Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[allalong]

I am a bit shocked your being so irrational and refuse to review the facts and testimony. I thought you were level headed and reasonable. If you can cite countervailing evidence (not you conclusory statements), I would respect that.

Don't be shocked. Just read whatever is being said on the far-left blogs and it will be the same exact rhetoric regurgitated by some posters here. There is very little original thinking when it comes to bashing George Zimmerman for defending himself from being attacked for no good reason.

really ? Where's your proof of Zimmer being attacked? Just more rhetoric from the gun totting ,racists.Fact is a young black boy was pursued by a man with a gun and then shot in the chest and is dead and the killer wasn't held responsible and can keep his gun and do it again .So go and give to zimmerkillers legal fund because he's going to need it in the months and year to come.

[hawker9000]

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.

What we have to understand here is that this is no longer about justice. I'm sorry for the family, I truly am, but the truth is It's all about revenge. A 17yo black was killed by a white man, and what EVER the circumstances might have been, there now has to be (and there's going to be) some payback. All the rest is just lipstick on a pig.

[KarenBravo]

I am a bit shocked your being so irrational and refuse to review the facts and testimony. I thought you were level headed and reasonable. If you can cite countervailing evidence (not you conclusory statements), I would respect that.

Don't be shocked. Just read whatever is being said on the far-left blogs and it will be the same exact rhetoric regurgitated by some posters here. There is very little original thinking when it comes to bashing George Zimmerman for defending himself from being attacked for no good reason.

really ? Where's your proof of Zimmer being attacked? Just more rhetoric from the gun totting ,racists.Fact is a young black boy was pursued by a man with a gun and then shot in the chest and is dead and the killer wasn't held responsible and can keep his gun and do it again .So go and give to zimmerkillers legal fund because he's going to need it in the months and year to come.

Proof works both ways.

Where's your proof that Zimmerman was not attacked? Seems like he had a few head injuries......

[SteeleJoe]

If Zimmerman is truly not guilty, justice *not* served until Trayvon's family *pays Zimmerman* for the rigors of a false accusation and ruining Zimmerman's life. Suffering grief (even of your own child) does not absolve you from unjustly ruining someone else's life.

And if he shot your kid ... how would you react?

Well, if he shot my *innocent* child I'd be appalled.

If he shot my 17-year-old drug-user kid head-bashing guilty toughie, I wouldn't be surprised but of course I'd still be angry that they killed my precious thug, happy?

Oh wait... why's it relevant how "I" or anyone would react? A crime is right or wrong depending on how the criminal's parents would react?

I couldn't bring myself to "like" your post as I don't share your perspective or your certainty about Martin's character, but you make an excellent point that so, so many people forget when it comes to discussion of crime and punishment and you highlight the invalidity of a cliched but quite dumb argument:

The classic,"What if it was YOUR child/mother/sister/chiropractor?!" Is a total waste of time. Laws aren't supposed to be based on people's emotions - that's why we don't just allow people to be strung up on the spot. Just because, given the opportunity, I would kill - as slowly and painfully as possible - someone who harmed my child, that doesn't mean that due process shouldn't be allowed a defendant when someone's child is harmed.

[hawker9000]

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.

What we have to understand here is that this is no longer about justice ('not sure it really ever was given the original determination regarding prosecution by the police and local DA and the obvious bias of this Corey prosecutor, avoidance of a grand jury, concealment of exculpatory evidence, etc., etc., etc.). It's about revenge. A 17yo black boy was shot & killed by a white man, and now there has to be (and one way or another there's going to be...) some payback. All the rest is just lipstick on a pig.

[Jingthing]

Revenge? I think more like justice.

When OJ got off for murder, like most Americans, I knew he was guilty and still wanted him to PAY for his crime, REGARDLESS of what the jury found.

I am sure if Zimmerman who was supposedly the ADULT in this scenario had acted more responsibly that night, nobody would be dead.

[SteeleJoe]

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.

What we have to understand here is that this is no longer about justice. I'm sorry for the family, I truly am, but the truth is It's all about revenge. A 17yo black was killed by a white man, and what EVER the circumstances might have been, there now has to be (and there's going to be) some payback. All the rest is just lipstick on a pig.

Martin is "a black" but Zimmerman is "a white man".

[hawker9000]

For all the people that thinks this is a travesty of justice, let's use a short cut. Charge the jury with the murder of Martin and then just lynch them.

Something like that... What we have to understand here is that this is no longer about justice ('not sure it really ever was given the original determination regarding prosecution by the police and local DA and the obvious bias of this Corey prosecutor, avoidance of a grand jury, concealment of exculpatory evidence, etc., etc., etc.). It's about revenge. A 17yo black boy was shot & killed by a white man, and now there has to be (and one way or another there's going to be...) some payback. All the rest is just lipstick on a pig.

[hawker9000]

For all the people that thinks this is a travesty of justice, let's use a short cut. Charge the jury with the murder of Martin and then just lynch them.

Something like that... What we have to understand here is that this is no longer about justice ('not sure it really ever was given the original determination regarding prosecution by the police and local DA and the obvious bias of this Corey prosecutor, avoidance of a grand jury, concealment of exculpatory evidence, etc., etc., etc.). It's about revenge. A 17yo black boy was shot & killed by a white man, and now there has to be (and one way or another there's going to be...) some payback. All the rest is just lipstick on a pig.

[Jingthing]

Open season on black boys after a verdict like this

Let it be noted that on this day, Saturday 13 July 2013, it was still deemed legal in the US to chase and then shoot dead an unarmed young black man on his way home from the store because you didn't like the look of him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/14/open-season-black-boys-verdict

Plus 1

[SteeleJoe]

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:

Arguably off-topic but I feel compelled to comment on a reference:

* The case in the movie "Mississippi Burning" is the 1964 murders of James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Mickey Schwermer (Civil Rights workers) and the both indirect and direct collusion of members of law enforcement and influential people who were also in the KKK.

I happen to like the movie a great deal, and I actually think it has merit in an allegorical way as well as just good entertainment, but the story is highly fictionalized (as is of course generally the case with such movies) and not only is it yet another story of the good white people heroically defending the black people, in this instance it is of import that that was much less the case than the movie says (ie the FBI were not necessarily quite so heroic)...the case is important and interesting but if one is interested, don't watch the movie to learn more...

Oh, and it's ridiculous to cite that case as a reason - even a personal one - to judge Zimmerman guilty. But not quite as ridiculous as you getting unjustly dealt with on a traffic charge.

Edited July 16, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[cup-O-coffee]

The statement by State Prosecutor Angela Corey, will most likely be the bases for a Federal statutory Civil Rights case, this statement was as follows:

"This case has never been about race,nor has it ever been about the right to bear arms" Corey said "But Trayvon Martin was profiled. There is no doubt that he was profiled to be a criminal. And if race was one of the aspects in George Zimmerman's mind, then we believe that we put out the proof necessary to show that Zimmerman did profile Trayvon Martin".

That statement is extremely important because if the Feds filed a case because Trayvon was Black, they had to prove he was targeted for being Black, it is much easier to find Zimmerman guilty of profiling Trayvon as a criminal strictly on the way he looked while walking home (as he was not involved in any criminal activity) when Zimmerman made the 911 call.

Those that say Trayvon was high on drugs are either badly informed, or making up issues, a trace of weed was found in his blood and weed stays in your system almost a month after it is used.

Those that say Trayvon was raining blows on Zimmerman, the Medical Examiner testified he found no evidence of injury to Trayvon's hands during his autopsy, indicated a minor abrasion to one hand that could have happened prior to the night he was killed.

Also the Medical Examiner testified Zimmerman's injuries were minor and superficial.

The federal government warned the Maricopa County of profiling Hispanic's in Arizona simple because they looked Hispanic, Zimmerman's profiling of Trayvon is an abuse of his civil rights and a federal offence.

Cheers:

It is not against the law for a citizen to profile someone in their mind, and to be a busybody and to possibly be rude in asking, "What are you doing here". Corey has no case here.

Regarding race being one of the aspects; the FBI (Corey's colleagues in another department of the same government they both work for) George is not a racist. He is a busybody with a hero complex. That is not against the law. Corey has no case here.

