| Search Fishin.com |
Senior Member
--Originally Posted by waterdog101
I guess Mr. Zimmerman and the american people can be glad you were not on the jury...
"for no reason of his own"
Sounds like you don't believe any of the witnesses that testified that Mr. Martin was on top of Mr Zimmerman at some point during the scuffle... A guilty verdict would have been a terrible miscarriage of justice.
Senior Member
I agree with the verdict...I am surprised because of my disappointment in the system and the political weight that was tossed around by the potus, Al and Jesse.
i know for some it's easy to sit back and not agree with some of the facts (they heard)but the jury (6 women) spent weeks listening to more facts than us and was part of the trial.....first hand. They spent the time on this not us. These women had every opportunity to listen to fact and fiction, now if someone wants to toss emotions in and claim them as facts then they are falling into the same trap as the prosecution did....and it was flawed.
people want to blame someone for this verdict? Blame the law, blame the prosecution, blame the politicians who got involved but don't blame the defense....they did their job.
I do feel for the Martins because the grief of losing a child has to be next to impossible to deal with.
Senior Member
Based on what I saw of the trial coverage, all I can say is "of course." No way you could convict him based on what was presented. Now, I DON'T think that it was proven that he acted in self-defense. I'll be interested to see if any of the jurors come out and talk about it, and why they acquitted him. To me, it was plain as day though, that there are more than enough "reasonable doubt" to acquit. There was just too much that you couldn't say for 100% sure what happened, like the very basic question of how the whole confrontation started. You only had Zimmerman's story to go on, and although there are just enough inconsistencies in it to make you wonder (IMO), you couldn't say he outright lied anywhere.
Now that the trial is over, my feeling about the whole thing is that Zimmerman is a dumbass wannabe cop, but he's not a criminal.
Senior Member
Good post. May I add that the law does not state that Zimmerman is cleared because he killed a black man.
Senior Member
hope so. BUT yes he was profiled. If was sanchez accused of killing martin, there would NOT have been a trial.If both people had been Hispanic, No trial. Both black, no trial.NBC should be billed for the cost of that fiasco by the state.Profiling is a fact of life. EVERYONE knows that.It goes on all the time, and will never stop. Blacks practice it as well as are victims of it.It is human nature.
Senior Member
Exactly!!! That's why they called him White Hispanic.....is that an option on forms? You know when you fill out an application or something?? Is it just another term made up to help rally against whites?
Senior Member
What the hell do you mean, "that's why they called him White Hispanic?" It was CNN that came up with that term, after he had already been charged, and they took a lot of grief over it, as they should have.
Senior Member
I didn't check the timeline on when that term was used. I was just saying that the idea of black on black or Hispanic on black raises less hell. If the guy had a last name like Sanchez or spoke with a strong Hispanic accent things would have been different. They used the term because it sounded better and served their purpose of ratings.
I understand what you saying....that the term wasn't used before he was charged but to assume no one used racism aginst zimmerman or in favor of Trevon in any form before the charges is foolish.
As we know this trial was another case of racism run wild no one knows to what depth because people hide it when it's not convenient.
Senior Member
hope so. BUT yes he was profiled. If was sanchez accused of killing martin, there would NOT have been a trial.If both people had been Hispanic, No trial. Both black, no trial.NBC should be billed for the cost of that fiasco by the state.Profiling is a fact of life. EVERYONE knows that.It goes on all the time, and will never stop. Blacks practice it as well as are victims of it.It is human nature.
Senior Member
I don't know about the American people, but I know that Zimmerman can be glad I wasn't on the jury. he killed the 17 year old kid and got away with it. Zimmerman did nothing illegal doing the neighborhood watch, Martin did nothing illegal walking down the neighborhood street. Martin had the same rights to be there as Zimmerman did. and just because, Zimmerman thought the kid looked suspicious. called the police, and was told not to follow him any more. but he did and got out of his car and that was the reason for the fight. he got his BUTT Kicked, and he shot and killed the kid. even if he had to shoot the kid to get him off him. it still goes back to Zimmerman being the ROOT cause for the kids Death. there would have been no fight if Zimmerman, hadn't got out of his car and started one. if I had been on the jury, I would have voted Zimmerman guilty, not for shooting the kid to stop the Butt kicking he was getting. but for being the Root cause for the trouble that ended with a 17 year old kid Dead. everyone looks at things different, but thats my take on it. I just can't see it any other way.
Senior Member
--
You would not have had a not guilty vote based on the evidence that was clearly lacking, you would have been a party to a lynching?
Senior Member
YOU are kidding right. You make it sound like Trayvon was a freakin choirboy. He WAS NOT.....Yea Zimmerman shot and killed him. Yea, he probably got in over his head, but YOU YOURSELF stated both had a right to be where they were.
When Martin chose to confront Zimmerman, and sucker punched him, and then mounted him "MMA" style, he escalated to the point where Zimmerman KILLED him.
NO one wins. It is unfortunate that even without the evidence to support a murder conviction, you'd convict. I'm GLAD you're not on the jury. And I sure hope you're never on any jury....
Later,
Geo
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote