Breaking News! George Zimmerman found not guilty.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by faust833

 

Do you care to elaborate on that at all?

Your Avatar says that you are a Deep Thinker.

Prove it.

Your statement brings nothing to the conversation.

If nothing, try to utilize your "Deep Thinking" skills to table a discussion that is worth responding to.

It seems like to me, acknowledging the evidential facts from the mickey mouse inconsistencies from this blotched up trial, that George Zimmerman is guilty for using bad judgement. Just because the media is portraying Trayvon as the Devil doesn't make Zimmerman an Angel.

"Stand your Ground" ...Zimmerman got a slap on the hand, where is the justice in that? Furthermore the only reason this case got any coverage is because the govt needed to divert the public eye away from all the scandals going on in the white house so Idiots like you and me can fight on a forum instead of picketing the capitol for our privacy being invaded.

First it was Paula Deen, then Zimmerman and now it's Black vs White. There are currently race riots and hate crimes leveling off all over the country because of what the media has done.

Ok, Game Over.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Dear IvanAstikov,

Any "challenge interview" should have been done on the night of the shooting. Serino spent 5 minutes or so with Zimmerman before saying he was free to go, when really he should have been letting him sweat for a few hours after Singleton's initial interview, and then going in and not treating Zimmerman like it was him who was the victim.

We seem to have different sources of information. My sources show the challenge interview was done the night of the shooting.

One of the most important, and remarkably under-publicized facts that came out at trial is that one of the detectives, while interrogating Zimmerman at the police station that night, told him that the entire incident had been caught on surveillance video. The detective was bluffing, but Zimmerman didn’t know that. His reaction: “Thank God”.

“Thank God.” How many people who do something wrong, lie about it and are told it’s on tape react that way?

crosscut.com...

And from just this one source are 50 minutes of audio of Zimmerman's statement to the police on the night of the shooting.
trayvon.axiomamnesia.com...

It looks like your sources have steered you wrong.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by faust833


Was that an exhibition of your Deep Thought?

I agree that there were a couple of inconsistencies, however those discrepancies did not interfere with the determination of Reasonable Doubt.

Just because the media is portraying Trayvon as the Devil doesn't make Zimmerman an Angel.

Just to set the record straight, as far as media goes, this was the first video I had seen that portrays Trayvon in a light other than "Poor Innocent Helpless Child". In addition to my knowledge, no one has said that Zimmerman was an angel. If you have a link to prove that theory, please post it.

"Stand your Ground" ...Zimmerman got a slap on the hand, where is the justice in that?

You might want to take a few minutes to review the material of this case. "Stand Your Ground" did Not even enter into the equation.
Slap on the hand? He was convicted of NOTHING. What the hell do you mean slap on the hand. Why do you want to punish someone who was found Not Guilty? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

the only reason this case got any coverage is because the govt needed to divert the public eye

Are you saying that the outcome of the case was affected because of the coverage?

There are currently race riots and hate crimes leveling off all over the country because of what the media has done.

Is it the medias fault or is it societies fault? Look at those that are rioting and tell me what you see. I think it is safe to assume that they are all following a leader that doesn't even know where he is going. All of those people are mad because they believe it is a race issue. It is quite sad really because if they took some time to do some research they would find that it is in fact Not about race.

Bring a better game and bring facts.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by faust833

 

Was that an exhibition of your Deep Thought?
Bring a better game and bring facts.

The fact of the matter is, there really is no debate. You just want to argue to help boost your ego. Maybe you need a reminder of The EVIDENCE and FACTS. Ok here is your REALITY CHECK.

Feburary 26, 2012 George Zimmerman a neighborhood watchdog was driving around in his big'ol SUV, probably listening to 2 pac, looking for some trouble. Welp, he found it. So he decides to turn down Pac and call 911 to report a "Suspicious Person" nice and safe inside his SUV.


