illegal and/or immoral. (Or at best, that Martin attacked Zimmerman out of fear for his life - justified or not - and it was HE who was acting in self defense - in such a case, with an armed man, one would be justified in trying to beat that person as badly as possible - even to death: in which case it was a matter of poor judgement on both sides rather than either one out to do wrong).

4) The prosecution failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of what he was charged with.

5) The jury has not, with their verdict, told us that they believe Zimmerman did no wrong, merely that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

I look forward to the day - well into the future I'm afraid - when the Supreme Court rules that in litigation involving criminal murder or manslaughter, the defendant(s) are liable to testify, due to the fact that the deceased who was killed cannot present any evidence or information. That kind of decision actually might not be in the distant future.

The Supreme Court can interpret the 5th and any other amendments as they see fit. That's always been the case. This absolute exemption of the defendant testifying on Constitutional grounds needs to be limited due to the fact that the deceased is unable to present the other side. That's the major reason Zimmerman got off on both the murder 2 charge and the manslaughter charge. He should have been convicted on the manslaughter charge at the minimum, but could not be as matters presently stand.

If the prosecution had had the option to call Zimmerman to testify, then Z would have been cooked. The only change the Supreme Court would need to make is that the prosecution can have the right to call the defendant. The defendant could still have the right to decline to testify. But the defendant declining to testify when the prosecution is Constitutionally empowered to call him to testify would significantly affect the law, the judge's instructions to the jury, and the deliberations of a jury.

[watcharacters]

People seriously need to get a grip.

The fact that Trayvon Martin wanted to be a pilot or was shot in the same part of his body as John Lennon was, is so irrelevant as to be laughable.

The fact that he smoked weed and painted graffiti is very nearly as absurdly without pertinence.

The efforts to smear Zimmerman with allegations - true or not - about his cousin or smear Martin with allegations about being an aspiring criminal are not only irrelevant but rather than funny, truly disgraceful. People should be embarrassed both for the way it maligns and for the way it highlights the paucity of their argument for their position.

1) NONE of you knows for sure what happened and why. People keep claiming they do and that they have sufficient facts to do so, but that is simply not true.

2) Evidence suggests that Zimmerman's story could be true or largely so.

3) Evidence does NOT prove that it is true - and doesn't have to - nor does it disprove another scenario in which Zimmerman's actions are illegal and/or immoral. (Or at best, that Martin attacked Zimmerman out of fear for his life - justified or not - and it was HE who was acting in self defense - in such a case, with an armed man, one would be justified in trying to beat that person as badly as possible - even to death: in which case it was a matter of poor judgement on both sides rather than either one out to do wrong).

4) The prosecution failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of what he was charged with.

5) The jury has not, with their verdict, told us that they believe Zimmerman did no wrong, merely that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

I look forward to the day - well into the future I'm afraid - when the Supreme Court rules that in litigation involving criminal murder or manslaughter, the defendant(s) are liable to testify, due to the fact that the deceased who was killed cannot present any evidence or information. That kind of decision actually might not be in the distant future.

The Supreme Court can interpret the 5th and any other amendments as they see fit. That's always been the case. This absolute exemption of the defendant testifying on Constitutional grounds needs to be limited due to the fact that the deceased is unable to present the other side. That's the major reason Zimmerman got off on both the murder 2 charge and the manslaughter charge. He should have been convicted on the manslaughter charge at the minimum, but could not be as matters presently stand.

If the prosecution had had the option to call Zimmerman to testify, then Z would have been cooked. The only change the Supreme Court would need to make is that the prosecution can have the right to call the defendant. The defendant could still have the right to decline to testify. But the defendant declining to testify when the prosecution is Constitutionally empowered to call him to testify would significantly affect the law, the judge's instructions to the jury, and the deliberations of a jury.

.

.

Sincerely, it's my personal hope you have no other impact on anything in the USA, if that's your home country, other than a single vote.

While I'm not always happy with the fifth amendment's application, the suggestion it be abandoned makes me want to puke in the lap of those who desire that. And if it comes does ever come to pass, thankfully, I'll surely be long dead and only ashes in some field in Thailand.

Yeah, Publicus, you wish to throw away a lot that thousands and thousands have fought and died for to defend so that a personal agenda can be satisfied.

I hope you never get your wish.

[SteeleJoe]

Violent nut-jobs can be innocent of a crime, too, you know?

No member of the gang of Zimmerman fans and boosters will admit that a jury's verdict can be wrong.

It's well documented by the Innocence Project that many of the innocent have been found guilty and, worse, executed by the state - that's the government, which so many of you are so terrified of except in this case.

A reasonable person also knows based on common sense and reasoning, logic, that a jury can be wrong in setting free a guilty defendant.

No one here wants to fact that fact or to try to deal with the reality of it.

I will fact that fact!

You are one post away from the ignore button.

I'd bet that scares hell out of you

Yes, almost as scary as when you kept threatening to report me. And just as immature.

The fact that juries are inevitably wrong sometimes - more often than we'll ever know - is an exceedingly obvious (and hugely disheartening) fact that is disputed by no one remotely sensible or honest.

That to whatever extent possible, this should be prevented or corrected, is equally obvious. How do you suggest we on this forum, deal with this reality?

[kikoman]

The utter stupidity of some of the pro-Zimmerman posters I was asked why I did not believe the verdict was a correct one,

My answer to that is Byron De La Beckwith killing Medgar Evers, acquitted by an all white jury, and decades later was convicted of murder. James Ford Seales killed civil rights workers,Moore and Dee who 43 years later was convicted of Murder, the case in the movie "Mississippi Burning" there are a great many others all you need to do is look them up.

I had received a traffic ticket for running a red light by a policeman that could not have possibly witnessed that, I was lucky as the homeowner whose hedge obstructed the cops view was a witness for me at my trial.

The policeman must have seen when I chose to fight the ticket and went back and saw he view of the stop sign was not possible at were he was. In court the Officer lied and testified he was coming from the other direction, after my testimony, the officers was recalled to the stand and questioned by the judge

of where he was at the time, his answer "I am almost positive I was going from North to South" The judge simply stated "Case Dismissed" Boys in Blue also lie.

The Right to remain silent under the 5th amendment is a right against "self Incrimination" and one can not be compelled "to be a witness against himself".

Zimmerman's arrest in 2005 in a bar disturbance for "used violence and battery against an Officer" and "obstruction of Justice", counters testimony given by his MMA instructor and also documented proof of he anger control problems, after being shown his badge and ask to leave Zimmerman said "I don't care who you are" and when asked to leave he responded "F**x you". Having a father as a judge was helpful in his getting the charges reduced from a felony.

I will no longer respond to the idiot posts of some on this forum and will not allow myself to be lowered to the intellectual level of a shoe size.

If anyone has a serious question that they would like my views on, I will gladly respond, to the trolls no more response!

Cheers:

[Baloo22]

Protestors storming streets of LA and throwing stuff at cars. Jumping on cars in intersections. looting. tearing stuff up. Really. Acting like animals.

Report out if Senatobia, Mississippi, about 3 blacks trying kid nap and beating a jogger yelling Tryoin. Okay, seriously. And one wonders why their is profiling.

I will exercise my second amend right and get a better gun.

The sad part is I was mad as hell when the Supreme Court gutted several civil rights acts this past month and, out if the liberals in her, I was the only one that complained about that and that was an issue that really mattered. You know, I say F'em now. No more!

Hallelujah! He has seen the light!!

[KarenBravo]

Violent nut-jobs can be innocent of a crime, too, you know?

No member of the gang of Zimmerman fans and boosters will admit that a jury's verdict can be wrong.

It's well documented by the Innocence Project that many of the innocent have been found guilty and, worse, executed by the state - that's the government, which so many of you are so terrified of except in this case.

A reasonable person also knows based on common sense and reasoning, logic, that a jury can be wrong in setting free a guilty defendant.

No one here wants to face that fact or to try to deal with the reality of it. No one here can face the fact or to try to deal with it.

Of course mistakes are made. It's the human condition and the best argument against having a death penalty. But, it's the best system we have.

To misquote Winston Churchill, "Trial by jury is the worst form of justice, except for all the others that have been tried".

[Baloo22]

People seriously need to get a grip.

The fact that Trayvon Martin wanted to be a pilot or was shot in the same part of his body as John Lennon was, is so irrelevant as to be laughable.

The fact that he smoked weed and painted graffiti is very nearly as absurdly without pertinence.

The efforts to smear Zimmerman with allegations - true or not - about his cousin or smear Martin with allegations about being an aspiring criminal are not only irrelevant but rather than funny, truly disgraceful. People should be embarrassed both for the way it maligns and for the way it highlights the paucity of their argument for their position.

1) NONE of you knows for sure what happened and why. People keep claiming they do and that they have sufficient facts to do so, but that is simply not true.

2) Evidence suggests that Zimmerman's story could be true or largely so.

3) Evidence does NOT prove that it is true - and doesn't have to - nor does it disprove another scenario in which Zimmerman's actions are illegal and/or immoral. (Or at best, that Martin attacked Zimmerman out of fear for his life - justified or not - and it was HE who was acting in self defense - in such a case, with an armed man, one would be justified in trying to beat that person as badly as possible - even to death: in which case it was a matter of poor judgement on both sides rather than either one out to do wrong).

4) The prosecution failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of what he was charged with.

5) The jury has not, with their verdict, told us that they believe Zimmerman did no wrong, merely that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

I look forward to the day - well into the future I'm afraid - when the Supreme Court rules that in litigation involving criminal murder or manslaughter, the defendant(s) are liable to testify, due to the fact that the deceased who was killed cannot present any evidence or information. That kind of decision actually might not be in the distant future.

The Supreme Court can interpret the 5th and any other amendments as they see fit. That's always been the case. This absolute exemption of the defendant testifying on Constitutional grounds needs to be limited due to the fact that the deceased is unable to present the other side. That's the major reason Zimmerman got off on both the murder 2 charge and the manslaughter charge. He should have been convicted on the manslaughter charge at the minimum, but could not be as matters presently stand.

If the prosecution had had the option to call Zimmerman to testify, then Z would have been cooked. The only change the Supreme Court would need to make is that the prosecution can have the right to call the defendant. The defendant could still have the right to decline to testify. But the defendant declining to testify when the prosecution is Constitutionally empowered to call him to testify would significantly affect the law, the judge's instructions to the jury, and the deliberations of a jury.

.

Sincerely, it's my personal hope you have no other impact on anything in the USA, if that's your home country, other than a single vote.

While I'm not always happy with the fifth amendment's application, the suggestion it be abandoned makes me want to puke in the lap of those who desire that. And if it comes does ever come to pass, thankfully, I'll surely be long dead and only ashes in some field in Thailand.

Yeah, Publicus, you wish to throw away a lot that thousands and thousands have fought and died for to defend so that a personal agenda can be satisfied.

I hope you never get your wish.

I agree. Some on this thread are truly scary! One wants to do away with a "jury of your peers" and another wants to throw out the Fifth Amendment! Amazing.

[cup-O-coffee]

Violent nut-jobs can be innocent of a crime, too, you know?

No member of the gang of Zimmerman fans and boosters will admit that a jury's verdict can be wrong.

It's well documented by the Innocence Project that many of the innocent have been found guilty and, worse, executed by the state - that's the government, which so many of you are so terrified of except in this case.

A reasonable person also knows based on common sense and reasoning, logic, that a jury can be wrong in setting free a guilty defendant.

No one here wants to face that fact or to try to deal with the reality of it. No one here can face the fact or to try to deal with it.

I am not a "gang member" but I believe that a jury's verdict can be incorrect, or apart from the truth.

So, what I do not understand is that the majority of your posts are for a guilty verdict of George.

Are you now saying that you think he is innocent, because the context of everything beyond the fist statement is contradictory to your verdict of guilty.

[cup-O-coffee]

The utter stupidity of some of the pro-Zimmerman posters I was asked why I did not believe the verdict was a correct one,

My answer to that is Byron De La Beckwith killing Medgar Evers, acquitted by an all white jury, and decades later was convicted of murder. James Ford Seales killed civil rights workers,Moore and Dee who 43 years later was convicted of Murder, the case in the movie "Mississippi Burning" there are a great many others all you need to do is look them up.

I had received a traffic ticket for running a red light by a policeman that could not have possibly witnessed that, I was lucky as the homeowner whose hedge obstructed the cops view was a witness for me at my trial.

The policeman must have seen when I chose to fight the ticket and went back and saw he view of the stop sign was not possible at were he was. In court the Officer lied and testified he was coming from the other direction, after my testimony, the officers was recalled to the stand and questioned by the judge

of where he was at the time, his answer "I am almost positive I was going from North to South" The judge simply stated "Case Dismissed" Boys in Blue also lie.

The Right to remain silent under the 5th amendment is a right against "self Incrimination" and one can not be compelled "to be a witness against himself".

Zimmerman's arrest in 2005 in a bar disturbance for "used violence and battery against an Officer" and "obstruction of Justice", counters testimony given by his MMA instructor and also documented proof of he anger control problems, after being shown his badge and ask to leave Zimmerman said "I don't care who you are" and when asked to leave he responded "F**x you". Having a father as a judge was helpful in his getting the charges reduced from a felony.

I will no longer respond to the idiot posts of some on this forum and will not allow myself to be lowered to the intellectual level of a shoe size.

If anyone has a serious question that they would like my views on, I will gladly respond, to the trolls no more response!

Cheers:

You argument loses some of its steam due to your saying that Police officers lied about you when trying to get a guilty verdict on running a red light, and then you turn around and embrace other police officers testimony, who were trying to get a guilty verdict against George in the bar that night.

So you and George are in the same situation, but you are innocent and George is not?

Doesn't make sense.

[cup-O-coffee]

The reason they couldn't find him guilty is because of Florida law, they weren't allowed to consider Zimmerman's outrageous arrogance and recklessness in not listening to the 911 operator AND neglecting to openly ANNOUNCE who he was and what he was doing in following the dead boy victim. Based on those facts, Zimmerman has a lot actual culpability but that and the TECHNICALITIES of the law are separate matters.

Here's some backup of this. Not guilty according to the jury BUT morally culpable:

In the end, society must accept that there is not always a perfect fit between a criminal justice system and justice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-zimmerman-verdict-in-martin-case-shows-justices-flaws/2013/07/14/7f7eae6a-ecc7-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html

Interesting article. I spent a bit of due diligence on the author:

Ruth Marcus, a liberal Democrat who is a columnist for The Washington Post, launched today what may be the first salvo of a two year-long binge against the Republican Party and potential Republican presidential candidates. In a column published today in the Cincinnati Enquirer, Marcus attempts to destroy the reputation of Mississippi Republican Governor Haley Barbour for comments he made in two conservative publications, Human Events and the Weekly Standard.

In a typical example of liberal hypocrisy, Ruth Marcus, who’s own Washington Post bio says is: “A boots-on-the-ground columnist who reports first and opines later.” and then says: “Although she leans to the left, she is not captive to any party or orthodoxy.” (snicker, snicker) starts off with a lot of opinionated statements and party hype. Notably, she writes about her all-women, all Democrat book club that has just been discussing Kathryn Stockett's book “The Help”, a novel about white women and their black maids in Mississippi in the 1960s.

Why didn't you simply provide a link to Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's website? It would have saved a lot of time and made your intentions more clear.

[Chicog]

I am not a "gang member" but I believe that a jury's verdict can be incorrect, or apart from the truth.

And that's why there are several layers of an appeals process.

[cup-O-coffee]

George zimmerman will have to have either a face job,relocate,new identity,wear stab and bullet proof vest or maybe all of them

Which really demeans the case for the prosecution and those who champion the behavior (the truthful behavior) which Trayvon demonstrated. "Put him in jail or we will kill murder him".

[F430murci]

Did anyone else see the juror interviewed by Anderson Cooper (NOT Fox BTW). Amazingly insightful.

I was typing out summaries of what jury found and what they based their decision on on my iphone and was about to post and it died . . .

If you ave any doubts about race being an issue or why the jury decided the way it did, find and listen to this interview. I think you will be surprised and enlightened. Enlightened me and shows that the system does work and did work in this case.

[gl555]

So in other words, you're determining Zimmerman's guilt by emotion because you don't like the people who defend him. My God! That's justice!

The utter stupidity of some of the pro-Zimmerman posters I was asked why I did not believe the verdict was a correct one,

My answer to that is Byron De La Beckwith killing Medgar Evers, acquitted by an all white jury, and decades later was convicted of murder. James Ford Seales killed civil rights workers,Moore and Dee who 43 years later was convicted of Murder, the case in the movie "Mississippi Burning" there are a great many others all you need to do is look them up.

I had received a traffic ticket for running a red light by a policeman that could not have possibly witnessed that, I was lucky as the homeowner whose hedge obstructed the cops view was a witness for me at my trial.

The policeman must have seen when I chose to fight the ticket and went back and saw he view of the stop sign was not possible at were he was. In court the Officer lied and testified he was coming from the other direction, after my testimony, the officers was recalled to the stand and questioned by the judge

of where he was at the time, his answer "I am almost positive I was going from North to South" The judge simply stated "Case Dismissed" Boys in Blue also lie.

The Right to remain silent under the 5th amendment is a right against "self Incrimination" and one can not be compelled "to be a witness against himself".

Zimmerman's arrest in 2005 in a bar disturbance for "used violence and battery against an Officer" and "obstruction of Justice", counters testimony given by his MMA instructor and also documented proof of he anger control problems, after being shown his badge and ask to leave Zimmerman said "I don't care who you are" and when asked to leave he responded "F**x you". Having a father as a judge was helpful in his getting the charges reduced from a felony.

I will no longer respond to the idiot posts of some on this forum and will not allow myself to be lowered to the intellectual level of a shoe size.

If anyone has a serious question that they would like my views on, I will gladly respond, to the trolls no more response!

Cheers:

[Jingthing]

The case wasn't strong enough because Zimmerman slaughtered the most important witness for the prosecution, an unarmed boy walking home, thus killing his way to a reasonable doubt conclusion.