Let the evidence speak for itself vs Media Hype: Who wins?

[buck]

So what exactly was Z DOING while he was being "beaten to death? For like 3 and a half minutes if you believe his version. By the evidence he was a spectator up til he got the gun.

Just to clarify the beating was for only a minute or so and Zimm pantomimes what he was doing in the video regarding the voice stress test - basically trying to push T's hands away.

 

[Thoreau72]

Justice is supposed to be blind and this State vs Z case *actually all cases* should be decided on its merits. That's the way it should be, but as many all know...in real life that isn't what really happens, at least not a lot of time. I also believe that we have a terrible system of justice that is redeemed only by the fact that it is better than all the others around the globe

On the jury....the jury is the tester of the facts and on the flip side, the judge has to do with the law and determines if the evidence can be admitted and also tells the jury in the instructions what the law is

Jury - the facts....Judge - the law

Now, the jury is supposed to evaluate the facts that have been presented by opposing counsel and apply the law they have been given. When there are issues of credibility, they use their common sense and their own determination as to who they believe.

Knowing or getting to the truth of what really went down that night has squat to do with it

No, Judge--the law

Jury--the facts and the law, including the way the law is applied in any given case.

There is ample case law supporting that, from the earliest days of the Republic. Are you ignorant of that, or just forgetful?

 

[longview]

No, Judge--the law

Jury--the facts and the law, including the way the law is applied in any given case.

There is ample case law supporting that, from the earliest days of the Republic. Are you ignorant of that, or just forgetful?

Least we forget, the Jury has the power to nullify the law, and render a not guilty verdict.

 

[Thoreau72]

Least we forget, the Jury has the power to nullify the law, and render a not guilty verdict.

Yes, the jury has the power to render a verdict that flys in the face of the evidence. Such is the sovereign power of the people.

 

[What if...?]

Just to clarify the beating was for only a minute or so and Zimm pantomimes what he was doing in the video regarding the voice stress test - basically trying to push T's hands away.

So then he did NOT walk.straight back to his truck after hanging up with NEN as he claims.

Twenty seconds in the walkthrough.

Two plus minutes if the fight only lasted a minute.

No explanation for this discrepancy has been proffered.

And it is odd that neither man has defensive injuries or torn clothing as a result of this "life and death" struggle.

One small scratch on Ms finger. That's IT.

Human beings are dangerous when cornered.

But supposedly M is such a great fighter that Z never laid a finger on him, yet M only inflicted minor injuries during this TOTAL dominance.

I've BEEN touched up. I've always looked FAR worse after much less of a beating than Z relates. Same for EVERY other beatdown I've ever seen.

Z COULD have sustained all the injuries in evidence being punched in the nose and falling back and smacking his head. Or simply writhing around on the ground with a shaved head.

Its simply not plausible that Z defended himself well enough to avoid major injury and didn't leave a mark on M. Nor that M punched Z in the face a dozen times and didn't bruise/cut a knuckle. Z says nothing about being hit with the heel of Ms hand, and no bruising or cuts were reported on Ms palms.

It just doesn't wash.

 

[ric27]

Yes, the jury has the power to render a verdict that flys in the face of the evidence. Such is the sovereign power of the people.

No, Judge--the law

Jury--the facts and the law, including the way the law is applied in any given case.

There is ample case law supporting that, from the earliest days of the Republic. Are you ignorant of that, or just forgetful?

Least we forget, the Jury has the power to nullify the law, and render a not guilty verdict.

Do your homework.....The case will be tried in Florida

Judge can overturn/override a jury's verdict....

1 The jury finds Z guilty but, the judge finds this is a bull**** decision because the jury's decision flies against the load of the evidence or not based on relevant law....Judges says NOT guilty or orders a new trial

2 On M1...The jury says life imprisonment but the judge says no dice.....the judge decides death is more appropriate

Again, the judge overturns the jury's decision

Judges are experts on the law and the jury is not

 

[longview]

Do your homework.....The case will be tried in Florida

Judge can overturn/override a jury's verdict....

1 The jury finds Z guilty but, the judge finds this is a bull**** decision because the jury's decision flies against the load of the evidence or not based on relevant law....

2 On M1...The jury says life imprisonment but the judge says no dice.....the judge decides death is more appropriate

Again, the judge overturns the jury's decision

Judges are experts on the law and the jury is not

I am not an attorney, but I thought a Judge can only go one way in overturning a jury verdict.
If the Jury finds someone not guilty, that's it.
If the Jury finds someone guilty, and the judge thinks the case does not support it, he may set aside the
jury's guilty verdict, but not the other way.
Sentencing is a different matter, guilt has already been determined.

 

[ric27]

I am not an attorney, but I thought a Judge can only go one way in overturning a jury verdict.
If the Jury finds someone not guilty, that's it.
If the Jury finds someone guilty, and the judge thinks the case does not support it, he may set aside the
jury's guilty verdict, but not the other way.
Sentencing is a different matter, guilt has already been determined.

Correct

Judge can overturn a jury's guilty verdict but not a NOT guilty verdict

 

[Excon]

:doh
And as already pointed out, our prisons are full of people who acted out violently just once in their life.
So what you point out is meaningless, and isn't evidence of anything other than a norm.

Our prisons are full of non-violent drug offenders.

Unless you can come up with actual numbers of people in prison who acted out violently with no prior violent behavior and no apparent reason, that fulfill your claim of "full", you are talking out the side of your neck.

You seem to think I said "only". Well I didn't.
Our prisons are full of people who acted out violently just once in their life.
So your saying anything about a lack of evidence about Trayvon means nothing.


Even though the following does not specifically address your "no prior violent behavior", it addresses convictions for.
Which is exactly what Trayvon would have had if he survived.


Since this was the easiest to find and grab, and that things haven't changed much since... here, you figure it out.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report

State Court Processing Statistics, 1990-2002

Violent Felons in Large Urban Counties

July 2006, NCJ 205289

----------------------------------------------------------

By Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D.
BJS Statistician

-----------------------------------------------
Highlights

...

* A majority (56%) of violent felons had a prior
conviction record. Thirty-eight percent had a prior
felony conviction and 15% had a previous conviction
for a violent felony.
...

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
​

Only 15% had a prior violent felony conviction. Go figure, huh?
What percentage does that leave without a prior?

Do the math.



And as for your retort about non-violent drug offenses.
(Don't believe in the drug induced hype that folks spew. Check into the stats yourself.)
There are some of them too. BFD!
And this also depends on what you mean by "full". So you must also be talking out the side of your neck too then. :doh

Did you know the following?

Among Federal inmates for the year 1991 it is possible to obtain a measure of the amount of drugs involved for the current offense. For those involved in marijuana trafficking (4,420 inmates), the median number of grams involved was 136,080 (in excess of 272 pounds) and the mean number of grams was 3,353,580 grams (over 6,700 pounds). For those inmates convicted of marijuana possession (1,506 inmates), the median number of grams involved in the offense was 45,360 (over 90 pounds) and the mean number of grams was 2,100,560 (over 4200 pounds). Unfortunately these data are not available for State inmates (BJS, 1994).
Cannabis use in the United States: Implications for policy​

Can someone say these weren't merely possession cases, but plea bargains?


And if you are interested in State Stats and not just Fed stats check out the Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

You can find out that of those who were released from violent offenses (in general) were rearrested for drugs, at a rate of 27.2%
"In general" because those violent offenses can be broken down into specific categories.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

Not that it matters to this discussion, as our prisons are full of people who only acted out violently once in their life.

 

[Excon]

George's stories keep changing...

No they don't sharon. But we can see yours sure do.

 

[ric27]

So then he did NOT walk.straight back to his truck after hanging up with NEN as he claims.

Twenty seconds in the walkthrough.

Two plus minutes if the fight only lasted a minute.

No explanation for this discrepancy has been proffered.

And it is odd that neither man has defensive injuries or torn clothing as a result of this "life and death" struggle.

One small scratch on Ms finger. That's IT.

Human beings are dangerous when cornered.

But supposedly M is such a great fighter that Z never laid a finger on him, yet M only inflicted minor injuries during this TOTAL dominance.

