Will Americans Stand Up If The DOJ Goes After George Zimmerman

Originally posted by agentscoly

Originally posted by muse7
I'll stand with the government and support them 100% ... the jurors might have found Zimmerman not guilty. But that doesn't mean he's not responsible for the death of an unarmed kid.

So what you are saying is that blacks can do what they want to? Act how they want to but no one else can?

Why is everyone assuming that this 6' tall pot smoking thugged out punk was some innocent child?

If some one attacks some one else which is what Martin did to Zimmerman then that person has the right to act with force.

Zimmerman didn't profile martin he was a concerned citizen checking on his neighborhood. Which is I can say is far better than most of Americans who have a couch permanently sewn to their asses...

It's ironic that people act like this punk was innocent when in reality if he was smoking pot and wanting to buy a gun which is illegal for someone who is 17 that everyone feels he was innocent. What other sorts of illegal activities was he into besides just these?

Wake up USA I know you are obese and need to eat everything but stop eating the $hit sandwich the main stream media is feeding you!

Calm down, take your medications and turn off whatever Conservative right wing talking head you're listening to.

You seem so convinced Trayvon Martin was a criminal yet you have not listed a single shred of evidence that states he was involved in an illegal activity in the night of the shooting. Wanting to buy a gun is not a crime, smoking pot is not even a crime anymore in several states and since when is being "thugged" out a criminal offense?

On the night of the shooting Trayvon Martin was wearing khaki pants and a sweatshirt/hoodie is that thugged out to you?



Travon Martin was profiled by George Zimmerman the same way you are doing here. You are labeling him a punk a thug and a criminal without a single shred of evidence.

reply to post by muse7


That was for the defense to do and obviously they did a darn good job because, remember, Zimmerman was found none guilty, my friend by a jury of his peer.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by muse7

 

That was for the defense to do and obviously they did a darn good job because, remember, Zimmerman was found none guilty, my friend by a jury of his peer.

Just because the prosecution did a piss poor job, and the jury found him not guilty does not actually mean he isn't guilty.

Remember OJ Simpson?

reply to post by muse7


Two different cases and how can I forget OJ, my husband was station in 29 Palms California when that happen we even went around the neighborhood were all happen to see, we follow that case like a soup Opera because it was televise like it, I knew OJ was guilty, he just got some great lawyers, still it was a crime of passion, Zimermman was a self defense case

I live in the south in GA and crime here is very high, the cases involved a lot of teens due to gangs, street violence and everything sadly have to do with social issues and poverty, yes Florida is not the only state where teens get killed, they get killed here in my neck of the woods by drive by shootings, 14, 16 were the latest "victims" but it was very clear by the police that gangs were behind it, families as usual call them children and they were but children that already have a long history of violence.

I wonder where the DOJ and Obama where when this happen a few weeks ago and yes most of the "victims" are from the black community.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Oh...I agree...the prosecution sucked...AND they over-reached with 2nd degree murder.

I don't know what else the prosecution could have done.
They had very little to work with. That is why the DA originally decided not to bring charges, lack of evidence.
Most of their witnesses benefited the defense.

I think the prosecution could have gone for a lesser charge with success. Negligent Homicide, Manslaughter...something that simply spoke to the fact that if George Zimmerman hadn't been chasing the boy, despite being advised by police to stop, with a loaded weapon, the boy would still be alive.

They over-reached.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Oh...I agree...the prosecution sucked...AND they over-reached with 2nd degree murder.

I don't know what else the prosecution could have done.
They had very little to work with. That is why the DA originally decided not to bring charges, lack of evidence.
Most of their witnesses benefited the defense.

I think the prosecution could have gone for a lesser charge with success. Negligent Homicide, Manslaughter...something that simply spoke to the fact that if George Zimmerman hadn't been chasing the boy, despite being advised by police to stop, with a loaded weapon, the boy would still be alive.

They over-reached.

They definitely over-reached.
The original thoughts by the cop on scene was to file for manslaughter, I believe, but the DA said that it wouldn't stick. So they didn't file any charges to begin with.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Oh...I agree...the prosecution sucked...AND they over-reached with 2nd degree murder.

I don't know what else the prosecution could have done.
They had very little to work with. That is why the DA originally decided not to bring charges, lack of evidence.
Most of their witnesses benefited the defense.

I think the prosecution could have gone for a lesser charge with success. Negligent Homicide, Manslaughter...something that simply spoke to the fact that if George Zimmerman hadn't been chasing the boy, despite being advised by police to stop, with a loaded weapon, the boy would still be alive.

They over-reached.

They definitely over-reached.
The original thoughts by the cop on scene was to file for manslaughter, I believe, but the DA said that it wouldn't stick. So they didn't file any charges to begin with.

you know when i hear people say they should have charged manslaughter. i wonder why.
and here is the reason.

they charged him with murder 2, when the judge gave the jury instructions, she include the lesser charge of manslaughter. so one he had the charge already pending when the jury went in to deliberations.

so lets just say that they only charged him with manslaughter, surly the prosecution and the defense would have argued the case a little different. but the evidence, and wittiness would have been the same. and the evidence and witnesses are what sold the defenses case.

so why do people think that just charging him with manslaughter would have made a difference.

remember the prosecution knew that the lesser would be include, and they probably knew that a manslaughter charge, like the seminole county da wouldn't fly, so they charged him with murder 2 and hope they could play on the jury's emotion and then if they couldn't get murder 2, that they would be so wrapped up in it that they would go with manslaughter.

if you've seen the juror, who came out and spoke, she said they were split 3 to 3 and the 3 that wanted to find him guilty wanted to convict one way or the other. but they went over the law and evidence bit by bit and it did not support any of the charges. they had no choice except to vote not guilty.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie

I don't really think it would have made a difference.
I just question why, when the arresting officer said to charge him with manslaughter, and the DA said don't charge him at all.....
Why did Corey come in and charge him with murder?

It makes no sense unless you consider that the reasons were political.

^ ITA. Definite political agenda... reasons unknown.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie

if you've seen the juror, who came out and spoke, she said they were split 3 to 3 and the 3 that wanted to find him guilty wanted to convict one way or the other. but they went over the law and evidence bit by bit and it did not support any of the charges. they had no choice except to vote not guilty.

edit on 16-7-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

I think that is the crux of it.

There was not enough evidence to convict...but that is a different argument than guilt or innocence.

I believe that Zimmerman likely chased down and "caught" Trayvon...Trayvon fought back, maybe even threw the first punch...and Zimmerman, shocked to be losing a fight to 17 year old boy, shot him.

Thus Zimmermans changing stories about how they actually met up...thus the 2 witnesses who recalled the "chase"...running footsteps etc. etc. Trayvon didn't "appear out of the dark" or "Jump out of the bushes" or any of the other variable accounts Zimmerman gave...Zimmerman caught him and Trayvon fought back.

BUT absent anyone witnessing that time frame and Trayvon being dead, there wasn't evidence to prove that is what happened.

Otherwise, IMO the jury ruled correctly on the technical reality of the law and evidence...but Zimmerman is guilty of more than he is being held accountable for.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I saw Harry Reid talking about how he wants to keep going with this as well.

I understand that civil cases require less evidence to make their case ....
but seriously .... it's just not there.

Harry Reid being the Socialist he is probably appreciated Jasmine's stance on social engineering rather than on duty as an attorney.

well i see today that the DOJ, is fishing for tips now. setting up a email tip line.


please,i can see it now millions of people spamming for and against Zimmerman.
they will never be able to check them all out.