O. J. Simpson - Casey Anthony - George Zimmerman

[Stinger]

Stinger, you're missing one thing that we do know. GZ admits to stupidly, stupidly reaching into his pocket while engaged in a verbal confrontation with a stranger, a clear signal for Trayvon to stand his ground. With that, it matters less who first got physical.

If some busybody is stalking me, I am going to verbally confront them. If they then reach into their pocket, I'm going to act before I find out too late whether it's a phone, knife or gun. Hopefully, I'll do so with more effectiveness than Trayvon did.

That kind of depends on how aggressively you confront someone. If you come back to yell at someone, that's one thing. If you come back with a "Who are you? I'm going to kick your ass" attitude, someone reaching into a pocket doesn't really matter. You can claim that that's the whole ball of wax, but the claim doesn't make it so. We weren't there.

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Stinger]

Stinger, you're missing one thing that we do know. GZ admits to stupidly, stupidly reaching into his pocket while engaged in a verbal confrontation with a stranger, a clear signal for Trayvon to stand his ground. With that, it matters less who first got physical.

If some busybody is stalking me, I am going to verbally confront them. If they then reach into their pocket, I'm going to act before I find out too late whether it's a phone, knife or gun. Hopefully, I'll do so with more effectiveness than Trayvon did.

Not that it matters, what with all the other things Zimmerman did wrong as a community watch person, but another part of the training is in posture and stance if you are confronted by a suspicious person. It's to stand well-balanced on both feet, at a 45 degree angle from the other person, hands visible, held loosely about chest level, hands open. Non-threatening, but in position to defend if necessary. Reach into your pocket in front of somebody who is already spooky - not so much.

Is that citizens' watch training in general, or citizens' watch training that you know Zimmerman received?

Regardless, even well-trained people forget their training in an amped-up situation. Natural instincts will always prevail over something you heard once in a meeting.

[Stinger]

With the lower standard of proof in a civil case and the experience of the prosecution's missteps, losing a lawsuit is a very real possibility for GZ. That GZ book we expect may make a lot of money for Trayvon's parents.

The firing of Bill Lee, chief of the Sanford Police Department, and the settlement given to Trayvon's parents by the HOA are indications that rational people know that GZ was in the wrong, regardless of his criminal guilt or innocence. Of course, GZ worshipers are far from rational.

According to some legal opinions I saw, the Florida Stand Your Ground law will protect Zimmerman from a civil verdict. Personally, I'd like to see him get nailed, but we'll see how it goes.

[Stinger]

Probably a coincidence, but did anybody notice the white Hispanic guy with a lame story got off after shooting the black kid, while the black female gets 20 years for shooting her own floor in the same room as her known abusive ex husband? Her "stand your ground" appeal was denied.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-574 ... ing-shots/

She couldn't claim Stand Your Ground because she left the room to get the gun and came back to shoot it in the floor. Now, if she'd just had her CCW permit and had been carrying her gun around the house like all good wives should do, she'd have a much better case.

And apparently she was offered some sort of plea bargain but refused because no one in their right mind would convict her of anything.

But they did, and Jeb's 10-20-Life law got her 20 years.

[Stinger]

Interesting take on the verdict here... http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/ ... secut.html

Prosecution took a dive. Read it before you roll your eyes.

Does that sound good to you? A show trial?

A good friend of mine who's an attorney (70 -- still practicing) told me the OJ trial was over after jury selection. He said the prosecutor's office sabotaged the trial at jury selection and then threw Clark and Darden to the wolves.

[O Really]

I understand the ummmm, "logic" that once she left the room to get her gun she wasn't in immediate danger. But bottom line, nobody but the floor got shot. It was a crazy world down there when I lived there - crazier than ever now.

[Roland Deschain]

. . . It appears in this case that Martin threw the first punch, and Zimmerman was justified in defending himself . . . .

Bullshit. There was more evidence to imply that Zimmerman was, indeed the provocateur, not the victim. Only in gun-sucking, n****r-hating teabagger minds is there any- ANY- fucking defense for of justification of what Zimmerman did.

It appears that the jury saw things differently. Sucks to be you I guess. So tell us what was it like in that courtroom all those days????

[homerfobe]

Stevie Wonder say he gonna bo'cott Fla'da following Geo'ge Zim'man verdict!

Oh boo damm hoo----what we gonna doo?
That's the song that Florida is singing. Wonder boy is going to boycott their state and is urging others to do the same.
I bet Florida is crying themselves some more lakes, or even another ocean. This is going to hurt big time. Bullshit.

Wonder boy seems to forget that Florida prosecuted Zimm on murder charges, not stand your ground.
Wonder boy seems to forget that Florida did not willingly come up with the not guilty verdict.
Seems Wonder boy found a way to get his name and face in the news, like all the other idiots parading and raising hell in the streets.

Wonder boy is blind and Black. I didn't think he was stupid too. Wonders never cease.

This shit is nothing but a media circus.

[Boatrocker]

. . . It appears in this case that Martin threw the first punch, and Zimmerman was justified in defending himself . . . .

Bullshit. There was more evidence to imply that Zimmerman was, indeed the provocateur, not the victim. Only in gun-sucking, n****r-hating teabagger minds is there any- ANY- fucking defense for of justification of what Zimmerman did.

It appears that the jury saw things differently. Sucks to be you I guess. So tell us what was it like in that courtroom all those days????

You tell us- it was your bullshit that lead this comment off.

[Roland Deschain]

You tell us- it was your bullshit that lead this comment off.

Lets see....He was acquitted...looks like my comment was based in THE FACTS of the case as the jury saw them. You apparently see differently so we were all wondering what happened in the courtroom to lead you to that ASSumption. Like I said, sucks to be you!

[Boatrocker]

You tell us- it was your bullshit that lead this comment off.

Lets see....He was acquitted...looks like my comment was based in THE FACTS of the case as the jury saw them. You apparently see differently so we were all wondering what happened in the courtroom to lead you to that ASSumption. Like I said, sucks to be you!

You can speak for the jury, now, eh? I made no assumption, the facts are clear, and were long before the no-good teabagger cops arrested the no-good gun-sucking cop wannabe. I know facts are distasteful to you wingnuts, and all, but Zimmerman did everything wrong, or none of this would have ever happened. None. Nada.
Even if there was no racial component to Zimmy's stalking of a kid who did nothing wrong and had every right to be where he was, you wingnut neoconfederates are nonetheless celebrating the death of someone you see as nothing more than another nigger. Go ahead and deny it all you want- we know it's bullshit. I've been listening to that bullshit for days, now. At work, on the street, in restaurants, even in the fucking Home Depot. All that redneck trash like you, who wouldn't give GZ the time of day under any other circumstances, except to assume that he was some illegal sucking off your social security.

[O Really]

You tell us- it was your bullshit that lead this comment off.

Lets see....He was acquitted...looks like my comment was based in THE FACTS of the case as the jury saw them. You apparently see differently so we were all wondering what happened in the courtroom to lead you to that ASSumption. Like I said, sucks to be you!

Games can be won because one team is wonderful, or because the opposition fumbles. Or, as it appears here, when the ball bounces one way when it could have just as easily bounced the other.

There was one and only one decision point that ultimately mattered in this case: "reasonable doubt." If it had been a civil case where the threshhold for proof is "preponderance of evidence" it likely would have gone the other way. But the jury found "reasonable doubt" because the only other witness who was actually there was dead.

Yeah, you made the right guess, but I wouldn't get too cocky about it. The jury's decision didn't include actual verification of Zimmerman's story - just that they couldn't prove otherwise.

Biggest take-away from this case is that if you want to get away with shooting someone in Florida, leave no witnesses.

[rstrong]

Lets see....He was acquitted...

Yes. If an unarmed minor is going about his business, doing nothing wrong or suspicious, an armed vigilante can follow him, call the police, be explicitly told by them to stop following the minor, choose to ignore that, keep following the minor, provoke a confrontation, and if at any point the vigilante gets scared - say, because the confrontation he provoked is going badly for him - he can shoot the minor to death according to Florida law.

What you don't understand, Deschain, is that in other states Zimmerman would have been found guilty. The acquittal doesn't so much exonerate Zimmerman as it damns Florida's laws.

