BS: George Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 08:32 PM

What I fear, GfinS, is that the jury will use whatever it can to justify its decision... That's the way its done here in the South... No matter how fucked up the behavior there is ***always*** a rationale...

It's a Southern thang...

Boy, I'd love to be wrong here but I've seen and experienced way too much in my life here in Dixie... This area of the country is 100% good ol' boy...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 08:30 PM

Frothing Firth: "Well, "Generosity" is my middle name (actually, it's "Richard," but whotthehell!)..."

Spare us, will ya'?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 08:27 PM

Bobert: "I agree with GfinS... This case will be decided on emotions..."


After passing out, from reading that, and getting back up to the desk, I want to point out to you, that the jury requested the list of EVIDENCE from the court. Though every commentator says, Nobody has any idea what it going on in the deliberations, let me give you a reasonably educated 'guess'.

First, John Guy's (Prosecution attorney) laid out an EXTREMELY impassioned, final rebuttal...pointedly playing to the women's emotions and maternal instincts. (I personally thought he overplayed it, but that's only my take, and I try to keep that out of it). Repeatedly using the word 'child' and closing with 'He was just a child, on his way home'..very slick...however, if the women picked up on that, as a form of manipulation, they will resent him for it!
If, on the other hand, it resonated with them or some of them, but not all(more than likely) the request for the list of EVIDENCE would seem to be a likely request, for them to compare, the 'safe' EVIDENCE against the 'awakened maternal emotions'...and they may go through them, CAREFULLY, weighing the emotional impact, against the EVIDENCE, to reconcile the 'accepted facts' vs the emotional sense vs what they WANT to believe, one way or the other...Hence, the chances for a split, or hung jury, just got bigger.
How it comes out, I can't tell you..BUT, THAT is the debate, in room.
Bet on it!

GfS

P.S. Working with that, an what must be felt, as the weight, of both pressure, and backlash, may factor in on one or more, wanting 'out' of the decision, and responsibility, especially for the backlash.
I don't envy the stress.
BUT..SOMEBOBY, will get a book deal out of it!

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 07:26 PM

Well, "Generosity" is my middle name (actually, it's "Richard," but whotthehell!).

Just had a thought:   

Suppose Trayvon Martin had been the self-appointed block watch person sitting in his car, and he spotted George Zimmerman walking down the street with a package of candy in his hand? And suppose, after calling the police about seeing a white man in the neighborhood behaving suspiciously, Martin had got out of the car and confronted Zimmerman, after being told by the police not to approach him, but to stay in his car and watch?

And suppose during that ensuing confrontation, Martin had shot Zimmerman with a 9 mm. automatic and killed him?

I wonder how Beardedbruce and some others would react to that scenario?

I think that might just tend to put a somewhat different complexion on the incident (grim pun fully intended!).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 07:20 PM

The truth no longer matters here...

I agree with GfinS... This case will be decided on emotions... 5 white Southern women v. 1 black Southern woman...

The safe bet is Zimmerman walks and gets away with murder...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 06:21 PM

"Did!" "Did not!" "Did!" "Did not!" "Did!" "Did not!" That's the level of your argument.

You're being genereous, Don - BullshitBruce HAS no argument.

But he is the current master of blogoshit.

Credit where credit is due: ShitMeister Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 03:52 PM

Beardedbruce, most of the statements you are making are in direct contradiction to what I have heard and read.

"Did!" "Did not!" "Did!" "Did not!" "Did!" "Did not!"

That's the level of your argument.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 03:41 PM

"Although they did not agree on a number of things, they did agree that the whole trial was dancing around the race issue, trying to avoid it, while it was clear from Zimmerman's initial phone call to the police that he was very fixated on Martin's being "a black teenager, and he looks like he's up to no good!" "

Not the case, if you read the evidence instead of the newspaper reports that were proven wrong months ago. The dispatcher brought up the question of what race the person was, and Zimmerman answered. No fixation except in the minds of Zimmerman haters trying to make this a racial issue.




"At which point, the police dispatcher told him to stay put, don't approach him, and wait for the police to get there."

agreed. Zimmerman made a bad call-




"If Zimmerman had done what he was told, this incident would never have happened."

True, and if Martin had not taken a swing at Zimmerman, attacking him, knocking him down, and making him fear for his life, this incident would never have happened.




"Two things are clear:   Zimmerman initiated contact with Martin after the police told him to stay in his car and watch until they got there. "

Not proven- he stated he was on his way back to his car when he was attacked. No evidence otherwise.



"And the girl whom Martin was talking to on his cell phone said that Martin told her, "There's a creepy looking cracker out here, and he's following me!" "Cracker" is a racial slur, but at the same time, it is clear that Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, who was following him. And so whatever Martin did at that point could be construed as "self-defense."."

This is the witness who lied in sworn statements, but should be believed when you want Zimmerman to not be believed for because he lied in sworn statements??

Throwing the first punch is "self-defense? Then Zimmerman shooting Martin without any further words on seeing him would be, as well, if he was scared. NOT what I believe, but you have stated that

"it is clear that Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, who was following him. And so whatever Martin did at that point could be construed as "self-defense.""

it is clear that Zimmerman was afraid of Martin who was pounding his head against the ground.. And so whatever Zimmerman did at that point could be construed as "self-defense."




"But it is questionable whether Martin would have physically attacked someone who was larger than he was, outweighed him by nearly fifty pounds—and was carrying a 9 mm. automatic!"

Martin was taller, in better shape, and had fighting experience- which witnesses testified Zimmerman did not. And HOW could Martin have known that Zimmerman was armed, any more than Zimmerman could know if Martin was armed or not????

It is much clearer that Zimmerman would not physically attack a person taller and stronger than himself, especially when he had a gun- YET the evidence is that there was a physical struggle before the shooting.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 03:25 PM

George Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O'Mara used physical exhibits in his closing argument to demonstrate to the jury the size disparity between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Martin was 5'11 and 158 lbs. at the time, while George Zimmerman clocked in at a clinically obese 5'7" and 204 lbs. The exhibit, which was not entered into evidence, was meant to show the jury that Zimmerman reasonably could have feared for his life once he was in a fight with Martin.
O'Mara then showed a photo of Martin with his shirt off to the jury, stating, "here's him three months before that night, it's in evidence, take a look at it. Because this is the person… who George Zimmerman encountered that night. This is the person, who all of the evidence was attacked — or attacked George Zimmerman, broke his nose or something close to it and battered him on something."

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 03:23 PM

The discussion on the radio consisted of an interviewer talking with a reporter from the Tampa Bay Times who is following the trial, a legal expert from the University of Connecticut, and a couple of other people, mostly reporters following the case.

Although they did not agree on a number of things, they did agree that the whole trial was dancing around the race issue, trying to avoid it, while it was clear from Zimmerman's initial phone call to the police that he was very fixated on Martin's being "a black teenager, and he looks like he's up to no good!"

At which point, the police dispatcher told him to stay put, don't approach him, and wait for the police to get there.

If Zimmerman had done what he was told, this incident would never have happened.

Two things are clear:   Zimmerman initiated contact with Martin after the police told him to stay in his car and watch until they got there.

And the girl whom Martin was talking to on his cell phone said that Martin told her, "There's a creepy looking cracker out here, and he's following me!" "Cracker" is a racial slur, but at the same time, it is clear that Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, who was following him. And so whatever Martin did at that point could be construed as "self-defense."

Whether it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman or the other way around, Zimmerman was the initial aggressor for approaching Martin at all when told by the police not to. But it is questionable whether Martin would have physically attacked someone who was larger than he was, outweighed him by nearly fifty pounds—and was carrying a 9 mm. automatic!

But then, does the "stand your ground" law not apply to black teenagers?

And no, Beardedbruce, I don't think anyone here is eager to see race riots, as you claim. Far from it! But it is abundantly clear that race is a major factor in this case.

The panel on the discussion program pretty much agreed that, so far, the trial itself was deeply flawed.

Don Firth

P. S. Maggie, thanks for linking to that photo. It's pretty hard to look at, but it shows the raw reality.

For those who look at this photo—and LOOK!—also read what Adam Weinstein was written, below the photo. I cannot help but share his rage and disgust at the chain of circumstances that brought this about.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 03:20 PM

With the verdict drawing near, police and city leaders in Sanford and other parts of Florida said they have taken precautions for the possibility of mass protests or even civil unrest if Zimmerman, whose father is white and whose mother is Hispanic, is acquitted.

There were big protests in Sanford and other cities across the country last year when authorities waited 44 days before arresting Zimmerman.

Guy told the jury the case wasn't about race.

"It's about right and wrong," he said. "It's that simple."


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/12/Jurors-start-deliberating-George-Zimmerman-case

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 02:59 PM

Previous post:

From: Jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 11:05 AM

>>People do dumb things- that DOES NOT make them "murderers". <<

The person picking the fight cannot claim "self defense" if it turns deadly. That is just common sense.


And the defense has claimed that Martin "picked the fight" by throwing the first punch. So Martin did NOT have a right to 'self-defense', according to JtS's statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 02:19 PM

Photo of Trayvon Martin right after attack. This photo speaks 1000 words. At least.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 01:59 PM

I am truly amazed at how much time and energy many here have to devote to their blatantly biased speculation about this case, without regard to the evidence presented by both sides.

I suspect the proper charge should have been involuntary manslaughter, which could easily have been proven, but the Zimmerman haters here and in the press forced the 2nd degree charge, which could not be proven with the evidence that the prosecution had. By upping the charge, and by the prosecution's efforts to keep evidence form the defense, this case has been rigged by the Zimmerman haters to either let him go free, or to have any convictions thrown out for mistrials.

The only reason I can see is the desire for many here to have race riots, violence, and more young black men killed.


Just my opinion- but that is worth as much as any other's here.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 01:51 PM

I am truly amazed at how much time and energy Beardedbruce has to devote to his blatantly biased speculation about this case.

Why does he insist on defending Zimmerman, who shot a black teenager who was guilty of nothing but going to a nearby convenience store and buying a bag of candy?

In about fifteen minutes, I am going to listen to a radio discussion of the case with some attorneys and other folks who are in the know.

I'll be back.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 01:16 PM

I've just watched the closing arguments, very well done by John Guy(prosecution), I may add and all I can say, is that the verdict will be determined by emotions vs the 'letter of the law'.
Emotions: guilty of something lesser charge or..
Letter of the law: He walks, or get's lighter charge.
Both: Hung jury

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 12:55 PM

Don T,

"You advocate believing a proven liar, even when the lie was delivered under oath in a court of law?"

Does this apply to the prosecution witness as well? She also lied to the court in earlier sworn statements- Should she be believed?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 12:50 PM

A short while ago, the jury in the trial of George Zimmerman was handed the case. Zimmerman's fate is now entirely in the hands of the six women selected to consider the evidence. When the verdict is returned, whatever it happens to be, there's one thing that's important to remember: Those women know more than you.

RELATED: Zimmerman's Quiet 'Not Guilty' Plea

Here's what I mean by that. No matter how much of the trial you watched on CNN, those jurors almost certainly saw more of the evidence than you did. They held documents in their hands. They saw what the witnesses—and Zimmerman—were doing while not on camera. They were excluded from hearing evidence that the judge deemed inappropriate or inadmissible. They have been instructed on the specific components of the law. And, most important, they are the only ones who know what arguments are being used to persuade each other to reach a unanimous decision.

Each of these things is an important part of the process of a criminal trial; I'll break out why below. But again: While we can watch the trial through the keyhole provided by CNN, we should never convince ourselves that we know better than the people in that room.

This is admittedly personal. For much of the year 2009, I sat as a juror on a well-publicized trial in New York City. Thousands of people each year sit on juries, of course, but few sit on ones that last a long time and are the subject of intense scrutiny. And in few—including the one in my experience—are the repercussions as high as in the case presented to these six women.

Jurors must evaluate the evidence. While both sides present opening and closing arguments, the central component of a criminal trial is the evidence. And in our system, that evidence is introduced through witnesses. If the prosecution has computer analysis that shows important information, it must call a computer analyst to the stand to explain how it was developed. Every physical thing is linked to a human representative.

What this means is that the person and the evidence are inextricably linked. Jurors are asked to evaluate the witness as placeholders for the evidence. Not only in the case of eyewitness testimony—is the witness squirming in his seat? Does he seem believable?—but in expert testimony, too. Credentials are considered, but so is the presentation. Did that doctor seem uncertain in answering his question? Did she qualify her analysis? When the camera in the courtroom shows the lawyer asking the question and not the witness answering it, you're missing part of the evidence.

Physical evidence also offer details not conveyed over the television. Tiny details—textures, discolorations, notes—can all be elements that play into the decision-making process jurors use. Those details may not be conveyed, even in high-definition.

Then, of course, there is the response of the man on trial. What is George Zimmerman doing while the evidence is being presented? How is he reacting? Zimmerman is frequently shown during CNN's boradcast, but not always. His demeanor is something the jurors must consider.

