New evidence on Zimmerman's case

Status
Not open for further replies.
CrazyPaul

CrazyPaul

Active Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
12
Don't forget about the back of Zimmerman's head also.....Seems he got punched in the nose/mouth..and slammed on the back of his head too....:hmm:
 
This thread will likely die fast. Sadly.
 
diehardbiker said:
That is why there is 12 Jurors there, giving everyone fair trial.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this does not make this trial, or any trial, fair. What is supposed to make a trial fair is the presence of a judge. Again, unfortunately, this is also not always the case.

Still, it is all we have at the moment.
 
diehardbiker said:
That is why there is 12 Jurors there, giving everyone fair trial.
Click to expand...

Wrong , Martin did not get a fair trial! Zimmerman acted as the jury, judge and court and decided on the death sentence for Martin . Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had followed the orders he got from the police department which was to stop following him and NOT to GET out of his car! Zimmerman is know for having a violent temper and was looking for a fight.
 
Your looking at the wrong way and obsessed of what should have been done in the first place. It happened, and it is OVER! And NOTHING we can do about it. But whoever gets justice is the question here, anyone can blame on anyone and to prove who deserves justice, fair justice is what we need to at this moment.

I am speaking for the court procedure itself. Anyone can blame on anyone and to prove the blame is legit, having only one person decide is the worst trial anyone can have. Would you want District Attorney to have judge agree that he/she is right every time and ignoring defendant right on chance to prove innocent? That is the purpose why we have juror, give them chance to hear both sides and decide which side is clear of any doubt.

whatdidyousay! said:
Wrong , Martin did not get a fair trial! Zimmerman acted as the jury, judge and court and decided on the death sentence for Martin . Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had followed the orders he got from the police department which was to stop following him and NOT to GET out of his car! Zimmerman is know for having a violent temper and was looking for a fight.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I know, not every trial comes out fair. Sometimes we have bad juror who would just agree with District attorney every time or the defendant every time. What Juror was supposed to be as 100% neutral and hear sides and decides whether the defendant is guilty or not.

This is one area of reason why I am 100% opposed to executions.

VacationGuy234 said:
Unfortunately, this does not make this trial, or any trial, fair. What is supposed to make a trial fair is the presence of a judge. Again, unfortunately, this is also not always the case.

Still, it is all we have at the moment.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
I know, not every trial comes out fair. Sometimes we have bad juror who would just agree with District attorney every time or the defendant every time. What Juror was supposed to be as 100% neutral and hear sides and decides whether the defendant is guilty or not.

This is one area of reason why I am 100% opposed to executions.
Click to expand...

I agree, but every juror, no matter how fair he/she chooses to be will, ultimately, draw on his/her life's experiences and preferences when they make a decision. And, this is how the law is supposed to work. The jury is supposed to look beyond the law and see if a criminal is guilty. This guilt is not based on text, but on societal custom, hence the reason for a jury. The law tells us where to direct our thoughts on the subject of guilt and that is subject of the jury's decision.

While I don't think the death penalty should be taken lightly and is certainly the product of a poor system, I do think there are cases for it.
 
whatdidyousay! said:
Wrong , Martin did not get a fair trial! Zimmerman acted as the jury, judge and court and decided on the death sentence for Martin . Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had followed the orders he got from the police department which was to stop following him and NOT to GET out of his car! Zimmerman is know for having a violent temper and was looking for a fight.
Click to expand...

Sorry...we don't need to "assume"...and in order for this thread not to be locked, comments such as this need not be said....We can try to discuss it in a "civil maner" and agree to disagree, whatdidyousay.....So I do suggest you step back a little, take it easy and not get ur temper up as you usually do.
 
Last edited:
If your selected for jury duty on this case, I bet you a million dollars, oh no maybe a billion of dollars would even be better... that you will get kicked out of court room after mention this to the judge during jury selection procedure. Perhaps the best way to avoid jury duty but this would mean your giving the judicial system harder time to give fair trial. Sad!

whatdidyousay! said:
Wrong , Martin did not get a fair trial! Zimmerman acted as the jury, judge and court and decided on the death sentence for Martin . Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had followed the orders he got from the police department which was to stop following him and NOT to GET out of his car! Zimmerman is know for having a violent temper and was looking for a fight.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
If your selected for jury duty on this case, I bet you a million dollars, oh no maybe a billion of dollars would even be better... that you will get kicked out of court room after mention this to the judge during jury selection procedure. Perhaps the best way to avoid jury duty but this would mean your giving the judicial system harder time to give fair trial. Sad!
Click to expand...

Actually, the court officer explains this to you before you even meet the judge. I had one officer tell us(the jury group) a story about a kid who threw a rock through a window and broke a $5000 TV. His point was that even though he is just a kid he is now liable for damage over a certain amount(the set minimum), and is looking at a much bigger penalty. So, they do infer common sense in the process. Look at the Rodger Clemens case, the jury did not want to convict him.

I would be willing to bet more than what you stated that you would be excused for being deaf before you got to serve on the jury. There is no reason to try to avoid it.
 
diehardbiker said:
If your selected for jury duty on this case, I bet you a million dollars, oh no maybe a billion of dollars would even be better... that you will get kicked out of court room after mention this to the judge during jury selection procedure. Perhaps the best way to avoid jury duty but this would mean your giving the judicial system harder time to give fair trial. Sad!
Click to expand...

Agreed....still stating the "would've...could've...and should've" theory....the train is long gone....get over it....

Now, there is another case here in Jacksonville...a man shot into a SUV 8 or 9 times, killing a 17 yr. old because of "loud music".....the Public is and was outraged....already saying and screming "he is guilty"!....but...the man says there was a shotgun pointed at him...he felt threatened...so he shot up the SUV

And to top it all off....once the man shot up the SUV...one of the teens took off....then came back later....and when the Police searched the SUV...no shotgun was found.....

The man is on trial for his life....and we will not ever know if indeed there was a Shotgun in that SUV....
 
Perhaps the procedure is different elsewhere. What I saw is what I have seen in actual courtroom with defendant sitting on one side and Juror got seated after called, Judge explain the procedure, one of them objected and judge got pissed off after three or four attempt to clear that the defendant is still innocent but indicted, then all sudden, judge ordered that juror to leave court room immediately.

Yes, terp did wonderful job, she interprets for me from the first second of enter the court room up to the moment I was excused from the duty due not just deaf, I was not selected and they already selected 15. Additional 3 is always done as back up.

VacationGuy234 said:
Actually, the court officer explains this to you before you even meet the judge. I had one officer tell us(the jury group) a story about a kid who threw a rock through a window and broke a $5000 TV. His point was that even though he is just a kid he is now liable for damage over a certain amount(the set minimum), and is looking at a much bigger penalty. So, they do infer common sense in the process. Look at the Rodger Clemens case, the jury did not want to convict him.

I would be willing to bet more than what you stated that you would be excused for being deaf before you got to serve on the jury. There is no reason to try to avoid it.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, whole different situation but I felt that this is not justifiable for SYG. What I see is that even though he asked the jerks to lower the volume and they refused. The best solution is just to walk away from them and find quieter place, even if he saw the gun laying somewhere.

But there are always possibilities, that is why we have 12 juror to see all the evidences and decide from there. For example, what if the cop actually found the gun and hide it? Is that a possible? There are always at least one dirty cop out there.

rockin'robin said:
Agreed....still stating the "would've...could've...and should've" theory....the train is long gone....get over it....

Now, there is another case here in Jacksonville...a man shot into a SUV 8 or 9 times, killing a 17 yr. old because of "loud music".....the Public is and was outraged....already saying and screming "he is guilty"!....but...the man says there was a shotgun pointed at him...he felt threatened...so he shot up the SUV

And to top it all off....once the man shot up the SUV...one of the teens took off....then came back later....and when the Police searched the SUV...no shotgun was found.....

The man is on trial for his life....and we will not ever know if indeed there was a Shotgun in that SUV....
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Perhaps the procedure is different elsewhere. What I saw is what I have seen in actual courtroom with defendant sitting on one side and Juror got seated after called, Judge explain the procedure, one of them objected and judge got pissed off after three or four attempt to clear that the defendant is still innocent but indicted, then all sudden, judge ordered that juror to leave court room immediately.

Yes, terp did wonderful job, she interprets for me from the first second of enter the court room up to the moment I was excused from the duty due not just deaf, I was not selected and they already selected 15. Additional 3 is always done as back up.
Click to expand...

It's not surprising, the judge has to be in charge. I will say, in the Clemens case, the judge was one of the few who let jurors ask questions. Most judges are too strict. Personally, I think it should be a law that the jury have control over the process the judge make sure the jury is fair about it.
If a juror has a question, it should be answered. Take a look at the twitter feed on the Clemens trial it is very interesting.
 
I think your right, juror should be able to question, perhaps making law adding a procedure where first meeting would involved Q&A and if there is question that was not able to answer within should come back to hearing and ask that question(s) to the judge before the final meeting where they vote 12 guilty or nay. This probably more fair that way.

12 angry men is perfect drama movie to watch, because during meeting, almost all 12 jurors raised questions and got argument. It was very dramatic, and one thought other is going to kill other juror during meeting, a cop came in and asked if everything is ok? All of juror said yes, then meeting resume.
In the beginning of juror D (Meeting, I can't spell out what it is called, LOL), 11 out of 12 thinks the defendant is guilty where one think is innocent due to some questions that he has some doubt on it, in the end, all 11 agreed to one that defendant is not guilty. Sorry to ruin the surprise but there is more in the story I'm not going to ruin for you.

VacationGuy234 said:
It's not surprising, the judge has to be in charge. I will say, in the Clemens case, the judge was one of the few who let jurors ask questions. Most judges are too strict. Personally, I think it should be a law that the jury have control over the process the judge make sure the jury is fair about it.
If a juror has a question, it should be answered. Take a look at the twitter feed on the Clemens trial it is very interesting.
Click to expand...
 
I have a question if I were juror, how many cops and investigators were on site at the moment of report? Why I would ask? If there is only a cop present for say 10 minutes, my next question would be who is this cop? Any relationship to the victim(s)? But if say 5 showed up within a minute of time frame and they all were from different departments then I would believe there is no gun found and none of them hide from ears of justice. This is just an example what I am talking about on fair trial.

rockin'robin said:
Agreed....still stating the "would've...could've...and should've" theory....the train is long gone....get over it....

Now, there is another case here in Jacksonville...a man shot into a SUV 8 or 9 times, killing a 17 yr. old because of "loud music".....the Public is and was outraged....already saying and screming "he is guilty"!....but...the man says there was a shotgun pointed at him...he felt threatened...so he shot up the SUV

And to top it all off....once the man shot up the SUV...one of the teens took off....then came back later....and when the Police searched the SUV...no shotgun was found.....

The man is on trial for his life....and we will not ever know if indeed there was a Shotgun in that SUV....
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top