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 03-01-2015, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque area
244 posts, read 181,773 times
Reputation: 1083

Advertisements

Ogre's cherry-picking accusations are adorable. Woefully misplaced, but still adorable. As has been stated repeatedly, just because a person finds dear Mr. Zimmerman guilty as the day is long, does not mean said person has failed to examine the totality of evidence. To the contrary, that person (or several persons, with respect to this thread) has weighed the evidence, read the discovery and all but memorized every syllable of every recorded lie from the mouth and pen of the killer and concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that the armed parking monitor of the Retreat at Twin Lakes initiated, prolonged, unlawfully terminated and then completely rewrote the events of 2/26/2012. Ogre doesn't have to agree with my conclusion, the lamest of lame prosecutions doesn't negate my conclusion and the much-celebrated verdict amongst those who sniff the killer's excrement and proclaim "Roses!" cannot diminish my conclusion. It's okay, though, I'll live, as will they.

Good luck and Godspeed to Zimmerman's next victims, though. They'll need it.

 
Old 03-01-2015, 05:04 PM
 
5,239 posts, read 2,386,359 times
Reputation: 5119
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre View Post
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.
One of the better posts in this thread. Bravo!
 
Old 03-01-2015, 05:07 PM
 
5,239 posts, read 2,386,359 times
Reputation: 5119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howest2008 View Post
RIF. The very first sentence in your link shows that I'm right.
 
Old 03-01-2015, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,802 posts, read 2,157,737 times
Reputation: 5195
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
RIF. The very first sentence in your link shows that I'm right.
Hummm.Well..here's the first sentence~~


Stalking is defined in the State of Florida as "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following, harassing or cyberstalking" another.

TM was not following GZ ..he only asked "Why are you following me" and seconds later DEAD... SO please explain how someone staling another..coming face to face with them..then killing them indicate Victim was wrong.....IF you want to claim TM was the confronter..Fine..but he was Unarmed and steps from his destination..Why would he want to have some sort of creepy follower get to his destination?? For all he knew..this creepy guy meant harm..He never spoke or explained why he was following... Course much was left out of the case wether it was do to Judge or lack of Pros. CIC..BUT Sunshine exposed just what actually happened..and apologist's constantly want to say..He's innocent because ..

All I can say at this point..Is Karma's a B$t&c*..and already less than a few years gone by, GZ's proclivities are creating legal problems for him and whomever choses to relate to this pariah!!
 
Old 03-01-2015, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
5,941 posts, read 2,498,226 times
Reputation: 5609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Data Venia View Post
And yes, it is Dr. D, and yes, I am an expert who can testify in court on these matters. In fact, I was approached to testify in the Zimmerman case but couldn't do so due to prior knowledge of the defendant and his medical history.
Doesn't matter what your opinion is. Zimmy walked, and your opinion did not hold water. As bad as they wanted to convict him, I am sure they covered all their bases as many times as they changed what they claimed happened. You would have made no difference. The evidence was there to support Zimmy. All the Prosecutors had was opinions and experts who added more opinions.

Sorry. Its done.
 
Old 03-01-2015, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
5,941 posts, read 2,498,226 times
Reputation: 5609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Data Venia View Post
Whether you insert the word "possible" or "actual" before the phrase "danger to society," you still can't claim the only ones in the category are those who've been convicted.

Nice ad hom, Boris. Are you feeling threatened? Too bad the only thread I represent to you is a threat to the integrity of your personal opinion. That's called cognitive dissonance, my friend.

My personal opinion did not free Zimmy. Your thread does not represent anything that even resembles a "Threat" to anyone's opinion, because in real life, it did not play out to validate your opinion.

Nice try, attempting to "Deflect" from reality.
 
Old 03-01-2015, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
5,941 posts, read 2,498,226 times
Reputation: 5609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Data Venia View Post
Irrelevant to what you alleged. You tried to allege Zimmerman wasn't dangerous because he wasn't convicted.

He was Dangerous. Dangerous to thugs and Gangstas. .
 
Old 03-01-2015, 07:07 PM
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
5,941 posts, read 2,498,226 times
Reputation: 5609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Data Venia View Post
Holder wasn't even evaluating whether Zimmerman committed murder or didn't.

Of course not. The Courts said he didn't. Try to keep up...
 
Old 03-01-2015, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
5,941 posts, read 2,498,226 times
Reputation: 5609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellflower View Post
Ogre's cherry-picking accusations are adorable. Woefully misplaced, but still adorable. As has been stated repeatedly, just because a person finds dear Mr. Zimmerman guilty as the day is long, does not mean said person has failed to examine the totality of evidence. To the contrary, that person (or several persons, with respect to this thread) has weighed the evidence, read the discovery and all but memorized every syllable of every recorded lie from the mouth and pen of the killer and concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that the armed parking monitor of the Retreat at Twin Lakes initiated, prolonged, unlawfully terminated and then completely rewrote the events of 2/26/2012. Ogre doesn't have to agree with my conclusion, the lamest of lame prosecutions doesn't negate my conclusion and the much-celebrated verdict amongst those who sniff the killer's excrement and proclaim "Roses!" cannot diminish my conclusion. It's okay, though, I'll live, as will they.

Good luck and Godspeed to Zimmerman's next victims, though. They'll need it.
Your babbling now. Ogres hit it right on the head more than once. The reality is that Zimmer is free. The Us Justice system worked like it was supposed to, and an innocent man was freed from the Lynch Mobs.
 
Old 03-01-2015, 07:57 PM
 
9,112 posts, read 4,533,296 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyndarn View Post
Hummm.Well..here's the first sentence~~


Stalking is defined in the State of Florida as "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following, harassing or cyberstalking" another.

This cracks me up. You quote the sentence and ignore the words 'And Repeatedly' as though they aren't there or don't matter. So, even if you're granted the following was 'Malicious,' it 00% wasn't repeatedly.

Give up on the stalking.
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