Zimmerman_Martin Trial

[UNTFan23]

like the ruling...justice was served...

don't like it...justice wasn't served...

sadly, this same argument would be going on if the verdict was reversed...

You might have a small group of people squawking about the verdict but I doubt you'd have people protesting in the streets.

I was actually surprised that he wasn't guilty of manslaughter.

[UNTexas]

OK, I didn't really want to get into this but I have to call BS on your marijuana claim (it's called "weed" in the urban areas of the country).

You call Emmitt naive when he says "weed" doesn't make people violent, but "it's culture does." Then you don't explain your point.

"Weed" is probably the mildest of illegal drugs. It is less harmful than alcohol. I admit... I used to smoke a lot of "weed" when I was a younger man, and I hung out with people who smoked a lot of "weed." I have never EVER witnessed a person get violent while high on "weed." The worst behavior I have ever seen when someone was high on "weed" was a vicious assault on a chocolate cake. It never stood a chance.

I agreed with his point concerning smoking marijuana not being a major cause of violence. That wasn't why it was brought up. I take it you didn't read what I wrote in response to him. It was brought up in court to taint an image. I won't rehash.

Jargon for anyone involved in drugs at my work is dopers. I picked it up over the years. I don't really care or keep up with what urban stoners call their drugs. I guess I am weird.

Edited July 17, 2013 by UNTexas

[THOR]

You might have a small group of people squawking about the verdict but I doubt you'd have people protesting in the streets.

I was actually surprised that he wasn't guilty of manslaughter.

you're right about the protesting...that wouldn't have happened...i just meant that if the verdict was opposite, then both sides on this board would be talking about the same things...

[UNT90]

you're right about the protesting...that wouldn't have happened...i just meant that if the verdict was opposite, then both sides on this board would be talking about the same things...

Not from me. The jury saw all the evidence (much more than ANYONE on here did) and I would have respected their verdict.

[UNT90]

"Fired Employee To File Suit Against Zimmerman Prosecutor"

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE96F1EL20130716?irpc=932

Rick

Wouldn't be surprised to see the news media seize on this story, if, for nothing else, to keep the Martin/Zimmerman story going.

This is BY FAR the most interesting paragraph in that article:

"We will be filing a whistleblower action in (Florida's Fourth Judicial District) Circuit Court," said Kruidbos' attorney Wesley White, himself a former prosecutor who was hired by Corey but resigned in December because he disagreed with her prosecutorial priorities. He said the suit will be filed within the next 30 days.

So the attorney filing the lawsuit on behalf of this guy was so disgusted by prosecutorial conduct that he resigned his position? What the hell?

Edited July 17, 2013 by UNT90

[Censored by Laurie]

Not from me. The jury saw all the evidence (much more than ANYONE on here did) and I would have respected their verdict.

[MeanGreenTexan]

... I know that my favorite part from Half Baked is when they went out and started beating people up...

I wanna talk to SAMSON!

[UNT90]

Go back and look at that original thread.

[RAGEMASTER5000]

I mean considering all the evidence that wasn't used in the trial the jury actually had less to draw on.

Edit: That includes evidence against Martin and evidence against Zimmerman.

Edited July 17, 2013 by RAGEMASTER5000

[oldguystudent]

OK, I didn't really want to get into this but I have to call BS on your marijuana claim (it's called "weed" in the urban areas of the country).

You call Emmitt naive when he says "weed" doesn't make people violent, but "it's culture does." Then you don't explain your point.

"Weed" is probably the mildest of illegal drugs. It is less harmful than alcohol. I admit... I used to smoke a lot of "weed" when I was a younger man, and I hung out with people who smoked a lot of "weed." I have never EVER witnessed a person get violent while high on "weed." The worst behavior I have ever seen when someone was high on "weed" was a vicious assault on a chocolate cake. It never stood a chance.

To paraphrase Dennis Miller in his book, "The Rants," you'll never see two guys high on pot hitting each other over the head with pool cues in a bar. They're too busy laughing at the balls.

If pot were legal, or if I lived in a different, friendlier state, I'd likely never drink again, and my life would be better for it.

But sure, let's perpetuate the image of the pot smoking thug brandishing a weapon in a carjacking even though the weapon is more likely to be a debit card, and the jacking is more likely to be of the "in the box" variety with a few dozen 99 cent tacos and some curly fries.

[emmitt01]

"Jeez.. Do you give an intoxicaton test to everyone you pull over? How do you know if they are on pills are not? Maybe personal observation?

If there was ANY sign that Zimmerman was intoxicated that night, don't you think the police would have gotten a warrant for his blood?

Could it be, just possibly, that there was absolutely no signs that he was intoxicated? perhaps?"

I'll admit that I have yet to pull over someone whose response to "license and proof of insurance please" was "hey, I just shot a 17 year old" but you know, I'm naive after all. But, yes, a blood toxicology would be within reason. Nice try on comparing a killing to a traffic stop...now who's going to any length to prove a point?

And apparently you've never heard of a drug recognition expert...And apparently neither has this Florida department. Many many people don't exhibit "traditional" signs of impairment, that's why specially trained officers (and blood draws) exist for this very instance.

[UNT90]

"Jeez.. Do you give an intoxicaton test to everyone you pull over? How do you know if they are on pills are not? Maybe personal observation?

If there was ANY sign that Zimmerman was intoxicated that night, don't you think the police would have gotten a warrant for his blood?

Could it be, just possibly, that there was absolutely no signs that he was intoxicated? perhaps?"

I'll admit that I have yet to pull over someone whose response to "license and proof of insurance please" was "hey, I just shot a 17 year old" but you know, I'm naive after all. But, yes, a blood toxicology would be within reason. Nice try on comparing a killing to a traffic stop...now who's going to any length to prove a point?

And apparently you've never heard of a drug recognition expert...And apparently neither has this Florida department. Many many people don't exhibit "traditional" signs of impairment, that's why specially trained officers (and blood draws) exist for this very instance.

Well aware of what a DRE is. Would it have been a good idea? Yes. Is it necessary when multiple officers (maybe even a DRE) saw no signs of intoxication?

Why don't you have a problem with the prosecution hiding evidence from the defense, something that could cost the prosecutors in this case some heavy, heavy sanctions and possibly their bar card (doubt it, since they are on the "right" side of political correctness here)..

Do you not understand that this type of behavior by prosecutors hurts ALL future prosecutions pretty much everywhere?

If you, as a police officer, haven't read Brady v Maryland, I would highly encourage you to do so, as this case not only applies to prosecutors, but any information possessed by prosecutors OR POLICE that is mitigating or favorable to the defendant MUST be turned over to the defense.

Prosecutors go out of their way to avoid Brady violations. Well, most prosecutors.

Edited July 17, 2013 by UNT90

[UNTexas]

Different event, a few strangely similar details, different outcome... No one will ever hear about this case.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/tablehome/ci_21843760/teen-accused-el-paso-officers-fatal-beating-indicted

[UNT90]

Different event, a few strangely similar details, different outcome... No one will ever hear about this case.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/tablehome/ci_21843760/teen-accused-el-paso-officers-fatal-beating-indicted

Come on, man.

He was just a big P who started a fight he couldn't finish. No harm here.

/sarcasm.

Edited July 17, 2013 by UNT90

[UNTexas]

Come on, man.

He was just a big P who started a fight he couldn't finish. No harm here.

I just had it forwarded to me. Interesting juxtaposition of two events, that's all.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

enough is enough ....

time for the media (all of them) to move on.. Whatever happened wasn't going to please a lot of people... Two people both made a lot of mistakes and it happened... neither did what they should have done... don't follow ( especially with a gun ) and don't turn and confront then attack or get extremely close to the other one (which apparently happened). Bad things often happen when two fools get together and can't get along.

Zimmerman did not get convicted but his life is screwed up and he doesn't have the freedom he had. His face and name will be recognized everywhere he tries to go. (not a good thing) I would not have found him completely innocent... he did a lot of stupid things... but he is paying for it in a different way

Edited July 17, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[FirefightnRick]

Different event, a few strangely similar details, different outcome... No one will ever hear about this case.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/tablehome/ci_21843760/teen-accused-el-paso-officers-fatal-beating-indicted

A 17 year old beat and killed an ex Marine combat veteran/cop by virtue of blunt force trauma to the head from concrete?

Rick

Edited July 17, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[meangreendork]

I just had it forwarded to me. Interesting juxtaposition of two events, that's all.

To go along with this:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/opening-statements-in-spooner-trial-turn-on-intent-mental-capacity-b9955359z1-215676871.html

In short, teen and mom are taking out trash, older neighbor accuses son of stealing weapons from his home, proceeds to shoot him. Interestingly, the defense is trying to use an argument that boils down to "Spooner didn't intend to kill Simmons."

But this case and the El Paso case seem pretty clear by comparison to the Martin/Zimmerman case.

[Censored by Laurie]

A 17 year old beat and killed an ex Marine combat veteran/cop by virtue of blunt force trauma to the head from concrete?

Rick

Which as I understand it is perfectly ok if he felt his life were threatened?

CBL

[MeanGreenTexan]

Which as I understand it is perfectly ok if he felt his life were threatened?

CBL

In FL, I think this would be a valid argument. But I don't think we have a "stand your ground" law in Texas. I think we have a "castle doctrine" where you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself in your home or car. The kid in EP wasn't in his home/car.

[oldguystudent]

Not an authoritative source:

The Texas law presumes that the use of force is reasonable and necessary when someone is unlawfully and with force entering or attempting to enter your occupied home, car, or place of business, or when someone is committing or trying to commit a crime against you.

But Texas law, like Florida's, states that if a person has a right to be present at a location where force is used, has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used, is not required to retreat before using force to protect themselves.

I would imagine that by virtue of keying the cop's car, the kid was both provoking and engaging in criminal behavior.

Edited July 17, 2013 by oldguystudent

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I just had it forwarded to me. Interesting juxtaposition of two events, that's all.

You don't understand the media yet:

Hispanic killing Hispanic = not important

Hispanic killing Black = not important

Hispanic killing White = not important

Hispanic killing Asian = not important

Black killing Black = not important

Black killing Hispanic = not important

Black killing White = not important

Black killing Asian = not important

Asian killing Asiana = not important

Asian killing Black = not important

Asian killing Hispanic = not important

Asian killing White = not important

Half-Hispanic/Half-White killing Black = White killing Black = Media Pandemonium

Edited July 17, 2013 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[RAGEMASTER5000]

You don't understand the media yet:

Hispanic killing Hispanic = not important

Hispanic killing Black = not important

Hispanic killing White = not important

Hispanic killing Asian = not important

Black killing Black = not important

Black killing Hispanic = not important

Black killing White = not important

Black killing Asian = not important

Asian killing Asiana = not important

Asian killing Black = not important

Asian killing Hispanic = not important

Asian killing White = not important

Half-Hispanic/Half-White killing Black = White killing Black = Media Pandemonium

[emmitt01]

"Black killing White = not important"

If by not important you mean presumed guilt then yes.

"Why don't you have a problem with the prosecution hiding evidence from the defense, something that could cost the prosecutors in this case some heavy, heavy sanctions and possibly their bar card (doubt it, since they are on the "right" side of political correctness here).."

Show me where I said I had no problem with it? Don't worry, I'll wait.... In the meantime try to follow the logical sequence of events here....

Someone said that Martin had marijuana in his system

I said that it was irrelevant when determining who the aggessor was

Someone said that it was important because there is a presumption of violence surrounding marijuana and facebook pictures

I pointed out that the violence surrounds marijuana dealing and turf wars

I was reminded that the important issue wasn't the truth about violence surrounding marijuana, just how you can sell it to six white females from Florida

I questioned why only the person who is dead had a toxicology test performed

You countered that Zimmerman may not have appeared to be intoxicated...and questioned if he would have been tested on a traffic stop

I pointed out that appearances are misleading at best and unreliable at worst because it takes an expert to pick up on physiological clues of some drug impairment

(So far we're still discussing impairment of either party due to drugs)

Then you point out that you know what a DRE is...AND THEN GO OFF TO PLAY LEFT FIELD CONCERNING MY LACK OF INDIGNATION ABOUT PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT THAT HAS ZERO TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION AT HAND.

Let me spell it out to you yet again. I'm perfectly willing to argue the merits of the things THAT I SAY. I can't answer for the D.A.'s office, Rodney King, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Santa Claus or the media at large.

You must be a joy to go on a date with...

"Where do you want to eat?"

"I don't care, I just don't like seafood"

"Yeah, seafood doesn't sound good to me either...DID YOU KNOW UNDERCOOKED CHICKEN CAN CAUSE SALMONELLA!! WHY AREN'T YOU OUTRAGED???!!!"

"Um, can you take me home please?"

Edited July 17, 2013 by emmitt01

[UNT90]

"Black killing White = not important"

If by not important you mean presumed guilt then yes.

"Why don't you have a problem with the prosecution hiding evidence from the defense, something that could cost the prosecutors in this case some heavy, heavy sanctions and possibly their bar card (doubt it, since they are on the "right" side of political correctness here).."

Show me where I said I had no problem with it? Don't worry, I'll wait.... In the meantime try to follow the logical sequence of events here....

Someone said that Martin had marijuana in his system

I said that it was irrelevant when determining who the aggessor was

Someone said that it was important because there is a presumption of violence surrounding marijuana and facebook pictures

I pointed out that the violence surrounds marijuana dealing and turf wars

I was reminded that the important issue wasn't the truth about violence surrounding marijuana, just how you can sell it to six white females from Florida

I questioned why only the person who is dead had a toxicology test performed

You countered that Zimmerman may not have appeared to be intoxicated...and questioned if he would have been tested on a traffic stop

I pointed out that appearances are misleading at best and unreliable at worst because it takes an expert to pick up on physiological clues of some drug impairment

(So far we're still discussing impairment of either party due to drugs)

Then you point out that you know what a DRE is...AND THEN GO OFF TO PLAY LEFT FIELD CONCERNING MY LACK OF INDIGNATION ABOUT PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT THAT HAS ZERO TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION AT HAND.

Let me spell it out to you yet again. I'm perfectly willing to argue the merits of the things THAT I SAY. I can't answer for the D.A.'s office, Rodney King, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Santa Claus or the media at large.

You must be a joy to go on a date with...

"Where do you want to eat?"

"I don't care, I just don't like seafood"

"Yeah, seafood doesn't sound good to me either...DID YOU KNOW UNDERCOOKED CHICKEN CAN CAUSE SALMONELLA!! WHY AREN'T YOU OUTRAGED???!!!"

"Um, can you take me home please?"

We agree that both Zimmerman and Martin's drug use shouldn't have been a part of the trial, as it wasn't.

Why are you throwing around Al Sharpton and what not to me?

Why do you only question Zimmerman's motives in this case?

As far as how I do on dates, well, just ask your sister. ;-)

Edited July 17, 2013 by UNT90