• 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.

Another Judge blows it big time

longview said:
You are talking about the Zimmerman trial, Correct? It sounds like you watched a different trial.
I do not think this Judge was intimidated by the defense, to me she seemed to lean towards the
prosecution.
Click to expand...

If you read the information in the OP there is a perfect example of where she blew it and favored the defense in her instructions.
 
buck said:
Apparently I was correct.
Click to expand...

And why is that? Is there some reason you are incapable of fleshing out your very brief drive by post which totally lacks any substance?
 
haymarket said:
What reversible error would that have been?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I'm not an attorney. You're not either. You're just parroting the latest "left list." A judge's objective is always to avoid reversible error. Where your common sense should tell you there was a reason beyond corruption? You embrace corruption.
 
haymarket said:
And why is that? Is there some reason you are incapable of fleshing out your very brief drive by post which totally lacks any substance?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I provided the exact reasons that the judge made the right decision.

It would have been error for the judge to include it. There was zero evidence that George initiated the physical encounter, and following is not enough to be considered "initial aggression" under the law. Additionally, as I recall, the instruction regarding the legality of following - as mentioned in what you quoted - was also excluded.

Unfortunately, for the author, the court can not give instructions in which there is zero evidence and unfortunately, for the prosecution, there was no evidence that George was the initial aggressor. Had they had evidence of that, it would have been included in the instructions.
Click to expand...

I can't prove a negative. So, what you would have to do is find case law in FL (which does not exist) showing that following someone is initial agression. If you can not find any law, as it does not exist, then it would have been reverible error for the judge to include that jury instruction.

Maybe you can go back and check the article you quoted and see if she provided any legal justification for her belief. Oh. She didn't? Do you, perhaps, wonder why not?
 
Last edited:
Paperview said:
Followed in the dark by car, then on foot, and on confrontation, he reached into his pocket for his
51vul3jpg_zps30fe7f36.gif
.
Click to expand...

Martin knew GZ had a phone because previously he saw GZ on that phone.
 
Paperview said:
The whole article is well worth reading.

Thank you haymarket.

A commenter added my thoughts, which the author could have provided to add even more weight :


In addition to Zimmerman following Martin both in his car and on foot as unacknowledged potential evidence for "threat of force" under law, the fact that Zimmerman, by his own admission (see his walk through video Raw Video: George Zimmerman reenacts incident for Sanford Police - YouTube ),

reached into his clothes without warning or clarification in response to Martin asking him "if he had a problem" could easily have been used as evidence for "threat of force" in court.

Martin by this point would easily have felt threatened by Zimmerman reaching perhaps for a weapon. At 10:20 in the video Zimmerman says he "went to go grab my cell phone but I ...left it in a different pocket and I looked down at my pants pocket and he said 'You got a problem now'..."

Also Zimmerman, who has described himself as "neighborhood watch" before, did not attempt to identify himself as such to Martin during their interaction. He easily could have done so in a way that would have diffused the potential for physical violence. Zimmerman's own words reveal that he was more than ready to use his gun. - j201
Click to expand...

Neighborhood watch has no legal status or authority whatsoever. From the start, though, anti-Zimmerman people have been very frustrated that they can't legitimately rage that GZ did not declare to TM that he has authority as neighborhood watch - to then accuse of GZ of thinking that made him a cop. So instead they attack him for not saying he was neighborhood watch. Either way, they would make the same attack against GZ.

The anti-GZers also totally contradict themselves on this topic. While at the same time the claim GZ's crime was not staying in his vehicle, they also say his crime was not directly getting in TM's face identifying himself as "neighborhood watch" and questioning TM in that (non) authority as neighborhood watch.

Obviously GZ was not prepared to use his gun by GZ's injuries.
 
I don't understand. Including the jury instructions on teh exception to aggression in self-defense would also provide the jury with another means to acquit Zimmerman because his actions would still fall under justifiable self-defense. We've had links posted on this cite regarding that exact statute.
 
haymarket said:
If you read the information in the OP there is a perfect example of where she blew it and favored the defense in her instructions.
Click to expand...
And THAT is the reason why Zimmerman was acquitted? Not because the prosecution had no basis of charging him with second degree murder to begin with. Not because they presented nothing in the way of evidence to support the charge. Not because they utterly failed in every conceivable way to prove their case.

