[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Let Me Explain Why I Don’t Think The Zimmerman Case Is Merely A Distraction Those of you who think the Zimmerman case is a distraction are wrong. Dead wrong. It’s all a part of the plan, the agenda and has been so from day one. Obama knew, Holder knew, they all know there was no case. They knew that there wouldn’t be a conviction. That was all a part of their plan. Obama’s DoJ sends a bunch of rabble rousers to Sanford, Florida in March of 2012 to stoke the flames of a small local story in an attempt to stir up the useful idiots of the black community to take to the streets to demand that Zimmerman be arrested and tried for murder. There were no grounds for an arrest let alone a trial. The DoJ staged march’s, rally’s and townhall meetings to further the Obama agenda that America is a racist nation that would not even seek justice for the shooting of a poor little black baby boy by an evil, gun toting white man. (Who happened to be half Hispanic.) Then the pressure is on the DA and local police. When the Chief of police refuses to arrest Zimmerman what happens? The operatives of the Obama DoJ pressure the city to fire Bill Lee. They fold and they do just that. With a new police chief in place, and an Obama selected State Attorney to call for a special prosecutor the case then moves forward. All along they knew they had no case. They knew they would loose. They knew that Zimmerman would walk but that was OK. That didn’t matter; in fact that was what they wanted. Because if Zimmerman had been convicted how could they then tell the idiots that justice was not equal for a young black child? How could they advance the agenda of a racist America if it appeared that justice had prevailed and the evil white – Hispanic killer was going to jail? So when Zimmerman is acquitted this works perfectly into the hands of Obama and his Alinsky style followers. This way he can decry to the masses as he did Friday afternoon that the system just didn’t work. That it’s now legal to shoot young black babies in the streets of America. Oh I know he said “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works.” But what was he really saying? “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works. But maybe we need to change that system.” That is what he meant, and that’s what the useful idiots heard. Believe you me. So Friday Obama takes to the stage to further fan the flames of hatred and division in America by declaring that this was a case based solely on racial profiling and a racist system of justice. Not to mention the “stand your ground law” and CCW permit holders. I’m telling you that this is a very important story! Not a red herring to distract you away from the IRS, NSA or Benghazi scandals. No this case is equally as important as all of those. In fact this is just the latest in a LONG list of scandals involving Obama. The most dangerous man in America. (1 image) Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-27) not displayed.
They tried and are trying to get Zimmerman murdered. The prosecution should be locked up. The charges should be attempted murder, perjury, attempted kidnapping and much more. www.sodahead.com/united-s...32501&link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s Zimmerman Prosecutor Blatantly Lies During Closing Arguments. The state has no other option but to lie . True or False Zimmerman Prosecutor Blatantly Lies During Closing Arguments. The state has no other option but to lie . True or False by CAPISCE Posted July 11, 2013 Related Topics: Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, Trial, Police, Guilty, Sat, Facts +10 Rave 10 Share Embed 57 votes Read all 116 opinions Lightning Report View Results and Demographics TRUE, they have no evidence....Zimmerman is not guilty TRUE, they have no evidence....Zimmerman is not guilty False---they didn't need to lie False---they didn't need to lie You! Join the discussion. Share your opinion with millions! Gretawire: This is important because this case is largely about credibility: is George Zimmerman a liar or not? Trayvon Martin can’t testify so the focus is on the credibility of the defendant. In the closing argument today the prosecutor called George Zimmerman a liar about a statement at the police station and the prosecutor was just plain wrong. Zimmerman did not lie about it. The prosecutor exaggerated or mislead the jury (intentionally or inadvertently.) The prosecutor told the jury that Zimmerman lied when he acted surprised that night, at the police station, when Officer Singleton told Zimmerman that Trayvon Martin died because, per the prosecutor, Zimmerman already knew Martin was dead. The prosecutor – at about 2:40 pm in his closing – falsely or incorrectly told the jury that Zimmerman told neighbor Manalo at the scene that he killed Martin. In other words, that Zimmerman was a liar to Officer Singleton and trying to cover his tracks. Below is what Zimmerman told Manalo per Manalo — that he “shot” someone. He did not say “killed.” The prosecutor – at about 2:40 pm in his closing – falsely or incorrectly told the jury that Zimmerman told neighbor Manalo at the scene that he killed Martin. In other words, that Zimmerman was a liar to Officer Singleton and trying to cover his tracks.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#24) They had no evidence zero nada. Florida Stat 782.07(1)
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. There was proof that George Zimmerman killed another human being by the act of shooting his gun while aiming it at Trayvon Martin's chest. I was unaware that the defense even tried to deny it. There was a dead body. There was the weapon used in the killing on the person of George Zimmerman, registered to George Zimmerman. That is not zero, nada. The only thing remaining is the question of lawful justification, claimed by George Zimmerman as self defense. The prosecution did not find Zimmerman credible on the question of whether he had fear which was reasonable, of loss of life or serious bodily injury. Initially, two jurors found manslaughter and one found murder two. The others apparently persuaded them that proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had not acted out of self defense was lacking, requiring a finding of lawful justification. This provides a useful defense for gang bangers. I feared that if I didn't shoot him, he would shoot me. It is a reasonable belief and legalizes gang banger shootings.
