U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-28-2015, 04:40 PM
 
5,763 posts, read 13,338,761 times
Reputation: 4523

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris347 View Post
Got a poster right here. Its Titled "American Rights Prevail"

Trying to deflect and make some one else the "Bad Guys" isn't going to work, and that's all you got. You may not believe in the Constitution and are willing to give away all your freedoms supporting Thugs and criminals as "Misunderstood Youth" but some of us aren't. Martin was a thug and a punk, and sealed his own destiny. In GZ's place I would have shot him too. (multiple times) Don't care what you think about it. People can choose a path in life, and if you make a wrong turn, you suffer the consequences. Its that simple..

.Write a letter to your Congressman Tell him you don't believe in a Court System and want Mob Justice legalized. Let me know how that works out for you.
I've quoted this passage before. That time, all I did was to comment that it was refreshing to see someone besides myself express concern about the Constitution. This time, I want to go a little further.

Several weeks ago, someone described one of my posts as "condescending." The person did not elaborate on what he/she felt was condescending, but it was interesting that he/she then proceeded to agree with the major points of my "condescending" post (telling me something like, you're right about this and you're right about this, etc.).

Something else that person also did was to point out that I'm not the only person here with experience in a legal-related occupation. Maybe he/she thought that the times I've worked mention of my past LE experience into my posts were "condescending" because he/she thought that I meant to show off what I knew and knock others for not knowing about the legal intricacies.

Fair enough, if that was how it seemed to that person, but my only reason for mentioning my experience actually has been to lend some authority to my posts. Maybe at least a few people will realize that I just might know what I'm talking about.

The reason I feel it's important for people to be aware of that is that through all of my posts I've been driven by an important concern. That concern is that all too many people seem either ignorant or unconcerned about the threat to Constitutional rights in this case.

No matter whether you or I or Jane L. Customer who lives down the street might believe that GZ conducted himself irresponsibly, it's clear to me--yes, me as someone with solid knowledge of areas of law relevant in this case (though I certainly don't claim to have the knowledge of, for example, an expert lawyer) and experience conducting investigations--that there is no legal case to be made against GZ on the basis of evidence. I'm talking about real evidence, the kind that would be recognized as such by legal professionals, not the bits of speculation some people on threads like this are convinced are rock-solid evidence.

It goes beyond that, though. Not only is there nothing, or at best very little, in the way of real evidence to indicate that GZ broke any law, but there is a solid collection of evidence indicating that he did not break any law in the Martin case. As I look at the evidence--the whole body of evidence, not just some bit I've cherry-picked because it might seem to prove something I've wanted to believe all along (which is not the case; I only want the truth)--there is only one plausible scenario it adds up to. In that scenario, GZ did not violate any law.

By some real stretch of the imagination--and I do mean a real stretch--you might dream up a scenario that would make GZ guilty of some crime, but by the only plausible scenario, he broke no law whatsoever. If you want to waste your precious life energy hating him, or you just want to hold the opinion that he's scum, that's your business, but please don't encourage or accept the idea that it's okay to use the legal system against someone who has violated no law.

So, if I'm so sure there was no legitimate legal case against GZ, how did he end up charged with 2nd-degree murder? Keep in mind that the local police saw no reason to hold him on the night of the incident. Later on, the local D.A. saw no reason to bring charges, and publicly stated that there was two little evidence for charges.

It was then that several state officials all got together to create a case against GZ, setting up what was essentially a kangaroo court. I can't know what was going on in their heads when they decided to do this, but to me the most likely motivation would seem to be that they were pandering to a riled-up public who wanted GZ's head on the proverbial platter, in the hope of enhancing their political and professional positions by giving the public what they wanted.

With these personal interests in mind, these officials proceeded to appoint a special prosecutor who, as I gather from discussions on news shows, is notorious in legal circles for being aggressive and unscrupulous in her prosecution of cases. Basically, her reputation is that she'll do anything she thinks she can get away with to win.

This win-at-all-costs prosecutor then opted to bypass the grand jury and take her case against GZ to the judge. Why? Most likely because there was the very real possibility that the grand jury would not have indicted GZ, given that there was no evidence that he had broken any law. So the special prosecutor instead submitted to the judge an affidavit which left out key facts that would have supported GZ's claim of innocence (in the legal sense).

The judge who saw this conveniently incomplete collection of information was not just whatever local judge happened to be the one whose number came up when that case was on the docket. This was a judge specifically appointed to this case by the same state officials who had taken matters out of the local D.A.'s hands, and appointed the special prosecutor.

I'm not accusing the judge of being fully in collusion on some plot to nail GZ. I wouldn't have any way to know that one way or another. However, the judge most certainly knew the implications to her career if she did not play along and give the state honchos what they wanted, as much as she could without being too blatant about it. So, the judge allowed the case to go to trial, based on an affidavit criticized by no less an authority than Alan Dershowitz as so lacking in all the relevant evidence that presenting it as her basis for a case at least bordered on a disbarrable offense by the special prosecutor.

There were also some rulings the judge made during the pre-trial stage and the actual trial that looked to me like possibly a subtle slant in the direction of increasing the chances for a conviction. That's hard to say for sure, because judges do make various rulings for their own reasons, but some of that judge's rulings seemed at least a bit suspect.

Basically, the fix was in. It was only because the so-called case against GZ was absurdly weak--from a legal standpoint--that he was acquitted.

He actually never should have been charged in the first place. What a lot of people may not realize is that by law the authorities need quite a solid case against someone in order even to bring charges. You don't just put someone on trial on the basis of vague suspicion and then use the trial to sort things out.

That sorting out is supposed to be done at an earlier stage. It's called investigation. There are supposed to be charges and a trial only if that sorting out--that investigation---turns up solid evidence against some suspect. It's clear to me, as someone with professional knowledge of the criminal justice system, that the evidence in this case was not remotely close to making that kind of solid case against GZ.

What concerns me here is not so much this case alone. I'm concerned about the future. I keep wondering what will be the next case where someone who breaks no law is put on trial--maybe convicted in some future case--by officials who collude to work around those pesky Constitutional protections so they can pander to an angry public that wants the person punished.

If some of you knew what I know about the legal issues of this case, and understood what really happened in the Zimmerman-Martin case, well, just maybe you too would find it scary to think of the possibility that in the future this might become the accepted way of doing business in the criminal "justice" system.

Last edited by ogre; 02-28-2015 at 05:14 PM..

 
Old 02-28-2015, 09:19 PM
 
5,239 posts, read 2,386,359 times
Reputation: 5119
Quote:
Originally Posted by TS808 View Post
If only Zimmerman would have went to Target instead of driving around and following Martin behind apartment buildings we never would have heard Martin. Zimmerman's five other mugshots would still be in the books, but we probably wouldn't have heard of him either.

Please spare us the reply that Zimmerman had every right to follow TM that night. Or that TM sealed his own fate by having a conversation with his girlfriend on a cell phone. One is perfectly legal, the other is stalking.

TM stood his ground by every definition of the SYG law, but unfortunately he could not use it as a defense since he neither killed nor attempted to kill anyone.
It's already been determined that GZ didn't stalk TM. Since you disagree, why don't you post up Florida's stalking law and demonstrate that what GZ did was in fact stalking?
 
Old 02-28-2015, 11:17 PM
 
Location: A State of Mind
4,479 posts, read 1,739,800 times
Reputation: 4413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Data Venia View Post
His vitals signs and weight were recorded by the clinic he visited the day after the killing to get a work release. His weight was given as 204 pounds in that document, iirc.
Well, what can I tell you.. then during that prior mug shot in the Orange jumpsuit AND later, gaining weight again before the trial, he appears to have weighed 400 lbs! All I'm saying, is that after the incident and when he reenacted the scene of the crime, he appeared not very big, like 135. I would like to post a photo of that time period, but having trouble doing so, so just look for the photos, if you care.
_________________________________________

Okay, I just looked it up and it says he was 185 on 4/11/12, at 5' 7", arrest booking. Then says his weight on record with Sanford police on 4/26/12 was 200 lbs, at 5' 8". I realize it is not so different and also, not what I thought. It's just that there are more heavier photos of him and during the incident, he did appear smaller, his weight must have been in his thighs. Sorry for going on, I tend to be analytical.

Last edited by In2itive_1; 03-01-2015 at 12:29 AM.. Reason: To add info I had looked up -
 
Old 03-01-2015, 01:36 AM
 
Location: A State of Mind
4,479 posts, read 1,739,800 times
Reputation: 4413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario View Post
Obviously a racist troll who feels empowered to post that filth here.
It seems unbelievable, even amongst those who are hateful, that his remarks are for real. I think he is just trying to stir things up... but either way, it is pretty pathetic.
 
Old 03-01-2015, 01:53 AM
 
Location: The State Of California
9,134 posts, read 11,684,836 times
Reputation: 3423
Default Yes he did

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
It's already been determined that GZ didn't stalk TM. Since you disagree, why don't you post up Florida's stalking law and demonstrate that what GZ did was in fact stalking?
florida stalking law.......
Welcome To The State Attorney’s Office, 18th Judicial Circuit:
 
Old 03-01-2015, 02:10 AM
 
Location: The State Of California
9,134 posts, read 11,684,836 times
Reputation: 3423
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre View Post
Now a professional psychologist weighs in. I'm interested in knowing as much as possible about this case, so I'd be interested in seeing details of your professional opinion.

Being the expert you apparently are, you must know that the analyses of laymen about what's "obvious" because of what "seems" to be someone's personality or psychological makeup can be way off. I'd be interested in your expert analysis.



Even though apparently you are an expert in psychology, here you are clearly out of your area of knowledge. There are a number of points you make here that a person with knowledge of criminal investigation and the law (of which I am one) would not regard as having the significance you attach.

I singled out your statement about DNA because in that case, before we even consider the question of whether your observation carries much weight, let's look at the fact that you don't even have your information correct. NO DNA found on either of them? This copy of the report on DNA begs to differ:

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/wp-c...t-7-26-12-.pdf.

Even if there had been no DNA found, there are at least two reasons that this would not necessarily mean much:

1) As I once heard said by a lawyer analyzing a case on a current events show on television, "The presence of DNA speaks more loudly than the absence of DNA."

DNA can be degraded or destroyed by the elements. My experience in law enforcement predates the use of DNA in criminal investigations, but based on what I've gained in general knowledge since then, water is particularly likely to compromise DNA. It was raining that night. There's also some question about whether the Sanford police officers correctly handled the clothing they took as evidence.

The bottom line is that the absence of DNA may mean something relevant (in this case or any other) or it may just mean that DNA that was there has been destroyed by the elements, or mishandling of the evidence.

2) In several threads about this case you're not the first person I've seen make this erroneous claim about a complete lack of DNA. Okay, I was jabbing at you about your implied expertise in psychology, but now I'm seriously asking what you think a lack of DNA is supposed to prove. The only possibility I can think of is that this is supposed to indicate that there never was any contact between GZ and TM, but that GZ just walked up and shot TM, or something like that.

In this case, there is other evidence of contact between the two. For example, several witnesses saw one of them on top of the other, striking him repeatedly in the face. They're not all in agreement about who was on top. It's necessary to look at various pieces of evidence to determine how the whole encounter played out. But those witness statements alone are enough to establish that there was contact between the two men. Zimmerman did not just walk up and shoot Martin. The lack of DNA would not prove that he did.

And that's if it were even accurate to say no DNA was found, which it's not.

Back to:

WHY WASN'T GZ'S PSYCHOLOGICAL HISTORY EXAMINED?

Only the lawyers involved in the trial could positively answer your question about why GZ's psychological history was not examined and presented as evidence. I can suggest some possible reasons:

1) Lawyers would need to be very careful about how to present such information for it to be admitted as evidence. Court hearings and determinations of guilt are supposed to involve facts about the case in question, not speculation about what someone might or might not have done because of the kind of person he seems to be.

2) There are enough facts here to determine what most likely happened, without getting into such speculation. However, it takes a consideration of all the evidence, and an understanding of how to piece it all together.

Time and again on threads about this case I've seen people cite one or two pieces of evidence and claim that this proves their point. It does not. Using a few cherry-picked bits of evidence might work if you just want to satisfy yourself that you're correct in the way you decided from the beginning that you wanted to see things. If you really want to know the truth, you need to carefully put together every piece of evidence.
The only thing of any important said by you is highlighted below.......
DNA can be degraded or destroyed by the elements. My experience in law enforcement predates the use of DNA in criminal investigations, but based on what I've gained in general knowledge since then, water is particularly likely to compromise DNA. It was raining that night. There's also some question about whether the Sanford police officers correctly handled the clothing they took as evidence.

The bottom line is that the absence of DNA may mean something relevant (in this case or any other) or it may just mean that DNA that was there has been destroyed by the elements, or mishandling of the evidence.
 
Old 03-01-2015, 02:45 AM
 
Location: A State of Mind
4,479 posts, read 1,739,800 times
Reputation: 4413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Data Venia View Post
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Data Venia View Post
Most of the people who believe George's story never tried to reenact it exactly as he described it. If they had, they would have discovered obvious, major problems with it.
True, I would like to see any of them attempt to do so. It would be physically impossible, with all the supposed motions, especially with alterations he had made to his story. It is amazing how his supporters are apparently void of logic and typically only repeat phrases and occurences from the story uttered by the killer, never analyzing, but believing something that never made sense, elaborating on it to justify their position.

Their decision about the incident was decided due to relating to the criminal or giving preference to him over one assumed to have been a certain way that they dislike... more elaborating.
 
Old 03-01-2015, 07:32 AM
 
9,112 posts, read 4,533,296 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by In2itive_1 View Post
True, I would like to see any of them attempt to do so. It would be physically impossible, with all the supposed motions, especially with alterations he had made to his story. It is amazing how his supporters are apparently void of logic and typically only repeat phrases and occurences from the story uttered by the killer, never analyzing, but believing something that never made sense, elaborating on it to justify their position.

Their decision about the incident was decided due to relating to the criminal or giving preference to him over one assumed to have been a certain way that they dislike... more elaborating.
There's no way to prove it either way, but I'd bet that most people who think the jury verdict was correct, either formed, or changed their opinion to NG, after the evidence was produced.

Most who believe the verdict was wrong had their opinion formed from the day 'armed white man kills unarmed black child' hit the headlines.

We still hear the lies that Z was trained in MMA, left his car after being ordered not to, the police had stopped the investigation, and so many more.

Even with the DOJ failing to bring an indictment after 3 years, you still don't get it --- Z didn't commit a crime that night.
 
Old 03-01-2015, 09:55 AM
 
Location: The State Of California
9,134 posts, read 11,684,836 times
Reputation: 3423
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
There's no way to prove it either way, but I'd bet that most people who think the jury verdict was correct, either formed, or changed their opinion to NG, after the evidence was produced.

Most who believe the verdict was wrong had their opinion formed from the day 'armed white man kills unarmed black child' hit the headlines.

We still hear the lies that Z was trained in MMA, left his car after being ordered not to, the police had stopped the investigation, and so many more.

Even with the DOJ failing to bring an indictment after 3 years, you still don't get it --- Z didn't commit a crime that night.


Any 28 years old African American Man is wrong when he kills a 17 years old unarmed Caucasian boy , go figure will you?????

ZimmerBoy MMA Instructor was on the witness stand saying that GZ trained for a year and Was a Wassy!

Now try this on darling , neither is O. J. Simpson guilty of Killing His Wife And Her Lover , I guess we are even!!!
 
Old 03-01-2015, 11:29 AM
 
9,112 posts, read 4,533,296 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howest2008 View Post
[/b]


ZimmerBoy MMA Instructor was on the witness stand saying that GZ trained for a year and Was a Wassy!
You're so off the deep end that you don't even know when you support Zimmerman.

His trainer testified that Z was soft, nonathletic, a 1 on a scale of 1-10, all he did was shadow box, didn't know how to punch, wasn't capable of boxing against a real person. Even after all that, you argue that TrayMan couldn't pound Z because Z was heavier.

For your own sake, avoid efforts at substance, and stick to what you're better at --- name-calling and typing in bold.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top