• 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.

did the trial change your mind?

rjay

rjay

Rocket Surgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
3,104
Reaction score
2,176
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I went into this trial thinking that Zimmerman was guilty as charged.

Hearing the evidence I think he may still be convicted of some guilt. There is no way it could be of 2nd degree murder though.
The proof just is not there.

Has anyone else re-thought their previosly held views as a result of actual evidence?
 
rjay said:
I went into this trial thinking that Zimmerman was guilty as charged.

Hearing the evidence I think he may still be convicted of some guilt. There is no way it could be of 2nd degree murder though.
The proof just is not there.

Has anyone else re-thought their previosly held views as a result of actual evidence?
Click to expand...

Not really. I have changed my mind only about Floriduh justice. If the state charges someone with murder 2, then they should not ask a sequestered jury to "toss them bone" as a consolation prize - either the state proves the alleged charge or they do not. It is terribly unfair (unjust?) to ask the jury "what did this bad boy really do?" (if anything) - that is the purpose for grand jury, not a criminal trial on a specific charge. If the state of Floriduh wishes to waste their taxpayer's resources on a full blown jury trial then the jury should either convict the defendent (as charged) or set them free.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not really. I have changed my mind only about Floriduh justice. If the state charges someone with murder 2, then they should not ask a sequestered jury to "toss them bone" as a consolation prize - either the state proves the alleged charge or they do not. It is terribly unfair (unjust?) to ask the jury "what did this bad boy really do?" (if anything) - that is the purpose for grand jury, not a criminal trial on a specific charge. If the state of Floriduh wishes to waste their taxpayer's resources on a full blown jury trial then the jury should either convict the defendent (as charged) or set them free.
Click to expand...

So if your son went to the store and got killed - you would not care if the state made the wrong charge and the perpratrater got off because of it? (forgive the spelling)
 
rjay said:
So if your son went to the store and got killed - you would not care if the state made the wrong charge and the perpratrater got off because of it? (forgive the spelling)
Click to expand...

Good point. I would expect my son to have the common sense not to attack another person for being eyed, disrespected or profiled. It was at the behest of TM's parents, via their lawyer, that the charges were brought, thus I would assume that they approved of them. Overcharging, in this case, was most likely the result of outside (political) pressure. Normally the grand jury is used to set the initial charge, based upon the evidence presented to them by the state. Note that the state elected to skip that important first step in this case - why was that?
 
So far, yes. But there's still defense closing tomorrow and I'm open to changing it yet again.
 
Summerwind said:
So far, yes. But there's still defense closing tomorrow and I'm open to changing it yet again.
Click to expand...

so ignore the evidence presented - listen to a paid partisan presenting the evidence in the most favorable light he can, for his client - then make a determination. I like your thinking - not
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Good point. I would expect my son to have the common sense not to attack another person for being eyed, disrespected or profiled. It was at the behest of TM's parents, via their lawyer, that the charges were brought, thus I would assume that they approved of them. Overcharging, in this case, was most likely the result of outside (political) pressure. Normally the grand jury is used to set the initial charge, based upon the evidence presented to them by the state. Note that the state elected to skip that important first step in this case - why was that?
Click to expand...

Let's see if I have got this right. - "I don't care what happened, the guy that did the killin was right - the gut that got killed was wrong. I ain't no commie"
 
rjay said:
I went into this trial thinking that Zimmerman was guilty as charged.

Hearing the evidence I think he may still be convicted of some guilt. There is no way it could be of 2nd degree murder though.
The proof just is not there.

Has anyone else re-thought their previosly held views as a result of actual evidence?
Click to expand...

Yes. After just a day of reviewing the evidence it looked like Z was guilty of whatever florida's version of involuntary manslaughter was. After reviewing more and more evidence I couldn't find enough to support a charge of even that.

I've been stalked before so the idea that he was following some kid kind of freaked me out but after looking at how much crime was in the neighborhood it just looked more and more like a horrible 'stars all aligned the wrong way' sort of tragedy. When those types of pointless losses happen I think it's really difficult for people to reconcile with what happened and I think they just want someone to blame for it.
 
rjay said:
Let's see if I have got this right. - "I don't care what happened, the guy that did the killin was right - the gut that got killed was wrong. I ain't no commie"
Click to expand...

You did not get it right, and neither did TM. You do not bring Skittles and an attitude to a gunfight twice.
 
rjay said:
so ignore the evidence presented - listen to a paid partisan presenting the evidence in the most favorable light he can, for his client - then make a determination. I like your thinking - not
Click to expand...
Wow, you folks just love to rewrite what a person types such that it doesn't at all resemble what was typed so you can rant.
Once again, I'm doing just as the jury is supposed to do. Listen till the end. Today I listened to the state remind us of it's point of view and the things that are pertinent to it's case. I'd be entirely remiss to not listen to the defense have the opportunity to likewise remind me of what he thinks. Additionally, the state brought up a couple of points that were not brought up in trial, I'll be watching to see what the defense does about those new issues. Truly the idea that some how I'm remiss because I'm being fair to both sides is beyond idiotic.
 
Did your mind change the trial? The trial was held to determine whether GZ was guilty/not guilty of murder 2 for the death of TM. Had the Floriduh "just us" folks used the typical grand jury process then the charge(s) would likely have been reduced or not brought at all.

Criminal trials should not be used to determine what, if anything, a person might be guilty of - that is the function of a grand jury.
 
Monserrat said:
Yes. After just a day of reviewing the evidence it looked like Z was guilty of whatever florida's version of involuntary manslaughter was. After reviewing more and more evidence I couldn't find enough to support a charge of even that.

I've been stalked before so the idea that he was following some kid kind of freaked me out but after looking at how much crime was in the neighborhood it just looked more and more like a horrible 'stars all aligned the wrong way' sort of tragedy. When those types of pointless losses happen I think it's really difficult for people to reconcile with what happened and I think they just want someone to blame for it.
Click to expand...

what a thoughtful reply - thank you
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Did your mind change the trial? The trial was held to determine whether GZ was guilty/not guilty of murder 2 for the death of TM. Had the Floriduh "just us" folks used the typical grand jury process then the charge(s) would likely have been reduced or not brought at all.

Criminal trials should not be used to determine what, if anything, a person might be guilty of - that is the function of a grand jury.
Click to expand...

so, going back to the OP, the evidence had no effect on your opinion. Okay , that answers the question. Thanks for weighing in.
 
rjay said:
so, going back to the OP, the evidence had no effect on your opinion. Okay , that answers the question. Thanks for weighing in.
Click to expand...

The evidence has shown that the charge, of murder 2, was not warranted. What part of that did you not understand? I agree that both GZ and TM made errors in judgement. Evaluation of the facts (evidence) led the local authorities to decline to press charges. Political pressure, including the POTUS jumping to conclusions, led to skipping the grand jury and overcharging GZ. The jury will (hopefully) decide whether GZ is guilty as charged or not.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The evidence has shown that the charge, of murder 2, was not warranted. What part of that did you not understand? I agree that both GZ and TM made errors in judgement. Evaluation of the facts (evidence) led the local authorities to decline to press charges. Political pressure, including the POTUS jumping to conclusions, led to skipping the grand jury and overcharging GZ. The jury will (hopefully) decide whether GZ is guilty as charged or not.
Click to expand...

In reading my response it was obvious that I was attempting to belittle your response. I apologize for that. I am really interested in whether the evidence presented at trial had any influence on the opinion you held prior to the trial. I am getting from your response that it did not.

That is a legitimate response and I thank you for it.

cheers
 
I believe that Zimmerman IS guilty of 2nd degree murder. I believe that he unfairly profiled Trayvon with extreme racial prejudice, stalked, taunted and baited Martin into a violent reaction so that he could test out Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law he learned about in the course he took. To put it into Zimm's words ..This asshole won't get away this time.
I don't believe he will be convicted of second degree murder though. Too much smoke and mirrors and too many open questions for a clear murder conviction.
Being judged for the killing of a minor child by a jury of mothers? They can not ... will not... allow him to walk.
Zimmerman will clearly be convicted of manslaughter.
 
Buck Ewer said:
I believe that Zimmerman IS guilty of 2nd degree murder. I believe that he unfairly profiled Trayvon with extreme racial prejudice, stalked, taunted and baited Martin into a violent reaction so that he could test out Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law he learned about in the course he took. To put it into Zimm's words ..This asshole won't get away this time.
I don't believe he will be convicted of second degree murder though. Too much smoke and mirrors and too many open questions for a clear murder conviction.
Being judged for the killing of a minor child by a jury of mothers? They can not ... will not... allow him to walk.
Zimmerman will clearly be convicted of manslaughter.
Click to expand...

With that kind of hard hitting, look at the evidence and unemotional response. This followed by the brilliant assumption that because the jury are mothers. They are so weak willed and emotional they will ignore the absence of evidence and convict to teach that baby killer a lesson. Law, evidence and logic be damned!

I hold up your effortless review of the situation as a masterpiece of codswallop and drivel held heads high above the rest.
 
Buck Ewer said:
I believe that Zimmerman IS guilty of 2nd degree murder. I believe that he unfairly profiled Trayvon with extreme racial prejudice, stalked, taunted and baited Martin into a violent reaction so that he could test out Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law he learned about in the course he took. To put it into Zimm's words ..This asshole won't get away this time.
I don't believe he will be convicted of second degree murder though. Too much smoke and mirrors and too many open questions for a clear murder conviction.
Being judged for the killing of a minor child by a jury of mothers? They can not ... will not... allow him to walk.
Zimmerman will clearly be convicted of manslaughter.
Click to expand...

I can only assume that the PREPONDERANCE of evidence is what moved you to this position from a position of presuming Zimmerman to be innocent of all charges. Wow, I was hoping that some people would have listened to the evidence and altered their views. I never expected such a complete reversal of pre-trial conceptions. Your should be held up as a beacon to be able to have your opinion turned around like this. ( Gosh I hope no one read any sarcaasm n my response)
 
Black Manta said:
With that kind of hard hitting, look at the evidence and unemotional response. This followed by the brilliant assumption that because the jury are mothers. They are so weak willed and emotional they will ignore the absence of evidence and convict to teach that baby killer a lesson. Law, evidence and logic be damned!

I hold up your effortless review of the situation as a masterpiece of codswallop and drivel held heads high above the rest.
Click to expand...
Zimmerman's racism and prejudicial proclivities are not all that well obfuscated and those who swear allegiance to his cause can't or don't bother to hide their motives very well either.
Empathy and humanity only seem like weaknesses to those who like the idea of a race war where the Dirty Harrys get away with murder and the innocent black kids end up with toe tags..
 
Last edited:
Buck Ewer said:
Zimmerman's racism and prejudicial proclivities are not all that well obfuscated and those who swear allegiance to his cause can't or don't bother to hide their motives very well either.
Empathy and humanity only seem like weaknesses to those who like the idea of a race war where the Dirty Harrys get away with murder and the innocent black kids end up with toe tags..
Click to expand...

In other words you have no evidence at all that Zimmerman is a racist. So you assume because Martin, who was black and attacked Zimmerman, is not responsible based on his race. Anyone who does not agree with you is also racist because they went with the evidence? Like the US Justice Department finding no evidence Martins civil rights were violated? Or that the Florida, justice system found no evidence of racial profiling? So my sole motive is racism? Even though I am black? [sarcasm]Blacks can't be racist though, right?[/sarcasm]

Now those of us with the intelligence who show jurisprudence on this issue are simply those who want a race war? Don't care that a young black man was killed before his time? I admit I have seen some that actually feel something close to that (judging by the posts) minus the idiotic race war comment. This however does not mean the majority is ignoring that this was a tragedy and could have been avoided. This based on the actual evidence does not make Zimmerman guilty of a crime.
 
Last edited:
Buck Ewer said:
Zimmerman's racism and prejudicial proclivities are not all that well obfuscated and those who swear allegiance to his cause can't or don't bother to hide their motives very well either.
Empathy and humanity only seem like weaknesses to those who like the idea of a race war where the Dirty Harrys get away with murder and the innocent black kids end up with toe tags..
Click to expand...

Zimmerman's racism? We have testimony that TM said "creepy ass cracker" and "nigger" from his girl and nothing similar against Z. Lose the stupid idea that the non-black person has to be the racist when in an altercation with a black.
 
rjay said:
I went into this trial thinking that Zimmerman was guilty as charged.

Hearing the evidence I think he may still be convicted of some guilt. There is no way it could be of 2nd degree murder though.
The proof just is not there.

Has anyone else re-thought their previosly held views as a result of actual evidence?
Click to expand...

Here is the op. "hearing the evidence I think he may still be convicted of some guilt" Do you mind explaining this odd statement? "some guilt"? What guilt? What precisely did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt? What law was broken? What evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that law was broken?

Personally, I didn't have an opinion PRIOR to hearing actual FACTS of the case. In and of itself that's the entire sad comment this makes on our society as a whole. Such lies and misinformation in order to gin up the "race" issues. Publishing a picture of Trayvon at TWELVE YEARS OLD????? are you serious? NBC editing the real audio so all you hear is GZ saying "I think he's black"??? The Martin's hiring a "race baiting" attorney and pushing Sanford into filing charges when they choose NOT to based on the EVIDENCE? A police chief RESIGNING due to the forces suggesting he file charges when he believes they should not? spike lee giving out a WRONG address he thinks is George Zimmerman's. The black panthers in PUBLIC putting a ten thousand dollar bounty on George Zimmerman's head and the DOJ not making arrests?

After watching the actual trial, yes I changed my mind. I now believe there are MANY more people who are GUILTY, George Zimmerman simply is NOT one of them.
 
It's hilarious when someone starts a thread asking a question of others then proceeds to attack everyone who doesn't agree with him.
 
rjay said:
I went into this trial thinking that Zimmerman was guilty as charged.

Hearing the evidence I think he may still be convicted of some guilt. There is no way it could be of 2nd degree murder though.
The proof just is not there.

Has anyone else re-thought their previosly held views as a result of actual evidence?
Click to expand...

I had a feeling he was getting the raw deal in the media and there was more to the story. I didn't go into it thinking I would come out of it so convinced of his innocence. But I have.
 
I went in thinking there was culpability by Zimmerman to some extent, but after the cast of ignorant know-nothings the state has run to the stand, I'm now convinced that Zimmerman acted in complete self-defense, and that the neighborhood owes him a debt of gratitude.

I'm also sickened by the DoJ's involvement in sponsoring the protests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom