Page 34 of 69 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 680 of 1362

Thread: Martin/Zimmerman Trial

  1. #661
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,955
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    The first sentence I wrote said "for the stated reasons below". I did not state these our my reasons. I agreed with poster.
    Agreed with what poster? No one but you knew there was another poster..on another site...years ago...who posted the crap you posted....You posted that as your words until I called you out.

    You are a fraud.

    -

  2. #662
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,382
    Quote Originally Posted by 32green View Post
    And you are how old?




    C'mon.

    I know you want to be in the struggle..whatever it is...but you didnt march in Selma.

    Just sayin.
    Let me say it plainly: There is a way to argue, be "right", and still...not "miss the point", maybe, as much as move the conversation forward.

    I respect your input because of what you accomplished...where you toiled. I must sound like the wurst lib (mmmmm ) but I have worked and lived in the black community here for 20 years...as it slowly changes under the crush of pacific rim immigration.

    Housing, forced housing and Redevelopment...you guys would love to hear the stories of the black activists in my neck of the woods - the real story of the Hunters Point Shipyard; the blacks that were betrayed in Concord CA loading a ship with dynamite; I wasn't in Selma, but I have been a good neighbor and businessman in this community; pitching in at a grass roots level; helping speak in front the SF board of Supervisors and the SF Planning Commission; hosting Lennar Builders before the Redevelopment act was barred from California.


    Also, I am saying is that if your face was close enough I would tattoo your nose for talking out of turn. You should take it back.

  3. #663
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    But you aren't using history to show motive.

    Walk me through it. How do Martin's past fights give him a reason to attack Zimmerman?

    Not a likelihood based on who he was as a person, but a reason, a motivating factor for his acts?
    I appreciate what I think/feel is not the Law, et me be clear about that.

    With that said, I am a pragmatic realist. If one has a history of unprovoked violence and/or other violent acts, IMO that is imformation a jury should know and hear in a case where the primary defense is that the victim in fact engaged in unprovoked (or provoked but unjustified) violence.

    If M. did, in fact, deck a Bus Driver as has been reported (although not apparently verified), it speaks to his character and way of doing things, and casts material and logical doubt on any prosecution claims that he was just a sweet little non-violent angel, walking home desperate to suck down skittles while feeding poor people and walking little old ladies across the street.

    It simply seems unfair that Z. can be denoucned in the Jury's mind for being a "wanna be cop" as if having a desire to serve the public is somehow equal to a desire to hunt down and murder in cold blood black kids. Yet the same Jury who can hear that evidence cannot hear that M. may have engaged in exactly the kind of violence the Defendant claims he did, and could make or break his defense.

  4. #664
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,737
    Quote Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive View Post
    Your post has nothing to do with the conversation on the table: violence against minorities, by the authorities, needs to be handled with care. It seems that the white hats are NOT up for the task of pinning Zimmy hard. Zimmy sinned against the Constitution and I am mad at him.

    The results of these anti black laws are evident; not in who owes whom what. It's a stain on america; a segregation based on a perversion of Christianity.

    The results are these communities that refuse, they are FINISHED TRYING to try to assimilate into the mainstream
    Zimmy might not get pinned hard b.c the evidence against him is not as strong as it could be. Maybe Zimmy did do something sinister that night and was just lucky that nobody witnessed it from start to finish. But one of the premises of our criminal justice system is that we would rather let a guilty man walk than put an innocent man in jail which is why the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt.

    There are far better and more clear cut examples of injustice towards minorities than this case and public outrage would be better served on those. There are simply too many questions surrounding the events of that night to make this case a symbol of racial inequality. But for a multitude of reasons - misinformed public, social media warriors, blowhard race baiters, white apologists in the liberal media, etc - it has become a symbol.

  5. #665
    Quote Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive View Post
    The People are sovereign...everything I put forth is about justice truly being served.

    Zimmy is a menace and is directly responsible since he felt killing someone is/was okay.
    Conversely, Martin was a menace who jumped a guy who just wanted to keep his neighborhood safe and secure, and would have either inflicted a severe beating (perhaps including brain damage) or outright killed Zimmerman if Zimmerman didn't have the means to protect himself.

    I guess we all belive what we believe. Having been in Zimmerman's shoes, jumped and beaten by those you seem to have an endless sympathy for, my own bias clearly falls towards Zimmerman (who, none-the-less, is a idiot).

    Reading your posts, it sounds like you'd say I, a young white man at the time, probably deserved to be beaten by a gang of black and hispanic youths, as pennance for the sins of other white folks fathers (my own family of course not having come to the U.S. till the 50's).


  6. #666
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Conversely, Martin was a menace who jumped a guy who just wanted to keep his neighborhood safe and secure, and would have either inflicted a severe beating (perhaps including brain damage) or outright killed Zimmerman if Zimmerman didn't have the means to protect himself.

    I guess we all belive what we believe. Having been in Zimmerman's shoes, jumped and beaten by those you seem to have an endless sympathy for, my own bias clearly falls towards Zimmerman (who, none-the-less, is a idiot).

    Reading your posts, it sounds like you'd say I, a young white man at the time, probably deserved to be beaten by a gang of black and hispanic youths, as pennance for the sins of other white folks fathers (my own family of course not having come to the U.S. till the 50's).

    I can't help but think the facts are secondary to way too many people who have opinions on this case.

    There was a pretty large contingent in this country that wanted to see Obama become president simply because he was black. I can't think of a much worse reason to elect someone ruler of the free world, but it is what it is.

    Similarly, I don't think the facts in this case matter to many people as much as the "message" a ruling would send either way. If Z gets off (rightly or wrongly) it's an unacceptable statement of where race relations continue to struggle in this country, and whatever backlash may result is not only understandable but justified. Conversely, if Z is convicted (rightly or wrongly) we will have taken another step toward race equality, and we'll just let the end justify the means.

    And I don't see it getting better any time soon . . .

  7. #667
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post

    Reading your posts, it sounds like you'd say I, a young white man at the time, probably deserved to be beaten by a gang of black and hispanic youths, as pennance for the sins of other white folks fathers (my own family of course not having come to the U.S. till the 50's).

    I don't wish a beating on anyone; however, I can see how your perspective could be considered, based on my posts.

    With all my scattered posts you missed where I said "we have to be the peace and security in our environment". I am all over tonight; beg pardon.

    Anyway Zimmy chose to NOT do this. He was over-matched.

    The posturing by fringe African Americans I brought up as an example of the smoke I see building in this case. Since Zimmy was also (I believe) an "agent of the government" in some fashion, the authorities have to make it obvious that this behavior will never happen again; only trained LEO personnel should even be in that position.

    I don't think they should waste Zimmy's life, although the penalty should reflect the seriousness of the behavior. It needs to be held up as an example of behavior that will not be tolerated, EVER.

  8. #668
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,382
    Quote Originally Posted by OCCH View Post
    I can't help but think the facts are secondary to way too many people who have opinions on this case.

    There was a pretty large contingent in this country that wanted to see Obama become president simply because he was black. I can't think of a much worse reason to elect someone ruler of the free world, but it is what it is.

    Similarly, I don't think the facts in this case matter to many people as much as the "message" a ruling would send either way. If Z gets off (rightly or wrongly) it's an unacceptable statement of where race relations continue to struggle in this country, and whatever backlash may result is not only understandable but justified. Conversely, if Z is convicted (rightly or wrongly) we will have taken another step toward race equality, and we'll just let the end justify the means.

    And I don't see it getting better any time soon . . .
    All I'm saying is that ineptitude here will have repercussions; they need to get it right and not be wishy washy. It's not about Black versus whatever...it's about setting a precedent on vigilantism.

    That's my point

  9. #669
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,737
    Quote Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive View Post
    All I'm saying is that ineptitude here will have repercussions; they need to get it right and not be wishy washy. It's not about Black versus whatever...it's about setting a precedent on vigilantism.

    That's my point
    Are you referring to the prosecution as inept? If that is the case then I would like to tell you that your frustration is misplaced. I have seen many people criticizing the prosecution for what has been going on. Fact is, they can only argue the case they are given. The evidence and the witnesses are what they are. The prosecution is not responsible for that. And sadly they have been giving the burden to satisfy the blood-thirst of an angry mob. I have been following the case and the prosecution is fighting the best they can with the tools they have been given.

    And I would like to credit Martin's parents for coming out and saying that they do not wish race to be injected in the case and it's outcome. Even if they don't feel that way I think it was good of them to say that. So if for any reason maybe those with the pitchforks should put them down out of respect for a grieving mother.

  10. #670
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,221
    Quote Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive View Post
    I don't wish a beating on anyone; however, I can see how your perspective could be considered, based on my posts.

    With all my scattered posts you missed where I said "we have to be the peace and security in our environment". I am all over tonight; beg pardon.

    Anyway Zimmy chose to NOT do this. He was over-matched.

    The posturing by fringe African Americans I brought up as an example of the smoke I see building in this case. Since Zimmy was also (I believe) an "agent of the government" in some fashion, the authorities have to make it obvious that this behavior will never happen again; only trained LEO personnel should even be in that position.

    I don't think they should waste Zimmy's life, although the penalty should reflect the seriousness of the behavior. It needs to be held up as an example of behavior that will not be tolerated, EVER.
    What position should LEO personnel only be in? I guess we should all just be hiding in our homes hoping the cops get there before our homes are broken into or we are attacked.

    Which behavior shouldn't be tolerated? Asking a stranger why he is looking into the windows of your neighbor's houses? Protecting yourself with a legal gun when you are jumped?

    What could "we have to be the peace and security in our environment" mean other than we should be able to question someone who is suspicious in a neighborhood that has had a lot of break-ins?

    Now as far as this case goes, could Zimmerman have been the first to provoke Martin? Sure but the evidence doesn't show that IMO. If someone asked me what I was doing somewhere (even why I was a brash kid) I would have made a sarcastic remark at worst and kept on walking. Hitting someone or stopping to argue would NEVER have crossed my mind. If I saw a gun I would have broken the world record in the mile run. As horrible as it is that Martin died I believe his actions are at least as responsible for the outcome as were Zimmerman's.

  11. #671
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,955
    Quote Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive View Post


    Also, I am saying is that if your face was close enough I would tattoo your nose for talking out of turn. You should take it back.




    Its all peace, love and understanding until the activist resume is challenged, isnt it?

    Your position is that CHurchill does not possess your deep roots in the black struggle, (i.e. having not experienced Jim Crow personally like you have... due to what you've heard from someone else...) and therefore his position is somehow not as supportable?

    No one here is suggesting that black citizens werent betrayed on many levels by the government years ago. We understand that the after-effects linger in the dysfunction we still see...

    What we are suggesting is that 2014, one shouldn't have to tip-toe around blatant truths, one of which is that the welfare state, racial demagogues and hand wringing lib "do-gooder" apologists.... have also done irreparable harm...and virtually stalled any social progress in large segments of minority culture.

    One doesn't have had to witness Jim Crow personally....to see that, friend.

    -



    -

  12. #672
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I appreciate what I think/feel is not the Law, et me be clear about that.

    With that said, I am a pragmatic realist. If one has a history of unprovoked violence and/or other violent acts, IMO that is imformation a jury should know and hear in a case where the primary defense is that the victim in fact engaged in unprovoked (or provoked but unjustified) violence.

    If M. did, in fact, deck a Bus Driver as has been reported (although not apparently verified), it speaks to his character and way of doing things, and casts material and logical doubt on any prosecution claims that he was just a sweet little non-violent angel, walking home desperate to suck down skittles while feeding poor people and walking little old ladies across the street.

