Outrage..........really??

[opendebate]

it means he is NOT guilty
get over it

You are missing the point. He is not guilty under the law, that does not mean he isn't guilty. Plenty of guilty people walk. We will never know what actually happened between them. We know they fought, we do not know why, or who started it.

 

[Josie]

You are missing the point. He is not guilty under the law, that does not mean he isn't guilty. Plenty of guilty people walk. We will never know what actually happened between them. We know they fought, we do not know why, or who started it.

Actually we do know who started the fight because there was only ONE person being beat up.

 

[Caine]

You are missing the point. He is not guilty under the law, that does not mean he isn't guilty. Plenty of guilty people walk. We will never know what actually happened between them. We know they fought, we do not know why, or who started it.

Why can't you just seem to accept it?
He is not guilty. That is all you have to accept....... your starting to sound like a sore loser.

And I should know...... I sounded like this after having people I arrested be found "not guilty" in court when I was certain they were.

 

[WCH]

Im confused on how this applies to Shaq's comment.

He said "George Zimmerman Not Guilty? Wow"

It was neither stupid, hateful, or ignorant.

I was referring to the whole page of Twits not Shaq's in particular.

 

[justabubba]

You are missing the point. He is not guilty under the law, that does not mean he isn't guilty. Plenty of guilty people walk. We will never know what actually happened between them. We know they fought, we do not know why, or who started it.

you are right about this
BUT
that is true in EVERY trial where the defendant is found NOT guilty

if there were absolute certainty of innocence there would be no trial
were there absolute certainty of guilt we would not be having this debate
so, we have to settle for whether he was more likely or not guilty or innocent
but then we know this
your telling us the equivalent of 'the water is wet' does not advance the conversation
and if i am wrong about that, then i welcome your elucidation ... explain the significance of your insistent parsing of the distinction between not guilty and innocent. tell us how that does advance the discussion
until you do so, your posts only appear to be the sour grapes of a fan who has chosen to pull for the losing team

 

[opendebate]

Actually we do know who started the fight because there was only ONE person being beat up.

That is an assumption. You KNOW that one person got beat up and one person got shot. Z COULD have started it but Martin got the upper hand early. Abrasions on Z does not tell you who started it.

 

[Caine]

That is an assumption. You KNOW that one person got beat up and one person got shot. Z COULD have started it but Martin got the upper hand early. Abrasions on Z does not tell you who started it.

Zimmerman tells us who started it.

Much of his statement was supported by witnesses at various stages in his story..... leaving me no reason to not believe that Trayvon started it.


Considering what we know now from the cell phone text messages that weren't introduced as evidence (because they would make Trayvon look bad and had nothing to do with this particular incident)..... but they give me even more reason to believe Zimmerman than I had just from the evidence allowed in court.

 

[opendebate]

Why can't you just seem to accept it?
He is not guilty. That is all you have to accept....... your starting to sound like a sore loser.

And I should know...... I sounded like this after having people I arrested be found "not guilty" in court when I was certain they were.

Again, you are missing the point. I accept the verdict of not guilty and actually think that their verdict makes sense under the law. I am saying that a not guilty verdict may very well be reached in a case with a guilty defendant. So the verdict merely means, at this point, that reasonable doubt as to his guilt remained. That is not the same as a jury saying he is innocent. Can you not see the distinction?

 

[Caine]

Again, you are missing the point. I accept the verdict of not guilty and actually think that their verdict makes sense under the law. I am saying that a not guilty verdict may very well be reached in a case with a guilty defendant. So the verdict merely means, at this point, that reasonable doubt as to his guilt remained. That is not the same as a jury saying he is innocent. Can you not see the distinction?

I can see the distinction....

I just can't see how anyone who followed the trial, not the racist commentators, could believe he didn't defend himself.

 

[opendebate]

you are right about this
BUT
that is true in EVERY trial where the defendant is found NOT guilty

if there were absolute certainty of innocence there would be no trial
were there absolute certainty of guilt we would not be having this debate
so, we have to settle for whether he was more likely or not guilty or innocent
but then we know this
your telling us the equivalent of 'the water is wet' does not advance the conversation
and if i am wrong about that, then i welcome your elucidation ... explain the significance of your insistent parsing of the distinction between not guilty and innocent. tell us how that does advance the discussion
until you do so, your posts only appear to be the sour grapes of a fan who has chosen to pull for the losing team

Well, thank you for putting the effort into understanding my point and I welcome the questions.

And, you are right. Absolute certainty is rare. I do not disagree with that point. But, that does not negate mine.

This is not a case of water being wet. This is a case of getting the details straight. Because they matter. My parsing is because the exuberant claims of glee that justice was served are profoundly disrespectful to this boy and his family and untrue. The law was respected and followed, that I applaud. But I have a very difficult time understanding the joy some people feel over Zimmerman's release. He KILLED this young boy. Killed him, and the preoccupation with his killer being set free with absolutely no responsibility is disturbing. This is not a "team" issue. This is about the lives of two families that have suffered terribly but the greater loss here is the loss of life and no one seems to care. Martin did not DESERVE to die. It's not sour grapes it grief for the utter lack of compassion and for the apparent necessity to diminish this young mans value.

