Will Zimmerman get a fair trial in the Travon Martin case?

• ohiobucks1

  

  http://www.conservativehq.com/article/14172-zimmermans-prosecutors-should-be-jailed
  
  keep in mind the source, still though.
• ohiobucks1

  

  http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/16/us-usa-florida-shooting-omara-idUSBRE96F04R20130716
• majorspark

  

  This was a politically motivated prosecution. The evidence to support the charges just was not there. Our founders wisely knew that a jury of our peers was the best means to thwart these types of political prosecutions. A unanimous decision by a small group of commoners who would be least likely to be influenced by politics. Its not a perfect system. Far from it. There is no such system on the earth at this time.
  
  As for the juror who has got herself a book deal. Total bullshit. Jury duty is a service. Its a sacrifice of ones time with little compensation and a duty as productive member of society. The profit motive should have no place here. Jury duty is not a business enterprise. The last thing we want is profiteers lying to attorneys in these high profile cases to get a seat on the jury to bank cash.
  
  If a potential juror is selected and if extenuating circumstances exist petitioning the court for exemption is as easy as writing a letter or an email. Most courts are fair and just and will excuse citizens from service under such circumstances.
• ActionJackson

  The Motion vs the state addressing Trayvon's phone evidence they refused to give up. The judge asked "Or anyone else?" when she could have grilled Bernie and nailed the state delaying the trial at least. She blew it off.
  http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/motion_for_sanctions.pdf
• gut

  majorspark;1473123 wrote: As for the juror who has got herself a book deal. Total bull****. Jury duty is a service.

  Ehhh, if someone is dumb enough to pay her... I really can't imagine a book about that jury's deliberations having anything of interest, or any jury for that matter. Basically that juror knows little more than anyone who followed the trial closely and is really just another person giving her opinion on what everyone else knows. Any real insights would likely come from investigators or the legal teams.
• Glory Days

  

  Gblock;1472869 wrote: i was dissapointed however to see so many poeple justify someone following someone around and labeling them as "suspicious" just for walking down the street. "Suspicious" just because you re black. "
  suspicious" just be cause you have a hoodie on. it wasnt late at night this is a kid walking down the street. lots of kids of all colors wear hoodies and if it was sprinkling they put the hood up. hell they put the hood up and put headphones on i see it everyday. its not suspicious. you dont call the police and start following someone. it caused someone to die.

  its the totality of the circumstances. Zimmerman sees someone he doesnt know walking through the neighborhood. the person he sees is walking alone, in the rain, at night. then the person who zimmerman doesnt recognize as living there(because he actually didnt live there permantly) ducks behind some houses. white, black or purple, that is supsicious to me.
• Glory Days

  

  gport_tennis;1472928 wrote:According to the police reports, most of the break INS occurred between 9am and 5pm. Some of the break INS happened when the occupants were in the residence

  that would be correct, they try to hit when people are at work. and from sun down till about midnight is when you will see the robberies and other violent crimes. rarely after midnight do you get much other than drunken bar fights etc.
• gut

  Glory Days;1473132 wrote:... ducks behind some houses. white, black or purple, that is supsicious to me.

  But I don't think we know if TM started ducking in between house only AFTER he noticed Zimmerman following him.
  
  I did see a pretty subtle point that I didn't clearly pick-up on, which is Zimmerman had lost TM for about 4 minutes. That's the point Omara (?) made in his closing, that TM had opportunity to go home but apparently decided to circle back to confront Zimmerman. Although I'm also not clear if TM didn't need to "circle back" to get home.
  
  Bottom line for me is unless Zimmerman was getting overly confrontational, perhaps even initiating physical contact, then it's all really on TM unnecessarily escalating things to a fight. Absolutely no evidence, none, that Zimmerman did anything to provoke/justify that response from TM.
  
  My perspective is Zimmerman has to live with the choices he made that set things in motion, but it's TM's overeaction/aggressivenes that ultimately got him killed.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  
• ohiobucks1

  

  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/16/juror-no-doubt-zimmerman-feared-for-his-life/
  
  book deal is dropped
• WebFire

  ccrunner609;1472948 wrote:why do we act like profiling is something bad. I feel that people draw opinions and impressions about people and that its human nature. Why fight it.

  I actually agree with this. When we do try to avoid profiling or stereotyping, we ARE fighting it. Everyone profiles/stereotypes, and they probably do it every single day. I've always believed that stereotypes are about 90% reality, and the stereotype was established for good reason.
  
  Funny part is, these people saying GZ profiled Martin and he was wrong for that, probably get nervous on a plane with Muslims.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  From a juror
  
  "I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done," she told Cooper. "But I think his heart was in the right place. It just went terribly wrong."
  
  The juror said she found the testimony of Rachel Jeantel unconvincing, in part because of what she perceived as Jeantel's poor education and “her [lack of] communication skills." When Cooper asked if the juror had trouble understanding Jeantel, she said, “A lot of the time. Because she was using phrases I had never heard before, and what they meant."
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Raw Dawgin' it;1473187 wrote:From a juror
  
  "I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done," she told Cooper. "But I think his heart was in the right place. It just went terribly wrong."
  
  The juror said she found the testimony of Rachel Jeantel unconvincing, in part because of what she perceived as Jeantel's poor education and “her [lack of] communication skills." When Cooper asked if the juror had trouble understanding Jeantel, she said, “A lot of the time. Because she was using phrases I had never heard before, and what they meant."

  lol
• ernest_t_bass

  

  
• ernest_t_bass

  

  
• WebFire

  Alabama police are trying to track down a mob that beat a man into critical condition -- leaving their battered victim with the words, "Now that's justice for Trayvon."

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/justice-for-trayvon-beating_n_1449159.html?ref=crime
• Fab4Runner

  

  WebFire;1473214 wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/justice-for-trayvon-beating_n_1449159.html?ref=crime

  That's 15 months old. It's absolutely terrible, but it wasn't a result of the not guilty verdict.
• WebFire

  Fab4Runner;1473219 wrote:That's 15 months old. It's absolutely terrible, but it wasn't a result of the not guilty verdict.

  Indeed it is! Damn it.
• WebFire

  Fab4Runner;1473219 wrote:That's 15 months old. It's absolutely terrible, but it wasn't a result of the not guilty verdict.

  Though it still show which race made it about race.
• thavoice

  Fab4Runner;1473219 wrote:That's 15 months old. It's absolutely terrible, but it wasn't a result of the not guilty verdict.

  Sure it was, just call it a preemptive strike on what was going to happen anyways......a not guilty verdict.
• Pick6

  

  Some dumb minority bitch on my twitter right now. "If you think George Zimmerman is guilty, go fuck yourself. There wasn't a fight, did you see the pictures of Trayvon? There were no marks on him." He has no marks on him because he was beating the fuck out of Zimmerman you dumb bitch. Also, the abrasions on his knuckles and the witness point to there being no fight /sarcasm
• ohiobucks1

  

  Pick6;1473256 wrote:Some dumb minority bitch on my twitter right now. "If you think George Zimmerman is guilty, go fuck yourself. There wasn't a fight, did you see the pictures of Trayvon? There were no marks on him." He has no marks on him because he was beating the fuck out of Zimmerman you dumb bitch. Also, the abrasions on his knuckles and the witness point to there being no fight /sarcasm

  this has me confused
• Pick6

  

  ohiobucks1;1473258 wrote:this has me confused

  Which part(s)?
• Fab4Runner

  

  Pick6;1473256 wrote:Some dumb minority bitch on my twitter right now. "If you think George Zimmerman is guilty, go fuck yourself. There wasn't a fight, did you see the pictures of Trayvon? There were no marks on him." He has no marks on him because he was beating the fuck out of Zimmerman you dumb bitch. Also, the abrasions on his knuckles and the witness point to there being no fight /sarcasm

  ohiobucks1;1473258 wrote:this has me confused

  Pick6;1473259 wrote:Which part(s)?

  Probably the part where it says, "If you think George Zimmerman is guilty..."
  
  Shouldn't it say not guilty?
• TedSheckler

  

  ohiobucks1;1473258 wrote:this has me confused

  me too
  

  Pick6;1473259 wrote:Which part(s)?

  all of it