CNN Hostin "Legal Analysis"

CalGun · Jul 15, 2013

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 · Jul 15, 2013

CalGun said:
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 · Jul 15, 2013

CalGun said:
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 · Jul 15, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
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 · Jul 15, 2013

Dapper Andy said:
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 · Jul 15, 2013

Sisyphus said:
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 · Jul 15, 2013

soot said:
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 · Jul 15, 2013

CalGun said:
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 · Jul 15, 2013

CalGun said:
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 · Jul 15, 2013

soot said:
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 · Jul 15, 2013

CalGun said:
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.

soot · Jul 15, 2013

Dapper Andy said:
Admittedly I assume Martin was in the neighborhood to commit a crime...

Based on what evidence?

Dapper Andy · Jul 15, 2013

soot said:
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 · Jul 15, 2013

CalGun said:
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 · Jul 15, 2013

"CNN HOSTING RACE-BAITING SESSION HOPING TO SPUR PROTESTS AND RIOTS TO INCREASE RATINGS" is the correct title.

Dapper Andy · Jul 16, 2013

soot said:
Based on what evidence?

Dapper Andy said:
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 · Jul 16, 2013

soot said:
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?

Grim17 · Jul 16, 2013

sharon said:
Your question about the time was answered.

Based on what sharon?

Josie · Jul 16, 2013

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 · Jul 16, 2013

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?

Grim17 said:
Based on what sharon?

clownboy · Jul 16, 2013

soot said:
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 · Jul 16, 2013

CalGun said:
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 · Jul 16, 2013

Dapper Andy said:
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 · Jul 16, 2013

Dapper Andy said:
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 · Jul 16, 2013

Mason66 said:
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.

CNN Hostin "Legal Analysis"

CalGun

Sisyphus

Slyfox696

Dapper Andy

soot

Sisyphus

Dapper Andy

sharon

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative

CalGun

sharon

soot

Dapper Andy

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member

joko104

Dapper Andy

Oceandan

Well-known member

Grim17

Battle Ready

Josie

Loves third parties and steak

CalGun

clownboy

Grim17

Battle Ready

Mason66

Mason66

Dapper Andy

CNN Hostin "Legal Analysis"

Canadian Conservative

Well-known member

Well-known member

Battle Ready

Loves third parties and steak

Battle Ready

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency