Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[JetsetBkk]

They did.

But he's still guilty as sin.

Just like OJ was.

You should have watched the trial. I did. He was found not guilty. The FBI's investigation showed that Zimmerman was not a racist. Florida's "Stand your ground" law did not apply to this case. But, hey, let's not a few facts interrupt your ranting.

As for the president's speech today on this case at the White House:

"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

---H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

[Jingthing]

President Obama said this evening to the media at the White House that, "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago.:"

That's this evening our time.

Interviews of other members of Obama's "Choom Gang" seem to indicate that he was a pothead more in the line of a Jeff Spicoli than a Trayvon Martin.

Oh please. Are you actually buying that the murder victim was an actual thug? That's trumped up dirt from the right wing.

In any case, that night he really was walking home with tea and skittles.

The tragically murdered dead boy wasn't supposed to be on trial. His killer was.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Jingthing

[gl555]

You are only allowed to argue one theory of what you think happened in a criminal case. The fact that the prosecutor didn't present what he THOUGHT happened shows how weak his case was. So he tried another THEORY and lost anyway. It just goes to show that various experienced lawyers and law scholars were right when they said Zimmerman shouldn't have been prosecuted because the prosecution didn't have enough evidence in the first place,

When you post something idiotic, not to mention wrong, you shall be corrected and made to look the buffoon we know you to be.

Because the content of your posts is vacuous.

Also, I looked at my "Notifications" box yesterday and saw your username in six consecutive posts. I don't have the time or interest to spend 40% of my time or effort responding to your assinine [sic] stalkings.

[Jingthing]

President Obama said this evening to the media at the White House that, "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago.:"

That's this evening our time.

Interviews of other members of Obama's "Choom Gang" seem to indicate that he was a pothead more in the line of a Jeff Spicoli than a Trayvon Martin.

Oh please. Are you actually buying that the murder victim was an actual thug? That's trumped up dirt from the right wing.

[Jingthing]

You should have watched the trial.

...

Why do you assume I did not watch the trial?

Edited July 19, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

This isn't about Obama's presidency, whether its failed or not failed.

It's about a man who got away with murder.

[lannarebirth]

This isn't about Obama's presidency, whether its failed or not failed.

It's about a man who got away with murder.

One among thousands:

http://news.yahoo.com/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism-070000529.html

Spin it if you like, but these are FACTS!

[manarak]

It seems the posters who write Martin was murdered do so because they believe the facts ruled true by the court are not how the killing actually happened.

But there are too many details that don't fit into the "murder theory":

- If Martin was fleeing, why was he at less than 70 yards away from his home when he was shot?

- Why wasn't he shot in the back?

- Explain the wounds on Zimmerman

...

The racist theory is equally ridiculous in the light of Zimmerman's previous participation in anti-racism actions.

Why is it impossible that the events actually happened as accepted by the court?

[gl555]

There are God knows how many black on black killings on a daily basis. Hundreds of blacks murdering each other and Obama and his lap dog of an AG, Holder say nothing. A black guy is killed by someone who isn't black and cue the waterworks, it's "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago.:" Puke!

President Obama said this evening to the media at the White House that, "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago.:"

That's this evening our time.

And it was a great thing to say and more than true.

Edited July 19, 2013 by gl555

[Publicus]

Arias' lawyers can appeal this case on any number of grounds ... I see. And are Ms. Arias' lawyers aware of all this or is this just supposition on your part?

BTW You haven't yet introduced into any of your arguments including future decisions of the US Supreme Court and possible Constitutional Amendments, the UN Arms Trade Treaty of 2013 on International Trade in Conventional Weapons. -That one's a real hum-dinger as well.

BTW2 way up above you were talking about circumstances where someone who was the only witness to the capital crime for which he/she is on trial could be compelled to testify regardless of invoking right to non-self incrimination. Now you are talking about an appeal in a case where someone refused to say something and they were convicted because what they said was held against them. Say what?

You confound yourself.

It's not my burden to get you out of your own contradictions that are based on your mangling a couple of posts I made into one incomprehensible post by you.

Thank you. Lewis Carroll would be proud.

BTW Jury selection from My Cousin Vinny:

Prosecutor: Can you participate in an endeavor in which the ultimate decision might be death by electrocution... Ma'am ?

Little Old Lady: I think it should be left up to the victims' families, rather than the courts.

Prosecutor: Uh-huh. The defendants in this case are charged with robbing a convenience store, and then, in the most cowardly fashion, shootin' the clerk in the back. Now, if sufficient evidence is offered to prove these facts you think you could --

Lady: Fry 'em.

Prosecutor: She'll do.

Humorous exaggeration in a television script do serve your purpose and point, so well done on that account.

However, you well know a juror would be excluded by the defense for making such a statement.

You'd also know that in a capital case, jurors are asked if they believe in capital punishment as a material point during voir dire. Unlike your tv script, the defense or the prosecution would exclude the unwanted juror on the basis of the number of summary dismissals of jurors each side has to exercise.

Once a side's quota of summary dismissals of jurors is exhausted, the particular lawyer(s) then needs to present arguments to the judge as to why a particular potential juror should be excluded from the petit jury. The judge then decides.

It's generally appreciated that fiction can and often does state a truth of some sort. Fiction, however, remains fiction. The movie Chinatown deals superbly with a lot of truth and reality, but it remains a work of fiction nonetheless, as brilliant as the movie is and remains. (You otherwise would have died three weeks ago despite having just made a post to TVF. Mrs Mulray would be quite taken aback.)

[kikoman]

CBS News, Daily Blotter By Julia Bahl June 26, 2012, reporting that Chris Serino is being transferred from investigation unit to the patrol division, according to the department his transfer was"of his own volition."

In the days following the shooting, Serino wrote that in following Martin, Zimmerman's actions were "inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject" He wrote that Zimmerman had at least two opportunities to speak to the teen and "defuse the situation". He also noted that Zimmerman "failed to identify himself" as a concerned citizen or neighborhood watch member on two occasions that night.

Serino also noted that he thought Zimmerman's head injuries were "marginally consistent with life-threatening episode, as described by him, during which neither a deadly weapon nor deadly force were deployed by Trayvon Martin."

According to the report, Serino recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter on March 13, one day after former Sanford police Chief Bill Lee held a news conference announcing there was not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman,

Very different than to what he testified to at the trial, why did he have such a radical change of opinion, was his transfer really of his own volition????

Cheers:

[Publicus]

Hey, I got 11 posters in my Notice box.

Thanks for the attention but each of you is gonna have to wait his turn.

Don't stay up for me.

I'll continue to reply, oldest post first, but I'm not chained to the pc.

[Johpa]

They did.

But he's still guilty as sin.

Just like OJ was.

An unfortunate comparison. If you believe the OJ was guilty then the imagined scenario is that OJ laid in wait upon his victims and then ambushed and slaughtered them, unvarnished, premeditated first degree murder. Nobody is proposing anything similar scenario occured in this case.

The question here that is being argued is at what point does a bad/poor decision implicate a person for an event that happens subsequent to that bad decsion. Does Zimmerman's bad decsion in getting out if his car or his subsequent poor decision of following Martin negate his self-defense plea? At what point does Martin's poor decisions come into play as far as the court is concerned? What is the law, or what should be the law, regarding an armed person antagonizing another person perhaps in the hope of provoking that person to attack the armed person with the hope that they can then defend themselves using deadly force and subsequently argue self-defense? I am not a lawyer, and avoid legal entanglements at all costs, but I do know from my involvement with a well known Internet libel case involving the old SCT usenet group, that at least in Britain, common law states that you can not go around attempting to provoke libel, which was one of the arguments that Demon used against LG. I am not sure if a similar law currently exists in the US, although clearly it should, relative to the obscene and poorly conceived "stand-your-ground" laws. So, in this particular case, it all does get rather complicated and confused: there are no simple clear cut answers. If only the US would just ban the carrying of any weapon by a citizen in the public space then these countless tradgedies would largely be avoidable. The gun is the monkey, not George.

[kikoman]

Another issue raised by the intellectually challenged is "They did not have the evidence) Chris Serino in his recommendation to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, specified the reason he found to charge him, (See CBS News ,Daily Blotter by Julia Bahl dated June 26, 2012) Google it up and see it first hand yourself.

Of the witnesses was Mr. Good who's testimony was helpful to Zimmerman, that Trayvon was on the top raining blows on Zimmerman, except for one important detail he stated that he saw no one having their bashed on the cement!

Ms Sema Mora testified that it was to dark to see what was going on, but the man on top said call the police, and the man stood up holding his hand to his head. The man on top was Zimmerman, as Trayvon remained face down on the ground and never moved,

An anonymous witness, who reported his details to the police but opted to remain anonymous he also gave an interview on CNN News Anderson Cooper show (face black out.)

Who also said Zimmerman was on top and all the fighting took place on the grass, not near any cement

Rachel Jeantel that disputed Zimmerman Version that Martin came out of the shadows and attacked him. She testified that a verbal confrontation took place before the fight..

Selena Bahadoor said Zimmerman was moving away from where his truck was. Zimmerman stated he was moving towards his truck.

There are more witnesses I did not get to hear them all, This information coupled with Detective Serino's report and recommendation that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. Do show there was enough evidence to charge Zimmerman But the long delay in arresting him lost a lots of evidence. Zimmerman was not given a drug and alcohal test, Zimmerman was allowed to wash up at the police station.etc.

If you want to see a copy of The State's motion-to limit/exclude improper opinion evidence, Refer to my post #907 a copy is there for your viewing pleasure.

Cheers:

Edited July 19, 2013 by kikoman

[Publicus]

What would be the point of Zimmerman being compelled to give evidence? He could say whatever he liked as there is no one to prove he is lying.

The onus of proof is with the prosecution, and in this case, a deceitful lying prosecutor. Yet they still couldn't get a guilty verdict. So changing the law to compel a defendant to give evidence is just moronic.

As an outsider I find it very very odd and strange that juries can talk to media etc after a trial. That is just crazy, from an Oz viewpoint anyway as here anyone that spoke to a juror, or a juror trying to talk to media would be hauled before the court and have a nice free holiday at her majesty's expense.

Seems some on here are just throwing out their toys over this verdict, acting like spoilt little children who didn't get their own way. Newsflash, the jury listened to all the evidence, took direction, debated all the evidence for hours on end. Guess what, they found Zimmerman not guilty and all your posturing won't change that.

Tough, deal with it.

The judiciary is the last bastion of secrecy in its procedures, deliberations, decision making, processes and the like.

It's well past time the US and state judiciaries became more open and forthcoming, much like the other two branches of the US government. In merry Olde England and Her Possessions elitism and private clubs and government may continue to flourish, but this is not desirable or acceptable in a modern republic.

The judicial system in the US needs to uncloak itself to become more democratically transparent. There's some need of confidentiality, but the maturity of the general population of a modern democracy far exceeds the same of 200 or of even 50 years ago. We are in the information society and the judiciary needs to adapt to accept the fact.

Jurors should be allowed to speak if they want to after they are dismissed for having successfully discharged their duties. Meetings in chambers need to be reported by a court spokesperson. The US judiciary needs to allow cameras in the courtroom, live, the same as many states do. There's a long list of "to do" items for the judiciary in a modern democracy. So it's past time the judiciary brought itself up to date consistent with the level of the education and the maturity of a more sophisticated public than ever has existed.

[Publicus]

What would be the point of Zimmerman being compelled to give evidence? He could say whatever he liked as there is no one to prove he is lying.

The onus of proof is with the prosecution, and in this case, a deceitful lying prosecutor. Yet they still couldn't get a guilty verdict. So changing the law to compel a defendant to give evidence is just moronic.

As an outsider I find it very very odd and strange that juries can talk to media etc after a trial. That is just crazy, from an Oz viewpoint anyway as here anyone that spoke to a juror, or a juror trying to talk to media would be hauled before the court and have a nice free holiday at her majesty's expense.

Seems some on here are just throwing out their toys over this verdict, acting like spoilt little children who didn't get their own way. Newsflash, the jury listened to all the evidence, took direction, debated all the evidence for hours on end. Guess what, they found Zimmerman not guilty and all your posturing won't change that.

Tough, deal with it.

A criminal defendant in a wrongful death case needs to be cross examined under oath to the court by opposing counsel in instances when there aren't any witnesses. The defendant otherwise is free to make up any self serving and self exculpatory story which has the slightest ring of plausibility to it.

Live defendants in wrongful death cases do tell tales. This needs to be put to the test of cross examination by the prosecution. The criminal defendant in cases in which there aren't any witnesses needs to testify under oath to the court to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. That would take us a long way toward the interests of justice.

[gl555]

Chris Serino may have recommended to charge George Zimmerman but he himself said publicly they didn't have enough evidence to charge Zimmerman. Google it up and see it first hand yourself. So where does that leave the proscution? Unreliable witnesses like Rachel Jaental whom the defense destroyed on the stand. There was nothing unfair about this trial. The prosecution decided to go after Zimmerman with practically nothing and he was acquitted as should be.

Another issue raised by the intellectually challenged is "They did not have the evidence) Chris Serino in his recommendation to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, specified the reason he found to charge him, (See CBS News ,Daily Blotter by Julia Bahl dated June 26, 2012) Google it up and see it first hand yourself.

Of the witnesses was Mr. Good who's testimony was helpful to Zimmerman, that Trayvon was on the top raining blows on Zimmerman, except for one important detail he stated that he saw no one having their bashed on the cement!

Ms Sema Mora testified that it was to dark to see what was going on, but the man on top said call the police, and the man stood up holding his hand to his head. The man on top was Zimmerman, as Trayvon remained face down on the ground and never moved,

An anonymous witness, who reported his details to the police but opted to remain anonymous he also gave an interview on CNN News Anderson Cooper show (face black out.)

Who also said Zimmerman was on top and all the fighting took place on the grass, not near any cement

Rachel Jeantel that disputed Zimmerman Version that Martin came out of the shadows and attacked him. She testified that a verbal confrontation took place before the fight..

Selena Bahadoor said Zimmerman was moving away from where his truck was. Zimmerman stated he was moving towards his truck.

There are more witnesses I did not get to hear them all, This information coupled with Detective Serino's report and recommendation that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. Do show there was enough evidence to charge Zimmerman But the long delay in arresting him lost a lots of evidence. Zimmerman was not given a drug and alcohal test, Zimmerman was allowed to wash up at the police station.etc.

If you want to see a copy of The State's motion-to limit/exclude improper opinion evidence, Refer to my post #907 a copy is there for your viewing pleasure.

Cheers:

[Publicus]

Juror B37 chose to be interviewed by CNN as part of their book writing plan, but when there was an uproar from the American public due to the shadow of doubt that her interview cast on an unpopular verdict, she quickly torpedoed the book deal and now states she no longer plans to write a book.

I do not know what the law is on jury misconduct in Oz, but in the U.S. is a very serious charge, that I know will be investigated by the powers to be in the State of Florida and the Federal government.

What is said on this forum, has nothing to do with the coming charges for whatever law was broken by the shameful acts of B37.

Cheers:

I read the motion you attached above made by the state and denied by the judge.

I can't believe the judge denied the state's vitally important motion. The motion is supported by the dicta of previous cases, stare decisis - precedent - and is a reasonable and well founded motion.

What was the judge thinking when she denied such a motion? It goes right to the point of a defendant in a wrongful death trial without any witnesses being able to create his own version of events, same as a Hollywood script writer, and to get his pals to testify in support of the exact points the criminal defendant himself creates to clear himself of the exact crime he committed.

Incredible.

I have no faith or trust of any of these kinds of cases anywhere, anytime, whether at the state or federal level, irrespective of who the principals may be.

It is a travesty of justice - it is a conscious denial of justice - when a defendant in a wrongful death trial without witnesses can create his own version of events and have family and friends, associates or acquaintances, testify in support of the exact points the criminal defendant makes in his own exclusive and unchallenged interest.

Unacceptable.

[Publicus]

Who are you to say whether a law is bad or not? Are you a constitutional lawyer? Just because you don't agree with the verdict, you say the law is bad. In this case, the constitution of the United States. That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard coming from someone.

You do not know what really happened there. You have no evidence whatsoever. Saying Zimmerman lied is your opinion, not fact backed up by evidence. In the eyes of the law, he was found innocent and therefore, in the eyes of the law, what he said was the truth. Unless you have real proof otherwise, everything else you say against him is just full of crap.

Zimmerman is the gunman in this crime.

And the victim was just a teeny weeny little kid, or so some would like you to believe.

As far as I am concerned, the side that first starts to tell lies, loses.

End of.

Zimmerman never had to testify in court under oath. The Constitution allows this. Allowing this to occur is bad law.

Zimmerman's statements were the only statements relevant and material to the case that never had to withstand direct or cross examination by the attorneys of record and while under oath to the court to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Zimmerman was charged with murder. I'm certain he created a story favorable to him, exculpatory of him, and that the story was riddled with lies, distortions, exaggerations - predicated on a big lie.

I don't doubt it for one moment.

@gl555

There you go again, ranting and raging away.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

You are only allowed to argue one theory of what you think happened in a criminal case. The fact that the prosecutor didn't present what he THOUGHT happened shows how weak his case was. So he tried another THEORY and lost anyway. It just goes to show that various experienced lawyers and law scholars were right when they said Zimmerman shouldn't have been prosecuted because the prosecution didn't have enough evidence in the first place,

When you post something idiotic, not to mention wrong, you shall be corrected and made to look the buffoon we know you to be.

Because the content of your posts is vacuous.

Also, I looked at my "Notifications" box yesterday and saw your username in six consecutive posts. I don't have the time or interest to spend 40% of my time or effort responding to your assinine [sic] stalkings.

@gl555

By "we" do you refer to the keyboard gang bangers who pollute this thread?

"Only kings, presidents, editors and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial ‘we'." -- Mark Twain

[Publicus]

CBS News, Daily Blotter By Julia Bahl June 26, 2012, reporting that Chris Serino is being transferred from investigation unit to the patrol division, according to the department his transfer was"of his own volition."

In the days following the shooting, Serino wrote that in following Martin, Zimmerman's actions were "inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject" He wrote that Zimmerman had at least two opportunities to speak to the teen and "defuse the situation". He also noted that Zimmerman "failed to identify himself" as a concerned citizen or neighborhood watch member on two occasions that night.

Serino also noted that he thought Zimmerman's head injuries were "marginally consistent with life-threatening episode, as described by him, during which neither a deadly weapon nor deadly force were deployed by Trayvon Martin."

According to the report, Serino recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter on March 13, one day after former Sanford police Chief Bill Lee held a news conference announcing there was not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman,

Very different than to what he testified to at the trial, why did he have such a radical change of opinion, was his transfer really of his own volition????

Cheers:

It sounds like the hand of retired Virginia Superior Court Chief Magistrate Robert Zimmerman, George's daddy who's been involved since the night of the murder, is also at work here, although it may not be his work exclusively that Investigator Serino should be getting the shaft right about now.

Trying to cut through the firewalls of injustice in Sanford, Florida, Investigator Serino must feel like Diogenes trudging throughout Rome fruitlessly in search of an honest man. The Zimmerman family sound like a bunch of creeps in league with another bunch of creeps in a notorious sleazebag state.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Publicus

[JLCrab]

From Pub's post #922: Fiction, however, remains fiction.

Well I was in a fiction type-a mood as I keep reading about how you suggest there might someday be a US Supreme Court majority decision in favor of creating exceptions to the Fifth Amendment provision on self incrimination if there is no other witness to a capital crime other than the defendant him/herself.

Does then "There was no other witness" equate to "The State has been unable to find or produce no other witness"?

[Scott]

A lot of off-topic posts and replies have been deleted. This topic is not about President Obama or Russia or China. Stick to the topic, please.

[JetsetBkk]

You should have watched the trial.

...

Why do you assume I did not watch the trial?

Because you said he was "guilty as sin".

The result of trial was that he was "not guilty".

[kikoman]

From the above #946: There is no other witness because the only other witness was murdered in cold blood

And just how do you know that there wasn't some other witness in a well-populated apartment complex at 7PM on a Sunday night who has chosen not to come forward? This would give the Supreme's great angst. This did not take place in the Mojave Desert at 3AM.

Absurd? Once again it seems everyone in this whole morass has gotten it wrong except for you.

Speak for your self, as every one in this whole morass does not agree with you, if anyone has been a true gentleman in his responses has been Publicus, he kept his cool!

Now show that you have the capability to attack his logic and not him, How-ever you feel about the Zimmerman is your business but the immature attacks in response to his points only indicate that in a battle of wits you come to the battlefield completely unarmed!

Cheers:

[JLCrab]

OK per Moderator at#932: Topic heading is Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

He was found 'Not Guilty' under the existing Laws of The State of Florida and by conforming to The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and maybe the US Constitution as it exists today. Suggestions as to how the laws of the State of Florida, its rules of Criminal Procedure, and maybe the US Constitution should be changed, altered, repealed, etc. might best be left to another topic.

[JLCrab]

From the above #946: There is no other witness because the only other witness was murdered in cold blood

And just how do you know that there wasn't some other witness in a well-populated apartment complex at 7PM on a Sunday night who has chosen not to come forward? This would give the Supreme's great angst. This did not take place in the Mojave Desert at 3AM.

Absurd? Once again it seems everyone in this whole morass has gotten it wrong except for you.

Speak for your self, as every one in this whole morass does not agree with you, if anyone has been a true gentleman in his responses has been Publicus, he kept his cool!

Now show that you have the capability to attack his logic and not him, How-ever you feel about the Zimmerman is your business but the immature attacks in response to his points only indicate that in a battle of wits you come to the battlefield completely unarmed!

Cheers:

What logic?

[Scott]

A post discussing moderation has been removed as have off-topic posts and replies.

[Publicus]

From the above #946: There is no other witness because the only other witness was murdered in cold blood

And just how do you know that there wasn't some other witness in a well-populated apartment complex at 7PM on a Sunday night who has chosen not to come forward? This would give the Supreme's great angst. This did not take place in the Mojave Desert at 3AM.

Absurd? Once again it seems everyone in this whole morass has gotten it wrong except for you.

Speak for your self, as every one in this whole morass does not agree with you, if anyone has been a true gentleman in his responses has been Publicus, he kept his cool!

Now show that you have the capability to attack his logic and not him, How-ever you feel about the Zimmerman is your business but the immature attacks in response to his points only indicate that in a battle of wits you come to the battlefield completely unarmed!

Cheers:

What logic?

You confirm my greatest concern.

So that was you standing on the dock, the guy who missed the boat.

Nice shirt though - good taste in clothes.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Publicus

[JLCrab]

That's right -- I missed the boat to the parallel universe in which you prefer to dwell.