Spitzer: Prosecutors 'overreached' in...

Spitzer: Prosecutors 'overreached' in Zimmerman trial

There are 31 comments on the 4029TV.com story from Jul 18, 2013, titled Spitzer: Prosecutors 'overreached' in Zimmerman trial. In it, 4029TV.com reports that:

Democrat Eliot Spitzer, a former state attorney general and governor of New York, said Wednesday that prosecutors went too far in seeking a second-degree murder charge of George Zimmerman, and argued as a result "justice has not been served" in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at 4029TV.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Robert

Douglasville, GA

#1 Jul 18, 2013
Spitzer started this off exactly like the race baiters did. He was upset and rightfully so when he said,

"An innocent young man was walking where he had every right to be and ended up being shot and killed,"

There is just one problem with that, the same problem which goes addressed by the liberals and ones who are trying to stir the pot.

Best evidence is that Trayvon Martin was not an innocent young man. Best evidence is that Trayvon Martin was not happy with Zimmerman following him and jumped him. If you want to frame the conversation right you have to take that in consideration. Trayvon WAS perhaps an innocent young man, right up to the point of where he jumped Zimmerman.

You can not condemn Z without condoling Trayvon's initial assault on him. That is what is wrong with this whole thing.

You can not physically attack someone because you are mad that the are following you. Even if you think the only reason they are following you is that you are black and you have had enough of that.
Kermudgeon

Buffalo, NY

#2 Jul 18, 2013
A black thug was casing the neigborhood while high on drugs. Zimmerman's only crime was following him. Martin turned and attacked. Zimmerman shot in self defense. The facts are the facts.

I am organizing a petition for "stand your ground" rights in my state. Thugs will eventually have to think twice before they commit crimes.

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#3 Jul 18, 2013
the overreach was thinking they had a case!
fscott

Corrales, NM

#4 Jul 18, 2013
The problem is as always when it comes to the NAACP, Sharpton, and Rev Jackson, they jump before they have the facts and when the facts come out it is too late for them to backtrack. In this case the media, NBC, MSNBC, CNN all helped out with stories that later proved not only to be untrue but made up to prove that Zimmerman was a racist. By the way, justice was done in that courtroom with a not guilty verdict.
Center-left Conservative

United States

#5 Jul 18, 2013
I don’t think it was an over reach because 3 of the six wanted to convict on the 1st vote… the truth is that the prosecution lost this case in the jury selection. The first interview from juror B37 revealed her preconceived view of the case, her deep seeded racial issues and lack of empathy for the Martin family. That point is more so illuminated when you see how strongly the other jurors came out to rebuke B37’s CNN interview, and then how B37 backtracked a day later.
Eleanor

Vernon Hills, IL

#6 Jul 18, 2013
Center-left Conservative wrote:
I don’t think it was an over reach because 3 of the six wanted to convict on the 1st vote… the truth is that the prosecution lost this case in the jury selection. The first interview from juror B37 revealed her preconceived view of the case, her deep seeded racial issues and lack of empathy for the Martin family. That point is more so illuminated when you see how strongly the other jurors came out to rebuke B37’s CNN interview, and then how B37 backtracked a day later.
IF you've ever been a juror on a murder trial, you would know how difficult it is to make such a serious decision.

What one may believe initially (like to convict) can change while listening to other jurors point out facts from the trial AND also point out things the prosecution FAILED to say.

When all is said and done the decision is based on "beyond reasonable doubt" and NOT "more likely than not".

I can say, from personal experience that it could be true that someone is 'more likely than not', guilty of murder and yet if the evidence presented leaves 'reasonable doubt', the consensus MUST BE to acquit.

I'm not saying that's what THIS particular jury did, but I know it can happen this way. When talking about sending a person to prison for life, jurors MUST BE CERTAIN there is NO DOUBT in rendering the decision of guilty... this is something they will live with for the rest of their lives.

Apparently in this case there was sufficient reasonable doubt in order to acquit.
Justin

United States

#7 Jul 18, 2013
Anytime an unarmed person is shot and killed, there should at least be a trial, even if the chances of a conviction are low. Go through the legal process, present the facts, and let a jury decide.

Regardless of the outcome of the Zimmerman trial, all armed citizens will think twice before pulling out their gun during a domestic confrontation. No one wants to have their life put on hold for a year and be placed under the level of public scrutiny that George Zimmerman was.

I support gun ownership and the concept of standing your ground. I simply beleive that people should think before they act. That should be the take away from all this.

Since: Jan 09

Central NJ

#8 Jul 18, 2013
How about some empathy for Zimmermanns family? Treyvon said that he was going to kill him! That's what "Stand you ground" is all about, Not being bullied by bigger people than you. Treyvon was a 6'2" bully and like it or not, Zimmerman stood up to him.
My president was elected by dead people!
Regards, Terri
Center-left Conservative wrote:
I don’t think it was an over reach because 3 of the six wanted to convict on the 1st vote… the truth is that the prosecution lost this case in the jury selection. The first interview from juror B37 revealed her preconceived view of the case, her deep seeded racial issues and lack of empathy for the Martin family. That point is more so illuminated when you see how strongly the other jurors came out to rebuke B37’s CNN interview, and then how B37 backtracked a day later.

“THE LEFT IS ATTEMPTING A COUP”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#9 Jul 18, 2013
Justin wrote:
Anytime an unarmed person is shot and killed, there should at least be a trial, even if the chances of a conviction are low. Go through the legal process, present the facts, and let a jury decide.
Regardless of the outcome of the Zimmerman trial, all armed citizens will think twice before pulling out their gun during a domestic confrontation. No one wants to have their life put on hold for a year and be placed under the level of public scrutiny that George Zimmerman was.
I support gun ownership and the concept of standing your ground. I simply beleive that people should think before they act. That should be the take away from all this.
Stand your ground WAS NOT the issue!! Trayvon THOUGHT he was beating a gay predator. Once Trayvon threw the first punch, stand your ground was out the window!
American Lady

Danville, KY

#10 Jul 18, 2013
TerryE wrote:
How about some empathy for Zimmermanns family? Treyvon said that he was going to kill him! That's what "Stand you ground" is all about, Not being bullied by bigger people than you. Treyvon was a 6'2" bully and like it or not, Zimmerman stood up to him.
My president was elected by dead people!
Regards, Terri
<quoted text>
Trayvon said he was going to kill him ...
AND was BEATING his *head* into the concrete!

THAT IS WHAT *Self Defense*
IS ALL ABOUT!

P~E~R~I~O~D
August

Silver Springs, FL

#11 Jul 18, 2013
Robert wrote:
Spitzer started this off exactly like the race baiters did. He was upset and rightfully so when he said,
"An innocent young man was walking where he had every right to be and ended up being shot and killed,"
There is just one problem with that, the same problem which goes addressed by the liberals and ones who are trying to stir the pot.
Best evidence is that Trayvon Martin was not an innocent young man. Best evidence is that Trayvon Martin was not happy with Zimmerman following him and jumped him. If you want to frame the conversation right you have to take that in consideration. Trayvon WAS perhaps an innocent young man, right up to the point of where he jumped Zimmerman.
You can not condemn Z without condoling Trayvon's initial assault on him. That is what is wrong with this whole thing.
You can not physically attack someone because you are mad that the are following you. Even if you think the only reason they are following you is that you are black and you have had enough of that.
Exactly.
August

Silver Springs, FL

#12 Jul 18, 2013
Retired SOF wrote:
<quoted text>
Stand your ground WAS NOT the issue!! Trayvon THOUGHT he was beating a gay predator. Once Trayvon threw the first punch, stand your ground was out the window!
Where's the LGBT community's outrage on that?
(crickets)
Center-left Conservative

United States

#13 Jul 18, 2013
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
IF you've ever been a juror on a murder trial, you would know how difficult it is to make such a serious decision.
What one may believe initially (like to convict) can change while listening to other jurors point out facts from the trial AND also point out things the prosecution FAILED to say.
When all is said and done the decision is based on "beyond reasonable doubt" and NOT "more likely than not".
I can say, from personal experience that it could be true that someone is 'more likely than not', guilty of murder and yet if the evidence presented leaves 'reasonable doubt', the consensus MUST BE to acquit.
I'm not saying that's what THIS particular jury did, but I know it can happen this way. When talking about sending a person to prison for life, jurors MUST BE CERTAIN there is NO DOUBT in rendering the decision of guilty... this is something they will live with for the rest of their lives.
Apparently in this case there was sufficient reasonable doubt in order to acquit.
I have served on a jury before (though it was not for murder) and I agree with most of your overall point but jury B37’s interview on CNN exposed a lot to everyone who is suspicious of the verdict and feel that Zimmerman got away with murder. She said that Martin played a role in his own death. An unarmed boy minding his own business coming home from the corner store being profiled by an overzealous wannabe cop with a gun who was told not to follow by the 911 operator. She said that “George” was attacked and she would want him to protect her neighborhood. She also was extremely condescending to Rachel Jeantel and said that her testimony was untruthful in spite of her testimony matching exactly with the phone records and what Zimmerman said. The bottom line is that she couldn’t relate to the Blacks involved in this case and her feelings about race overrode logic and empathy… and that a travesty and it is just sad all around.

“THE LEFT IS ATTEMPTING A COUP”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#14 Jul 18, 2013
August wrote:
<quoted text>
Where's the LGBT community's outrage on that?
(crickets)
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU Where are they on this?!?!

Since: Jan 09

Central NJ

#15 Jul 18, 2013
You don't decide the case on logic and sympathy! You decide it on the law. Period! And the law allowed anyone who is being bullied to defend themselves even with deadly force (what other kind of defense is there? a peashooter?) If you are threatened by this law, Move to a state that doesn't have it or don't engage in behavior that will provoke someone into using it as Martin did. Simple! Any other type of law would have seen George Zimmerman as a dead victim.
Regards, Terri
Center-left Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
I have served on a jury before (though it was not for murder) and I agree with most of your overall point but jury B37’s interview on CNN exposed a lot to everyone who is suspicious of the verdict and feel that Zimmerman got away with murder. She said that Martin played a role in his own death. An unarmed boy minding his own business coming home from the corner store being profiled by an overzealous wannabe cop with a gun who was told not to follow by the 911 operator. She said that “George” was attacked and she would want him to protect her neighborhood. She also was extremely condescending to Rachel Jeantel and said that her testimony was untruthful in spite of her testimony matching exactly with the phone records and what Zimmerman said. The bottom line is that she couldn’t relate to the Blacks involved in this case and her feelings about race overrode logic and empathy… and that a travesty and it is just sad all around.
umm

Abilene, TX

#16 Jul 18, 2013
you people need to join the army. go to iraq or afgan. you will have a whole new view of life and what is right and wrong.
travon was not a child for one thing.
zimmerman should had put 2 rounds in his punks arss! why is it 2 black guys can muder a baby and it not make any major news outlet?
Center-left Conservative

United States

#17 Jul 18, 2013
TerryE wrote:
You don't decide the case on logic and sympathy! You decide it on the law. Period! And the law allowed anyone who is being bullied to defend themselves even with deadly force.
<quoted text>
You’re wrong; you have to apply logic and common sense to figure out what most likely happened and how the law applies. You use sympathy to put yourself in the shoes of the dead victim and how you would feel if you’re being pursued by a strange adult that looked creepy.
The problem here is that these White women, especially juror B37 couldn’t feel empathy for a Black child or a heavyset black girl who isn’t articulate and pretty. So they allowed a murderer to get away with killing a child.
i see oj

Virginia Beach, VA

#18 Jul 18, 2013
Center-left Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
She said that Martin played a role in his own death...... She said that “George” was attacked .......
There, I put 2 and 2 together for you.......
i see oj

Virginia Beach, VA

#20 Jul 18, 2013
Center-left Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
You’re wrong; you have to apply logic and common sense to figure out what most likely happened and how the law applies......
And a defendant's story that matches both the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony didn't show what "likely happened?"
i see oj

Virginia Beach, VA

#21 Jul 18, 2013
Robert wrote:
You can not condemn Z without condoling Trayvon's initial assault on him. That is what is wrong with this whole thing.
You can not physically attack someone because you are mad that the are following you. Even if you think the only reason they are following you is that you are black and you have had enough of that.
And that's just it. When Trayvon supporters aren't ignoring the attack that happened, they are implying it was justified.....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Violent Crime Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News How Obama addressed 'many sides' after Dallas p... 12 min Who Threw First P... 24
News Police: Lincolnton man shot wife in head (May '13) 13 hr wondering 7
News Lifetime Is Making a TV Movie about Robert Durs... 14 hr Tex- 7
News Many Allentown homicides unsolved (Jun '09) 16 hr weaponX 95
News Sheriff investigates second homicide in two days 16 hr Incognito 2
News The Latest: Man accused of driving car had raci... Tue raphan of khazaria 1
News Saskatoon writers' group pens concerns about ra... Tue whitey 1
More from around the web