Trayvon Martin Case

[Rob's House]

From a purely legal standpoint I've seen nothing that establishes Zimmerman's guilt for murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Juror#8]

Yeah, Zimmerman got his nose broken and his head bashed in.

 

Any pictures of his head being bashed in?

 

Call em out Meazza. B-Man. DCTom.

 

Oh, you're referring to these scratches/abrasions:

 

http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/rtr328bf.jpg

 

Gotcha.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Juror#8

[jjamie12]

From a purely legal standpoint I've seen nothing that establishes Zimmerman's guilt for murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't know all the legalese, but I can't possibly imagine myself convicting him. (Of course, that assumes that there is nothing new discovered at trial).

[B-Man]

Any pictures of his head being bashed in?

 

Call em out Meazza. B-Man. DCTom.

 

Oh, you're referring to these scratches/abrasions:

 

http://timenewsfeed....05/rtr328bf.jpg

 

Gotcha.

 

LOL...........its like listening to the guy in the movie line in Annie Hall.............keep it up Juror #3

 

Any pictures of Travon being shot ?

 

Gotcha..................................see how foolish that sounds. It doesn't conclude anything.

 

 

As to your for "forensic" conclusion that the trauma isn't consistent with skin meeting concrete.....well, thanks again for the laugh.

 

 

 

 

.

[meazza]

Any pictures of his head being bashed in?

 

Call em out Meazza. B-Man. DCTom.

 

Oh, you're referring to these scratches/abrasions:

 

http://timenewsfeed....05/rtr328bf.jpg

 

Gotcha.

 

His nose looks broken from that angle.

[RkFast]

Any pictures of his head being bashed in?

 

Call em out Meazza. B-Man. DCTom.

 

Oh, you're referring to these scratches/abrasions:

 

http://timenewsfeed....05/rtr328bf.jpg

 

Gotcha.

 

Not sure what youre trying to get at. Id venture to guess that a good 95% of those killed by a gun "didnt deserve it."

[Juror#8]

That being said, if Zimmerman followed Trayvon, Trayvon confronted him and instigated the attack, then Zimmerman has a right to defend himself with lethal force.

 

Again, you're willing to accept Zimmerman's version of events expressly.

 

We know that Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Where do you get that Trayvon confronted him and instigated the attack? What witness do we have substantiating that?

 

Because I favor Jewish Mexicans?

 

Or maybe because his parents are from the islands? Or maybe because he wore a hoodie? Or maybe your dislike for people grows in proportion to the darkness of their skin.

 

Who knows?

 

LOL...........its like listening to the guy in the movie line in Annie Hall.............keep it up Juror #3

 

Any pictures of Travon being shot ?

 

Gotcha..................................see how foolish that sounds. It doesn't conclude anything.

 

 

As to your for "forensic" conclusion that the trauma isn't consistent with skin meeting concrete.....well, thanks again for the laugh.

 

 

 

 

.

 

Thank you for proving my point - in more ways than one.

 

His nose looks broken from that angle.

 

Because he was punched. No one, not even Zimmerman, suggested that he was on his stomach, face down, and his face was being bashed into the ground. No one is refuting that he was punched (which explains the broken nose).

 

Does that picture substantiate Zimmerman's account that his head was being smashed/smacked/thumped into concrete?

[meazza]

Again, you're willing to accept Zimmerman's version of events expressly.

 

Have I? Just because I laughed at your interpretation doesn't necessarily mean I fully believe what GZ claims. There will be a jury to decide that.

 

 

Or maybe because his parents are from the islands? Or maybe because he wore a hoodie? Or maybe your dislike for people grows in proportion to the darkness of their skin.

 

Who knows?

 

Thank you for proving my point - in more ways than one.

 

You have proven what exactly?

[Juror#8]

Not sure what youre trying to get at. Id venture to guess that a good 95% of those killed by a gun "didnt deserve it."

 

I was just refuting Chef's point that his head was being bashed in.

 

The pictures just don't show that to be the case.

 

It shows a man who was on the ground being punched and getting his ass whooped.

 

Have I? Just because I laughed at your interpretation doesn't necessarily mean I fully believe what GZ claims. There will be a jury to decide that.

 

Because you've stated on numerous occassions that Trayvon subsequently attacked Zimmerman. You state it as fact but that is just Zimmerman's account. I just wanted to know why you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt?

 

You have proven what exactly?

 

Just a point about B-Man. Read my exchange with him and enjoy the devolution of his point (especially read the part about what I have and haven't said in this exchange and his response to that).

[meazza]

I was just refuting Chef's point that his head was being bashed in.

 

The pictures just don't show that to be the case.

 

It shows a man who was on the ground being punched and getting his ass whooped.

 

Getting punched and getting his ass whooped would essentially fall in the same category. The devil is in proving who initiated the fight.

 

Because you've stated on numerous occassions that Trayvon subsequently attacked Zimmerman. You state it as fact but that is just Zimmerman's account. I just wanted to know why you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt?

 

Numerous? And tell me good sir, what is your assertion as to why the rest of the media (and BHO) were willing to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps we look at the information and come up with our own conclusions (though no matter what I think happens, it won't have any impact on the actual case in contrast to being on the actual jury and having to decide if a man goes to prison or not).

 

Seems like you're ready to call out people who believe one side of the story but not the other.

[Juror#8]

Getting punched and getting his ass whooped would essentially fall in the same category. The devil is in proving who initiated the fight.

 

 

 

Numerous? And tell me good sir, what is your assertion as to why the rest of the media (and BHO) were willing to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps we look at the information and come up with our own conclusions (though no matter what I think happens, it won't have any impact on the actual case in contrast to being on the actual jury and having to decide if a man goes to prison or not).

 

Seems like you're ready to call out people who believe one side of the story but not the other.

 

I don't care about the media. I think that they are skapegoat for people to react, on both sides, irrationally, and forego sound judgment. I care about this conversation with You, Jauronimo, B-Man, and Chef. Using the media provides an excuse to ascribe arguments to others based on their biases.

 

I have no dog in this race.

 

I think a few things about this matter that I have stated, and restated:

 

1. Trayvon was blithely walking through the community.

 

2. Zimmerman followed/chased/pursued him.

 

3. Something happened after Zimmerman began pursuing Trayvon that led to an altercation (no one here knows what that something was but everyone seems to be giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt about it)

 

4. Zimmerman got his ass kicked by Trayvon as a result of whatever happened in #3.

 

5. Zimmerman shot Tryavon.

 

I think that those are fair facts. Please tell me where I said anything different than that.

 

I have only opined when discussing WHY ZIMMERMAN DIDN'T HAVE TO SHOOT TRAYVON. In that context, I've mentioned that fights happened often. That THE ONLY THING WE KNOW FOR SURE is that the inciting incident was Zimmerman exiting his car in pursuit of a young man who was doing nothing criminally wrong. That Zimmerman could have fought the younger, lighter boy like a man. Otherwise, he should have taken his ass whoopin and both could have lived to fight another day. That the pictures of the back of Zimmerman's head didn't suggest AT ALL that his head was slammed into concrete. And most importantly, that the reasonable 190 lb. 35 year old man shouldn't have been afraid for life and limb from a fist fight with a 150 lb. 17 year old.

 

I have opined nothing else. is there anything about those points that is decidedly unfair or biased? Anything I missed?

 

If anything, the bias is towards valuing life.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Juror#8

[RkFast]

Or maybe because his parents are from the islands? Or maybe because he wore a hoodie? Or maybe your dislike for people grows in proportion to the darkness of their skin.

 

 

See you just lost the argument right there.

 

Becuase "black people wearing hoodies"....despite what "the media" tells us....is the EXACT description of the apperance of people committing crimes in this neighborhood, according to reports. Listen to any police scanner in a major city and....no matter what Al Sharpton tells you...you WILL hear "black male, 20's, wearing a hoodie" crackle across the airwaves every fifteen minutes.

 

Does that mean its fair that those wearing hoodies be targeted? Of course not. Its a common piece of clothing. But can we at least be honest about the fact that Treyvon fit the description of past criminials in this complex Zimmerman was "guarding" to a "T"? Right or wrong, he did and Zimmerman acted on that.

Edited February 28, 2013 by RkFast

[meazza]

I don't care about the media. I think that they are skapegoat for people to react, on both sides, irrationally, and forego sound judgment. I care about this conversation with You, Jauronimo, B-Man, and Chef. Using the media provides an excuse to ascribe arguments to others based on their biases.

 

I have no dog in this race.

 

I think a few things about this matter that I have stated, and restated:

 

1. Trayvon was blithely walking through the community.

 

2. Zimmerman followed/chased/pursued him.

 

3. Something happened after Zimmerman began pursuing Trayvon that led to an altercation (no one here knows what that something was but everyone seems to be giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt about it)

 

4. Zimmerman got his ass kicked by Trayvon as a result of whatever happened in #3.

 

5. Zimmerman shot Tryavon.

 

I think that those are fair facts. Please tell me where I said anything different than that.

 

I have only opined when discussing WHY ZIMMERMAN DIDN'T HAVE TO SHOOT TRAYVON. In that context, I've mentioned that fights happened often. That Zimmerman could have fought the younger, lighter boy like a man. Otherwise, he should have taken his ass whoopin and both could have lived to fight another day. That the pictures of the back of Zimmerman's head didn't suggest AT ALL that his head was slammed into concrete. And most importantly, that the reasonable 190 lb. 35 year old man shouldn't have been afraid for life and limb from a fist fight with a 150 lb. 17 year old.

 

I have opined nothing else. is there anything about those points that is decidedly unfair or biased? Anything I missed?

 

If anything, the bias is towards valuing life.

 

In a street fight you can't really judge someones reaction since there are too many unknown variables and everything usually happens in less than 30 seconds. In the fights I've been anyway, I wouldn't even recall what happened. That being said, in a situation like that, (assuming GZ feels his life is in danger), i don't blame him for what he did. Should he have followed the guy? Probably not.

[RkFast]

I don't care about the media. I think that they are skapegoat for people to react, on both sides, irrationally, and forego sound judgment. I care about this conversation with You, Jauronimo, B-Man, and Chef. Using the media provides an excuse to ascribe arguments to others based on their biases.

 

I have no dog in this race.

 

I think a few things about this matter that I have stated, and restated:

 

1. Trayvon was blithely walking through the community.

 

2. Zimmerman followed/chased/pursued him.

 

3. Something happened after Zimmerman began pursuing Trayvon that led to an altercation (no one here knows what that something was but everyone seems to be giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt about it)

 

4. Zimmerman got his ass kicked by Trayvon as a result of whatever happened in #3.

 

5. Zimmerman shot Tryavon.

 

I think that those are fair facts. Please tell me where I said anything different than that.

 

I have only opined when discussing WHY ZIMMERMAN DIDN'T HAVE TO SHOOT TRAYVON. In that context, I've mentioned that fights happened often. That THE ONLY THING WE KNOW FOR SURE is that the inciting incident was Zimmerman exiting his car in pursuit of a young man who was doing nothing criminally wrong. That Zimmerman could have fought the younger, lighter boy like a man. Otherwise, he should have taken his ass whoopin and both could have lived to fight another day. That the pictures of the back of Zimmerman's head didn't suggest AT ALL that his head was slammed into concrete. And most importantly, that the reasonable 190 lb. 35 year old man shouldn't have been afraid for life and limb from a fist fight with a 150 lb. 17 year old.

 

I have opined nothing else. is there anything about those points that is decidedly unfair or biased? Anything I missed?

 

If anything, the bias is towards valuing life.

 

Are you trying to say that there should not be overreactions in a street fight?

[Jauronimo]

An "ass whoopin" may be a reasonable response to someone following, antagonizing, making statements, hollering after, or whichever the case may be. I said clearly that I didn't know what happened in the intervening time between George getting off the phone and the altercation happening. But since Trayvon didn't bother George, and George approached, followed, chased, Trayvon, then it's not a stretch of the imagination to believe that there was something about Zimmerman's activities that led to the struggle. Because by Zimmerman's own admission, when he was in his vehicle, Trayvon was either standing aloofly or blithely walking through the community.

 

That was the status quo ante before Zimmerman decided to intercede - blithely walking through the community or standing/staring aloofly.

 

 

 

 

Fighting on the playground is not different. It's two dudes throwing them thangs. And you missed the point - no reasonable person should think that a (comparatively) smaller and spindly boy (and he looks, even in his recent pics, like a boy), fighting ONLY with his fists, is going to pose threat to a larger man's life and limb SUCH THAT THE LARGER MAN CAN ONLY USE DEADLY FORCE TO REPEL THE THREAT OF FISTS FLYING AT HIS FACE.

 

Zimmerman, at the time of arrest was about 190 lbs. Trayvon, from best that I can determine, was about 150lbs. That is a 40 pound weight difference (give or take 5 lbs.).

 

You can romanticize your "black people must be life sucking aggressors" theme all you want. It doesn't alter the reality of fact.

 

 

 

What is "hood ethics"? Is that something that we black people understand instinctively OR since we all grow up in the "hood" does it just stick to our tabula rasa at some point between when our mother's are smoking crack and scamming welfare checks and when our dad's are pimping "hoes," stealing cable, and having illegitimate children?

 

Get back to me on that one.

 

And yes, the bolded point was speculation - as evidenced by the use of the word "probably."

 

 

 

No I didn't. I just cut and pasted really quickly the definition. But since it fits within you and DC Tom's overall narrative of "have to be rightism," then we'll go with it.

 

 

 

But you do realize that your definition makes my point, right?

 

Or how about this one:

 

Chase

 

1

a : to follow rapidly : pursue

b : hunt

c : to follow regularly or persistently with the intention of attracting or alluring

 

2

obsolete : harass

 

3

: to seek out —often used with down <detectives chasing down clues>

 

4

: to cause to depart or flee : drive <chase the dog out of the garden>

 

5

: to cause the removal of (a baseball pitcher) by a batting rally

 

6

: to swing at (a baseball pitched out of the strike zone

Cute. Play the race card.

 

You described a scene taking place on a basketball court whereby the ass whoopin administered culminates with laughter and the ceremonial title of "biatch" bestowed upon the loser and concluded that this is how the confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon, which took place in the hood, likely would have ended had Zimmerman not exercised deadly force. Sounds like a hood ethic or code to me, and one which I was previously unaware of. Is that not what you're trying to communicate by alternating between your insufferable lawyer speak and urban vernacular?

 

Fighting on the playground is very different than getting jumped on the street for reasons I already provided. And how would Zimm know Trayvon weighed only a 150lbs? He was wearing a hoodie. Thought that made the news.

[GG]

Again, you're willing to accept Zimmerman's version of events expressly.

 

We know that Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Where do you get that Trayvon confronted him and instigated the attack? What witness do we have substantiating that?

 

The map of the complex and timeline of the events back Zimmerman's version that Martin instigated. Since you and jamie admit that the situation was tense, and Zimmerman certainly could have stayed back to diffuse a potential escalation, Martin had ample time to get back to the apartment as well, and nothing would have happened.

 

If exact same situation happened in a different part of town, and Zimmerman wasn't a middling to fair light skinned Hispanic, this wouldn't be a story. OTOH, Martin probably wouldn't have confronted someone in the hood who was suspiciously eying him either.

 

Look at the timeline and the map. Martin had plenty of time to get back inside out of the rain, especially since the link you're using says that he was running. But he was the one who wanted to show how tough he was. He gambled and lost.

[Juror#8]

Cute. Play the race card.

 

You described a scene taking place on a basketball court whereby the ass whoopin administered culminates with laughter and the ceremonial title of "biatch" bestowed upon the loser and concluded that this is how the confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon, which took place in the hood, likely would have ended had Zimmerman not exercised deadly force. Sounds like a hood ethic or code to me, and one which I was previously unaware of. Is that not what you're trying to communicate by alternating between your insufferable lawyer speak and urban vernacular?

 

When I was playing the race card. You mentioned "hood ethic."

 

Are playgrounds in the "hood"? Do people only play basketball or football in the "hood"? Do people only fight in the "hood"?

 

If not, where did that come from and how did it find it's way into our conversation.

 

It appears as if you're the only one playing the race card.

 

And on top of that, you're playing the playing of the race card.

 

Oh and it sucks that you don't like the way I speak/write. But I also didn't ask you to respond to me.

 

Fighting on the playground is very different than getting jumped on the street for reasons I already provided. And how would Zimm know Trayvon weighed only a 150lbs? He was wearing a hoodie. Thought that made the news.

 

Who jumped whom? Same question I asked Meazza, why are you giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt that Trayvon jumped him? Isn't the only thing that we know factually that Zimmerman followed Trayvon?

 

Why would you assume this additional information? What about the situation or the two gentlemen themselves allows you to comfortably assume facts not in evidence?

 

In a street fight you can't really judge someones reaction since there are too many unknown variables and everything usually happens in less than 30 seconds. In the fights I've been anyway, I wouldn't even recall what happened. That being said, in a situation like that, (assuming GZ feels his life is in danger), i don't blame him for what he did. Should he have followed the guy? Probably not.

 

I believe that the only place that you and I differ is whether or not Zimmerman should have reacted with that level of force. Based on the circumstances, their relative height/weights, and in consideration that prior to Zimmerman using deadly force, the struggle's pinnacle was Trayvon punching Zimmerman in the face, it doesn't seem that Zimmerman's actions were warranted or that a reasonable person, under similar circumstances, would feel that their life was in danger such that deadly force was necessary to repel the threat.

 

See you just lost the argument right there.

 

No. I wasn't pandering to race. I actually don't think that it has a place in this discussion and would prefer to leave it out. If you're referring to my point to Jauronimo, see my recent response to him. If it was the tounge-and-cheek comment to Meazza, notice I never mentioned race and was actually tip toeing around a response that he made about Jewish-Italian Americans (or something to that affect).

 

Becuase "black people wearing hoodies"....despite what "the media" tells us....is the EXACT description of the apperance of people committing crimes in this neighborhood, according to reports. Listen to any police scanner in a major city and....no matter what Al Sharpton tells you...you WILL hear "black male, 20's, wearing a hoodie" crackle across the airwaves every fifteen minutes.

 

I am firmly anti-Al Sharpton (see some of my comments about him in past posts).

 

You are right, hoodie and young black male is a common description for perpetrators of crimes.

 

Does that mean its fair that those wearing hoodies be targeted? Of course not. Its a common piece of clothing. But can we at least be honest about the fact that Treyvon fit the description of past criminials in this complex Zimmerman was "guarding" to a "T"? Right or wrong, he did and Zimmerman acted on that.

 

Yes, Trayvon did fit the description and I would be on guard too if my gated community had a young punk with a hoodie hanging around looking aloof. I don't blame Zimmerman for that.

 

You'll find that we agree on many of these same points. My only beef is around how the matter culminated and why. And it bothers me that for all the calls of certainty, fairness, bias, etc., there is a comfortability amongst some people here stating highly suspect points:

 

1. Trayvon later attacked Zimmerman.

 

2. Zimmerman's head was bashed on concrete.

 

And NO ONE is calling the statements, or the people, out for making them.

 

The map of the complex and timeline of the events back Zimmerman's version that Martin instigated. Since you and jamie admit that the situation was tense, and Zimmerman certainly could have stayed back to diffuse a potential escalation, Martin had ample time to get back to the apartment as well, and nothing would have happened.

 

If exact same situation happened in a different part of town, and Zimmerman wasn't a middling to fair light skinned Hispanic, this wouldn't be a story. OTOH, Martin probably wouldn't have confronted someone in the hood who was suspiciously eying him either.

 

Look at the timeline and the map. Martin had plenty of time to get back inside out of the rain, especially since the link you're using says that he was running. But he was the one who wanted to show how tough he was. He gambled and lost.

 

Excellent point and it begins to shed some light on what I feel is the dispositive issue - "what happened that led to the physical confrontation?"

 

Your statement at least acknowledges that there is NO EVIDENCE that Trayvon later attacked Zimmerman and, if anything, it is a point that should be submitted to a fact finder to be considered based on the circumstantial evidence (the rain, the map, how long Trayvon had to return, etc.)

 

With that said, I'd like to delve into this point deeper because, circumstantially, it will tend to lend credibility to, or adversely affect, Zimmerman's statement of the events.

 

I don't know how many times Trayvon had been there, and at night, and with the rain; he could have easily found himself walking in circles, back at the same point, and Zimmerman yelling out at him "___________________"

 

On the other hand, Trayvon could have stalked Zimmerman back to that location and pounced.

 

I have said, ONLY, that we don't know. Everyone else is talking as if they do know and it is collectively against Trayvon.

 

Why?

 

And since we don't know, why were people so comfortable with accepting Zimmerman's version of events while in the same breath crying about media bias.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Juror#8

[GG]

Your statement at least acknowledges that there is NO EVIDENCE that Trayvon later attacked Zimmerman and, if anything, it is a point that should be submitted to a fact finder to be considered based on the circumstantial evidence (the rain, the map, how long Trayvon had to return, etc.)

 

With that said, I'd like to delve into this point deeper because, circumstantially, it will tend to lend credibility to, or adversely affect, Zimmerman's statement of the events.

 

I don't know how many times Trayvon had been there, and at night, and with the rain; he could have easily found himself walking in circles, back at the same point, and Zimmerman yelling out at him "___________________"

 

On the other hand, Trayvon could have stalked Zimmerman back to that location and pounced.

 

I have said, ONLY, that we don't know. Everyone else is talking as if they do know and it is collectively against Trayvon.

 

Why?

 

And since we don't know, why were people so comfortable with accepting Zimmerman's version of events while in the same breath crying about media bias.

 

Go back about one year in this thread and there's a link to a map of the complex and the timeline. Based on that, it's unlikely that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Even if you think that the Orlando cops are incompetent, the facts of the case are more in line with Zimmerman's version and probably the reason that the cops let him off.

 

Funny how you accuse everyone else of jumping to conclusions, when you were among the first on this site to pick up the media narrative of a cold blooded murder of an innocent black teenager, before any of the facts started coming out ...

[Jauronimo]

Instead, he went beyond his citizen function, chased the kid, pissed him off, and caught a beat down. Then, out of options due to his own stupidity, Zimmerman had to resort to shooting Trayvon because he couldn't fight like a man.

Trayvon would have stood up, called Zimmerman a punk ass biatch, laughed, and went about his way. Zimmerman would have had a well whooped ass. But they both would have lived to fight another day. Except that Zimmerman couldn't take his ass whoopin, couldn't fight back, and instead escalated a situation that he precipitated, into some final judgment because he was salty.

Not sure that that is fair.

For hood ethic look no further. The implication that Zimmerman should accept his ass whoopin. I've seen that sentiment before, once. Episode one, season one of The Wire, a show I know you've seen and a moment I'm sure you'll remember. Take your ass whoopin like a man, don't shoot. Considering the underlying message and your word choice it should be clear where I got such an idea.

[Juror#8]

Funny how you accuse everyone else of jumping to conclusions, when you were among the first on this site to pick up the media narrative of a cold blooded murder of an innocent black teenager, before any of the facts started coming out ...

 

Where? How? When?

 

I was the one saying TIME AND TIME AGAIN that threre was a lot of information left to surface and that the process should unfold.

 

Not that I expect you to retract the statement - you'll just find a way around it but, here goes anyway:

 

Keep in mind that the thread was created on March 20

 

On March 20th, I said:

 

"1. Who started the struggle - the only one who knows that is Zimmerman (assuming that if there were eye-witnesses with substantive details it would have led to Zimmerman's arrest). The court, though, is obliged to draw inferences based on circumstantial data."

 

Post#112 On March 23rd, I said:

 

"The fact is, there are still some outstanding issues that need to be brought to light.

 

I tend to think that, at least presumptively, Zimmerman is culpable for an illegal act because:

 

-He appears to have ignored the admonitions of police during the 911 phone call

-He had a weapon and appeared to have adjudicated the matter in his mind (based on his comments to 911 dispatcher)

-He couldn't point to anything that Martin was doing wrong during the call. Martin wasn't encroaching on someone else's property, nor was he randomly looking into vehicles. In fact, there was nothing said that indicated that he was doing anything that would even justify a simple Terry stop.

 

So based on these CIRCUMSTANTIAL things, and without the benefit of any additional info, Zimmerman is gonna be on the hook for some kind of criminal offense."

 

 

On March 25th, I said:

 

Juror#8 - Post 240

 

"The man definitely deserves a fair trial. If there is a trial, there needs to be a venue change. The local jury pool is probably tainted. I hope the judge closes off the proceedings and sequesters the jury and puts a gag order on everyone.

 

It will be a sad if Sharpton begins broadcasting his show from the courthouse doors.

 

This matter needs to be properly and fairly adjudicated."

 

On March 26th, I said in Post# 267:

 

"White folks seem to have either said that Zimmerman's innocent, or they've said let the judicial process take it's course and arrive at a fair determination.

 

Black folks seem to be almost entirely of the opinion that Zimmerman has already been adjudicated and was found "guilty." No real trial. No due process.

 

The irony is that for hundreds of years black folks fought for due process under the law - especially in states that traditionally usurped that kind of fair and institutionalized jurisprudence. It really should be black folks who are at the proverbial head of the "give the man a fair trial" class."

 

Post #335 - March 27:

 

"At the end of the day, NOTHING has changed. As mentioned above, if it is true that Martin took a punch at him or that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, it doesn't really impact the above considerations ESPECIALLY if Zimmerman called Martin a "coon."

 

Those claiming that the scales are tipping toward Zimmerman and Martin advocates are being somehow exposed as "wrong" fundamentally misunderstand the law and the how these circumstances fit within the law's complex tapestry.

 

The best thing to do is to let the matter unfold fully. Zimmerman deserves a fair and impartial adjudication of these issues. Martin's family does too."

 

Post #343

 

"Secondly, IF Zimmerman hurled a racial slur at Martin, in concert with him following him, without an articulable crime having been committed, at night, against the admonition of police, replete with a weapon - it is going to create, at least, a rebuttable presumption of Zimmerman being the initial aggressor."

 

Post#369

 

"I, like everyone else, have their opinions based on the evidence that has been put forth to date. But I have been careful to distinguish MY OPINION from black letter law and analysis of that law.

 

In fact, my opinion hasn't even settled. I don't have any opinion about Zimmerman's criminal guilt or innocence. If certain things come to fruition, that may change. As of now, I believe the same thing that I believed a week ago when I wrote my first post on this matter:

 

-He should have been arrested pending the outcome of an investigation

-He went against the admonition of the police entity and followed a gentleman who didn't commit an articulable crime

-He is bigger than Martin (which is only relevant in a proportionality context)

-He had a weapon; Martin didn't"

 

 

What does it say about you that you'd make that kind of statement in the face of all this contrary evidence?

 

Maybe you're hung up on me calling him a "thug." I still think that. Zimmerman shot a kid who was going upside his head instead of fighting like a man.

 

Again, you said this:

 

Funny how you accuse everyone else of jumping to conclusions, when you were among the first on this site to pick up the media narrative of a cold blooded murder of an innocent black teenager, before any of the facts started coming out ...

 

Reading the posts that I've quoted, is that really how you feel? You still think that's a fair statement?