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.
I still believe that one is innocent until proven guilty. So far, it looks as though Zimmerman is not getting the benefit of that tenet of our legal system.
You seem to think you know all about this case, and are more familiar with all the facts than anyone else is here, so I'm sure I do not need to provide you with any links (which I did not save, so I don't have them at hand). Google it. But apparently you don't need to.
Zimmerman is absolutely "getting the benefit" of the presumption of innocence. He has been charged with a crime. He has a attorney representing him. He is not incarcerated at this time; he is free on bail. That's EXACTLY how the system works for everyone. The presumption of innocence means that the STATE has to prove their accusation in a trial. The burden of proof is with the state. Normally defendants are not required to prove anything (therefore presumption of innocence). However, in this case Zimmerman has filed an affirmative defense (which means he has to put on evidence of that defense) which is self defense. Zimmerman is absolutely getting appropriate due process. You could not be more mistaken in your belief that he is not getting the full "benefit" of the presumption of innocence.
As far as links to your sources for the information you've posted, well, YOU MADE THE POSTS, it's up to you to back them up, or clearly it's just your opinion based of whatever misleading sources you may have found, including internet gossip sites. It's inappropriate to tell someone to "google it" when they ask for your source. Poor form.
I'm somewhat knowledgeable about this case because it interests me. Why does that bother you?
Okay. Give us some links support your belief that Martin was not really out "just for some snacks."
Are you totally unaware of Zimmerman's interview on "TV" by Hannity? Are you totally unaware that Zimmerman appeared on Hannity's show? Zimmerman has done more to convince people he's a nut than the "MSM' could ever hope for.
From the evidence I've seen, I think there is a good possibility that Zimmerman is guilty as charged. But I don't get to make that call; ultimately a judge in an immunity hearing or a jury will make that decision.
Btw, I'm not anti-people-privately-owning guns. I simply couldn't care less how many guns you or anyone else owns legally. I don't believe there is any way possible for the government to gather up all the guns which are privately owned in this country.
Is your major issue with what you call the "MSM" .....as I said before, the evidence in this case is available in the court file which is online for anyone to view so nobody has to rely on the MSM to tell them anything unless that's what they WANT to hear and they're too lazy to check out the facts for themselves. Also, the last time I checked, the MSM does NOT render verdicts for juries in real cases. Zimmerman himself has done more to hurt his "image" than anyone in the "media." Are you also unaware that Zimmerman and his wife lied to the judge in a hearing and that now Zimmerman's wife has been charged with perjury? That makes Zimmerman's credibility a little bit suspect at this point.
I don't know if Martin was bad guy or Zimmerman is bad guy too. But was it VERY CLEAR is that everything starte Mr. Zimmerman. He did follow Martin with NO REASON and he CREATED situation in which one human die!!
Basically he is saying what I have said all along. This case is a slam dunk with standard self defense law. Someone cannot simply beat you without you having an opportunity to defend yourself wth deadly force if necessary. Zimmerman would get off in the most looniest of liberal states.
Throw in Stand your Ground and it's 100% he get's off after all folks have been known to miss slam dunks.
I'm not so sure. Reading through the posts on this thread would indicate that there are plenty of people who are convinced he is guilty of 2nd degree murder, without having seen any evidence or knowing any facts.
One even claims all the prosecutions evidence can be viewed online! If that is the case, there is no way this man is going to get an unbiased jury. If everyone can see all the evidence of the prosecution in this case, how does one find anyone elegible to sit in the jury box?
I'm not so sure. Reading through the posts on this thread would indicate that there are plenty of people who are convinced he is guilty of 2nd degree murder, without having seen any evidence or knowing any facts.
One even claims all the prosecutions evidence can be viewed online! If that is the case, there is no way this man is going to get an unbiased jury. If everyone can see all the evidence of the prosecution in this case, how does one find anyone elegible to sit in the jury box?
Zimmerman has no chance of a fair trial.
Did no one ever tell you that we have open trials and courts in this country and that court files are public record? Some records within a court file may be sealed, AFTER having a hearing and determining there are legitimate reasons for sealing such record, and records pertaining to minors, but the rest is open. WHY do you think media outlets file motions in court for the release of "sealed information" in high profile cases? Those are public records. We don't try criminal cases in the dark, behind closed doors.
Btw, discovery information in a court file does not necessarily reveal the strategy which will be used by either side in the case.
Additionally, if someone goes to the court file and researches and investigates a case, and that "someone" is in the jury pool and answers the attorneys' and judge's questions truthfully about such research, as well as any opinion they formed from that research, they would be excused from jury duty and not allowed to be a juror on the case they researched.
Okay. Give us some links support your belief that Martin was not really out "just for some snacks."
Are you totally unaware of Zimmerman's interview on "TV" by Hannity? Are you totally unaware that Zimmerman appeared on Hannity's show? Zimmerman has done more to convince people he's a nut than the "MSM' could ever hope for.
From the evidence I've seen, I think there is a good possibility that Zimmerman is guilty as charged. But I don't get to make that call; ultimately a judge in an immunity hearing or a jury will make that decision.
Btw, I'm not anti-people-privately-owning guns. I simply couldn't care less how many guns you or anyone else owns legally. I don't believe there is any way possible for the government to gather up all the guns which are privately owned in this country.
Is your major issue with what you call the "MSM" .....as I said before, the evidence in this case is available in the court file which is online for anyone to view so nobody has to rely on the MSM to tell them anything unless that's what they WANT to hear and they're too lazy to check out the facts for themselves. Also, the last time I checked, the MSM does NOT render verdicts for juries in real cases. Zimmerman himself has done more to hurt his "image" than anyone in the "media." Are you also unaware that Zimmerman and his wife lied to the judge in a hearing and that now Zimmerman's wife has been charged with perjury? That makes Zimmerman's credibility a little bit suspect at this point.
Can we be real life for a second ? There aren't many people who care enough to search through court files and discovery for info about the case. Why should they ? As you say, the judge/jury will decide what happens, so scouring court records is for the extreme minority who for one reason or another have a particular interest in the case. IMO, for most people the early msm reporting is still what remain the 'facts' --- a huge white guy with a gun profiled a little black child, chased him down, and murdered him.
----------------------
The trip to 7-11--- Mr. Martin's girlfriend's son stated that tm went to the store to buy him [the son] some Skittles and a snack for himself [tm]. Yes, iced tea can be considered a snack or tm might not have seen anything he liked in 7-11 or lost his appetite or remembered a snack in the house. Or there could have been another reason why he went for that walk. I think there are 2 or 3 other reasons why an objective observer or 'zimmy lover' might wonder about the 7-11 trip's purpose, but enough speculation and victim bashing for one post.
Can we be real life for a second ? There aren't many people who care enough to search through court files and discovery for info about the case. Why should they ? As you say, the judge/jury will decide what happens, so scouring court records is for the extreme minority who for one reason or another have a particular interest in the case. IMO, for most people the early msm reporting is still what remain the 'facts' --- a huge white guy with a gun profiled a little black child, chased him down, and murdered him.
----------------------
The trip to 7-11--- Mr. Martin's girlfriend's son stated that tm went to the store to buy him [the son] some Skittles and a snack for himself [tm]. Yes, iced tea can be considered a snack or tm might not have seen anything he liked in 7-11 or lost his appetite or remembered a snack in the house. Or there could have been another reason why he went for that walk. I think there are 2 or 3 other reasons why an objective observer or 'zimmy lover' might wonder about the 7-11 trip's purpose, but enough speculation and victim bashing for one post.
Sure, it takes effort to look in the court file and read the evidence and develop your own opinion. However, at the same time to make unequivocal statements about what the evidence shows, without any links to any source, which can be debated, deserves a response that the MSM is NOT THE ONLY SOURCE of information.
Bottom line, if you hate the MSM and think what they say is the only "evidence" out there, then certainly it can't hurt for someone to inform you that that is not true.
In case you didn't notice, someone here even thinks that the evidence in the court file is not only not posted online, but that it is never available to the public and if it were there would never be any "fair" trials. Granted, one usually has to go to the court house to review court files in cases, but in this instance it has been put online because this is a high profile case. Bottom line, public records.
As for snacks, the iced tea was found in Trayvon's possession. So I guess he did at least buy some iced tea. And, yes, I'd consider iced tea a "snack food" (drink).
Zimmerman is absolutely "getting the benefit" of the presumption of innocence. He has been charged with a crime. He has a attorney representing him. He is not incarcerated at this time; he is free on bail. That's EXACTLY how the system works for everyone. The presumption of innocence means that the STATE has to prove their accusation in a trial. The burden of proof is with the state. Normally defendants are not required to prove anything (therefore presumption of innocence). However, in this case Zimmerman has filed an affirmative defense (which means he has to put on evidence of that defense) which is self defense. Zimmerman is absolutely getting appropriate due process. You could not be more mistaken in your belief that he is not getting the full "benefit" of the presumption of innocence.
As far as links to your sources for the information you've posted, well, YOU MADE THE POSTS, it's up to you to back them up, or clearly it's just your opinion based of whatever misleading sources you may have found, including internet gossip sites. It's inappropriate to tell someone to "google it" when they ask for your source. Poor form.
I'm somewhat knowledgeable about this case because it interests me. Why does that bother you?
What "bothers" me is your "know it all" arrogance, and your assumption that because I do not have links saved to whatever articles I have read about this case, which have been many, my "sources" are automatically misleading or just "gossip."
If at the time I read a piece I thought I was going to need to provide the link for you, months later, believe me I would have saved it. I do not save links to every article I read. But that does not mean I am ineligible to respond to threads on this forum. Does it? And I am certainly not going to do the research to find the source just for your benefit.
I believe my posts on this topic (or any other topic) are thought provoking, cogent, and not based on hearsay. They are my opinion. But I arrive at my opinion based on knowledge and truth as I see it. I attempt to write clearly, and make my points understandable. I am not, however, pretending to be a lawyer.
There is no doubt that the MSM has engaged in the shaping of public opinion on this against George Zimmerman, and Martin has been portrayed as a choir boy. Anyone who believes otherwise is seriously naive.
MR. Dale, do you really think that documents in a court file in the Clerk's Office in a criminal case which has been made available to the public online is FALSE because it's online? Have you ever heard of PDF files? Do you think Clerks of Court are in the business of changing documents which are filed in the court files in order to "influence" people on the internet? Some things are really just too dumb for words.
The best example I've seen of ridiculous generalizations is the one you just posted regarding the truth of Court Clerk online documents from the court file of a criminal case.
I wonder how it is that evidence in a criminal case that has yet to go to trial are allowed to be viewed by the public online? Something about that bothers me.
I wonder how it is that evidence in a criminal case that has yet to go to trial are allowed to be viewed by the public online? Something about that bothers me.
We have an open justice system in this country. Trials are not conducted behind closed doors. We have public records laws. Court files are public records.
AGAIN, here is the link to the court file in this case:
Just FYI - Florida has a Florida Indigent Defense Budget from which indigent case costs are drawn. Florida and a few other states have a higher indigent defense budget than other states.
Also, there was such a high interest from the public in reading the most important pleadings and depositions filed in the Casey Anthony case that the Clerk's office, during the pendency of the case, put a link on their website and Morgan & Morgan had put a link on their website to Zenida Gonzalez court filings. I haven't seen one put on by Seminole County yet for Zimmerman.
Bankruptcy courts put links on their websites for information regarding major bankruptcies.
Law firms put links on their websites for major class action cases.
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.
