The Media's Bias and Race Baiting - Trayvon Martin

Are you really an attorney?

You are being emotional again. This is what you butted in to and meandered in to another subject. There was no stand down direct order from a cop so you can mind your own business now.

 

That was not reckless. Trayvon Martin was reckless in attacking Zimmerman. Sorry, dude. That's a fact, Jack.

 

Refman is using the same argument the Prosecution used. How'd that work out?

 

Oh thanks, Granny. Let me know when I can post again! God this place is intolerable.

Dispatcher: Are you following him.
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.

So quibble about stupid semantics in this completely stupid case, but Zimmerman (also pretty stupid, if you read the whole transcript) is not some hero who was just minding his own business and defending himself against violence, no matter how many times he and the far right want to paint him that way. He moved himself into a potentially violent situation.

And no, I'm not "for Trayvon." From the (totally crappy) pile of evidence, looks like he made some unwise escalating moves for sure, and he clearly hurt Zimmerman during their confrontation.

I'm just for honest discussion, which probably makes me Sisyphus around here.

So yep, the points of view above, I'll repeat, are not mutually exclusive. You can live in a world where responsible, sensible law-abiding people keep their guns and have the right to defend themselves, all while irresponsible people who make bad decisions, ignore dispatchers and end up shooting unarmed minors can lose their guns for a while. That seems like a totally sane world worth supporting, if you ask me (and a ton of other people with common sense who are playing for a "team".)

 

Your analysis proves that you still sit at the kids table. Martin was the one who was reckless and looking for trouble. Just like he was looking for trouble back in Miami and that was the reason he was in Sanford in the first place.

 

I'm not worried what you think I seem to be.

Please backup your claim that I derided the mother or TM.

Why was TM minding his own business on someone else's property? Someone else's property that had already been broken into previously, all during a rain storm in the dark of night. He was minding his business so well that he had broken GZ's nose and had him in a ground n pound position.

The point of this whole thread is media bias and race baiting which is more than factually evidential, so much so apparently, that you quit even arguing it.

You are misquoting the Hebrew bible. The text actually says that thou shalt not murder. Big difference between kill and murder. GZ killed TM yes, but did not murder him.

I never said he was found innocent. I said GZ is innocent. In America we are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers. Charges of guilt were acquitted and GZ maintains his innocence.

He is also covered under the second amendment with the right to bear arms. He followed the law. If TM had and not assaulted GZ, then he may still be alive. TM broke the law. He attacked a man, this man defended himself within the limits of the law and now TM is dead. Case closed.

Why should an American citizen not be allowed to walk in his neighborhood. He has ever right to. We don't have to, but we have every right to. And if following state gun laws we are allowed to walk in our neighborhood with a concealed weapon.

If you were the attorney for the prosecution in any suit, your side would lose horribly because your distaste for the law.

You read this to mean, is exactly right. Your bias is evident in this case. You without any evidence decided GZ murdered TM. Reckless behavior indeed. This is why we have law as well as police, judges, and juries.

 

No he's not. The prosecution went for Murder 2, which was beyond insane.

A single argument about Zimmerman's decision making in following Trayvon (which nobody disputed) does not make for murder 2. Just because your "team" "won" (yea!) doesn't mean every single point anyone else brings up is wrong. All that happened is a bad prosecution case was rightly defeated, period. It was dumb to go for murder 2 with no witnesses and confusing evidence in which the "victim" was involved in a fight with the supposed criminal. Just beyond stupid.

That doesn't make refman or anyone else equivalent to the prosecution when they point out that Zimmerman isn't some flawless guy with excellent judgment. Jury didn't rule on that, actually.

Outta here.

 

The funny thing to me is all this crap about how black parents have to have "a conversation" with their sons. This is amusing given the exponentially higher rates of criminality perpetrated by young black males in this society. If anything, the numbers suggest that any such "conversation" should focus on the dangers associated with young black males.

 

Is it a far reach that Martin's "aimless wandering" gave the impression of casing the neighborhood? That was evidence that Martin could have been a burglar; it was his mannerism of casually poking around in the dark of night. The neighborhood had been plagued with burglaries.

Why didn't GZ just draw his gun and hold Martin until the police came? Surely with a drawn gun, Zimmerman would have never ended up on his back with a broken nose and lacerations on his scalp?

If Zimmerman had the motives you've saddled him with, he would have been more certain and aggressive in his "pursuit" of Martin, in my opinion.

 

Don't know why you'd drama queen over a suggestion made to someone else... but ok...

Listen from 1:17 to 2:00 to the PROSECUTION shred your "common sense" statement.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eKeP9xFT7eU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


And no one is calling GZ a hero. I'm not even gun guy. Never owned one. Probably won't ever own one. But if I was in GZ's situation I would have used a gun or anything at my disposal to get TM off me before he killed me.

You exaggerated the importance of the dispatcher suggestion in this case to try to make a point.

 

1) I don't care what race anyone is, if my kid has been kicked out of school he wouldn't be allowed to be out on the streets at night, period

2) If someone is beating my ass and I have a gun, i'm going to shoot the person who is beating my ass, and I don't care if he is black, asian, hispanic or white, i'm shooting him

 

At what point, if any, did Zimmerman know that Martin was unarmed? He made a remark to the 911 operator that the "suspect" was going for something in his waistband.

Listen to the testimony of the 911 operator/dispatcher....

 

Yes, I am really an attorney. I am not, however, a criminal defense attorney. I am a consumer bankruptcy attorney. What a condescending thing to ask, especially when you are missing the point entirely. At no time have I assailed your acumen at your chosen profession as I don't know you and do not know your job performance. I would expect you to give others here the same courtesy.

B-Bob stated that he was under a stand down order from the cops, which is not accurate. The response is that mischaracterization was ignored by the jury. I said, and continue to say, that you and anybody else here cannot possibly know that.

All the verdict means is that the jury found that the elements of the crime were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is first year criminal law material.

It does not mean that the jurors believe that Zimmerman acted rightly. It does not mean that they think Zimmerman wasn't at fault. It does not indicate what pieces of evidence they found credible and those that they didn't. All it means is that the jury did not find that all elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if a juror thinks he is guilty, unless that juror is 100% sure that all elements have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they are to acquit.

That there are posters on this board that take that verdict and try to assert what the jurors were thinking about specific evidence and take,it to mean that Zimmerman acted rightly is absurd.

 

GZ also has presumed innocence does he not? There was not enough reasonable doubt to convict him so he is acquitted of charges. Which means his presumed innocence is intact, correct?

 

The concept of "presumed innocence" relates to the burden of proof in a criminal trial. It means that, if the prosecution does not prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury is to acquit.

It does not mean that the jury found Zimmerman to be without fault. All it means is that the prosecution dod not meet its burden of proof.

The jury in California did not find OJ to be innocent. They found that the state did not meet its burden of proof. Same thing goes for Casey Anthony.

Innocent until proven guilty is a grossly misunderstood phrase which was intended to instruct the jury of its duty to acquit if the state does not meet its burden of proof.

 

I get what you're saying but this is a semantic nightmare. If you are merely charged, you are never INNOCENT. You are, AT BEST, NOT PROVEN GUILTY.... in the Court of Law but not in Life thankfully.

 

You can say what you want but there's no way the jury thought the dispatcher was a cop and the dispatcher told the jury he gave a suggestion not an order. Move on....

 

The post I quoted of yours when I stated the way you came acroos is the link to your derision of TM's mother. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't really like that, and in case you didn't want to come across like that, you could be more careful. I don't care if that's how you want to portray yourself or not. It's up to you, and I'd never try and tell you what to do or say. I was just giving you a heads up. Maybe I'm the only one who would ever take what you wrote that way, and nobody else would dream that you claiming TM's mom was only saying something for ulterior motives was a deriding comment about her. But I'm just being honest about how it comes off to me. Ignore it if you like. That's fine.

TM was minding his own business on his way home and talking on the phone. As safety courses say, he wisely didn't go home when he was being followed. You should never lead a follower to your home, which could endanger loved ones and family that are in the house.

I've seen race baiting from both sides. Yes, there is little point in arguing it. There's no way of knowing if the reason GZ profiled and made false assumptions about TM was because of race. There is no way to know it, and so I won't argue that it's the case. I'm not really interested in arguing that. The whole lean thing is just silly. The whole rap argument from people who have no clue about rap is silly. It's pointless.

 

Ok...I guess you spent $2.99 a minute and had Mistress Cleo tell you that. Unless you did that or actually interviewed the jurors, you're just talking out of your ass.

 

Whether somebody is or is not guilty of wrongdoing is not a question before a criminal jury. Whether or not the offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the SOLE question before a criminal jury.