Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[kikoman]

As I had earlier stated that there was a signed affidavit by Chris Serino stating that Zimmerman should be arrested for manslaughter, Which the self appointed Perry Mason (s) said that never happened,.

In a story written by Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner for The Orlando Sentinel, Reporting that Serino first recommended that Zimmerman be arrested and charged with second degree Murder in the course of (5) hour he revised his report 4 more times and the final report was submitted with recommendations that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. Serino wrote he had probable cause to recommend a second degree murder charge and the last report was for a charge of manslaughter. Captain Bob O'Connor stated everybody in his chain of command agreed with the investigators conclusion. Serino's direct supervisor Sgt, Randy Smith also signed the final version.

Cheers:

Edited July 18, 2013 by kikoman

[kikoman]

The Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection under the Law.

"[n]o state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," In the wake of the Whren decision, racial profiling maybe susceptible to two kinds of equal protection challenges- Racial motivation and or selective enforcement.

Cheers:

[Jingthing]

In the U.S., race matters.

Zimmerman may not be fully "white" but he's not black either.

The rage and anger over this verdict is about A LOT more than one case.

It's about an entire system that totally stinks as far as any semblance of equal treatment regardless of race AND class. Especially in states like Florida.

The "justice" system in the USA is especially harsh to African Americans.

Any observer with common sense can see that.

Killing in Self-Defense: You Better Be White Black defendants rarely get a ruling of justifiable homicide, whether the victim is white or black.

If you can get it.

And George Zimmerman got the most out of what privilege he had after being found not guilty in the murder of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. After the verdict, Zimmerman's attorneys held a press conference, and attorney Mark O'Mara, while answering a reporter's question, remarked that if Zimmerman had been black, "He never would've been charged with a crime."

O'Mara couldn't be more wrong.

...

There is no privilege in claiming self-defense while black -- even when killing another black person. When the verdict came down not guilty, Zimmerman had not just the jury but also statistics on his side.

http://www.theroot.com/views/killing-self-defense-you-better-be-white

Edited July 18, 2013 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

A sound and plausible THEORY. You just said it yourself. THEORY. Not fact.

The jury didn't buy the theory.

However, they never presented this theory in court because they lacked evidence.

This is the only part of your post with any importance. As far as theories go, it is pretty obvious that the guy who was getting the heck beaten out of him would be the one who was screaming. It stopped when the attacker was neutralized.

Prosecutors vary in their competence but they are professionals who deal in crime and punishment, the law, each and every day. This is their stock and trade. It is their responsibility to devise a theory of a case, motive, who likely did what and when, to whom, etc.

Yes, there weren't any witnesses. However, there is a sound and plausible theory as developed by the prosecutors concerning the crime. Their theory is based on their best analysis of events, principals, witnesses of any nature (aural in this instance) and everything else. Prosecutors have to decide the viability of the theory and whether or not proving the theory is possible.

The only missing piece is an eyewitness. The only eyewitness is the defendant, the murderer himself. You know, the gunman murderer who can say anything that gets him off the hook on the charge of 2nd degree murder.

@gl555

Read my quotes above.

Given that you are both reading and attention challenged in this matter, I restate my quote above, taken from a previous post I'd made: "However, they never presented this theory in court because they lacked evidence."

That is, they never presented this theory in court because they lacked the evidence. Yet you say "the jury didn't buy the theory." The jury never heard the theory, and neither did we until after the trial had concluded. You don't know the basic facts presented in my original post and re-presented in the quote above. That's oh for two in your reading of my statement concerning the prosecution's theory relative to the jury. You're oh for two, both times on called third strikes against you.

The evidence the prosecution "lacked" was a witness.

There is a surviving witness, however. He is George Zimmerman, the ruthless gunman murderer. The prosecution should have had the constitutional authority to call Zimmerman as a witness to test his story, because a story it was and remains, and because the only other witness is deceased. The innocent youth Trayvon had been a witness - up to a point. Trayvon ceased to be a witness after Zimmerman walked up to him, gun in hand, put the muzzle up to Trayvon's chest at his heart, pulled the trigger.

Your post is gang banger sloppy, inattentive to the statements I made in my post, erroneous.

Strike three, y're out! Grab some bench.

[JLCrab]

The prosecution should have had the constitutional authority to call Zimmerman as a witness.

So is this like when we find out on the TV sitcom Dallas that the entire 9th season was a dream sequence?

Edited July 18, 2013 by JLCrab

[gl555]

I did read your long winded post. And the prosecution DID present a theory when they went to trial. The jury didn't accept that theory, hence the not guilty verdict. Duh.

Once again, you're whining and crying about George Zimmerman being the only 'witness'. Child, in many murder cases, that's the way it goes. The prosecution has to find and present evidence, without and eyewitness and convince the jury. They failed in this case.

Bottom line is. Zimmerman won. He's alive and walking the streets. Your fake facts with no evidence to back it up won't change that. Why don't you entertain us with one of your ROTC combat stories in the White House you used to work instead? Sure beats your whining. Boohoo Trayvon is dead and the big white man is free. Hana pathetic.

A sound and plausible THEORY. You just said it yourself. THEORY. Not fact.

The jury didn't buy the theory.

However, they never presented this theory in court because they lacked evidence.

This is the only part of your post with any importance. As far as theories go, it is pretty obvious that the guy who was getting the heck beaten out of him would be the one who was screaming. It stopped when the attacker was neutralized.

Prosecutors vary in their competence but they are professionals who deal in crime and punishment, the law, each and every day. This is their stock and trade. It is their responsibility to devise a theory of a case, motive, who likely did what and when, to whom, etc.

Yes, there weren't any witnesses. However, there is a sound and plausible theory as developed by the prosecutors concerning the crime. Their theory is based on their best analysis of events, principals, witnesses of any nature (aural in this instance) and everything else. Prosecutors have to decide the viability of the theory and whether or not proving the theory is possible.

The only missing piece is an eyewitness. The only eyewitness is the defendant, the murderer himself. You know, the gunman murderer who can say anything that gets him off the hook on the charge of 2nd degree murder.

@gl555

Read my quotes above.

Given that you are both reading and attention challenged in this matter, I restate my quote above, taken from a previous post I'd made: "However, they never presented this theory in court because they lacked evidence."

That is, they never presented this theory in court because they lacked the evidence. Yet you say "the jury didn't buy the theory." The jury never heard the theory, and neither did we until after the trial had concluded. You don't know the basic facts presented in my original post and re-presented in the quote above. That's oh for two in your reading of my statement concerning the prosecution's theory relative to the jury. You're oh for two, both times on called third strikes against you.

The evidence the prosecution "lacked" was a witness.

There is a surviving witness, however. He is George Zimmerman, the ruthless gunman murderer. The prosecution should have had the constitutional authority to call Zimmerman as a witness to test his story, because a story it was and remains, and because the only other witness is deceased. The innocent youth Trayvon had been a witness - up to a point. Trayvon ceased to be a witness after Zimmerman walked up to him, gun in hand, put the muzzle up to Trayvon's chest at his heart, pulled the trigger.

Your post is gang banger sloppy, inattentive to the statements I made in my post, erroneous.

Strike three, y're out! Grab some bench.

[JLCrab]

Take2 on The prosecution should have had the constitutional authority to call Zimmerman as a witness to test his story,

BTW for the non-Americans, the Fifth Amendment to The US Constitution in The Bill of Rights (1789) states (in part):

-- No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...

Such as the above in italics would therefore require a further amendment to the US Constitution revoking such right as in the Fifth Amendment.

[wooloomooloo]

-- No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...

No Fifth Amendment in UK but same lawful right to not incriminate oneself.

[Baloo22]

However, they never presented this theory in court because they lacked evidence.

This is the only part of your post with any importance. As far as theories go, it is pretty obvious that the guy who was getting the heck beaten out of him would be the one who was screaming. It stopped when the attacker was neutralized.

Prosecutors vary in their competence but they are professionals who deal in crime and punishment, the law, each and every day. This is their stock and trade. It is their responsibility to devise a theory of a case, motive, who likely did what and when, to whom, etc.

Yes, there weren't any witnesses. However, there is a sound and plausible theory as developed by the prosecutors concerning the crime. Their theory is based on their best analysis of events, principals, witnesses of any nature (aural in this instance) and everything else. Prosecutors have to decide the viability of the theory and whether or not proving the theory is possible.

The only missing piece is an eyewitness. The only eyewitness is the defendant, the murderer himself. You know, the gunman murderer who can say anything that gets him off the hook on the charge of 2nd degree murder.

In short; They made it up! Yes, the prosecution made that story up. The jury, after hearing the all the testimony and evidence presented during the entire trial, did not buy their story. The jury determined that Mr. Zimmerman was not guilty of 2nd degree murder, nor manslaughter.

[Jingthing]

The witness that was abused by the right wing media talks back.

It's clear the jury ignored her. Was that fair?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RdSxdSPn7HM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BvkjmHDSRBU

[JLCrab]

It's clear the jury ignored her. Was that fair? If the jury did indeed ignore her, then one can just as readily say she was not properly prepared by the prosecution team to offer direct testimony and handle cross-examination by the defense.

[F430murci]

It's clear the jury ignored her. Was that fair? If the jury did indeed ignore her, then one can just as readily say she was not properly prepared by the prosecution team to offer direct testimony and handle cross-examination by the defense.

What? The jury ignored that Martin was going to give him a little whoop ass because he thought Zimmerman was gay and he was going to do some gay bashing.

I am shocked that her testimony didn't help prosecution.

RACHEL JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely, after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every whos not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? And people need to understand, he didnt want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriends house to go get mind you, his little brother was there. You know now, mind you, I told you I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist.

"Zimmerman was not facing a potentially life-threatening 'bashing,' but simply a 'whoop ass.'" Here's her quote, Rachel Jeantel's quote from Monday night on CNN: "They don't understand, they understand, 'Oh, he would just bash, or was kill.' When somebody bash somebody, like, blood people, trust me, in the area I live, that's not bashing. That's just called 'whoop ass.' You just got your ass whooped. That's what it is."

Edited July 18, 2013 by F430murci

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies and posts with messed up quotes have been deleted.

[JLCrab]

(I get dizzy trying to follow all these nested quotes)

If a prosecution witness ends up helping the defense more than the prosecution, one cannot blame the witness -- that was a mistake on the part of the prosecution in not adequately preparing the witness for direct testimony and follow-up cross examination or even making a flawed decision in calling the witness in the first place as the defense might choose not call the witness as well.

[hawker9000]

(I get dizzy trying to follow all these nested quotes)

If a prosecution witness ends up helping the defense more than the prosecution, one cannot blame the witness -- that was a mistake on the part of the prosecution in not adequately preparing the witness for direct testimony and follow-up cross examination or even making a flawed decision in calling the witness in the first place as the defense might choose not call the witness as well.

... or bringing the charges in the 1st place if this was the best prosecution they could put on. I think they were sort of forced to go forward with the prosecution by the pressure of public opinion and appointment of a highly politically-driven prosecutor (= polite euphamism for mob hysterics). I doubt this case could've gotten past a grand jury in many jurisdictions.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Unless you are a medical professional or can site a qualified medical professional, do not discuss the possible drug interactions. It is off-topic.

[kikoman]

The laws in the U.S.A. are designed to protect the rights of ALL in citizens Those fundamental rights of Equal Protection under the law also applied to Trayvon, the broken U.S. court system was legislated by man, in it not the result of divine intervention, as with all of mans creations it has its flaws.

The rights under the 5th Amendment is a great protection for the American people in the case of The State of Arizona v. Miranda, also extended the coverage of that law as a fundamental right to all citizens because of alleged misuse by the law enforcement community.

If the eye witness account by the only witness happens to be the accused, and that person, opts to not take the stand to undergo cross examination of his version. That is still his right to coverage under the 5th. The court should not be allowed to use an eye witness account as the gospel truth when that defend invokes his right against self incrimination also places doubt on his eyewitness version...

Again, the rant of the intellectually challenged, State Trayvon Martin is dead and Zimmerman is free.

Another right the U.S. guarantees is the freedom of religion and As such God -fearing people would say Trayvon if free and has gone with the lord.

Zimmerman will never again be free, he will have to hide for the rest of his life and when he dies he will face the true justice of the lord under which he can not hide behind technicalities of man and is doom to the fires of Hell.

But then again that is for those that believe in God, and follow his commandments, but we are not in the U.S. (TIT).

I am not an expert in theology, only what I learned as a mortal man and expressing what I believe and live by, hence my revulsion of that travesty of Justice.

Cheers:

[JLCrab]

As per the above by Kuhn Kikoman who speaks of the "broken" US Court system", this is from the 1959 movie Anatomy of a Murder which was adapted from a book written (under a pen name) by a former Judge on the Michigan Supreme court:

Parnell Emmett McCarthy: Twelve people go off into a room: twelve different minds, twelve different hearts, from twelve different walks of life; twelve sets of eyes, ears, shapes, and sizes. And these twelve people are asked to judge another human being as different from them as they are from each other. And in their judgment, they must become of one mind - unanimous. It's one of the miracles of Man's disorganized soul that they can do it, and in most instances, do it right well. God bless juries.

