Justice for Trayvon??

[BoyNextDoor]

If you wanted a trial, you'd be on myside of this argument. The only reason to debate against me in this is because you think Zimmerman should walk. No trial, what he and the cops did was 100% proper and a persons word should be legal proof of no-wrong doing.

Not true. The law is not right and was put in place in 2005 and the test of it is confronting us and it should be changed. If this had happened in most other states (obviously not Texas) he'd have been in front of a grand jury already.

That does not mean I think we can trample Zimmerman's rights. I do not think that fear of a million hoodie march or a $10K bounty is a good reason to arrest Zimmerman.

 

[Wrong Element]

If this guy was not indited due to a "stand your ground" law that there is no way Zimmerman can be. Near the 7 minute mark you hear the guy rack his shotgun and shoot the thieves.


Hernando Riascos Torres and Diego Ortiz -- Pasadena, Texas (2007):

Torres, 38, and Ortiz, 30, were undocumented immigrants allegedly caught leaving the scene of a home burglary. Neighbor Joe Horn, 62, called 911. "I've got a shotgun," he told a dispatcher. "Do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that," the dispatcher replied. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

But Horn ignored that advice. In his breathless 911 call, Horn can be heard opening his front door, racking his shotgun, and saying, "Hello. You're dead!" He shot Torres and Ortiz in the back, killing them both.

You can hear the fatal shots in the 911 recording:

Joe Horn

A grand jury declined to indict Horn, apparently believing his claim that he feared for his life, the Houston Chronicle reported.

If Martin had been seen emerging from someone's home and not minding his own business walking on a public street, I'd probably concur with this (leaving aside that the Texas grand jury was, based on this set of facts, extraordinarily unprofessional).

 

[Dream59]

If you wanted a trial, you'd be on myside of this argument. The only reason to debate against me in this is because you think Zimmerman should walk. No trial, what he and the cops did was 100% proper and a persons word should be legal proof of no-wrong doing.

Sean I do not have an opinion one way or the other as to a trial. At this point there has not been much evidence released one way or the other. Most of what has been written is about the past of Trayvon and Zimmerman which has nothing to do with the case. I believe that if the evidence shows that Zimmerman was within his rights to use deadly force then there should be no trial and this should be dropped. If the evidence shows probable cause that Zimmerman exceeded his rights to self defense then there should be a trial. I do not feel that a trial should be held simply to give people a false sense of justice. Should a person be put on trial even if evidence shows that they are not guilty of a crime, simply to give a grieving rape victim a false sense of justice? If you do this, how is it going to help either Trayvons family and backers, or Zimmerman? Not to mention the huge cost to the tax payers of conducting this trial, if in fact the evidence backs Zimmerman. If you belive that a trial should be held reguardless of the evidence in this case then you must do it in all cases. You would destroy the criminal justice system and cause every city in the country to go broke.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Not true. The law is not right and was put in place in 2005 and the test of it is confronting us and it should be changed. If this had happened in most other states (obviously not Texas) he'd have been in front of a grand jury already.

That does not mean I think we can trample Zimmerman's rights. I do not think that fear of a million hoodie march or a $10K bounty is a good reason to arrest Zimmerman.

The law is fine. You shouldn't be afraid of going to jail for self defense. You should however be willing to go to trial.

This isn't about Zimmerman's rights, and a million hoody march is silly ultimately minorities will be killed by law enforcement for at least a nother decade or two and perhaps its time we stopped pretending like that wasn't an acceptable practice. The 10k bounty is from a group so marginalized that the family doesn't want their help. Just like I don't hold the Westboro Church as representative of anything but crazy I don't count the NBP as anything but crazy people acting crazy. They are sufficiently crazy that the Real Black Panthers wouldn't let them use the name.

 

[Dream59]

Not true. The law is not right and was put in place in 2005 and the test of it is confronting us and it should be changed. If this had happened in most other states (obviously not Texas) he'd have been in front of a grand jury already.

That does not mean I think we can trample Zimmerman's rights. I do not think that fear of a million hoodie march or a $10K bounty is a good reason to arrest Zimmerman.

How do you know it was not planned to take this before a Grand Jury anyway? All this crap was started before a Grand Jury could be seated. I am not saying that they had planned to do so, but there is no way you can say that they did not.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sean I do not have an opinion one way or the other as to a trial. At this point there has not been much evidence released one way or the other. Most of what has been written is about the past of Trayvon and Zimmerman which has nothing to do with the case. I believe that if the evidence shows that Zimmerman was within his rights to use deadly force then there should be no trial and this should be dropped. If the evidence shows probable cause that Zimmerman exceeded his rights to self defense then there should be a trial. I do not feel that a trial should be held simply to give people a false sense of justice. Should a person be put on trial even if evidence shows that they are not guilty of a crime, simply to give a grieving rape victim a false sense of justice? If you do this, how is it going to help either Trayvons family and backers, or Zimmerman? Not to mention the huge cost to the tax payers of conducting this trial, if in fact the evidence backs Zimmerman. If you belive that a trial should be held reguardless of the evidence in this case then you must do it in all cases. You would destroy the criminal justice system and cause every city in the country to go broke.

Yes a trial should be held. It won't cause the country to go broke.

How do you know it was not planned to take this before a Grand Jury anyway? All this crap was started before a Grand Jury could be seated. I am not saying that they had planned to do so, but there is no way you can say that they did not.

Because there was no arrest made. That's how we know there was no plan to take it before a Grant Jury. It's really that cut and dry.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Zimmerman will likely go to trial because the pols want to dump the hot potato. The governor appointed a hotshot prosecutor to find something-anything to stick on Zimmerman; ditto for Obama. There are 1000s of criminal charges, and theyll find something.

 

[Dream59]

Yes a trial should be held. It won't cause the country to go broke.



Because there was no arrest made. That's how we know there was no plan to take it before a Grant Jury. It's really that cut and dry.

Sean the "country" will not be paying for it, the local jurisdiction will be paying for it. And to follow your theme, if you do it for this case you have to do it for all of them. So yes it will cause cities and counties and states to go broke.

As for your staement about the Grand Jury. An arrest has nothing to do with a Grand Jury. If it is taken before the Grand Jury and a True Bill is returned then Zimmerman would be arrested on the indictment of the Grand Jury. Most of the arguements on thse threads (minus the simple racist) stems from a lack of knowledge of the law, the constitution, and the way the system works. People have watched way too much tv and it has given them a false sense of knowledge.
For example I made an arrest, and took the guy to the jail, and the guy, laughing, told me he already had the case beat. I asked him how he thought that and he said because I had not read him his rights. I asked him if I had asked him a question or wether he had confessed to anything. He said no, so I laughing at this point told him good luck with that defense. He was sentenced to 20 years for a 3rd offense burglary. I caught him coming out of a business with all the loot and did not need to question him, but he had seen too much tv.

 

[RjThoughts]

where I live they have similiar volunters

there are also signs everywhere

EVERYONE WALKING AROUND KNOWS ABOUT IT

there is JUST one reason NOT to stop when they say stop

and no volunteer in his RIGHT mind would NOT find it

"alarming" when teh person doesnt stop

having said that

when GZ was told to go back to the car, he did, only to be confronted by the CRIME SEEKING THUG and attacked

Oh non-racist omnipotent one, you know this how? Enlighten all of us who know not of your All-knowing, All-seeing superpowers.

 

[busybody..]

Oh non-racist omnipotent one, you know this how? Enlighten all of us who know not of your All-knowing, All-seeing superpowers.

GZ said so

I dont see T Mart saying otherwise

DO YOU?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Sean the "country" will not be paying for it, the local jurisdiction will be paying for it. And to follow your theme, if you do it for this case you have to do it for all of them. So yes it will cause cities and counties and states to go broke.

As for your staement about the Grand Jury. An arrest has nothing to do with a Grand Jury. If it is taken before the Grand Jury and a True Bill is returned then Zimmerman would be arrested on the indictment of the Grand Jury. Most of the arguements on thse threads (minus the simple racist) stems from a lack of knowledge of the law, the constitution, and the way the system works. People have watched way too much tv and it has given them a false sense of knowledge.
For example I made an arrest, and took the guy to the jail, and the guy, laughing, told me he already had the case beat. I asked him how he thought that and he said because I had not read him his rights. I asked him if I had asked him a question or wether he had confessed to anything. He said no, so I laughing at this point told him good luck with that defense. He was sentenced to 20 years for a 3rd offense burglary. I caught him coming out of a business with all the loot and did not need to question him, but he had seen too much tv.

Tell us again how law enforcement officers determine if you are guilty or innocent, Mr. Mall Cop.

 

[RjThoughts]

GZ said so

I dont see T Mart saying otherwise

DO YOU?

SMDH!!

 

[busybody..]

SMDH!!

you know what

NEXT TIME YOU SHOW SYMPATHY TO THE TWO WHITE KIDS GUNNED DOWN BY BLACKS IN FLORIDA

I WILL GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU SAY

K?

 

[busybody..]

SMDH!!

you dont have any evidence to refute what I wrote

DO YOU?

btw, where did this SKITTLES and TEA shit come from?

T MART'S FUCKING LAWYER

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT HIM TO SAY

My man was geting some weed?

SKITLLES MY FUCKING ASS

 

[busybody..]

