I been reading alot of your post and you make some good points but some of your stuff makes me wonder. Burn baby burn...... :eyeonyou:

 

I think he is saying where he thinks Zimmerman should burn in or rot in as some would say.

I been reading alot of your post and you make some good points but some of your stuff makes me wonder. Burn baby burn...... :eyeonyou:

Still looking for the ones that make good points.

Still looking for the ones that make good points.

 

That makes two of us. :thumb:

Still looking for the ones that make good points.

 

I take 85's post to mean that if Zimmerman was truly in fear for his life, why would it matter how old Martin was? I think that is a valid point.

At this point, my "anger" or "disgust" for this whole situation has come and gone. While it's happened a little later than I would've liked, the justice system will be allowed to work once again. That was my main beef with this whole situation from the get go. There was no excuse, IMO, for Zimmerman to not be arrested much sooner than he was.

 

He, along with the Martin family, will now get their day in court. My personal feeling is he murdered Martin intentionally, but whatever decision the court/jury renders I'm okay with. (Much like the Casey Anthony case)

And if he is found innocent, are we going to say justice prevailed in the end. I am really surprised he was charged with murder and not manslaughter. And I am pretty sure the cops handbook doesn't say burn, baby burn.

I take 85's post to mean that if Zimmerman was truly in fear for his life, why would it matter how old Martin was? I think that is a valid point.

 

If his actual words would have been "I would not have shot him if I realized he was a teenager", 85 would have a valid point. But that is not what Zimmerman actually said. 85 is doing the same thing that many other commentators have done: they are interpreting evidence in a manner to support what the commentators want the outcome to be. Which is the reason why many litigators have little confidence in jury trials, particularly in trials that involve emotional issues.

At this point, my "anger" or "disgust" for this whole situation has come and gone. While it's happened a little later than I would've liked, the justice system will be allowed to work once again. That was my main beef with this whole situation from the get go. There was no excuse, IMO, for Zimmerman to not be arrested much sooner than he was.

 

He, along with the Martin family, will now get their day in court. My personal feeling is he murdered Martin intentionally, but whatever decision the court/jury renders I'm okay with. (Much like the Casey Anthony case)

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I will point out that the initial prosecutor's analysis of the evidence and determination that there was not probable cause to arrest Zimmerman or to charge him with murder, manslaughter or anything else was part of the legal process.

 

On criminal matters, not everyone thinking a crime has been committed has a right to his day in court. That's not the way our legal system works. Just because I think a crime has been committed against me or a loved one does not entitle me to my day in court. The prosecutor must believe there is sufficient evidence to result in a conviction before he or she can proceed. If our legal system worked the way you supposedly want, not only would our legal system be more clogged up than it already is (you know, as a result of all those greedy, slimy lawyers that laymen love to complain about), many truly innocent people could be bankrupted by needing to defend themselves against baseless criminal charges.

 

The fact that you would come to the conclusion that Zimmerman committed murder based on the limited and oft times incorrect information (I won't use the word evidence here) distributed by the press is rather disappointing to this lawyer (but admittedly not surprising). Frankly, I'm trained to analyze facts and law and I have no idea whether Zimmerman committed murder or even manslaughter. If anything, based on the limited hard evidence I've seen (the transcript of his call to the police dispatcher), I can't see a conviction happening.

Am I correct that he has the right to waive a trial by jury and let the bench rule? To me this seems the only way he'll receive a fair trial. The media coverage has pretty much ensured that a jury pool without pre-concieved opinions is next to impossible.

If acquited will all the white hispanics throw a party?

If his actual words would have been "I would not have shot him if I realized he was a teenager", 85 would have a valid point. But that is not what Zimmerman actually said. 85 is doing the same thing that many other commentators have done: they are interpreting evidence in a manner to support what the commentators want the outcome to be. Which is the reason why many litigators have little confidence in jury trials, particularly in trials that involve emotional issues.

 

I understand, and in this case in particular, an unbiased jury will be hard to come by. I am curious, though, of other meanings that might be derived from the first two lines of Zimmerman's apology. What bearing does how old Martin was with being sorry thatn he is dead, beyond that things might have turned out differently had Zimmerman known?

If acquited will all the white hispanics throw a party?

 

Why?

I think he is saying where he thinks Zimmerman should burn in or rot in as some would say.

 

Thank you. How can so-called educated and rational men not decipher that from that post. The part of the post that I bolded sounds exactly like the crap police say when they shoot a black man. Basically, they guess, and often guess wrong. Except we are willing to give police the benefit of the doubt, because they actually do put their lives on the line, no matter how crooked some might be. Zimmerman was playing cops and robbers - literally if you know the history of the case - and didn't ask Trayvon did he want to play, instead putting him in the game without the boy knowing. It was a murder. Burn in the (Little Nicky voice) "deeeep south."

If his actual words would have been "I would not have shot him if I realized he was a teenager", 85 would have a valid point. But that is not what Zimmerman actually said. 85 is doing the same thing that many other commentators have done: they are interpreting evidence in a manner to support what the commentators want the outcome to be. Which is the reason why many litigators have little confidence in jury trials, particularly in trials that involve emotional issues.

 

I'm not in the media. You have never been more correct when you say I want to see Zimmerman go to (Little Nicky voice) "the deeeeeeeeep South), by way fo the chair. But it is not an option, so he can jsut go when he goes.

But the point I've always maintained is that Zimmerman murdered this boy. This is not self defense, unless you call picking a fight and getting your arse whipped and shooting the other person because they whipped you self-defense.

I'm not in the media. You have never been more correct when you say I want to see Zimmerman go to (Little Nicky voice) "the deeeeeeeeep South), by way fo the chair. But it is not an option, so he can jsut go when he goes.

But the point I've always maintained is that Zimmerman murdered this boy. This is not self defense, unless you call picking a fight and getting your arse whipped and shooting the other person because they whipped you self-defense.

 

Glad you are not on the jury. Your mind is made up and may be made to look foolish.