Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
docyabut2

Zimmerman trial

1,450 posts in this topic

Its another verb to discrsibe the word redneck. However, you refuse to belive the other things in Jentals testionmay that were intersting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Die checker, you choice to belive that Trayvon said this creppy ass cracker, which most teens say all the time in innner city schools. The word cacker is another form of Redneck. Its iiii

I've not had a problem with "creepy ass cracker", that I can recall. Nor with the people involved using the N-word. That is slang, as Jeantel said. I don't think slang is racist. I've used the cracker comment for sarcastic humor, but I don't think I've stressed that Jeantel or TM was racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its another verb to discrsibe the word redneck. However, you refuse to belive the other things in Jentals testionmay that were intersting.

I believe Jeantel, every word. I'm just pointing out that she is a Liar. And if we call GZ a liar and discount his words, then it is only fair to discount the words of other known liars.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re GZ lying: this is where the prosecution failed IMO. They put the greatest emphasis on GZ's dishonesty rather than providing a convincing alternative to the jury as to what GZ did that made shooting TM NOT self-defense. It's not enough to expose a defendant's inconsistencies or his poor character (just as an example). The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant took actions that were criminal. It's not a crime to change one's story (even more than once) or state mistruths. GZ didn't take the stand, so he's not even guilty of perjury. Exposing a defendant's inconsistent statements or contrasting his version of things with hard evidence that shows something different than what the defendant claims may cast doubt on his credibility. But is it doubt beyond a reasonable certainty? That's the criterion for a verdict, which is what the State failed to prove IMO. In Florida, according to its law, it's not illegal to carry a concealed weapon. It's not illegal to follow someone in one's car, or get out of the car and continue to follow the person on foot (unless perhaps there's a restraining order), even if a police dispatcher tells you it isn't necessary. It's not illegal to shoot someone if it's in defense of one's life or in fear of bodily harm, which is what GZ claims happened in his encounter with TM. The problem for the State was there were no eyewitnesses to what went on in those seconds or minutes from the time Rachel Jeantel said she heard what she did until the gunshot was heard by people in the area. There were witnesses that heard various things, like scuffle or cries for help. There was a man who went out on his porch (or whatever it was) who saw two figures on the ground struggling with each other in the dark, but he couldn't say with certainty who was on top or exactly what either was doing specifically. We have only GZ's account; the dead teenager can't tell us what happened from his POV. The evidence must speak for the victim, showing beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred. There isn't that level of proof IMO to do so. All of us can only guess at what happened, and guessing is not a standard of proof. It's an opinion...an intuition, a gut feeling. And that's not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the State's case is valid. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove a crime was committed. It's not the defense's duty to prove the accused didn't do what the prosecution is charging.

Edited by Aaronsmom
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? Who was chosen for the Jury or not (As in "6 others") was directly done by the Prosecution. They are directly related.

If your point is simply that 6 other people might have decided differently, then that still falls on the Prosecution, as they picked these people, and likely would chose people with similar attitudes and ethos.

I don't know why you're "huh-ing" because yes, my comment was simple.

Despite in depth analysis, jury's are unpredictable.

(Both sides contribute to the process of jury selection.)

That is exactly what you are doing.... Cherry picking tiny bits of evidence and weaving a story out of it and calling it Proof.

I'm considering facts and circumstances together and in context, applying common sense and making a determination based on all those things together.

So you're going to cherry pick who you chose to believe? You're going to throw out evidence because one person is a liar and then hold tight to other evidence presented from another liar? That is call hypocracy, I believe.

This goes directly to what I posted earlier. Almost every witness "remembered" details later, or embellished their account. Should all those people's testemony be tossed out? It is a simple Yes or No, thank you.

I explained how one goes about weighing credibility.

One has to look to how that lie, embellishment or remembered "detail" benefits that person.

I've used the term in sarcastic remarks, but I've never based a single bit of my opinion on any of the racist remarks Miss Jeantel said. Other posters have pushed this angle, that Jeantel was a racist and TM also, but I've not waded into that.

My point was that you chose to believe one statement in her testimony, but not another which was the statement that contradicted Zimmerman's.

And yet 90% of Anti-GZ remarks are that his Testemony did not match the Re-enactment, which did not match his police statement. The large events were roughly the same, but details changed.

I don't know what 90% of remarks you're talking about, but apparently, you haven't heard; the devil is in the details.

Edited by regi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm considering facts and circumstances together and in context, applying common sense and making a determination based on all those things together.

But your common sense could be different from another's. Your's may not be correct.

