Not Guilty

[Ezzzzy1]

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

An Acquittal means the case was dropped because there was not enough evidence to convict. That is different than having enough evidence and using it to PROVE the persone was "not guilty".

[bulldog]

An Acquittal means the case was dropped because there was not enough evidence to convict. That is different than having enough evidence and using it to PROVE the persone was "not guilty".

Why you got to be so technical today EJ Just telling you what it says...which was not guilty as OJ's verdict.

Plus don't make me mad, as you pointed out I have a long arrest record My girl does too as we have those fuzzy handcuffs we use some nights

[birchyboy]

Why the hell does the US Government have to step in now with this case? He was tried and found not guilty. Move the fuck on Holder and worry about more important stuff.

[Ezzzzy1]

Why you got to be so technical today EJ Just telling you what it says...which was not guilty as OJ's verdict.

Plus don't make me mad, as you pointed out I have a long arrest record My girl does too as we have those fuzzy handcuffs we use some nights

And im just telling you that OJ being acquitted is different then them finding Zemmerman not guilty.... And I never brought up your arrest record (technically)

[Ezzzzy1]

Why the hell does the US Government have to step in now with this case? He was tried and found not guilty. Move the fuck on Holder and worry about more important stuff.

We gots mad money YO!

Its not like this country has anything else better to do then fuel the ignant drama party!

[bulldog]

And im just telling you that OJ being acquitted is different then them finding Zemmerman not guilty.... And I never brought up your arrest record (technically)

So why does that link show "not guilty" for OJ? Checked other places and said not guilty as well.

Another one that says "not guilty". When, at 10 A.M. PST on October 3, Judge Ito's clerk read the jury's verdict of "Not Guilty," http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...on/simpson.htm

I am no expert on this stuff, so what am I missing?


P.S. I have NO arrest record....unless under your odd thinking!

[Ghosty]

Why the hell does the US Government have to step in now with this case? He was tried and found not guilty. Move the fuck on Holder and worry about more important stuff.

What are those useless fucks doing? I haven't read the news today yet.

<Edit>

Nevermind, doesn't sound like Holder is pursuing much of anything, which is good:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

To successfully prosecute Zimmerman, the Department of Justice would have to show that Zimmerman "caused the death of Trayvon Martin solely motivated by/because of his race or color," Weinstein told CNN in an e-mail, adding: "This element was absent from the state trial and quite frankly doesn't exist."

[Ezzzzy1]

So why does that link show "not guilty" for OJ? Checked other places and said not guilty as well.

Another one that says "not guilty". When, at 10 A.M. PST on October 3, Judge Ito's clerk read the jury's verdict of "Not Guilty," http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...on/simpson.htm

I am no expert on this stuff, so what am I missing?

I dont think its that odd... I just think you dont understand any of it.

1. All arrests do NOT always show up on records. It completely depends on the outcome of the situation. If the charges are dropped or you are found not guilty then there will not be a record of it.

2. Based on what I now understand someone is not by definition "arrested" if they agree (or give consent) to the process.

So in Zimmermans case he was arrested because he was taken "against his will". If he agreed to go down its not an arrest but because they had to essentially force him it was.

[bulldog]

I dont think its that odd... I just think you dont understand any of it.

1. All arrests do NOT always show up on records. It completely depends on the outcome of the situation. If the charges are dropped or you are found not guilty then there will not be a record of it.

2. Based on what I now understand someone is not by definition "arrested" if they agree (or give consent) to the process.

So in Zimmermans case he was arrested because he was taken "against his will". If he agreed to go down its not an arrest but because they had to essentially force him it was.

I didn't agree to be taken to the police station....and yet again I have no arrest record! I just went through a extensive background check here at work the last month and one question was if I was ever arrested. I said no and I passed the backround check. Being arrested is getting read your rights, finger printed, and told what you are charged with.

I think you are the one that doesn't understand it!


So show me a record where Zimmerman was arrested that night then? it shows he was arrested 6 weeks later when the prosecutors decided to press charges!

Here is my proof, so show me yours! http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...in-martin-case

The arrest and charges come more than six weeks after Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, shot Trayvon, an African-American who was 17 when he died. Zimmerman, 28, was not jailed or charged after the Feb. 26 shooting

[Darth Do'Urden]

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.

This is precisely why I'm on the side of agreement with the jury's decision. Also why this whole incident doesn't surprise me that it turned out the way it did. Zimmerman lost confidence in the cops' ability to do their job in a timely enough manner to prevent further crimes in his neighborhood, so he followed the "kid", who very likely DID look suspicious based on his attire and demeanor in that area at that time of night.

Every watch the movie "Crash"? Excellent film on these very issues. Color comes into play for a reason based on personal experiences. You're damn straight I'm scared of a bunch of black guys or Mexicans in the wrong part of town--BECAUSE I'M NOT AN IDIOT. But I'm also scared of some white trash-lookin' thugs in the "RIGHT" part of town, so it's not strictly about color. It's about situational awareness and learning how to protect yourself and your family should your suspicions turn out to be completely justified.

It could have easily gone the other way with Trayvon Martin where Zimmerman stays in his car, loses sight of Martin, the cops don't show up for 10 minutes (or longer), and Martin is busy breaking into some lady's house while she and her kids are asleep, only to be murdered in their beds. I know if I'm Zimmerman, this alternate reality would weigh heavier on my heart than the actual outcome, especially if everything happened the way he said it did.

If it didn't and Zimmerman is somehow a complete lying murderer, then only God can know and judge him at this point...and that's not a Judge I'd want to face with that blood on my hands.

[Ezzzzy1]

I didn't agree to be taken to the police station....and yet again I have no arrest record!

So what, did they hog tie you and throw you in the back of the car?

[bulldog]

So what, did they hog tie you and throw you in the back of the car?

Officer handcuffed me if that is what you mean, but they didn't ask me if I wanted to go they just took me without a choice. I wasn't resisting but I didn't want to go.

Still waiting on that evidence that Zimmerman was arrested that night! You got my evidence it happened 6 weeks after! Show me that and prove you and your Harvard genius are correct!

[Ezzzzy1]

Here is the answer to it all.

What is the difference between being taken into custody and being arrested?

Apparently Nate, when you had your little run in and got a ticket for the crime you did you did not get arrested. You were simply taken into custody. There, that is solved and now the conversation about you can go away.

[bulldog]

Here is the answer to it all.

What is the difference between being taken into custody and being arrested?

Apparently Nate, when you had your little run in and got a ticket for the crime you did you did not get arrested. You were simply taken into custody. There, that is solved and now the conversation about you can go away.

So you and your Harvard guy were incorrect....don't believe scholars just because they have a title! You can go back to that video and hear the Harvard guy say "Zimmerman was arrested that night". It was 6 weeks later though...

[Ezzzzy1]

Officer handcuffed me if that is what you mean.

Still waiting on that evidence that Zimmerman was arrested that night! You got my evidence it happened 6 weeks after!

I dont have proof. Thats the whole argument Nate. Im saying what the attorney said and thats if Zimmerman was taken against his will the night of the shooting then he was in fact by law arrested.

[Ezzzzy1]

So you and your Harvard guy were incorrect....don't believe scholars just because they have a title! You can go back to that video and hear the Harvard guy say "Zimmerman was arrested that night". It was 6 weeks later though...

I sure would like to watch you and Dershowitz (the professor) have a debate about this one. It would probably take him about 3 minutes to tie you up in a knot with your words.

[bulldog]

I dont have proof. Thats the whole argument Nate. Im saying what the attorney said and thats if Zimmerman was taken against his will the night of the shooting then he was in fact by law arrested.

I should sue your for Defamation of character....trying to act like I've been arrested before when I have not

Just kidding bro

I sure would like to watch you and Dershowitz (the professor) have a debate about this one. It would probably take him about 3 minutes to tie you up in a knot with your words.

Yet he is wrong and YOU even proved it!

And would take me 30 seconds to break his arms, so big deal

[Ezzzzy1]

I proved it?

How

[bulldog]

I proved it?

How

I thought you just proved "custody" and "arrested" were different things?????????

But ok, you want to keep going then show me that proof Zimmerman was arrested that night! No point in arguing this any further till you can show that and give some proof!

[Ezzzzy1]

I should sue your for Defamation of character....trying to act like I've been arrested before when I have not

For the record I now know that you were only detained and given a ticket.

[bulldog]

For the record I now know that you were only detained and given a ticket.

Same as with Zimmerman! Unless official documents are wrong, but I already put links for that, that show he was not arrested that night. Maybe taken in custody yes!

[Ezzzzy1]

I thought you just proved "custody" and "arrested" were different things?????????

But ok, you want to keep going then show me that proof Zimmerman was arrested that night! No point in arguing this any further till you can show that and give some proof!

I did.

I hate typing this shit again.

ANYTHING thats against your will does not fall under the definition of being detained.

What the professor is saying is that he was IN FACT "arrested" because he was taken against his will.

In other words his Civil Rights were violated. He was arrested but the police did not follow proper procedure.

[Ezzzzy1]

Same as with Zimmerman! Unless official documents are wrong, but I already put links for that.

No, Zimmerman was questioned and released

[CaptGoodvibes]

And would take me 30 seconds to break his arms, so big deal

Just one question:

If someone I do not know assaults me on the street, will they have a sign on their chest indicating this ability or should I assume everyone could do this? I ask because your statement supports the use of a force multiplier if attacked.