All George Zimmerman Threads

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • cabinetman
    Gone but not Forgotten RIP
    • Jun 2006
    • 15218
    • So. Florida
    • Delta

    All George Zimmerman Threads

    If I was on the jury for the George Zimmerman trial, I would have voted "not guilty". I think the jury did the right thing. At the beginning, the State did not pursue prosecution as they did not feel they had enough evidence to bring to trial. With the public protest as it was, they changed their minds. Now, George has to live with the incident, the trial, and make a way for himself in life. Unfortunately Martin lost his life.

    My wife and I were talking about the interaction between the prosecution and the defense. It is sort of a game, where one could win, one could lose, or a mistrial, where the game could start all over again. We wondered how the game would be played if there was something at stake for the State if they lose a case. In reality, charges can be brought against an individual, and a determination to go to trial, and then that person has to defend him/her self.

    The defendant will incur costs to defend him/her self even if actually innocent of the charge. Costs for the State are paid for by the State. If the State wins, they get what is set aside for punishment of the defendant. If they lose, they have spent some money.

    If the defendant loses, he/she gets the punishment. If he/she wins, gets nothing (usually) but (usually) the the costs of the defense of the charges, and living through the anxiety and repercussions of a trial.

    What if the game was changed that if a defendant was found not guilty, the state would have to pay a large sum to the defendant...like a losing fee? Would that be an impetus for the State to more careful in their prosecution?

    This post is not intended to be a political one and I urge any responses not to be either.

    .
  • Daryl
    Senior Member
    • May 2004
    • 831
    • .

    #2
    I am not taking any sides here, but the problem with punishing the state financially for a finding of not guilty, is that such a finding is not proof of innocence.
    Zimmerman has the potential to make a boat load of money off of this case thru ghost written books, talk shows, gossip papers and such, problem is that the other fella's family will hound him like a dog with wrongful death suits and other claims.
    Sometimes the old man passed out and left the am radio on so I got to hear the oldie songs and current event kind of things

    Comment

    • LCHIEN
      Internet Fact Checker
      • Dec 2002
      • 20914
      • Katy, TX, USA.
      • BT3000 vintage 1999

      #3
      I have lots of opinions but I'm not going to bite and post them here,
      Without any implied or direct references to tis case let's just say having the public prosecutor (ultimately the public taxpayers) pay those who it failed to convict sounds like a bad idea to me. There are many who have gotten off in our system who could not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but were also not proved innocent; payment to the tried and not convicted might become a travesty in some cases, especially the rich ones where they paid high priced legal teams to defend them. Probably just best to leave it as it is.

      If there's a civil suit by the martin family, would they be forced to pay court costs and defendants costs if they lose?
      Last edited by LCHIEN; 07-14-2013, 09:59 PM.
      Loring in Katy, TX USA
      If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to treat all problems as if they were nails.
      BT3 FAQ - https://www.sawdustzone.org/forum/di...sked-questions

      Comment

      • Knottscott
        Veteran Member
        • Dec 2004
        • 3815
        • Rochester, NY.
        • 2008 Shop Fox W1677

        #4
        With the evidence at hand, I don't know how they could find him guilty according to our legal system unless there was much more info available to them. That doesn't mean innocent, but a guilty verdict would have been difficult to prove.
        Happiness is sort of like wetting your pants....everyone can see it, but only you can feel the warmth.

        Comment

        • phrog
          Veteran Member
          • Jul 2005
          • 1796
          • Chattanooga, TN, USA.

          #5
          I was only half-way paying attention but I thought I heard someone say (maybe the defense counsel) there were yet meetings to be held to ascertain the financial burden of the defendant and the state's role in the burden. (I may be totally wrong because I was only half-way paying attention.)

          EDIT: 7-15-2013 I was wrong. I was half-asleep.
          Last edited by phrog; 07-15-2013, 05:20 PM.
          Richard

          Comment

          • annunaki
            Senior Member
            • Jan 2008
            • 610
            • White Springs, Florida
            • 21829, BT3100, 2-BT3000(15amp)

            #6
            Regardless as to how the confrontation occurred, once TM was on top of GZ beating him, breaking his nose, and banging his head into the pavement, no one ever suggested what other action he should have taken AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
            Should he have allowed his beating to continue, risk a concussion and loss of consciousness and then what?
            He did what anyone else would have done to stop the beating.
            Case closed.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileodecahedron.gif

            Comment

            • TB Roye
              Veteran Member
              • Jan 2004
              • 2969
              • Sacramento, CA, USA.
              • BT3100

              #7
              It isn't over, there will be a Civil Rights Trial and a Wrongful Death Suit right or wrong that is the reality of things now. I do think this was more politically driven than anything else. The prosecution seemed to keep shooting themselves in the foot for what I saw of the trial. Bad thing is one person is dead and the others life of normalcy is over. He will be unemployable and broke.