So Georgy Boy started talking to a 911 operator, who specifically told George not to get out of his SUV. But George, all pumped up on thug life says No! and disregards the 911 operators instructions and runs up to confront Trayvon, so Trayvon, probably thinking "Who is this crazy a** cracks!" decides to sucker punch him, so what does George do?

George is thinking "Stand your ground" because he knows he's got a Gun in his pocket. George is on the ground getting his head beat in thinking "OMG OMG Stop Please!!!' Pulls out his pistol and Shoots Trayvon Martin to Death.

GZ is Guilty of Bad Judgement and it has been proven. There was no Justice because of the Media attention. Case Closed.

reply to post by charles1952


Looks like you can't even read your own sources then. Here is the first "interview" Serino did.

Recording #3 – George Zimmerman’s Statement To Investigator Serino/Sanford Police – (12:05 a.m. 2/27/2012)

It lasted for 6 minutes and most of that was spent discussing when Zimmerman would be avaiilable to do a walk-through of the previous night's events. When Serino told Zimmerman he didn't know who the dead person was, he should have then told Zimmerman they were going to have to stick him in a cell while they made some more enquiries, not treated him like he was some poor, frail victim who needed to go home and get some rest.

reply to post by faust833


Reality Check? You are kidding. .. Right?

The Date is the Only Fact you got right.

I want to see the evidence that shows George was listening to 2 PAC and looking for trouble. I have seen what evidence is available and that was not included so I would like to see it. I am certain that everyone else would like to see it to.

Also George NEVER called 911. It was the Sanford Police Department. While he was talking to the dispatcher he was Never told to "Stay In His Truck". The dispatcher asked George "Are you following him" to which George replied "Yeah". Then the dispatcher said, "OK, We don't need you to do that". Not one time did the dispatcher tell George to stay in his truck.

Link to Sanford Police Transcript

I am also curious to know how you know exactly that Trayvon was "Probably" thinking "Who is this crazy a** cracks!". I would also like to see the Evidence that shows Trayvon "Sucker Punched" George". Is there video of that somewhere. Can you post a link to it?

George is thinking "Stand your ground" because he knows he's got a Gun in his pocket.

It is clearly obvious that you don;t know so I will tell you. George waived his right to a "stand your ground" pretrial immunity hearing. He instead chose to argue Self Defense.

GZ is Guilty of Bad Judgement and it has been proven.

Again, at any time please feel free to show this Evidence and Proof that you speak of. You really do need something to support your argument.

There was no Justice because of the Media attention.

I don't think you understand just how ignorant that sounds. That statement really sums it up. With that, you are saying that the trial was completely Botched because the media was involved. That is just too damn funny.

You really need to familiarize yourself with the case if you are going to build an effective argument.
Like I mentioned, the ONLY fact you got right was the Date. The rest of it was Speculation, Conjecture, Assumption, and quite possibly the Worst excuse for an argument I have ever laid eyes on.

After reading your version of the “Facts” I can easily recognize that your statements are actually made in anger.

You are mad because a Mouthy @$$ Punk viciously attacked someone who was doing his job and got his @$$ Rightfully Capped.

Take the time and review the evidence and associated material before making an argument against the facts.

The next time you enter a discussion try not to throw around blanket statements without being able to back up what you are saying. It is equivocal to writing checks with your mouth that your @$$ can't cash.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I didn’t see an answer to the question so I thought I would ask again.

Do you think that the investigation was incomplete?

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

I didn’t see an answer to the question so I thought I would ask again.

Do you think that the investigation was incomplete?

Of course it was. There was no effort made to contact the person Zimmerman claimed to have seen reversing out of a driveway, when he allegedly first left the house and was driving up RVC, causing him to slow down and notice Trayvon(or so he says). They made no effort to confirm that he did indeed park up his vehicle where he said he did at the clubhouse. They did not confirm the location of Zimmerman's vehicle when he got out to follow Trayvon. They made no effort to confirm a violent struggle occurred where John Good stated he saw them on the ground. There was no effort made to find evidence of Zimmerman's blood from his head wounds on the dog path. There was no attempt made in the re-enactment to try and time Zimmerman's actions compared to the call he made to the nen service. I'm sure professionals will be able to point out a lot more faults, if they are honest enough.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

There was no effort made to contact the person Zimmerman claimed to have seen reversing out of his drive

How do you think that might have affected the verdict?

They made no effort to confirm that he did indeed park up his vehicle where he said he did at the clubhouse.

Again, how do you think that might have affected the verdict?

They made no effort to confirm a violent struggle occurred where John Good stated he saw them on the ground.

Do you not think it was apparent that a struggle occurred? And how do you think that they were unable to confirm said struggle when one witness places Martin on top of Zimmerman violently attacking him?

There was no effort made to find evidence of Zimmerman's blood from his head wounds on the dog path.

Since it was raining, do you believe that there would have been any evidence of blood?

I'm sure professionals will be able to point out a lot more faults

They already did. It is called "Expert Witness Testimony". Which, I might add was used to find Zimmerman Not Guilty.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


1 + 2. Disproving both would show that Zimmerman was lying straight out of the traps. If he can't even be trusted to say where he was at specific times, why should anything he says be trusted? Unless you have a vested interest in believing him, I can't see one good reason why anyone should.

3. It certainly wasn't established beyond doubt that a life and death struggle had occurred where JG said he'd seen them on the ground. He saw a snapshot of the struggle and obviously didn't think Zimmerman was that desperate for help, otherwise he wouldn't have just said "Pack it in I'm going to call the police!" or words to that effect.

4. The first cops were on the scene within a minute and a half of the shooting. There's no excuse for them not protecting the locations of interest.

5. If the evidence gathering process was faulty, that just makes the trial a sham.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Unfortunately I find your reasoning completely fouled.

So, the person backing out of his drive, what might you expect they would say? "Yes I was backing out of my drive"? Weather he was or wasn't holds absolutely no relevance. That is an incidental piece of information. It would not support any evidence either way. To use such a thing to establish a questionable character is very short sighted.

In addition, how is verifying Exactly where he parked going to establish a truth or a falsehood? Here again it does not support the evidence. BY the way, the police could have investigated "Where He Parked" for centuries and still have never known. So why waste the time on such menial information?

It certainly wasn't established beyond doubt that a life and death struggle had occurred

I don't think you are taking time to read what you are writing.
So let me see if I have this right . . You are saying that the 911 audio that was recorded with someone in the background screaming and yelling for help does Not establish without a doubt that there was a life or death struggle? Is that about right?

He saw a snapshot of the struggle and obviously didn't think Zimmerman was that desperate for help

Even with him screaming and yelling for help? How does that make sense?

The first cops were on the scene within a minute and a half of the shooting. There's no excuse for them not protecting the locations of interest.

It was raining. What do you expect they should have done, all of the officers run out there with umbrellas and cover all of the "locations of Interest" so the bleedy spots wouldn't wash away? I don't mean to laugh but that is funny as hell.

In this particular case I don’t think that the evidence collection process was faulty. The police dispatch tape, the 911 call, the eye witness, the gun, Trayvon's body, Trayvon's drug manufacturing ingredients to include a whole host of other items would Not have been affected either way in the collection process.

It is those same pieces of evidence that established a reasonable doubt.

I just wanted to add that by your first statement (1 + 2 ) you are basically saying that he is guilty and that the only way to prove his innocence would have been to see if he was lying about where he parked and who he seen pulling out of a driveway.

Make note that in this country you are Innocent until Proven Guilty. Not the other way around.

reply to post by faust833


where are the race riots all
over the country being held at?

or is that some exaggerated hysterics?

Originally posted by spirited75
reply to post by faust833

 

where are the race riots all
over the country being held at?

or is that some exaggerated hysterics?

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by spirited75


Seen the video.

Definitely exaggerated hysterics.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Ok..Mercy. You're right, perhaps I did speak out of line since I don't know every single little factoid about this case. I can admit to that, just in the heat of the moment. But why is it so hard to believe that the Media may have possibly influenced the decisions and opinions of this trial?

reply to post by faust833


If you had done any research on the jurors you would have found that not one of them owns a TV.

And none of them subscribe to a newspaper.

If the media is going to influence them it has got to get to them.

ETA:

Just Kidding ... . ..

Now for the real answer.

Initially the jurors were divided in the decision. The is why it took 2 days to deliberate.

Some said guilty some said not guilty.

But, after careful review of the evidence they arrived to the conclusion that there was Reasonable Doubt.

If the media had influenced them, they certainly would have come to a verdict allot sooner.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by faust833

 

If you had done any research on the jurors you would have found that not one of them owns a TV.

And none of them subscribe to a newspaper.

If the media is going to influence them it has got to get to them.

I understand that, so none of the jurors owned a TV huh? none of them read newspapers. Alright, yeah. Um, ok.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


I can't be bothered arguing the toss about the rest of your opinions, but as for this

Make note that in this country you are Innocent until Proven Guilty. Not the other way around.

I'll also note than in your country, if you kill someone in what you claim was a self defence situation, you can't just say "# happened, now prove me guilty," you have to make something called an "affirmative defence."

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense. In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself. Most affirmative defenses must be pled in a timely manner by a defendant in order for the court to consider them, or else they are considered waived by the defendant's failure to assert them.

See the word "honest"? It's an important one when dealing with the claims of someone facing a possible life sentence.

If, during that affirmative defence of your actions, you claim things that couldn't possibly have happened, or you say you was doing something that is favourable to your defence, but it is found out you were doing something else, these factors would rightly create suspicion in a decent detective's mind. At that point, the decent detective isn't bound by the mantra "innocent until proven guilty" and they can suspect that person all they want until they have reason to believe differently.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


So when I call you on your argument you make a quick ass retreat and justify it by citing affirmative defense?

That is just weak as hell. *** ****** *** * ******* ***** ! ! !

Incidentally, speaking of weak @$$ arguments, maybe you didn't understand it when you read it so I will explain it to you.

Self defense is just a Type of Affirmative Defense. Stand Your Ground is just a Type of Affirmative Defense. Insanity is just a type of Affirmative Defense.

It is also Not just a matter of "making up things" to claim self defense. You have to show proof that in fact there was no doubt that it was self defense. In this particular case the 911 recording with him screaming and yelling for help was sufficient to serve as that particular evidence to prove his “Affirmative Defense”.

Furthermore you can add more proof of this by following the 4 points of the 5 principles of law.
1 - He never intended to attack Martin. He was only following him to give the police direction to he whereabouts.
2 - When Zimmerman got out of his truck and ran fter Martin the dispatcher told him that he didn't need to do that. That is when Zimmerman stopped. That in itself is proof that Zimmerman was Not the aggressor.
3 - Trayvon’s girlfriend confirmed that while she was on the phone with Trayvon that he confronted Zimmerman and asked "What you following me for?".
4 - That a witness places Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him serves as proof as well.

Now, you really need to stop while you are ahead. Your ignorance of the law is quite obvious here. To cited a phrase that you read somewhere without understanding its meaning and trying to use that as your argument to evade your previous argument is very sad to say the least.

Just so that you know, I am biting my tongue to avoid an Extreme TOC violation by telling you a little something about your intellect level.

I also wanted to add, If you can't run with the big dogs stay on the porch.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


I can see what the problem is. You are doing all your thinking based on the premise that Zimmerman is a trustworthy person, and I'm not.

Tbh, I'd rather ignore you than counter every claim you make on behalf of Team Zimmerman. Not because you are right so often and I couldn't bear the pain of regular defeat, but because I can only lead a horse to water. I'd have more chance of converting a Shia to a Sunni than I would of changing your mind, I reckon.

But, you carry on thinking your reasoning ability is so much better than my own, if it makes you feel good about yourself.