    It simply seems unfair that Z. can be denoucned in the Jury's mind for being a "wanna be cop" as if having a desire to serve the public is somehow equal to a desire to hunt down and murder in cold blood black kids. Yet the same Jury who can hear that evidence cannot hear that M. may have engaged in exactly the kind of violence the Defendant claims he did, and could make or break his defense.
    The more you try to explain this, the less convincing it is becoming. I understand perfectly where you're coming from, but even if Trayvon Martin was a Blood regularly committed to violence and on that night he was innocently going about his business buying Skittles and a soft drink, that's all that SHOULD really count re assessing Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. It seems to me it would prejudice the jury to bring in history that is not directly relevant to the crime, as Doggin is saying. When it comes to Zimmerman, the issue of intent and motivation requires bringing in any evidence that is directly relevant to his action that night. If he was functioning as a volunteer patrol, then how he came about doing that and what his responsibilities and expectations were is relevant as he committed the act while in that role. If he gave statements that he didn't know about the details of "stand your ground" when he acted, then it's directly relevant to bring in details of his education about that subject. So far, the prosecution has not been shotgunning and bringing in everything about Zimmerman's past. The areas they have brought in are specific to his actions and statements that night.

  13. #673
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,159
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    No. No it is not. The burden is on the prosecution. Z has no legal burden to carry at all
    Of course you're right. Zimmerman is presumed innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. What I was trying to say was that relative to Martin, the focus/burden is on Zimmerman. He's the defendant, not Martin. And it will be the burden of his defense to counter the prosecution's case that he willfully and with intent murdered Martin. Martin is not on trial. Zimmerman is. If that isn't a burden, I don't know what is.

  14. #674
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    The more you try to explain this, the less convincing it is becoming. I understand perfectly where you're coming from, but even if Trayvon Martin was a Blood regularly committed to violence and on that night he was innocently going about his business buying Skittles and a soft drink, that's all that SHOULD really count re assessing Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. It seems to me it would prejudice the jury to bring in history that is not directly relevant to the crime, as Doggin is saying.
    Except being "regularly comitted to violence" is relevant when the core of the Defense argument is that the person "committed to violence" that night first. By removing that (hypothetically here, because the Martin case isn't nearly so clear cut) you reduce the Defenses abillity to argue their core defense whilst being permitted to paint him as a wanna-be-Batman out to murder black kids.....all because he once applied to be a cop.

    The precedent this sets is......don't apply to be a cop, because it WILL be used against you in any criminal case later, where your desire to help and serve your community may be twisted into you being a wanna-be Death Stalker.

    When it comes to Zimmerman, the issue of intent and motivation requires bringing in any evidence that is directly relevant to his action that night.
    I would argue that his desire to be a cop and status as a Neighborhood Watch dude is irrelevant to the supposed "motive" of racialy profiling a young black child to hunt down and murder.

    Fact is, if Z. wanted to hunt down and murder some random black kid, it's doubtful he'd do it in his own neighborhood, or do it in such a way that would permit him to be beaten up first, or would lead to him being found with the body.

    After all, the prosecution has painted him as well aware of the law and police procedures......one with that knowledge does not knowingly put themselves in the spot Z. is in now.

    And again, the take away from this line of "Z. past in, M. past out" is to never even think of being a cop, because any such desire can and will be used against you in a court of Law. And **** Neighborhood Watch stuff.....simply buy a shotgun and protect your own ****. Nice lessons.

    The areas they have brought in are specific to his actions and statements that night.
    I don't agree. A failed desire to be a cop nor a desire to help with a Neighborhood Watch, does not IMO speak to motive in "profiling and hunting down a child to murder in cold blood" as is claimed.

    If it DOES speak to that, then every cop in America and every person whose applied (but failed) to become a cop is now instantly a suspect in any crime, because after all, wanting to be a cop is apparently "motive" for hunting down and shooting kids, right?

    Better stay away from green32.

  15. #675
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,221
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    The more you try to explain this, the less convincing it is becoming. I understand perfectly where you're coming from, but even if Trayvon Martin was a Blood regularly committed to violence and on that night he was innocently going about his business buying Skittles and a soft drink, that's all that SHOULD really count re assessing Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. It seems to me it would prejudice the jury to bring in history that is not directly relevant to the crime, as Doggin is saying. When it comes to Zimmerman, the issue of intent and motivation requires bringing in any evidence that is directly relevant to his action that night. If he was functioning as a volunteer patrol, then how he came about doing that and what his responsibilities and expectations were is relevant as he committed the act while in that role. If he gave statements that he didn't know about the details of "stand your ground" when he acted, then it's directly relevant to bring in details of his education about that subject. So far, the prosecution has not been shotgunning and bringing in everything about Zimmerman's past. The areas they have brought in are specific to his actions and statements that night.
    So then Martin's past of B&Es and punching the bus driver are relevant because it speaks to the possibility that Zimmerman's story, that Martin was casing houses and jumped him when confronted is very possible. The soda and skittle story is the prosecutions only. Zimmerman's version is different.

  16. #676
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,737
    Quote Originally Posted by 32green View Post

    What we are suggesting is that 2014, one shouldn't have to tip-toe around blatant truths, one of which is that the welfare state, racial demagogues and hand wringing lib "do-gooder" apologists.... have also done irreparable harm...and virtually stalled any social progress in large segments of minority culture.
    Amen.

  17. #677
    I'd also love to hear from Doggin why M. Mother is being allowed to testify when she is not a witness, and has no basis for her claim that it's M. voice on the tape when even a professional FBI voice analysis expert said the voices could not be identified?

    So M. past (alleged past) of violence and crime is out, but M. mom tearfully claiming it's defintiely her son on the tape (when that can't be proven) is in?

    Talk about biasing a jury with testimony unsupported by fact being made by an obviously biased "witness".

  18. #678
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I'd also love to hear from Doggin why M. Mother is being allowed to testify when she is not a witness, and has no basis for her claim that it's M. voice on the tape when even a professional FBI voice analysis expert said the voices could not be identified?

    So M. past (alleged past) of violence and crime is out, but M. mom tearfully claiming it's defintiely her son on the tape (when that can't be proven) is in?

    Talk about biasing a jury with testimony unsupported by fact being made by an obviously biased "witness".
    When she was on the stand the defense should have asked her why she threw sweet little Trayvon out of her house.

  19. #679
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,737
    I don't know why the defense is cross-examining the family. It only serves to make the defense look bad. The audio expert has already testified that there is listener bias meaning that both families will likely claim the voice on the 911 tape is their loved one.

    Keeping the family on the stand just keeps the emotions stirring in the courtroom. Female jury.

    The judge is not going to allow anything from Martin's past to be brought into the trial. It will be a fruitless effort by the defense to try to get the prosecution to open the door for that.

  20. #680
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    So then Martin's past of B&Es and punching the bus driver are relevant because it speaks to the possibility that Zimmerman's story, that Martin was casing houses and jumped him when confronted is very possible. The soda and skittle story is the prosecutions only. Zimmerman's version is different.
    We'll see. If there is corroborating evidence that Martin was in places he wasn't supposed to be on that night or was carrying tools that could be used for a break-in I could see your point. I'm not saying Martin wasn't possibly doing something suspicious, justifying Zimmerman's investigation. But this is all based on the night of his death, not Martin's past. If he did not engage in suspicious behavior that night, then bringing in a past event would be prejudicial. If Zimmerman had previously encountered Martin engaging in break-ins, I could see how that would be possibly relevant to Zimmerman's action. But Zimmerman could only base his response on what he saw that night.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us