Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Let Me Explain Why I Don’t Think The Zimmerman Case Is Merely A Distraction
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.rightwingnews.com/column ... -case-is-merely-a-distraction/
Published: Jul 20, 2013
Author: Jaz McKay
Post Date: 2013-07-20 23:58:43 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 61584
Comments: 95
Those of you who think the Zimmerman case is a distraction are wrong. Dead wrong. It’s all a part of the plan, the agenda and has been so from day one. Obama knew, Holder knew, they all know there was no case. They knew that there wouldn’t be a conviction. That was all a part of their plan. Obama’s DoJ sends a bunch of rabble rousers to Sanford, Florida in March of 2012 to stoke the flames of a small local story in an attempt to stir up the useful idiots of the black community to take to the streets to demand that Zimmerman be arrested and tried for murder. There were no grounds for an arrest let alone a trial. The DoJ staged march’s, rally’s and townhall meetings to further the Obama agenda that America is a racist nation that would not even seek justice for the shooting of a poor little black baby boy by an evil, gun toting white man. (Who happened to be half Hispanic.) Then the pressure is on the DA and local police. When the Chief of police refuses to arrest Zimmerman what happens? The operatives of the Obama DoJ pressure the city to fire Bill Lee. They fold and they do just that. With a new police chief in place, and an Obama selected State Attorney to call for a special prosecutor the case then moves forward. All along they knew they had no case. They knew they would loose. They knew that Zimmerman would walk but that was OK. That didn’t matter; in fact that was what they wanted. Because if Zimmerman had been convicted how could they then tell the idiots that justice was not equal for a young black child? How could they advance the agenda of a racist America if it appeared that justice had prevailed and the evil white – Hispanic killer was going to jail? So when Zimmerman is acquitted this works perfectly into the hands of Obama and his Alinsky style followers. This way he can decry to the masses as he did Friday afternoon that the system just didn’t work. That it’s now legal to shoot young black babies in the streets of America. Oh I know he said “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works.” But what was he really saying? “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works. But maybe we need to change that system.” That is what he meant, and that’s what the useful idiots heard. Believe you me. So Friday Obama takes to the stage to further fan the flames of hatred and division in America by declaring that this was a case based solely on racial profiling and a racist system of justice. Not to mention the “stand your ground law” and CCW permit holders. I’m telling you that this is a very important story! Not a red herring to distract you away from the IRS, NSA or Benghazi scandals. No this case is equally as important as all of those. In fact this is just the latest in a LONG list of scandals involving Obama. The most dangerous man in America.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-32) not displayed.
.
.
.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#30)
Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved.
They most certainly did not know his story was credible. His conflicting and incredible claims canot be shown to have been believed by the prosecutors. As for the jurors, five of them have said nothing more than "not guilty," except four of them released a statement through the court disclaiming any agreement with the statements of juror B37. Until they speak, if they speak, we cannot know what they agreed to beyond the failure of the prosecution to disprove the claim of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The criminal jury decides on the presence or absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[AKA Stone] Which is why the proseuction never should have brought the casse. They could charege everyone with some crime that isn't a crime and they will convice 25 percent or more automatically. The prosecution must convince 100% to obtain a conviction. If any juror does not find guilt, the jury cannot return a guilty verdict (except in military trials). There was enough information to let a jury decide. Re B37, here is an interesting comment of said juror: B37: "It did. It made a BIG impression on me." The testimony that B37 says made a BIG impression on her was stricken from the record and the jury was instructed to disregard it. Judge Debra S. Nelson on Tuesday ruled that the opinion-based testimony from the lead police investigator in the death of Trayvon Martin should be stricken from court records. [...] Ultimately, Nelson sided with the state, telling the jury, "That was an improper comment as to truth of veracity of another witness. You are asked to disregard question and answer."
The evidence overwhelmingly supported self defense and it matched up with Zimmermans unwavering and unchanging descriptions of the vents that night. It is not a claim to be proved. You are innocent until proven guilty silly. Is that where your thinking is?
You are still yet to document one inconsistency, conflict or change in what Zimmerman said. Why are you spinning Nolu?
Nonsense. The jurors just said she didn't speak for them. Juror B37 said as much. Irrelevant.
In this whole conversation you haven't been able to show me one piece of evidence of Zimmerman's guilt. You tried to make Zimmerman prove his innocence. That is the bottom line indisputable conclusion drawn from your remarks on this thread.
Are you going to watch this? Robin would pee her pants if this was posted at her site. She doesn't like the truth.
Why didn't the prosecution let in information about the "Lean". The burglary tools that were found on Trayvon and his computer. Because they are corrupt pieces of shit. Why are you spinning for them? Because they didn't want the truth they wanted to lynch Zimmerman.
nolu chan likes fake birth certificates - presidents - evidence too ! 666 must be a skin color reality - logic - agenda - disease !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
666 must be a kin Mark of the Boris !!!
The real boris would ... kick your gay ass - God hating mind all the way back to Hollywood --- where you belong !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
[nc] Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved. [AKA Stone] It is not a claim to be proved. You are innocent until proven guilty silly. Is that where your thinking is? What I said was, "Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved." Obviously, the prosecution task is to disprove the claim. The claim is not evidence. In the face of such evidence as the prosecution may present to show the claim to be without merit, the defense may present evidence that it has merit or has not been disproved. A claim of self defense is not evidence. It is decided by the evidence, or lack thereof, pertaining to the state of mind of the accused. The presence or absence of an actual threat does not determine the outcome. If A pulls out a water pistol and points it at B, there is no real threat. If B perceives a threat and forms a reasonable fear for his life and pulls out a real gun and shoots A dead, no crime was committed as A had the requisite state of mind. The burden is on the prosecution. The jury found they failed to meet their burden.
[A K A Stone] The jurors just said she didn't speak for them. "The opinions of Juror B37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below," the statement said. The statements of B37 were "not in any way representative of the jurors listed below."
Wrong. Self defense is an assertion which doesn't have to be proved, it has to be disproved.
Because they are corrupt pieces of shit. Why are you spinning for them? I don't know of the "Lean." Only the Court can keep things out. I'm not familiar with what they found on Trayvon's computer, but I fail to see how the judge could let it in. It is not relevant to the incident. You surely can't show that Zimmerman knew about it. It could not have been considered by Zimmerman in forming his state of mind and deciding to shoot. I believe there was a Court finding that the prosecutors committed a Brady violation regarding not turning over potentially exculpatory evidence and ordered it turned over. The matter was held over until the criminal trial was over and I believe a hearing on it is pending to consider sanctions against the prosecution team. I know there were photos involved and they were not entered into evidence because the defense chose not to submit them into evidence. Edit: I just watched the video and now know of "lean." Evidence of lean is speculative and irrelevant. I don't believe the court could allow it into the trial as admissible evidence.
Trayvon Martin's dead body was evidence. The bullet fragments in Trayvon Martin's dead body were evidence. The gun in Zimmerman's possession was evidence. The tests that showed Zimmerman's gun was used to kill Trayvon Martin was evidence. The entire defense case rested on a claim about Zimmerman's state of mind, what he believed at the time of the shooting, and whether said belief was reasonable.
The burden to prove or disprove varies depending on the jurisdiction. http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Criminal-Trials-Who-Has-the-Burden-of-Proof.html Ordinarily, if the defendant raises a defense to the prosecution's proof and there is evidence to support it, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove it. If the defense raised is an affirmative defense (self-defense, entrapment, duress, etc.), the burden is on the defendant to present supporting evidence. An affirmative defense is one that doesn't challenge the facts presented by the prosecution but rather excuses conduct that is otherwise deemed unlawful. The burden of going forward with a case varies in different jurisdictions. For example, in New York, the defendant has to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Compare this with Massachusetts where, after the defendant has satisfactorily raised an affirmative defense, the prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, I said there was enough of a case to take it to trial. The court so found.
He made the claim. It matched up with the evidence. You know the head wounds. Wet back. Trayvons wet knees. No evidence Zimmerman threw any punches by lack of bruises on hands. Bruises on Trayvons hands. You know the evidence matched up with Zimmermans claim. Also it is common sense he wouldn't call the cops then attack someone. The cops could have come at any minute. I've seen cops arrive in 10 seconds literally.
That is evidence that Trayvon Martin was shot. It doesn't point to Zimmerman being guilty of anything. When you take into account the events and evidence of that night. Everyone knew it before the juries verdict. They just pointed out the obvious.
No the police and prosecutor originally didn't charge him with anything. Only when professional asshole Sharpton and company came on the scene and started protesting did something happen. They had to fire the original police chief because he knew it was bullshit. They had to get a special prosecutor. Is that even legal. I'm sure you probably have an answer on that one.
It is up to the jury to decide what is relevant per John Jay. It is relevant because he was found in posessoin of 2/3 of the ingredients to make this drug drink called "lean". That drug makes you paranoid. Zimmerman said he was acting weird. So it certainly is relevant.
It provides the elements of manslaughter. Self defense is not an element of the crime. It is an affirmative defense.
That is absolutely incorrect. The jury is the trier of fact. The court says what the law is. It is a court determination of what is, or is not, relevant evidence. Irrelevant evidence is excluded.
Note for Stone. FYI, Ohio follows the common law rule that the defense must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The case decided in the U.S. Supreme Court is Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987)
Yes.
After the prosecution rested, the defense moved for dismissal. That was rejected. The judge found sufficient evidence had been presented in the case to continue to a jury verdict. George Zimmerman Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss the Case By SENI TIENABESO (@seniABC) and MATT GUTMAN (@mattgutmanABC) [excerpt] The judge swiftly rejected the argument, but not before both sides made emotional legal arguments that are usually reserved for summations at the end of a trial. In an impassioned plea, Zimmerman's defense attorney Mark O'Mara stated that the state did not produce direct or circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman acted with "ill-will or spite," the Florida requirements for second degree murder. "There is not a scintilla of evidence to support that," O'Mara said referring to the implication that Zimmerman acted out of "ill will and spite."
The jury makes an independent judgement based on whatever they want, the facts, law, indigestion, the prosecutor is an ahole (think Rudy Guilani), or whatever. They're perfectly free to judge whether the law is fair or constitutional, regardless of what the judge's spin is. Jury nullification of bad law has long been popular, especially during prohibition when speakeasy's and moonshiners were frequently deemed not guilty. As a president once said of a supreme court decision..."They've made their decision, now let them enforce it". The decision was ignored. The people are the top tier of government, not elected or appointed gov officials. They're our servants, not our masters.
When the judge upholds an objection on the grounds of irrelevance, the evidence does not come in and the jury does not hear it or see it. On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record. I know, they can't unring the bell. If the irrelevant evidence is brought in after an instruction to attorneys that it is excluded, that could result in sanctions or a mistrial. Once the case is given to the jury, they can do as they please. They only have to return their decision and need not tell anyone how they decided it. Jury nullification is a solution to bad law.
I would laugh at that instruction and ignore the judge.
Perhaps you'd care to explain why having the lead investigator saying he believed the defendant's story should be considered 'improper' testimony.
Judge Nelson did that when she struck the comment from the record and instructed the jury to ignore it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/instructing-zimmerman-jur_b_3546640.html The following morning, after hearing arguments from the prosecution, the judge instructed the jury to ignore Serino's comment that he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth. The judge's instruction to the jury to disregard Serino's comment was clearly correct. It is a well-established rule of courtroom testimony that a witness is forbidden from commenting on the credibility of another witness, or as in this case, the credibility of Zimmerman. It is the exclusive function of the jury to make determinations of credibility, and a lawyer subverts this principle when he or she invites a witness to endorse the credibility of someone else. Indeed, convictions in child sexual abuse, domestic violence, rape, and drug prosecutions have been reversed when prosecutors asked experts to give opinions that validate a victim's or a witness's truthfulness, or even assert that a victim has in fact been abused. Judge Debra S. Nelson on Tuesday ruled that the opinion-based testimony from the lead police investigator in the death of Trayvon Martin should be stricken from court records. [...] Ultimately, Nelson sided with the state, telling the jury, "That was an improper comment as to truth of veracity of another witness. You are asked to disregard question and answer."
On the law, the judge was correct. The solicitation of the comment, and the comment, are clearly disallowed.
Lol..this is a great bit of courtroom questioning by the defense, obviously meant to lead to an objection from the prosecution. When they didn't object, and even though O'Mara was clearly waiting for them to do so, the judge adjourns for the day.
No. I will take John Jay over the welfare recipient student aid judge.
Lets cut to the chase. Bottom line. All the evidence you laid out here. Does it prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
I can quote the judge. You can only parrot the name John Jay.
The jury obviously found that the Zimmerman claim of self-defense was not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt after Zimmerman met his initial burden under Florida self-defense law. There was enough to proceed to trial and to give the case to the jury. The court so ruled.
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Courts are corrupt. They rule incorrectly all the time. So just the fact that they rule a certain way doesn't mean it was the correct ruling. Here is what I was trying to get. Your opinion. You seem to not give your opinion very often. You quote laws and stuff like that, which you are quite good at. If you were on the jury. Knowing what you know. Would you have found Zimmerman guilty? You seem to be trying to make the case that he is in fact guilty and the jury got it wrong. You obviously accept the juries decision.
Comments (74 - 95) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe evidence was self defense.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#31)
They knew his story was credible. The jury concurred.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#32)
[nc] Initially, two jurors found manslaughter and one found murder two.
COOPER: "So, when he testified that George Zimmerman to be, more or less, overall thruthful, did that make an impression on you?"
SANFORD, Fla. -
#36. To: nolu chan (#33)
Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved.
#37. To: nolu chan (#34)
They most certainly did not know his story was credible. His conflicting and incredible
#38. To: nolu chan (#34)
except four of them released a statement through the court disclaiming any agreement with the statements of juror B37.
#39. To: nolu chan (#35)
#40. To: nolu chan (#35)
#41. To: nolu chan (#35)
#42. To: A K A Stone (#41)
#43. To: BorisY (#42)
The D&R crime family hates us because we're free
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#44. To: hondo68 (#43)
#45. To: A K A Stone (#36)
[AKA Stone] The evidence was self defense.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#38)
[nc] four of them released a statement through the court disclaiming any agreement with the statements of juror B37.
#47. To: nolu chan (#33)
Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved.
#48. To: A K A Stone (#41)
(Edited)
Why didn't the prosecution let in information about the "Lean". The burglary tools that were found on Trayvon and his computer.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#39)
In this whole conversation you haven't been able to show me one piece of evidence of Zimmerman's guilt.
#50. To: Thunderbird (#47)
Wrong. Self defense is an assertion which doesn't have to be proved, it has to be disproved.
Burden of Proving Defenses
#51. To: A K A Stone (#39)
You tried to make Zimmerman prove his innocence.
#52. To: nolu chan (#45)
The claim is not evidence.
#53. To: nolu chan (#49)
Trayvon Martin's dead body was evidence. The bullet fragments in Trayvon Martin's dead body were evidence. The gun in Zimmerman's possession was evidence. The tests that showed Zimmerman's gun was used to kill Trayvon Martin was evidence.
#54. To: nolu chan (#51)
No, I said there was enough of a case to take it to trial. The court so found.
#55. To: nolu chan (#48)
but I fail to see how the judge could let it in. It is not relevant to the incident.
#56. To: A K A Stone (#53)
It doesn't point to Zimmerman being guilty of anything.
#57. To: A K A Stone (#55)
It is up to the jury to decide what is relevant per John Jay.
#58. To: A K A Stone (#50)
The burden of going forward with a case varies in different jurisdictions.
#59. To: A K A Stone (#54)
They had to get a special prosecutor. Is that even legal.
#60. To: A K A Stone (#53)
That is evidence that Trayvon Martin was shot. It doesn't point to Zimmerman being guilty of anything. When you take into account the events and evidence of that night. Everyone knew it before the juries verdict. They just pointed out the obvious.
SANFORD, Fla. July 5, 2013 The prosecution rested their second-degree murder case against George Zimmerman today and his legal team immediately asked the judge throw out all charges, arguing that the state had failed to present evidence he murdered Trayvon Martin.
#61. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#57)
The jury is the trier of fact. The court says what the law is. It is a court determination of what is, or is not, relevant evidence
The D&R crime family hates us because we're free
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#62. To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#61)
The jury makes an independent judgement based on whatever they want, the facts, law, indigestion, the prosecutor is an ahole (think Rudy Guilani), or whatever.
#63. To: nolu chan (#62)
t. On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record. I know, they can't unring the bell.
#64. To: nolu chan (#62)
On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record.
#65. To: Thunderbird (#64)
Perhaps you'd care to explain why having the lead investigator saying he believed the defendant's story should be considered 'improper' testimony.
During his cross-examination of Officer Chris Serino last Monday, Mark O'Mara, George Zimmerman's lawyer, asked Serino a highly improper question. After establishing that there were no significant discrepancies between Zimmerman's description of his encounter with Trayvon Martin and the physical evidence and statements from neighbors, O'Mara asked Serino: "Do you think he was telling the truth?" Without any objection from the prosecution, Serino answered "Yes." The judge then recessed for the day.
SANFORD, Fla. -
#66. To: A K A Stone (#63)
I would laugh at that instruction and ignore the judge.
#67. To: nolu chan (#65)
#68. To: nolu chan (#66)
On the law, the judge was correct.
#69. To: nolu chan (#66)
#70. To: A K A Stone (#68)
I will take John Jay over the welfare recipient student aid judge.
#71. To: A K A Stone (#69)
All the evidence you laid out here. Does it prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
#72. To: nolu chan (#70)
You can only parrot the name John Jay.
#73. To: nolu chan (#71)
The court so ruled.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]