100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Stop Inulting Zimmerman Jury | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You don't know much about the law do you? His whole defense was "self defense." He was charged with second degree murder.... which is NOT self defense. He proved his case and they failed to prove theirs. I know enough to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average,,,lol I know how to research I am aware of the charge I am awere he was found 'not guilty' he was not found 'not guilty by reason of self defense' they didn't have enough evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to prove it was not self defense that doesn't mean it WAS self defense,,, in civil court, the burden of proof is evidence that is in PREPONDERANCE< that it wasn't self defense except in the matter of mental deficiency or illness, in which cse the reason would be explicitly stated in the verdict,,, in which case he could be found legally responsible for the death,,, one cannot be 'proven' not guilty, it is the default if one is not 'proven' guilty,,, zimmerman claimed self defense, was tried, and was found not guilty. you say that doesn't mean it was self defense does that mean you can claim to be a certified paralegal with a 4.0 average, but not be any good as a paralegal? George Zimmerman CLAIMED self defense he PLEAD 'not guilty' http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/4-24-12a.pdf the jury found him 'not guilty' no need to read anything more than that into it the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty , so the jury were left with the default of 'not guilty' ,,its really not rocket science,,,, Well whatever make you feel righteous and indignant.  The outcome is still "not guilty of second degree murder." It was not his job to prove "self defense," and he doesn't have to. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty of the charge of second degree murder. His strategy was self defense, and it obviously worked for the Jury. He could't deny that he killed the guy. But in this country you can still kill a guy in SELF DEFENSE. I was actually replying to someone that was being condescending towards me,, didn't mean for anyone ELSE to take it so personal,,, but I agree, that's been my whole point the jury did not find he was 'not guilty by reason of self defense' just that the prosecution had not found him guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' thanx for clearing that up...  I didn't take it personal at all. and I think your conclusion is a matter of opinion. They didn't really have to say "Not guilty by reason of..." ITS NOT NECESSARY AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. I agree all that matters is 'not guilty' and that's all they found,,,,, because they did not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of 'guilty' It most definitely is NOT "all they found". He was found "not guilty" of the specific charges brought by the prosecution. Maybe it's just the fatigue I feel. But how is that different from what Harmony said? She said not guilty because the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty and you just said the same thing is a shorter sentence. Unless I am mistaken. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He proved it was self defense.
The jury agreed. The Hispanic haters are still slandering him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree all that matters is 'not guilty' and that's all they found,,,,, because they did not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of 'guilty' It most definitely is NOT "all they found". He was found "not guilty" of the specific charges brought by the prosecution. Maybe it's just the fatigue I feel. But how is that different from what Harmony said? She said not guilty because the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty and you just said the same thing is a shorter sentence. Unless I am mistaken. the difference is that msharmony believes (and will continue to believe) that zimmerman is guilty, but that the prosecution didn't present enough (or the "right") evidence to convince the jury to believe as she does. other people would not add the bolded part of her post lately she keeps wanting zimmerman to be held accountable by using the lower standard used in civil courts of "more likely than not" instead of the higher standard of "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal court. (like what happened to oj after his criminal murder case) bottom line is, if zimmerman set the whole sinario up and forced martin to act as he did to make things seem like zimmerman acted in self defense, it worked. i guarantee i guarantee that much like those who think that obama lied and cheated his way into back into office, there will be those who found zimmerman guilty way before the trial (bulldog double guarantee - patent pending) |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 07/26/13 06:14 AM
|
|
its true
my point is that a 'not guilty' verdict is not the same as an 'innocent' verdict,, part of the reason its worded in the court as 'not guity' is that its the PROSECUTIONS burden to PROVE guilt (either beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court or with a preponderance of evidence in civil court) the defense has no burden to 'prove' anything,,,, therefore, if the prosecution does not meet the burden of the court they are in,, the DEFAULT is that the defendant was not proven guilty,,,,,ie,, 'not guilty',,,,,nothing to do with having being proven innocent ,,,, as to the set up,, I don't believe it was a set up I am logical, if I had seen in the court any witness say they saw the beginning of this confrontation, or if there was evidence of damage to Zimmerman beyond a broken nose and two scratches on his head,, I would very well consider his story to be true as it stands, I have already given all the LOGICAL reasons, from watching the trial, that I believe his story is bs I believe he has gotten away so long with throwing around his weight and putting his hands on people, he has had the right people in his corner from his judge father to his best friend cop egging him into believing he should have a gun that on THAT night, when he was hyped on whatever, he convinced himself he saw a 'fing goon' and he was passionately upset at the idea he might 'get away'... he had the confidence of that gun at his side,, so he followed the goon,, first to keep him in his sights till police got there but when the 'goon' actually turned around and spoke, that ended his option to just follow and he went into his impulsive mode by playing cop and trying to detain the boy. which he wouldn't have been fearful of doing since he had a fifty pound advantage and a gun I believe, like would happen with most other people, that at that point a 'tussle' began (as one of the witnesses testified to seeing),,,,when the boy was saying 'get off me'(as trays friend testified to hearing him say),,, I believe the tussle ended up with Z having a broken nose, something he probably isn't used to happening when he throws his weight around,,,, (many bullies are actually cowards when they stop having total control,, I know this from experience, my accoster actually ran after I fought back) Z panicked and instead of fighting back screamed for a minute,, before remembering his gun and using IT in (unreasonable and unjustifiable in my opinion) 'defense' ,,,yep, I felt he killed an unarmed kid and the testimony and the facts are that he did I couldn't find too many justifiable reasons for an armed adult to shoot an unarmed kid, so I watched the trial and the trial and LOGIC filled in the blanks of how it happened for me,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yuppers. Mr Z should have held in there til he had a concussion to defend himself.
 Innocent. Get over it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Fri 07/26/13 07:38 AM
|
|
its true my point is that a 'not guilty' verdict is not the same as an 'innocent' verdict,, part of the reason its worded in the court as 'not guity' is that its the PROSECUTIONS burden to PROVE guilt (either beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court or with a preponderance of evidence in civil court) the defense has no burden to 'prove' anything,,,, therefore, if the prosecution does not meet the burden of the court they are in,, the DEFAULT is that the defendant was not proven guilty,,,,,ie,, 'not guilty',,,,,nothing to do with having being proven innocent ,,,, as to the set up,, I don't believe it was a set up I am logical, if I had seen in the court any witness say they saw the beginning of this confrontation, or if there was evidence of damage to Zimmerman beyond a broken nose and two scratches on his head,, I would very well consider his story to be true as it stands, I have already given all the LOGICAL reasons, from watching the trial, that I believe his story is bs I believe he has gotten away so long with throwing around his weight and putting his hands on people, he has had the right people in his corner from his judge father to his best friend cop egging him into believing he should have a gun that on THAT night, when he was hyped on whatever, he convinced himself he saw a 'fing goon' and he was passionately upset at the idea he might 'get away'... he had the confidence of that gun at his side,, so he followed the goon,, first to keep him in his sights till police got there but when the 'goon' actually turned around and spoke, that ended his option to just follow and he went into his impulsive mode by playing cop and trying to detain the boy. which he wouldn't have been fearful of doing since he had a fifty pound advantage and a gun I believe, like would happen with most other people, that at that point a 'tussle' began (as one of the witnesses testified to seeing),,,,when the boy was saying 'get off me'(as trays friend testified to hearing him say),,, I believe the tussle ended up with Z having a broken nose, something he probably isn't used to happening when he throws his weight around,,,, (many bullies are actually cowards when they stop having total control,, I know this from experience, my accoster actually ran after I fought back) Z panicked and instead of fighting back screamed for a minute,, before remembering his gun and using IT in (unreasonable and unjustifiable in my opinion) 'defense' ,,,yep, I felt he killed an unarmed kid and the testimony and the facts are that he did I couldn't find too many justifiable reasons for an armed adult to shoot an unarmed kid, so I watched the trial and the trial and LOGIC filled in the blanks of how it happened for me,,,,, Or should he have just cried Uncle,and hoped the Beating would stop? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a MUST SEE for anyone who wants to see the real story!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEbu6Yvzs4Ls |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry..see if I can make a working link...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEbu6Yvzs4Ls&nomobile=1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 oh well you'll just have to copy n paste |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 07/26/13 11:16 AM
|
|
GREAT VIDEO. Everyone who wants the truth should watch this!
Sorry..see if I can make a working link... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEbu6Yvzs4Ls&nomobile=1 You have to type in the tags and /url at the end with [] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very logical analysis of the events.
Doesn't sound anything like the fairy tale going on in here and with liberal media. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every time I see the title of this thread I have to laugh. Not because I have to take a moment to fix the typo in my head. But because this is the same kind of mistake I would make and then be kicking myself for after. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yuppers. Mr Z should have held in there til he had a concussion to defend himself. Innocent. Get over it. 'mr z' should have identified himself as neighborhood watch, and explained the 'concern' to deescalate a situation where he previously just appeared to be some spooky dude following a young man around at night,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its true my point is that a 'not guilty' verdict is not the same as an 'innocent' verdict,, part of the reason its worded in the court as 'not guity' is that its the PROSECUTIONS burden to PROVE guilt (either beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court or with a preponderance of evidence in civil court) the defense has no burden to 'prove' anything,,,, therefore, if the prosecution does not meet the burden of the court they are in,, the DEFAULT is that the defendant was not proven guilty,,,,,ie,, 'not guilty',,,,,nothing to do with having being proven innocent ,,,, as to the set up,, I don't believe it was a set up I am logical, if I had seen in the court any witness say they saw the beginning of this confrontation, or if there was evidence of damage to Zimmerman beyond a broken nose and two scratches on his head,, I would very well consider his story to be true as it stands, I have already given all the LOGICAL reasons, from watching the trial, that I believe his story is bs I believe he has gotten away so long with throwing around his weight and putting his hands on people, he has had the right people in his corner from his judge father to his best friend cop egging him into believing he should have a gun that on THAT night, when he was hyped on whatever, he convinced himself he saw a 'fing goon' and he was passionately upset at the idea he might 'get away'... he had the confidence of that gun at his side,, so he followed the goon,, first to keep him in his sights till police got there but when the 'goon' actually turned around and spoke, that ended his option to just follow and he went into his impulsive mode by playing cop and trying to detain the boy. which he wouldn't have been fearful of doing since he had a fifty pound advantage and a gun I believe, like would happen with most other people, that at that point a 'tussle' began (as one of the witnesses testified to seeing),,,,when the boy was saying 'get off me'(as trays friend testified to hearing him say),,, I believe the tussle ended up with Z having a broken nose, something he probably isn't used to happening when he throws his weight around,,,, (many bullies are actually cowards when they stop having total control,, I know this from experience, my accoster actually ran after I fought back) Z panicked and instead of fighting back screamed for a minute,, before remembering his gun and using IT in (unreasonable and unjustifiable in my opinion) 'defense' ,,,yep, I felt he killed an unarmed kid and the testimony and the facts are that he did I couldn't find too many justifiable reasons for an armed adult to shoot an unarmed kid, so I watched the trial and the trial and LOGIC filled in the blanks of how it happened for me,,,,, Or should he have just cried Uncle,and hoped the Beating would stop? you tell me?> at what point can an aggressor defend themself while their victim is defending themself? and does 'defense' in a fist fight with someone fifty pounds lighter involve shooting them dead with a gun? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt she watched the above video
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you tell me?> at what point can an aggressor defend themself while their victim is defending themself? and does 'defense' in a fist fight with someone fifty pounds lighter involve shooting them dead with a gun? Fist fight? I'm not sure if you have ever seen a UFC or MMA style fight.My son was a black belt in Karate and competed in competitions all over the U.S. Then he got into MMA and I must say that its the most violent, brutal sport there is.I am also trained in martial arts but have always believed it is strictly for self defense. MMA is just the opposite, is attack with everything you have and then some without mercy. Add to that, Trayvon already had history of aggressive, violent behavior and possibly high on "lean"(see skittles and Arizona watermellon drink)and you have a bad mix. Anyway...you will believe what you will and thats your right
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Trey had been using "lean" does anyone know how long that would be in his system?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 07/27/13 10:42 AM
|
|
you tell me?> at what point can an aggressor defend themself while their victim is defending themself? and does 'defense' in a fist fight with someone fifty pounds lighter involve shooting them dead with a gun? Fist fight? I'm not sure if you have ever seen a UFC or MMA style fight.My son was a black belt in Karate and competed in competitions all over the U.S. Then he got into MMA and I must say that its the most violent, brutal sport there is.I am also trained in martial arts but have always believed it is strictly for self defense. MMA is just the opposite, is attack with everything you have and then some without mercy. Add to that, Trayvon already had history of aggressive, violent behavior and possibly high on "lean"(see skittles and Arizona watermellon drink)and you have a bad mix. Anyway...you will believe what you will and thats your right there is no evidende of an mma style fight,, and why wouldn't it be as reasonable a form of 'self defense' as shooting someone dead? wouldn't such a 'brutal' beating on a concrete sidewalk leave more than just two scratches on ones head? my brother is a blackbelt, my other brother was a boxer as well as my uncle,, I worked nextdoor to an MMA gym,,,, this kid had no MMA training, that IM aware of,, he was 158 pounds of someone defending themselves,, if he was using his fists in that effort,, some bystanders perception of what 'style' he used is irrelevant to me,,, he was a kid who had been in fights at school.who had also saved a life, who had also been studying aeronautical engineering, in other words A KID,,,, ,, and the possibility of him being high on 'lean' on a night when he was watching a game at his father and stepmothers home just because he had skittles and tea, is the worst kind of idiotic ASSumption anyone has made yet to justify Zimmerman killing an unarmed kid,, not to mention the very adult HISTORY of Z of putting his hands on people,,,,,being completely dismissed and overlooked,, seems the double standard so many are upset about,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Trey had been using "lean" does anyone know how long that would be in his system? here is what I found,, I didn't look up 'lean' as it is a combination of many things but the active ingredient of the drug 'codeine' , here is what a site on alcoholism had to say about it http://alcoholism.about.com/od/work/qt/How-Long-Does-Codeine-Stay.htm no codeine mentioned in his tox report here,, only very TRACE amounts of weed ( fyi use of weed 4-5 weeks ago would show up as 15ng, and the amount was 1/2 of that) http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/nmslabreport84.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 07/27/13 11:38 AM
|
|
Msharmony, your'e not "aware" of things in this case because you don't want to be. Did you watch that video? I doubt it.
Did Travon Martin have ANY marks or bruises on him at all? He didn't from what I understand. Did you know that burglary tools were found in his locker at school and also found was stolen items from a burglary? Did you know that the school didn't report them as stolen items because it would have been bad for their record? Did you know that he wasn't going to the store to get "tea" and "candy" but that he bought two ingredient (out of three needed) to make LEAN?? He was making drugs! Doubtful if you know any of this about Travon Martin. Even the Jury was not given this information and THEY STILL FOUND z NOT GUILTY. So stop rationalizing this thug in your mind and accept the fact that he was up to no good, and he is the attacker, not Zimmerman. But you can't do that because you are prejudice and you repeatedly ignore the facts, and spread your slanted propaganda, for what reason I don't know. You have a right to an opinion but you don't have a right to make up your own facts. And for crap sake stop calling that thug a child. He was no child. |
|
|
|
|
