Jump to content

Trayvon Martin Case


fjl2nd

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

pretty psychopath-type comment right there

Oh good grief... it's hyperbole.

 

With that said, I have little use for professional race-baiters who encourage people to sacrifice their individual identies and to centralize the importance of otherwise insignificant biological differences.

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don West spitting that fire.

 

Don West did his job admirably. So did Mark O'Mara. So GZ isn't going to some Florida prison, but the media and the State have still placed him in some kind of prison. What can he do to escape? The only choice I see is to become someone else. Think if that was you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never watched a trial before where it was so clear that the prosecution NEVER proved their case. There was reasonable doubt all over. The jury got this ABSOLUTELY correct.

 

If you follow the evidence and the law (jury instructions) non guilty is correct.

 

Trumped up charges, prosecutal misconduct with discovery.

 

I don't even know this should have gotten to trial the evidence was so lacking, but since it did Manslaughter and the lesser charge of the 3rd degree should have been the charges.

 

The DA were idiots for overcharging and not arguing in the trial about manslaughter.

 

Omara was fanstastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people are saying the Martin family will collect a huge settlement in court. My question is, where is the evidence? There is incredibly little, if any at ll, that GZ started the conflict or did not act in self defense. I know in civil court conviction is by the preponderance of evidence. The problem i see is that how can you say 51%-49% that GZ is liable if the evidence is overwhelmingly pro-GZ?

 

It happened to OJ, but the two cases aren't even comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people are saying the Martin family will collect a huge settlement in court. My question is, where is the evidence? There is incredibly little, if any at ll, that GZ started the conflict or did not act in self defense. I know in civil court conviction is by the preponderance of evidence. The problem i see is that how can you say 51%-49% that GZ is liable if the evidence is overwhelmingly pro-GZ?

 

It happened to OJ, but the two cases aren't even comparable.

 

Yeah, OJ and Zimmerman are not even close.

 

I think it is a bit of stretch that they will get anything in a civil suit. The evidence is simply not there. There wasn't even probable cause to bring this trial once the investigation was done. Then the media and politics got involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people are saying the Martin family will collect a huge settlement in court. My question is, where is the evidence? There is incredibly little, if any at ll, that GZ started the conflict or did not act in self defense. I know in civil court conviction is by the preponderance of evidence. The problem i see is that how can you say 51%-49% that GZ is liable if the evidence is overwhelmingly pro-GZ?

 

It happened to OJ, but the two cases aren't even comparable.

 

They need to remember that at a civil trial , much more can be brought out about Trayvon also.

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They need to remember that at a civil trial , much more can be brought out about Trayvon also.

 

 

.

 

I think you are right about this. A lot of the evidence that was deemed "prejudical" in the criminal trial, I don't think the same thing applies in the civil.

 

From what it seems like there was a lot of evidence witheld that shows he is simply not just a (innocent) "child" that the prosecutors liked to potray to the media and jury.

Edited by BuffaloBillsForever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people are saying the Martin family will collect a huge settlement in court. My question is, where is the evidence? There is incredibly little, if any at ll, that GZ started the conflict or did not act in self defense. I know in civil court conviction is by the preponderance of evidence. The problem i see is that how can you say 51%-49% that GZ is liable if the evidence is overwhelmingly pro-GZ?

 

It happened to OJ, but the two cases aren't even comparable.

 

They already collected a lot from the homeowners association. I think they'd be wise to let it go now, even for their own peace, but we will see. Civil could be ugly and painful on their side. Living in the court room is not a place to start healing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It´s not too early to demand an inquiry into the prosecution of this case."

 

 

Zimmerman’s not guilty verdict shines troubling light on prosecutor’s decision-making

 

The jury in the Trayvon Martin case on Saturday night acquitted George Zimmerman, but it should never have gotten that far. The Florida State Attorney’s Office should have dismissed their case before submitting it to the jury. That’s what the law required.

The prosecution failed to prove the defendant’s guilt by any standard of evidence. And based on the standard of probable cause, dismissing the case would have been the right thing to do.

 

 

Default_Size_16_1x1.gif

 

Why Sharpton is Actually Delighted by Zimmerman’s Acquittal

 

 

Upon learning that a jury in Florida had acquitted George Zimmerman of all charges in the murder of Trayvon Martin, Al Sharpton called the verdict “an atrocity” and “a sad day in this country.”

 

But from where I sit, I think Sharpton couldn’t be more delighted with the verdict. The reason I believe this to be so is because an acquittal puts Sharpton in his element. An acquittal gives Sharpton an opportunity to be the center of the media spotlight to tell the world that America is still a racist country. A demagogue must have someone or something against which to rail. Sharpton couldn’t feign such outrage if there was a guilty verdict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They need to remember that at a civil trial , much more can be brought out about Trayvon also.

 

 

The civil trial might actually make it harder to bring out character evidence about TM. Character evidence to show propensity is usually barred reagardless of whether the case is civil or criminal. In a criminal trial, if the prosecution brings in character evidence to show the accused was the aggressor it opens the door for the defense to bring in character evidence to show the deceased was the initial aggressor, but in civil no such exception exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone see Stevie Johnson's tweet about the case?

 

"Living in a world where you fight dogs; you could lose everything (Mike Vick).. If you kill a black man you're not guilty! #INjusticeSystem"

https://twitter.com/...233842404753409

 

And then there's Roddy White's, which is extremely distasteful:

"All them jurors should go home tonight and kill themselves for letting a grown man get away with killing a kid"

https://twitter.com/...247500937629696

 

I'd link to the original Bleacher Report article that lists all sorts of tweets, but that's apparently not allowed here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone see Stevie Johnson's tweet about the case?

 

"Living in a world where you fight dogs; you could lose everything (Mike Vick).. If you kill a black man you're not guilty! #INjusticeSystem"

https://twitter.com/...233842404753409

 

And then there's Roddy White's, which is extremely distasteful:

"All them jurors should go home tonight and kill themselves for letting a grown man get away with killing a kid"

https://twitter.com/...247500937629696

 

I'd link to the original Bleacher Report article that lists all sorts of tweets, but that's apparently not allowed here...

 

These are the type of conclusions you get when you didn't actually watch the trial. Instead looked at the headlines and Nancy Grace. The Jurors followed the law and did their job correctly.

 

There is a difference between what George Zimmerman might have been wrong, BUT according to Florida law it wasn't illegal.

Edited by BuffaloBillsForever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AP Reporter's Reax to Zimmerman Verdict: 'So We Can All Kill Teenagers Now? Just Checking'

 

 

 

NPR's Race Expert: Whether Zimmerman Fired in Self-Defense Is a 'Really, Really Small Technical Point'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesse Jackson's Odd Complaint: Trayvon Martin Denied Jury of His Peers

 

Appearing on MSNBC this morning, Jesse Jackson condemned the Zimmerman verdict as a "tremendous miscarriage of justice." It is a mark of Jackson's misconception of just what constitutes justice that chief among his complaints was that Trayvon Martin was denied a jury of his peers because there were no African-Americans or men on it.

 

But—as Jackson is apparently unaware—the Constitution provides that it is the accused, not the possible victim, who is entitled to an impartial jury [in fact the Constitution nowhere speaks of a jury of peers].

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...