Trayvon's avengers

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Re: "

Post #301

Post by Danmark »

JohnPaul wrote:
Danmark wrote:
JohnPaul wrote:
keithprosser3 wrote:
Trials are, or should be, limited to the facts and law presented in each case.
And trials should happen. This all blew up because there wasn't going to be a trial.

If people don't think justice is being done by the system they will take justice into their own hands. And if justice is indeed not being done, don't they have a right to?
Why should there be a trial when there is no evidence to indicate that a crime has been committed? All the evidence at the scene when the police arrived, and the testimony of witnesses, clearly indicated that Zimmerman had shot in self defense, which is NOT A CRIME. Must there be a trial every time someone dies, whether in an auto accident or of natural causes, if there is no apparent evidence that any wrong-doing was involved?
"ALL" the evidence "clearly" shows Zimmerman shot in self defense? John Paul, do you really want to stand by such a broad, sweeping statement? Did you personally review all of the evidence? All of the police reports? Did you observe ALL of the testimony presented at trial? Did you review a complete trial transcript?

Most people have not. Most have not even reviewed the jury instructions presented in the case. I have. In all 50 States, the reasonableness of self defense, and particularly the reasonableness of use of deadly force is always a question of fact, just as it was in this case. The reasonableness of Zimmerman's decision to fire a gun at an unarmed man presented a clear question of fact. Was Zimmerman reasonable in his belief that Martin was armed? The jury had to consider whether Zimmerman was reasonable in his belief that he was about to be killed or to suffer great bodily harm. At least one juror thought the State presented sufficient evidence to suggest Zimmerman 'got away with murder,' but that juror felt the State did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

It is unhelpful to look at this case from either the left or the right, or from one race's point of view. Do those who have taken Martin's side seriously think it should be easier to convict a person charged with a crime? Do those who have taken Zimmerman's side seriously think it should be harder to convict a person charged with a crime?
Yes, I really want to stand by my claim, although I will modify it slightly to say that all the evidence available to the police at the scene showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had shot in self defense and no crime had been committed. Zimmerman should not have been charged with a crime until someone could show evidence that a crime had actually been committed, and the prosecution in this case obviously had no such evidence. This trial was a show put on to appease the blacks and their liberal lackeys who wanted a political circus, and the pathetic Florida politicians gave it to them. Thank god the jury was intelligent enough to see through the farce. Even the one hold-out juror who said that Zimmerman got away with murder believed that only because her religion did not recognize self defense as justification for killing. Her belief had nothing to do with the facts or the law.
Yet you have not agreed that you personally reviewed all the evidence; that you reviewed all of the police reports and all of the jury instructions. Unless you have done that you have absolutely no basis for your pronouncement.

DID YOU REVIEW ALL OF THE EVIDENCE? HOW DID YOU DO THAT? HOW ARE YOU PRIVY TO ALL OF THE POLICE REPORTS? WERE YOU PRESENT AT THE TRIAL? DID YOU HEAR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE?

User avatar
JohnPaul
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:00 am
Location: northern California coast, USA

Re: "

Post #302

Post by JohnPaul »

[Replying to post 301 by Danmark]
Danmark wrote:
Yet you have not agreed that you personally reviewed all the evidence; that you reviewed all of the police reports and all of the jury instructions. Unless you have done that you have absolutely no basis for your pronouncement.

DID YOU REVIEW ALL OF THE EVIDENCE? HOW DID YOU DO THAT? HOW ARE YOU PRIVY TO ALL OF THE POLICE REPORTS? WERE YOU PRESENT AT THE TRIAL? DID YOU HEAR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE?
Of course I have not reviewed all the evidence. Only what was widely reported and discussed endlessly in the media. I see nothing complicated in this case, and I see no reason to second-guess the unanimous verdict of the jury. It seems you do not trust the jury. Why? Apparently you have found something in the evidence that the jury did not see? And please don't tell me the jury was racist!

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Re: "

Post #303

Post by Danmark »

JohnPaul wrote: [Replying to post 301 by Danmark]
Danmark wrote:
Yet you have not agreed that you personally reviewed all the evidence; that you reviewed all of the police reports and all of the jury instructions. Unless you have done that you have absolutely no basis for your pronouncement.

DID YOU REVIEW ALL OF THE EVIDENCE? HOW DID YOU DO THAT? HOW ARE YOU PRIVY TO ALL OF THE POLICE REPORTS? WERE YOU PRESENT AT THE TRIAL? DID YOU HEAR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE?
Of course I have not reviewed all the evidence. Only what was widely reported and discussed endlessly in the media. I see nothing complicated in this case, and I see no reason to second-guess the unanimous verdict of the jury. It seems you do not trust the jury. Why? Apparently you have found something in the evidence that the jury did not see? And please don't tell me the jury was racist!
Of course you did not review all the evidence, yet you have the audacity and astounding illogic to claim, "there is no evidence to indicate that a crime has been committed."

Your statement is self evidently absurd. It's as silly as your meritless claim that I 'do not trust the jury.' Where did you get that from?

This why I suggest you retract your statement that the crime should never have been charged; that there was NO evidence, when you admit you have not looked at the evidence.

What you are basically saying is that cases should be tried in the media; that the media's presentation of the evidence is sufficient. Again, this is absurd on its face.

I should add to my post [#292] the absurdity of basing opinions on your "Only what was widely reported and discussed endlessly in the media."

John Paul, do I actually have to explain to you the fallacy involved in that statement?

User avatar
JohnPaul
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:00 am
Location: northern California coast, USA

Re: "

Post #304

Post by JohnPaul »

Danmark wrote:
JohnPaul wrote: [Replying to post 301 by Danmark]
Danmark wrote:
Yet you have not agreed that you personally reviewed all the evidence; that you reviewed all of the police reports and all of the jury instructions. Unless you have done that you have absolutely no basis for your pronouncement.

DID YOU REVIEW ALL OF THE EVIDENCE? HOW DID YOU DO THAT? HOW ARE YOU PRIVY TO ALL OF THE POLICE REPORTS? WERE YOU PRESENT AT THE TRIAL? DID YOU HEAR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE?
Of course I have not reviewed all the evidence. Only what was widely reported and discussed endlessly in the media. I see nothing complicated in this case, and I see no reason to second-guess the unanimous verdict of the jury. It seems you do not trust the jury. Why? Apparently you have found something in the evidence that the jury did not see? And please don't tell me the jury was racist!
Of course you did not review all the evidence, yet you have the audacity and astounding illogic to claim, "there is no evidence to indicate that a crime has been committed."

Your statement is self evidently absurd. It's as silly as your meritless claim that I 'do not trust the jury.' Where did you get that from?

This why I suggest you retract your statement that the crime should never have been charged; that there was NO evidence, when you admit you have not looked at the evidence.

What you are basically saying is that cases should be tried in the media; that the media's presentation of the evidence is sufficient. Again, this is absurd on its face.

I should add to my post [#292] the absurdity of basing opinions on your "Only what was widely reported and discussed endlessly in the media."

John Paul, do I actually have to explain to you the fallacy involved in that statement?
So far, your posts sound like pure adolescent bluster. From the tone of your post, I must assume that you have discovered some new, Highly incriminating piece of evidence that was not available during the trial, was unknown to the prosecution and certainly not available to the jury. Please don't keep us in suspense. Tell us what you have discovered, and then make it available to the prosecutors in Florida. Perhaps it will be sufficient to merit a new trial.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Re: "

Post #305

Post by Danmark »

JohnPaul wrote:
Danmark wrote:
JohnPaul wrote: [Replying to post 301 by Danmark]
Danmark wrote:
Yet you have not agreed that you personally reviewed all the evidence; that you reviewed all of the police reports and all of the jury instructions. Unless you have done that you have absolutely no basis for your pronouncement.

DID YOU REVIEW ALL OF THE EVIDENCE? HOW DID YOU DO THAT? HOW ARE YOU PRIVY TO ALL OF THE POLICE REPORTS? WERE YOU PRESENT AT THE TRIAL? DID YOU HEAR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE?
Of course I have not reviewed all the evidence. Only what was widely reported and discussed endlessly in the media. I see nothing complicated in this case, and I see no reason to second-guess the unanimous verdict of the jury. It seems you do not trust the jury. Why? Apparently you have found something in the evidence that the jury did not see? And please don't tell me the jury was racist!
Of course you did not review all the evidence, yet you have the audacity and astounding illogic to claim, "there is no evidence to indicate that a crime has been committed."