Of course this whole case is speculation and that is why George is a free man. In my head, I don't see where George did anything wrong. At least up until the point of attack. We will never know who initiated the attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved this picture I know someone else "who is't very happy he got off"....

ku-xlarge.jpg

You may or may not agree with the verdict but you got to admit that a awesome pic of Dexter smiling; heeee I don't indorse Violence against another person, but just this awesome Photoshop work had to be recognized. tech nerdy off

Die checker,

But the thing is you don't take her at face value if your defending Zimmerman story as fact.... In fact I go so far as to say you engorging her part of events that don't contract Zimmerman finale story of events that took place that night... In other words, your trying to justify the verdict these women gave not wanting too come to the truth of what happened that night. Regi and I are looking at it through both the eyes of Zimmerman and Trayvon not just one of the two people that were involved...... As Regi put it the devil is the details ie evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved this picture I know someone else "who is't very happy he got off"....

ku-xlarge.jpg

You may or may not agree with the verdict but you got to admit that a awesome pic of Dexter smiling; heeee I don't indorse Violence against another person, but just this awesome Photoshop work had to be recognized. tech nerdy off

That's funny but Zimmerman doesn't fit Dexters code, I mean Harry's code. Dexter goes after monsters. There have been several times in the show that Dexter has passed up a kill after learning his would-be victim only killed out of self defense. Of course he's broke his code a few times but only out of self defense or desperation.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the thing is you don't take her at face value if your defending Zimmerman story as fact.... In fact I go so far as to say you engorging her part of events that don't contract Zimmerman finale story of events that took place that night... In other words, your trying to justify the verdict these women gave not wanting too come to the truth of what happened that night. Regi and I are looking at it through both the eyes of Zimmerman and Trayvon not just one of the two people that were involved...... As Regi put it the devil is the details ie evidence.

True... I have/will cherry pick through Miss Jeantel's words. I'll not be a liar and say I didn't and won't. Will others now do the same?

How can you or Regi be looking at the event through GZs eyes when it is said that everything GZs said is a lie? What points of reference would that leave?

I could just as easily say I've looked at this shooting through the eyes of both involved. How can you possibly denigh that I have?

I'm taking what Miss Jeantel said at face value. I'm not trying to discount what she said, I'm just trying to be fair when we talk about liars.

We can't "come to" the Truth. There are only two people who know what the Truth was, and one is dead and the other did not testify. Any deductions made will inevitably have bias in them and ultimately only be Opinon, not Truth.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to post this. Made me cry as I looked at it...(still a little teary eyed, this story really, REALLY bothers me...):

http://www.inquisitr...acist-media.jpg

:cry: :cry: :cry:

Excuse me, I need a Kleenex....

Edited by Kowalski
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you're "huh-ing" because yes, my comment was simple.

Despite in depth analysis, jury's are unpredictable.

(Both sides contribute to the process of jury selection.)

I never said they were infallible. I just wanted to point out that if this Jury "Got it wrong" and caused a "Great Injustice", that it does not fall on anyone but the Prosecution.

I'm considering facts and circumstances together and in context, applying common sense and making a determination based on all those things together.

Interesting, because that is the exact same wording that I would use to describe what I base my own opinions on.

I explained how one goes about weighing credibility.

One has to look to how that lie, embellishment or remembered "detail" benefits that person.

OK. So in other words, you want to cherry pick based on your own judgement and opinion, which liars to believe and what evidence you will believe is substantial and which can be ignored.

My point was that you chose to believe one statement in her testimony, but not another which was the statement that contradicted Zimmerman's.

What contradicted Zimmerman's story? The part where she said he is coming up behind?

Partly I would dismiss that because of the distance GZ would have had to cross to do what "coming up" behind TM would require. Basically I would look at the two different stories and think based on the physical evidence, and on the witnesses and on the abilities of both men.... what is More Likely to have happened.

I don't know what 90% of remarks you're talking about, but apparently, you haven't heard; the devil is in the details.

Thankfully the details did not show any criminal actions or intent and GZ was allowed to walk away Free.

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny but Zimmerman doesn't fit Dexters code, I mean Harry's code. Dexter goes after monsters. There have been several times in the show that Dexter has passed up a kill after learning his would-be victim only killed out of self defense. Of course he's broke his code a few times but only out of self defense or desperation.

Actually he does fit his code in my opinion, but you forgot the one he killed in front of Harrison the rode rage incident..... I am such a Dexter freak xd :clap:

DIe checker, I would say seeing it through both eyes would be going by the evidence not speculation of a event. However, most of the events that lead up to Trayvon's death were told from Zimmerman's pov already so we just bring in Trayvon's perspective through what the evidence says happens......... . You get my drift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually he does fit his code in my opinion, but you forgot the one he killed in front of Harrison the rode rage incident..... I am such a Dexter freak xd :clap:

He don't fit the code. Dex goes after predators and pre-meditators. He hasn't killed anyone in front of his son. And the road rage? He choked the guy but didn't kill him. We could start a whole thread on this but you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears TM may have thought Z was acting like the police or a some kind of security guard in refering to him as ass cracka

PIERS MORGAN: Let’s talk about ‘creepy ass cracka.’ People have said that that is a phrase used by black people, cracka, to describe a white person. Is that true?

JEANTEL: No! Like I said –

MORGAN: How do you spell it, first of all?

JEANTEL: Cracka.

MORGAN: There’s no ‘e-r,’ right?

JEANTEL: No, it’s an ‘a’ at the end.

MORGAN: C-r-a-c-k-a.

JEANTEL: Yeah. And that’s a person who act like they’re a police [officer], who, like a security guard who acting like — that’s what I said to them. Trayvon said creepy ass cracka.

MORGAN: It means he thought it was a police or a security guard?

JEANTEL: Yeah, he acting like the police. And then he keep telling me that the man is still watching him. So, if it was a security guard or a policeman, they would come up to Trayvon and say, ‘Do you have a problem? Do you need help?’ You know, like normal people.

http://patterico.com...o-the-contrary/

Edited by docyabut2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He don't fit the code. Dex goes after predators and pre-meditators. He hasn't killed anyone in front of his son. And the road rage? He choked the guy but didn't kill him. We could start a whole thread on this but you are wrong.

I haven't seen the episode in ages I know he only goes after predators but meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a mixed neighorhood of all races and there are all kinds of kids walking by with hoddies on.However in our block watch,letters are sent warning us of all the breakins.There are kids out there that breck into the cars, houses that are looking for their dope money.One neighor had his car set on fire and we had big stone threw our car window. One neigbor lady was beat up for trying to stop kids from breaking into her car There is so much mulicious damage done ,its a wonder anyone`s kid is safe or a suspect out there after dark.Maybe we should address the real problem and parents knowing where their kids are and what they are doing at all times. It was said trayon`s parents didn`nt even know he was missing and killed until the next day.They thought he may have went to stay with a consin.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said they were infallible. I just wanted to point out that if this Jury "Got it wrong" and caused a "Great Injustice", that it does not fall on anyone but the Prosecution.

I said six others could have come to another decision. I said that despite the presentation of the evidence, the evidence was there.

It's you're opinion that the verdict falls to the prosecution. It's my opinion that despite a lame execution- and a lame investigation for that matter- that there could have been another verdict.

I say juries are fallible; I didn't say you said that. You went off on who is or who isn't responsible for the verdict.

Regardless of efforts by both the prosecution and the defense to get jurors they think are preferable/favorable to their case, they're still working with what the jury pool presents, it's a give-and-take proposition, and it's always a crap-shoot.

(Also, I don't appreciate that you put into quotes words I never said.)

Interesting, because that is the exact same wording that I would use to describe what I base my own opinions on.

If you want to believe that after Martin skipped away, Zimmerman got out of his car to look for a street sign and he walked to Retreat View to get house numbers, but when he got there he instead decided to just stand there in the rain to "fix" his flashlight as he talked with the operator...then hey, whatever floats your boat.

So in other words, you want to cherry pick based on your own judgement and opinion, which liars to believe and what evidence you will believe is substantial and which can be ignored.

I don't know how to explain this any simpler. One takes the lie, the change, the embellishment, or the "remembered detail" and asks how each and every one of those benefits the person.

What contradicted Zimmerman's story? The part where she said he is coming up behind?

I was speaking to the dialogue when I said that, but yes, that part of her testimony actually correlates with what Zimmerman told Singleton..."when I was walking back toward him."

Re: the dialogue, what Jeantel testified to offers a very different scenario from what Zimmerman described.

Thankfully the details did not show any criminal actions or intent and GZ was allowed to walk away Free.

You say "thankfully" after you've stated that "no one knows"? Interesting.

Edited by regi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to believe that after Martin skipped away, Zimmerman got out of his car to look for a street sign and he walked to Retreat View to get house numbers, but when he got there he instead decided to just stand there in the rain to "fix" his flashlight as he talked with the operator...then hey, whatever floats your boat.

I can absolutely believe that. Except I hadn't heard that Trayvon skipped. Is that true?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've got another Juror who is coming out B29. She says he got away with murder but the law made her confused. Derp. She was one the ones that wanted to convict but was confused by the law and instructions that Judge Nelson gave. The things I am hearing about this jury is making me even angrier at the entire system.. She could've been the person that hanged the jury but noooooo she voted with the other women, so she could leave. This just proves,to me this was a fake ass trail or show trail. He was in no jeopardy thus we could in fact ask the appeals court to throw out this verdict and re try him under the feds. This whole thing was a farce even the police did a poor job at collecting evidence, but hey its Flori-duh they elected Rick Scot( convicted for Medicare fraud). The irony in that would be the fact Florida is were retirees goes too spend their last days and some of them are on Medicare.............

Edited by Ryinrea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was in no jeopardy thus we could in fact ask the appeals court to throw out this verdict and re try him under the feds.

no we can't, the jury have spoken, (doesn't matter what they say now), they found him not guilty. that is all there is to it. get over it, move on. you don't like the verdict, though s,,.,t.

Edited by aztek
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've got another Juror who is coming out B29. She says he got away with murder but the law made her confused. Derp. She was one the ones that wanted to convict but was confused by the law and instructions that Judge Nelson gave. The things I am hearing about this jury is making me even angrier at the entire system.. She could've been the person that hanged the jury but noooooo she voted with the other women, so she could leave. This just proves,to me this was a fake ass trail or show trail. He was in no jeopardy thus we could in fact ask the appeals court to throw out this verdict and re try him under the feds. This whole thing was a farce even the police did a poor job at collecting evidence, but hey its Flori-duh they elected Rick Scot( convicted for Medicare fraud). The irony in that would be the fact Florida is were retirees goes too spend their last days and some of them are on Medicare.............

I think the jurors are being cohersed by the media. This was not a staged trial. That is utter nonsense. This was a fair trial and is over with. You sound like sour grapes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deal with it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no we can't, the jury have spoken, (doesn't matter what they say now), they found him not guilty. that is all there is to it. get over it, move on. you don't like the verdict, though s,,.,t.

Yes if their is evidence of judge tampering or even jury tampering under Florida's law we can throw out his verdict. He was not in jeopardy thus double Jeopardy wouldn't apply

Deal with it.

No I will not deal with it if I see an injustice system I was bring it up.

I think the jurors are being cohersed by the media. This was not a staged trial. That is utter nonsense. This was a fair trial and is over with. You sound like sour grapes.

So these juror's are being cohered by the media to say these things. Your sounding like a broken record a little bit Myles, since I bring up facts that provide my theory of this being a staged trail with weight. Your the one that sounds a bit worried because the stuff coming out proves this was a show trail.

Edited by Ryinrea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can absolutely believe that.

:lol:

Either you do or you don't or you simply don't know.

Except I hadn't heard that Trayvon skipped. Is that true?

Zimmerman either lied to the dispatcher or he lied to Hannity. Take your pick.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the jurors are being cohersed by the media. This was not a staged trial. That is utter nonsense. This was a fair trial and is over with. You sound like sour grapes.

I disagree. This trial was entirely staged. Not really staged but it was a media production. You know what I mean.

Yes if their is evidence of judge tampering or even jury tampering under Florida's law we can throw out his verdict. He was not in jeopardy thus double Jeopardy wouldn't apply

No I will not deal with it if I see an injustice system I was bring it up.

So these juror's are being cohered by the media to say these things. Your sounding like a broken record a little bit Myles, since I bring up facts that provide my theory of this being a staged trail with weight. Your the one that sounds a bit worried because the stuff coming out proves this was a show trail.

Ya know, this is not a unique case by any means. There are many similar ones happening all the time. Sometimes the one standing trial is found to be just, sometimes they're not. Sure a different group of people could find a different verdict but there is no better way. You want 'professional' jurors whose pockets would get lined by the connections they make over the years? There would be no end to the corruption in that situation. George walked and that sucks for you but it's over.

The jurors words:

She revealed that she wanted to convict Zimmerman of second-degree murder, and “fought to the end” before finally voting to acquit.

“I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end,” she said.

But on the second day of deliberations, she said, she realized there wasn’t enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of second-degree murder or of manslaughter, which the jury was also allowed to consider.

They key word here is wanted. She wanted. That's emotion. She realized that and came to her senses.

The key statement is the last sentence.

She's an angry minority who was talked into using her brain instead of her emotions. Her saying George got away with murder is her emotions speaking and holds as much weight as you saying it. It's no smoking gun.

Edited by F3SS
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.