George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

[birch]

See, that's the reason right there. If you are 48% sure (or 52% sure) of someone's guilt, you cannot convict them of murder. If the evidence is inconclusive, you cannot convict them of murder. It's how our system works. You need conclusive proof.

the voice analyst was suspicious of zimmerman's story because in most of his analysis matching it matches at least 90 percent but zimmerman only matched up to 48 percent but that's why he had to give 'exceptions'. again, zimmerman unbelievable. that just excites you, doesn't it? you go 'see, right there!' well, while you ignore the glaring other inconsistencies. somehow, one can kill someone and they don't have to have a consistent account of what happened, on top of the fact the physical evidence doesn't even match his story yet he walks free. i mean, does the guy just need to come right out and say 'yes, i murdered him or i acted irresponsibly!' for you to get it? it's quite funny.

conclusive proof? isn't the one alive and shot someone dead have some responsibility to explain events and for the evidence to match his story unless he is brain damaged? so i can get into an altercation with a concealed weapon and shoot someone dead while comfortable in the knowledge that some dimwits will not hold me to any degree of integrity or credibility to my account of events as well as the physical evidence and unless i come out and just admit i killed that person and i was not in mortal danger or i could have done things differently/better but chose not to then i am not guilty of anything, not even manslaughter. lmao

 

[billvon]

somehow, one can kill someone and they don't have to have a consistent account of what happened, on top of the fact the physical evidence doesn't even match his story yet he walks free.

Correct.

If you are accused of murder, you do not have to provide an airtight defense to be found innocent. Instead, the prosecution needs to provide a comprehensive and compelling case that you actually did it. No case? No conviction. Even if you are a lying, blithering idiot.

conclusive proof? isn't the one alive and shot someone dead have some responsibility to explain events and for the evidence to match his story unless he is brain damaged? so i can get into an altercation with a concealed weapon and shoot someone dead while comfortable in the knowledge that some dimwits will not hold me to any degree of integrity or credibility to my account of events as well as the physical evidence and unless i come out and just admit i killed that person and i was not in mortal danger or i could have done things differently/better but chose not to then i am not guilty of anything, not even manslaughter. lmao

Not if no one saw you and there's no other physical evidence. You might indeed have zero integrity, be considered a lying murderer, be crucified by the press etc but unless there is comprehensive evidence against you you walk. That's how our justice system works.

 

[birch]

If you are accused of murder, you do not have to provide an airtight defense to be found innocent. Instead, the prosecution needs to provide a comprehensive and compelling case that you actually did it. No case? No conviction. Even if you are a lying, blithering idiot.

You're a bit disingenous here and confusing the issue. you're assuming that the outcome is just bluntly due to a simple case that one's side of the argument or evidence was more accurate than the other, without considering the abilities of the jurors themselves or lack thereof or possible bias. that's rather disingenous presumption considering that another group of jurors may have come to a different verdict in the same situation hearing the same information as well as glaring 'omissions' that a thinking juror may question. this is why there is a jury "selection." the prosecution may have been inept to some degree but that doesn't mean the defense wasn't either and that could be argued for many cases no matter the outcome. it is the duty of the jurors to think and unfortunately a juror that buys every dirty or even idiotic tactic used by the defense or prosecution team is not truly thinking. they are sheep. also, no matter the angle of either the prosecution or the defense, how that info is processed or what is considered and not is also due to the jury themselves.

 

[Asguard]

What happened to the burden of proof for self defence being on the defendant?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

 

[birch]

george zimmerman was fired from his job as an under-the-table security guard for “being too aggressive,” a former co-worker told the Daily News.

“Usually he was just a cool guy. He liked to drink and hang with the women like the rest of us,” he said. “But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.”
The source said Zimmerman, who made between $50 and $100 a night, was let go in 2005.
“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the man said. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”
The year 2005 was a bad one for Zimmerman: he was arrested for fighting with a cop trying to arrest his friend for underage drinking, and he and his ex-fiancée took out protective orders against each other.

The former co-worker, who is no longer in touch with Zimmerman, said he was shocked to hear what happened Feb. 26 in a gated community in Sanford, Fla.
“He definitely loved being in charge. He loved the power. Still, I could never see him killing someone. Never,” he said.

This as well as his extensive calls to 911 and non-emergency over the years indicates that he is rather paranoid or overly zealous. It's disturbing, out of character and telling that a 'neighborhood watchman' would be packing a loaded gun walking up to people and unidentified himself. This on top of all the inconsistencies, poor judgement and the evidence in this case should have lead to at least a manslaughter conviction. Martin may have been a 'wannabe thug' in the sense it's a phase and it's quite a common phase for many young men in style or bravado or some of his troubles but it can't be used against him as he was not doing anything wrong. However, zimmerman is a grown man against an unarmed and the weight of responsibility should have been weighed considering this. this jury was extremely inept, despite the prosecution or the defense. it's also telling that zimmerman did not testify and is a flag itself. juror b37 even stated 'george said this and that' when he did not testify. who knows the mental faculties of the other jurors.

This is the thing that those who see nothing wrong with the verdict don't get. there is legitimate reasons why people have been outraged, it's not like they are just to be 'troublesome' and 'irrational'.

 

[birch]

What happened to the burden of proof for self defence being on the defendant?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

he's obfuscating the issue. he's confusing the accusation of proving guilt of killing as in shot, stab etc vs whether that killing was justified and equating it the same. lol

 

[pjdude1219]

Correct.If you are accused of murder, you do not have to provide an airtight defense to be found innocent. Instead, the prosecution needs to provide a comprehensive and compelling case that you actually did it. No case? No conviction. Even if you are a lying, blithering idiot.

he wasn't found innocent he was found not guilty. personally I believe their needs to be 3 possible verdicts guilty, not guilty, innocent.

 

[p-brane]

he wasn't found innocent he was found not guilty.

How exactly does being found not guilty of a crime differ with being found innocent of a crime?

 

[birch]

he wasn't found innocent he was found not guilty. personally I believe their needs to be 3 possible verdicts guilty, not guilty, innocent.

the verdict was hinged on one thing: that he believed he was in fear for his life without questioning possible irrationality or misjudgement, despite the evidence. this is how grossly irresponsible the jury was considering they were women, some mothers and this was an armed man stalking who incurred little injury, account that didn't match evidence against an unarmed teenager who was doing nothing wrong. he definitely deserved manslaughter at least. what a ridiculous case.

JUROR: If he didn�t go too far. I mean, you can always go too far. He just didn�t stop at the limitations that he should have stopped at.

JUROR: Exactly. I think he just didn�t know when to stop. He was frustrated, and things just got out of hand.

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

COOPER: So whether it was George Zimmerman getting out of the vehicle, whether he was right to get out of the vehicle, whether he was a wannabe cop, whether he was overeager, none of that in the final analysis, mattered. What mattered was those seconds before the shot went off, did George Zimmerman fear for his life?

JUROR: Exactly. That�s exactly what happened.

B37 also told Cooper that Zimmerman �was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin.� �But he wanted to do good. I think he had good in his heart, he just went overboard,� she said.

When asked by Cooper whether or not she thought that Martin played a role in his own death, Juror B37 replied:

"I believe he played a huge role in his death. When George confronted him, he could have walked away and gone home. He didn't have to do whatever he did and come back and be in a fight."

Really? He went overboard? used poor judgement? what is this woman on about? isn't that manslaughter, woman? and she knows exactly what happened, right!

It's telling that she she focuses only on the 'fear for his life'. it seems she is projecting her insecurity and fear and lack of good judgement and thinking she has to excuse 'georgie' and trayvon martin is the 'boy of color'. She somehow also knows what was in his heart? but he went overboard? what a hypocrite! it's clear she is biased. she excused everything or overlooked everything, otherwise it would require her to think. Her response to cooper 'exactly. that's exactly what happened' doesn't even make any sense! he didn't ask her what happened, he asked her if anything else factored into her decision. hello?

It's also telling she rejects media but she wanted to write a book and give an interview? hypocrite!

JUROR: because law, charges were so confusing, after hours and hours we finally decided there was no place else we could go but not guilty.

COOPER: When she used the phrase, �creepy ass cracker,� what did you think of that?

JUROR: I thought it was probably the truth. I think Trayvon probably said that.

COOPER: And did you see that as a negative statement or a racial statement as the defense suggested?

JUROR: I don�t think it�s really racial. I think it�s just everyday life, the type of life that they live, and how they�re living, in the environment that they�re living in.

COOPER: So you didn�t find her credible as a witness?

JUROR: No.

COOPER: She said at one point that she heard the sound of wet grass.
Did that seem believable to you?

JUROR: Well, everything was wet at that point. It was pouring down rain.

JUROR B37: What could be applied to the manslaughter, we were looking at the self-defense. One of the girls said that -- asked if you can put all the leading things into that one moment where he feels it's a matter of life or death to shoot this boy or if it was just at the heat of passion at that moment.

COOPER: So even though he got out of the car, followed Trayvon Martin that didn't matter in the deliberations. What mattered was those final seconds, minutes when there was an altercation and whether or not in your mind the most important thing was whether or not George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger?

JUROR B37: That's how we read the law. That's how we got to the point of everybody being not guilty.

COOPER: So you don't believe race played a role in this case?

JUROR: I don't think it did. I think if there was another person, Spanish, white, Asian, if they came in the same situation where Trayvon was, I think George would have reacted the exact same way.

this is just some of it but there is an overwhelming theme of jurors being 'confused' and the word 'confusing' described repeatedly in the interview. the decision to encapsulate everything to the final moments, according to zimmerman's account and enactment indicates laziness on the part of the jury. juror b37 said that it was too time-consuming to go through all the evidence because it was not in order. the bias and dismissal of a witness because of the way 'they' talk as not credible shows shallow understanding and dishonesty as well when even the physical evidence of grass/wetness is ignored by her and eventually all the jurors.

The outcome of this verdict is due to laziness, confusion/incomprehension, and bias. It's a circus that juror's intelligence is not at all considered deciding a verdict on cases of homicide. That's akin to picking my next-door neighbor to perform medical surgery. Society has ridiculous cognitive dissonance.

 

[billvon]

You're a bit disingenous here and confusing the issue. you're assuming that the outcome is just bluntly due to a simple case that one's side of the argument or evidence was more accurate than the other

Not at all. If BOTH sides are completely inaccurate he goes free. Again, our justice system is not based on "convict him if he can't prove he's innocent" it is "free him if you can't prove him guilty."

that's rather disingenous presumption considering that another group of jurors may have come to a different verdict in the same situation hearing the same information as well as glaring 'omissions' that a thinking juror may question. this is why there is a jury "selection."

Correct. In this case they made the right call.

the prosecution may have been inept to some degree but that doesn't mean the defense wasn't either

It doesn't matter. If the prosecution is inept he goes free. If the prosecution is competent, but there is an insufficient case, he goes free.

 

[Michael]

FREE George Zimmerman Saves Family From Truck Crash

SO, Zimmerman just pulled a family from an overturned SUV. Thanks to the race-baiting media Zimmerman wears a bullet proof vest and has a bodyguard, but, he still stopped and helped this family - even as other "Citizens" drove on by. He didn't. He risked his life knowing he could be shot by all these sociopaths programmed to hate the Black Hispanic fat guy, oh, I mean White Black Hispanic fat guy.

Zimmerman seems like the type of person you'd actually WANT living in your community.

 

[Capracus]

Zimmerman seems like the type of person you'd actually WANT living in your community.

As long as he's not armed.

 

[Asguard]

FREE George Zimmerman Saves Family From Truck Crash

SO, Zimmerman just pulled a family from an overturned SUV. Thanks to the race-baiting media Zimmerman wears a bullet proof vest and has a bodyguard, but, he still stopped and helped this family - even as other "Citizens" drove on by. He didn't. He risked his life knowing he could be shot by all these sociopaths programmed to hate the Black Hispanic fat guy, oh, I mean White Black Hispanic fat guy.

Zimmerman seems like the type of person you'd actually WANT living in your community.

