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.
Casey Anthony was found not guilty because the evidence showed she was not guilty. She could not have physically done some of the things that the killer did to the little girl. I only saw a few minutes of the trial and I realized that. People just decide that someone is guilty and start ignoring the evidence. Cases are decided on evidence not what prejudiced people want them to find.
That's true, but it didn't show she was innocent either. In fact, jurors who were interviewed after the trial was over said they thought "she probably was guilty." There's a big difference between being innocent and found not guilty based on lack of concrete evidence. They found her not guilty because they were looking for 100% proof. There's "reasonable doubt" and "beyond a doubt." Sometimes people get mixed up between the 2. When you are considering putting a person in prison for a very long time, possibly for the rest of his or her life, there's a lot of pressure to make the right choice.
By the way, I'll have to reread my posts, but I don't think I wrote she was guilty of 1st degree murder, did I? I also didn't say I "wanted" the jury to find her guilty. I only said that she was found not guilty of the charges against her because the jury did not use emotions to convict.
That's true, but it didn't show she was innocent either. In fact, jurors who were interviewed after the trial was over said they thought "she probably was guilty." There's a big difference between being innocent and found not guilty based on lack of concrete evidence. They found her not guilty because they were looking for 100% proof. There's "reasonable doubt" and "beyond a doubt." Sometimes people get mixed up between the 2. When you are considering putting a person in prison for a very long time, possibly for the rest of his or her life, there's a lot of pressure to make the right choice.
By the way, I'll have to reread my posts, but I don't think I wrote she was guilty of 1st degree murder, did I? I also didn't say I "wanted" the jury to find her guilty. I only said that she was found not guilty of the charges against her because the jury did not use emotions to convict.
While technically you are correct in reality you are not.
Sure the legal definitions of innocent and not guilty are different, in reality they are the same.
Follow the process. You are presumed innocent, you are tried, you are found not guilty, then you are still presumed to be innocent.
While the cops, Nancy Grace and mothers everywhere might think you are guilty and not innocent it changes nothing.
The innocence applies. Unless of course you have absolute proof of guilt the whole point is moot.
Casey Anthony was found not guilty because the evidence showed she was not guilty. She could not have physically done some of the things that the killer did to the little girl. I only saw a few minutes of the trial and I realized that. People just decide that someone is guilty and start ignoring the evidence. Cases are decided on evidence not what prejudiced people want them to find.
I haven't read the trial transcripts in Casey Anthony's case but I don't know what you mean by "She could not have physically done some of the things that the killer did to the little girl."
Caylee was found skeletonised so they couldn't prove how she had died. She had tape wrapped around her head and her body was double bagged. All the other evidence links back to the Anthony home as regards to the garbage bags, blanket and other material found with Caylee. Also they had evidence that Caylee's body was left in the back of the vehicle Casey was driving. I think they couldn't convict Casey because they couldn't prove it was only her who caused Caylee's death and also they didn't know what caused Caylee's death. It was obviously not an accident though.
Circumstantial evidence shows that she was involved in her child's death. I don't know how she wasn't charged with something.
Actually, as wrong as I think he was in shooting Trayvon Martin, I feel the same way. Still, as I've written before, it's possible that the jury will convict on a lesser charge. For some reason, if a person writes that he/she thinks Zimmerman's actions were wrong, that person is labeled a "Trayvonista" or "anti-Zimmerman." Political issues are treated similarly. Exchanging ideas doesn't seem to be very popular these days.
I can answer that.
People are like lemmings. Someone posts a little tidbit, completely out of context, and a certain group will follow that poster's ramblings right over the edge, never bothering to actually read, learn, and use common sense. Those lemmings are also referred to as Trayvonistas and Traybots because they follow without using the brains. Not unlike 0bots, if you know what I mean.
The Zimmerman threads in the political section are filled with posts made by babbling fools who ADMIT they haven't watched any of the trial. They've believe what the media has told them, beginning with Sweet Little Trayvon wrapped in his white fleece hoodie blankie.
The media is poisoning America. It is 100% obvious to reasonably intelligent people.
But since I'm a racist (I'm not, but because I believe George is innocent BASED ON THE FACTS, I might as well toss that out there), I'm just hoping the jury doesn't bring any bias into their decision. Voir dire doesn't always separate the wheat from the chaff.
Oh, and as far as Anthony, there simply wasn't enough evidence to reasonably prove her guilt.
With Zimmerman, the evidence is right there in black and white. He is guilty ONLY of using his right to self defense and justifiable homicide. Sure, he killed Trayvon. No doubt there. He was justified, though, and that makes it OK. Trayvon brought his demise on himself. If Trayvon had hiked his little butt right on home to Brandy's house, he wouldn't be 6' under today.
True, but he was not "required" to follow him either. Serino asked him more than once during the interrogation (if you listened to the audio) why he didn't roll down his window just once and tell the young man he was following that he just wanted to know if he lived there since he was with the neighborhood watch. Then he also said that following someone who is running "doesn't sound like fear." (or "isn't fear" .. I don't recall the exact words)
If you are so fearful of someone that you won't even talk to him, why follow him? Sure, it's not illegal to follow someone, but it is very creepy, especially if that person doesn't say anything. I live in a very safe neighborhood and I'd feel exactly the same way if I were being followed.
There's a period of time when George chased Trayvon unaccounted for, no witnesses.
When I said "In some ways Zimmerman was the aggressor", above is why. Zimmerman knew laws were on his side, while all his actions speak clearly he was never afraid for his life right up until the gun trigger was pulled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper
Oh, and as far as Anthony, there simply wasn't enough evidence to reasonably prove her guilt.
With Zimmerman, the evidence is right there in black and white. He is guilty ONLY of using his right to self defense and justifiable homicide. Sure, he killed Trayvon. No doubt there. He was justified, though, and that makes it OK. Trayvon brought his demise on himself. If Trayvon had hiked his little butt right on home to Brandy's house, he wouldn't be 6' under today.
George exasperated the situation. As community watch and the person armed, he's in the position to be the voice of reason and know its time to back off.
The same as Zimmerman didn't have to follow his handbook and stay in his car. Trayvon, didn't have to go home. He did nothing illegal.
Oh, and as far as Anthony, there simply wasn't enough evidence to reasonably prove her guilt.
With Zimmerman, the evidence is right there in black and white. He is guilty ONLY of using his right to self defense and justifiable homicide. Sure, he killed Trayvon. No doubt there. He was justified, though, and that makes it OK. Trayvon brought his demise on himself. If Trayvon had hiked his little butt right on home to Brandy's house, he wouldn't be 6' under today.
He was justified? I have a counterpoint to this. I love how this lynch mob is portraying Martin(he's already dead but so what) as a drug running, gang banging, drug crazed, up to no good, looking for trouble, hoodlum, who initiated the confrontation.... Which, of course, Zimmerman *with his ESP* already knew!! So Zimmerman took him out! Like the good ole neighborhood watch man is supposed to do. Vigilante style!
He don't need no f******g cops!! My thoughts are he should be charged with something other than murder. You can't just blow away an unarmed person then go home and eat pizza. Although, you never know going by this crowd
There is nothing illegal about a community watch person watching – that is what we expect them to do. We like the idea that somebody is doing their job – whether it is government, our police or just a neighbor.
If you think this is a slam/dunk – you have to produce a witness that shows GZ starting the physical confrontation. Without that evidence and from everything we currently heard – you might as well exonerate him and give him his gun back. Currently, with the prosecution case; the defense can rest.
Again, you're wrong and clearly haven't been paying attention.
Zimmerman was already walking when the dispatcher said "are you following him" and Zimmerman said "yes" and the dispatcher then said "okay, we dont need you to do that" and Zimmerman said "okay". But that isn't a direct legal order for a uniform police officer.
When the neighborhood watch rep from the police dept. was asked if it was okay for people to follow suspicious people to gain more info to give to the cops, she said it was okay as long as they didnt engage or try to arrest someone.
So, you're wrong and now you know the truth. Congrats, eat a cookie.
You just recognized the problem. Zimmerman should not be patrolling the neighborhood asking people 'What you doin' here?' That's engaging them.
He was justified? I have a counterpoint to this. I love how this lynch mob is portraying Martin(he's already dead but so what) as a drug running, gang banging, drug crazed, up to no good, looking for trouble, hoodlum, who initiated the confrontation.... Which, of course, Zimmerman *with his ESP* already knew!! So Zimmerman took him out! Like the good ole neighborhood watch man is supposed to do. Vigilante style!
He don't need no f******g cops!! My thoughts are he should be charged with something other than murder. You can't just blow away an unarmed person then go home and eat pizza. Although, you never know going by this crowd
When you go on vacation do you ask neighbors to watch your house or apartment? If a neighbor thought they saw a door ajar or a window open and went to investigate; they could be in the same situation.
By the way; what evidence of Trayvon's "drug running, gang banging, drug crazed, up to no good, looking for trouble, hoodlum, who initiated the confrontation" has been admitted into the record? The only testimony so far is of Trayvon using racial slurs. We never did see any toxicology test on dead Trayvon - nor will the jurors see this test. We don't want to slander the dead.
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.
I have a counterpoint to this. I love how this lynch mob is portraying Martin(he's already dead but so what) as a drug running, gang banging, drug crazed, up to no good, looking for trouble, hoodlum, who initiated the confrontation.... Which, of course, Zimmerman *with his ESP* already knew!! 
So Zimmerman took him out! Like the good ole neighborhood watch man is supposed to do. Vigilante style! 
