Not Guilty

[birchyboy]

No solution as we have to go by what the law states.....doesn't mean I can't feel it was the wrong decision. Just saying that juries are not always correct!


The ironic part of this is most of the people that are commenting on this thread on how "justice works" were the same people complaining when the new gun laws went into effect! Wasn't that a similar situation where we have to go with what the government decides. Yet we had a lot of people stating how it was unfair and how wrong it was (and actually supporting police officers that were not going to obey the new gun laws)

IRONY!!!!!

How can you even compare a new gun law that limits magazine capacity to a trial by jury where someone died. That is worse than apples to oranges. That is like apples to elephant.

And yes, sometimes innocent people are convicted. 1% is a small price to pay for a system that works the majority of the time. Would it suck to be in the 1% group? Yes. But what is the percentage of people that were guilty but set free because of a poor prosecution, or a tainted jury, or a multitude of other factors? All in all, I think the system works, albeit slowly.

[texlurch]

No solution as we have to go by what the law states.....doesn't mean I can't feel it was the wrong decision. Just saying that juries are not always correct!


The ironic part of this is most of the people that are commenting on this thread on how "justice works" were the same people complaining when the new gun laws went into effect! Wasn't that a similar situation where we have to go with what the government decides. Yet we had a lot of people stating how it was unfair and how wrong it was (and actually supporting police officers that were not going to obey the new gun laws)

IRONY!!!!!

If you want to go spiralling off into other topics.. the reason a lot of us have issues with the CO gun laws are they are not only un-constitutional, but they were pushed thru by a biased group who didn't pay any attention to majority opinion.
Not to mention they are childish laws that will do nothing to prvent crimes like Aurora, which is specifically what was touted by their proponents.

Back on topic, shall we discuss poor little Trayvons criminal record? Or the fact that prior to the NAACP, JJ and others hollering that the Sherriff and Prosecutor had no charges to press?

All this calling about his "civil rights"; there were what, 20 shootings in Chicago the past weekend.. where is all the news coverage and NAACP involvement in those?

Can you honestly tell me that all this would be happening if:

both TM and GZ were black, or both white, or if the shooting went the other way, with TM kiling GZ??

You wouldn't have heard a single peep about it, from anyone.

That is the real travesty.

[Ezzzzy1]

Funny thing is, people dont care about the laws. They care about what they feel about the situation. Thats why they are protesting. A law doesnt even have to be broken for people to say that they dont agree with what happened.

That and people cant just be wrong anymore. Once they commit themselves to something (ie "treyvon is an innocent victim") there is no going back. They will defend their stance no matter the outcome.

The whole situation sucks but anyone with an open and unbiased mind can see that the number one reason this whole thing is a mess is because of the media. They spun the story and threw the racial card first. Then everyone gets their facts from them and deducts what makes them feel good about their stance. In the end its really just ignorant humans and piss poor reporting that gets us to where we are at.

Bottom line. I could give to shits about any punk ass getting shot. I would look after my neighborhood if crime spiked. I would follow ANYONE that looked suspicious and if they were beating my ass and I had a gun I would shoot them too - obviously all hypothetical but its not hard to follow the chain of events that lead to what happened. Its not like they are completely backwards and no one understands it.

Say whatever you want to say about what you think happened. Just know, you dont know what really happened. But, if you insist on being just another one of the knuckleheads in this country then you are totally "free" to think whatever you want.

[bulldog]

Funny thing is, people dont care about the laws. They care about what they feel about the situation. Thats why they are protesting. A law doesnt even have to be broken for people to say that they dont agree with what happened.

That and people cant just be wrong anymore. Once they commit themselves to something (ie "treyvon is an innocent victim") there is no going back. They will defend their stance no matter the outcome.

The whole situation is sucks but anyone with an open and unbiased mind can see that the number one reason this whole thing is a mess is because of the media. They spun the story and threw the racial card first. Then everyone gets their facts from them and deducts what makes them feel good about their stance. In the end its really just ignorant humans and piss poor reporting that gets us to where we are at.

Bottom line. I could give to shits about any punk ass getting shot. I would look after my neighborhood if crime spiked. I would follow ANYONE that looked suspicious and if they were beating my ass and I had a gun I would shoot them too - obviously all hypothetical but its not hard to follow the chain of events that lead to what happened. Its not like they are completely backwards and no one understands it.

Say whatever you want to say about what you think happened. Just know, you dont know what really happened. But, if you insist on being just another one of the knuckleheads in this country then you are totally "free" to think whatever you want.

I can take a few punches, so at least now I know how to off someone legally; start sh*t with them and let them beat me up a bit so I can feel "threatened for my life" and then shoot them...nice!

Can't beat them...then join them!




P.S. I do not agree with the rioting either...stupid and only makes the situation worse! I agree, we were not in the court room, so we do not know the full picture and these people should just understand that also

[Grim2.0]

If you were not there then you do not know what really happened, and your opinion is based on what you think you know not what really happened.