#30. To: nolu chan (#29) 1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. They need to go to planned parenthood. They will find them in the act. They should send the swat team with guns drawn. If the butcher has his hands on a cutting instrument. He should be shot dead. It is the police's job. Why aren't they doing it? Oh back to Zimmerman. The evidence was self defense. Zimmerman had no bruises on his hands. The prosecution had that evidence too. They ignored it and prosecuted an obviously innocent man. Because abortion candidate Al Sharpton opened his mouth and everone smelled his bad breath.
#31. To: nolu chan (#29) The prosecution did not find Zimmerman credible on the question of whether he had fear which was reasonable, They knew his story was credible. The jury concurred. They had the same evidence. My kids are smarter then they are. We need some hemp rope.
#32. To: nolu chan (#29) Initially, two jurors found manslaughter and one found murder two. Which is why the proseuction never should have brought the casse. They could charege everyone with some crime that isn't a crime and they will convice 25 percent or more automatically. They over reached and if it was a just world they should swing from rope or receive the sentence they tried to get Zimmerman to serve.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#30) The evidence was self defense. Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#31) They knew his story was credible. The jury concurred. They most certainly did not know his story was credible. His conflicting and incredible claims canot be shown to have been believed by the prosecutors. As for the jurors, five of them have said nothing more than "not guilty," except four of them released a statement through the court disclaiming any agreement with the statements of juror B37. Until they speak, if they speak, we cannot know what they agreed to beyond the failure of the prosecution to disprove the claim of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The criminal jury decides on the presence or absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#32)
[nc] Initially, two jurors found manslaughter and one found murder two. The prosecution must convince 100% to obtain a conviction. If any juror does not find guilt, the jury cannot return a guilty verdict (except in military trials). There was enough information to let a jury decide. Re B37, here is an interesting comment of said juror:
COOPER: "So, when he testified that George Zimmerman to be, more or less, overall thruthful, did that make an impression on you?" The testimony that B37 says made a BIG impression on her was stricken from the record and the jury was instructed to disregard it.
SANFORD, Fla. -
#36. To: nolu chan (#33) Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved. The evidence overwhelmingly supported self defense and it matched up with Zimmermans unwavering and unchanging descriptions of the vents that night. It is not a claim to be proved. You are innocent until proven guilty silly. Is that where your thinking is?
#37. To: nolu chan (#34) They most certainly did not know his story was credible. His conflicting and incredible You are still yet to document one inconsistency, conflict or change in what Zimmerman said. Why are you spinning Nolu?
#38. To: nolu chan (#34) except four of them released a statement through the court disclaiming any agreement with the statements of juror B37. Nonsense. The jurors just said she didn't speak for them. Juror B37 said as much. Irrelevant.
#39. To: nolu chan (#35) In this whole conversation you haven't been able to show me one piece of evidence of Zimmerman's guilt. You tried to make Zimmerman prove his innocence. That is the bottom line indisputable conclusion drawn from your remarks on this thread.
#40. To: nolu chan (#35)
Are you going to watch this? Robin would pee her pants if this was posted at her site. She doesn't like the truth.
#41. To: nolu chan (#35) Why didn't the prosecution let in information about the "Lean". The burglary tools that were found on Trayvon and his computer. Because they are corrupt pieces of shit. Why are you spinning for them? Because they didn't want the truth they wanted to lynch Zimmerman.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#41) nolu chan likes fake birth certificates - presidents - evidence too !