              Tom

              Comment

              • chopnhack
                Veteran Member
                • Oct 2006
                • 3779
                • Florida
                • Ryobi BT3100

                #8
                The question: << Would that be an impetus for the State to more careful in their prosecution? >>

                I don't know, but I would be fearful if they were forced into making fewer cases because they were afraid of potentially losing some!
                I think in straight lines, but dream in curves

                Comment

                • annunaki
                  Senior Member
                  • Jan 2008
                  • 610
                  • White Springs, Florida
                  • 21829, BT3100, 2-BT3000(15amp)

                  #9
                  DOJ'S RACE CASE FACES FBI BLOCK

                  FBI records: agents found no evidence that Zimmerman was racist

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileodecahedron.gif

                  Comment

                  • alpha
                    Established Member
                    • Dec 2003
                    • 352
                    • Owensboro, KY, USA.

                    #10
                    Originally posted by cabinetman
                    What if the game was changed that if a defendant was found not guilty, the state would have to pay a large sum to the defendant...like a losing fee? Would that be an impetus for the State to more careful in their prosecution?

                    .
                    No. It's not their money. Maybe it would work if the lawyers had to prosecute the case on a personal contingency basis.

                    Comment

                    • JimD
                      Veteran Member
                      • Feb 2003
                      • 4187
                      • Lexington, SC.

                      #11
                      GZ will undoubtedly make money off his situatuion so maybe it will work out for him financially. Maybe he even gets a job out of the situation, I hope so. I share the sentiment that the ability of the prosecutor to take a person to trial is a form of punishment, however. There should be a resourse. Maybe there was enough to go to trial in this case but it seemed like it should have been dropped. Maybe GZis lying but his verson of the events has him essentially doing nothing wrong. Without substantial evidence otherwise, it seems like the prosecution was hoping the jury would ignore the evidence.

                      Comment

                      • cwsmith
                        Veteran Member
                        • Dec 2005
                        • 2737
                        • NY Southern Tier, USA.
                        • BT3100-1

                        #12
                        I couldn't disagree more!

                        And the reasons are many. One does not arm themselves, then report to the police using racial comments, and then ignore the police warning and track the victim to the point where a physical altercation occurs. The person who stood their ground was the person killed.

                        Place yourself in a situation where you are walking home and someone starts following you. You are unarmed, but this unknown person is dogging you and you don't know his intent. What would you do? Stand your ground or run?

                        Did the victim try to ignore the assailant, try to get away, or was he accosted? What did Zimmerman say to Martin that would have prompted physical contact? None of this is known of course. What we do know is that one was prepared for trouble, purposely decided to follow, and purposely made contact, and thus being armed was fully prepared to win the prompted altercation.

                        Without being in that court and hearing and seeing all of the evidence leaves some questions of course. But I'm not even close to thinking that justice was done here. Some of the things that I did see were highly questionable though (like that hunk of concrete). I still don't understand the six-person jury, and why two of those were NRA-pro gun members. Also, with race being a reasonable motivation by Zimmerman to follow and confront the victime, why was there no balance to the jury?

                        While this may NOT be a political discussion, I do think it is highly provacative.

                        CWS
                        Think it Through Before You Do!

                        Comment

                        • annunaki
                          Senior Member
                          • Jan 2008
                          • 610
                          • White Springs, Florida
                          • 21829, BT3100, 2-BT3000(15amp)

                          #13
                          From former Talk Radio Host & Lawyer Neal Boortz-

                          Let’s just cut to some common beliefs about the confrontation between Zimmerman and Treyvon that, though widely believed, just ain’t true. I’ll approach this by repeating some of the things we’ve heard from protestors and read in social media, and addressing them with the facts from the trial – or with a dose of common sense.

                          THE POLICE TOLD ZIMMERMAN TO STOP FOLLOWING TREYVON

                          Sorry, but that’s not true.. That discussion was with a 911 dispatcher who was not a police officer. The conversation went like this:

                          Dispatcher: “Are you following him?”

                          Zimmerman; “Yeah.”

                          Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.”

                          Zimmerman; “OK.”

                          At no time did a police officer order Zimmerman to stop following Treyvon Martin. In fact, nobody ordered him to stop following Martin … Zimmerman was just told that he didn’t “need” to follow him.

                          So … did Zimmerman continuing following Treyvon at this point? There was no evidence presented at trial that he did. Zimmerman’s testimony was that he headed back to his car.

                          ZIMMERMAN SHOT AN UNARMED TEEN WHO WAS JUST WALKING DOWN THE STREET.

                          I must have seen this particular charge Tweeted over 100 times in the last week or so. Again … Not only is it not true, it is absurdly wrong.

                          The evidence shows that at the time Treyvon was shot he was sitting astride Zimmerman and beating his head into the ground. The testimony of the expert witness on this was not only compelling but was uncontested. Sitting on someone’s chest and pounding on them is not “just walking down the street.”

                          ZIMMERMAN SHOT SOMEONE WHO HAD A BAG OF SKITTLES AND SOME ICE TEA

                          Really? This is supposed to be a meaningful point? Is there something magical about Skittles to the effect that if you happen to be in possession of these colorful candies you are unable to harm another human being?

