|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
The Scuppers This is a new forum for the not necessarily fishing related topics... |
 |
07-17-2013, 05:47 PM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,495
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
Spence... "After that we really don't know" = not guilty
|
That's not how the law works. The lack of evidence gave Zimmerman's lawyers the ability to tell any story they wanted...the just did a better job then the prosecution.
Quote:
That article is a total disservice to any black person that has made something of them selfs which is the majority . Pure crap !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Reread the second paragraph.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-17-2013, 06:01 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
That's not how the law works.
Reread the second paragraph.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Of course it is the way the law works. Not proven guilty!
Since I don't agree or judge black people as the writer claims , I'm actually a little offended by this paragraph.
It is ironic however that you want Zimmerman guilty without sufficient evidence .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-17-2013, 07:19 PM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,495
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
Of course it is the way the law works. Not proven guilty!
Since I don't agree or judge black people as the writer claims , I'm actually a little offended by this paragraph.
It is ironic however that you want Zimmerman guilty without sufficient evidence .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Had the prosecution done their job there was certainly evidence to support a manslaughter charge.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-17-2013, 07:30 PM
|
#4
|
Registered Grandpa
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Had the prosecution done their job there was certainly evidence to support a manslaughter charge.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
What evidence was that and would it have proved him guilty without a reasonable doubt?
|
" Choose Life "
|
|
|
07-17-2013, 07:42 PM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit
What evidence was that and would it have proved him guilty without a reasonable doubt?
|
The evidence that the police failed to find because they hate black people. Especially teenage ones wearing hoodies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-17-2013, 07:47 PM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,495
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
The evidence that the police failed to find because they hate black people. Especially teenage ones wearing hoodies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Perhaps read the entire article...then again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-17-2013, 07:49 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,495
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit
What evidence was that and would it have proved him guilty without a reasonable doubt?
|
The only evidence presented that he acted in self defense was that he wasn't winning the fight. To assume that alone means he was jumped is absurd, the prosecution simply dropped the ball.
How do they say, he who wins the war gets to write the history?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-17-2013, 08:57 PM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The only evidence presented that he acted in self defense was that he wasn't winning the fight. To assume that alone means he was jumped is absurd, the prosecution simply dropped the ball.
How do they say, he who wins the war gets to write the history?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
is this a drunken rant? because you are making little if any sense 
|
|
|
|
07-17-2013, 09:10 PM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,495
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
is this a drunken rant? because you are making little if any sense 
|
Makes perfect sense. Think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-17-2013, 09:55 PM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit
What evidence was that and would it have proved him guilty without a reasonable doubt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The only evidence presented that he acted in self defense was that he wasn't winning the fight. To assume that alone means he was jumped is absurd, the prosecution simply dropped the ball.
How do they say, he who wins the war gets to write the history?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
you didn't answer the question
|
|
|
|
07-17-2013, 10:20 PM
|
#11
|
Registered Grandpa
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit
What evidence was that and would it have proved him guilty without a reasonable doubt?
you didn't answer the question
|
No you didn't Spence. The fact that the first thing the jury did before
they started deliberation was ask the judge for a copy of all the evidence
which they deliberated on for 16 hours, showed there was not enough evidence to
convict on either of the charges. While the prosecution was reported to hold
back evidence from the defense there is nothing to show the prosecution held
back any of their own evidence.
Oh and BTW, the male alternate juror was interviewed tonight and was in
complete agreement with the jury's decision and stated the prosecution had no evidence.
|
" Choose Life "
|
|
|
07-17-2013, 10:15 PM
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The only evidence presented that he acted in self defense was that he wasn't winning the fight. To assume that alone means he was jumped is absurd, the prosecution simply dropped the ball.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
It used to be that the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, not that the defendant had to prove that he is innocent.
There was not much actual "evidence" presented by either side other than circumstantial, and that favored the defendant. There was no actual "evidence" available for the prosecution to charge Zimmerman, much less convict him neither of second degree murder or manslaughter.
But we do live in a time of persuasion by opinion. Many opinions have been conjured up about what happened and why--with no connection to actual "evidence." Wild speculations abound about the character of either Zimmerman or Martin. And various scenarios have been created about what happened based on stereotypical characterizations and how these must have determined who did what and why. These opinions mostly depart from analysis by fact and wander into various historical grievances and emotional outrage at perceived injustice. The race industry and the anti-gun and anti-Stand-Your-Ground or other gun rights legislations certainly created another hot-point to attack what they "feel" are inimical to their progressive agenda. Actual facts and law are irrelevant to this case.
This is the method by which we are transformed from a constitutional republic to a centralized bureaucracy. Sacrificing the innocent for the greater good has always been the way of "benevolent" tyrannies.
It is not unlike how the SCOTUS has rewritten the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
07-18-2013, 12:57 PM
|
#13
|
Retired Surfer
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sunset Grill
Posts: 9,511
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
That's not how the law works. The lack of evidence gave Zimmerman's lawyers the ability to tell any story they wanted...the just did a better job then the prosecution.
The prosecution had the judge on thier side and still couldn't win. Several prosecutors looked at the evidence over those six weeks until Zimmerman was charge and the prosecutor who charged Zimmerman was the only one that could be pressused into it.
Reread the second paragraph.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Swimmer a.k.a. YO YO MA
Serial Mailbox Killer/Seal Fisherman
|
|
|
 |
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:56 PM.
|
| |