Ah yes this makes everything better, just like the fact that the paedophile priest helped someone some time means the paedophilia is ok

Just because a murder happened to do something nice for someone doesn't absolve them of there crime

 

[Michael]

Ah yes this makes everything better, just like the fact that the paedophile priest helped someone some time means the paedophilia is ok

Just because a murder happened to do something nice for someone doesn't absolve them of there crime

Firstly, George Zimmerman is innocent of murder. And while the race-baiting TV did a number on your head, that's a fact.
Secondly, this is a good example of the type of person George Zimmerman is - someone who looks out for others; regardless of race. Unlike the vast majority of everyone around him.

He's the sort of person whom actively engages with his community at great risk to himself. He did it when he defended a black homeless man against the local police. He did it when he called 911 on Martin. And he just pulled a family from a upturned SUV - possibly saving an entire family (while other so-called Citizens, drove right on by happy not to get involved).

It's good for you to know the type of person the media convinced you was Satan (and did so with ease I might add) and whom you're still condemning to hell' even though he IS an innocent person. And this very easy manipulation, this is the most interesting of all. How quickly you all were pulled around by the nose via the propaganda. All media in the USA is owned by 6 companies, and those 6 companies, tell you what to think, and when to think it - - and you do.

It's really that simple. If you've learned anything from this little adventure, I hope it's that they don't call it the Idiot Box for nothing.

 

[Asguard]

Firstly, George Zimmerman is innocent of murder. And while the race-baiting TV did a number on your head, that's a fact.
Secondly, this is a good example of the type of person George Zimmerman is - someone who looks out for others; regardless of race. Unlike the vast majority of everyone around him.

He's the sort of person whom actively engages with his community at great risk to himself. He did it when he defended a black homeless man against the local police. He did it when he called 911 on Martin. And he just pulled a family from a upturned SUV - possibly saving an entire family (while other so-called Citizens, drove right on by happy not to get involved).

It's good for you to know the type of person the media convinced you was Satan (and did so with ease I might add) and whom you're still condemning to hell' even though he IS an innocent person. And this very easy manipulation, this is the most interesting of all. How quickly you all were pulled around by the nose via the propaganda. All media in the USA is owned by 6 companies, and those 6 companies, tell you what to think, and when to think it - - and you do.

It's really that simple. If you've learned anything from this little adventure, I hope it's that they don't call it the Idiot Box for nothing.

No, he was found not guilty, not innocent and just because the law is written in a stupid way and applied in a racist way doesn't free him from the moral "crime". Anyone who hunts down an unarmed kid and kills them is a murder, no matter what stupid laws you put in place

And I find it fascinating that YOU who constantly bitch about income tax being a crime in spite of the fact they are lawfully collected under laws passed by the legislature and upheld by the judiciary in accordance with the constitution, being "illegal tax". The hypocrisy coming from you is unbelievable

 

[joepistole]

Firstly, George Zimmerman is innocent of murder. And while the race-baiting TV did a number on your head, that's a fact.

Well, no, the jury didn’t find him innocent. The jury acquitted him, there is a difference. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word acquitted. A Zimmerman juror is on the record saying Zimmerman got away with murder because of the law. While you are at it, look up race-baiting. A discussion of race and its relevance to this case is not race-baiting.

Secondly, this is a good example of the type of person George Zimmerman is - someone who looks out for others; regardless of race. Unlike the vast majority of everyone around him.

He's the sort of person whom actively engages with his community at great risk to himself. He did it when he defended a black homeless man against the local police. He did it when he called 911 on Martin. And he just pulled a family from a upturned SUV - possibly saving an entire family (while other so-called Citizens, drove right on by happy not to get involved).

It's good for you to know the type of person the media convinced you was Satan (and did so with ease I might add) and whom you're still condemning to hell' even though he IS an innocent person. And this very easy manipulation, this is the most interesting of all. How quickly you all were pulled around by the nose via the propaganda. All media in the USA is owned by 6 companies, and those 6 companies, tell you what to think, and when to think it - - and you do.

It's really that simple. If you've learned anything from this little adventure, I hope it's that they don't call it the Idiot Box for nothing.

Well that is kind of funny to hear you complain about propaganda. I mean that is all you do around here, ideological propaganda 24/7. And yeah, the angelical virgin born idealized picture of Zimmerman is the picture folks of your particular ideology are trying to market, but the undisputed facts are, Zimmerman did kill an unarmed child on his way home from the market. The facts are that Zimmerman does have a documented history of violence (i.e. assaulting a police officer) even though the legal charges were eventually dropped with a deal. The facts are virgin born angels don’t kill, they don’t put 9mm bullets into the hearts of innocent unarmed children on their way home from the market. That is the unpleasant bottom line here.

 

[joepistole]

I think you need to pay more attention Michael.

 

[Michael]

No, he was found not guilty, not innocent and just because the law is written in a stupid way and applied in a racist way doesn't free him from the moral "crime". Anyone who hunts down an unarmed kid and kills them is a murder, no matter what stupid laws you put in place

The media created this narrative, and you WAAAAY over in Australia believed it. To me, that's intriguing. Never mind the Australian government is paying parents to put their children into daycare from 6 weeks so they can get back to working and paying their taxes (those free roads got to be paid for by someone now don't they). No, let's not talk about that, there's some white black Hispanic we need to concentrate on. The Kevinator Show is on, I need to get back to my TV it's telling me something.

And I find it fascinating that YOU who constantly bitch about income tax being a crime in spite of the fact they are lawfully collected under laws passed by the legislature and upheld by the judiciary in accordance with the constitution, being "illegal tax". The hypocrisy coming from you is unbelievable

1) Income tax isn't illegal, it's immoral.
2) The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes it legal for the US Government to force innocent workers to pay a tax on their labor to their 'Civil Servants'.

 

[Michael]

I think you need to pay more attention Michael.

Zimmerman, wearing a bullet proof vest due to fear he'll be shot, still risked his life and pulled to the side of the road, not knowing if he'd be recognized and maybe even who knows what - and helped pull a family out of an over turned SUV. Meanwhile other 'concerned Citizens' (many of whom probably wish Zimmerman was in prison or dead) drove right on by happy to mind their own business leaving a family trapped in a SUV.

Plus one for the white-black-Hispanic fat guy.

 

[Tiassa]

What Needs To Be Said

So Why Draw the Line and Meet You Half The Way ...?

Zimmerman, wearing a bullet proof vest due to fear he'll be shot, still risked his life and pulled to the side of the road, not knowing if he'd be recognized and maybe even who knows what - and helped pull a family out of an over turned SUV. Meanwhile other 'concerned Citizens' (many of whom probably wish Zimmerman was in prison or dead) drove right on by happy to mind their own business leaving a family trapped in a SUV.

Plus one for the white-black-Hispanic fat guy.

I'll propose you a deal:

• You will stop ranting in such a manner that your argument is apparently valid because you know better than all the sheeple out there who take time to inform themselves from sources that are not overtly conspiratorial, and ...

• ... I will use whatever influence my good name represented in black ink might still hold around here to discourage my neighbors from openly ridiculing you for the appearance of naïveté so blatant that you would buy into a constructed narrative offered up by people we already know have lied to us.​

See, I figure you're on about some performance art piece, trying to make a point about how badly the public discourse has degraded, hoping to mock the influences contributing to such sad outcomes by sincerely performing the parts in order to satirize and mock them, but have somehow lost track of where you're at in the script.

Or, at least, that's the excuse I would make for you in order to avoid the conclusion that you really are so naïve, and that the ignorance demanded in support of that naïveté is what drives your apparent hatred.

Meanwhile, many of us have simply decided to not try to figure what George Zimmerman was thinking when he went out of his way to get pulled over in Texas that he might flex his celebrity and flaunt a new gun.

Many people are politically cynical. But it certainly doesn't help when the loudest among cynics in any given room is also so damnably gullible as to fall for and willingly propagate some of the most cynical politicking we've witnessed in a generation.

In other words, you have dishonored yourself; your appeal to cynical, calculated politics as truth only reminds that your self-superior rants about why your uninformed opinions are smarter than everyone else's is a disgraceful performance.

So here's the basic question: Is this really the way you want to play?

Because if you insist on dragging any given discussion into the gutter where you're more comfortable, people might actually take the time and effort to make sure they squash you under their heel as they pass. And, frankly, if you keep insisting that they should, it's a hard argument to explain why they shouldn't.

If you want to be taken seriously, I would suggest skipping any plans to repeat so stupid a performance in the future.