Zimmerman Trial: Verdict Reached!

[Guest TankerHC]

Preponderance of evidence is not what the talking head attorneys are saying. They claim that is already there. What they are saying is that in order for Zimmerman to be brought up on Federal Civil Rights charges, the JD would have to show "Bias" to the Courts. Which all that I have heard said they dont think the JD can do. Just paraphrasing what they (Talking head lawyers) were saying, Bias as in "Zimmerman showed bias in denying Martin his Civil Rights by taking his life based on his race".

 

The question is, will they do it anyway?

 

I could list the current violations of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, Amendments, but everyone already knows about that...just have to turn on any news channel. And whats one more Amendment anyway (The 5th), can keep them in order.

[Reservoir Dog]

Well we are still talking about the federal govt., they can magically take weak evidence and turn it into earth shattering evidence,they can even make evidence appear out of thin air if they want.

 

They can?  Please cite some examples of this.  I would love to read up on them.

 

It was political pressure from the race baiters including the race baiter in chief that pressured the state to charge GZ in the first place, not credible evidence, and the same race baiters will pressure some federal prosecutor to charge GZ with a civil rights violation criminal charge.

 

I agree with you here.  Criminal charges never should have been brought against Zimmerman because the case was extremely weak.  That is the reason the state prosecutor never sent the case to a grand jury, as she knew that they would have never returned an indictment.  Federal courts get their jurors from the same pool as the state courts, so unless there is new evidence, I think the outcome would be the same.  Nothing from the current USDOJ leadership surprises me, so they may charge him, but I still think that is unlikely.

 

 

 

[DaveTN]

I accept the verdict. Eat crow?  I don’t think so. I’ve seen many cases where guilty people walked free and I’m sure I will see it again.

 

On a national level the state cases with the Rodney King cops, and the OJ case. But the Feds made the King case right and karma took OJ down. We will see what happens with Zimmerman. (I’m not suggesting a federal case; there is none)

 

I’ve stayed out of these threads recently because I was tired of the personal attacks and being called a racist when my opinions had zero to do with race.

 

Zimmerman was found “not guilty”; that doesn’t mean he’s innocent. I hope the Florida law doesn’t keep the Martin family from filing a civil suit. He doesn’t have anything for them to get right now, but I hate to think this guy could make a dime off killing an innocent kid by selling book or movie rights.

 

No justice today.

[gun sane]

Zimmerman was found “not guilty”; that doesn’t mean he’s innocent.

 

So in spite of no tangible evidence that he committed a crime, we're supposed to keep GZ on trial until he's taken up to Heaven or something? 

Edited July 14, 2013 by gun sane

[daddyo]

Zimmerman was found “not guilty”; that doesn’t mean he’s innocent.

 

No justice today.

 

??? A jury of his peers in accordance with the law found that he was innocent of all charges. If that doesn't mean he's innocent, I don't know what does. The prosecution failed in their attempt to prove otherwise, because they had no case.

 

You seem to be implying that Martin was the only one who deserved any sort of "justice". Why was Zimmerman not entitled to the same thing?

 

Thankfully, justice is not defined by whether or not someone likes the verdict.

Edited July 14, 2013 by daddyo

[Worriedman]

 I hope the Florida law doesn’t keep the Martin family from filing a civil suit. He doesn’t have anything for them to get right now, but I hate to think this guy could make a dime off killing an innocent kid by selling book or movie rights.

 

 

He will have lots of money when he gets through suing the lettered media for breaching his rights by falsely editing the 911 calls, and the win he will have against FL for the improper prosecution.

And, according to the law, he will be immune from any civil  (monetary, civil RIGHTS are a different thing) suits, immune, means he can not loose any money to anybody regarding this case from this point forward.  Yeah, fools can sue him, and the State will protect and collect for him.  Those are just simple facts.

Being there is proof that DOJ has already involved themselves in illegally attempting to gin up the case, I would not be surprised to see West kick their hinneys in the end as well via suit.

[DaveTN]

So in spite of no tangible evidence that he committed a crime, we're supposed to keep GZ on trial until he's taken up to Heaven or something? 

No, the only six people that mattered say I was wrong on the criminal charges. I’m okay with that, not upset, won’t lose any sleep over it, as I said the verdict either way will impact me 0%. I’m disappointed.

[DaveTN]

He will have lots of money when he gets through suing the lettered media for breaching his rights by falsely editing the 911 calls, and the win he will have against FL for the improper prosecution.

And, according to the law, he will be immune from any civil  (monetary, civil RIGHTS are a different thing) suits, immune, means he can not loose any money to anybody regarding this case from this point forward.  Yeah, fools can sue him, and the State will protect and collect for him.  Those are just simple facts.

Being there is proof that DOJ has already involved themselves in illegally attempting to gin up the case, I would not be surprised to see West kick their hinneys in the end as well via suit.

Everyone is going to sue everybody when they are found not guilty. Let him try; that is his right.

I don’t think the DOJ is going to get involved in this. Of course I could be wrong again.

[TripleDigitRide]

It's interesting how some of you continually insist that Trayvon Martin was completely innocent.

Are any of you willing to let me blast you in the nose and beat your head into the ground? It doesn't even need to be a sidewalk, grass will work just fine.

[Grand Torino]

??? A jury of his peers in accordance with the law found that he was innocent of all charges. If that doesn't mean he's innocent, I don't know what does. The prosecution failed in their attempt to prove otherwise, because they had no case.

 

You seem to be implying that Martin was the only one who deserved any sort of "justice". Why was Zimmerman not entitled to the same thing?

 

Thankfully, justice is not defined by whether or not someone likes the verdict.

Exactly. To some people it's never enough. Jesus Christ.....

[Worriedman]

Just an FYI

 

federal civil case involves a legal dispute between two or more parties. To begin a civil lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiff files a complaint with the court and "serves" a copy of the complaint on the defendant. The complaint describes the plaintiff's injury, explains how the defendant caused the injury, and asks the court to order relief. A plaintiff may seek money to compensate for the injury, or may ask the court to order the defendant to stop the conduct that is causing the harm. The court may also order other types of relief, such as a declaration of the legal rights of the plaintiff in a particular situation.

 

NOTE: I bet real Attorney's here and on other boards just LOVE sh__house lawyers. Because I have yet to see an Attorney on a Forum, and I know of many on many Forums, state specific opinions on a specific case. Im sure it MAY never jeopardize their profession, but it could. Bet it really sucks to know what your talking about but not be able to comment on it, but I dont blame them one bit. US (And I mean all the non lawyers) do have opinons and can only say based on reading and other research. But if I ever were to get in trouble, and need representation, Im not asking here or anywhere else, Im calling a lawyer. Im opinionated...not stoopid.

 

And one last thing, I certainly wouldnt want to rely on my own knowledge of the Legal Profession.....I'd end up in jail for 100 years on a traffic violation. :x:

 Do you remember the Joe Horn shooting in Pasadena, TX, where the next door neighbor shot the two Black Columbians who were leaving his neighbors house with the swag they stole, while he was on the phone with 911. He was told to NOT fire on them, and there was an unmarked car with a police officer sitting in the front yard, and he told them (dispatch) wait a minute while I shoot these robbers and kill them?

He was "No Billed" by Grand Jury, and was, and is immune from civil suits.

Same actors, NAACP, SPLC in front of cameras, calling for his head.  He was found innocent, and they could not touch him.

See any civil suits filed against him?

 

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pasadena-news/article/Joe-Horn-cleared-by-grand-jury-in-Pasadena-1587004.php

Edited July 14, 2013 by Worriedman

[DaveTN]

It's interesting how some of you continually insist that Trayvon Martin was completely innocent.

Are any of you willing to let me blast you in the nose and beat your head into the ground? It doesn't even need to be a sidewalk, grass will work just fine.

That would involve me jumping out of my vehicle and coming after you simply because I don’t know you. That’s not happening with me; it’s reckless.

[RobertNashville]

I'm a bit surprised that people keep talking about or even wishing for "civil suits" and "wondering" what's going to happen with them...folks, go read the FL statutes; this is really not something one needs to guess about.
 
Florida has a GREAT immunity law, if a person was justified in using deadly force to defend himself (as Zimmerman was) then the law doesn't just provide for an affirmative defense, it's true IMMUNITY from civil prosecution.
 
This is what a Florida attorney had to say about it...
 
 

A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force...
 
This language makes clear that the law provides a true immunity and not merely an affirmative defense. The Florida legislative session law notes demonstrate the true intent behind the new law stating; "The Legislature finds that it is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others". Ch. 2005-27 at 200, Laws of Florida. See Peterson v State, 983 so. 2d 27 (Fla. 1 ^stDCA 2008)

 

 
One thing is apparent, however....I guess I got it right last night when I said that people won't be eating crow because... 

...they'll be doing what I just saw the prosecution do on Fox news a few minutes ago; trying to retry the case with the same old, innuendo, lying witnesses, stupid witnesses, expert witnesses who should return their paycheck out of shame for doing such a poor job and pictures of 12 year old Trayvon.    There are always those who refuse to be confused by facts and evidence.

[No_0ne]

Just now on CNN: "This doesn't mean he's innocent, it means the state didn't meet its burden."

These libtards just don't know anything.

Regardless of anyone's opinion on this case, CNN is correct.  In this, or any other trial, a verdict of "not guity" has no supposition of innocence.  In Scotland, it's actually ruled "not proven".

[Grand Torino]

Regardless of anyone's opinion on this case, CNN is correct.  In this, or any other trial, a verdict of "not guity" has no supposition of innocence.  In Scotland, it's actually ruled "not proven".

Well we ain't in Scotland so.....

[TripleDigitRide]

It's interesting how some of you continually insist that Trayvon Martin was completely innocent.


Are any of you willing to let me blast you in the nose and beat your head into the ground? It doesn't even need to be a sidewalk, grass will work just fine.

That would involve me jumping out of my vehicle and coming after you simply because I don’t know you. That’s not happening with me; it’s reckless.

So, in your opinion, it's now acceptable to physically assault someone for lawfully getting out of their vehicle to make sure everything is kosher in their neighborhood?

[No_0ne]

At least he can sue the pants off some media sources, now. Hell, he ought to sue the White House and the Justice Department.

Far more likely, is that he will be sued in civil court for wrongful death.  As in OJ's case, this is the one Zimmerman is liable to lose.

[Grand Torino]

So, in your opinion, it's now acceptable to physically assault someone for lawfully getting out of their vehicle to make sure everything is kosher in their neighborhood?

Yes he got out of vehicle but who knows who actually assaulted who? Were you there?

[No_0ne]

Good decision.  Personally, I don't think it should have ever made it to trial.

 

The question now is what are you guys going to find to debate and create 1000 post threads?  ;)

How about "which is better, 9mm or .45"...

[Worriedman]

How about we teach our children the old line from Robert Heinlein: “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

 

In those States that allow carry for self defense, teach your children to not assault individuals who may be legally armed, the results just may be death.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

How about we teach our children the old line from Robert Heinlein: “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

 

In those States that allow carry for self defense, teach your children to not assault individuals who may be legally armed, the results just may be death.

 

Yep, and an obvious corrolary would be-- Don't suspiciously follow people who are breaking no law, especially at night, because they too may be legally (or illegally) armed, and they might be even crazier than you are, and a better shot to boot! :)

[DaveTN]

How about we teach our children the old line from Robert Heinlein: “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

 

In those States that allow carry for self defense, teach your children to not assault individuals who may be legally armed, the results just may be death.

Yes, teach your children that unless they are old enough to carry a gun to defend themselves from armed nut cases; they have a duty to retreat.

[TMF]

How about we teach our children the old line from Robert Heinlein: “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

In those States that allow carry for self defense, teach your children to not assault individuals who may be legally armed, the results just may be death.

Good advice for youngsters.

For gun owners the take away should be that the dark alley is just as dangerous now as before you started carrying. There is no way in hell that George Zimmerman, a self described pussy, would have gotten out of his truck and pursued a suspicious man down a dark street if he didn't have a firearm on him. He meets the very definition of irresponsible carrier who is emboldened by his weapon.

[TripleDigitRide]

So, in your opinion, it's now acceptable to physically assault someone for lawfully getting out of their vehicle to make sure everything is kosher in their neighborhood?

Yes he got out of vehicle but who knows who actually assaulted who? Were you there?

No. Neither was any other member of this forum. All we know is one person was obviously beaten and bloody, while the other person was uninjured until he was shot. As had been mentioned countless times by the State's own witnesses, Zimmerman's account of what happened that night is consistent with the evidence. There is ZERO evidence to suggest Zimmerman physically assaulted Trayvon first. ZERO! Creating a fairytale in your mind is hardly evidence.

[Worriedman]

Yes, teach your children that unless they are old enough to carry a gun to defend themselves from armed nut cases; they have a duty to retreat.

Rules for living, be smarter than what you are working with.