07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 111112113114115 ...
tools
  1. jdbii's Avatar
    Shame on you guys for not reading THIS and clicking the link there. LOL

    #seewhatididthere?
    Yeah I missed there it so I'm glad you re-posted. In Phil's post I especially liked his thoughts about making trials 100x more expensive to cover trials in order to clean them up. Half the reason why CNN and HLN covered the trial ad nauseum to the detriment of not covering other news like the coup in Egypt was because it was cheap for them to do so.
    07-15-2013 05:58 PM
  2. GadgetGator's Avatar
    No indication of racial profiling.
    911 dispatcher is not an authority, so no need to follow their orders. With recent break-ins in the neighborhood, Zimmerman had a right to follow him.
    But that's just it....he didn't have the right. As part of the neighborhood watch, he violated their rules that state not to pursue someone.

    Why does everybody say over and over again that Trayvon attacked him? Is that indisputably factually correct?
    I don't know...I keep asking that question here, and have yet to get an answer to that question.

    Can THIS be the end of the discussion?



    EVERYTHING IS SPECULATION.

    Be sure to click the link.....
    Awesome link. Thank you. It states things very well and I agree with all of it! It should be required reading for everyone on the internet and displayed and read on all the TV news shows.
    jdbii likes this.
    07-15-2013 07:11 PM
  3. llamabreath's Avatar
    But that's just it....he didn't have the right. As part of the neighborhood watch, he violated their rules that state not to pursue someone.
    He may have broken their rules, but he did not break THE LAW, which just so happens to be this little thing the court judges on.

    Live2ride883 and cdmjlt369 like this.
    07-15-2013 07:19 PM
  4. DS1331's Avatar
    Still should have let the real cops handle it and no one would be dead right now

    Sent from my HTC One using AC Forums mobile app
    GadgetGator likes this.
    07-15-2013 09:00 PM
  5. pappy53's Avatar
    Still should have let the real cops handle it and no one would be dead right now

    Sent from my HTC One using AC Forums mobile app
    Obviously, the real cops weren't coming as a result of Zimmerman's call.
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    07-15-2013 09:48 PM
  6. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Well this didn't take long, and she is even planning a tell all book about her experience on the jury.

    Juror says Zimmerman went 'above and beyond' but that race was not an issue
    07-15-2013 10:26 PM
  7. Aquila's Avatar
    "Obviously, the real cops weren't coming as a result of Zimmerman's call."

    They were coming, just not fast enough, apparently. According to George's statement he got out of his car the last time in order to provide a street name to units en route, since they had moved from the original location.
    07-15-2013 11:22 PM
  8. vferrari's Avatar
    "Obviously, the real cops weren't coming as a result of Zimmerman's call."

    They were coming, just not fast enough, apparently. According to George's statement he got out of his car the last time in order to provide a street name to units en route, since they had moved from the original location.
    If true, it's ironic to think (this being the AC site and all) that use of a little basic technology (I.e., a smartphone with gps and google maps or even just a basic stand alone gps) would have eliminated the need for GZ to get out of his car, possibly avoiding the fatal confrontation. Surprised this was not standard equipment for a frequent watch captain, esp in this day and age. Safer living through tech...as long as you don't (gulp) text and drive.

    Sent from my GT-N5110 using AC Forums mobile app
    rexxman and kleeno like this.
    07-16-2013 12:42 AM
  9. GadgetGator's Avatar
    "Obviously, the real cops weren't coming as a result of Zimmerman's call."

    They were coming, just not fast enough, apparently. According to George's statement he got out of his car the last time in order to provide a street name to units en route, since they had moved from the original location.
    But if you watch the reenactment video he made with the police....he got out of his car to find an address (because supposedly he didn't know the street name in a 3 street development that he had lived in and patrolled for YEARS), and because he did not know this street he wanted to move to the next street which he did know. But going by the video that street was a HELL of a long ways away. A football field length away. And he wanted to WALK that? In the same direction as the person he is suspicious of and consideres a threat? At night? In the dark? That makes ZERO sense logically. This is what I cannot get past.

    To me, that behavior seems like he was looking for and wanting a confrontation. This is where the problem started. And per his own words, he never ID'd himself to Trayvon. Okay...so if you are a teen, and some strange dude is following you around and not letting you know that he is part of the neighborhood watch are you going to be fearful of that yourself? Not knowing if he is some mugger or other assailant? I say yes. People say he should have ran away or hid. But what if he did? What if it was George who saw him and dragged him out of his hiding place and that is where the fight started happening? Did Trayvon not have the right to "stand HIS ground" at that point? It is quite plausible. And just as good a theory as any of the ones siding with Zimmerman's account.
    return_0 likes this.
    07-16-2013 02:21 PM
  10. llamabreath's Avatar
    But if you watch the reenactment video he made with the police....he got out of his car to find an address (because supposedly he didn't know the street name in a 3 street development that he had lived in and patrolled for YEARS), and because he did not know this street he wanted to move to the next street which he did know. But going by the video that street was a HELL of a long ways away. A football field length away. And he wanted to WALK that? In the same direction as the person he is suspicious of and consideres a threat? At night? In the dark? That makes ZERO sense logically. This is what I cannot get past.

    To me, that behavior seems like he was looking for and wanting a confrontation. This is where the problem started. And per his own words, he never ID'd himself to Trayvon. Okay...so if you are a teen, and some strange dude is following you around and not letting you know that he is part of the neighborhood watch are you going to be fearful of that yourself? Not knowing if he is some mugger or other assailant? I say yes. People say he should have ran away or hid. But what if he did? What if it was George who saw him and dragged him out of his hiding place and that is where the fight started happening? Did Trayvon not have the right to "stand HIS ground" at that point? It is quite plausible. And just as good a theory as any of the ones siding with Zimmerman's account.
    Again -

    Reasonable doubt trumps theory in court.

    07-16-2013 02:34 PM
  11. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Or maybe he was thinking about his family/neghbors. I would rather check out a suspicious individual than not investigate that situation. What if he didn't and there was a home invasion that night and someone died all because he didn't investigate. There are a lot of ifs and what ifs around this case.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    07-16-2013 02:38 PM
  12. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    So we're going to keep going in the same circles over and over again?

    Posted via Android Central App
    DS1331, JHBThree, palandri and 1 others like this.
    07-16-2013 02:41 PM
  13. llamabreath's Avatar


    Fairclough and Aquila like this.
    07-16-2013 06:15 PM
  14. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Book deal for Zimmerman trial cancelled.

    Twitter user swiftly sabotages Zimmerman juror
    07-17-2013 03:45 AM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    Book deal for Zimmerman trial cancelled.

    Twitter user swiftly sabotages Zimmerman juror
    Hurray! Maybe we can let the families of everyone that just got their whole world shaken and not stirred have a few minutes for a break before people look for ways to exploit their pain for coins.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    07-17-2013 05:16 AM
  16. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Again -

    Reasonable doubt trumps theory in court.
    But those comments weren't directed at a court....they were for the people here, who seem to want to absolve Zimmerman as playing any role whatsoever in all of this. Although, I have said it before and I will say it again... reasonable doubt needs to be changed to something more sensible. A person can have doubt about any case as it's unlikely they were there and saw it. Our system is broken and it is literally letting people who have killed someone, walk the streets. Over and over again. That is not the sign of a functional society. It is dysfunctional.
    07-17-2013 02:22 PM
  17. jdbii's Avatar
    Although, I have said it before and I will say it again... reasonable doubt needs to be changed to something more sensible.
    If you are talking about the burden the state must meet in order for a jury or judge (if bench trial) to convict for a crime then I am in total and complete disagreement with you. Within the criminal courts, If the state only had to put defendants behind bars by a "common sense" standard rather than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard it would be a disaster. You would be handing over to the state nearly unfettered power to convict anybody they wanted for a crime. The presumption of innocence, no matter how heinous the crime, as well as the state proving beyond a reasonable doubt, is sacrosanct in the United States.

    If you are not talking about the burden of poof that prosecutors must meet to prove crimes, then that is the province of the legislative branch of government to fashion new laws. For instance, attaching criminal liability to disregarding the advice of a 911 operator, or doing something like changing negligence into a felony in the event that an adult kills a minor. But that would be the job citizens passing new law by ballot measure (where permitted) or electing your chosen representative and lobbying them to pass different laws.
    07-17-2013 03:23 PM
  18. llamabreath's Avatar
    If you are talking about the burden the state must meet in order for a jury or judge (if bench trial) to convict for a crime then I am in total and complete disagreement with you. Within the criminal courts, If the state only had to put defendants behind bars by a "common sense" standard rather than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard it would be a disaster. You would be handing over to the state nearly unfettered power to convict anybody they wanted for a crime. The presumption of innocence, no matter how heinous the crime, as well as the state proving beyond a reasonable doubt, is sacrosanct in the United States.

    If you are not talking about the burden of poof that prosecutors must meet to prove crimes, then that is the province of the legislative branch of government to fashion new laws. For instance, attaching criminal liability to disregarding the advice of a 911 operator, or doing something like changing negligence into a felony in the event that an adult kills a minor. But that would be the job citizens passing new law by ballot measure (where permitted) or electing your chosen representative and lobbying them to pass different laws.
    Well said.


    jdbii likes this.
    07-17-2013 03:38 PM
  19. Aquila's Avatar
    If we're going to reform the criminal justice format, I'd be inclined to keep "a reasonable doubt" if our juries were made of, "reasonable people". If you think about it, the meme going on that our juries are comprised of people too stupid to get out of jury duty... is about half right. Half of them are ridiculously dim and the other half feel they are doing their civic duty. Neither of those make them experts on legal nuance, nor philosophy, etc. The implication of our current system is, "if two smart people disagree (opposing counsel), then have 12 stupid people sort out their arguments and the majority of stupid people can arrive at the truth better than either of the two smart people could ever dream".
    GadgetGator likes this.
    07-17-2013 03:59 PM
  20. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    And here we go again..... CIRCLES.

    This one is about complete.
    palandri likes this.
    07-17-2013 04:03 PM
  21. jdbii's Avatar
    If we're going to reform the criminal justice format, I'd be inclined to keep "a reasonable doubt" if our juries were made of, "reasonable people". If you think about it, the meme going on that our juries are comprised of people too stupid to get out of jury duty... is about half right. Half of them are ridiculously dim and the other half feel they are doing their civic duty. Neither of those make them experts on legal nuance, nor philosophy, etc. The implication of our current system is, "if two smart people disagree (opposing counsel), then have 12 stupid people sort out their arguments and the majority of stupid people can arrive at the truth better than either of the two smart people could ever dream".
    You could tighten standards and make it harder for citizens to shirk jury duty. I think some countries have a kind of professional jury. I am not opposed to changing how juries work, though I don't know if that would require a Constitutional amendment. I am not so sure that lawyers are any smarter than jurors. They might know the law better, but I am not sure if even Chief Justice Roberts could understand jury instructions.
    07-17-2013 04:27 PM
  22. GadgetGator's Avatar
    If you are talking about the burden the state must meet in order for a jury or judge (if bench trial) to convict for a crime then I am in total and complete disagreement with you. Within the criminal courts, If the state only had to put defendants behind bars by a "common sense" standard rather than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard it would be a disaster. You would be handing over to the state nearly unfettered power to convict anybody they wanted for a crime. The presumption of innocence, no matter how heinous the crime, as well as the state proving beyond a reasonable doubt, is sacrosanct in the United States.

    If you are not talking about the burden of poof that prosecutors must meet to prove crimes, then that is the province of the legislative branch of government to fashion new laws. For instance, attaching criminal liability to disregarding the advice of a 911 operator, or doing something like changing negligence into a felony in the event that an adult kills a minor. But that would be the job citizens passing new law by ballot measure (where permitted) or electing your chosen representative and lobbying them to pass different laws.
    I have no specific proposal in mind. Just a general sense that our system is not working. Over and over we acquit people that most people agree, committed a crime. Why are we letting criminals walk amongst us? So they can do it again?
    07-18-2013 01:40 PM
  23. llamabreath's Avatar
    I have no specific proposal in mind. Just a general sense that our system is not working. Over and over we acquit people that most people agree, committed a crime. Why are we letting criminals walk amongst us? So they can do it again?
    Isn't there a saying somewhere... "One has no right to complain unless they have a better way"?

    07-18-2013 02:24 PM
  24. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I have no specific proposal in mind. Just a general sense that our system is not working. Over and over we acquit people that most people agree, committed a crime. Why are we letting criminals walk amongst us? So they can do it again?
    Are they criminals if they weren't convicted?

    I, for one, am glad we don't convict people based on popular vote.

    Posted via Android Central App
    JHBThree likes this.
    07-18-2013 05:53 PM
  25. JHBThree's Avatar
    I have no specific proposal in mind. Just a general sense that our system is not working. Over and over we acquit people that most people agree, committed a crime. Why are we letting criminals walk amongst us? So they can do it again?
    If the law does not agree that they committed a crime, why should 'most people' get to say otherwise? In order for someone to be called a criminal, they would actually have to be convicted of a crime. People don't just get to make that call based on their own bias.

    Our justice system is not based on mob justice, and this type of mentality is perfect evidence of why it shouldn't be.

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
    07-18-2013 11:04 PM
4,617 ... 111112113114115 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD