Zimmerman To Be Charged

[Michchamp]

Nope -the opinion is valid enough. Have you seen me argue for "Stand Your Ground laws? I thought we also established in this very thread that this trial wasn't really invoking them, no?

Continue ranting, and I will continue to pick on parts of your argument that make no sense. Agreed?

Well, pardon me for disagreeing, but I don't think my post could be construed as a "rant." It wasn't in all caps, it was grammatically correct, it wasn't 18 pages long, or anything like that. If you feel that way though, I guess there's not much I could say to change your mind.

Anyways, all I did was post my opinion on Stand Your Ground laws in the thread; if you don't have a problem with it, I don't know why you challenged my post like that, but whatever. I get that you read things you don't like and emotionally lash out at the person who posted them, and that typically doesn't lead to reasonable discussions, but it's okay.

 

[Michchamp]

Oh you would be surprised. You could learn all about Krugman's economic plan for America, and the Republican party's demiise.

Let me ask you this:

Which of the following is more persuasive to you?

a) What we really need is for that idiot is to grow some teeth, and stop screwing his sister.

b) That person can't possibly have enough education to make an informed argument for "Stand Your Ground" laws.

I will argue against the first one every day, but if I don't have something to offer for the second one, it might actually persuade me to stay out of the discussion.

Which would provide a better outcome (at least as far as this board is concerned)?

I'm just sayin'

:hmm:

 

[tinselwolverine]

I didn't seem to fully catch the jist of that one, either...

 

[KAWDUP]

Well, pardon me for disagreeing, but I don't think my post could be construed as a "rant." It wasn't in all caps, it was grammatically correct, it wasn't 18 pages long, or anything like that. If you feel that way though, I guess there's not much I could say to change your mind.

Anyways, all I did was post my opinion on Stand Your Ground laws in the thread; if you don't have a problem with it, I don't know why you challenged my post like that, but whatever. I get that you read things you don't like and emotionally lash out at the person who posted them, and that typically doesn't lead to reasonable discussions, but it's okay.

LOL - You are pardoned for disagreeing.

I challenged your post like what - are you serious?

I said this:
Boy, if I had a nickle every time a lobby has gotten a politician to do something counter to the public interest, I'd be a rich man.

After your response to my obvious joke I said this:
Yeah . . . but I imagine it is more productive discussing how to fix it, rather than ranting about how it got that way. What cause in Florida have you given money to that is trying to get this law repealed?

The last line is a bit snarky, but what about this is an emotional response?

Then I started thinking about how pointless it is to beat a dead horse over this poorly written Florida law, when supposedly it doesn't even apply in this case. So I questioned it. Still no great big emotional response that I can see. Only Red actually said anything about how to solve it (other than repeal it - which you said was also pointless effort).

After that - I am just answering those who responded to me.

So this statement by you seems a bit condescending: "I get that you read things you don't like and emotionally lash out at the person who posted them, and that typically doesn't lead to reasonable discussions, but it's okay." This thread doesn't seem to me to be one of those times, but what the heck do I know. Sorry that I tried to participate - I'll have to work on that.

 

[KAWDUP]

I didn't seem to fully catch the jist of that one, either...

I was making an absurd example of the way I have seen Southerners described in these forums. Somewhere in the argument way back (maybe in a previous thread), a point was made about how those stupid hick Floridians voted for this poorly written law.

. . . and so, since I (I guess mistakenly), interpreted michchamps effort here to be one of blogging in an attempt to change people's opinions on the "Stand Your Ground " law, I offered what would be more likely to persuade me on the subject. I was also acknowledging that my entering the discussion is normally seen as a "bad" thing". I enter when I perceive a bad stereotype. It is a pet peeve - one I actually thought was pretty well known.

. . . but I give. God forbid I should show any emotion when I debate a subject.

 

[Michchamp]

I was making an absurd example of the way I have seen Southerners described in these forums. Somewhere in the argument way back (maybe in a previous thread), a point was made about how those stupid hick Floridians voted for this poorly written law.

. . . and so, since I (I guess mistakenly), interpreted michchamps effort here to be one of blogging in an attempt to change people's opinions on the "Stand Your Ground " law, I offered what would be more likely to persuade me on the subject. I was also acknowledging that my entering the discussion is normally seen as a "bad" thing". I enter when I perceive a bad stereotype. It is a pet peeve - one I actually thought was pretty well known.

. . . but I give. God forbid I should show any emotion when I debate a subject.

:hmm:

 

[Michchamp]

not sure what's going on with this trial. anyone still following?

the press reports have presented a confused account of the trial; apparently much of the testimony is conflicted too.

would be frustrating to be a juror on this one.

 

[KAWDUP]

:hitter:

:hmm:

 

[redandguilty]

not sure what's going on with this trial. anyone still following?

the press reports have presented a confused account of the trial; apparently much of the testimony is conflicted too.

would be frustrating to be a juror on this one.

I know headlines are not to be trusted because reporters suck, but skimming the headlines suggests that the story as told by police somehow made Zimmerman look better, but police going over what Zimmerman said make him look worse because his story changed and some parts don't make sense.

 

[Michchamp]

I know headlines are not to be trusted because reporters suck, but skimming the headlines suggests that the story as told by police somehow made Zimmerman look better, but police going over what Zimmerman said make him look worse because his story changed and some parts don't make sense.

Interesting take. Was reading some of the comments from the detective who interviewed him, and some of the statements are ridiculous. are the police trying to justify the way they failed to the case over to the DA to charge him? aside from what Zimmerman may have done, it was really the actions of the police, specifically the local chief, that were shocking here, and the source of the entire controversy.

if Zimmerman had been arrested and charged immediately - as he should've been - there would not be any scandal in my mind, just a story of one of life's losers, in this case a wannabe cop bigot with a gun, killing an innocent kid.

as far as the conduct of the trial, it's hard to say what the prosecution's strategy is here. not sure why they've called some of these unreliable (according to the press reports) witnesses.

seems like a better strategy would've been to simply get to the bottom of a couple key facts: if Zimmerman was really being beaten by Martin... getting his head smashed into the curb and all that... did he have wounds commiserate with that sort of violence or not? how did he get a chance to fire his gun at Martin if that was the case? was Martin's wound compatible with Zimmerman's story? if not, it wasn't self-defense, and he's guilty of murder 2.

 

[redandguilty]

Whole thing seems so avoidable. Even with the profiling. Even with getting out of the car and following Martin.

"Why are you following me?"

"I'm community watch. Why are you here?"

"My dad and I are visiting his fiancee."

The End

 

[redandguilty]

Interesting take. Was reading some of the comments from the detective who interviewed him, and some of the statements are ridiculous.

You look at a map and his story falls apart. Even if you do believe he doesn't know the name of the street he's community watching, you don't walk from the front to the back of a house to find the street number.

 

[KAWDUP]

Interesting take. Was reading some of the comments from the detective who interviewed him, and some of the statements are ridiculous. are the police trying to justify the way they failed to the case over to the DA to charge him? aside from what Zimmerman may have done, it was really the actions of the police, specifically the local chief, that were shocking here, and the source of the entire controversy.

if Zimmerman had been arrested and charged immediately - as he should've been - there would not be any scandal in my mind, just a story of one of life's losers, in this case a wannabe cop bigot with a gun, killing an innocent kid.

as far as the conduct of the trial, it's hard to say what the prosecution's strategy is here. not sure why they've called some of these unreliable (according to the press reports) witnesses.

seems like a better strategy would've been to simply get to the bottom of a couple key facts: if Zimmerman was really being beaten by Martin... getting his head smashed into the curb and all that... did he have wounds commiserate with that sort of violence or not? how did he get a chance to fire his gun at Martin if that was the case? was Martin's wound compatible with Zimmerman's story? if not, it wasn't self-defense, and he's guilty of murder 2.

Didn't they do the same thing in the OJ case? Try to anticipate what they think the defense will bring up, and bring it up themselves and try to answer it right up front. It can always backfire, but if you let the defense bring up the stuff first it generally has a bigger impact.

. . . or so I have heard.

 

[redandguilty]

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/01/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-day-6
At one point during his interview with Zimmerman, Serino bluffed that he may have video of the incident shot on Martin’s cellphone.

"I believe [Zimmerman’s] words were, 'Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it,'" said Serino. "Either he was telling the truth or he was a complete pathological liar. One of the two."

 

[TheVictors]

All I know is that televised trials are boring as fuck to watch. I will take Law & Order or LA Law or Perry Mason any day.

I can't understand the "groupies" who come out for trials like these ...nor do I understand the infatuation people have with the Nancy Grace-type stories and trials.

I'm just as saddened when a "Tot Mom" does something awful to a 4yr old daughter, but couldn't imagine being glued to the TV for months on end, injesting all the selacious details and conjecture.

I get it that the Zimmerman trial has issues of race, gun control and all sorts of public figures with opinions ...but really, were it just another black dude shooting another black dude in Florida, it might make The First 48 Hours ....but it wouldn't be "must see TV"

 

[Thumb]

Whole thing seems so avoidable. Even with the profiling. Even with getting out of the car and following Martin.

"Why are you following me?"

"I'm community watch. Why are you here?"

"My dad and I are visiting his fiancee."

The End

See this assumes Zimmerman would have accepted that as an explanation. Remember this is a guy who calls the police for cars driving by slowly, and people loitering. Seems to me like he would likely try to play detective a bit more, rather than just say, "Oh, have a pleasant evening then, sir". and be on his way.

 

[redandguilty]

See this assumes Zimmerman would have accepted that as an explanation. Remember this is a guy who calls the police for cars driving by slowly, and people loitering. Seems to me like he would likely try to play detective a bit more, rather than just say, "Oh, have a pleasant evening then, sir". and be on his way.

I'm not assuming. I'm stating what I think should have been the worst case scenario. There's no excuse for it going beyond a verbal interrogation. It's senseless. We know it didn't play out that way, but it should have...at worst.

You're assuming when you explain would have happened. (The difference is the words 'should' and 'would'.) "Seems to me like he would..." That's an assumption.

 

[Michchamp]

Didn't they do the same thing in the OJ case? Try to anticipate what they think the defense will bring up, and bring it up themselves and try to answer it right up front. It can always backfire, but if you let the defense bring up the stuff first it generally has a bigger impact.

. . . or so I have heard.

it's different in every case, depending on who is trying to prove what.

would be interesting to see a witness list, as well as who called each. not sure why the prosecution would've brought in some of the people they did. according to media reports, they were less than stellar... but the media is interested in selling a story, not presenting a record.

if I was a prosecutor here, i would just keep it simple and present my evidence: here is Zimmerman, and he shot and killed Martin, which is not disputed. Then let the defense make their case for self-defense, and shoot it to pieces.

I don't think Zimmerman is taking the stand in his own defense (as is his constitutional right).

the super weird thing in this case, is that the police (for once) aren't interested in seeing him convicted, so their testimony is amazingly favorable, which it rarely is in criminal cases. not sure who called them as witnesses.

 

[Thumb]

if I was a prosecutor here, i would just keep it simple and present my evidence: here is Zimmerman, and he shot and killed Martin, which is not disputed. Then let the defense make their case for self-defense, and shoot it to pieces.

The problem is without witnesses there is no real evidence to present. Other than one was dead, and the other shot him.

The prosecutor really screwed up by not stopping the defense from asking witnesses the same question time and time again [slightly re-worded] in an effort to make them sound confused (it worked). They [prosecution] basically fed their witnesses to the sharks by not preparing them properly, and objecting more.

 

[KAWDUP]

it's different in every case, depending on who is trying to prove what.

the super weird thing in this case, is that the police (for once) aren't interested in seeing him convicted, so their testimony is amazingly favorable, which it rarely is in criminal cases. not sure who called them as witnesses.

The few actual criminal trials I have seen or been a juror on, I found this about the police to be resoundingly true. I have even seen them embellish their story a bit to make the accused seem more guilty. Do they have their own agenda here?