The prosecutors addressed it showing GZ's version didn't work. The defense tried to inject a version of events GZ did not give. Did you ever doubt it? A good move? D'uh, if he gets on the stand he'll have to answer all the inconsistencies in his statements. Prosecution missed a chance to show the guy from the gym has been advertising that his gym "trained Zimmerman". This is the guy who claims Zimmerman was exercising and training 3 times a week for months, who also lost tens of pounds during that exercise, was a weak wimp and TM whom the gym owner never met and only saw pictures of could have easily taken GZ. Too bad that missed that in cross and now can't bring it up in rebuttal. I think the State can show the gym owner's opinion is ludicrous without hearing that they advertise they trained GZ.
So, the prosecution is now asking whether the jurors can also consider third-degree murder, because Zimmerman 'committed child abuse when he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin because Martin was underage.' This is just more complicating from the state, since they have no case. So far this judge has been absolutely out-of-bounds and completely unfair in a murder case. The lawyers for the defense have tried to argue with the judge about the pace of the trial, which is way too fast, and she doesn't care. If the verdict goes south, I honestly think the defense could appeal on the basis that Zimmerman's rights of due process were violated. Judge Nelson has badgered the defendant, and made ridiculous court schedules. Closing arguments begin in an hour and the case is expected to go to the jury tomorrow.
Outcome not surprising. Whether you believe Zimmerman or not, the state didn't prove its case. One can hardly blame the jury for reaching their verdict.
I said from the beginning he was innocent. Good to see our justice system in action, doing the right thing.
Sorry Ginger, but as much as you felt he was guilty, a jury of citizens agreed that there was not enough evidence to convict him and they were correct. To convict him of anything would have been an awful tragedy for Zimmerman, who has already gone through enough. I'm sorry that you feel the need to blame the lawyers for the verdict. You wanna know what's a bad world? When a law-abiding citizen, caring for his neighbors goes out of his way to protect them and gets maliciously attacked and has to defend himself and then gets dragged through the mud by people like you and the media. He was innocent the whole time. The police knew it and the jury knew it. I just feel bad that you fell for the race-baiting rabble-rousers. I just hope that his treatment by the media and the threats by the African-American community doesn't stop him from pursuing his dream of protecting and serving the public the same way he has done his whole life.
I can't say I'm a big supporter of Zimmerman, but based on how the case went, I think the jury made the right call.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat as you, thirdwind. It wouldn't surprise me at all if things didn't happen the way Zimmerman said. But there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict, and when the instruction came down to the jury that negligence on Zimmerman's part wasn't enough to sustain a charge of manslaughter, I think that lesser charged was had to fall as well. Sometimes the state just can't prove its case. Remember, too, that the state didn't even bring charges initially, but only did so after a media outcry. I think they knew they didn't have the evidence to win a conviction.
I thought this verdict was going to cause some dispute. Go ahead and discuss it, but please refrain from personal attacks on other members. This post doesn't quite directly attack Ginger, but it's veering pretty close - she did not drag Zimmerman through the mud; she doesn't have that power. And expressing her opinion does not mean she "fell for the race-baiting rabble-rousers." I'm not here to defend Ginger, because I know she's exceptionally good at defending herself. I'm just saying that posts on both sides of this issue will be carefully watched. It's an important discussion - don't let it sink to the level of personal attacks. Okay? Okay.
I understand where you're coming from, although I don't believe it applies to my post. (Actually, you did say I didn't attack Ginger.) I respect Ginger, but if someone has the opinion that the Sanford Police Department was wrong and now, a jury of Zimmerman's peers was wrong, then I think it's safe to say that this trial was never about the law and it was never about facts. It has been about race the entire time. There's an old saying that says if you have a problem with everybody, chances are you're the problem. If you think sitting behind a computer screen, that you are smarter and more intelligent than an entire police department and the American legal system then you should take a hard look in the mirror. He was innocent. He is innocent. He is the victim. These people like Sharpton and Jackson and Harry Reid need to sit down an shut up. Justice has been served, Zimmerman is innocent and anyone who wishes to continue to cry for his head is not a true American.
I should also have said "Let's not set ourselves up as the final arbiters of who is or is not a true American." A great many Americans do not share your opinion. Calling someone (someone who has American citizenship, anyway) un-American is pretty offensive. I trust you won't apply that label to any of our American members.
One thing to remember is that he's innocent only as far as the law is concerned. In other words, he wasn't guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard that makes all the difference in the world.
Besides the law, what other innocence matters? In the USA, we believe that someone is innocent unless proven guilty. Zimmerman was not proven guilty, so he is innocent and has been innocent since day one. Of course anyone can have the opinion that the police are corrupt and the lawyers are corrupt and the justice system is corrupt but it's not a reasonable position. [MENTION=19031]minstrel[/MENTION] - I think other people have the right to speak for themselves. I don't think it's an appropriate use of your powers to abdicate for one side of a debate. In my opinion, if you don't believe in due process and the law, then you don't believe in the Constitution and I don't think anyone who calls themselves an American would say that this trial and verdict wasn't fair and just according to the law. Anyone on this forum is able to offer an opposing viewpoint if they wish. I don't see the problem with an intelligent spirited debate. But hey, this forum isn't a democracy is it? I will make sure to preface my statements with 'in my opinion' in the future.
There is the law, there are people's interpretations of the law, and then there is truth. Everything is relative to the truth, and truth is absolute. No one can know what the exact truth is unless they are present, or privy to a substantial amount of information, enough to make a determination as to what the truth is. That didn't happen here. There wasn't enough information for a conviction, and only Zimmerman was present. To me, what matters is innocence in the eyes of truth, which is something that cannot be established by human laws. We can get close, but this is a case where the only reason that that man walked away was because no one really knows what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything is relative. When people start dealing in absolutes, like the law is perfect and nothing else beyond that should matter to us Americans, I think something has been lost there.
There is a new test of "True Americanism" on our doorstep. If you (me included) truly believe in the Justice system of our great country, are you (we) going to be able to set your emotions aside and put as much emphasis on reasonable doubt and onus on the prosecution in the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev trial. I was watching Bill O. the other night lambast the people who were "rooting for a terrorist" who obviously did not "love their country." All I could think was that the tides immediately turned and the voices that supported zimmerman contradicted themselves in the condemnation of Tsarnaev before a trial. If you truly love this country, you should have the same faith in the justice system to come to correct judgement regardless of the case or emotions.
Please, there is no comparison. The preponderance of evidence in the Tsarnaev case is overwhelming and undeniable. Any trial would simply be a formality. To compare the two shows a lack of common sense. In my opinion, we should only waste the cost of one bullet on Tsarnaev.
Ken White at Popehat has a nice post about the Zimmerman trial. The final sentence sums it nicely, and also sums up why I feel that many progressives were on the wrong side of this: Link: http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/15/the-zimmerman-verdict-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/#more-19042
Thank you very much for that, Steerpike. That article pretty much sums up everything I feel about this case. I, and everyone in my household, are of the belief that Zimmerman is/was guilty of wrongdoing. Unfortunately, the evidence just wasn't there and when there is insufficient evidence, everything defaults to innocence (...until proven guilty). The prosecution did an abysmal job. They relied far too much on emotion and things that had jackshit to do with the law, rather than poking holes in Zimmerman's story (of which there are many) and attempting to establish a narrative of their own. In some ways, I'm glad the jury saw through the smoke and mirrors and produced a verdict that was strictly legal, even if I feel said verdict was unjust.
I agree somewhat with that article, and I also believe that Zimmerman was morally culpable. But the problem, particularly with respect to race, is with these stand your ground laws that have been written by ALEC and passed in a bunch of states. And they disproportionately affect the African-American community. They're not applied the same way - there was just recently a case of a black woman who fired a warning shot -- a warning shot, not even killing or injuring the person (her husband) who was threatening her. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html Granted, this particular case is anecdotal, and you can't just pick one case and compare it to the Zimmerman case and say, "see, it's racist." There are obviously numerous other factors to consider, because each case will be different. But when similar results happen again and again, the evidence in the aggregate shows that these laws disproportionately affect minorities. See: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/15/stand-your-ground-and-the-zimmerman-defense/194870 I was not surprised by the result in the Zimmerman case, but I am also not happy about it.
I don't get why people are still talking about the 'stand your ground law'. From what I understand, the defense never even mentioned it in the trial. Zimmerman was attacked and he killed his attacker. The defense only argued self defense. Every time someone anti-Zimmerman mentions the 'stand your ground' law, I know your entire argument is derived from media manipulation and not facts. If it were derived from the facts of the trial, you wouldn't be mentioning the 'stand your ground' law.
Your second link doesn't explain how it matters. Zimmerman pulled the trigger while Martin was on top of him and bashing his head into the ground. You can't exactly run away when you're pinned to the ground. If the 'stand your ground' law didn't exist, Zimmerman still would have been acquitted. If you can't stand, you can't run.