I completely agree 100%

[Ezzzzy1]

Alan Dershowitz explains how the prosecutor withheld information to get the affidavit signed:

Ive seen this before and this is a perfect example of how someone that is intelligent thinks and speaks.

[Ezzzzy1]

I completely agree 100%

Its not about what I think happened. Its about putting all of the evidence and facts through a process to figure out what happened. A smart person can deduct most things from a situation and do that. A stupid person can not. The people rioting are stupid because they refuse to see that it is in fact their own misguided beliefs that are fueling their own conflict with the situation.

[bulldog]

Ive seen this before and this is a perfect example of how someone that is intelligent thinks and speaks.

Hmmm...well he states if you are handcuffed, taken against will into a police car, and taken to the jail you are considered arrested. Well I was handcuffed once, put in a police car, taken to jail...and yet never arrested. Gave me a ticket and sent me on my way. How inaccurate by a so called "intelligent person".

Its not about what I think happened. Its about putting all of the evidence and facts through a process to figure out what happened. A smart person can deduct most things from a situation and do that. A stupid person can not. The people rioting are stupid because they refuse to see that it is in fact their own misguided beliefs that are fueling their own conflict with the situation.

But yes I do agree that these people rioting do not know the full facts, but either do we. Even in a court jurors do not know ALL the facts as some things will not be presented. Calling them stupid is a bit far...maybe ignorant is a better word as I bet some people rioting actually have a high IQ, but in this case are misinformed (blame the lame media). As I said before though I don't agree with them rioting though. I do however know what it is like to be prejudiced against and anyone that thinks racism does not exist anymore is wrong (not particular to this case, just in general)

[dirkterrell]

No solution as we have to go by what the law states.....doesn't mean I can't feel it was the wrong decision. Just saying that juries are not always correct!


The ironic part of this is most of the people that are commenting on this thread on how "justice works" were the same people complaining when the new gun laws went into effect! Wasn't that a similar situation where we have to go with what the government decides. Yet we had a lot of people stating how it was unfair and how wrong it was (and actually supporting police officers that were not going to obey the new gun laws)

IRONY!!!!!

Ironic only if illogic is your game. One is a jury decision. The other is a law that was passed. The former has, until recently, been respected as a final decision unless you have evidence relevant to the case (not something you "feel"). Debate on the former is a cornerstone of our form of government.

[Grim2.0]

Its not about what I think happened. Its about putting all of the evidence and facts through a process to figure out what happened. A smart person can deduct most things from a situation and do that. A stupid person can not. The people rioting are stupid because they refuse to see that it is in fact their own misguided beliefs that are fueling their own conflict with the situation.

Basically the people rioting are doing so based on the media's fucked up angles and sides of the story and not because they have cold hard facts that he is guilty and proving so? No people never do that! (sarcasm)

Precisely why i don't watch the news, hearing the shit spew out of their mouths taking one side of the story and twisting it to any angle they can to keep people glued to the TV.

I meant I agree with your statement that without being there and seeing everything even an assumption is not something that can be properly made without ridicule from everyone else. The people rioting are indeed stupid, "one of our kind was killed disregard the facts and what may or may not have happened" welcome to America land of the sheep!

[bulldog]

Ironic only if illogic is your game. One is a jury decision. The other is a law that was passed. The former has, until recently, been respected as a final decision unless you have evidence relevant to the case (not something you "feel"). Debate on the former is a cornerstone of our form of government.

Did you miss the police officer thread on where he would not enforce that law? It is NOT being respected and many on here supported the officer!
http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forum...ght=John+Cooke


I on the other hand respect the juries decision...just don't have to like it (but as I said I was not in that court room)

[Ezzzzy1]

Hmmm...well he states if you are handcuffed, taken against will into a police car, and taken to the jail you are considered arrested. Well I was handcuffed once, put in a police car, taken to jail...and yet never arrested. Gave me a ticket and sent me on my way. How inaccurate by a so called "intelligent person".

Here is a great example of the power or "belief".

You are allowed to believe whatever you want but the definition of "arrested" is:

A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.

Now I already know what you are going to say but you my friend were ARRESTED. Not only would you be arguing with me if you disagreed but you would be arguing with a... um... Harvard professor

Its honestly funny to me how many peoples beliefs really differ from actual facts and how committed they are to believing whatever the hell they want.

Just out of curiosity Nate. Whats your definition of "arrested"?

[bulldog]

Here is a great example of the power or "belief".

You are allowed to believe whatever you want but the definition of "arrested" is:

A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.

Now I already know what you are going to say but you my friend were ARRESTED. Not only would you be arguing with me if you disagreed but you would be arguing with a... um... Harvard professor

Its honestly funny to me how many peoples beliefs really differ from actual facts and how committed they are to believing whatever the hell they want.

Just out of curiosity Nate. Whats your definition of "arrested"?

Having a arrest record on my file....I have none. Just saying I was handcuffed and taken to station and according to that video I was arrested, but my record says different. Only thing I care is what is put down on paper and can effect me in the future.

[Ezzzzy1]

I on the other hand respect the juries decision...just don't have to like it (but as I said I was not in that court room)

So if you dont like their decision what would you have liked to see?