The State will have to try to prove George was profiling Trayvon because he looked black, this can be dismissed due to George being asked by the dispatcher to describe Trayvon as Hispanic, white or black. There is no compelling evidence of profiling or racial intent for merely answering a direct question. We may as well put the dispatcher up on charges and her superiors for training her to ask these questions. Corey has no case here.

I stated that Trayvon was high on THC. I will apologize and use my right of opinion to amend that:

You admit to a "trace of weed" (THC) being found in his blood. Alright. I will agree with you on that. You also imply that it is a trace that could be about one month old. I will agree with that.

Essentially what you are describing is a state of withdrawal. You cannot hide from this. The body does not lie. As it will be easy to prove that Trayvon smoked marijuana (believe me, it will be easy) then I sub,mmit that his abstinence from the THC was contributing to withdrawal symptoms which can easily be proved to be a factor that night.

Some of those symptoms which will be proven to exist that night (beyond reasonable doubt) are:

Significance of Marijuana Withdrawal: Marijuana Withdrawal Is Common

A Duke University study of 496 adult marijuana smokers who tried to quit found that 95.5% of them experienced at least one withdrawal symptom while 43.1% experienced more than one symptom. The number of symptoms the participants experienced was significantly linked to how often and how much the subjects smoked prior to trying to quit.

(COC: I note here that trying to quit and the length of time between lighting up are similar, since the body is going through withdrawal regardless of the path to complete cessation or simply any length of time between lighting up again.)

Those who were daily smokers experienced the most symptoms, but even those who reported using marijuana less than weekly experienced some withdrawal symptoms of moderate intensity.

Craving for Marijuana

• One of the symptoms most reported by people trying to quit smoking marijuana is a craving for marijuana, or an intense desire for more. In one study, 75.7% of participants trying to quit reported intense craving for marijuana.
• Although many regular smokers of marijuana do not believe they are addicted to the drug, one hallmark of addiction is craving when you try to stop, whether it's heroin, alcohol, gambling or sex addiction. Craving is the most common symptom reported by former marijuana users in the early days of abstinence.

Mood Swings which typically begin to diminish after two to three weeks, but can linger in some up to three months:

• From depression, anger and euphoria and back again.
• Irritability and anger are common
• More than half (50.1%) of those who try to quit marijuana report mood swings, irritability or anxiety. Others report aggression, nervousness, restlessness and a loss of concentration.

Sleep Disruption: Insomnia is one of the most common symptoms of drug withdrawal, whether the drug is marijuana, alcohol or prescription pain killers.

• Insomnia symptoms after you stop smoking weed can last a few days or a couple of weeks. Some smokers find that they can experience occasional sleeplessness for a few months after quitting.

Headaches: One of the most common physical symptoms reported by those who stop smoking are headaches.

• The headaches can be very intense, especially during the first few days after quitting.

Other Symptoms:

• appetite change, weight loss, weight gain, digestion problems, cramps or nausea after eating, night sweats, loss of the sense of humor, decreased sex drive, or increased sex drive. Some former users have reported shaking and dizziness.

Sources: Levin, KH, et al. "Cannabis withdrawal symptoms in non-treatment-seeking adult cannabis smokers." Drug and Alcohol Dependence April 2010.

Marijuana Anonymous World Services. "Detoxing from Marijuana." Accessed June 2012.

Vandrey, R., et al. "Cannabis withdrawal in adolescent treatment seekers." Drug and Alcohol Dependence, January 2008

Trayvon was arguably and beyond a reasonable doubt going through some withdrawal symptoms from the drug THC. He was on suspension when he was shot in February, after officials caught him with a 'marijuana pipe' and a baggie with drug residue.

Trayvon was admittedly, according to his Facebook conversations, a user of DXM and Purple Drank/Lean since at least June 2011. His liver indicates the beginning stages of an unusual degrading known as “mild fatty metamorphasis”, and his brain tissue appeared compromised, both conditions symptomatic of DXM use.

As I believe that he had purchased two of the three ingredients for Purple Drank that night, it is arguably possible to conclude that he was going through withdrawal symptoms from the third ingredient, codeine. This is easy to prove as his tweets support this and "connect the dots".

Withdrawal symptoms from codeine include;

• The withdrawal symptoms of codeine addiction can vary in strength as well as interrupt your ability to accomplish even the smallest of tasks.

• The symptoms of withdrawal can also lead to impaired social function because you may not feel the ability, or the want, to interact with other people.

• An intense physical cravings for the drug,

• thoughts of suicide or hurting others,

• psychosis,

• irritability,

• obsess about getting the drug

• easily agitated,

• racing thoughts

• hallucinations.

Source: codeinerehab.com

So, my point here is that any defense will not have to prove that these drugs were in Trayvon's system, but merely that he engaged in taking them into his body, and therefore the lack of these substances in his body would indicate withdrawal. After that, any juror would be able to do the math with medical experts reporting what I have just laid out.

Trayvon's tweets and his association with the living, who engage in this sort of sport would make it an easy target to prove that he was addicted to THC and codeine, and hence was under the influence of withdrawal symptoms that night.

Raining Blows

Raining blows, whether open handed or closed fist makes no matter, as George's face and Trayvon's hands had a relationship. Proving that hands can make a face look like that and bear relatively little damage to the hands is not going to be a major feat, as any combat expert can explain.

The Medical Examiner

Testifying for the prosecution

(COC: A woman who only looked at pictures and never saw the body nor was at the autopsy, and when speaking, sounded like a 5th grader)

• At Zimmerman's trial, Medical Examiner Valerie Rao said she reviewed Zimmerman's medical records and 36 pictures of his injuries taken at the police station after the fight.

• "They were not life-threatening. They were very insignificant," Rao told the Seminole County criminal court jury.

• Rao said Zimmerman's injuries did not involve great force and were consistent with one blow to the face and one impact with the concrete. He had a broken nose and two small cuts on the back of his head.

But later under questioning by one of Zimmerman's lawyers,

• Rao said Zimmerman could have been hit more than once.

About Valerie Rao:

• Valerie Rao lost her first job as a chief medical examiner back in 2003 when a state commission declined to reappoint her.

• Eight years later, the same panel voted unanimously to nominate her for the top spot in Jacksonville.

• Rao’s December 2011 appointment by Gov. Rick Scott came after a recommendation from State Attorney Angela Corey, favorable references from doctors and a background investigation that did not include contact with former co-workers.

• Rao has come under fire recently for poor treatment of employees in her Jacksonville office, including her being accused of creating a hostile work environment and making insensitive comments.

• In May 2003, the commission tabled Rao’s reappointment to the District 5 office in Leesburg after receiving complaints from sheriffs and other groups. That action ended her term the next month.

• Later that year, Rao landed a job as chief medical examiner in Boone County, Mo. She received mixed reviews while there and resigned in 2006.

Source: Jacksonville.com

Her methods and abilities:

• poor leadership
• washing her feet in the autopsy sink
• touching cadavers with her bare hands.
• walked barefoot through a bloody crime scene
• examined a victim’s bullet wound with an ungloved hand
• poked another victim’s wound with a tree branch.

Source: Jacksonville.com

Valerie Rao’s performance has come under heightened city scrutiny, leading the Mayor’s Office to request a state investigation in March. The state declined, so the city has continued exploring other solutions, including privatization of the Medical Examiner’s Office. Rao’s work in other cities has been criticized for at least a decade.

Source: Jacksonville.com

The Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy

The associate medical examiner, Dr. Shiping Bao, said last November that he believed Martin was alive one to three minutes.

But he testified Friday it was one to 10 minutes.

He also said that marijuana could have affected Martin physically or mentally, ...

even though he said it didn't last year.

The defense requested to see Bao's notes he personally took from the stand. Bao, getting upset, said they could not see the notes. Nelson ruled that they could see the notes and as the defense read through several pages of Bao's notes, one attorney laughed.

Source: clickorlando.com

And your last comment about warnings from racial profiling

People who brought up the race issue:

• Angela B. Corey: “This case has never been about race.”

• Prosecuting attorney Darrell Parks, speaking for the parents at the news conference: "We want to make it very clear to this family race is not a part of this process and anyone who tries to inject race in to it is wrong,"

• Judge Debra Nelson, before the trial began: said that prosecutors could say Zimmerman "profiled" Martin but not that he "racially profiled" him.

• Sanford Police Department Dispatcher: "OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?"

• Rachel Jeantel testified to the only racial epithet uttered in the courtroom: “And then he (Trayvon) said, ‘That N-word is still following me now,’” said Jeantel. “I asked him how the man looked like. He just told me the man looked ‘creepy.’ ‘Creepy, white’ — excuse my language — ‘cracker. Creepy [expletive] cracker.”

People who did not bring up the race issue:

George Zimmerman, prior to being asked a direct question about race:

• "...and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle..."
• "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."

George Zimmerman, mentioning race only after being asked a direct question of race:

• "He looks black."

Incidentally, the racial profiling issue you brought up with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is based upon Federal laws designed for law enforcement officers only. George Zimerman cannot be held accountable to your quote as he is not a Law enforcement officer.

Otherwise, we can bring Rachel "Dee Dee" Jeantel up on racial profiling charges (No, I do not think there is nothing wrong with calling someone a creepy ass cracker), as well as post-humosly bringing Trayvon Martin up on racial profiling charges (in Jeantel's words: "That N-word is still following me now” - "He looks ‘creepy.’ ‘Creepy, white’ — excuse my language — ‘cracker. Creepy [expletive] cracker.”)

We can also bring the dispatcher up on the same charges brought against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office for asking that racial profiling question.

Curiously, the prosecution never once objected to the defense grilling Rachel Jeantel about her racist attitude and that of her memory of the angelic Trayvon's racist remarks.

The FBI's government approved statement that George is not a racist rings loud and clear in light of everyone who came against George in this bungled up trial.

[Jingthing]

The juror with the big mouth that some here are suggesting we should take seriously, b37, was apparently a real RED FLAG even before selection.

Brashers-Krug has another reservation about seating B37: “She really wants to be a juror. She seems to be going out of her way to minimize the disruptive effect of a multiweek trial on her life. Jurors rarely do that. She is also taking pains to avoid saying anything particularly sympathetic to either side. Both sides tend to be very skeptical of jurors who are particularly eager to serve on high-profile cases. Often they have their own agendas, or are attention-seekers.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html

Edited July 16, 2013 by Jingthing

[SteeleJoe]

]

The juror with the big mouth that some here are suggesting we should take seriously, b37, was apparently a real RED FLAG even before selection.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html

I was wondering if that's who they were talking about...considered posting about her myself.

[Jingthing]

The juror with the big mouth that some here are suggesting we should take seriously, b37, was apparently a real RED FLAG even before selection.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html

I was wondering if that's who they were talking about...

Same lady.

[cup-O-coffee]

Zimmerman has alraedy been found not guilty. He is not on trial either.

But he lives and the consequences of killing the unarmed boy that night, which is NOT disputed, are not finished as long as he lives.

OJ got off too but Karma caught up with him later.

There is a big difference. OJ was the aggressor and the jury ignored the law and let him off anyway, but in this case Trayvon was the aggressor and Zimmerman killed in self defence. The jury followed the law this time. Instant Karma has already struck.

Why is Trayvon the aggressor? Why was Zimmerman even talking to him? Zimmerman was told to back off. He confronted Trayvon, Trayvon wasn't hitting anyone else. Zimmerman provoked Trayvon. What was said, we will never know that. After saying this, I didn't think there was enough evidence to convict him of murder. But the whole thing was because of his actions.

You err. The dispatcher said, "You don;t have to do that".

What George did should not have been interpreted in such a manner as to have lead to the death of an academic cherub who dreamed of being an airline pilot. I am certain that that night, George was not confronted by anyone but a punk, racist kid who was saying to Jeantel only moments prior to his death, " "That N-word is still following me now” - "He looks ‘creepy.’ ‘Creepy, white’ — excuse my language — ‘cracker. Creepy [expletive] cracker.” as her testimony claims. No... "academics" and future pilots don't speak like that.

[Jingthing]

...

No... "academics" and future pilots don't speak like that.

Not WHITE ones.

The big mouthed juror suggested the killer would have behaved EXACTLY the same way if the dead boy was white. I don't believe any American actually believes that. The killer's mother says that the killer is color blind. That doesn't exist. Totally unbelievable.

In America, even blind from birth people, are NOT color blind. Trust me.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Jingthing

[cup-O-coffee]

I think it was damning to Zimmerman morally if not legally (anything goes in Florida it seems when you shoot someone in so called "self defense") that he failed to bother to ANNOUNCE who he was and what he was doing there in following the innocent boy. Martin had every right to feel bothered and harassed by the obnoxious vigilante and proven killer Zimmerman.

Yes, I would agree that Trayvon felt bothered, and even go as far as suggesting that the withdrawal from codeine and THC contributed to that. Only police have to identify themselves; not the general public. This was not brought up in the trial. Sorry.

[Jingthing]

I think it was damning to Zimmerman morally if not legally (anything goes in Florida it seems when you shoot someone in so called "self defense") that he failed to bother to ANNOUNCE who he was and what he was doing there in following the innocent boy. Martin had every right to feel bothered and harassed by the obnoxious vigilante and proven killer Zimmerman.

Yes, I would agree that Trayvon felt bothered, and even go as far as suggesting that the withdrawal from codeine and THC contributed to that. Only police have to identify themselves; not the general public. This was not brought up in the trial. Sorry.

He was acting (BADLY) in a fake police role so if he was going to play that stupid fatal game he should have at least followed that basic protocol of explaining why he was BOTHERING a total stranger.

[cup-O-coffee]

Why is Trayvon the aggressor? Why was Zimmerman even talking to him? Zimmerman was told to back off. He confronted Trayvon, Trayvon wasn't hitting anyone else. Zimmerman provoked Trayvon. What was said, we will never know that. After saying this, I didn't think there was enough evidence to convict him of murder. But the whole thing was because of his actions.

Calling Trayvon the aggressor suits those who wish to see it like that. Without Zimmerman's initial aggression, Trayvon would have lived and Zimmerman would be having a normal life.

I agree it wasn't murder, but it was certainly manslaughter in any normal/civilised place.

You are focusing on the T and forgetting the A through S. If this goes to a civil trial brought on by the parents (the Government is out) then a lot of this evidence will come out, regrettably to the memory of the good in Trayvon that could have been were he a more well-behaved boy.

[KarenBravo]

Withdrawal from THC? Don't make me laugh.....

[cup-O-coffee]

In the state of Florida you have the right to defend yourself with a weapon if you feel you are in danger of losing life or limb.

...

Actually I think its even looser than that. You just have to have a FEAR based on your perception that you are in danger of any harm. Nothing about losing life or limb at all in the law! That law is very flawed. One's person perception of danger is wildly different than another. They use the word what a reasonable person would think but do not define what that means! The Florida law is DEEPLY flawed and massively in favor or the killers vs. the victims.

OK. in your view it is flawed, but that is the way it is.

A man and woman engage in a rude conversation.

The man approaches the woman and tells her he wants sex. He does not identify himself.

He does not punch her in the face and then begin to batter her face in order to get sex. Rather instead, he pulls out a gun and forces her.

The woman does not identify herself and has no desire to be raped, but she does get raped, and the man is on top of her raping her.

Whilst being raped, the woman happens to see the gun lying next to her. Apparently the rapist set it aside to get some.

The woman grabs the gun and shoots the rapist in the leg. (COC: I am certain she was not trying to shoot him in the leg, much to his relief as he sits in prison thinking about it).

FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A 19-year-old man was arrested after a woman told police the armed man sexually battered her before she took his gun and fired, apparently hitting him in the leg, according to a recently released affidavit.

Sound familiar? This is in Florida, by the way. Guess what color the man is... or rather, had the woman had the time to call a 911 dispatcher and report that she is in the process of being raped, and the dispatcher had asked her, "OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?", she would have said that, "He is black".

Do you think she was thinking about race?

Yes. Had you had your way, and this law been repealed, then this woman would have been in prison instead of the rapist.

Perhaps you want to rethink things,

Edited July 16, 2013 by cup-O-coffee

[mania]

The juror with the big mouth that some here are suggesting we should take seriously, b37, was apparently a real RED FLAG even before selection.

Hard to believe your the same person who said this before the jury decided the way "they" decided was right.

"Just to add: I will accept the decision of the jury. I would hope others would as well regardless of the outcome"

[Publicus]

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 "fuc_k 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.

If Zimmerman was as violent towards a police officer as you make it sound, why was his sentence for committing this felony to take an anger management class and not jail time? Something doesn't add up.

Oh, it adds up very easily and neatly, but not cleanly.

Zimmerman's father was a magistrate of the Superior Court in Virginia, since retired.

http://www.bvso.net/Documents/The%20Office%20of%20The%20Virginia%20Magistrate.pdf

George Zimmerman, Son of a Retired Judge, Has 3 Closed Arrests

http://rollingout.com/culture/george-zimmerman-son-of-a-retired-judge-has-3-closed-arrests/

Zimmerman's father twisted arms, banged heads and pulled strings to get Zimmerman off the hook. Zimmerman knew when he gave grief to the policemen, to include the use of violence against the policeman, he had his magistrate daddy behind him - Zimmerman knew he would be able to use his father's position and clout. Yet, Zimmerman failed in his attempt to become a police officer in Virginia - daddy couldn't bang enough or the right heads to pull off that miracle.

Zimmerman also got daddy the magistrate to drop charges against him for assault of a female bar patron when he was a bouncer, in addition to his daddy getting the charges reduced and all but dismissed for the physical assault against a police officer. How many people, whose daddies weren't a judge, would have all these charges dropped in more than one instance of Zimmerman's violent pattern of behaviors?

Did George Zimmerman's Father Talk To Sanford Police The Night of Trayvon Martin's Shooting?

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/did-george-zimmermans-father-talk-sanford-p

It certainly appears that he did, as Lawrence O'Donnell uncovers in this segment.

Robert Zimmerman, retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate and father of George Zimmerman, has been making the rounds for media interviews with Fox News exclusively. He's cloaked in shadow, of course, so he isn't identified. In those interviews, he was asked whether the police knew he was a retired magistrate and whether that might have had an impact on their decision to let George Zimmerman go free that night without taking his clothes or keeping his gun, or doing any of the usual investigation that police do when they find a dead kid laying on his stomach with his hands underneath him.

Zimmerman's answer to the question was a denial and not a denial. He said, "No one knew that I was a retired magistrate judge. I didn't mention it to the police. I didn't mention it to the state attorney's office."

Some Ask if Trayvon’s Shooter Was Protected by Father, a Retired Judge

“According to a records search on George, he was previously arrested for domestic violence, resisting an officer without violence and most shockingly, resisting an officer with violence — a felony charge that surely could have landed him in prison,” Danielle Canada, who looked at Zimmerman’s record, writes on RollingOut.com.

“All three of those arrests, however, were mysteriously closed with no semblance of charges for the Florida resident.”

Zimmerman’s mother, Gladys who is Peruvian, used to be an interpreter at the county courthouse. While his father, Robert Zimmerman, who is white, is a former Orange County magistrate judge.

“Did George Zimmerman have help from his father, a retired judge, in clearing his name in three separate arrests?”, asks RollingOut.com’s Danielle Canada.

That’s the question on everyone’s mind now that news has leaked that the lead investigator wanted him arrested.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/03/zimmermans_father_is_a_retired_judge_and_his_son_has_avoided_serious_charges_before.html

I would add that it's no wonder, is it, that George the failed wannabe cop Zimmerman became convinced he could get away with murder?

[lennois]

So basically if I get into a fight for whatever reason, and I happen to be winning that fight, I can legally have my brains blown out. Goodness me.

 

 

Legal or illegal is meaningless to the guy getting his brains blown out. Whenever you get in a street fight you can't count on everyone fighting fair or that you won't get seriously injured or killed. It's just not worth fighting. This is where Trayvon's age and experience probably did come into play. As the texts and videos on his phone showed, he was no stranger to schoolyard fights where someone gets their butt kicked and that's the end of it. At least until they meet again. If anything positive comes from this tragedy, hopefully some other young men will think twice before fighting a stranger. Sadly, the events since the verdict seem to show that the lesson learned was to gang up on strangers instead of one-on-one fights.

It's very meaningful to the guy pulling the trigger tho isn't it. In the real world fights happen all the time. They just aren't usually a problem unless cretins are armed to the teeth.

The only lesson I see is you wanna be the one packing the gun. Enjoy Wild West America

[lennois]

So basically if I get into a fight for whatever reason, and I happen to be winning that fight, I can legally have my brains blown out. Goodness me.

 

 

Legal or illegal is meaningless to the guy getting his brains blown out. Whenever you get in a street fight you can't count on everyone fighting fair or that you won't get seriously injured or killed. It's just not worth fighting. This is where Trayvon's age and experience probably did come into play. As the texts and videos on his phone showed, he was no stranger to schoolyard fights where someone gets their butt kicked and that's the end of it. At least until they meet again. If anything positive comes from this tragedy, hopefully some other young men will think twice before fighting a stranger. Sadly, the events since the verdict seem to show that the lesson learned was to gang up on strangers instead of one-on-one fights.

It's very meaningful to the guy pulling the trigger tho isn't it. In the real world fights happen all the time. They just aren't usually a problem unless cretins are armed to the teeth.

The only lesson I see is you wanna be the one packing the gun. Enjoy Wild West America

[cup-O-coffee]

Self defence rules out either charge.

No it does not.

IF the jury had decided Zimmerman's fear was not reasonable.

In that case, they could have considered the reality of how TRIVIAL his injuries were.

They could have decided his story that Martin threatened to kill him were lies (easy to conclude as he kept changing his story until he got there).

What reasonable means is not defined by Florida law in this context.

Sadly, they couldn't legally consider the facts of how the killer PROVOKED his victim by stalking him and not announcing who he was and what role he was playing, even when advised by 911 to BACK OFF. That part of the law needs to be changed.

Yes it does.

Ni "ifs" with the jury. They decided.

If lies are easy to conclude because people keep changing their stories, then along that same line of thinking, we could include Valerie Rao for changing her story, or Dr. Shiping Bao for changing his story, or Jeantel "Dee Dee" Jeantel for changing her story, or NBC for deleting sentences from the 911 call transcript, or the prosecution for changing their charges in mid trial. or, or, or....

Again... he was not advised to "back off". It was mentioned that , "You don't have to do that" and more out of concern than naught.

Stalking? You have got to be kidding. He was on the phone with a police officer. He stated his intentions, which compelled the dispatcher to state, "You don't have to do that".

Florida State Law 784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

The purpose was stated to the dispatcher. No case here.

( “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

No pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time. No case here

© “Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

No injuries to Trayvon other than a gunshot wound, No other injuries on his body at all other than the abrasion on his index finger. Additionally the dispatcher would have emphatically told George to cease and desist, but did not. No case here.

(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

No case here.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly...

No case here based on the "repeatedly" rule.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly

No case here based on the "repeatedly" rule.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection

No case here based on the "injunction" rule.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly

No case here based on the "repeatedly" rule.

Is any of this out of line with George's behavior that night?

[Jingthing]

The juror with the big mouth that some here are suggesting we should take seriously, b37, was apparently a real RED FLAG even before selection.

Hard to believe your the same person who said this before the jury decided the way "they" decided was right.

"Just to add: I will accept the decision of the jury. I would hope others would as well regardless of the outcome"

I accept the decision. I accept he is not subject to double jeopardy in Florida. That does not mean that I would ever actually AGREE with a not guilty verdict and yes I watched most of the case live. I see how they felt obligated to judge this way technically, but morally Zimmerman is definitely guilty a sin.

[Ulysses G.]

The juror with the big mouth that some here are suggesting we should take seriously, b37, was apparently a real RED FLAG even before selection.

Hard to believe your the same person who said this before the jury decided the way "they" decided was right.

"Just to add: I will accept the decision of the jury. I would hope others would as well regardless of the outcome"

Hey, that is when he was swearing up and down that Zimmerman definitely would be convicted. How the worm turns.

[Ulysses G.]

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 "fuc_k 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.

If Zimmerman was as violent towards a police officer as you make it sound, why was his sentence for committing this felony to take an anger management class and not jail time? Something doesn't add up.

What he - and the dishonest blog post - is not telling you is that George simply pushed the officer, who was not in uniform. That is the real reason that he only had to take anger management classes.