No. It was simply a matter of improper instruction by the judge. Got it.:roll:
 
MaggieD said:
Well shut my mouth if that doesn't show us how ****ed up black men are. Not by me. Not by security guards. But by their own social construct that blames everyone but them for their so-called lot in life.

I never knew it was so bad. The race baiters have won.
Click to expand...


Yes, and that artificial race-baiting rage instilled in so many young black men - incessantly by the media-life, by multi-millionaires like Sharpston and Jackson who became rich as professional race-baiters, and within there own community as if this is still the 1950s deep South, likely played into TM's psychology leading him to assault GZ, who he likely saw as a white man.

Have race-baiters won? In the African-American community yes. Otherwise no. Most people don't care much about race and are so tired of the word "racism" they could spit.

It is the MEDIA-left that is the primary advocates and promoters of racism. They create and foster what they complain of - at best. I see it as little different than if they had news crews going around handing out bottles filled with gasoline and a lighter to minority young men standing around - and then asking "does how white people treated African-Americans make you so angry that it makes you want to light this bottle and throw it thru that store's window over there?" - after first making sure the camera crew is ready to film it just in case that then happens.

The extreme sensitivity to "racism" is artificially created and continued by the media. I believe most racism now is not stemming from people, it is stemming for the old (increasingly very old) white liberal men of the media who should have been their retirement watches a long time ago.

There is not one iota of even a hint that racism ever harmed or held TM back on anything during his life. At no time was he a victim of racism during his life. YET the media-left and professional race-baiters immediately fixated on his race as singularly what defined TM - and ONLY what defined him.

Rather than the story of TM's death being a tragic lesson what can be the fate of a black teenage man who increasingly is getting into trouble in school, with drugs, with theft, with an increasing fixation on violence, wanting to portray himself as tough etc - and ultimately then leading to his death so therefore the lesson should be to avoid the path of confrontation, of violence and of wandering the street? Instead, the media-left declares the lesson learned to African-Americans is they aren't violent enough, aren't organized enough for violent riots and retaliations against white people.

What this country needs is for the old dinosaur career race-baiters such as Matthews, Sharpston, Jackson, Morgan etc who have become millionaires by marketing and fostering race-rage to retire or die off.

THIS IS THE BIG LIE THEY TELL AND CONVINCE SO MANY AFRICAN-AMERICANS: That young African-Americans should accept they have no chance in the USA because they were born hopeless victims of the devil-white-man oppressor. That only by hating white people and shouting racist incessantly can they have any pride - and that their being lazy-ass self-pity punks therefore is entirely reasonable behavior because all of the failures of their lives are someone else's fault.

TM is dead. And the media-left continues to promote and even praise all the sentiments within young black men that are the reasons why he's dead.

This is what you will NOT hear any of the old race-baiters on the left say: They will never say that angry young people, particularly angry young African-Americans engaging in mob/riot property destruction or violence now is wrong. They will instead incessantly explain why it is justified and right.

I don't think many of the WHITE Zimmerman-haters on the forum or overall realize how bizarre it is when they defend Trayvon Martin's actions. Travyon Martin's actions got him killed. And, they claim he acted correctly? That is the twisted minds of white-liberal race-baiters. They WANT African-Americans to riot, they want them imprisoned for it, shot with bean bags, beaten by police, tear-gassed - so they then have the proof of racism they want.

Will you see any of the white race-baiters of this forum, of society or any of the millionaire African-American race-baiters of the media out also suffering such police abuse as against the lawless mob? Oh hell no! Gutless cowards explaining why young African-Americans should get themselves jailed and beat up for justice sake to prove an injustice that otherwise doesn't exist.

There is no reason to try to engage in rational discussion with such race-baiters because it's a fake façade and artificial rage. In social issues, exactly nothing is more disgusting to me than white people trying to act like they are oppressed African-Americans of the 1920's deep South. We have quite a few of those just on this forum.
 
Last edited:
joko just nailed it.

The only race still obsessing over race is the black community. Everyone else seems to be moving forward just fine, but the Sharpton and Jackson ilk have successfully managed to keep the black community stuck in 1860. Perhaps that's why that segment of America continues to get further and further behind.
 
joko104 said:
Yes, and that artificial race-baiting rage instilled in so many young black men - incessantly by the media-life, by multi-millionaires like Sharpston and Jackson who became rich as professional race-baiters, and within there own community as if this is still the 1950s deep South, likely played into TM's psychology leading him to assault GZ, who he likely saw as a white man.

Have race-baiters won? In the African-American community yes. Otherwise no. Most people don't care much about race and are so tired of the word "racism" they could spit.

It is the MEDIA-left that is the primary advocates and promoters of racism. They create and foster what they complain of - at best. I see it as little different than if they had news crews going around handing out bottles filled with gasoline and a lighter to minority young men standing around - and then asking "does how white people treated African-Americans make you so angry that it makes you want to light this bottle and throw it thru that store's window over there?" - after first making sure the camera crew is ready to film it just in case that then happens.

The extreme sensitivity to "racism" is artificially created and continued by the media. I believe most racism now is not stemming from people, it is stemming for the old (increasingly very old) white liberal men of the media who should have been their retirement watches a long time ago.

There is not one iota of even a hint that racism ever harmed or held TM back on anything during his life. At no time was he a victim of racism during his life. YET the media-left and professional race-baiters immediately fixated on his race as singularly what defined TM - and ONLY what defined him.

Rather than the story of TM's death being a tragic lesson what can be the fate of a black teenage man who increasingly is getting into trouble in school, with drugs, with theft, with an increasing fixation on violence, wanting to portray himself as tough etc - and ultimately then leading to his death so therefore the lesson should be to avoid the path of confrontation, of violence and of wandering the street? Instead, the media-left declares the lesson learned to African-Americans is they aren't violent enough, aren't organized enough for violent riots and retaliations against white people.

What this country needs is for the old dinosaur career race-baiters such as Matthews, Sharpston, Jackson, Morgan etc who have become millionaires by marketing and fostering race-rage to retire or die off.

THIS IS THE BIG LIE THEY TELL AND CONVINCE SO MANY AFRICAN-AMERICANS: That young African-Americans should accept they have no chance in the USA because they were born hopeless victims of the devil-white-man oppressor. That only by hating white people and shouting racist incessantly can they have any pride - and that their being lazy-ass self-pity punks therefore is entirely reasonable behavior because all of the failures of their lives are someone else's fault.

TM is dead. And the media-left continues to promote and even praise all the sentiments within young black men that are the reasons why he's dead.

This is what you will NOT hear any of the old race-baiters on the left say: They will never say that angry young people, particularly angry young African-Americans engaging in mob/riot property destruction or violence now is wrong. They will instead incessantly explain why it is justified and right.

I don't think many of the WHITE Zimmerman-haters on the forum or overall realize how bizarre it is when they defend Trayvon Martin's actions. Travyon Martin's actions got him killed. And, they claim he acted correctly? That is the twisted minds of white-liberal race-baiters. They WANT African-Americans to riot, they want them imprisoned for it, shot with bean bags, beaten by police, tear-gassed - so they then have the proof of racism they want.

Will you see any of the white race-baiters of this forum, of society or any of the millionaire African-American race-baiters of the media out also suffering such police abuse as against the lawless mob? Oh hell no! Gutless cowards explaining why young African-Americans should get themselves jailed and beat up for justice sake to prove an injustice that otherwise doesn't exist.

There is no reason to try to engage in rational discussion with such race-baiters because it's a fake façade and artificial rage. In social issues, exactly nothing is more disgusting to me than white people trying to act like they are oppressed African-Americans of the 1920's deep South. We have quite a few of those just on this forum.
Click to expand...

:applaud :applaud
 
haymarket said:
I have little doubt that Judge Ito would approve.
Click to expand...

Basically "The judge decided in a way that goes against what I think they should have, so they blew it!"


Congrats, you've joined the chorus of bitching and whining about the impartiality of hte judge from both sides all throughout this.

You have no evidence what so ever that the Judge was "timid" or "intimidated" by the Defense, you just deem that her DISAGREEING with the legal reasoning of the prosecution on a procedural thing as an indication of it and act like it's fact. The sam type of mental gymnastics and dishonesty you've displayed ever since you weighed in on the case nad highlighted your substantial ignorance regarding the legal system in this country and the case.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
And THAT is the reason why Zimmerman was acquitted? Not because the prosecution had no basis of charging him with second degree murder to begin with. Not because they presented nothing in the way of evidence to support the charge. Not because they utterly failed in every conceivable way to prove their case.

No. It was simply a matter of improper instruction by the judge. Got it.:roll:
Click to expand...

All things play a role. This was one of them. An ALEC inspired law was yet another which changed the jury instructions. A general suspicion of young black men as dangerous was another.
 
Zyphlin said:
Basically "The judge decided in a way that goes against what I think they should have, so they blew it!"


Congrats, you've joined the chorus of bitching and whining about the impartiality of hte judge from both sides all throughout this.

You have no evidence what so ever that the Judge was "timid" or "intimidated" by the Defense, you just deem that her DISAGREEING with the legal reasoning of the prosecution on a procedural thing as an indication of it and act like it's fact. The sam type of mental gymnastics and dishonesty you've displayed ever since you weighed in on the case nad highlighted your substantial ignorance regarding the legal system in this country and the case.
Click to expand...

That evidence was presented to you in the OP. Is this where I now get to rip into you for your "substantial ignorance" in not comprehending that?

again - just for you

Because jury deliberations are secret, and no jurors (as of this writing) have spoken publicly about deliberations, it is impossible to know the basis for the jury's acquittal. But let me explain why the verdict might have boiled down to jury instructions. The state asked the court to instruct the jury not only about the justification of self-defense, which favored Zimmerman in the ways described above, but also about its initial aggressor limitation. (View the state's argument here, beginning at 3:00.) According to the state, the jury might have concluded that Zimmerman provoked any physical response from Martin by following him. If a jury could reasonably find an instruction applicable, the instruction should be given.
The defense objected to the initial aggressor instruction. (See the defense argument here.) As a factual matter, the defense argued that no evidence indicated that Zimmerman physically initiated the confrontation. As a legal matter, the defense relied on Gibbs v. State, a 2001 decision from the Fourth Division of the Florida Court of Appeals, which held that a defendant loses the right to self-defense as an initial aggressor only if he provokes the victim's use of force through either force or "threat of force."
After Judge Nelson indicated that she understood the arguments on both sides, defense attorney Don West interjected, "Well, let me point out, as a matter of law, following someone on foot or by car is not against the law.... That cannot be considered provocation under the law... Force means physical force or the threat of physical force...." In conclusion, he emphasized, "It would be ERROR, and frankly, promoting miscarriage of justice, if the state were allowed to argue that to the jury." (See 3:37 here.)
The state attempted to rebut the defense's argument by noting the defense's request for a separate instruction regarding the legality of following a person. Judge Nelson responded, "We're not there yet," then quickly ruled without elaboration: "The defense does not want to give [the initial aggressor exception]; the state does. The court is not going to give it."
The court is not going to give it.
That may have been the moment when Zimmerman got acquitted. The end result was that jurors were told only about the parts of Florida self-defense law that benefited the defendant, without knowing anything about the most relevant potential limitation.
Click to expand...

And since that writing we do have a juror who has come forwarded and even admitted that she disregarded the judges instruction regarding giving any weight or credibility to the testimony of a detective who found Zimmerman to be "truthful".

The sad situation just gets even sadder with each revelation.
 
haymarket said:
That evidence was presented to you in the OP. Is this where I now get to rip into you for your "substantial ignorance" in not comprehending that?
Click to expand...

The OP didn't provide evidence, it provided legal opinion of a random person from the oh so fair minded Huffington Post suggesting that she disagreed with the legal reasoning of a judge. Opinion is not fact, and one instance of the Judge agreeing with the legal reasoning of the Defense instead of the Prosecution is not "evidence" that she's "timid towards" or was "intimidated of" the Defense.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
I don't understand. Including the jury instructions on teh exception to aggression in self-defense would also provide the jury with another means to acquit Zimmerman because his actions would still fall under justifiable self-defense. We've had links posted on this cite regarding that exact statute.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't, because Martin's actions still would have given Zimmerman the legal right to defend himself with deadly force, even if it were proven that he threw the first punch.
 
haymarket said:
All things play a role. This was one of them. An ALEC inspired law was yet another which changed the jury instructions. A general suspicion of young black men as dangerous was another.
Click to expand...
...but a general lack of evidence trumps everything. That just drives you crazy, doesn't it? Having to admit that for all the noise, all of the commotion, all of the venom, all of the ridiculously over-the-top race baiting, and all of the faux outrage brought to us by people who make their living off of keeping racism alive and well... for ALL of it, we STILL had a case that had no evidence to support the charge.

The cries of racism cannot overcome that.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
...but a general lack of evidence trumps everything. That just drives you crazy, doesn't it? Having to admit that for all the noise, all of the commotion, all of the venom, all of the ridiculously over-the-top race baiting, and all of the faux outrage brought to us by people who make their living off of keeping racism alive and well... for ALL of it, we STILL had a case that had no evidence to support the charge.
The cries of racism cannot overcome that.
Click to expand...
I think you hit the nail on the hear. Even if we recognize that Zimmerman was a racist, there was insufficient evidence to convict him of murder or manslaughter. The only point in time that is important is, WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO ZIMMERMAN AT THE PRECISE MOMENT HE PULLED THE GUN AND SHOT MARTIN. If in that fleeting moment he feared for his life and well being, it was still self defense.

In so far as Zimmerman's bad judgement in following and putting himself in a confrontal situation, and no matter how we believe Zimmerman pushed the situation, that instant is the only part which matters.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
...but a general lack of evidence trumps everything. That just drives you crazy, doesn't it? Having to admit that for all the noise, all of the commotion, all of the venom, all of the ridiculously over-the-top race baiting, and all of the faux outrage brought to us by people who make their living off of keeping racism alive and well... for ALL of it, we STILL had a case that had no evidence to support the charge.

The cries of racism cannot overcome that.
Click to expand...

There was plenty of evidence - the main piece being the admission from Zimmerman that he killed Martin.

What kind of country do we live in where an armed man can track another man, end up killing him, and then claim he was in fear for his life and had no choice? In the America I grew up in, when one person killed another, you better damn well be able to prove that it was justified. Don't you see that these stand your ground ALEC inspired laws not have turned it all ass backwards and upside down.

The day is gone when you better have damn good proof why you killed somebody when you admitted that you did it. Now, due to these upside down stand your ground laws that were pushed by the gun lobby and the right wing, its all ass backwards.

Now, I can track you. I can be armed with a gun. I can get in your face. I can kill you. And when the police show up I can claim I was in fear for my life and its my word against your quickly losing temperature corpse.

That is just ass backwards. And we have the damn Kockroach Brothers and their frankenstein monster ALEC to thank for all this. And the sad thing is probably well over 95% of America does not know ALEC from the guy on Thirty Rock.
 
haymarket said:
There was plenty of evidence - the main piece being the admission from Zimmerman that he killed Martin.

What kind of country do we live in where an armed man can track another man, end up killing him, and then claim he was in fear for his life and had no choice? In the America I grew up in, when one person killed another, you better damn well be able to prove that it was justified. Don't you see that these stand your ground ALEC inspired laws not have turned it all ass backwards and upside down.

The day is gone when you better have damn good proof why you killed somebody when you admitted that you did it. Now, due to these upside down stand your ground laws that were pushed by the gun lobby and the right wing, its all ass backwards.

Now, I can track you. I can be armed with a gun. I can get in your face. I can kill you. And when the police show up I can claim I was in fear for my life and its my word against your quickly losing temperature corpse.

That is just ass backwards. And we have the damn Kockroach Brothers and their frankenstein monster ALEC to thank for all this. And the sad thing is probably well over 95% of America does not know ALEC from the guy on Thirty Rock.
Click to expand...
Way to just toss the facts of the case out the window and continue on with the false narrative.:roll:

The testimony and evidence presented during the trial do not in any way, shape, or form support the version of the story that you are using to form the basis of your opinion with.(the part in bold) You're trying to sell us the Mona Lisa but what you have ISN'T the Mona Lisa. It's a cheap paint-by-numbers piece of garbage that you painted yourself.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Way to just toss the facts of the case out the window and continue on with the false narrative.:roll:

The testimony and evidence presented during the trial do not in any way, shape, or form support the version of the story that you are using to form the basis of your opinion with.(the part in bold) You're trying to sell us the Mona Lisa but what you have ISN'T the Mona Lisa. It's a cheap paint-by-numbers piece of garbage that you painted yourself.
Click to expand...

We have the charge to the jury which was based on the new 2005 law which I have referred to many times setting a new and much lower standard for self defense. That is hard and firm evidence that played a significant role in if this guy walked or not. Before ALEC did their dirty work around then ation and changed these laws, the charge to the jury would have been radically different.

Because the judge opted NOT to charge the jury as she could of and caved in to defense threats, the jury went buy rules that were highly favorable to acquittal.


Because jury deliberations are secret, and no jurors (as of this writing) have spoken publicly about deliberations, it is impossible to know the basis for the jury's acquittal. But let me explain why the verdict might have boiled down to jury instructions. The state asked the court to instruct the jury not only about the justification of self-defense, which favored Zimmerman in the ways described above, but also about its initial aggressor limitation. (View the state's argument here, beginning at 3:00.) According to the state, the jury might have concluded that Zimmerman provoked any physical response from Martin by following him. If a jury could reasonably find an instruction applicable, the instruction should be given.
The defense objected to the initial aggressor instruction. (See the defense argument here.) As a factual matter, the defense argued that no evidence indicated that Zimmerman physically initiated the confrontation. As a legal matter, the defense relied on Gibbs v. State, a 2001 decision from the Fourth Division of the Florida Court of Appeals, which held that a defendant loses the right to self-defense as an initial aggressor only if he provokes the victim's use of force through either force or "threat of force."
After Judge Nelson indicated that she understood the arguments on both sides, defense attorney Don West interjected, "Well, let me point out, as a matter of law, following someone on foot or by car is not against the law.... That cannot be considered provocation under the law... Force means physical force or the threat of physical force...." In conclusion, he emphasized, "It would be ERROR, and frankly, promoting miscarriage of justice, if the state were allowed to argue that to the jury." (See 3:37 here.)
The state attempted to rebut the defense's argument by noting the defense's request for a separate instruction regarding the legality of following a person. Judge Nelson responded, "We're not there yet," then quickly ruled without elaboration: "The defense does not want to give [the initial aggressor exception]; the state does. The court is not going to give it."
The court is not going to give it.
That may have been the moment when Zimmerman got acquitted. The end result was that jurors were told only about the parts of Florida self-defense law that benefited the defendant, without knowing anything about the most relevant potential limitation.
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
We have the charge to the jury which was based on the new 2005 law which I have referred to many times setting a new and much lower standard for self defense. That is hard and firm evidence that played a significant role in if this guy walked or not. Before ALEC did their dirty work around then ation and changed these laws, the charge to the jury would have been radically different.

Because the judge opted NOT to charge the jury as she could of and caved in to defense threats, the jury went buy rules that were highly favorable to acquittal.
Click to expand...
What did they threaten her with?
 
haymarket said:
Because the judge opted NOT to charge the jury as she could of and caved in to defense threats, the jury went buy rules that were highly favorable to acquittal.
Click to expand...

I believe we are all still waiting for this proof that allegedly following someone (without even any proof of this occuring) is enough justification to have that jury instruction placed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom