• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

CNN Hostin "Legal Analysis"

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
This is a quote from her presentation early in the trial:
------------------------------------------------------------
Hostin said, “How is it that a young boy, a teenager who was simply on a snack run, did not get back home where he was lawfully allowed to be safely? How is that? That is because George Zimmerman profiled him. He profiled him as a criminal. He made all these assumptions about Trayvon Martin that, by the way, were wrong. And he acted on those assumptions and in doing so, he killed him.”

What I'd like to know is why she didn't bother to legally analyze and point out that it took Trayvon Martin 40 minutes to walk a distance that normally takes 10 minutes to return home? Yes Martin was last seen on the store video 40 minutes before the first 911 call by Zimmerman, and yes the 7-11 is a 10 minute walk from that location. So why didn't they legally analyze what Martin did for that extra 30 minutes?

Also how is it a legal analyst can see into the mind of Zimmerman without even ever having interviewed him?
 

Sisyphus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This is a quote from her presentation early in the trial:
------------------------------------------------------------
Hostin said, “How is it that a young boy, a teenager who was simply on a snack run, did not get back home where he was lawfully allowed to be safely? How is that? That is because George Zimmerman profiled him. He profiled him as a criminal. He made all these assumptions about Trayvon Martin that, by the way, were wrong. And he acted on those assumptions and in doing so, he killed him.”

What I'd like to know is why she didn't bother to legally analyze and point out that it took Trayvon Martin 40 minutes to walk a distance that normally takes 10 minutes to return home? Yes Martin was last seen on the store video 40 minutes before the first 911 call by Zimmerman, and yes the 7-11 is a 10 minute walk from that location. So why didn't they legally analyze what Martin did for that extra 30 minutes?

Also how is it a legal analyst can see into the mind of Zimmerman without even ever having interviewed him?

Questioning based on broad assumptions is not legal analysis. It's wishing Zimmerman to be found guilty, based on a bias against him.

Now for legal analysis: the burden of proof is solely on the Prosecution. And the case they brought was largely circumstantial, and virtually everything presented at trial was innuendo-based.

So Zimmerman may indeed be guilty as sin, which is irrelevant, in court. The charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in my opinion, the Prosecution has not even come close to meeting that threshold. Unless I'm missing a key piece of impugning evidence, the jury should return a not-guilty verdict, regardless of what may or may not have happened that night.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
11,201
Reaction score
7,380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
That is because George Zimmerman profiled him. He profiled him as a criminal. He made all these assumptions about Trayvon Martin that, by the way, were wrong.
I spent VERY little time following this case, but wasn't Martin a criminal? Didn't he have drugs in his system? Wasn't he in trouble for other various things?
 

Dapper Andy

Banned
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
913
Reaction score
310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I spent VERY little time following this case, but wasn't Martin a criminal? Didn't he have drugs in his system? Wasn't he in trouble for other various things?

He had never formally been charged and convinced with any crimes but he did have a history of theft, drug use, and trying to illegally obtain guns. Whether you choose to call that person a criminal is a matter of opinion I suppose. I don't believe for a second anyone actually believes he decided to go for a night time walk in the rain through a gated community because he liked exercise. I think anyone who is willing to be honest about what he was doing there will recognize that he was likely out to burglarize a home but that's not really all that relevant either.

The issue I have with Hostin's analysis, and it's one I have with virtually all non-Fox coverage, is she repeatedly ignores that Martin was shot while pummeling a guy. I'm tired of hearing about Skittles, hoodies, and an innocent kid who just wanted to get home to his family. That didn't actually happen. He was a vicious criminal who was in the process of beating a guy senseless.
 

soot

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,308
Reaction score
2,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
He was a vicious criminal who was in the process of beating a guy senseless.

In all fairness, he was beating the guy senseless because he was standing his ground after the guy repeatedly stakled him through the neighborhood at night.
 

Sisyphus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Questioning based on broad assumptions is not legal analysis. It's wishing Zimmerman to be found guilty, based on a bias against him.

