Zimmerman is now apparently a child molester.

[TMF]

No way a jury will let him off. They will fear for theirs and their family's life as will as the riots in the streets.

30 minutes from where this is going to be tried Casey Anthony was found not guilty, despite all the media circus surrounding it and the emotional implications that came with the manner of the crime. This was a jury that admittedly wanted to convict her but wouldn't because of the lack of sufficient evidence to reach a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

What makes you think in this case that each person on a jury (after going through the selection process) would end up suspending morals to convict someone without enough evidence to do so? Sure, it's possible that one or two might, but everyone? I think he's guilty, but if I was sitting on a jury it wouldn't matter what I think, it would only matter what the evidence proved/disproved. I don't even consider myself to be of high moral character compared to most, so I don't think the defense would have to hard of a time selecting jurors that can separate opinion and evidence.

He will get a fair trial. If he is found not guilty than it means that he either did nothing criminal or there wasn't enough evidence to convict. If he is found guilty it is because he is criminally liable, not because of media hype.

Also, Orlando isn't LA, and Sanford isn't laid out in a manner where any rioting could take hold in an area that would matter. The economical hub of Sanford is away from the ghetto by several miles towards the interstate. Furthermore, Floridians simply wouldn't tolerate such nonsense and there isn't the amount of low-life gangs and criminals to take over the way they did in LA. LA is a third world country in most places. Central Florida in the greater Orlando area is just not that way. Even the crime laden areas off OBT and Pine Hills wouldn't allow rioting and such nonsense to take place.

Maybe I just have a little more faith in my fellow Americans than most, or maybe I'm just not secretly hoping for a race war.

[JReedEsq]

Maybe I just have a little more faith in my fellow Americans than most, or maybe I'm just not secretly hoping for a race war.

Every time I see the words "race war" it reminds me of why I was initially reluctant to become involved in the shooting community to begin with. I have enough faith in my fellow man to believe that the "race war" crowd composes only a very small minority of firearms enthusiats. It is hard for me to understand how anyone's worldview can be so simplistic to believe that the cultural divides in this country can be neatly split down racial lines. Being prepared for unrest is one thing. Anyone with a thirst for unrest is either insane or so naive as to lack the consequences of their wishes.

Additional random thought.... Just because I agree with TMF on his dismissal of the "race war" crowd doesn't mean I agree with the rest of his post. I don't have the time or energy to state my opinion on this one... None of us were there to witness the beginning of the confrontation and I think a lot of people rushed to judgment on both sides.

Edited July 17, 2012 by JReedEsq

[Dennis1209]

As individuals, we all think differently, we all have different life experiences, we all have our prejudice (preconceived).

Get a group of like minded individuals collectively together, and you pretty much stack the odds in your favor for a desired outcome.

That's why jury selection IMHO, is one of the most critical strategies in a jury trial.

Get six staunch liberals and six staunch conservatives on this jury and what do you think the verdict would be? I myself am hung on that one?

As far as rioting... Those types are criminals anyway, looking for a reason to loot, burn, pillage and create civil discord to benefit themselves.

We'll show them, we'll burn down our hood.

[BryanP]

Get six staunch liberals and six staunch conservatives on this jury and what do you think the verdict would be? I myself am hung on that one?

Depends on the character of those involved. I know it's popular on here to think all liberals are amoral scum and all conservatives are angelic little snowflakes of upright moral fortitute. Sorry, but I've seen too many of good and bad on both sides to fall for that line. I remember during the OJ trial a friend of mine who is a defense attorney and as liberal as they come (we're talking your classic 60's Berkely Law graduate - a great friend who I happen to disagree with on some subjects) was watching the trial like the rest of us and saying "Oh come on, he's so guilty it's not even funny, but the prosecution is screwing up by the numbers."

The knee jerk reactions from the left and the right are getting annoying. Apparently if you're a conservative you're supposed to support Zimmerman, and if you're a liberal you're supposed to be screaming for his head. This seems to extend to automatically believing or dismissing the new information based on your pre-existing beliefs. Me, I'm going to wait and see, even if it means I'm not a "real conservative" because I have my doubts about Zimmerman.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Depends on the character of those involved. I know it's popular on here to think all liberals are amoral scum and all conservatives are angelic little snowflakes of upright moral fortitute. Sorry, but I've seen too many of good and bad on both sides to fall for that line. I remember during the OJ trial a friend of mine who is a defense attorney and as liberal as they come (we're talking your classic 60's Berkely Law graduate - a great friend who I happen to disagree with on some subjects) was watching the trial like the rest of us and saying "Oh come on, he's so guilty it's not even funny, but the prosecution is screwing up by the numbers."

The knee jerk reactions from the left and the right are getting annoying. Apparently if you're a conservative you're supposed to support Zimmerman, and if you're a liberal you're supposed to be screaming for his head. This seems to extend to automatically believing or dismissing the new information based on your pre-existing beliefs. Me, I'm going to wait and see, even if it means I'm not a "real conservative" because I have my doubts about Zimmerman.

I don't buy you're assumption one bit. The presumption of innocence and the finding of guilt is not to be polled by the public, but by

a jury. I'll side on the presumption of innocence any day of the week until that jury finds him guilty.

Just so you know, there are liberals who believe that, also. You can have all the doubts you wish. They're you're opinions, just like

mine are mine. I have friends who claim to be liberal. I have heard plenty of differing opinions from them.

[TMF]

I don't buy you're assumption one bit. The presumption of innocence and the finding of guilt is not to be polled by the public, but by

a jury. I'll side on the presumption of innocence any day of the week until that jury finds him guilty.

Just so you know, there are liberals who believe that, also. You can have all the doubts you wish. They're you're opinions, just like

mine are mine. I have friends who claim to be liberal. I have heard plenty of differing opinions from them.

So if I see a post on TGO that supposes that Eric Holder is guilty of a crime (although he hasn't even been charged) I am to believe that is not okay? I ask because I see that all the time and don't see anyone jumping in to claim that there should be a presumption of innocence on Holder. Likewise, I don't understand invoking a presumption of innocence argument on the internet. It's just an opinion.

Presumption of innocence is great in the courtroom, but people have opinions on stuff whether you like it or not, and generally they are split down lines of various prejudices. While I agree that the media has raked him across the coals, I still believe that we can have an impartial jury and I still beileve that he will get a fair trial.

I get upset all the time when I see someone I think is guilty walk free, but I also recognize that it is better to have a guilty person go free due to lack of evidence than see a guilty person be convicted due to prejudices. The latter scenario undermines our entire judicial system. I don't think I am unique for feeling that way. I don't think they'll be hard pressed to find jurors who feel that way either. Don't forget, there is a dominant percentage of Floridians in Seminole County that don't like the circus that media has turned this into and are even less impressed with how the media has portrayed their community.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So, what's you're point? Eric Holder is a public official. You can "feel" however you wish. A man is on trial for

2nd degree murder. Eric Holder has and is committing crimes against the Constitution and has done so in the past.

But that is my opinion. He's not been tried for anything, yet. You can presume all you wish about either one.

Edited July 17, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[TMF]

So, what's you're point? Eric Holder is a public official. You can "feel" however you wish. A man is on trial for

2nd degree murder. Eric Holder has and is committing crimes against the Constitution and has done so in the past.

But that is my opinion. He's not been tried for anything, yet. You can presume all you wish about either one.

The presumption of innocence and the finding of guilt is not to be polled by the public, but by

a jury.

[RobertNashville]

...Apparently if you're a conservative you're supposed to support Zimmerman, and if you're a liberal you're supposed to be screaming for his head.

I don't think anyone has said that or believes that. This isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue at all. Doing what is right is not a "conservative" or "liberal" issue; it's a moral one and what brings politics into this case are the race-baiters and politicians who are more interested in scoring points for their side and/or lining their pocketbooks than actually getting to the truth and seeing justice done.

This seems to extend to automatically believing or dismissing the new information based on your pre-existing beliefs.

I don't believe accusations; I believe evidence and these recent accusations are suspect if only because of their timing; plus, they have zero to do with his guilt or innocence of the crime he is accused of. Edited July 17, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Ray Z]

Has anyone thought of the outcome if he is convicted of the shooting? You will have the right to carry a firearm. But if you use it to protect yourself or your family at the very least you will have a whopping legal bill. Or go to jail for the rest of your life.

[TMF]

Has anyone thought of the outcome if he is convicted of the shooting? You will have the right to carry a firearm. But if you use it to protect yourself or your family at the very least you will have a whopping legal bill. Or go to jail for the rest of your life.

I know that it is somehow fundamentally wrong for me to even suggest this, but what if he's found guilty because the evidence supports his guilt?

[greenego]

30 minutes from where this is going to be tried Casey Anthony was found not guilty, despite all the media circus surrounding it and the emotional implications that came with the manner of the crime. This was a jury that admittedly wanted to convict her but wouldn't because of the lack of sufficient evidence to reach a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

What makes you think in this case that each person on a jury (after going through the selection process) would end up suspending morals to convict someone without enough evidence to do so? Sure, it's possible that one or two might, but everyone? I think he's guilty, but if I was sitting on a jury it wouldn't matter what I think, it would only matter what the evidence proved/disproved. I don't even consider myself to be of high moral character compared to most, so I don't think the defense would have to hard of a time selecting jurors that can separate opinion and evidence.

He will get a fair trial. If he is found not guilty than it means that he either did nothing criminal or there wasn't enough evidence to convict. If he is found guilty it is because he is criminally liable, not because of media hype.

Also, Orlando isn't LA, and Sanford isn't laid out in a manner where any rioting could take hold in an area that would matter. The economical hub of Sanford is away from the ghetto by several miles towards the interstate. Furthermore, Floridians simply wouldn't tolerate such nonsense and there isn't the amount of low-life gangs and criminals to take over the way they did in LA. LA is a third world country in most places. Central Florida in the greater Orlando area is just not that way. Even the crime laden areas off OBT and Pine Hills wouldn't allow rioting and such nonsense to take place.

Maybe I just have a little more faith in my fellow Americans than most, or maybe I'm just not secretly hoping for a race war.

Race war or not, I didn't see Al or Jesse or marches in New York over Casey Anthony. From what i have heard, I would have a hard time not thinking Z acted in self defense. Twelve people, at least one would cause a hung jury. Look at what has happened in the resent past when you have race involved. Typically the violence breaks out in the minority areas. Not knowing the make up in FL cities, I would have to believe violence could break out in other parts of the country. Also Z and his family have received threats. Wouldn't be surprised if this was not extended to any juror that voted for acquittal.

I don't thank most is secretly hoping for a race war, outside of the Black Panthers and Skin Heads/ KKK. The problem is, when you have a consistent drum beat that bad things happen to people because of their race, people start to believe it and get caught up with the hype. As long as AL and Jesse and those of their thinking is doing this, we will have race problems.

[TMF]

Race war or not, I didn't see Al or Jesse or marches in New York over Casey Anthony. From what i have heard, I would have a hard time not thinking Z acted in self defense. Twelve people, at least one would cause a hung jury. Look at what has happened in the resent past when you have race involved. Typically the violence breaks out in the minority areas. Not knowing the make up in FL cities, I would have to believe violence could break out in other parts of the country. Also Z and his family have received threats. Wouldn't be surprised if this was not extended to any juror that voted for acquittal.

I don't thank most is secretly hoping for a race war, outside of the Black Panthers and Skin Heads/ KKK. The problem is, when you have a consistent drum beat that bad things happen to people because of their race, people start to believe it and get caught up with the hype. As long as AL and Jesse and those of their thinking is doing this, we will have race problems.

Perhaps in other areas such as LA where there is little control over the third world areas I guess. I mean, with the proper amount of hype and a motivational riot leadership I you can get a good riot going in those places any day of the week. In Florida where this is all going on I don't see anything happening. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the short answer is that the environment does not support it. Even the black community in Sanford isn't going to support a bunch of outsiders coming in and stirring up trouble, because in the end it will be their neighborhoods that bear the destruction.

Beyond the other side of this issue in regards to the race baiting and such and media slant, there is an equally disturbing undertone I've noticed which seems to invite the idea of such a breakdown as an opportunity for a cultural purging; an armed reaction to it. If folks knew what something like that actually looked like, smelled like.... sounded like, they wouldn't be wishing for it. They'd be praying that such an awful day would never come.

[DaveTN]

I’ve been accused of being a lot of things; but a liberal is not one of them. I’m a conservative and I believe Zimmerman (based solely on what I have is read) is guilty of manslaughter, but not 2^nd degree murder. By acting in a reckless manner he contributed to a situation that caused him to put himself in harms way; he then went directly to deadly force to stop the situation. A jury should decide if that sounds reasonable.

I believe in “Innocent until proven guiltyâ€, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have an opinion. We are having a discussion and sharing opinions; is there something wrong with that? I see it done here all the time.

What will happen if he is convicted? It won’t impact me in any way. I’m not going to instigate a situation that could likely have me depending on the use of a gun to protect myself.

I believe Zimmerman should be out on bail, he represents no risk, I believe the Judge is bias and should step aside, I believe he is charged with the wrong crime, but I also believe due to his reckless actions an innocent kid walking down the street is dead; and for that he should pay.

What we do here and what we say here has no impact; its just discussion.

[E4 No More]

Presumption of innocence is a fallacy. In today's society it no longer exists.

[RobertNashville]

Presumption of innocence is a fallacy. In today's society it no longer exists.

Probably true but I'm not so sure that's a change and isn't that somewhat immaterial anyway?

The only place it really needs to exist is in the courtroom and in the minds of the jurors who are sworn to make their decision based on the evidence. We may lose that now and then in specific trials but if we lose it in a majority of trials then we might as well do away with the court system, save the money and time and just go to having Judges such as they had in the movie (i.e. Stalone's character in "Judge Dread").

Edited July 17, 2012 by RobertNashville

[E4 No More]

Probably true but isn't that somewhat immaterial? The only place it must exist is in the courtroom and in the minds of the jurors who are sworn to make their decision based on the evidence. We may lose that now and then in specific trials but if we lose it in a majority of trials then we might as well do away with the court system, save the money and time and just go to having Judges such as they had in the movie (i.e. Stalone's character in "Judge Dread").

Having been a LEO what you think is not what actually goes on these days. Look at how many folks convict based on the news. In lesser courts the judges are simply revenue collectors.

[RobertNashville]

Having been a LEO what you think is not what actually goes on these days. Look at how many folks convict based on the news. In lesser courts the judges are simply revenue collectors.

How can anyone truly make the determination that the conviction was based on the news as compared to the defendant having a lousy lawyer or even, for that matter, a preponderance of the evidence?

I know we are dealing with human nature but I find it difficult to believe that 12 individuals would all, at the same time, forget the oath they swore and convict someone of a crime based only on what they read in the news...maybe I'm just blind to how bad things have really gotten.

[E4 No More]

How can anyone truly make the determination that the conviction was based on the news as compared to the defendant having a lousy lawyer or even, for that matter, a preponderance of the evidence?

I know we are dealing with human nature but I find it difficult to believe that 12 individuals would all, at the same time, forget the oath they swore and convict someone of a crime based only on what they read in the news...maybe I'm just blind to how bad things have really gotten.

I was talking about the presumption of innocence. In the back of the average person's mind the person wouldn't be there if they were innocent. Look at how many people on this forum alone jump to conclusions based on "news" reports.

\

Also, keep in mind that one of the reasons that I got fed-up with law enforcement was watching corrupt courts. My own judge, for instance, did things like represent his own client in his own court. I've seen corruption in Nashville's courts too. Smyrna as well.

Edited July 17, 2012 by SWJewellTN

[DaveS]

Has anyone thought of the outcome if he is convicted of the shooting? You will have the right to carry a firearm. But if you use it to protect yourself or your family at the very least you will have a whopping legal bill. Or go to jail for the rest of your life.

I guess it would depend on the circumstances of the shooting.

Edited July 17, 2012 by wd-40

[DaveTN]

Presumption of innocence is a fallacy. In today's society it no longer exists.

I said earlier that I believed in innocent until proven guilty. However, that doesn’t mean that I think it actually happens.

I’m sure that you, as have I, have put cuffs on people, towed their cars, locked them up in jail, and that’s where they stayed until they went to trial because they couldn’t make bond. I’m sorry, but that’s not innocent until proven guilty. I believe the way it should be (and the way it will be someday) is that no one can be placed in jail unless they are taken before a judge and it is shown that you are a danger to someone. A person should be given a “Notice to Appear†on the street and let go, then if they don’t show up for court they are in another category and can be detained.

Jail is a dangerous place and innocent people are hurt all the time; I know I’ve seen it many times. A person has no business being there unless they have been convicted or unless they are a real threat to someone. Someone could make a very big name for themselves by hurting or killing Zimmerman in jail.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You lost me. Must be

something pithy, there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TMF]

You lost me. Must be

something pithy, there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The point being made is that you claim that I can have my opinion after posting a comment suggesting that folks outside of a jury have no business giving their opinion. It has been the theme on these threads. I'm pretty open-minded and can see how one would arrive at the conclusion that Zimmerman acted in self defense. I can also understand how many would suspend judgement since the facts are so muddy. What I can't understand is folks saying "I think he was justified in shooting Martin" and then saying that if someone disagrees it is wrong for them to have an opinion. That is illogical.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What's illogical is you're reading my post and making

something out of it, when I was referring to a post

claiming there were sides based on political party

beliefs. Now, if you claim that to be illogical or

a lack of reason or something else, go for it.

I stated my opinion, you did yours. I guess we

disagree, don't we?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And since you quoted it, why don't you read it again.

I think after reading what I wrote three or four times, I

still think it makes perfect sense. Doesn't say you can't

have your opinion or I can't have mine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk