Zimmerman friend--'In my heart I believe he targeted Martin for his race'

Taaffe has no credibility either way.. IMO.

 

Outstanding post.

 

So you would rather ignore the very definition of the word innocent and just go with what makes you feel better about the verdict? Sad really. And to think you need to to hide behind your interpretation of "legal standards" instead of just saying even legally George is innocent of the charges brought against him. Like I posted before reality must suck to have to resort to such things.

- - - Updated - - -

Kudos, excellent post. I agree.

 

I am so sick of this 'case'. It has been so toxic and so polluted with fear, greed,opportunism and racist political and professional agendas in everyone it has touched. There is no possible method to discern truth in this matter, and there wasn't two months after it happened. It all just makes me want to take a shower and wash the human feces off every time they get thrown around the room.

Its up to the state legislatures to determine changes in statutes that governed the burdens, judicial instructions and definitions used at similar trials or civil torts, and there is no earthly reason to drudge up this set of facts in any other circumstance. Enough harm has been done, even among friends, colleagues and respected posters in multiple forums just like this. It is not worth the harm to prove how 'right' we were.

 

At this point, I agree with you.

 

Why are we still talking about this?

He can't be tried twice for the same crime.

 

I'm so sick of this story. Zimmerman isn't a 2nd Amendment poster boy hero, nor is he a racist villain who profiled blacks and targeted one for execution. Travon is not an innocent victim of racial profiling. This is a case of (*)(*)(*)(*) happens. Zimmerman, a man who is an idiot, crossed paths with Travon, a boy who was an idiot and wanna be thug like Michael Brown, and one of them ended up dead. No surprise. [/story]

 

I really don't care about old news regarding George Zimmerman and if you had comprehensive reading skills and actually bothered to read my posts, you'd see I have been discussing and debating the "not guilty" and "innocent" terminology in general. It could be the Casey Anthony case for all intents and purposes and for that matter ANY other homicide case, but whichever it is, you are not capable of understanding the process of how a jury is supposed to reach a verdict and what and why very particular and very specific terminology is used.

 

Can you explain, then, why it's pretty much always liberals who start Zimmerman threads and other liberals such as yourself post numerous replies to said threads? All the while proclaiming to not care? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

You are correct. Now if we could just get liberals to cease and desist! But they won't. Some things are destined to make their empty little heads explode. This would be one of those things.

 

Except this little habit of finding kernels and factoids to buttress up one side or another of the 'is Zimmerman guilty of racist murderer or was Martin a thug wanna-be looking to steal and bash?' debate seems to be a ideological and endless free- for- all.















a

 

So your claim is only DNA evidence shows innocent. Everyone else is never innocent once being accused ? Do you think these things through ?

 

You are mixing and confusing the court of public opinion and a court of law .

 

Why are you putting words In my mouth? Other than DNA and positive video proof, it is not very often that a jury goes on anything other than hard evidence because that is what they are there to do. If you are a juror on a murder trial, you have no idea who the person you are judging really is or what they are capable of. You are basing your decision on evidence or lack thereof. That does not mean that the person is not innocent of the crime they are accused of committing, it merely means that unless proof positives such as an airtight alibi, visuals or forensics is presented..you really don't know for sure and must go by the evidence that you have to work with.

 

'WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT'' said the 911 operator. HE BROKE THE LAW BY NOT FOLLOWING A 911 DIRECTIVE AND KILLED A KID.

Helllooooooo??

- - - Updated - - -

You mean DELAYED TRUTH and NO JUSTICE?? I'd say it gives MY STATE a bad name!

 

Martin committed attempted murder?? With what?? The BAG OF SKIDDLES or the cup of iced tea??

- - - Updated - - -

Ask ZIMMERMAN if he thinks he isn't white!

- - - Updated - - -

That's too factual. That won't work here. Don't you know that by now?

 

Sorry, I am not going to span the globe looking for death threats issued by conservatives, if you naïve enough to believe that no person of conservative philosophy has ever issued a death threat against the opposition that's on you.

Zimmerman brought his situation on himself and since he has gotten away with murder he is still seeking attention by the media. Let me ask you this if your son had been killed in the manner that Trayvon was would you be patting Zimmerman on the back or would you want to see him 6' under.

 

Yeah, I know...Internet forums where one can debate with right wingers and where facts come to die.

 

Actually, our law sucks and the FLORIDA BAR says so. Innocent is quite different than beyond the CONVOLUTED 'doubt' instructions our sorry ass law below reads like. (Looks a like a committee wrote this). Yet, juries are instructed to follow this statute. Remember these are juries of one's peers NOT lawyers. Here's the law. And yes, ZIMMERMAN WAS GUILTY, perhaps 'overcharged' and the REPUBLICAN state attorney's motives are--who the F knows (though people I know who know her say she has higher aspirations). I'd have gone for MAN 1. Now we have this POS wandering around our state.

Florida Standard Jury Instruction 2.03 states as follows:

A reasonable doubt is not a possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. It is to the evidence introduced upon this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.

The definition sounds familiar to lawyers. It feels comfortable. Perhaps that is why no one has bothered to examine these words with a critical ear. The human mind can adapt to patterns, even though they are incomprehensible. The attraction of children’s nonsense limericks is a reflection of the same mental process.

History, familiarity, adaptation, and comfort are not justifications for keeping bad laws. The legal system cannot justify verbal eccentricities on grounds of childish delight. The legal system is a cultural necessity. It controls life and death. It attempts to punish the wicked, protect the innocent, and appease the victim. Familiar or not, the words used in the definition of reasonable doubt are incomprehensible. They make no sense, even when a person who dresses in black speaks them.

 

Yes. . .in fact, if Martin REALLY wanted to seriously hit George, why DIDN"T HE use the large can of Arizona tea? Face it. . .that can would have been a LOT more efficient to doing REAL damage to George's ugly face!!

 

I am quite capable of understanding many things. It isn't that complicated at all. The very definition of innocent is not guilty. Some people so badly wanted George to be punished for killing someone with brown skin that thier very psyche was shattered when it didn't happen. Now they cling to playing word games in order to protect their fragile shattered psyche. I don't know if you are one of these folks but you seem to be confused over what innocent means.

 

So if every Hispanic and black person were to leave America today do really think crime would be no more.

 

Except this 'nut' is still wandering our streets. I will repeat what a JUDGE told me. I met this judge in a social situation about 2 or 3 days after Zimmerman was found in the parking lot in the wee hours telling police he was working for a gun store--which it's owner denied the next morning! The judge said he didn't foresee Mr. Zimmerman's story ending well. It was a 'politic' response to a question I asked the guy about Zimmerman's latest 'weird' story having just happened the 2 or 3 days before.

 

This is nothing but racist babble.

 

FAIR ENOUGH!!

But since the press still picks up stories about this POS and since it is MY state with real life implications--ZIMMERMAN is still wandering our streets--I'll post them as they come up.