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