Now for legal analysis: the burden of proof is solely on the Prosecution. And the case they brought was largely circumstantial, and virtually everything presented at trial was innuendo-based.

So Zimmerman may indeed be guilty as sin, which is irrelevant, in court. The charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in my opinion, the Prosecution has not even come close to meeting that threshold. Unless I'm missing a key piece of impugning evidence, the jury should return a not-guilty verdict, regardless of what may or may not have happened that night.

My bad. Seems he was acquitted, which makes sense given the circumstances (only living witness was Zimmerman himself; tough to prove guilt, especially given his injuries.)
 

Dapper Andy

Banned
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
913
Reaction score
310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In all fairness, he was beating the guy senseless because he was standing his ground after the guy repeatedly stakled him through the neighborhood at night.

You don't know Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being followed though.

Zimmerman claims Martin confronted him after he turned back and Martin's friend on the phone at least testified to Martin making the initial verbal confrontation. Outside of that it is anyone's guess what took place. No one knows how or why the altercation became physical. All we know is at the time of the shooting the "victim" was beating his "attacker" senseless.

I'm not sure how relevant that is anyway. Since when has being followed been grounds for an extremely violent attack? If Zimmerman was shouting he was going to kill Martin when he caught him, he certainly made no mention of it to his friend on the phone. Besides that though, was there any real way for Martin to know he was being followed in the first place?

I mean if you're telling me Martin was out for a nighttime walk in the rain because he just enjoyed that sort of thing, is there any real reason for him to believe George Zimmerman didn't have the same interest and happened to be going in the same direction? There are only so many streets in any gated community and people are bound to take the same routes.

Admittedly I assume Martin was in the neighborhood to commit a crime which might explain why he believed Zimmerman was following him and that could also explain why he attacked Zimmerman. I'm not saying that necessarily happened but it certainly seems plausible enough given Martin's past and his actions on that night.
 

sharon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is a quote from her presentation early in the trial:
------------------------------------------------------------
Hostin said, “How is it that a young boy, a teenager who was simply on a snack run, did not get back home where he was lawfully allowed to be safely? How is that? That is because George Zimmerman profiled him. He profiled him as a criminal. He made all these assumptions about Trayvon Martin that, by the way, were wrong. And he acted on those assumptions and in doing so, he killed him.”

What I'd like to know is why she didn't bother to legally analyze and point out that it took Trayvon Martin 40 minutes to walk a distance that normally takes 10 minutes to return home? Yes Martin was last seen on the store video 40 minutes before the first 911 call by Zimmerman, and yes the 7-11 is a 10 minute walk from that location. So why didn't they legally analyze what Martin did for that extra 30 minutes?

Also how is it a legal analyst can see into the mind of Zimmerman without even ever having interviewed him?

When the rain got heavy Trayvon stood under the lighted mail kiosk and talked on the phone.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,702
Reaction score
20,419
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is a quote from her presentation early in the trial:
------------------------------------------------------------
Hostin said, “How is it that a young boy, a teenager who was simply on a snack run, did not get back home where he was lawfully allowed to be safely? How is that? That is because George Zimmerman profiled him. He profiled him as a criminal. He made all these assumptions about Trayvon Martin that, by the way, were wrong. And he acted on those assumptions and in doing so, he killed him.”

What I'd like to know is why she didn't bother to legally analyze and point out that it took Trayvon Martin 40 minutes to walk a distance that normally takes 10 minutes to return home? Yes Martin was last seen on the store video 40 minutes before the first 911 call by Zimmerman, and yes the 7-11 is a 10 minute walk from that location. So why didn't they legally analyze what Martin did for that extra 30 minutes?

Also how is it a legal analyst can see into the mind of Zimmerman without even ever having interviewed him?

I'm not here to try to justify the words of one particular legal analyst, one who happens to be a former prosecutor, but the amount of time it took Martin to walk home from the store is really irrelevant. For one thing, anyone with children knows that kids are notoriously incapable of understanding time and how long it should take to do something and if you send your child to the store and expect them back in the amount of time it would take you to get back, you're nuts. Secondly, Martin was on the phone with his friend - if I'm a teenage boy and I'm talking on my phone with a girl, even if the girl isn't my girlfriend or one I want to be my girlfriend, I'm likely to just wonder around the neighborhood while talking so I don't have to end the call when I get home or have to have my dad or family hassle me for being on the phone too long.

All that said, I believe Zimmerman wasn't guilty of either of the crimes he was charged with and the jury got it right.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
In all fairness, he was beating the guy senseless because he was standing his ground after the guy repeatedly stakled him through the neighborhood at night.

If some one were stalking me, following me, etc. and he was behind me while the path ahead of me was "home" then I wouldn't think twice about stopping and letting him catch up but go home. When Zimmerman first called the police Martin was 40 minutes from being seen on the 711 security camera and it's a 10 minute walk.

The point of my post illustrates the same issues you have. You have overwhelming bias for some reason against GZ. I guess you must hate Mexican American Democrats that voted for o'failure (jk)...
 

sharon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If some one were stalking me, following me, etc. and he was behind me while the path ahead of me was "home" then I wouldn't think twice about stopping and letting him catch up but go home. When Zimmerman first called the police Martin was 40 minutes from being seen on the 711 security camera and it's a 10 minute walk.

The point of my post illustrates the same issues you have. You have overwhelming bias for some reason against GZ. I guess you must hate Mexican American Democrats that voted for o'failure (jk)...

Your question about the time was answered.
 

Dapper Andy

Banned
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
913
Reaction score
310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Based on what evidence?

It's just what I believe based on his observed behavior, past behavior, and a fair amount of experience with teenagers.

I don't think it matters all that much. It's just seems pretty common sensical to me.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is a quote from her presentation early in the trial:
------------------------------------------------------------
Hostin said, “How is it that a young boy, a teenager who was simply on a snack run, did not get back home where he was lawfully allowed to be safely? How is that? That is because George Zimmerman profiled him. He profiled him as a criminal. He made all these assumptions about Trayvon Martin that, by the way, were wrong. And he acted on those assumptions and in doing so, he killed him.”

What I'd like to know is why she didn't bother to legally analyze and point out that it took Trayvon Martin 40 minutes to walk a distance that normally takes 10 minutes to return home? Yes Martin was last seen on the store video 40 minutes before the first 911 call by Zimmerman, and yes the 7-11 is a 10 minute walk from that location. So why didn't they legally analyze what Martin did for that extra 30 minutes?

Also how is it a legal analyst can see into the mind of Zimmerman without even ever having interviewed him?

Media bias at its finest....
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,598
Reaction score
22,411
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"CNN HOSTING RACE-BAITING SESSION HOPING TO SPUR PROTESTS AND RIOTS TO INCREASE RATINGS" is the correct title.
 

Dapper Andy

Banned
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
913
Reaction score
310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Based on what evidence?

It's just what I believe based on his observed behavior, past behavior, and a fair amount of experience with teenagers.

I don't think it matters all that much. It's just seems pretty common sensical to me.

I commented more about this in another post.

Overall, I think it's reasonable to believe Zimmerman was pretty accurate in his 911 called. He probably wouldn't have called 911 if others are right and he just wanted to "kill him some niggers". He gives the dispatcher a clear description of Martin walking around in the rain peering into homes. I think there are only so many explanations for a teenager with a history of theft taking a 40 minute detour through a gated community to peer into homes on a rainy night.

I would have been suspicious of Martin too if I observed him doing the same thing in my neighborhood.
 

Oceandan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
699
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In all fairness, he was beating the guy senseless because he was standing his ground after the guy repeatedly stakled him through the neighborhood at night.

The result of which was fatal. In retrospect, understandable from the mindset of a 17 y.o. male. In the real world, probably, not a good choice.

But good thing he was teaching that "creepy ass cracka" a lesson for ......<head bang on desktop> stakled <sic> him. Right?
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
39,619
Reaction score
21,149
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
She was also the one who was convinced that a jury of 6 would make their decision based on emotion because John Guy was "dreamy".
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The claim is he was talking on the phone with the girl who testified. I can't find the duration of those calls. I don't know if they were 10-20-30 minutes or?

Based on what sharon?
 

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In all fairness, he was beating the guy senseless because he was standing his ground after the guy repeatedly stakled him through the neighborhood at night.

How is that "in all fairness". "repeatedly stakled him"? So, night after night Zimmerman stalked Martin? There's no evidence of that. Silly characterization to imply guilt.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,686
Reaction score
14,528
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The claim is he was talking on the phone with the girl who testified. I can't find the duration of those calls. I don't know if they were 10-20-30 minutes or?

I wanted sharon to say that, because then I would point out how she accepts her word, but not anyone else's who testified if they don't support her beliefs.
 

Mason66

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
26,490
Reaction score
6,252
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You don't know Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being followed though.

Zimmerman claims Martin confronted him after he turned back and Martin's friend on the phone at least testified to Martin making the initial verbal confrontation. Outside of that it is anyone's guess what took place. No one knows how or why the altercation became physical. All we know is at the time of the shooting the "victim" was beating his "attacker" senseless.

I'm not sure how relevant that is anyway. Since when has being followed been grounds for an extremely violent attack? If Zimmerman was shouting he was going to kill Martin when he caught him, he certainly made no mention of it to his friend on the phone. Besides that though, was there any real way for Martin to know he was being followed in the first place?

I mean if you're telling me Martin was out for a nighttime walk in the rain because he just enjoyed that sort of thing, is there any real reason for him to believe George Zimmerman didn't have the same interest and happened to be going in the same direction? There are only so many streets in any gated community and people are bound to take the same routes.

Admittedly I assume Martin was in the neighborhood to commit a crime which might explain why he believed Zimmerman was following him and that could also explain why he attacked Zimmerman. I'm not saying that necessarily happened but it certainly seems plausible enough given Martin's past and his actions on that night.

What you don't hear in any reporting is that Zimmerman had every right in the world to be where he was and Martin did not have the right to hit him. This crap about not leaving his vehicle is just that, crap. Zimmerman was not restricted ina ny legal way and he was able to walk any where he wanted.

Why is it assumed Martin was able to go anywhere he wanted but not Zimmerman?

It seems to me that Zimmerman saved a life that night.

It was so dark that if another person had come along before Zimmerman Martin could have jumped that person and that person probably would not have had a gun.
 

Mason66

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
26,490
Reaction score
6,252
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I commented more about this in another post.

Overall, I think it's reasonable to believe Zimmerman was pretty accurate in his 911 called. He probably wouldn't have called 911 if others are right and he just wanted to "kill him some niggers". He gives the dispatcher a clear description of Martin walking around in the rain peering into homes. I think there are only so many explanations for a teenager with a history of theft taking a 40 minute detour through a gated community to peer into homes on a rainy night.

I would have been suspicious of Martin too if I observed him doing the same thing in my neighborhood.

From what I understand from people that are talking about his case is that you have no right to be suspicious of a black kid doing that.

If the kid wass White or Latino, then you can be suspicious, but you should never profile a black kid even, as it turns out, you were right.
 

Dapper Andy

Banned
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
913
Reaction score
310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What you don't hear in any reporting is that Zimmerman had every right in the world to be where he was and Martin did not have the right to hit him. This crap about not leaving his vehicle is just that, crap. Zimmerman was not restricted ina ny legal way and he was able to walk any where he wanted.

Why is it assumed Martin was able to go anywhere he wanted but not Zimmerman?

It seems to me that Zimmerman saved a life that night.

It was so dark that if another person had come along before Zimmerman Martin could have jumped that person and that person probably would not have had a gun.

Just as importantly there is no real reason why Trayvon Martin couldn't have called the police when he felt he was being followed.

How many of the people saying "but the 911 operator said!" supported the Cambridge police when they arrested Henry Gates?

How many insisting Zimmerman should have stayed in his home supported John White's right to defend his home?

This is just the sort of racial nonsense that comes along with these cases. The only details that matter to haymarket, sharon, mak, and even the President of the United States are the participants skin color.
 
Top Bottom