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.
The only ones lying are the radical right wing propaganda machine.
Well if that's what you think, you didn't watch the trial. I did. We had it on daily, for the duration. The evidence in the case is clear, especially when taken with the transcripts of Zimmerman's cell phone call to the police, as well as other transcrips that were part of the evidence.
The witnesses for the prosecution nearly always turned out to be better witnesses for the defense, so weak was the prosecutions case, especially the claim that Zimmerman was intent on shooting Martin from the start (from the time he spotted him), and that Zimmerman was the instigator of the fight that ensued.
None of those claims could be supported by testimony, or evidence presented.
Even the claim that Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop" was not supported by any evidence, and the charge was simply manufactured from whole cloth. Not a shred of truth to the claim.
Finally, this has nothing to do with politics, "right" or "left" wing. It has only to do with truth, and whether or not the prosecution was interested in truth, or were they simply interested in getting a conviction, by whatever means.
I submit that the political pressure came from the US Justice Department, via Eric Holder (perhaps under pressure from his boss, Barack Obama) to get a conviction, as Zimmerman wasn't even going to be tried tilll this administration poked it's nose into what should have remained a local investigation, and whether or not to prosecute, determined (as it was initially) by the local authorities. But Holder sent his people to Florida to stir up racial tension, and they helped organize "Justice for Trayvon" demonstrations.
Virtually everything that has been published in the "mainstream press" about this case since the begining, and virtually everything said on the Democrat controled news networks, has been lies, and carefully crafted to make a villan out of Zimmerman, and innocent young (pure as the driven snow) school boy out of Trayvon Martin, right down to the posting of only one photo of Martin, as he looked at 12 years of age!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TempesT68
Notice the only ones crying tinfoil are the most unreliable, far right wing sites on the net?
The only ones reporting the truth have been Fox News and Conservative Blogs. The entire "Left" has crafted a story that can only be described as a fairy tale.
He was never going to take the stand. Never. He doesn't have the nerve to withstand a tough cross examination; fearful that his story wouldn't hold up. Course, with the prosecutors . . . . might not have been that tough.
Aw. Someone must have called in sick that first day of Defendant 101 where it was explained that taking the stand is not required nor is anything to be assumed by not doing so. It's pretty basic and something I thought everyone understood. Guess not.
He was never going to take the stand. Never. He doesn't have the nerve to withstand a tough cross examination; fearful that his story wouldn't hold up. Course, with the prosecutors . . . . might not have been that tough.
pure nonsense.
He didn't need to take the stand because his case was already proven.
In a perverse bit of post-trial agitprop, ABC News somehow recruited the one woman of color on George Zimmerman's "all white" jury and twisted her words to reflect the presumed editorial position of ABC News. In this clip from an exclusive Robin Roberts interview which has played just about everywhere including CBS News, Roberts says to the juror, "Some people have said, point blank, 'George Zimmerman got away with murder.' How do you respond to those people who say that?" In the edited video ABC floated about, "Maddy" answers unhesitatingly, "George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can't get away from God."
This clip led to headlines like "Juror Says Zimmerman 'Got Away With Murder'" in the New York Times. In the article by Lisetta Alvarez -- the reporter who gave the world the phrase "White Hispanic" -- there is not even a mention of the prompt by Roberts. The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune ran comparable headlines.
What none of these publications mentioned -- and kudos to Slate's William Saletan for breaking the story -- is that the producers at ABC edited Maddy's response to have her say something she never intended. In the unedited version, after Roberts asks her leading question, Maddy pauses, starts her response over, and clearly plays back Roberts' question as the stated premise to her own answer, "But you can't get away from God." In other words, this is how she would answer that question if asked. She never implied Zimmerman got away with murder, nor agreed with the premise. In fact, she stood by her decision to acquit Zimmerman.
She also said that you can't get away from God. What do you think she meant by that statement? Why would she imply that God would be after Zimmerman if she felt Zimmerman didn't commit murder? I watched both the edited & unedited tapes, and she did in fact say that George Zimmerman got away with murder then followed it up by her statement about God.
She originally voted for 2nd Degree murder. She obviously believed then that George Zimmerman committed murder, don't you think? She stated they couldn't convict on the evidence presented. IOW, the prosecution failed to prove their case. It doesn't mean she changed her mind about Zimmerman committing murder, and thus, "getting away with murder".
Last edited by Mellowmike; 07-28-2013 at 08:58 PM..
Even the claim that Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop" was not supported by any evidence, and the charge was simply manufactured from whole cloth. Not a shred of truth to the claim.
Except that he applied to be a cop, and was turned down. That kind of means you 'want to be a cop."
The legal system doesn't always yield justice---it approximates it.
The men who killed Emmett Till were acquitted even though they later admitted they had abducted him, transported him to a barn, beat him and gouged out one of his eyes, before shooting him through the head and disposing of his body in the Tallahatchie River, weighting it with a 70-pound cotton gin fan tied around his neck with barbed wire.
This case has virtually nothing to do with the Emmett Till case. Nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
Yeah, ya think? There's no reason to think that Trayvon Martin had any intention of murdering George Zimmerman. Murdering someone for following him? C'mon? If anything he was trying to protect himself and get his pursuer to leave him alone. Or he may have become aware Zimmerman was reaching for his gun, in which case Trayvon was fighting for his life.
Who do you think has killing more on his mind? The man armed with a gun who is chasing what he thinks is a criminal in the dark? Or an boy returning from the store armed with nothing?
The only reason any of you think Trayvon was trying to kill Zimmerman is because you think any black young black male is dangerous and violent.
I doubt the Trayvon was trying to kill Zimmerman, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't have. If you slam somebody's head into the ground you can kill someone or put them into a coma or give them permanent brain damage. A lot of people are in prison for manslaughter who honestly didn't mean to kill the other guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
When a defendant in a murder trial does not take the stand in order to avoid cross examination, there leaves plenty of room for doubt as to the accuracy of their story, not to mention the obvious inconsistencies of that story, which leave the story wide open for other posible scenarios and interpretations. When a person is on trial for murder, they have every reason in the world to embellish, fabricate and omit details of what actually occurrred. When there were only two people involved in an altercation that ends with one left alive, it is only one version of what transpired that has a voice.
So...there is no intelligent, logical and reasonable person that can, beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolutely determine, that the one side of the story coming from the accused can be taken as total truth.
Getting back to the OP...this juror seems confused as to what her choices were at deliberation. She should have "stood her ground" and made it a hung jury. If there were a retrial, a better prosecuter could have brought in a different verdict.
I agree that a person on trial has every reason to lie or exaggerate and we shouldn't take the word of the accused at face value.
However, the evidence backs up Zimmerman's main claims. He lost track of Trayvon. Check. Trayvon went back to confront Zimmerman. Check. He was attacked first. Not an absolutely certainty, but the evidence points in that direction. He was losing the fight. Check. The was losing the fight for over a minute. Check.
Most defense attorneys advise against their clients taking the stand because it is too unpredictable regardless of the evidence and the jury might almost anything into their demeanor. If they are calm, that can be read as cold-blooded. If they are angry, they can be read as hot-headed. If they feel bad about what happened, that can be read as remorse.
And a better prosecution probably would not have won the trial because the evidence was that bad. I thought the trial was won before the defense even presented their case.
The only ones reporting the truth have been Fox News and Conservative Blogs. The entire "Left" has crafted a story that can only be described as a fairy tale.
Yep, it's a big bad scary world where everyone is "a lib", but don't worry, Beck, Limbaugh, Breitfart and the rest of the radical right wing propaganda machine will hold your hand and tuck you in at night with "the facts"
The right wing machine has done an amazing job of leading the rats and milking them for all they are worth.
More power to them, I wonder how much Beck has made from his "buy gold!" "buy my books!" and "buy food insurance!" pitch lines
You feel bad for a thug who shot an unarmed teen to death and didn't go to jail? Why?
He did go to jail... He also went to trial and was found not guilty.. In case you haven't noticed, that is how our justice system is supposed to work. He didn't go to jail, because a jury (including the juror in question) found him not guilty of 2nd degree murder. The judge in the case even offered up manslaughter and the jury still could not find him guilty. In any other case, Zimmerman could move away and begin rebuilding his life. Because of the publicity, it will be years before Zimmerman can move forward. What you are looking for isn't justice. What you are looking for is revenge. Perhaps a little self evaluation is in order...
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.