This works both ways, by the way. The attorneys for either side are also watching the jurors, evaluating their reactions as the case is made. In our case, consultants sat in the audience, rarely taking their eyes off of us and taking notes in a notepad.

Jurors only see evidence that's admissible. Criminal trials are not about guilt. They are about whether or not someone broke a law. This is a very important distinction.

Imagine that laws didn't exist. If you killed someone, you are guilty of committing that act. But you are not guilty of murder, because murder requires a violation of the law. Or imagine that a law is passed so that murder requires the use of a gun. If you stab someone to death and are put on trial for murder, you should not be found guilty.

During a criminal trial, there are only three participants. There are the prosecution and defense, presenting evidence through witnesses and rebutting the evidence of their opponents. And then there is the jury, which is asked to evaluate it. The judge is a referee, there to evaluate the process, not the case. He or she evaluates the law. The judge knows the specific details of the statutes under consideration and makes determinations about which evidence is allowable in that context.

Courtroom observers—and non-sequestered people following press coverage—know things that a judge might consider unduly prejudicial if presented to a juror. As a person watching from the outside, you are more than welcome to judge the defendant based on that evidence. But if the judge excludes it from consideration by the jury, there's a reason, based in the law.

The jury only worries about what the law says. This is an important point, worth repeating. If that law states that murder requires a gun, the jury cannot find a serial strangler guilty of murder. When the jury retires for its deliberations, the instructions are clear: does the evidence presented in court surpass any reasonable doubt that the particular laws at issue—in the Zimmerman case, manslaughter or murder—were violated? The jury is not judging if Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. It is not evaluating if he is a thief or if he is cheating on his wife. It is there to read Florida's statutes and see if the evidence builds high enough that they are all convinced that Zimmerman should be punished.

Deliberations are much, much harder than they seem. The most surprising aspect of my jury service came in the sixth month, in the first hour that we all returned to the jury room and were asked to deliberate. (This was also the first moment that any of us ever spoke about the presented evidence with one another.) One component of the case seemed, to me, open-and-shut. I assumed that, of the twenty or so charges, it could be dealt with quickly. I was wrong. Disagreement was substantial and significant. Arguments were presented and the law assessed. Eventually, I changed my mind.

This is the process. As any Twelve Angry Men fan knows, it's people—regular people in an extraordinary circumstance—asked to work out any substantial differences of opinion. Imagine finding five random people on the street and coming to unified agreement on any issue. That's what these six women must do: reach a unanimous verdict on the matters of law before them. It's cajoling and argument and empathy and mind-reading and frustration for hours and hours. It was, if I'm honest, also fascinating and deeply enjoyable.

That you, on your own, decided George Zimmerman's guilt or innocence based on your sense of whether or not he killed Trayvon Martin is fine. It is your opinion. But when those six women, exhausted and perhaps frustrated, emerge from their sequestration to announce their verdict, remember that your disagreement is worth little to nothing. You didn't see the case they did. And the case they saw was the only one that matters.


http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-jury-better-able-judge-fate-162313256.html

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 12:37 PM

With the prosecution's witnesses making the defense's case, the inquisitors' last stand is to claim that, if the races were reversed, the black guy would have been instantly charged with murder. As explained in The New York Times:

"Had Mr. Martin shot and killed Mr. Zimmerman under similar circumstances, black leaders say, the case would have barreled down a different path: Mr. Martin would have been quickly arrested by the Sanford Police Department and charged in the killing, without the benefit of the doubt." (Also, CNN could have dropped the "white" and referred to Zimmerman exclusively as "Hispanic.")

The people who say this are counting on the rest of us being too polite to mention that it is nearly impossible to imagine such a case in a world where half of all murders and a majority of robberies are committed by blacks. To reverse the races with the same set of facts, first, we're going to need a gated, mixed-race community, similar to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, that has recently experienced a rash of robberies by white guys. The only way to do that is to enter "The Twilight Zone."

There were at least eight burglaries in the 14 months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin. Numerous media accounts admit that "most" of these were committed by black males. I'm waiting to hear about a single crime at Twin Lakes that was not committed by a black male.


Just six months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin, two men had broken into the home of a neighbor, Olivia Bertalan, while she was alone with her infant son. She had just enough time to call 911 before running upstairs and locking herself in a room. The burglars knew she was home, but proceeded to rob the place anyway, even trying to enter the locked room where she held her crying child.

Bertalan had seen the burglars just before they broke into her house -- one at the front door and one at the back. They were young black males. They lived in the Retreat by Twin Lakes.

In another case, a black teenager strode up to Zimmerman's house and, in broad daylight, stole a bicycle off the front porch. The bike was never recovered.

Weeks before Zimmerman saw Martin, he witnessed another young black male peering into the window of a neighbor's house. He called the cops, but by the time they arrived, the suspect was gone.

A few days later, another house was burglarized. The thieves made off with jewelry and a new laptop. Roofers working across the street had seen two black teenagers near the house at the time of the robbery. When they spotted one of the teens the next day, they called the police.

This time, the roofers followed the suspect so he wouldn't get away. The cops arrived and found the stolen laptop in his backpack. This was the same black teenager Zimmerman had seen looking in a neighbor's window.

The only reason it's hard to imagine the Zimmerman case with the races reversed is that it's hard to imagine a white teenager living in a mixed-race, middle-class community, mugging a black homeowner. This is not a problem of society's reactions, but of the facts.

There is, however, at least one case of a black homeowner fatally shooting a white troublemaker. He was not charged with murder.

In 2006, the ironically named John White was sound asleep at his nice Long Island home when his teenage son woke him to say there was a mob of white kids shouting epithets in front of the house. The family was in no imminent danger. They could have called 911 and remained safely behind locked doors.

But White grabbed a loaded Beretta and headed out to the end of the driveway to confront the mob. A scuffle ensued and White ended up shooting one of the kids in the face, killing him.

White was charged and convicted only of illegal weapons possession -- this was New York, after all -- and involuntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to 20 months-to-four years in prison, but after serving five months was pardoned by Gov. David Paterson.

With all due compassion for the kid who was killed, the public was overwhelmingly on the father's side -- a fact still evident in Internet postings about the case. The kids were punks menacing a law-abiding homeowner. Even the prosecutor complained only that Paterson hadn't called the victim's family first. The local NAACP had campaigned aggressively on White's behalf. There were no threats to riot in case of an acquittal.

The centerpiece of White's self-defense argument was his recollection of his grandfather's stories about the Ku Klux Klan. George Zimmerman's memory of young black males committing crimes at Twin Lakes is somewhat more recent.

John White wasn't jumped, knocked to the ground, repeatedly punched, and his skull knocked against the ground. He wasn't even touched, though he claimed the white teen was lunging at him. Talk about no reason to "follow," there was no reason for him to leave the safety of his locked home. White's son knew the kids by name. They could have waited for the cops.

So, yes, this case probably would be very different if Zimmerman and Martin's races were reversed. It is only when the victim is black that we must have a show trial, a million-dollar reward paid to the victim's parents and the threat of riots.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 10:58 AM

The other day on a show the point was made that if the gun was not already out of its holster *before* Zimmerman was on the ground it would have been well-nigh impossible for Z to get to it while on his back, not to mention that it would scarcely have been possible for Martin to have known it was there. The proscecution,in its summing up yesterday, made the same point.

So how did Zimmerman get the handgun out? Mind you, by his own demonstration, it was *behind* the halfway point of his side.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Poetry Bird
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 10:46 AM

""1. Zimmerman lied in court when he was asked if he had money for his defense...

True...but that is a separate charge, and not relevant to the events leading up to the shooting.""

You advocate believing a proven liar, even when the lie was delivered under oath in a court of law?

Exactly HOW is that not relevant to the whole of his testimony?

It would, anywhere but the Southern US, make the jury think very hard about whether the rest of his teatimony could be given any credence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 10:43 AM

We're not discussing "The Facts", BeardedBullshit

We're discussing a single "fact".

So you can review:

Q. So who threw the first punch?

A. We don't know.

There. OK? Remember now?

And now, back to our regularly scheduled B-B-Blogoshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Poetry Bird
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 10:43 AM

""1. Zimmerman lied in court when he was asked if he had money for his defense...

True...but that is a separate charge, and not relevant to the events leading up to the shooting.""

You advocate believing a proven liar, even when the lie was delivered under oath in a court of law?

Exactly HOW is that not relevant to the whole of his testimony?

It would, anywhere but the Southern US, make the jury think very hard about whether the rest of his teatimony could be given any credence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 10:20 AM

Barring any unforeseen complications, George Zimmerman's defense team is expected to rest its case this afternoon. While the trial's not over yet, many observers have already made up their minds: Zimmerman will be found not guilty. Last weekend Washington Post writer Gene Weingarten tweeted, "I don't like George Zimmerman, & he caused this to happen, but from what I've read he will, and should, walk." ABC analyst Dan Abrams wrote, "I just don't see how a jury convicts [Zimmerman] of second degree murder or even manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin." The Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel predicted that "unless the prosecution rallies, don't be shocked if Zimmerman walks away totally free."

I think they're right. Over the past two weeks, trial-watchers have seen a lot of things: bad jokes, anguish, rage, odd disparagement of Zimmerman's physical capabilities. But there's one thing we haven't seen: a compelling, factual rebuttal to Zimmerman's account of what happened the night Trayvon Martin was killed.

Here is what we know: Trayvon Martin died in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, 2012. If George Zimmerman hadn't been there, Martin would still be alive. Zimmerman found Martin suspicious. He called 911. A confrontation ensued. Beyond that, the facts are unclear. There's not much physical evidence in the case. Other than the defendant, there are no eyewitnesses. Zimmerman claims that he was attacked by Martin, and that he shot him because he felt he was at risk of great bodily harm. We can certainly speculate as to whether or not he's telling the truth, but can we say for sure? Zimmerman's the only one who was there, and none of the prosecution's witnesses came close to conclusively refuting his story.

That's a problem for the state. To convict Zimmerman, the prosecutors have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That hasn't happened. And if the prosecution can't prove its case, then Zimmerman should walk. Many will see this as an unsatisfying outcome; many will think it shouldn't be this easy to kill someone, concoct an uncontradictable excuse, and get away with it. But a legally satisfying verdict cannot always be the same as a morally satisfying verdict. It would be unjust if Zimmerman were convicted based not on the strength of the evidence against him, but rather on the public sentiment against him.



http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/10/george_zimmerman_trial_trayvon_martin_s_shooter_is_probably_going_to_walk.html?wpisr

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 10:13 AM

Interesting reading, ya'll... Well, the ones I read, that is... Seein' as I have pretty much laid the case out before that even a crash test dummy would get there is no reason to rehash that...

I would be perfectly happy with any conviction that would put Zimmerman behind bars for what he has done here... He, like O.J. back when, doesn't deserve a pass just because gun-nut-America is paying for his high priced legal team...

"8-12" sounds about right...

And Ol'ster's comments are right on... There is a reason they call it Neighborhood ***Watch*** and why they don't call it Neighborhood ***Shoot***... If you want to shoot, go to a firing range or a turkey shoot...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 09:44 AM

"We don't know for sure, BeardedBullshit, and niether do you.
"


So how the fuck can you say that Zimmerman is guilty if you do not now the facts????

Oh, that's right- his victim was black, so he must be guilty-

What a bunch of racist bigots!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 09:42 AM

WHO threw the first punch/ made the first physical attack?

We don't know for sure, BeardedBullshit, and niether do you.

Why don't you go back to posting cut-and-paste blogoshit?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 08:26 AM

For all the Zimmerman haters out there, please answer one question:

WHO threw the first punch/ made the first physical attack?



The defense claims it was Martin, the prosecution witnesses have supported that , and the evidence seems to as well.

So who threw the first punch????

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 08:17 AM

ZIMMERMAN was doing nothing illegal when accosted by MARTIN, and he had every reason to be frightened of him and try to defend himself.

Throwing a punch is an attack, asking what someone is doing is NOT.



At least, this is what is claimed by the defense, supported by the available evidence, and not refuted by the prosecution.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 08:07 AM

"If I were walking down the street in the evening and someone approached me pointing a gun at me, I think I could safely assume that I was being attacked."

Except even the prosecution has not accused Zimmerman of approaching anyone pointing a gun.



"And Zimmerman didn't just go against police advice by getting out of his car and accosting Martin, he was going against their orders. They told him to stay in the car and not approach Martin."

I posted the 911 op. saying that "they did not need him" to do that- NOT an order, and 911 operators cannot give orders per testimony.





"Martin was doing nothing illegal when accosted by Zimmerman, and he had every reason to be frightened of him and try to defend himself."

Agreed, AS WAS ZIMMERMAN.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 07:24 AM

Manslaughter sounds perfectly reasonable to me. And I think it's the best that can come out of this. Georgie needs about 8-12 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 06:45 AM

Ebbie, I was being facetious (to Bobert). Trying to point out to him that Sharpton and I were both saying the same thing, but Bobert is accusing me of being the racist. I thought maybe he'd believe what I was saying if it came from a black man TOO! (Bobert can't see his own racism, and thinks it's 'everybody else')
This is what I said: (everything in brackets, I added for clarity)
"My larger concern is the aftermath, after the verdict has been made public. I DON'T want to see more race riots, I DON'T want to see more killing, property damage or more hate..nor do I want any of us on here to promote that for any reason..IT'S WRONG!...Now. you think I'm alone on that???.... and even WE agree!!!! Here, Listen to this 'blithering racist'..on your favorite news channel!
Stop listening to that wannabe political agitator,(meaning Don Firth)condescending fool! you're on the wrong side on this one from listening to him!"

That being said, I'm usually NOT a fan of Sharpton..but hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day!

On this one, Ebbie, we are in agreement...(grit your teeth).

GfS

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 01:40 AM

GfS, have you lost it entirely? In that link Sharpton is totally non-racist and speaks ONLY of non-violent reactions. I listened to the speech and read the transcript: Do you object to ANY part of it? What is the matter with you?

"Let me be very clear," Rev. Sharpton said, "from the beginning of this when I was called [by the Martin family] and came in just to say this should go to trial and should not be decided in a police station, this family has said 'We believe in peace, and we believe in trying the criminal justice system,'" he said.

"I went and helped to lead and organize the first big rally in Sanford, where tens of thousands of people came," he continued. "And from that rally all the way through the rallies and the marches subsequent, leading to this trial, not one brick has been thrown, not one window broke."

"Justice requires that we stay non-violent and not become what we fight," he added later.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 12:31 AM

Sorry about the upper case stuff, GUEST. But I sometimes feel that if I don't shout loudly enough, there are people here who simply won't get it.

Futile, of course. I could tattoo it on their foreheads backwards so that every time they looked in the mirror they would read it and still not get it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 12:20 AM

"Oh yeah, almost forgot, any takes on the Holder perjury, lying about his program, and the dead border agent?"

(Pardon me for quoting the sentence without the extra and unnecessary question marks.)

Holder wouldn't lie. He works for the government. That's what I've been told. That said, it's got little to do with the conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 12:11 AM

Right across the road, out front is a lake. our state's record bass was caught out of it..but not by me. We'll have to get together sometime! Up here, there is a lot of trout.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 12:07 AM

olddude, The way it looks, manslaughter, acquittal or hung jury, depending on the outside political pressure. Up until they opened it up for a lesser charge, it looked like acquittal...but now, that's changed. However, manslaughter requires negligence, and if it is argued successfully, the self defense issue could throw that out the window, for the reason, that self defense, is based on, it's 'either him or me', AND if he had reason to believe, that his life was in danger, or he was fearing about receiving 'great bodily harm'..as the law reads. Now, in Florida, the prosecution gives its final closing arguments, then the defense has its shot...but in Florida, the prosecution gets a final rebuttal, after the defense's closing statements. It's not like that in all states, but there it is. Up until yesterday, there were seven possible verdicts..today, I believe there are three, as listed above. I do not believe he will be found 'guilty' of 1st or 2nd degree murder. The prosecution is WAY to far away from proving that..that's why the plead for going to a lesser charge option.
That being said, I'm not rooting for any of them above another...just analyzing the way it unfolded in court...though some of our resident racists won't believe that. Frankly, I think the story was blown WAY out of proportion, but, it WAS politicized for the purpose of dividing people into further polarizations, and they got that!
Now if everyone can remain calm, no matter what the verdict, HOPEFULLY it might signal a return to unity, and a greater disregard for force-fed media pandering politics.
Let's hope for that..along with a more responsible media...(but more than likely, that won't happen).

Oh yeah, almost forgot, any takes on the Holder perjury, lying about his program, and the dead border agent???
Nixon pre-trial Manson statements?
Obama's??

Silly cherry picking hypocrites!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:59 PM

maybe you guys could just get a license and go fishing with me. a lot more fun then fighting. Been catching world class bass

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:25 PM

Well again, why anyone would do a neighborhood watch with a firearms puzzles me. Ya just don't do it .. Your suppose to watch from your car or your house and use a cell phone to inform police. If he felt his life was in danger again the law ain't going to look kindly at it since your put yourself into that situation that was not necessary.

Carrying a firearm is serious business, ya have to know the law and kinda figure out how the law will look at you if you use it. Again it is only for dire situations that you cannot avoid. Manslaughter would probably been easier to prove.

I carry, A lot, but I was in law enforcement and gov agencies. States like Florida bug me because they are too easy to get a firearm with little training

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:23 PM

Don, I was referring to GfS. He's a nice guy but his punctuation pisses me off more than his opinions ever have. I know what a good writer you are, except maybe when you let BOLD PRINT TAKE OVER.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:09 PM

If you are addressing me, anonymous GUEST, I DO use the ellipsis correctly.

I have a number of style manuals on my bookshelves, I have some thirty published magazine articles, and among other things, I have worked as an editor.

Which particular ellipsis are you beefing about?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:03 PM

You know, if you learned the correct use of the ellipsis your communications would be much clearer.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:00 PM

Anonymous GUEST, they are the ones who are giving themselves airtime.

Have you noticed how may "hate Obama" threads Songwronger starts, GUEST? Sometimes several per day. And invariably, his lapdog, Goofball, joins in as his cheer leader.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 10:31 PM

Bobert: "No, you are the racist, dude... Get over the fact that Obama is black, asshole..."

Pardon me...actually he's half black, half white.

Bobert: "I mean, you can't go claiming to be this neutral party and then go about trashing the prosecution's arguments.."

But it is upon the prosecution to PROVE those arguments, and substantiate them...which has not happened.
Just like you call me a racist...That is so full of shit I can smell you from here...OK, you argue it, but now you have to prove it. The prosecution can say anything...it doesn't mean that's the way it is..until he provides corroborating evidence..neither the prosecution you, or Don has been able to do that...and calling people names is NOT a substitute!
Ever heard of 'All bark, no bite'?

Bobert: "You have defended Zimmerman at every turn..."

Show me or shut up!
Because I actually understand the law, I'm only stating what evidence was proved, and which was not. I agreed with you, on the things that were proved, and merely pointed out to you, what was not proved...I'm sorry that you can't see that...maybe you've got too much reverse discrimination in your own eyes..which, BTW, is racism.

My larger concern is the aftermath, after the verdict has been made public. I DON'T want to see more race riots, I DON'T want to see more killing, property damage or more hate..nor do I want any of us on here to promote that for any reason..IT'S WRONG!...Now. you think I'm alone on that???.... and even WE agree!!!! Here, Listen to this blithering racist'..on your favorite news channel!
Stop listening to that wannabe political agitator, condescending fool! you're on the wrong side on this one from listening to him!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 10:14 PM

I think they are suffering from "Polymorphous Perverse Guilt Syndrome", Don... Lotta that going 'round in Denial-ville...

Yeah, maybe they do need to get a beer together and talk these issues out???

I donno???

Ain't my problem, thank you...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 10:11 PM

Well, you are the two guys who keep giving him airtime.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 09:58 PM

It's pretty obvious that Songwronger has psychological problems. They manifest themselves in his rabid hatred of Obama.

Goofballupagus claimed once that he was a family counselor (could cure gays of their "perversion"). Maybe he can help cure Songwronger of his hate psychosis.

No. More probably they'd go out and have a few beers together and become bosom buddies. They seem to share the same delusions..

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 09:49 PM

Whatever, wrong man...

No, you are the racist, dude... Get over the fact that Obama is black, asshole...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 09:41 PM

"Is everything called a "broken nose" nowadays?"

Ebbie, trust me on this one: a broken nose hurts like a sonumabitch. I have broken about 30 bones in various parts of my body including my nose. I recall the broken nose but not most others.

As for the marks on the back of Z's head from hitting the sidewalk: I received worse than that by sliding into second. There are two times in my life I smacked fellows' heads into concrete (completely justified if you ask me). Didn't look like those marks Z had. In fact, I'd be a bit ashamed to tell anyone about it. I thought they grew 'em tougher in the south. Seems I thought wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Songwronger
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 09:30 PM

Fuck you, you drunken sot. All you can do to keep the light off your shame of a president is to fake some care about a dead kid. You're a disgrace. Obama murders dozens or hundreds like him around the world every day, then he preens onstage and says Trayvon Martin could have been his son. And you do your duty like the whore you are and try to draw attn away from Obama's world-class crimes with focus on this.

You're the worst racist I've come across on this site, Bobert. Obama and Holder sent feds in to agitate. Busted. Documents provided by Judicial Watch. Oh, and did I say fuck you?