                          FINALLY … WAS IT SELF DEFENSE?

                          There’s one oddity, or curiosity, if you will, about this case that I haven’t seen addressed anywhere else. It involves Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

                          At one point in this saga Zimmerman was following Treyvon Martin. If, at that point, Treyvon had felt threatened and a confrontation with Zimmerman ensued, and if that confrontation ended with the death of Zimmerman, Treyvon Martin could seek protection under the Stand Your Ground Law. But the testimony was that at some point Zimmerman stopped following Treyvon and headed back to his car. At this point, according to testimony, Treyvon started following Zimmerman. If Zimmerman is retreating and Treyvon becomes the aggressor … the Stand Your Ground protection shifts to Zimmerman. Zimmerman testified that Treyvon approached him and asked him if he had a problem. Zimmerman says he said “no” and Treyvon responded, “now you have a problem” and slugged Zimmerman. We all know what happened next.

                          Now bear in mind – though the jury didn’t know this – there is ample evidence from Treyvon’s phone of text messages between Treyvon and his pals about initiating and participating in fights. There was also evidence that Treyvon was trying to purchase a gun. These are hardly the actions of an angelic kid who’s only interest is in Skittles and an Arizona iced tea.



                          WHAT THE JURY HAD TO DECIDE

                          First of all … the 2nd degree murder charge was out the window. The state attorney over-charged on this and she knew it. Then came Angela Corey’s asinine attempt to have Zimmerman charged with child abuse. That went nowhere.

                          The jury had one thing – and only one thing – to decide. Was it reasonable for George Zimmerman to believe that he was about to suffer great bodily harm or imminent death? Whether you like the law or not, that’s the standard. Zimmerman had no obligation to calculate whether or not he could protect himself from Martin in a fight. He had no obligation to compare weights. All that was needed was for Zimmerman to reasonably fear that Treyvon Martin was going to do him great bodily harm or perhaps kill him. Zimmerman knew it was not unheard of for young black males to kill or severely injure someone in a fight. He already thought his nose was broken. His head had been bounced off the concrete several times. He knew that his attacker was taller and in better shape than he. Zimmerman knew better than anyone that he wasn’t much of a fighter (based on testimony from his martial arts instructor). So … did Zimmerman feel that he needed to use deadly force to avoid severe injuries or death? That was the jury’s ONLY question, and they decided that Zimmerman could have reasonably felt he was about to be hurt badly or killed.

                          The verdict .. not guilty.
                          - See more at: http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-....rBtuaFN4.dpuf
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileodecahedron.gif

                          Comment

                          • Cochese
                            Veteran Member
                            • Jun 2010
                            • 1988

                            #14
                            Originally posted by cwsmith
                            I couldn't disagree more!

                            And the reasons are many. One does not arm themselves, then report to the police using racial comments, and then ignore the police warning and track the victim to the point where a physical altercation occurs. The person who stood their ground was the person killed.

                            Place yourself in a situation where you are walking home and someone starts following you. You are unarmed, but this unknown person is dogging you and you don't know his intent. What would you do? Stand your ground or run?

                            Did the victim try to ignore the assailant, try to get away, or was he accosted? What did Zimmerman say to Martin that would have prompted physical contact? None of this is known of course. What we do know is that one was prepared for trouble, purposely decided to follow, and purposely made contact, and thus being armed was fully prepared to win the prompted altercation.

                            Without being in that court and hearing and seeing all of the evidence leaves some questions of course. But I'm not even close to thinking that justice was done here. Some of the things that I did see were highly questionable though (like that hunk of concrete). I still don't understand the six-person jury, and why two of those were NRA-pro gun members. Also, with race being a reasonable motivation by Zimmerman to follow and confront the victime, why was there no balance to the jury?

                            While this may NOT be a political discussion, I do think it is highly provacative.

                            CWS


                            I might have to have that pointed out to me.
                            I have a little blog about my shop

                            Comment

                            • annunaki
                              Senior Member
                              • Jan 2008
                              • 610
                              • White Springs, Florida
                              • 21829, BT3100, 2-BT3000(15amp)

                              #15
                              Nobody has argued that Zimmerman actually chased and physically caught Martin that night. NOBODY. They said he “followed” or “stalked,” but NEVER physically chased and ran down Martin. That would be ridiculous. Zimmerman 5’8″ and 200 pounds, Martin 5’11,″ 155-160 and a decade younger — do you really think he chased him down and physically caught him? Or is it more likely that after Zimmerman turned around and walked back to his truck, Martin came to him and wanted to know what his problem was? Did anyone in this case say anything about Zimmerman starting the physical confrontation? That’s what this case was really about. Who physically attacked whom? They were both mistaken. They both made bad decisions. But, who started the physical confrontation? If it was Zimmerman, he should have been convicted. The evidence did not bear that out. The prosecution did not make that case. The defense’s case relied on the jury believing Martin threw the first blow. It was successful in proving that.
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileodecahedron.gif

                              Comment

                              Working...