[Chicog]

As per the above by Kuhn Kikoman who speaks of the "broken" US Court system", this is from the 1959 movie Anatomy of a Murder which was adapted from a book written (under a pen name) by a former Judge on the Michigan Supreme court:

Parnell Emmett McCarthy: Twelve people go off into a room: twelve different minds, twelve different hearts, from twelve different walks of life; twelve sets of eyes, ears, shapes, and sizes. And these twelve people are asked to judge another human being as different from them as they are from each other. And in their judgment, they must become of one mind - unanimous. It's one of the miracles of Man's disorganized soul that they can do it, and in most instances, do it right well. God bless juries.

But they are not being asked to judge another human being. They are being asked to come up with a verdict based on a plethora of evidence.

It's up to the judge to decide the sanctions.

[Credo]

I just can't quite figure out how everyone can get their knickers in a knot over this. A jury of people listened to the evidence and made a decision. Both sides had input as to who was on the jury. Somebody had to win and somebody had to lose.

The point is the jurors listened to the testimony and about this case -- not about everything either of these people did before this.

[Baloo22]

Quote:

"If the eye witness account by the only witness happens to be the accused, and that person, opts to not take the stand to undergo cross examination of his version. That is still his right to coverage under the 5th. The court should not be allowed to use an eye witness account as the gospel truth when that defend invokes his right against self incrimination also places doubt on his eyewitness version..."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it was the state/prosecution that presented Mr. Zimmerman's statements (given to the police) in court. Not the defense!

[gl555]

1) It is also the right of someone to defend himself if his life is threatened. Whether you believe it to be self defense or not is immaterial. The jury did.

2) Whatever happens to Zimmerman in the afterlife is between him and God. Who are you to decide if he's going to end up in hell or not?

The laws in the U.S.A. are designed to protect the rights of ALL in citizens Those fundamental rights of Equal Protection under the law also applied to Trayvon, the broken U.S. court system was legislated by man, in it not the result of divine intervention, as with all of mans creations it has its flaws.

The rights under the 5th Amendment is a great protection for the American people in the case of The State of Arizona v. Miranda, also extended the coverage of that law as a fundamental right to all citizens because of alleged misuse by the law enforcement community.

If the eye witness account by the only witness happens to be the accused, and that person, opts to not take the stand to undergo cross examination of his version. That is still his right to coverage under the 5th. The court should not be allowed to use an eye witness account as the gospel truth when that defend invokes his right against self incrimination also places doubt on his eyewitness version...

Again, the rant of the intellectually challenged, State Trayvon Martin is dead and Zimmerman is free.

Another right the U.S. guarantees is the freedom of religion and As such God -fearing people would say Trayvon if free and has gone with the lord.

Zimmerman will never again be free, he will have to hide for the rest of his life and when he dies he will face the true justice of the lord under which he can not hide behind technicalities of man and is doom to the fires of Hell.

But then again that is for those that believe in God, and follow his commandments, but we are not in the U.S. (TIT).

I am not an expert in theology, only what I learned as a mortal man and expressing what I believe and live by, hence my revulsion of that travesty of Justice.

Cheers:

Edited July 19, 2013 by gl555

[JLCrab]

As per the above by Kuhn Kikoman who speaks of the "broken" US Court system", this is from the 1959 movie Anatomy of a Murder which was adapted from a book written (under a pen name) by a former Judge on the Michigan Supreme court:

Parnell Emmett McCarthy: Twelve people go off into a room: twelve different minds, twelve different hearts, from twelve different walks of life; twelve sets of eyes, ears, shapes, and sizes. And these twelve people are asked to judge another human being as different from them as they are from each other. And in their judgment, they must become of one mind - unanimous. It's one of the miracles of Man's disorganized soul that they can do it, and in most instances, do it right well. God bless juries.

But they are not being asked to judge another human being. They are being asked to come up with a verdict based on a plethora of evidence.

It's up to the judge to decide the sanctions.

Well maybe the former Justice of the State of Michigan Supreme Court who wrote the above musta been all mixed up when he wrote about his experiences being a judge and a county prosecuting attorney in Michigan and who was BTW the defense attorney in the real-life murder incident that became the basis of his book and the movie.

[kikoman]

I know the life in the movies is only make believe and as the song "Here in the real world" goes by Allen Jackson sings to that difference from reality, maybe set your lyric to music and people may buy it.

This was not the case "as in the movies" but real life where 6 people basically from the same walk of life! at least "Juror B37" publicly stated she did not consider a witness because she was inadequate, uneducated and lacked communication skills (her own value judgement) not on the quality of the evidence presented.. Juror B37 that hired an agent and plan to get financial gain from the experience of her Jury duty. Of the Agent she hired stated that the verdict was based on evidence not presented at the trial! that was specifically not allowed a per "State Motion to Limit/Exclude Improper Opinion Evidence granted by Judge Nelson.

At least one , but most likely more of the jury, had already formed an opinion that Zimmerman should not been arrested. bringing legitimate legal doubt to the integrity of the trial !

Yes, "Here in the real world it not that easy at all".

Cheers:

[Jingthing]

Yeah, this case put a magnifying glass on some of the major issues in the American "justice" system. International people may wonder why all the attention about one case. Because it reflects on the entire system and indeed the society as a whole.

[F430murci]

I know the life in the movies is only make believe and as the song "Here in the real world" goes by Allen Jackson sings to that difference from reality, maybe set your lyric to music and people may buy it.

This was not the case "as in the movies" but real life where 6 people basically from the same walk of life! at least "Juror B37" publicly stated she did not consider a witness because she was inadequate, uneducated and lacked communication skills (her own value judgement) not on the quality of the evidence presented.. Juror B37 that hired an agent and plan to get financial gain from the experience of her Jury duty. Of the Agent she hired stated that the verdict was based on evidence not presented at the trial! that was specifically not allowed a per "State Motion to Limit/Exclude Improper Opinion Evidence granted by Judge Nelson.

At least one , but most likely more of the jury, had already formed an opinion that Zimmerman should not been arrested. bringing legitimate legal doubt to the integrity of the trial !

Yes, "Here in the real world it not that easy at all".

Cheers:

You said this:

The laws in the U.S.A. are designed to protect the rights of ALL in citizens Those fundamental rights of Equal Protection under the law also applied to Trayvon, the broken U.S. court system was legislated by man, in it not the result of divine intervention, as with all of mans creations it has its flaws.

No need to say more about your grasp on the legal system, facts if this case or reality in general. Do you even realize what you are saying?

[kikoman]

Mods Please delete the duplicate post, I am having system problems trouble with posting.

Thank you

[F430murci]

Yeah, this case put a magnifying glass on some of the major issues in the American "justice" system. International people may wonder why all the attention about one case. Because it reflects on the entire system and indeed the society as a whole.

Actually, it says a lot more about internal struggles and personal failures of individuals using this as a victim card and has very little to do with the American justice system.

I wonder how many of the people on here that are so angry about American are really just frustrated with their own failures and looking to place blame for their own failures outside of themselves.

What did America do to you or why do you even care so much?

Edited July 19, 2013 by F430murci

[kikoman]

I know the life in the movies is only make believe and as the song "Here in the real world" goes by Allen Jackson sings to that difference from reality, maybe set your lyric to music and people may buy it.

This was not the case "as in the movies" but real life where 6 people basically from the same walk of life! at least "Juror B37" publicly stated she did not consider a witness because she was inadequate, uneducated and lacked communication skills (her own value judgement) not on the quality of the evidence presented.. Juror B37 that hired an agent and plan to get financial gain from the experience of her Jury duty. Of the Agent she hired stated that the verdict was based on evidence not presented at the trial! that was specifically not allowed a per "State Motion to Limit/Exclude Improper Opinion Evidence granted by Judge Nelson.

At least one , but most likely more of the jury, had already formed an opinion that Zimmerman should not been arrested. bringing legitimate legal doubt to the integrity of the trial !

Yes, "Here in the real world it not that easy at all".

Cheers:

You said this:

The laws in the U.S.A. are designed to protect the rights of ALL in citizens Those fundamental rights of Equal Protection under the law also applied to Trayvon, the broken U.S. court system was legislated by man, in it not the result of divine intervention, as with all of mans creations it has its flaws.

No need to say more about your grasp on the legal system, facts if this case or reality in general. Do you even realize what you are saying?

You need to take some reading comprehension classes!

Cheers:

[Jingthing]

Yeah, this case put a magnifying glass on some of the major issues in the American "justice" system. International people may wonder why all the attention about one case. Because it reflects on the entire system and indeed the society as a whole.

Actually, it says a lot more about internal struggles and personal failures of individuals using this as a victim card and has very little to do with the American justice system.

I wonder how many if the people on that are so angry about American are really just frustrated with their own failures and l

I am talking about race and class matters.

Why does the USA have such a shockingly high rate of citizens in prison?

Why such a high percentage of black people?

Why is it so hard to convict a non-black person of crimes but so easy to convict accused black people?

Also, guns. It's out of hand.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Jingthing