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.
Do you think people actually didn't realize that both Trayvon Martin and the President are/were black people?
The President's answer to the question from the press was as noncommittal as an answer could possibly have been. He stated the obvious to everyone who is not literally blind.
Come on be honest. Obama jumped on this from the start of it.
Btw, guys, a juror is not a jurist. I've been seeing talking heads on TV calling jurors jurists and it's driving me nuts. As much money as those people must be getting paid to comment on this and other trials THEY should certainly know the difference between a juror and a jurist and they should know better. An example is that a member of the U.S. Supreme Court would be a jurist. A judge would be a jurist. etc., etc.
A "jurist" is a specialist in the law.
ju·rist (jrst)n. One who has thorough knowledge and experience of law, especially an eminent judge, lawyer, or legal scholar. Also called jurisprudent.
A JUROR is:
ju·ror
[joor-er, -awr] Show IPA
noun 1. one of a group of persons sworn to deliver a verdict in a case submitted to them; member of a jury.
2. one of the panel from which a jury is selected.
I agree that the prosecution has performed poorly so far. Btw, this trial is all about the disputed fact of what Trayvon Martin did and what George Zimmerman did. That's WHY there is a trial going on at this point. So what's all this "innocent" crap you're talking about. IMO, based on the fact there were no injuries on Martin's hands other than one tiny, tiny cut on his ring finger, indicates that Martin was not beating Zimmerman to death and Zimmerman stopped that beating by shooting him in self defense. Additionally, Zimmerman has no injuries to his hands. No Zimmerman DNA on Trayvon's hands. There are a number of things which could lead reasonable people to come to a different conclusion from yours. MY OPINION is that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense but rather reacting in anger, maybe rage, from being humiliated, yet I don't believe that Zimmerman does not stand a chance of being acquitted. I don't believe that at all. I thought the State had a great case based on the opening statement, however, their strategy in presenting that case is failing miserably at this point. And, once again, wise people never predict what a jury will do. There's a good reason for that.
As for people on the Internet wanting Zimmerman to be hurt physically if he is acquitted (btw, there is NO INNOCENT VERDICT....it's guilty or not guilty, and not guilty does not mean "innocent")........dear god! There are all sort of crazy people who post on the Internet. So what?
If George Zimmerman is found "not guilty" that legally means that this shooting was ruled as "justified" which means George Zimmerman did nothing illegal by shooting Trayvon Martin. Whether either of them was stupid or made mistakes is another discussion all together but this thread is about the trial and the outcome.
Come on be honest. Obama jumped on this from the start of it.
During jury selection NOT ONE PERSON said anything about hearing anything Obama said nor that they were influenced by anything the President said. I listened very carefully for that.
Obama said nothing of significance about this case or what the outcome should be. If I am mistaken about that, please show me what he said and I will readily admit it if I'm incorrect.
No. If any authority wanted to question the President about his comments regarding this case influencing potential jurors, the charge would have to be Jury Tampering. Does that give you any idea how ridiculous the suggestion was that the attorneys should have "called" the President to be in witness in this case and ask him about trying to influence potential jurors in this case by the comment he made? It's absurd beyond absurd.
So the lack of corroboration of Zimmerman's story that he was punched in the face 20 to 30 times by any witnesses is proving that Zimmerman lied......"exaggerated" is a very nice word....but in a trial where the credibility of the defendant is all that can be relied upon to support a claim of self defense, well, the word lied is more accurate. All the many little "exaggerations" Zimmerman has made about this story leads to the fact that he is not telling the truth and his word means nothing, he has no credibility. Additionally, he has every good reason in the world to lie about this, one being to try to stay out of prison. The State is SLOWLY trying to prove that Zimmerman's word is meaningless in this case, and even though it's being done pitifully by the State, that's where they're going, IMO. Bottom line, Zimmerman is quick tempered, has little to no impulse control and he lies A LOT, is what the State wants to get across to this jury, IMO.
I will also add that he is not very bright. Any intelligent person would not have left their vehicle that night. It is just common sense, foresight and critical thinking that would have prevented this tragedy and Zimmerman is void of all of the above. I will go as far as to say that NO ONE that I know would have taken the course that Zimmerman did right from the outset. I see the fact that he did not confront TM with an intoduction as to who he was and why he was following him as a major point in this case. Zimmerman attempted to turn neighbrhood watch responsibility into intrigue and espionage.
No. If any authority wanted to question the President about his comments regarding this case influencing potential jurors, the charge would have to be Jury Tampering. Does that give you any idea how ridiculous the suggestion was that the attorneys should have "called" the President to be in witness in this case and ask him about trying to influence potential jurors in this case by the comment he made? It's absurd beyond absurd.
LOL I agree GZ is a bold faced liar. But, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that GZ was not afraid for his life. I don't believe they will be able to do so. I think most agree that GZ is a BS artist. It can also be shown that he is a frightened little man who is so afraid that he needs to carry a loaded and unsafed gun at all times. I believe he was was afraid for his life. I mean he provoked a confrontation that went south fast. He got knocked down and he had no one one to pull an angry TM off of him. I also agree he had anger issues and impulse control issues.
I honestly believe had GZ not had a gun he would have enjoyed a good thumping and TM would have been arrested for assault.
The way they prove Zimmerman did not act in self defense is to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is a liar, not credible, and that he would lie about his claim of self defense because he lied so many times about what happened, an other things. I don't know if they can bring in that Zimmerman conspired with his wife to lie to the Court about the amount of money they had during the bail hearing, but if they can do so, that would be enormously damaging to his credibility. Remember the jury only has to have a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is telling the truth when he claims self defense. A reasonable doubt is not beyond ALL doubt. A juror could think, well, maybe it was self defense, but based on his history of lying and the conflicting testimony, and the fact that he has good reason to lie now in order to be acquitted, I think there is certainly a reasonable doubt that he is telling the truth when he says he was in fear of losing his life or great bodily harm.
During jury selection NOT ONE PERSON said anything about hearing anything Obama said nor that they were influenced by anything the President said. I listened very carefully for that.
Obama said nothing of significance about this case or what the outcome should be. If I am mistaken about that, please show me what he said and I will readily admit it if I'm incorrect.
A sitting president should not be weighing in with his opinions, thoughts or his politics.
Not his job and it is certainly inappropriate.
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.
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.
r
st)n. One who has thorough knowledge and experience of law, especially an eminent judge, lawyer, or legal scholar. Also called jurisprudent.
