• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

Head hits concrete?

Excon said:
The point was that he may have been up to "no good".
Click to expand...

I don't think the juries going to buy that and I also don't think the judge will allow any of the school jewelry evidence in at trial EVEN IF the def can tie them to a reported theft.

The fact is none of that was known by Z at the time, all he's got is the walking funny, looking at houses stuff and it's pretty weak if you ask me.

IMO the pross is going to be able to persuade the jury that Z racially profiled TM based on his hoodie and that he was a young black kid and Z's comments "they always get away" and "frakking punks" isn't going to help his cause as it goes to his state of mind as to why he got out of the car and why he wan't the cops apprehending TM.

Add to that the fact that Z has been inconsistent in his statements about how and when the altercation started, and where it ended up and I think Z has a big problem.

However, based on Z's injuries the jury may decide that notwithstanding all the other evidence that TM was the aggressor and Z fired because he was in fear for his life or great bodily harm, they may give him a pass.

But if they believe Z had an integral part in the incident, inflamed it, and the only reason he fired was because TM got the better of him in what amounts to a gated community bar fight, I say Z takes a plea deal for manslaughter.
 
spanky said:
I don't think the juries going to buy that and I also don't think the judge will allow any of the school jewelry evidence in at trial EVEN IF the def can tie them to a reported theft.

The fact is none of that was known by Z at the time, all he's got is the walking funny, looking at houses stuff and it's pretty weak if you ask me.

IMO the pross is going to be able to persuade the jury that Z racially profiled TM based on his hoodie and that he was a young black kid and Z's comments "they always get away" and "frakking punks" isn't going to help his cause as it goes to his state of mind as to why he got out of the car and why he wan't the cops apprehending TM.

Add to that the fact that Z has been inconsistent in his statements about how and when the altercation started, and where it ended up and I think Z has a big problem.

However, based on Z's injuries the jury may decide that notwithstanding all the other evidence that TM was the aggressor and Z fired because he was in fear for his life or great bodily harm, they may give him a pass.

But if they believe Z had an integral part in the incident, inflamed it, and the only reason he fired was because TM got the better of him in what amounts to a gated community bar fight, I say Z takes a plea deal for manslaughter.
Click to expand...

Your story doesn't jive...

1 Z never said he found the hoodie suspicious.

2 It's allegedly that Z was talking about M when he used those words

3 Z did nothing illegal by getting out of his truck

4 Z was keeping tabs on M until officers arrived

5 There will be no plea deal
 
Maybe Z did like the guy in the movie "Fight Club" and simply beat the **** out of himself before the cops arrived?
 
spanky said:
I don't think the juries going to buy that and I also don't think the judge will allow any of the school jewelry evidence in at trial EVEN IF the def can tie them to a reported theft.

The fact is none of that was known by Z at the time, all he's got is the walking funny, looking at houses stuff and it's pretty weak if you ask me.
Click to expand...
If it turned out to be true, Yes a jury would buy into it, and yes it would be admitted if the Persecution tried to say that Trayvon was not up to "no good".
They could then argue that Zimmerman would not have known that all they want, even though he said he appeared to be "up to no good or on drugs or something". He would still have been up to "no good" as Zimmerman said.



spanky said:
IMO the pross is going to be able to persuade the jury that Z racially profiled TM based on his hoodie and that he was a young black kid and Z's comments "they always get away" and "frakking punks" isn't going to help his cause as it goes to his state of mind as to why he got out of the car and why he wan't the cops apprehending TM.
Click to expand...
:lamo
The Persecution has Zero chance at proving, or even showing that Zimmerman profiled based on being black or on the wearing of a hoodie. Zero.
Or are you forgetting the other investigations where Zimmerman has been cleared of racial profiling.
Secondly, profiling is not illegal as citizen.
Nor does it matter to the reasonable fear that Zimmerman felt.



spanky said:
Add to that the fact that Z has been inconsistent in his statements about how and when the altercation started, and where it ended up and I think Z has a big problem.
Click to expand...
No, he really hasn't been.



spanky said:
However, based on Z's injuries the jury may decide that notwithstanding all the other evidence that TM was the aggressor and Z fired because he was in fear for his life or great bodily harm, they may give him a pass.
Click to expand...
Give him a pass?
No, that would be finding him not guilty in accordance with the evidence.



spanky said:
But if they believe Z had an integral part in the incident, inflamed it, and the only reason he fired was because TM got the better of him in what amounts to a gated community bar fight, I say Z takes a plea deal for manslaughter.
Click to expand...
:lamo
That ain't going to happen.
 
Excon said:
If it turned out to be true, Yes a jury would buy into it, and yes it would be admitted if the Persecution tried to say that Trayvon was not up to "no good".
They could then argue that Zimmerman would not have known that all they want, even though he said he appeared to be "up to no good or on drugs or something". He would still have been up to "no good" as Zimmerman said.





:lamo
The Persecution has Zero chance at proving, or even showing that Zimmerman profiled based on being black or on the wearing of a hoodie. Zero.
Or are you forgetting the other investigations where Zimmerman has been cleared of racial profiling.
Secondly, profiling is not illegal as citizen.
Nor does it matter to the reasonable fear that Zimmerman felt.



No, he really hasn't been.



Give him a pass?
No, that would be finding him not guilty in accordance with the evidence.



:lamo
That ain't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Zimmerman hasn't been cleared of anything and the FBI didn't say he didn't profile, they said they had no evidence he was a racist. Serino told the FBI he thought Z profiled based on the hoodie because it is what local gangsters wear and those gangs aren't white.
 
spanky said:
Zimmerman hasn't been cleared of anything and the FBI didn't say he didn't profile, they said they had no evidence he was a racist. Serino told the FBI he thought Z profiled based on the hoodie because it is what local gangsters wear and those gangs aren't white.
Click to expand...

1 Citizen profiling ain't illegal....and

2 Stop with, the Serino said this or that or whatever......It's only his opinion and he is not allowed to substitute his sense of what the law is

Most of his bull**** legal theory finds no support in law
 
ric27 said:
1 Citizen profiling ain't illegal....and

2 Stop with, the Serino said this or that or whatever......It's only his opinion and he is not allowed to substitute his sense of what the law is

Most of his bull**** legal theory finds no support in law
Click to expand...

No one has ever represented that racial profiling is illegal. But I think the pross will argue Z's profiling had a racial component that was not justified. Just because the complex had issues with young black males doesn't mean ALL young black males should be suspected of being "up to no good". RVC is a multi ethnic complex, I think I read somewhere it is 1/3 white, black and hispanic. Knowing that would it be reasonable to assume that 2/3rds of the residents might have friends of their children coming over to visit? And that being young they might be wearing a popular clothing item, a hoodie? As I've mentioned before, I wear them, got 3 or 4 in my closet.

If Z had got a call from a neighbor saying a black male in a dark hoodie was looking in their windows and checking doors, he would have good reason to suspect TM. But just pulling it out of the air based on the fact he was walking funny is not going to wear well on the jury, IMO.

Z won't be testifying which means he won't be able to clarify his reasons for suspecting TM. Everything the jury will see is already in the record and I think the def will have a hard time convincing the jury there wasn't a racial component.
 
spanky said:
Zimmerman hasn't been cleared of anything and the FBI didn't say he didn't profile, they said they had no evidence he was a racist. Serino told the FBI he thought Z profiled based on the hoodie because it is what local gangsters wear and those gangs aren't white.
Click to expand...
:doh
Stop trying to flip the script here. We are not talking about innocuous profiling that involves a persons race, but the profiling that is because of a persons race.
Zimmerman being found to not be racist, clears him of the later.


And since you didn't mention it, Serino "told the FBI he did not believe Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin was motivated by race."
It would be ridiculous for the Persecutor to argue otherwise with such a statement on the record.
 
Excon said:
:doh
Stop trying to flip the script here. We are not talking about innocuous profiling that involves a persons race, but the profiling that is because of a persons race.
Zimmerman being found to not be racist, clears him of the later.


And since you didn't mention it, Serino "told the FBI he did not believe Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin was motivated by race."
It would be ridiculous for the Persecutor to argue otherwise with such a statement on the record.
Click to expand...

You're confusing profiling with racism. Just because someone isn't a racist doesn't mean they can't profile based on race.

As for Serino, he also told the FBI he believed Z profiled TM based on the hoodie and the fact local gangs wear them...gangs who happen to be black.

Of course, about 20 million other kids wear them too.
 
spanky said:
You're confusing profiling with racism.
Click to expand...
No dude! That was me indicating that you are confusing the two.


spanky said:
As for Serino, he also told the FBI he believed Z profiled TM based on the hoodie and the fact local gangs wear them...gangs who happen to be black.
Click to expand...
:doh

And? Not motivated by race.
Nor does it matter to the reasonable fear that Zimmerman experienced.
 
Excon said:
No dude! That was me indicating that you are confusing the two.


:doh

And? Not motivated by race.
Nor does it matter to the reasonable fear that Zimmerman experienced.
Click to expand...

Serino's statements to the FBI were based solely on his interviews with Zimm. Not going to be persuasive with the jury. The pross has at least 3 people who know Zimm and will come in and testify Zimm didn't like blacks.
 
spanky said:
Not going to be persuasive with the jury.
Click to expand...
One; Yes they will be.
Two; Doesn't matter to the reasonable fear that Zimmerman experienced.

spanky said:
The pross has at least 3 people who know Zimm and will come in and testify Zimm didn't like blacks.
Click to expand...

Is that what you think? iLOL
Three people? lol
:lamo

:doh
They do that and they open the door for the defense to parade just as many who say he isn't.

NEXT!
 
Excon said:
One; Yes they will be.
Two; Doesn't matter to the reasonable fear that Zimmerman experienced.



Is that what you think? iLOL
Three people? lol
:lamo

:doh
They do that and they open the door for the defense to parade just as many who say he isn't.

NEXT!
Click to expand...

Of course. But in this situation the jury thinks those saying hie isn't just didn't see it like the others, or that Zimm hid it good.

For every 1 person claiming Zimm hates blacks the Def will need 5-10 claiming he doesn't. I hope they have 15-30 people lined up because that will be what it takes to make sure that stink don't stick.
 
spanky said:
Of course. But in this situation the jury thinks those saying hie isn't just didn't see it like the others, or that Zimm hid it good.

For every 1 person claiming Zimm hates blacks the Def will need 5-10 claiming he doesn't. I hope they have 15-30 people lined up because that will be what it takes to make sure that stink don't stick.
Click to expand...
:doh

iLOL

Ain't gonna happen.

The prosecution can't just insinuate he is a racist without it being applicable.
And, as we already know, the FBI has said he isn't.
At this point with what we know, it isn't applicable.
 
Excon said:
:doh

iLOL

Ain't gonna happen.

The prosecution can't just insinuate he is a racist without it being applicable.
And, as we already know, the FBI has said he isn't.
At this point with what we know, it isn't applicable.
Click to expand...

The FBI didn't say Z was not a racist, they said they had no evidence he was a racist. But you can be sure the pross will put whatever they have on the stand to contradict that.
 
spanky said:
The FBI didn't say Z was not a racist, they said they had no evidence he was a racist. But you can be sure the pross will put whatever they have on the stand to contradict that.
Click to expand...
implied1.jpg

Nothing more needs be said.
 
Excon said:
Nothing more needs be said.
Click to expand...

It is true though. The FBI did not say GZ is not racist. Same thing with a guilty verdict or not guilty verdict. Someone is found not guilty, instead of innocent. It is all a game of words.
 
hawke812 said:
It is true though. The FBI did not say GZ is not racist. Same thing with a guilty verdict or not guilty verdict. Someone is found not guilty, instead of innocent. It is all a game of words.
Click to expand...

FBI interviewed butt loads of people and found squat/zilch evidence that Z was/is a racist

Are you doubting, the FBI findings? No..then get over it

It's over and in the future....use evidence to substantiate your argument
 
I don't think the pross will be able to convince the jury Z is a racist, but they will present whatever evidence they have to imply it to put doubt in the jurors minds as to why Z profiled TM.
 
ric27 said:
FBI interviewed butt loads of people and found squat/zilch evidence that Z was/is a racist

Are you doubting, the FBI findings? No..then get over it

It's over and in the future....use evidence to substantiate your argument
Click to expand...

Get over what:confused:

You misinterpreted my previous post and took it out of context. Not suprised though coming from you

I just pointed out how our justice system works. I never gave any indication that I doubted the FBI.

Not my fault you don't like it. But get mad though:lol:

Law enforcement agencies do not say things like "this man/woman is innocent" after investigating a crime. They say things like "there is not enough evidence to charge him/her".

Same thing with verdicts in court. Not guilty instead of innocent.
 
ric27 said:
FBI interviewed butt loads of people and found squat/zilch evidence that Z was/is a racist

Are you doubting, the FBI findings? No..then get over it

It's over and in the future....use evidence to substantiate your argument
Click to expand...

Get over what:confused:

You misinterpreted my previous post and took it out of context. I am not surprised or anything, as it is coming from you:lol:

I just pointed out how Law enforcement words their statements. I never gave any indication that I doubted the FBI.

Not my fault you don't like it. But get mad though:lol:

Law enforcement agencies do not say things like "this man/woman is innocent" after investigating a crime. They say things like "there is not enough evidence to charge him/her". Or something close to that. Not, "The FBI said he wasn't racist" as Excon stated. What they really said was something more along the lines of "there is not enough or no evidence indicating GZ is racist".

Same thing with verdicts in court. Not guilty instead of innocent.
 
Last edited:
when is this damn thing going to trial so we can all stop bitching about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom