Zimmerman Trial:
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#638 Jul 24, 2013
Ralph wrote:
<quoted text>
No but the physical evidence backs Zimmerman's story. That is the entire trial. Zimmerman's story never varied from the physical evidence. So after a preponderance of the evidence they had NO DOUBTS. INNOCENT.
"preponderance" ? lol

His story never varied because he's had police training and had it all written down so that he could always remember what he'd originally said.

I have some new rocks in case your brain wears the one out it has now?
Who knows

Evarts, KY

#643 Jul 24, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Witnesses whom....were mostly his friends.
No, actually the witnesses only described the men mostly by clothing, indicating they did not know either. The majority told the same story. One told a different story. Hoodie on red, vs red on Hoodie. Maybe she observed it right after the shooting. Hoodie would have been on the ground at that time.
Who knows

Evarts, KY

#644 Jul 24, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
..and when one is dead and can't talk helps somewhat wouldn't you say?
Physical evidence....his head got cracked? That happened to my granddaughter when she fell on a coffee table. Had we not known better, with the amount of blood flying all over, we'd have sworn someone hurt her.
Just because a person is acquitted of a "charge" doesn't mean they truly aren't guilty of the "crime". Just ask Casey Anthony or OJ if you don't believe me!
I don't know the type of coffee table you have but I'm going to assume that it did not continue to attack your granddaughter not did it impose any additional danger. However, if it was moving towards her in an aggressive manner or really moving at all, I would have shot it.
Who knows

Evarts, KY

#645 Jul 24, 2013
Ralph wrote:
<quoted text>
No but the physical evidence backs Zimmerman's story. That is the entire trial. Zimmerman's story never varied from the physical evidence. So after a preponderance of the evidence they had NO DOUBTS. INNOCENT.
I'm sure they had doubts. The bar to meet is beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance of evidence is less evidence of not guilty than beyond a reasonable doubt and generally reserved for civil trials where beyond a reasonable doubt is not a criteria. Also, if people want to discuss these things they really should understand them. A jury never delivers an "innocent" verdict, the verdict of acquittal is "not guilty". It may seem trivial but legally there is a difference.
WillyP

Bowling Green, KY

#646 Jul 24, 2013
Who knows wrote:
<quoted text>
A jury never delivers an "innocent" verdict, the verdict of acquittal is "not guilty". It may seem trivial but legally there is a difference.
True, but: A defendant is presumed innocent until the moment he or she is pronounced guilty. A not guilty verdict means the presumption of innocence is maintained. Therefore, not guilty equals innocent.
Who knows

Evarts, KY

#647 Jul 24, 2013
No, it doesn't. It means the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty within the parameters they have been given to pass judgment. It does not mean innocent or that the jury thinks the defendant is innocent.
WillyP

Bowling Green, KY

#648 Jul 24, 2013
Who knows wrote:
No, it doesn't. It means the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty within the parameters they have been given to pass judgment. It does not mean innocent or that the jury thinks the defendant is innocent.
I did not say or imply that a jury ever found anyone innocent. Such a finding would be redundant since the defendant is already considered to be innocent until found to be guilty. If there is no guilty verdict there is no change to the presumption of innocence.
Who knows

Evarts, KY

#649 Jul 24, 2013
There is a presumption among the public, an incorrect presumption, that "not guilty" means innocent. However, a criminal jury has a duty to determine if the prosecution, which has the burden of proof, met that burden of proof and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. The jury may personally feel the defendant is guilty as sin but the evidence is not there or the prosecution did not adequately present their case. They jury must then find the defendant "not guilty". That does not equate to innocence. That's very basic criminal law. So, when you hear your local media say so and so was found to be innocent. He or she was not.
Who knows

Evarts, KY

#650 Jul 24, 2013
WillyP wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say or imply that a jury ever found anyone innocent. Such a finding would be redundant since the defendant is already considered to be innocent until found to be guilty. If there is no guilty verdict there is no change to the presumption of innocence.
If you really believe a person is innocent until found guilty, how could you explain arrests, bail, jail time, etc. Innocent people are not treated that way.

"Innocent until found guilty" is another often quoted statement from the misinformed. It's origin goes a long was back to Roman law. It merely means that the burden of proving someone guilty beyond whatever level of evidence applies rests with the accuser.

Look it up, you'll find it.
WillyP

Bowling Green, KY

#651 Jul 24, 2013
Who knows wrote:
There is a presumption among the public, an incorrect presumption, that "not guilty" means innocent. However, a criminal jury has a duty to determine if the prosecution, which has the burden of proof, met that burden of proof and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. The jury may personally feel the defendant is guilty as sin but the evidence is not there or the prosecution did not adequately present their case. They jury must then find the defendant "not guilty". That does not equate to innocence. That's very basic criminal law. So, when you hear your local media say so and so was found to be innocent. He or she was not.
I don't believe anyone other than you is confused at all about trial verdicts. What you're ignoring is that in this country everyone is presumed innocent until found otherwise by a court of law. A not guilty verdict simply leaves that presumption in place. As I wrote before, a jury doesn't pronounce a person innocent, our legal system does.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#652 Jul 24, 2013
Who knows wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know the type of coffee table you have but I'm going to assume that it did not continue to attack your granddaughter not did it impose any additional danger. However, if it was moving towards her in an aggressive manner or really moving at all, I would have shot it.
Who knows. The coffee table can't talk but others can tell stories.

The coffee table could have imposed additional danger had she kept trying to treat it like a trampoline.
Sumsitup

London, KY

#653 Jul 24, 2013
Watch this video and you will get a better understanding of what happened.As far the the skittles and supposed "ice tea" Martin was drinking it explains that as well.I have no sympathy for Martin.If you want to blame someone for his death blame his parents for poor parenting.

SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#654 Jul 24, 2013
Who knows wrote:
<quoted text>
If you really believe a person is innocent until found guilty, how could you explain arrests, bail, jail time, etc. Innocent people are not treated that way.
"Innocent until found guilty" is another often quoted statement from the misinformed. It's origin goes a long was back to Roman law. It merely means that the burden of proving someone guilty beyond whatever level of evidence applies rests with the accuser.
Look it up, you'll find it.
Our legal system doesn't get it right always. We know that. Enter OJ and Anthony.

For the WillyP purpose, just because our "legal system" renders a verdict of Not Guilty does not mean they are "not guilty". What it means is, a high priced lawyer has found another loophole and made it "inadmissible". Unfortunately, more often than not, the "inadmissible" is the real story that could prove actual guilt or innocence, thus why they want it "inadmissible". It's also high priced arguments over what is applicable or not to a case.

It's also amazing that when a person is dead, all of a sudden, every little tiny thing they've ever stated in their life comes back to haunt them. I'd hate to think if we took every 17 yr. old across the country, shut them up, then researched their Google Bar, notes, diaries, emails, texts, etc., what a just nasty ole' world it would be. I'm certainly glad it isn't a crime for a child, not of maturity age, to be held accountable for things they say or do.

I am, however, pleased about the recorded converation between Z and his wife attempting to hide the fact they had $200,000 acquired via a website, chatting about paying their bills off with it and hiding passports in a safety deposit box and......living off the system.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#655 Jul 24, 2013
Sumsitup wrote:
Watch this video and you will get a better understanding of what happened.As far the the skittles and supposed "ice tea" Martin was drinking it explains that as well.I have no sympathy for Martin.If you want to blame someone for his death blame his parents for poor parenting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Ebu6Yvzs4LsXX
Saw that one-sided biased video tape. Thx but no thanks. Just another opinion, that's all.

"was drinking it....."? OK, isn't there another ingredient other than tea and skittles? Did he do the mixing at the Seven 11? Was it proven that M, in fact, that night, in walking transit from the store to his abode, was drinking this mixture?

His parents were divorced. So is half the population. You want to blame his parents for his childhood inadequacies, however, you want to blame school teachers for the same kids parents send to schools. Make your mind up. He may not have had the best of secure home life, but he was also only 17.

There have been alot of fights in this nation, alot of heads busted and noses broken. A strong person fights back. A weak one...shoots a gun.