666 must be a skin color reality - logic - agenda - disease ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys ! #43. To: BorisY (#42)
Mark of the Boris !!! The D&R crime family hates us because we're free![]() "We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul #44. To: hondo68 (#43) The real boris would ... kick your gay ass - God hating mind all the way back to Hollywood --- where you belong ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys ! #45. To: A K A Stone (#36) [AKA Stone] The evidence was self defense. What I said was, "Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved." Obviously, the prosecution task is to disprove the claim. The claim is not evidence. In the face of such evidence as the prosecution may present to show the claim to be without merit, the defense may present evidence that it has merit or has not been disproved. A claim of self defense is not evidence. It is decided by the evidence, or lack thereof, pertaining to the state of mind of the accused. The presence or absence of an actual threat does not determine the outcome. If A pulls out a water pistol and points it at B, there is no real threat. If B perceives a threat and forms a reasonable fear for his life and pulls out a real gun and shoots A dead, no crime was committed as A had the requisite state of mind. The burden is on the prosecution. The jury found they failed to meet their burden.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#38) [nc] four of them released a statement through the court disclaiming any agreement with the statements of juror B37. "The opinions of Juror B37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below," the statement said. The statements of B37 were "not in any way representative of the jurors listed below."
#47. To: nolu chan (#33) Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved. Wrong. Self defense is an assertion which doesn't have to be proved, it has to be disproved.
#48. To: A K A Stone (#41) (Edited) Why didn't the prosecution let in information about the "Lean". The burglary tools that were found on Trayvon and his computer. I don't know of the "Lean." Only the Court can keep things out. I'm not familiar with what they found on Trayvon's computer, but I fail to see how the judge could let it in. It is not relevant to the incident. You surely can't show that Zimmerman knew about it. It could not have been considered by Zimmerman in forming his state of mind and deciding to shoot. I believe there was a Court finding that the prosecutors committed a Brady violation regarding not turning over potentially exculpatory evidence and ordered it turned over. The matter was held over until the criminal trial was over and I believe a hearing on it is pending to consider sanctions against the prosecution team. I know there were photos involved and they were not entered into evidence because the defense chose not to submit them into evidence. Edit: I just watched the video and now know of "lean." Evidence of lean is speculative and irrelevant. I don't believe the court could allow it into the trial as admissible evidence.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#39) In this whole conversation you haven't been able to show me one piece of evidence of Zimmerman's guilt. Trayvon Martin's dead body was evidence. The bullet fragments in Trayvon Martin's dead body were evidence. The gun in Zimmerman's possession was evidence. The tests that showed Zimmerman's gun was used to kill Trayvon Martin was evidence. The entire defense case rested on a claim about Zimmerman's state of mind, what he believed at the time of the shooting, and whether said belief was reasonable.
#50. To: Thunderbird (#47) Wrong. Self defense is an assertion which doesn't have to be proved, it has to be disproved.
The burden to prove or disprove varies depending on the jurisdiction. http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Criminal-Trials-Who-Has-the-Burden-of-Proof.html
Burden of Proving Defenses
#51. To: A K A Stone (#39) You tried to make Zimmerman prove his innocence. No, I said there was enough of a case to take it to trial. The court so found.
#52. To: nolu chan (#45) The claim is not evidence. He made the claim. It matched up with the evidence. You know the head wounds. Wet back. Trayvons wet knees. No evidence Zimmerman threw any punches by lack of bruises on hands. Bruises on Trayvons hands. You know the evidence matched up with Zimmermans claim. Also it is common sense he wouldn't call the cops then attack someone. The cops could have come at any minute. I've seen cops arrive in 10 seconds literally.
#53. To: nolu chan (#49) Trayvon Martin's dead body was evidence. The bullet fragments in Trayvon Martin's dead body were evidence. The gun in Zimmerman's possession was evidence. The tests that showed Zimmerman's gun was used to kill Trayvon Martin was evidence. That is evidence that Trayvon Martin was shot. It doesn't point to Zimmerman being guilty of anything. When you take into account the events and evidence of that night. Everyone knew it before the juries verdict. They just pointed out the obvious.
#54. To: nolu chan (#51) No, I said there was enough of a case to take it to trial. The court so found. No the police and prosecutor originally didn't charge him with anything. Only when professional asshole Sharpton and company came on the scene and started protesting did something happen. They had to fire the original police chief because he knew it was bullshit. They had to get a special prosecutor. Is that even legal. I'm sure you probably have an answer on that one.
#55. To: nolu chan (#48) but I fail to see how the judge could let it in. It is not relevant to the incident. It is up to the jury to decide what is relevant per John Jay. It is relevant because he was found in posessoin of 2/3 of the ingredients to make this drug drink called "lean". That drug makes you paranoid. Zimmerman said he was acting weird. So it certainly is relevant.
#56. To: A K A Stone (#53) It doesn't point to Zimmerman being guilty of anything. It provides the elements of manslaughter. Self defense is not an element of the crime. It is an affirmative defense.
#57. To: A K A Stone (#55) It is up to the jury to decide what is relevant per John Jay. That is absolutely incorrect. The jury is the trier of fact. The court says what the law is. It is a court determination of what is, or is not, relevant evidence. Irrelevant evidence is excluded.
#58. To: A K A Stone (#50) The burden of going forward with a case varies in different jurisdictions. Note for Stone. FYI, Ohio follows the common law rule that the defense must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The case decided in the U.S. Supreme Court is Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#54) They had to get a special prosecutor. Is that even legal. Yes.
#60. To: A K A Stone (#53) That is evidence that Trayvon Martin was shot. It doesn't point to Zimmerman being guilty of anything. When you take into account the events and evidence of that night. Everyone knew it before the juries verdict. They just pointed out the obvious.
After the prosecution rested, the defense moved for dismissal. That was rejected. The judge found sufficient evidence had been presented in the case to continue to a jury verdict. George Zimmerman Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss the Case By SENI TIENABESO (@seniABC) and MATT GUTMAN (@mattgutmanABC) [excerpt]
The prosecution rested their second-degree murder case against George Zimmerman today and his legal team immediately asked the judge throw out all charges, arguing that the state had failed to present evidence he murdered Trayvon Martin.
#61. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#57) The jury is the trier of fact. The court says what the law is. It is a court determination of what is, or is not, relevant evidence The jury makes an independent judgement based on whatever they want, the facts, law, indigestion, the prosecutor is an ahole (think Rudy Guilani), or whatever. They're perfectly free to judge whether the law is fair or constitutional, regardless of what the judge's spin is. Jury nullification of bad law has long been popular, especially during prohibition when speakeasy's and moonshiners were frequently deemed not guilty. As a president once said of a supreme court decision..."They've made their decision, now let them enforce it". The decision was ignored. The people are the top tier of government, not elected or appointed gov officials. They're our servants, not our masters.
The D&R crime family hates us because we're free![]() "We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul #62. To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#61) The jury makes an independent judgement based on whatever they want, the facts, law, indigestion, the prosecutor is an ahole (think Rudy Guilani), or whatever. When the judge upholds an objection on the grounds of irrelevance, the evidence does not come in and the jury does not hear it or see it. On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record. I know, they can't unring the bell. If the irrelevant evidence is brought in after an instruction to attorneys that it is excluded, that could result in sanctions or a mistrial. Once the case is given to the jury, they can do as they please. They only have to return their decision and need not tell anyone how they decided it. Jury nullification is a solution to bad law.
#63. To: nolu chan (#62) t. On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record. I know, they can't unring the bell. I would laugh at that instruction and ignore the judge.
#64. To: nolu chan (#62) On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record. Perhaps you'd care to explain why having the lead investigator saying he believed the defendant's story should be considered 'improper' testimony.
#65. To: Thunderbird (#64) Perhaps you'd care to explain why having the lead investigator saying he believed the defendant's story should be considered 'improper' testimony. Judge Nelson did that when she struck the comment from the record and instructed the jury to ignore it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/instructing-zimmerman-jur_b_3546640.html
During his cross-examination of Officer Chris Serino last Monday, Mark O'Mara, George Zimmerman's lawyer, asked Serino a highly improper question. After establishing that there were no significant discrepancies between Zimmerman's description of his encounter with Trayvon Martin and the physical evidence and statements from neighbors, O'Mara asked Serino: "Do you think he was telling the truth?" Without any objection from the prosecution, Serino answered "Yes." The judge then recessed for the day.
SANFORD, Fla. -
#66. To: A K A Stone (#63) I would laugh at that instruction and ignore the judge. On the law, the judge was correct. The solicitation of the comment, and the comment, are clearly disallowed.
#67. To: nolu chan (#65) Lol..this is a great bit of courtroom questioning by the defense, obviously meant to lead to an objection from the prosecution. When they didn't object, and even though O'Mara was clearly waiting for them to do so, the judge adjourns for the day.
#68. To: nolu chan (#66) On the law, the judge was correct. No. I will take John Jay over the welfare recipient student aid judge.
. . . Comments (69 - 95) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|