8 replies to this topic

[Ryriena]

http://www.cnn.com/2...ting/index.html


Let me play my tiny violin for him, apparently he's claims he was not pointing the gun towards the other victim.

[Aizen-Sama]

http://www.cnn.com/2...ting/index.html


Let me play my tiny violin for him, apparently he's claims he was not pointing the gun towards the other victim.

Can't believe this idiot is still walking around the streets. Law enforcement sucks at their job.

[Ryriena]

Yup he even stalked this person that shot at him apparently. Just wished this idiot had learned to keep his ass out of trouble but nope he just proves it was Trayvon that was the vicitam instead of the aggressor

Edited by Ryriena, 12 May 2015 - 01:40 PM.

[Nate River]

Yup he even stalked this person that shot at him apparently. Just wished this idiot had learned to keep his ass out of trouble but nope he just proves it was Trayvon that was the vicitam instead of the aggressor

Apparently, isn't that just a fancy way of saying you don't know? Do you know how the feud started? Who started it and why it's last eight months?

A couple things to keep in mind when it comes to reporting on crime: Never assume the report contains all the facts, especially when it is in the immediate aftermath. Law enforcement and prosecutors do not typically vomit 100% of know information when cases are still in the investigation. Moreover, as it just happened, it is unlikely they even know all available information at this point.

The only concrete things known at this point is that the other guy shot a Zimmerman. Everything else about how that incident occurred and what preceded come from the shooter and Zimmerman. Both interested parties. I don't have any real reason to believe either party at this point. Consequently, I doubt either party has clean hands on this.

I'm wary of believing either side in incidents that arise from long standing feuds as my personal experience is that both sides never give complete versions. At that's being generous.

Do either you know anything about the other guy or are you just assuming his version is reliable because you hate George Zimmerman and are still mad about the Martin verdict? That's obviously the case with Aizen-sama.

As to the reporting: the MSM outlets reporting on the Martin case was indefensible, inexcusably bad. They were deceitful and horribly dishonest. They weren't reporting, but actively cheerleading for a specific result. Consequently, I am inherently distrustful of any report regarding Zimmerman that comes from them.

he just proves it was Trayvon that was the vicitam instead of the aggressor

How so? The prosecution was never going to get past two very, very obvious problems:

1. There were no witnesses as how the fight started. That Zimmerman tailed him says nothing about how the fight started or who threw the first punch. The prosecution's job is to prove it and they couldn't. When the burden is one you speculation and it could have or probably happened a certain way tend to result in not guilty verdicts.

2. The only eyewitness to any of the fight testified that Martin straddling Zimmerman pounding his face into the concrete just before he got shot, which was supported by Zimmerman's broken nose and wounds to the back of his head.

This incident doesn't fix either problem.

It is baffling to me that so many people still cannot understand why the prosecution failed to overcome the self-defense claim under those circumstances. The prosecution tacitly admitted this when they asked for a less-included charge. If you are confident in your case you oppose the inclusion of lesser-included charges not advocate for them.

Weak conclusions like this are why Rule of Evidence 404 exists. That I am known to drive drunk three days a week doesn't mean I am doing it the day you pulled me over and charge me for it. When it comes to prosecution you have to prove it on the day you said I did it and just that I am the type of guy who probably would. Character evidence of this sort is frequently given undue weight which is why it's use is frowned upon and restricted by Rule 404.

[Ryriena]

He has a habit of brandishing weapons, so with this history he looses credibility with me, and the fact Zimmerman isn't talking with the police, is something, I also find odd. The shooter is talking with the police, in fact, the shooter is the same guy that he stalked from a rode rage incident last year and followed him to his work place. He even threaten to kill him, so yeah even, I can come to the conclusion he is ticking time bomb waiting to happen by the way he brandished two different weapons at his Ex-wife and girlfriend that signed a letter saying he didn't, which I doubt is the case. We already have a history of violent incidents with him involving guns.

Also the fact, he only got away with the Trayvon Martian case was because the Jury was rigged to high heaven by Juror B37, who's husband was a lawyer. http://www.slate.com...von_martin.html

In fact, Zimmerman refused medical help, according too the cops at scene, why in the world would he have done that if he had a broken nose and these so called injuries?

Edited by Ryriena, 13 May 2015 - 12:56 AM.

[Ryriena]

Apparently, isn't that just a fancy way of saying you don't know? Do you know how the feud started? Who started it and why it's last eight months?A couple things to keep in mind when it comes to reporting on crime: Never assume the report contains all the facts, especially when it is in the immediate aftermath. Law enforcement and prosecutors do not typically vomit 100% of know information when cases are still in the investigation. Moreover, as it just happened, it is unlikely they even know all available information at this point.The only concrete things known at this point is that the other guy shot a Zimmerman. Everything else about how that incident occurred and what preceded come from the shooter and Zimmerman. Both interested parties. I don't have any real reason to believe either party at this point. Consequently, I doubt either party has clean hands on this.I'm wary of believing either side in incidents that arise from long standing feuds as my personal experience is that both sides never give complete versions. At that's being generous.Do either you know anything about the other guy or are you just assuming his version is reliable because you hate George Zimmerman and are still mad about the Martin verdict? That's obviously the case with Aizen-sama.As to the reporting: the MSM outlets reporting on the Martin case was indefensible, inexcusably bad. They were deceitful and horribly dishonest. They weren't reporting, but actively cheerleading for a specific result. Consequently, I am inherently distrustful of any report regarding Zimmerman that comes from them.How so? The prosecution was never going to get past two very, very obvious problems:1. There were no witnesses as how the fight started. That Zimmerman tailed him says nothing about how the fight started or who threw the first punch. The prosecution's job is to prove it and they couldn't. When the burden is one you speculation and it could have or probably happened a certain way tend to result in not guilty verdicts.2. The only eyewitness to any of the fight testified that Martin straddling Zimmerman pounding his face into the concrete just before he got shot, which was supported by Zimmerman's broken nose and wounds to the back of his head.This incident doesn't fix either problem.It is baffling to me that so many people still cannot understand why the prosecution failed to overcome the self-defense claim under those circumstances. The prosecution tacitly admitted this when they asked for a less-included charge. If you are confident in your case you oppose the inclusion of lesser-included charges not advocate for them.Weak conclusions like this are why Rule of Evidence 404 exists. That I am known to drive drunk three days a week doesn't mean I am doing it the day you pulled me over and charge me for it. When it comes to prosecution you have to prove it on the day you said I did it and just that I am the type of guy who probably would. Character evidence of this sort is frequently given undue weight which is why it's use is frowned upon and restricted by Rule 404.

And also, I don't hate Zimmerman. I hate the fact he got away with killing a teenager that was walking home, and had runs in with the law after he got off for said killing. The rest of the post see above.

Edited by Ryriena, 13 May 2015 - 01:04 AM.

[Nate River]

He has a habit of brandishing weapons, so with this history he looses credibility with me, and the fact Zimmerman isn't talking with the police is something I also find odd. The shooter is talking with the police, in fact, the shooter is the same guy that he stalked from a rode rage incident last month and followed him to his work place. He even threaten to kill him, so yeah Nate even I can come to the conclusion he is ticking time bomb waiting to happen by the way he brandished two different weapons at his Ex-wife and girlfriend that signed a letter saying he didn't which I doubt is the case. We already have a history of violent incidents with him involving guns.

For example, following him to his place of work: Zimmerman's claim is that he had a doctor appointment in the area. Something that should be easy to verify:

For example: Ask Zimmerman who the doctor was..has that been done yet? PD might know, but CNN hasn't said. If he does ID the doctor, did he in fact have an appointment?

Zimmerman threaten to kill him: What corroboration do you have of that other than a guy who now finds himself in a position of having to justify the use of deadly force? Do you know anything about this man? I'll bet you don't. BOTH parties have an obvious motive to exaggerate and make stuff up.

This has been a feud running for 8 months? There was a road rage incident, but what is know about the specifics of it? I certainly haven't seen any details of it? Are those the only confrontations between the two? Does the other guy have a history of brandish guns? Don't know. Has he ever been charge within anything? Don't know.

My problem with your assertions your evidence boils down to "it's George Zimmerman he is known to use weapons sometimes." If it's a conviction you're hoping for you're going to have to do better since it was the other who open fire.. Whether a believe Zimmerman or not is an indecent question of whether I believe the other guy? This has all the making of a pissing match where both parties turn out to be turds. I've watched happen enough time where I am extremely wary of cases where both parties are pointing the finger at one other in course of ongoing feuds. Because as I keep saying, it's rare that both parties have clean hands.

I have no made any assumptions either way. Crime reporting, especially in the immediate aftermath, is often poor. One would think after all the screws up the last few years this lesson would have sunk in for people.

You in fact know very little other than what are, at the moment, largely unverified claims by two parties who both have reasons to distort the truth.

It may be all Zimmerman I am not assuming he's not at fault. I am criticizing you because you have made a snap judgment on incomplete evidence, and then made a flimsy conclusion about a prior case with (a) explaining the connect between the two and (b) flies in the face of the known evidence.

 

Also the fact, he only got away with the crime because the Jury was rigged to high heaven by Juror B37, who's husband was a lawyer. http://www.slate.com...von_martin.html

Slate....hah! Well, at least it wasn't the New Republic.

The article does not support your claim. At it's best is suggest the prosecution was incompetent in allowing her on. YOU suggest the prosecution filed the case, put witnesses on the stand, and spent all the time and hard work and lost on PURPOSE?! I'm supposed to believe that a prosecutor like Corey would indict a case that could make her career and lose it on purpose? I am suppose to believe that a prosecutor who was rated out by her own employer for failing to disclose evidence (and who retaliated against the whistle) would pull stuff like that when she is taking a dive? Better yet, prosecutors do not know the composition of the venire until they are seated on the day of trial. So, that her master plan was pray she would have a jury in the venire who would fix the whole thing. This is what fixing it means.

The Slate article whines about B37 but does not suggest who should have been in her place. Ask any attorney who has ever tried a case: It is a common occurance that were are faced with the problem of wanting to strike more people than we have strikes. I've gotten entire venire where I thought everyone on it would be problematic, I can't just strike them all. Slate whines that B37 was not good enough? Okay, who should the prosecution allowed on instead? Hey, I know. It should that one guy who got caught bragging on facebook about purposely getting on the jury so he could nail Zimmerman. He might have made it too if his posts were discovered during voir dire. Risking perjury charges was worth it I suppose.

Talk about trying to fix a verdict.

At it's best all you've shown is that they chose poorly, but really, you haven't even made if that far because you offer not alternative of who they shouldn't have struck instead. The Slate article doesn't talk about.

As to the other problem is that a jury verdict in a criminal case must be unanimous. I guess all fives others were so weak willed they okay B37, we think he is guilty as sin, but we'll vote with you because.....well I guess you'll have to tell my why that was. If a jury cannot agree it's a mistrial. All 6 must have voted not guilty.

And you said nothing about the eyewitness who testified Martin had him pinned to ground and was beating MMA style. You just ignore the problematic issue for the prosecution. The prosecution's job was to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt and they have NOTHING that can overcome this issue. Even if you can prove the man was a bald faced liar you are still stuck in the position if "I don't know."

The case sucked.
 

In fact, Zimmerman refused medical help, according too the cops at scene, why in the world would he have done that if he had a broken nose and these so called injuries?

There are photo's of the injuries to both his nose and the back of his head. Moreover, victims of assault frequently decline medical treatment even with obvious (and bloody injures). I see that happen all the time. That he didn't need medical treatment for those injuries doesn't tell you whether he had them. I've seen in DWI car wrecks. Doesn't mean the wreck didn't happen.

Lord help me if the medical standard for injuries was dependent on seeking medical help.

[AHK]

Note to self:

Nate River is my future lawyer just in case I ever get into any trouble (doubtful I will, but it's good to be on the safe side). Make sure to ask about a Heaven and Earth discount

Seriously though, why not wait till we actually know what's going on before we make snap judgements?

[Pix]

The issue here is that even when we know everything our justice system still fails us. Eric Garner anyone? 

Anyway, the man got away with killing an unarmed teenager when he wasn't even a cop, and just posed as one. And he felt "threatened" (lord, I wonder why?) and felt the need to kill, even when he was the aggressor and approached. That's all the evidence you need really. Other factors given seem irrelevant at this point.  

 

I mean you have cases where people bring up what the victim did six years ago just to justify their death. It gets ridiculous sometimes.

 

As for Zimmerman, I mean he's already taken a life, threatened his significant other, pulled out his weapon 2 times after that- this shows how much our justice system and our gun control laws really fail us. It's in plain sight to see at this point. 

Edited by Pix, 15 May 2015 - 01:38 AM.