This THUG is your hero.....

http://moonbattery.com/if-obama-had-a-son-3.jpg

 

[busybody..]

http://moonbattery.com/if-obama-had-a-son-3.jpg

http://moonbattery.com/if-obama-had-a-son-2.jpg

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Zimmerman will likely go to trial because the pols want to dump the hot potato. The governor appointed a hotshot prosecutor to find something-anything to stick on Zimmerman; ditto for Obama. There are 1000s of criminal charges, and theyll find something.

Right - exactly. So having the feds and Atty General and others looking for something to charge him with to appease the mob is bullshit.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The law is fine. You shouldn't be afraid of going to jail for self defense. You should however be willing to go to trial.

You have a lot more faith in the system than I do!

If I had pulled that trigger I'd be thinking how I was the luckiest man alive that I was not in a cell at this very moment. There is no way in hell I ever want to be near the courts again and have complete strangers making determinations and value judgements about me and my life.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You have a lot more faith in the system than I do!

If I had pulled that trigger I'd be thinking how I was the luckiest man alive that I was not in a cell at this very moment. There is no way in hell I ever want to be near the courts again and have complete strangers making determinations and value judgements about me and my life.

You really get your choice. Either trust the system or lets go all wild west on each other and even the Wild West wasn't anything lit was in th movies.

I choose to be judged by twelve rather than carried by six. I get that. I don't get how so many people can think it's just to take a human life and then just get taken at your word that you did it in self defence no proof needed other than your word and a breif look over.

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

hard to imagine that after 22 pages of debate, the 2 opposing points of view can't come to an agreement.

 

[Ishmael]

hard to imagine that after 22 pages of debate, the 2 opposing points of view can't come to an agreement.

How can that ever occur? One point of view is to allow the process to proceed to a conclusion, the other point of view has Zimmerman convicted. Quite frankly I'm surprised they aren't discussing the penalty phase yet.

Ishmael

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Right - exactly. So having the feds and Atty General and others looking for something to charge him with to appease the mob is bullshit.

But thats how it works. Piss the wrong people off and the pols drop to their knees to appease them.

Heres one I was involved in: The girl was 17 and had a cat-scratch on her ankle, she told the school cop Momma ran her over with a Cadillac. No other marks on her. Nuthin.

The real issue was: The girl was lesbian and wanted to live one of her teachers. Momma said FUCK NO, and shit erupted.

The case landed on my desk. TAKE IT TO COURT, JOHNSON! I refused but it went to court anyway. My agency was managed by a battalion of lesbians. Anyway, the judge threw the charges out, cuz they were BS.

 

[Sean Renaud]

How can that ever occur? One point of view is to allow the process to proceed to a conclusion, the other point of view has Zimmerman convicted. Quite frankly I'm surprised they aren't discussing the penalty phase yet.

Ishmael

You're half right. One point of view is to allow the process to proceed to a conclusion. The other is lets ignore it and it'll go away on it's own.

 

[Ishmael]

You're half right. One point of view is to allow the process to proceed to a conclusion. The other is lets ignore it and it'll go away on it's own.

All of these circuses going on all over town and not one, not a single new, piece of evidence has surfaced. Oh, all sorts of ideas, innuendos, and theories have been floated out there. The press has done it's job manufacturing and manipulating what little evidence there is in the public domain.

The Governors appointed prosecutor might convince a grand jury to bring charges, but what charges will/can they bring? Manslaughter....maybe. And if it were to go to trial I can almost assure you that unless there is some unknown evidence out there Zimmerman will be acquitted. (Without some new and provocative evidence there are probably only two counties in Fl where they could load up a jury enough to get a conviction, Broward, and Palm Beach.)

Ishmael

 

[Sean Renaud]

All of these circuses going on all over town and not one, not a single new, piece of evidence has surfaced. Oh, all sorts of ideas, innuendos, and theories have been floated out there. The press has done it's job manufacturing and manipulating what little evidence there is in the public domain.

The Governors appointed prosecutor might convince a grand jury to bring charges, but what charges will/can they bring? Manslaughter....maybe. And if it were to go to trial I can almost assure you that unless there is some unknown evidence out there Zimmerman will be acquitted. (Without some new and provocative evidence there are probably only two counties in Fl where they could load up a jury enough to get a conviction, Broward, and Palm Beach.)

Ishmael

First they could charge him with multiple accounts of murder. It's not as if the crime actually has to be plausible to be brought against someone. I would assume in a realistic way it would like be manslaughter charges. It's clearly not Murder 1 and you'd have to stretch to get it to Murder 2 (unless there is some law I'm unaware of where patrolling your neighborhood armed is like driving drunk and simply ups your crime arbitrarily) .

If he gets acquitted he gets acquitted. This concept that we should have trials if the person is unlikely to be found guilty, or shouldn't have trials because the person is likely to be found guilty is bullshit.