Will George Zimmerman be innocent or guilty for the death of Treyvon Martin?

You should go check out the Romney/Obama election poll. PF.com had Romney at 2 to 1 over Obama. It's very "interesting".

 

Oh really ? I guess I just don't find that as interesting or relevant as you do .

 

You don't find facts interesting? How interesting. Did I say "interesting"? I meant "predictable".

 

I guess I don't find " facts" of a presidential election relevant to a murder trial in Florida . It's " predictable" that you do though .... And very interesting .

 

I don't know if he's innocent or guilty, I haven't seen all the evidence, but a jury will, and they'll let us know.

 

As predicted, the Zimmerheadz are already calling for rioters to show up at the courthouse. . .

[video=youtube;eOQ-mXyjE3E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOQ-mXyjE3E[/video]

(P.S. To make this video even more fun, take a shot every time he says "race/racist/racism".)

 

How STRANGE to see senseless stuff like this.

 

Did anyone watch the coverage of the pretrial motions by the Defense yesterday? Most were denied by the judge from what I gathered as they are irrelevant to the case. It can also be noted that much of what was denied as being inadmissible are the foundation for the prejudice against Martin that we read on these threads.

I'll also paraphase a statement by the Defense attorney where he stated, "If the prosecution's case is limited to the events of that evening then none of this evidence is relevant to the case."

Of course the case should be limited to the events of that evening because it is the events of that evening that were either criminal or not. Whether Martin was suspended from school, texts he might have made, whether he smoked marijuana the week before and even the fact that Zimmerman had prior arrests and restraining orders against him and prior crime in the neighborhood really have no bearing on the events of the evening and should not be allowed as evidence in the trial.

 

Because you say so? because it paints your little saint as a thug?

 

O'Desperate knew none of it was admissible. It was just his last chance to poison the jury pool and get the racists to keep opening their wallets.

 

I believe he is innocent. Whether or not he will be found innocent is an entirely different matter. This whole case is unjust to begin with because he is only on trial at all due to public pressure. The state had already decided not to file charges against him until the media took this story, distorted the hell out of it, and ran with it - promoting Zimmerman not only as a cold-blooded racist killer but as a "white guy."

If Zimmerman goes to jail, the media will have put him there. Perhaps it's time we had a serious discussion about corrupt media influence in our society. If it's impacting the justice system and preventing it from doing its job accurately, there is a serious problem.

 

Because character evidence of a murder victim cannot be admitted unless George knew about Trayvon BEFORE he killed him.

 

Nonsense. Of course it can be admitted. The prosecution has been painting a picture of a little boy who was skipping merrily to buy skittles and would never double back and attack someone.

Wheras we know that this is not the case. He was a violent little thug who was on suspension from school for fighting.The jury should know this.

 

The courts do not allow prejudicial evidence at trial that is unrelated to the actual commission of a crime. Martin's past, just like Zimmerman's past, really has no bearing on the events of that evening and should rightfully be excluded from the trial. In watching the "defense" motions that requested that this information be allowed the judge ruled that it was irrelevant to the actual case and was therefore excluded. We can assume the judge will likewise exclude prejudicial evidence unrelated to the events of that evening from being introduced by the prosecution because of the decisions she made related to the defense motions.

That has been a problem with the public debate related to the Martin-Zimmerman case in that most opinions appear to be based upon prejudicial information that is not relevant to the case and will not be admissible at the trial. The fact that Zimmerman was arrested for assault on a police officer and had a restraining order for domestic violence is just as irrelevant as Martin's suspension from school and his history of smoking pot. None of this is relevant to the actual criminal case and will be inadmissible in court.

 

George did NOT know Trayvon before he killed him so none of that stuff is admissible.

Do you know the difference between media and the prosecution?

 

Your sig only demonstrates your high level of delusion.

 

It is sad that you are proposing a railroading of George on the basis of hyperbole, emotion, and essentially nonsense instead of the truth of what happened that day.

- - - Updated - - -

Well we will see if any past information about George is admitted into evidence. None should be. Nothing at all should be discussed but what happened that day.

 

You forgot TRayvon's history of fighting too, but essentially you are correct. Neither was a squeaky clean angel, but so what. Did Trayvonn attack Zimmerman? If so, he was justified in taking the action he did. The fact that Zimmerman asked him what he was doing certainly does not justify Trayvon attacking Zimmerman.

 

Depends, are those "kids" attacking him at the time?

- - - Updated - - -

Could certainly end in a mistrial without being retried. The state doesn't like wasting money trying a case that cannot be won.

 

We only have Zimmerman's statements related to any conversation that took place between Zimmerman and Martin to my knowledge. We don't know how much of that will come out in the trial but can assume it will be presented by someone. Whether the jury believes Zimmerman is a question we can't answer. From what I understand though is that Zimmerman never identified himself as a member of the neighborhood watch and the prosecution will probably question Zimmerman about that if Zimmerman testifies.

Why didn't Zimmerman identify himself as being a part of the neighborhood watch has always been a question for me. I believe it would have defused the whole confrontation and if I was on the jury that would weigh heavily upon me during deliberations. As a "member of the jury" I would also wonder why Zimmerman violated the fundamental guidelines of all neighborhood watches by placing himself in a situation where a physical confrontation would occur. I'd even have a problem with Zimmerman's statements that he was afraid that Martin would take his gun (that he shouldn't have had based upon neighborhood watch recommendations) so he pulled the gun and shot Martin.

Even with all of this as a member of a jury I'd assume Zimmerman is not guilty unless the prosecution could convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that he is and that will be done in court and not based upon media reports. I know that I wouldn't accept Zimmerman's statements as necessarily being the truth though. This is probably why, in most cases, the defendant doesn't testify because juries typically don't believe everything a defendant says.

Ulitmately I really don't know what will really be presented at trial and I can only speculate based upon how I would address the possible evidence and testimony that will be presented. I have no clue as to how I would eventually vote if I was on the jury and I don't believe anyone else can actually say how they would vote because none of us will be on the jury. As I've mentioned I seen far to much "prejudicial" information related to both sides of the case in the media that wouldn't be allowed in court and it is my opinion that many have decided guilt or innocence based upon inadmissible media information that a jury would have to completely ignore because it won't be presented in court.

 

Statistically, from what I've read, there's a one in five chance of a criminal prosecution ending in a hung jury. In most of those cases the prosecution does elect to prosecute the person agian. They often don't if two consecutive juries both come back as being unable to decide.

In rare cases they reduce the charges as well in the second trial. For example, in the Zimmerman-Martin case they could drop the charges down to Manslaughter which is much easier to prove than 2nd Degree Murder.

 

Conversations Rarely if ever justify aggressive physical contact though, you have to admit that fact!

 

No. Zimmerman doesn't have the power to tamper. But 6 people deciding the fate of this guy is too small of a group and he could be railroaded. 12 would be much more reasonable. Railroading is when someone uses you to get what they want. In this case, I am saying that an all black or mostly black jury would lie and say he was guilty even if they knew he was innocent; for the purpose of appeasing the black community at large. Now if you have 12 people in a room; it's way harder to conspire to lie and say an innocent person was guilty.

IMHO a jury of his peers would have 2 or so blacks, 1 or 2 latino's, maybe an asian; and the rest white. That would be the exact race make-up of USA generally. So let the group of 12 have roughly the same sex, race, and wealth make-up of the 350M people in USA.

 

Sadly, a lot of the truth will be hidden from the jury. They won't be told that TM was a pothead, a violent person that committed assaults on people, or that he was a gangsta thug that often used racist comments in his personal text messages.

Reminds me of the OJ case. His wife's blood was in his car and on clothing at his house. His blood was at the crime scene. The other guy's (the Jewish waiter) blood was in his car too. And yet, because some idiot may not have handled the blood perfectly; all of it was inadmissible. The odds of his blood being at the scene or her blood being in his car or on his socks were so astronomical; but the jury of high school graduates were not deemed intelligent enough to understand how DNA works, how it's analyzed, and what an incorrect handling of DNA could mean, etc. and so they tossed the DNA related set of information out the window and said the jury could not hear anything related to the subject. And the proof that they got it wrong? In his book he not only admitted to killing her, he talked about exactly how he did it in great detail. The first 90% of the book he talked about what a skank she was and tried to justify that she got what she deserved; but then he went into quite a bit of detail about how the deed went down.