The Zimmerman Trial

Despite the lack of substantive factual evidence provided by the prosecution, I concur with the notion that Zimmerman will likely be found guilty of manslaughter and although he won't serve a life sentence, I think the judge will impose a significant penalty nonetheless.

Never underestimate the power of emotion in a case like this, especially considering the makeup of the panel of jurors.

Originally posted by freedom12
Emotions are a very powerful tool, which is why the lawyers are using them.

I used to be in sales and very good at it. The best salespeople, try to appeal to your emotions.

Are you seriously trying to compare the use of emotions in a court of law, to their usage in sales jobs? LOL!

The 2 biggest are "greed" and "fear". All top salespeople know this.
So do the lawyers in this case, which is why they are doing it.

Hello? This isn't a shop, it's a court house.

If this case was "cut and dry" about "facts", it would've never reached trial and been pleaded out or dropped.
Hence, here we are.

Wrong.
The usage of emotions is happening when your case comes crumbling under you, just like it has happened now. When you got no facts or factual evidence to back up your case, when 90% of your witnesses have backfired on you with or without intent - that's when you turn to emotions.

No, strike that, good lawyers never turn to emotions, these guys simply know this thing is televised, mass broadcasted to the entire nation and even the world. Their speech is not even directed at the jury, but at people who are watching this. It's really nothing more than damage control. Who knows? Maybe they are worried about keeping their jobs? Hell, we never know. What I do know is that emotions have no part in a court.
The jury knows better than to give credits to sayings like "Enough with emotions, think with your heart".

This guy knows the trial is over.

Originally posted by AlexG141989
guesses... how long do you think it will be before the jury reaches a verdict?

I think Sunday will be the day, but would not be surprised if sooner.

Originally posted by Humanity4Ever
Despite the lack of substantive factual evidence provided by the prosecution, I concur with the notion that Zimmerman will likely be found guilty of manslaughter and although he won't serve a life sentence, I think the judge will impose a significant penalty nonetheless.

Never underestimate the power of emotion in a case like this, especially considering the makeup of the panel of jurors.

If indeed the power of emotions is a factor in any of this, this only means the system is crooked or at least that this was a hung jury. The very fabric of the concept of the court is putting aside emotions and looking into evidence and facts. Any other notion is absurd when it comes to the law.

If a cute looking small sized 20 year old woman from a good family who's mother is dying, were to stab to death a very dirty looking 40 year old muscular man with tattoos on his scalp, coming from a family of thieves, would emotions have any place in the trial? Not in any working legal system.

all that i can say for sure is that if the deliberations are fast then the outcome will most likely be "not guilty" on all counts.

reply to post by InstantRemedy


I'm surprised they're allowed to appeal to emotions. It is supposed to be about the facts. I hope the judge reminds them of that.

Originally posted by AlexG141989
guesses... how long do you think it will be before the jury reaches a verdict?

I'm not sure how long they will be out.

I feel if they come back quickly, it will be not guilty.

If it takes a few days, maybe manslaughter. Any more than that, hung jury.

Originally posted by muse7
If AT'S had been around when the Rodney King incident took place, I'm sure this current crop of ATS posters would be screaming to the top of their lungs that the cops acted in self defence and were well within their right to beat the poor man senseless. lol

LOL, at the risk of a ban, I would have to say you're right at least in regards to me. Having seen what actually occurred, I'd say the cops really were well within the boundaries put forht by their protocol. An expert witness even testified, blow by blow how each hit was within the use of force protocol.

Besides, Rodney King was being extremely violent towards them. He resisted arrest violently... If the cops were just out to beat a black person up, why didn't they also beat the other guy? Why? Beause he wasn't resisting arrest.

the rodney king case, just like this george zimmerman case, was another example of the media's rush to judgment. they showed repeatedly only the bit where the cops were beating him... that's all they ever showed but they never gave context.

Originally posted by suz62
I'm surprised they're allowed to appeal to emotions. It is supposed to be about the facts. I hope the judge reminds them of that.

Having seen the way the judge runs this trial, I believe there are very little chances of this happening. This judge singlehandedly allowed a mistrial. I honestly don't know how such mistakes are allowed.

It's like in football (soccer), if a game is over after the referee has cancelled a legitimate goal, the result stays even if justice wasn't served. Only in this case it's people's lives we are talking about, not a trophy for a team.

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress


A "thug" is anyone who has a propensity for ignoring laws and values of a civilized culture and is prone to violent outbursts. It by no means detonates race on any level. The first beople ever called "thugs" were very white.

Actually the origins of the term Thug was not in the very white population. It is derived from the word Thuggee and a group of Kali worshipers who were thief's and murders.

Thuggee (Hindi: ठग्गी or ṭhagī; Urdu: ٹھگ‎; Sanskrit: sthaga; Sindhi: ٺوڳي، ٺڳ; Kannada: "thakka"), also known as tuggee refers to the acts of thugs, an organized gang of professional assassins. The thugs traveled in groups across India for several hundred years. They were devoted to Kali, a Hindu goddess associated with violence, sexuality, and more recently, empowerment.[1] They were first mentioned in the Ẓiyāʾ-ud-Dīn Baranī (English: History of Fīrūz Shāh) dated around 1356.[2] In the 1830s they were targeted by William Bentinck, along with his chief captain William Henry Sleeman, for eradication. They were seemingly destroyed by this effort.[1][3] According to some estimates the Thugs murdered 1 million people between 1740 and 1840.[4] The Thugs would join travellers and gain their confidence. This would allow them to then surprise and strangle their victims by tossing a handkerchief or noose around their necks. The killings were performed in honour of the Hindu goddess Kali and were very ritualistic.[1] They would then rob their victims of valuables and bury their bodies. This led them to also be called Phansigar (English: using a noose), a term more commonly used in southern India.[5] The term Thuggee is derived from Hindi word ठग, or ṭhag, which means thief. Related words are the verb thugna, to deceive, from Sanskrit स्थग sthaga meaning cunning, sly, fraudulent, dishonest, scoundrel, from स्थगति sthagati (English: he conceals).[6] This term for a particular kind of murder and robbery of travellers is popular in South Asia and particularly in India. The story of Thuggee was popularised by books such as Philip Meadows Taylor's novel Confessions of a Thug, 1839, leading to the word "thug" entering the English language.

Source

While I realize Wikipedia is not always considered viable information, I learned of the Thuggee's from a History channel show and the wiki article matched the previous information I had learned of this group

Originally posted by InstantRemedy

Originally posted by suz62
I'm surprised they're allowed to appeal to emotions. It is supposed to be about the facts. I hope the judge reminds them of that.

Having seen the way the judge runs this trial, I believe there are very little chances of this happening. This judge singlehandedly allowed a mistrial. I honestly don't know how such mistakes are allowed.

She does seem to be less than competent.

Originally posted by InstantRemedy

Originally posted by Humanity4Ever
Despite the lack of substantive factual evidence provided by the prosecution, I concur with the notion that Zimmerman will likely be found guilty of manslaughter and although he won't serve a life sentence, I think the judge will impose a significant penalty nonetheless.

Never underestimate the power of emotion in a case like this, especially considering the makeup of the panel of jurors.

If indeed the power of emotions is a factor in any of this, this only means the system is crooked or at least that this was a hung jury. The very fabric of the concept of the court is putting aside emotions and looking into evidence and facts. Any other notion is absurd when it comes to the law.

If a cute little 20 year old woman from a good family were to stab to death a very dirty looking 40 year old muscular man with tattoos on his scalp, coming from a family of thieves, would emotions have any place in the trial?

edit on 12-7-2013 by InstantRemedy because: (no reason given)

I don't disagree with any of your statements. However, I think the unique nature of this trial and the legal precedent it will set are going to be significant factors in determining the ultimate verdict.

I think emotion is going to trump fact in this case, for better or worse.

Originally posted by suz62

Originally posted by InstantRemedy

Originally posted by suz62
I'm surprised they're allowed to appeal to emotions. It is supposed to be about the facts. I hope the judge reminds them of that.

Having seen the way the judge runs this trial, I believe there are very little chances of this happening. This judge singlehandedly allowed a mistrial. I honestly don't know how such mistakes are allowed.

She does seem to be less than competent.

I don't think that she is less than competent, I just think that she doesn't want to be the judge that was in charge of a trial that might lead to protests and riots depending on the outcome. So she is doing what she can to help that outcome, so even in an appeal and retrial, she can say that it wasn't her fault that GZ was found Not Guilty.

Personally, this is the biggest mockery I've ever seen made of the US Judicial system. Worse than O.J. and Amanda. My wife called it "Florida Justice".
Sucks that some nice people are probably going to die due to the outcome.

Lol what?
"I am not befuddled, and if he says it again.......... *mic cuts off*"

The live mike just cut after someone complaining about being accused of being befuddled.

What the hell just happened, it sounded like it ended with a threat.

reply to post by TKDRL


I caught that too. I want to hear more.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Ok I wasn't hearing things lmao