I think you are just saying that you want to see something happen to Zimmerman because you feel he did something wrong. Is that what would really make people happy?

Its crazy to think that someone is cleared of wrong doing and people still want to see something happen to them. Thats like the ultimate definition of drama queen.

[Ezzzzy1]

Having a arrest record on my file....I have none. Just saying I was handcuffed and taken to station and according to that video I was arrested, but my record says different. Only thing I care is what is put down on paper and can effect me in the future.

Oh boy... So you are saying that because its not on your arrest record it didnt happen and even if it did happen whatever happened wasnt call "arrest"?

Dude. Anytime a cop puts handcuffs on you, you are under arrest. I hope I dont have to explain this any other way.

[bulldog]

So if you dont like their decision what would you have like to see?

I think you are just saying that you want to see something happen to Zimmerman because you feel he did something wrong. Is that what would really make people happy?

Its crazy to think that someone is cleared of wrong doing and people still want to see something happen to them. Thats like the ultimate definition of drama queen.

I've already said I respect the jurors decision. I was just commenting on how I don't like it...but I have also admitted I was not in that court room so I don't know the full picture. I just don't always have faith in our judicial system as some on here do so I question it.

And not a new thing:
OJ Simpson
Casey Anthony

[dirkterrell]

I can take a few punches, so at least now I know how to off someone legally; start sh*t with them and let them beat me up a bit so I can feel "threatened for my life" and then shoot them...nice!

Nothing that was said gave Martin the right to knock Zimmerman to the ground and then get on top of him and pummel him. It is not illegal to ask a suspicious looking person what they are doing in your neighborhood, and with there having been several break-ins in his neighborhood that police couldn't respond to in time, what Zimmerman was doing is understandable and legal. And note in the 911 call the he described Martin's behavior and not his race until the dispatcher asked if he was white, black, or Hispanic. Martin, on the other hand, called Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker", and being from the South, I know that term for the racial slur that it is. He could have gone on home after Zimmerman lost sight of him, but he didn't. He could have turned to Zimmerman and explained why he was there, even waited for the cops to arrive. But he didn't. He chose to confront Zimmerman and assault him. He had no legal reason to do so, and Zimmerman had every right to defend himself. That is what the jury decided.

[Ezzzzy1]

"An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest."

[bulldog]

Oh boy... So you are saying that because its not on your arrest record it didnt happen and even if it did happen whatever happened wasnt call "arrest"?

Dude. Anytime a cop puts handcuffs on you, you are under arrest. I hope I dont have to explain this any other way.

Ok, if you say so. I've also been put into handcuffs by a officer numerous times and let go on the scene when it was all cleared up and I was proved innocent. Guess I've been arrested a lot of times then if putting handcuffs on me is all it takes
I am not a cop, so I thought getting charged and put in a cell was being arrested...I am just glad when they look it up it says I have never been arrested...so what counts!

[Ezzzzy1]

OJ Simpson
Casey Anthony

Acquittals are different than "not guilty". There is a HUGE difference.

[Ezzzzy1]

"An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest."

Actually, now that I read this. It would appear that if there was no restraint you may not have been arrested.

Restraint could mean as little as saying "dont arrest me" or even "really?".

[JKOL]

Acquittals are different than "not guilty". There is a HUGE difference.

Two cases where I didn't like the verdict, but you didn't see me rioting or posting threats on Twitter.

[bulldog]

Acquittals are different than "not guilty". There is a HUGE difference.

I thought OJ was found not guilty?

Says to here:Verdict[edit]

At 10 a.m. on October 3, 1995, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case

[Ghosty]

Unless you sit through all of the proceedings that occurred, either in the court or watched the channels that televised the entire hearing, you are basing your opinion on only snippets of data that are slanted one way or the other.

Have you ever sat on a jury during a criminal case? Until I had earlier this year, I found myself siding with one side or the other in cases like this based on my natural tendencies. After sitting on the jury and listening to hours of testimony from several witnesses, I have a much greater respect for our legal system and and find myself less prone to make a decision on guilt or innocence without knowing the entire story.

Good post, agreed. I've also served. And to add to the person who said it was a "lame" outcome, I actually agree. The prosecution should've fought for a lesser charge instead of the whole ball of wax or nothing. But ALSO, I totally agree with our Constitutional and Founding Father's idea that:

"It is far better for a guilty man to go free than any innocent man go to jail."

That is why it takes a SOLID amount of good PROOF to send someone to jail, not just emotions. Fuck Jackson, SpikeLee, & Sharpton clowns, they need to gtfo. Although there is a good chance that Zimmerman is a total douchebag trigger-happy idiot who went vigilante, refused to follow the dispatcher's order to STAY PUT IN HIS CAR, wait for police to arrive, IS indeed fucking guilty of idiocy and probably a serious crime in any other state besides redneck Texas or Florida. But besides that, the jury heard all the evidence (or lack thereof), and chose accordingly.

I'm NO fan of Zimmerman, but I believe this to probably be the correct outcome, especially without victim testimony.