Take Z off neighborhood watch and let him work in a Kindergarten class or cookie factory where he's best suited. Then, if a 5 yr. old stomps him, he can claim "self defense".
truth

Morehead, KY

#656 Jul 24, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Witnesses whom....were mostly his friends.
Many of the witnesses' stories that supported Zimmerman were prosecution witnesses.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#657 Jul 24, 2013
Who knows wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure they had doubts. The bar to meet is beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance of evidence is less evidence of not guilty than beyond a reasonable doubt and generally reserved for civil trials where beyond a reasonable doubt is not a criteria. Also, if people want to discuss these things they really should understand them. A jury never delivers an "innocent" verdict, the verdict of acquittal is "not guilty". It may seem trivial but legally there is a difference.
I only hope they don't consider "not guilty" the same as "innocent" like Ralphie poo is doing? Casey A was found "not guilty". lol The little dead girl says she is. But yes, that's how the "syatem" works. Sad.
Sumsitup

London, KY

#658 Jul 24, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Saw that one-sided biased video tape. Thx but no thanks. Just another opinion, that's all.
"was drinking it....."? OK, isn't there another ingredient other than tea and skittles? Did he do the mixing at the Seven 11? Was it proven that M, in fact, that night, in walking transit from the store to his abode, was drinking this mixture?
His parents were divorced. So is half the population. You want to blame his parents for his childhood inadequacies, however, you want to blame school teachers for the same kids parents send to schools. Make your mind up. He may not have had the best of secure home life, but he was also only 17.
There have been alot of fights in this nation, alot of heads busted and noses broken. A strong person fights back. A weak one...shoots a gun.
Take Z off neighborhood watch and let him work in a Kindergarten class or cookie factory where he's best suited. Then, if a 5 yr. old stomps him, he can claim "self defense".
Stop trying to justify what Martin did.If he had of continued on and went to where his father was staying this would not have happened.Because he lingered and confronted Martin and started beating on him he is now dead.IMO most people confronted with that situation would have used whatever means they had available to stop the threat.The main stream media lost all credibility when they continously showed pictures of Martin as a 11 or 12 yr ol kid.The media is a lot of the problem in this country.Instead of just reporting the news they insert their views and use it to manipulate public opinion.
truth

Morehead, KY

#659 Jul 24, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Saw that one-sided biased video tape. Thx but no thanks. Just another opinion, that's all.
"was drinking it....."? OK, isn't there another ingredient other than tea and skittles? Did he do the mixing at the Seven 11? Was it proven that M, in fact, that night, in walking transit from the store to his abode, was drinking this mixture?
His parents were divorced. So is half the population. You want to blame his parents for his childhood inadequacies, however, you want to blame school teachers for the same kids parents send to schools. Make your mind up. He may not have had the best of secure home life, but he was also only 17.
There have been alot of fights in this nation, alot of heads busted and noses broken. A strong person fights back. A weak one...shoots a gun.
Take Z off neighborhood watch and let him work in a Kindergarten class or cookie factory where he's best suited. Then, if a 5 yr. old stomps him, he can claim "self defense".
Trayvon was the same age as the 17 year old who was charged as as ADULT for murdering a 13 month old baby in it's stroller in Georgia earlier this year.
truth

Morehead, KY

#660 Jul 24, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
I only hope they don't consider "not guilty" the same as "innocent" like Ralphie poo is doing? Casey A was found "not guilty". lol The little dead girl says she is. But yes, that's how the "syatem" works. Sad.
The fact is Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon---the jury determined he had justification for doing so and is not guilty of manslaughter.
Who knows

Evarts, KY

#661 Jul 24, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>

There have been alot of fights in this nation, alot of heads busted and noses broken. A strong person fights back. A weak one...shoots a gun.
Well, call me weak. If it's a fight to the death, and in case like that, any reasonable person would assume it was, if I'm not winning, I'm just not cheating enough. There's no fair fight to the death.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Keavy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hillary keeping bill off trail 16 min Nonlib 2
first debate a defeat for Trump. second could ... 18 min Nonlib 3
USA Today 27 min Get Real Vote Wise 4
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 29 min Ex Republican 153,880
clinton about to pull out of fl 37 min Great news 1
trump up in 5 states 1 hr Stray- Dog 2
kids at Hardees in Corbin 1 hr wondering 5

Keavy Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Keavy Mortgages