What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

5mn_Major said:
Point remains that stand your ground could change the outcome of this trial towards acquittal and we'll never know if it did or not. As long as that's the case, by definition an acquittal guarantees we won't know whether justice was done as most of America considers it.
Click to expand...

You keep mentioning this, but why wouldn't we know? Evidence will be presented by the prosecution and if he gets off only because of the stand your ground law, we'll see it and know it and then we can debate it and blame the law.

Am I missing something? I believe we'll know whether he got away with something.
 
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

He believes that just the presence of the stand your ground law changes the way the prosecution presents the case.

It seems he doesn't care if Zimmerman is actually innocent. I get the impression that he thinks because Zimmerman claimed SYG defense, he is automatically guilty.
 
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

5mn_Major said:
Point remains that stand your ground could change the outcome of this trial towards acquittal and we'll never know if it did or not. As long as that's the case, by definition an acquittal guarantees we won't know whether justice was done as most of America considers it.
Click to expand...

I guess you figure if you keep repeating this banal twaddle someone will be convinced. My guess is 90 days ago you'd never heard of stand your ground. Now you're an expert on all the legal implications, for a case that has yet to go to trial.
 
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Gurtholfin said:
You keep mentioning this, but why wouldn't we know? Evidence will be presented by the prosecution and if he gets off only because of the stand your ground law, we'll see it and know it and then we can debate it and blame the law.

Am I missing something? I believe we'll know whether he got away with something.
Click to expand...
How? As best I can tell, there was no one who can be a reliable witness as to what happened? We'll never really know.
 
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Gurtholfin said:
You keep mentioning this, but why wouldn't we know? Evidence will be presented by the prosecution and if he gets off only because of the stand your ground law, we'll see it and know it and then we can debate it and blame the law.

Am I missing something? I believe we'll know whether he got away with something.
Click to expand...

Zimmerman killed Martin, we know this. The entire prosecution case is built on attacking SYG. The case would be built entirely differently...with potentially different outcomes if the law didn't exist.

cF[Authentic] said:
He believes that just the presence of the stand your ground law changes the way the prosecution presents the case.

It seems he doesn't care if Zimmerman is actually innocent. I get the impression that he thinks because Zimmerman claimed SYG defense, he is automatically guilty.
Click to expand...

Not true. I think Zimmerman gets off...but I have no idea whether it will be due to his true innocence or because of Florida's unique SYG law.

So if Zimmerman is innocent (which is quite possible) and he gets off. That's great, but he would have based on the relatively stricter normal face of American justice. So its all good.

If Zimmerman is truly guilty, yet he can't somehow manage to show 'he felt there was a chance (however slim) of bodily threat'. Great as justice was served.

If Zimmerman is guilty and he gets off due to the relaxed requirements of SYG. Justice was not served and a murderer was allowed to walk based on normal American standards and the standards of more posters here than not.

The net result is that its either fine and same as it would have been as the correct outcome is served. Or its gross misjustice where a murder is allowed to walk that was specifically caused by the relaxed requirements of SYG. And we'll never know which as the case would be entirely different without the lax defense option.

I'm saying that SYG is not a good barometer of justice. And if the measuring stick doesn't work...we might get lucky...but its quite possible that outcomes aren't correct.
 
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

duper said:
How? As best I can tell, there was no one who can be a reliable witness as to what happened? We'll never really know.
Click to expand...


Well, that's hardly exclusive to this case. Point?

5mn keeps implying that Zimmerman has already gotten away with a crime when we haven't even gotten to a trial yet. My point is that we won't know whether he's gotten away with something until after the evidence is presented.
 
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Bob Gray said:
This certainly doesn't fill you with confidence in the witnesses in the case. I'm not sure witnesses like this will do a whole lot for either side of the case.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-shooting-witnesses-change-stories-ahead-zimmerman-133743219.html
Click to expand...

Many won't be called because of their changing stories and that pesky perjury business. My favorite "enhanced" witness statements came from Jean Hill, who was standing next to Mary Moorman in Dealey Plaza. The day of the shooting she told a TV reporter "I didn't see anything." As the years rolled on, however, she embroidered and enhanced her story to include a little white dog between the Kennedys, a trail of what might be blood leading up to the grassy knoll, "puffs of smoke" behind the picket fence and much, much more.

When I read about the witness who mentioned he/she didn't have his glasses on or contacts in, I was reminded of that scene in "12 Angry Men" where they finally figured out the old bag witness normally wore glasses, but wasn't wearing them the night of the murder.
 
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Old Pio said:
Many won't be called because of their changing stories and that pesky perjury business. My favorite "enhanced" witness statements came from Jean Hill, who was standing next to Mary Moorman in Dealey Plaza. The day of the shooting she told a TV reporter "I didn't see anything." As the years rolled on, however, she embroidered and enhanced her story to include a little white dog between the Kennedys, a trail of what might be blood leading up to the grassy knoll, "puffs of smoke" behind the picket fence and much, much more.

When I read about the witness who mentioned he/she didn't have his glasses on or contacts in, I was reminded of that scene in "12 Angry Men" where they finally figured out the old bag witness normally wore glasses, but wasn't wearing them the night of the murder.
Click to expand...

But did you notice the marks on the bridge of the nose of E.G. Marshall before they were pointed out??
 
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Old Pio said:
No. "Does anybody wear glasses to bed?" "No."
Click to expand...
Perhaps the following is appropriate as response to some of the posting on this thread-

Juror #2: It's hard to put into words. I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word, 'Go'. Nobody proved otherwise.
Juror #8: Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution
 
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

DrDemento said:
Perhaps the following is appropriate as response to some of the posting on this thread-

Juror #2: It's hard to put into words. I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word, 'Go'. Nobody proved otherwise.
Juror #8: Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution
Click to expand...

That about covers it. But does that requirement apply to "white Hispanics?"

I've mentioned before about a phenomenon I've personally encountered more than once: "witnesses" at the scene of a shooting of a black suspect by a white cop who tell credulous media types "The cops just shot that boy for no reason. He wasn't doin' nothin'" Oddly, these folks are never called before the grand jury or the trial jury or a citizen's review board. The crucial difference between telling gullible media types whatever pops into their heads and the mentioned entities is the oath and perjury.
 
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

duper said:
How? As best I can tell, there was no one who can be a reliable witness as to what happened? We'll never really know.
Click to expand...
The point was, you said "we'll know something." I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you meant the outcome of the trial would give us some knowledge as to what happened that night. I don't see how it can, unless there is a witness who is obligated to tell the whole truth. As I understand it, the one actual witness is also the one person who may be constitutionally allowed to omit part of the truth.

So in other words, where you said we'll know if he got away with something, I would argue that we won't know whether he got away with something. The fact is, unless there is quite a lot of evidence that hasn't been leaked to the press, or that the press is sitting on
(entirely possible, per OP's point about negligence by the press) I don't see how any jury could convict, except by pure bias. So either they acquit and we learn nothing, or they convict and we learn nothing. At least, that's how I see it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Gurtholfin said:
5mn keeps implying that Zimmerman has already gotten away with a crime when we haven't even gotten to a trial yet.
Click to expand...

You've missed on my point an embarrassing number of times. And as far as any point you've made...don't really care.
 
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Sometimes trolling works!

Again, the only reason that this case originally came to national attention was that Zimmerman was known to have shot Martin and was not arrested...and from there, there were questions as to why and it got legs.

According to the FBI, there were 14k people 'murdered' or about 40 people a day. Would it make more sense to just report a massive laundry list of people being killed? So what makes you think that people don't care?

I really don't know what makes some of you guys tick. Another example of using tragedy to point hate at others...
 
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

5mn_Major said:
Sometimes trolling works!

Again, the only reason that this case originally came to national attention was that Zimmerman was known to have shot Martin and was not arrested...and from there, there were questions as to why and it got legs.

According to the FBI, there were 14k people 'murdered' or about 40 people a day. Would it make more sense to just report a massive laundry list of people being killed? So what makes you think that people don't care?

I really don't know what makes some of you guys tick. Another example of using tragedy to point hate at others...
Click to expand...

What would make "more sense" is for so-called "civil rights" leaders to appear to be at least a little concerned about the slaughter of young black men at the hands of other young black men. But there would be no money in it. No ability to get voters out to the polls. No inflaming of racial tensions. No appearances on MSNBC (in some cases on their own programs). No interviews by the MSM. No prestige of approval from the White House or photo ops with POTUS.

That semi-literate race pimp Al Sharpton, at the height of the Tawana Brawley hoax, said his goal was to become the "baddest n-word in New York City." He appears to have succeeded. Better for him. Worse for the people he purports to "lead." BTW, here are the updated casualty figures for Chicago (as of this morning). Nothing to see here.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...n-separate-shootings-20120528,0,1669136.story

The Zimmerman story "got legs" as you put it, thanks to a shameful, dishonest, deliberate full court press by the MSM, which intentionally inflamed the situation by faudulently editing audio, continually using pictures of Martin when he was 12, and ignoring any "evidence" that pointed away from their "white guy racially profiles and then murders helpless little black kid who was only getting some "skillets"" narrative.

Oh, and His Panderness also gave the green light to race hustlers everywhere.

The only people I hate are enemies of America: Hussein (the one in Iraq), Baby Assad, Castro, the latest Kim enslaving the people of North Korea, etc. Wussy libs, on the other hand, are an annoyance, like crabs.
 
Last edited:
5mn_Major said:
Sometimes trolling works!

Again, the only reason that this case originally came to national attention was that Zimmerman was known to have shot Martin and was not arrested...and from there, there were questions as to why and it got legs.

According to the FBI, there were 14k people 'murdered' or about 40 people a day. Would it make more sense to just report a massive laundry list of people being killed? So what makes you think that people don't care?

I really don't know what makes some of you guys tick. Another example of using tragedy to point hate at others...
Click to expand...

If it wasn't "white" on black nobody would care. If it were white on white nobody would care. If the media didn't need or want a racism narrative we wouldn't have heard about this. We wouldn't need or want a racism narrative if the president weren't in deep crap on re-election.

Or is it normal for the DOJ to take interest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top