I've BEEN touched up. I've always looked FAR worse after much less of a beating than Z relates. Same for EVERY other beatdown I've ever seen.

Z COULD have sustained all the injuries in evidence being punched in the nose and falling back and smacking his head. Or simply writhing around on the ground with a shaved head.

Its simply not plausible that Z defended himself well enough to avoid major injury and didn't leave a mark on M. Nor that M punched Z in the face a dozen times and didn't bruise/cut a knuckle. Z says nothing about being hit with the heel of Ms hand, and no bruising or cuts were reported on Ms palms.

It just doesn't wash.

Do you justify M's physical attack on Z?

Based on what?

 

[What if...?]

You seem to think I said "only". Well I didn't.
Our prisons are full of people who acted out violently just once in their life.
So your saying anything about a lack of evidence about Trayvon means nothing.


Even though the following does not specifically address your "no prior violent behavior", it addresses convictions for.
Which is exactly what Trayvon would have had if he survived.


Since this was the easiest to find and grab, and that things haven't changed much since... here, you figure it out.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report

State Court Processing Statistics, 1990-2002

Violent Felons in Large Urban Counties

July 2006, NCJ 205289

----------------------------------------------------------

By Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D.
BJS Statistician

-----------------------------------------------
Highlights

...

* A majority (56%) of violent felons had a prior
conviction record. Thirty-eight percent had a prior
felony conviction and 15% had a previous conviction
for a violent felony.
...

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
​

Only 15% had a prior violent felony conviction. Go figure, huh?
What percentage does that leave without a prior?

Do the math.



And as for your retort about non-violent drug offenses.
(Don't believe in the drug induced hype that folks spew. Check into the stats yourself.)
There are some of them too. BFD!
And this also depends on what you mean by "full". So you must also be talking out the side of your neck too then. :doh

Did you know the following?

Among Federal inmates for the year 1991 it is possible to obtain a measure of the amount of drugs involved for the current offense. For those involved in marijuana trafficking (4,420 inmates), the median number of grams involved was 136,080 (in excess of 272 pounds) and the mean number of grams was 3,353,580 grams (over 6,700 pounds). For those inmates convicted of marijuana possession (1,506 inmates), the median number of grams involved in the offense was 45,360 (over 90 pounds) and the mean number of grams was 2,100,560 (over 4200 pounds). Unfortunately these data are not available for State inmates (BJS, 1994).
Cannabis use in the United States: Implications for policy​

Can someone say these weren't merely possession cases, but plea bargains?


And if you are interested in State Stats and not just Fed stats check out the Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

You can find out that of those who were released from violent offenses (in general) were rearrested for drugs, at a rate of 27.2%
"In general" because those violent offenses can be broken down into specific categories.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

Not that it matters to this discussion, as our prisons are full of people who only acted out violently once in their life.

You have utterly failed to support your position that our.prisons are "full" of people who attack strangers for no reason and try to beat them to death with no prior similar behavior.

You just choose to believe that because it protects your narrative.

I'd be surprised if you could find more than a handful.

Violence in comission of a crime doesn't count.

Under the influence (not maybe slightly stoned) doesn't count.

Catching your wife with another man, losing your job, none of that counts.

Only people who attack and try.to beat to death total strangers with no prior similar behavior.

You squawk "evidence" all day long, yet dismiss my concern over a LACK of evidence with unsuppkrted opinion.

Knave.

 

[Excon]

You have utterly failed to support your position that our.prisons are "full" of people who attack strangers for no reason and try to beat them to death with no prior similar behavior.

You just choose to believe that because it protects your narrative.

I'd be surprised if you could find more than a handful.

Violence in comission of a crime doesn't count.

Under the influence (not maybe slightly stoned) doesn't count.

Catching your wife with another man, losing your job, none of that counts.

Only people who attack and try.to beat to death total strangers with no prior similar behavior.

You squawk "evidence" all day long, yet dismiss my concern over a LACK of evidence with unsuppkrted opinion.

Knave.

:doh
iLOL

Simply wrong!
You are saying a norm, isn't normal when it is.
Our prisons are full of those who have only acted out violently once in their life.
It is a norm. You can't change that.

Btw, Trayvon's violence was the commission of a crime. And that does count.

Only 15% had a prior violent felony conviction. Go figure, huh?
What percentage does that leave without a prior?

Do the math.​

 

[ric27]

Btw, Trayvon's violence was the commission of a crime. And that does count.

Traybots don't get this part. It seems to fly over their heads

 

[What if...?]

:doh
iLOL

Simply wrong!
You are saying a norm, isn't normal when it is.
Our prisons are full of those who have only acted out violently once in their life.
It is a norm. You can't change that.

Btw, Trayvon's violence was the commission of a crime. And that does count.

Only 15% had a prior violent felony conviction. Go figure, huh?
What percentage does that leave without a prior?

Do the math.​

Prove that it is a "norm" for people to attack strangers for no reason and attempt to beat them to death.

Or don't.

Just stop trying to pass off opinion as rebuttal.

If you can't prove it, its only your opinion.

 

[What if...?]

Traybots don't get this part. It seems to fly over their heads

That M was involved in a felonious assault has not been determined by a.court of law.

 

[ric27]

Prove that it is a "norm" for people to attack strangers for no reason and attempt to beat them to death.

Or don't.

Just stop trying to pass off opinion as rebuttal.

If you can't prove it, its only your opinion.

Z has no priors of chasing down a suspicious person nor apprehending *said* suspect rather than contacting the police and requesting they check out the situation.

Again... What right did M have to hit Z, break his nose and repeatedly bang his head against the concrete sidewalk??

 

[Excon]

Prove that it is a "norm" for people to attack strangers for no reason and attempt to beat them to death.

Or don't.

Just stop trying to pass off opinion as rebuttal.

If you can't prove it, its only your opinion.

I said "act out violently". That can be accomplished in many ways.
One would be the scenario you cite. With the exception that Trayvon was angry for being followed.

As our prisons are full of those who have not acted out violently before.
Are you really this far gone as to argue that isn't true?

Especially after the stats I provided?

Only 15% had a prior violent felony conviction. Go figure, huh?
What percentage does that leave without a prior?

Do the math.​

 

[Excon]

That M was involved in a felonious assault has not been determined by a.court of law.

iLOL
:doh

Are you suggesting that the State waste money to convict someone who is dead?

:lamo

 

[What if...?]

I said "act out violently". That can be accomplished in many ways.
One would be the scenario you cite. With the exception that Trayvon was angry for being followed.

As our prisons are full of those who have not acted out violently before.
Are you really this far gone as to argue that isn't true?

Especially after the stats I provided?

Only 15% had a prior violent felony conviction. Go figure, huh?
What percentage does that leave without a prior?

Do the math.​

You're pulling numbers that appl9 to ALL violent crimes and trying to use them to support the position that people commonly attack and try to beat to death total strangers for no.particular reason. People who have no history of similar behavior, adjhdicated or not.

If its a norm you can come up with actual stats.

If you can't you will continue to present your opinion as fact.

What you WON'T do is admit you tried to use opinion as fact to dismiss a point.

 

[What if...?]

I said "act out violently". That can be accomplished in many ways.
One would be the scenario you cite. With the exception that Trayvon was angry for being followed.

As our prisons are full of those who have not acted out violently before.
Are you really this far gone as to argue that isn't true?

Especially after the stats I provided?

Only 15% had a prior violent felony conviction. Go figure, huh?
What percentage does that leave without a prior?

Do the math.​

What proof do you have that he was angry and not frightened?

Oh yeah, the guy who shot him's story.

Seems like he gets angrier every time Z tells the story.

 

[What if...?]

iLOL
:doh

Are you suggesting that the State waste money to convict someone who is dead?

:lamo

No, what I'm saying is those who demand evidence are held to a higher standard than those who don't.

This incident has not been adjudicated.

You cannot accurately state that M was commiting a crime when shot by Z.

Until the case is adjudicated, that is your OPINION.

 

[Excon]

You're pulling numbers that appl9 to ALL violent crimes and trying to use them to support the position that people commonly attack and try to beat to death total strangers for no.particular reason. People who have no history of similar behavior, adjhdicated or not.

If its a norm you can come up with actual stats.

If you can't you will continue to present your opinion as fact.

What you WON'T do is admit you tried to use opinion as fact to dismiss a point.

Stats not needed as it is a norm.
I used what is a norm to dismiss your absurd hypothesis.

And as it deals with a person acting out violently that is all that is needed.
It does not have to be specific as it is a norm.
And you can you show that it isn't true.
The norm stands.
And as already pointed out your hypothesis means absolutely nothing.
Because according to the stats.

Only 15% had a prior violent felony conviction. Go figure, huh?
What percentage does that leave without a prior?

Do the math.​

You can remain obtuse all you like. It doesn't change the stats.

What proof do you have that he was angry and not frightened?

Oh yeah, the guy who shot him's story.

Seems like he gets angrier every time Z tells the story.

That and Daisha's account of his actions which says he was not fri=ghtened.
Sop grasping.

This incident has not been adjudicated.

Doesn't need to be as we have the evidence and he is dead.

You cannot accurately state that M was commiting a crime when shot by Z.

Based on the evidence, yes I can.

Until the case is adjudicated, that is your OPINION.

Based on the evidence you are wrong. As it does not need to be adjudicated.

 

[ric27]

That M was involved in a felonious assault has not been determined by a.court of law.

Get real and eat some bananas

We have Z's testimony, which is supported by proof of his injuries/bruises and witnesses seeing the fight....M broke Z's nose and slammed his head against concrete and tried to get up and couldn't

The state nor YOU can't refute this fact

 

[What if...?]

Stats not needed as it is a norm.
I used what is a norm to dismiss your absurd hypothesis.

And as it deals with a person acting out violently that is all that is needed.
It does not have to be specific as it is a norm.
And you can you show that it isn't true.
The norm stands.
And as already pointed out your hypothesis means absolutely nothing.
Because according to the stats.

Only 15% had a prior violent felony conviction. Go figure, huh?
What percentage does that leave without a prior?

Do the math.​

You can remain obtuse all you like. It doesn't change the stats.





That and Daisha's account of his actions which says he was not fri=ghtened.
Sop grasping.



Doesn't need to be as we have the evidence and he is dead.


Based on the evidence, yes I can.


Based on the evidence you are wrong. As it does not need to be adjudicated.

Bull****.

Plain and simple.

Weakest bunch of backpedaling and wiggle wording i've seen in a while.

Claiming that there are first time violent offenders and that doesn't mean its odd for somone with no apparent prior violent to allegedly attack a stranger with no provocation and try to beat him to death is base nonsense.

It IS odd. Not impossible that M could have chosen that day to beat a stranger to death, just mighty odd.

And if M HAD turned out to be a baby thug, no one would be talking about this. Fights at school, criminal record, claims of previous "victims".

But turns out he's a pretty normal kid and a "b" student. Little bit o' petty larceny and pot smoking, at worst. And tardiness. Teenage internet bravado. MMA fan (it was Bruce Lee in my day).

So it's not unreasonable to find it disturbing that Zs ENTIRE narrative DEPENDS on M attacking a stranger for no reason and trying to beat him to death.

It's not unreasonable to find it disturbing that there is a stunning lack of injuries for a life and death struggle. No Z DNA anywhere on M. Not impossible, but a little odd at least.

Its not unreasonable to find the substantial block of time Z hasn't accounted for
disturbing. He didn't say "I kinda looked around a bit as I made my way back to my truck to meet the cops". Which is almost certainly what he did, and neither improper nor illegal. But he sticks to hanging up and walking straight back to his truck. So he hangs up gets in a one minute fight that ends with a gunshot three and a half minutes after he hung up. Kinda odd. Can't be right. Two+ minutes is just too long to just lose track of, even allowing for "fog of war".

You get enough things that make you go hmmm? and it isn't unreasonable to begin to doubt the narrative presented.

There's big "hmmms" in your boys story, your "rehabilitations" do nothing to dispel them.

Theres no solid evidence he ****ed up and killed that kid.

There is also NO solid evidence he DIDN'T **** up and kill that kid.