 

[Caine]

Well, thank you for putting the effort into understanding my point and I welcome the questions.

And, you are right. Absolute certainty is rare. I do not disagree with that point. But, that does not negate mine.

This is not a case of water being wet. This is a case of getting the details straight. Because they matter. My parsing is because the exuberant claims of glee that justice was served are profoundly disrespectful to this boy and his family and untrue. The law was respected and followed, that I applaud. But I have a very difficult time understanding the joy some people feel over Zimmerman's release. He KILLED this young boy. Killed him, and the preoccupation with his killer being set free with absolutely no responsibility is disturbing. This is not a "team" issue. This is about the lives of two families that have suffered terribly but the greater loss here is the loss of life and no one seems to care. Martin did not DESERVE to die. It's not sour grapes it grief for the utter lack of compassion and for the apparent necessity to diminish this young mans value.

The joy in Zimmerman's release was already a stated understanding of you!
The joy is the fact that the law was respected and followed....... despite the mob mentality that suggests it should NOT be respected and followed just to appease a group of people or their family.

That is the joy in seeing Zimmerman released.

 

[clownboy]

Again, you are missing the point. I accept the verdict of not guilty and actually think that their verdict makes sense under the law. I am saying that a not guilty verdict may very well be reached in a case with a guilty defendant. So the verdict merely means, at this point, that reasonable doubt as to his guilt remained. That is not the same as a jury saying he is innocent. Can you not see the distinction?

This right here is where the ignorance comes from. You're trying to draw a distinction that does not exist. He is innocent until the moment the jury finds him guilty. Since they did not, his innocent state never changes. Yes, that is in the realm of the law and our system of justice - but that's precisely the realm we're talking about here. Spiritual innocence or guilt isn't the topic.

 

[Woodman909]

The outrage should have been when they decided to charge him for defending himself.

 

[Derp]

Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."

Innocent v. Not Guilty Article | Duvall Law Office, P.C. | Eugene Oregon | Criminal Defense

 

[joko104]

PEOPLE... IT WAS ELECTION SEASON!

Polls showed African-American support in all-critical Florida was dismal compared to last election, and nationwide the same. THIS CASE WAS IDEAL FOR TURNING THE CAMPAIGN INTO A RACE-BAITING election - to drive African-Americans and their 95% Democratic vote to the polls, to incessantly declare that any white person not voting for Obama is a racist, and to stress to Latinos that Romney was a white guy - thus shifting the election from issues to racial divisiveness.

It also was a way for who-gives-a-****-what-he-thinks has-beens of Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpstons and the other millionaire professional race-baiters to have more air time - for which they of course are paid.

To avoid the claim of being white racists, then the Republican elected officials in Florida had to prove they aren't racist by joining in steamrolling over George Zimmerman - and vetoing any grand jury review and threatening/ firing opposing police officers to keep the case and topic singularly in control of the politicians. The first time any non-elected politician had any say whatsoever on this case was the jury's verdict. Until then, 100% of everything was by partisan elected politicians. On both sides.

Once Obama won his election, Corey re-elected DA, and overall the elections over, they didn't care anymore so Corey bailed out, they all went silent and the prosecution put on their half ass case they had with half-ass effort, because they don't give a xxxx - nor ever really did - about Zimmerman or Martin - AND because the local elections primarily are Republican and it only matters what the white people in 80% white Seminole County thought anymore as a political question anyway. For local politics, it was better to have a not-guilty verdict as that is white Republican territory.

THAT, 100%, is what it was about. From beginning to the end, it was specifically about partisan elective politics and politicians of it.

 

[Oceandan]

Laughter...very mature.

A verdict of not guilty is based on the fact that reasonable doubt remained as to his guilt. Not guilty does not equate to innocent. It simply means that we don't have enough evidence to support these charges, to eliminate all reasonable doubt. Just because there was not enough evidence to convict him does not mean he did not commit a crime. It means it can not be proven. In the eyes of the law he is not guilty whether he is in fact guilty we will never know.

Examples...do you think Casey Anthony or OJ were innocent. They were found not guilty. The system is set up, thank goodness, to protect innocent people from being thrown in prison but guilty people fall through the cracks.

I am not saying Z is guilty and should go to prison I am saying that, really, no one knows and you can not assume that this is a just verdict. You can only be assured that the law was followed.

Please move off the anal retentiveness of the "verdict". You said, he's not innocent, while claiming you knew the facts. I challenged you to prove he committed a crime using the facts of the case. You went right back to the anal retentiveness of a jury verdict and "not guilty". Look I gave you the benefit of the doubt you were able to discern the difference. Apparently not.

The jury proclaimed him "not guilty" that's a COMPLETELY separate issue. Juries don't decide if you are innocent. Arguing that he's NOT innocent in the PARTICULAR case is the reason the case went to trial, which was WRONG, since he was/has been/and ALWAYS WILL BE, innocent.

Btw, just FYI, there's talk of George Zimmerman filing a malicious prosecution suit against the state of Florida. For all you who want to jump in with the state has immunity. Not so fast, there is only limited immunity. Time will tell. I don't profess to be an attorney so I don't know the outcome or likelihood, just that it's being explored.

Head of the national association for the advancement of liberal colored people, aka the naalcp....ok ok ....naacp, has already asked DOJ to file civil rights charges. LOL Oops, FBI already did an exhaustive investigation, they found ZERO racial component to the case. I only wish there was a way to sue al sharpton and jesse jackson. I'd donate to that cause personally.

 

[opendebate]

I can see the distinction....

I just can't see how anyone who followed the trial, not the racist commentators, could believe he didn't defend himself.

I never said we he wasn't defending himself. Besides, just because you can't see it doesn't meant it isn't valid. You are allowed your interpretation and so am I. I have tried not to sound like I am attacking you for your point of view and I hope I have succeeded. I would hope for the same courtesy.

BTW, I don't know who you consider "racist commentators". I listen to and read a wide variety of both conservative and liberal news sources.

 

[opendebate]

This right here is where the ignorance comes from. You're trying to draw a distinction that does not exist. He is innocent until the moment the jury finds him guilty. Since they did not, his innocent state never changes. Yes, that is in the realm of the law and our system of justice - but that's precisely the realm we're talking about here. Spiritual innocence or guilt isn't the topic.

Your inability to grasp this distinction does not diminish its validity.

 

[opendebate]

Please move off the anal retentiveness of the "verdict". You said, he's not innocent, while claiming you knew the facts. I challenged you to prove he committed a crime using the facts of the case. You went right back to the anal retentiveness of a jury verdict and "not guilty". Look I gave you the benefit of the doubt you were able to discern the difference. Apparently not.

The jury proclaimed him "not guilty" that's a COMPLETELY separate issue. Juries don't decide if you are innocent. Arguing that he's NOT innocent in the PARTICULAR case is the reason the case went to trial, which was WRONG, since he was/has been/and ALWAYS WILL BE, innocent.

Btw, just FYI, there's talk of George Zimmerman filing a malicious prosecution suit against the state of Florida. For all you who want to jump in with the state has immunity. Not so fast, there is only limited immunity. Time will tell. I don't profess to be an attorney so I don't know the outcome or likelihood, just that it's being explored.

Head of the national association for the advancement of liberal colored people, aka the naalcp....ok ok ....naacp, has already asked DOJ to file civil rights charges. LOL Oops, FBI already did an exhaustive investigation, they found ZERO racial component to the case. I only wish there was a way to sue al sharpton and jesse jackson. I'd donate to that cause personally.

It is not retentive. It is relevant. Once again, your need to resort to hostility and name calling only diminishes your credibility, as does your unbridled rage. I live for your disapproval. Thank you.

 

[Caine]

I never said we he wasn't defending himself. Besides, just because you can't see it doesn't meant it isn't valid. You are allowed your interpretation and so am I. I have tried not to sound like I am attacking you for your point of view and I hope I have succeeded. I would hope for the same courtesy.

BTW, I don't know who you consider "racist commentators". I listen to and read a wide variety of both conservative and liberal news sources.

Anything stated on MSNBC after the verdict for about the next hour afterwards was Racist Commentators.

If you consider Al Sharpton a legitimate source of information I feel sad for you.

 

[trfjr]

Innocent under the law and innocent are separate issues. There are many instances of guilty people receiving a not guilty verdict.

if it is good enough for lady justice it is good enough for all of us. we all should strive to think like her, be fair and just like her

 

[Captain America]

I have noticed MSNBC parading a slew of racist commentators across their cameras since the verdict. (That is, assuming it is even POSSIBLE for African Americans to be called racist. :roll: )

Gotta get all the milk out of it you can I suppose.

 

[opendebate]

Anything stated on MSNBC after the verdict for about the next hour afterwards was Racist Commentators.

If you consider Al Sharpton a legitimate source of information I feel sad for you.

Well, you don't know me do you. You, par for the course, make assumptions your prejudice and bias because I disagree with you. BTW, whether they are or are not "racist" is subjective.

 

[opendebate]

if it is good enough for lady justice it is good enough for all of us. we all should strive to think like her, be fair and just like her

I suppose you will feel that way until a verdict is reached that you don't like. The law, btw, is not always fair and just. It strives to be. But it is not flawless.

 

[Jack Hays]

I suppose you will feel that way until a verdict is reached that you don't like. The law, btw, is not always fair and just. It strives to be. But it is not flawless.

This was an open-and-shut self defense case polluted by lefty propaganda and race-baiting. The Zimmerman/Martin case will join Duke Lacrosse in the pantheon of failed lefty attempts to organize an ideological lynch mob.eace