Your statement is self evidently absurd. It's as silly as your meritless claim that I 'do not trust the jury.' Where did you get that from?

This why I suggest you retract your statement that the crime should never have been charged; that there was NO evidence, when you admit you have not looked at the evidence.

What you are basically saying is that cases should be tried in the media; that the media's presentation of the evidence is sufficient. Again, this is absurd on its face.

I should add to my post [#292] the absurdity of basing opinions on your "Only what was widely reported and discussed endlessly in the media."

John Paul, do I actually have to explain to you the fallacy involved in that statement?
So far, your posts sound like pure adolescent bluster. From the tone of your post, I must assume that you have discovered some new, Highly incriminating piece of evidence that was not available during the trial, was unknown to the prosecution and certainly not available to the jury. Please don't keep us in suspense. Tell us what you have discovered, and then make it available to the prosecutors in Florida. Perhaps it will be sufficient to merit a new trial.
John Paul, it is as simple as basic and pure mathematics.

You claim claim there was ZERO evidence to warrant even a charge, even an accusation, necessitating a trial.

You confess you are not acquainted with all the evidence, yet you maintain you are somehow able to divine ALL the evidence, not from what was presented to the jury, but from the news media. How can you possible ascertain there was NO evidence, when you have not reviewed it all?

Let me acquaint you with the law. If there was no evidence, which if believed, could sustain a guilty verdict, any competent defense attorney [or the judge on his own motion] would have moved for dismissal. Neither the defense nor the judge did so; therefore either both the judge and the entire defense team were grossly incompetent, or you are wrong.

Do you still contend the news folk presented you with ALL the evidence?

Please remember that evidence is merely what is presented to the jury. It is for the jury to weigh that evidence and judge the demeanor of the witnesses and the strength of the evidence. For example, if a witness says 'I saw V and he was naked and he was slowly moving away from D and it was obvious the naked V was unarmed and D laughed and pulled out a gun and shot him,' that would be evidence. But the fact that the witness had recently escaped from an asylum, was on drugs, and was 1000 miles away at the time of the incident would be brought out by D's defense team and the jury would weigh the credibility and accuracy of the witness's statement.

That does not mean there was ZERO evidence in the hypothetical case? No, it just means that it was up to the jury to decide the weight to give that particular testimony in light of other evidence.

But for you to admit you did not review the evidence, yet can somehow announce a conclusion on what that evidence was is obviously absurd and ridiculous on its face.

User avatar
JohnPaul
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:00 am
Location: northern California coast, USA

Re: "

Post #306

Post by JohnPaul »

[Replying to post 305 by Danmark]
Danmark wrote:
John Paul, it is as simple as basic and pure mathematics.

You claim claim there was ZERO evidence to warrant even a charge, even an accusation, necessitating a trial.

You confess you are not acquainted with all the evidence, yet you maintain you are somehow able to divine ALL the evidence, not from what was presented to the jury, but from the news media. How can you possible ascertain there was NO evidence, when you have not reviewed it all?

Let me acquaint you with the law. If there was no evidence, which if believed, could sustain a guilty verdict, any competent defense attorney [or the judge on his own motion] would have moved for dismissal. Neither the defense nor the judge did so; therefore either both the judge and the entire defense team were grossly incompetent, or you are wrong.

Do you still contend the news folk presented you with ALL the evidence?

Please remember that evidence is merely what is presented to the jury. It is for the jury to weigh that evidence and judge the demeanor of the witnesses and the strength of the evidence. For example, if a witness says 'I saw V and he was naked and he was slowly moving away from D and it was obvious the naked V was unarmed and D laughed and pulled out a gun and shot him,' that would be evidence. But the fact that the witness had recently escaped from an asylum, was on drugs, and was 1000 miles away at the time of the incident would be brought out by D's defense team and the jury would weigh the credibility and accuracy of the witness's statement.

That does not mean there was ZERO evidence in the hypothetical case? No, it just means that it was up to the jury to decide the weight to give that particular testimony in light of other evidence.

But for you to admit you did not review the evidence, yet can somehow announce a conclusion on what that evidence was is obviously absurd and ridiculous on its face.
You still have not told us what this mysterious "evidence" is.

This is not your usual style. Are you on medication?

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Re: "

Post #307

Post by Danmark »

JohnPaul wrote: [Replying to post 305 by Danmark]
Danmark wrote:
John Paul, it is as simple as basic and pure mathematics.

You claim claim there was ZERO evidence to warrant even a charge, even an accusation, necessitating a trial.

You confess you are not acquainted with all the evidence, yet you maintain you are somehow able to divine ALL the evidence, not from what was presented to the jury, but from the news media. How can you possible ascertain there was NO evidence, when you have not reviewed it all?

Let me acquaint you with the law. If there was no evidence, which if believed, could sustain a guilty verdict, any competent defense attorney [or the judge on his own motion] would have moved for dismissal. Neither the defense nor the judge did so; therefore either both the judge and the entire defense team were grossly incompetent, or you are wrong.

Do you still contend the news folk presented you with ALL the evidence?

Please remember that evidence is merely what is presented to the jury. It is for the jury to weigh that evidence and judge the demeanor of the witnesses and the strength of the evidence. For example, if a witness says 'I saw V and he was naked and he was slowly moving away from D and it was obvious the naked V was unarmed and D laughed and pulled out a gun and shot him,' that would be evidence. But the fact that the witness had recently escaped from an asylum, was on drugs, and was 1000 miles away at the time of the incident would be brought out by D's defense team and the jury would weigh the credibility and accuracy of the witness's statement.

That does not mean there was ZERO evidence in the hypothetical case? No, it just means that it was up to the jury to decide the weight to give that particular testimony in light of other evidence.

But for you to admit you did not review the evidence, yet can somehow announce a conclusion on what that evidence was is obviously absurd and ridiculous on its face.
You still have not told us what this mysterious "evidence" is.

This is not your usual style. Are you on medication?
There is nothing mysterious about it. You claimed there was 'no evidence of a crime.' The burden is on he who alleges.

The evidence, even that announced by the media, is that George Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed 17 year old boy. When you intentionally shoot an unarmed person and kill him, that alone makes a case for murder. The burden then shifts to the defendant to explain why such a killing might be justified. That is a question of fact to be determined by a jury.

When Zimmerman said: "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something....these assholes, they always get away."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

He evinces a motive to take the law into his own hands. I am not contending Zimmerman should have been convicted, only that there was evidence to charge him and that your statement that there was no evidence is false.

What makes your statement all the more ridiculous is your own admission that you haven't reviewed the evidence, yet you claim there wasn't enough. In what other situation would you claim there was 'no evidence' yet admit you hadn't reviewed it?

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7591
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Post #308

Post by Wootah »

JohnPaul wrote: [Replying to post 305 by Danmark]
Danmark wrote:
John Paul, it is as simple as basic and pure mathematics.

You claim claim there was ZERO evidence to warrant even a charge, even an accusation, necessitating a trial.

You confess you are not acquainted with all the evidence, yet you maintain you are somehow able to divine ALL the evidence, not from what was presented to the jury, but from the news media. How can you possible ascertain there was NO evidence, when you have not reviewed it all?

Let me acquaint you with the law. If there was no evidence, which if believed, could sustain a guilty verdict, any competent defense attorney [or the judge on his own motion] would have moved for dismissal. Neither the defense nor the judge did so; therefore either both the judge and the entire defense team were grossly incompetent, or you are wrong.

Do you still contend the news folk presented you with ALL the evidence?

Please remember that evidence is merely what is presented to the jury. It is for the jury to weigh that evidence and judge the demeanor of the witnesses and the strength of the evidence. For example, if a witness says 'I saw V and he was naked and he was slowly moving away from D and it was obvious the naked V was unarmed and D laughed and pulled out a gun and shot him,' that would be evidence. But the fact that the witness had recently escaped from an asylum, was on drugs, and was 1000 miles away at the time of the incident would be brought out by D's defense team and the jury would weigh the credibility and accuracy of the witness's statement.

That does not mean there was ZERO evidence in the hypothetical case? No, it just means that it was up to the jury to decide the weight to give that particular testimony in light of other evidence.

But for you to admit you did not review the evidence, yet can somehow announce a conclusion on what that evidence was is obviously absurd and ridiculous on its face.
You still have not told us what this mysterious "evidence" is.

This is not your usual style. Are you on medication?
:warning: Moderator Warning


Questioning someone's mental state is definitely out of order.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7591
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Post #309

Post by Wootah »

JohnPaul wrote:
Danmark wrote:
JohnPaul wrote: [Replying to post 301 by Danmark]
Danmark wrote:
Yet you have not agreed that you personally reviewed all the evidence; that you reviewed all of the police reports and all of the jury instructions. Unless you have done that you have absolutely no basis for your pronouncement.

DID YOU REVIEW ALL OF THE EVIDENCE? HOW DID YOU DO THAT? HOW ARE YOU PRIVY TO ALL OF THE POLICE REPORTS? WERE YOU PRESENT AT THE TRIAL? DID YOU HEAR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE?
Of course I have not reviewed all the evidence. Only what was widely reported and discussed endlessly in the media. I see nothing complicated in this case, and I see no reason to second-guess the unanimous verdict of the jury. It seems you do not trust the jury. Why? Apparently you have found something in the evidence that the jury did not see? And please don't tell me the jury was racist!
Of course you did not review all the evidence, yet you have the audacity and astounding illogic to claim, "there is no evidence to indicate that a crime has been committed."

Your statement is self evidently absurd. It's as silly as your meritless claim that I 'do not trust the jury.' Where did you get that from?

This why I suggest you retract your statement that the crime should never have been charged; that there was NO evidence, when you admit you have not looked at the evidence.

What you are basically saying is that cases should be tried in the media; that the media's presentation of the evidence is sufficient. Again, this is absurd on its face.

I should add to my post [#292] the absurdity of basing opinions on your "Only what was widely reported and discussed endlessly in the media."

John Paul, do I actually have to explain to you the fallacy involved in that statement?
So far, your posts sound like pure adolescent bluster. From the tone of your post, I must assume that you have discovered some new, Highly incriminating piece of evidence that was not available during the trial, was unknown to the prosecution and certainly not available to the jury. Please don't keep us in suspense. Tell us what you have discovered, and then make it available to the prosecutors in Florida. Perhaps it will be sufficient to merit a new trial.

:warning: Moderator Warning


Hi JohnPaul - labelling someone or their thoughts as 'adolescent bluster' is uncivil.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

WinePusher

Re: "

Post #310

Post by WinePusher »

Danmark wrote:John Paul, it is as simple as basic and pure mathematics.

You claim claim there was ZERO evidence to warrant even a charge, even an accusation, necessitating a trial.

You confess you are not acquainted with all the evidence, yet you maintain you are somehow able to divine ALL the evidence, not from what was presented to the jury, but from the news media. How can you possible ascertain there was NO evidence, when you have not reviewed it all?

Let me acquaint you with the law. If there was no evidence, which if believed, could sustain a guilty verdict, any competent defense attorney [or the judge on his own motion] would have moved for dismissal. Neither the defense nor the judge did so; therefore either both the judge and the entire defense team were grossly incompetent, or you are wrong.

Do you still contend the news folk presented you with ALL the evidence?
The idea that charges shouldn't have even been brought in the first place is valid to a certain extent. If you are looking at this from a purely legal standpoint then Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten mixed martial arts style by Trayvon Martin and according to Florida law, since Zimmerman could not retreat, Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon. Again, Zimmerman did nothing wrong according to the law.

The reason why the case was not dismissed is that we have phony civil rights leaders and race baiters, along with a bunch of clueless celebrities, injecting and fomenting racial hatred into the case. This is what happens when you have people from the outside commenting on the case, it screws up the legal process.

The fact of the matter is that this case was warped into something it was never meant to be. This case was an accidental tragedy, plain and simple. But the race baiters in this country saw it as an opportunity to deepen the racial divide and tried to make this case seem like it was a white on black hate crime. The facts obviously didn't fit with their story and they lost.

Post Reply