What you don't understand, Deschain, is that despite acquittal Zimmerman is still responsible for killing the kid. Zimmerman alone provoked the confrontation. Zimmerman alone provoked it while armed, and chose to kill the kid when it didn't go according to script.

Consider the Japanese student in Louisiana who merely knocked on the wrong door, walked away when there was no answer, and was shot to death by the homeowner who "felt threatened." The homeowner was acquitted. The homeowner is still a murderer, and a particularly vile one at that.

The homeowner lost the civil trial - and that trial spelled out WHY the homeowner was in the wrong: "Peairses behaved unreasonably by not communicating with each other to convey what exactly the threat was; they had not taken the best path to safety—remaining inside the house and calling police; they had erred in taking offensive action rather than defensive action; and Rodney Peairs had used his firearm too quickly, without assessing the situation, using a warning shot, or shooting to wound. Furthermore, the much larger Peairs could likely very easily have subdued the short, slightly built teen. Contrary to Peairs' claim that Hattori was moving strangely and quickly towards him, forensic evidence demonstrates that Hattori was moving slowly, or not at all, and his arms were away from his body, indicating he was no threat. "

Zimmerman will almost certainly be found guilty in his civil trial too.

[rstrong]

She couldn't claim Stand Your Ground because she left the room to get the gun and came back to shoot it in the floor. Now, if she'd just had her CCW permit and had been carrying her gun around the house like all good wives should do, she'd have a much better case.

And apparently she was offered some sort of plea bargain but refused because no one in their right mind would convict her of anything.

But they did, and Jeb's 10-20-Life law got her 20 years.

Compare that to a case I mentioned above: A Japanese student in Louisiana who merely knocked on the wrong door, walked away when there was no answer, and was shot to death by the homeowner who "felt threatened."

The homeowner had to leave the room to get his gun, which was stored in a suitcase in the bedroom. There was a locked door between him and the Japanese student.

The homeowner was acquitted. Despite being faulted for not firing a warning shot. Like the one that got the woman in your post - who WAS in danger - 20 years.

[Boatrocker]

Juries- as we are reminded over and over again- are too often made up of the stupidest, most gullible, pliable, suggestible and easily-influenced numbnuts that can be found. Both prosecutors and defenders go to great lengths to keep any thoughtful, rational people off of juries. Now, what's wrong with that picture?

[O Really]

Juries- as we are reminded over and over again- are too often made up of the stupidest, most gullible, pliable, suggestible and easily-influenced numbnuts that can be found. Both prosecutors and defenders go to great lengths to keep any thoughtful, rational people off of juries. Now, what's wrong with that picture?

OTOH, it is supposed to be a "jury of peers." A lot of people up on criminal charges are among the "stupidest, most gullible, pliable, suggestible and easily-influenced numbnuts that can be found."

[Boatrocker]

Juries- as we are reminded over and over again- are too often made up of the stupidest, most gullible, pliable, suggestible and easily-influenced numbnuts that can be found. Both prosecutors and defenders go to great lengths to keep any thoughtful, rational people off of juries. Now, what's wrong with that picture?

OTOH, it is supposed to be a "jury of peers." A lot of people up on criminal charges are among the "stupidest, most gullible, pliable, suggestible and easily-influenced numbnuts that can be found."

True enough. But everyone should be entitled to a jury of people who have enough sense to pour piss from a boot.

[O Really]

Not that a judge ever explains it, but if this jury had known about "jury nullification" their decision might have gone the other way.

[Roland Deschain]

You can speak for the jury, now, eh? I made no assumption, the facts are clear,......

Not speaking for anyone, just stating a FACT...the jury acquitted Zimmerman. On the other hand, you have made several very broad ASSumptions that are in direct contradiction to the FACTS in this case. Try again.

[Boatrocker]

You can speak for the jury, now, eh? I made no assumption, the facts are clear,......

Not speaking for anyone, just stating a FACT...the jury acquitted Zimmerman. On the other hand, you have made several very broad ASSumptions that are in direct contradiction to the FACTS in this case. Try again.

Nope. Nor can you show one.