Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetcharity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BroomWagon said:
We can surmise she has been untruthful, it does not mean everyone interested in this case believes her contributions are meaningless or that her statements do not reflect anything helpful in understanding this case.
Click to expand...
“We” can do anything we want, we weren’t on the jury.

The jury on the other hand has to decide if she was telling the truth. And if not, how much of her testimony is a lie and how much is the truth. A jury can, if they believe someone is not telling the truth, throw out her entire testimony.

Jeantel told numerous lies. It wouldn’t be had to believe that a jury threw out her testimony.

I know I would have. And it isn’t because of her background or her lack of ability to read. It would be that she lies.
 
maryjk said:
“We” can do anything we want, we weren’t on the jury.

The jury on the other hand has to decide if she was telling the truth. And if not, how much of her testimony is a lie and how much is the truth. A jury can, if they believe someone is not telling the truth, throw out her entire testimony.

Jeantel told numerous lies. It wouldn’t be had to believe that a jury threw out her testimony.

I know I would have. And it isn’t because of her background or her lack of ability to read. It would be that she lies.
Click to expand...
Those are your assertions. Just because someone says something that does not readily line up as the truth as we know it does not automatically mean someone is lying.

She lined up her story with what I understand, Trayvon’s mother nearby, that is inappropriate as well. It doesn’t mean that everyone dismisses everything in what she says.

If you think only members of the jury should be participating in this thread, you should petition for this thread to made available only to jury members to participate. I did not mention the jury so this is irrelevant to those speculating here, we do not know at this point, exactly what the Jury’s reasoning is.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
Dershowitz also says Zimmerman has a defamation case against prosecutor Angela Corey who, in a interview on last night’s HLN Afterdark, called him a “murderer” even though he was duly acquitted.

It’s also worth mentioning that despite all the hot air by pundits and armchair lawyers, the Justice Department cannot bring civil rights charges against Zimmerman. Civil rights violations are something that the government does; not private individuals.

If Zimmerman had been a real cop employed by the state or the local government and paid out of taxpayers’ money then that would be different. But since Zimmerman was an unpaid volunteer taking his turn as a neighborhood watchman they can’t touch him.

Hopefully, Eric Holder is smart enough to know that.
Click to expand...
It was ridiculous to see Angela Corey call him a murderer for the one word to describe him.
 
Rachel Jeantel’s testimony might make more sense to some Americans at that. George Zimmerman had a trial with a jury of his peers, not a jury of the peers of Trayvon Martin.
 
Rachel Jeantel claims to be a native speaker of “Creole” it sounds and she called it Spanish yet, she does not seem to have an accent.

Somewhat related, there are a lot of English speakers who try Spanish and there are a lot of Spanish speakers that try to speak English but in both cases, they are not fluid, they may say something, it’s not correct but it isn’t so much as if they are lying, it is sort of a language barrier.

Anyone who has ever dealt with someone speaking “broken English” can understand that.

There might be a chance, an African American could understand better what Jeantel is saying and not all of a sudden make the conclusion that she is being untruthful and lying.
 
BroomWagon said:
Those are your assertions. Just because someone says something that does not readily line up as the truth as we know it does not automatically mean someone is lying.
Click to expand...
No, but when she admits she was, it is a different story.
Jeantel admitted during testimony Wednesday that she had lied twice. She said she told Trayvon’s family she was 16 when she was 18. She also said she lied about going to a hospital instead of Trayvon’s funeral because she didn’t want to see his body.
Click to expand...
usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/27/trayvon-martin-sanford-zimmerman-florida-race/2462403/
She lined up her story with what I understand, Trayvon’s mother nearby, that is inappropriate as well. It doesn’t mean that everyone dismisses what she says.
Click to expand...
Not just inappropriate, shocking.

And of course it doesn’t mean that *everyone * dismisses what she said.

But it does mean that some will. Like, fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Lie to me so many times, I can’t count? Well, it doesn’t take a genus to realize that many people will question whatever she says. It isn’t racial, just common sense.
If you think only members of the jury should be participating in this thread, you should petition for this thread to made available only to jury members to participate. I did not mention the jury so this is irrelevant to those speculating here, we do not know at this point, exactly what the Jury’s reasoning is.
Click to expand...
Where did I indicate that only jury members should be participating? I simply said that I could understand what the jury many have done. That I know I would have done that same thing.
 
BroomWagon said:
Rachel Jeantel claims to be a native speaker of “Creole” it sounds and she called it Spanish yet, she does not seem to have an accent.

Somewhat related, there are a lot of English speakers who try Spanish and there are a lot of Spanish speakers that try to speak English but in both cases, they are not fluid, they may say something, it’s not correct but it isn’t so much as if they are lying, it is sort of a language barrier.

Anyone who has ever dealt with someone speaking “broken English” can understand that.

There might be a chance, an African American could understand better what Jeantel is saying and not all of a sudden make the conclusion that she is being untruthful and lying.
Click to expand...
Jeantel told the Martin family that she was 16, when she was 18. That doesn’t sound like an accent or broken English problem to me.
 
maryjk said:
Jeantel told the Martin family that she was 16, when she was 18. That doesn’t sound like an accent or broken English problem to me.
Click to expand...
Okay, she lied, very few people in the history of the world have ever lied!
 
meltzerboy said:
Perhaps this was a technically valid and necessarily constricted verdict given the stand-your-ground law for civilian patrol in the state of Florida. But in several other ways, including apparent racial profiling and active pursuit on the part of George Zimmerman, as well as little consideration of the context preceding the actual confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, the verdict was, in my view, a travesty of justice. The legal system is far from perfect, not being color-blind but one of its problems; and a six-member jury, one of whom was evidently prejudiced from the outset, did not help matters either with regard to the increased pressure exerted on the dissenting jurors, who, during the first vote, were either in favor of manslaughter (2 jurors) or second-degree murder (1 juror). Further, the prosecution, likely disadvantaged from the start by the delay in the arrest of George Zimmerman, was unusually inept in their presentation, based on what I observed.
Click to expand...
Following someone isn’t a crime, but physically assaulting someone, as TM did to GZ, is a crime. TM made the wrong move by initiating the attack against GZ. TM didn’t figure that attacking GZ would cost him his life. It’s sad, but TM was the one to initiate a crime. GZ was not guilty of murder since murder has to do with premeditation and not heat of the moment. And if GZ would have premeditated using his gun he would have just unloaded his gun on TM from a distance. But instead, there was only one shot fired, and it was while GZ was getting his head pounded into the concrete by TM. In the heat of the moment, there was a reasonable basis for GZ to fear for his life since he had no way of knowing if TM would stop short of killing GZ.
 
BroomWagon said:
We can surmise she has been untruthful, it does not mean everyone interested in this case believes her contributions are meaningless or that her statements do not reflect anything helpful in understanding this case.

I disagree with the sentence above saying “make you feel like you are better, somehow” but other than that, I think this article has merit.

Though I don’t agree with leftist articles in general, I think there is some merit that she, Jeantel has her own worldview too.

It’s sort of like when IQ tests are given and some people claim they are geared more towards the way White Americans think.

In the end, I think being an “Ear-Witness” by law is not nearly as valuable as being an “Eye-Witness”.

I just don’t look at Rachel Jeantel’s statements and say, I wouldn’t testify in that way. It’s not straight out reasonable to how I would testify, it’s not straight out rational, so I dismiss everything she says.
Click to expand...
I think its incorrect to portray folks having a problem with her because she’s black. Or that folks don’t understand her because of some kind of cultural attributes to the way she speaks or her intelligence.

She struck me as, like a lot of young people of any/every color and background, as being fairly self-centered and not wanting to be inconvenienced. She attributed prior inconsistencies and omissions by stating that she said things (or omitted them) just because she wanted to get an interview over with, or to get the lawyer off the phone, that she didn’t get involved because she didn’t think of herself as a witness. It came off to me as she didn’t want to be a witness, didn’t want the inconvenince and trouble. Not a cultural thing, an attribute of folks who are self-centered.

Hence, I do think her testimony on the stand had more impact to me, and was more believable than her prior statements where she admitted to telling people what they wanted to hear, either to spare feelings or get things over with. One of the big problems with having interviews arranged and directed by non-law enforcement personnel with other lawyers and interested parties present. I think that self centeredness came off in her indignation at being told she’d be coming back a second day. Her schedule for whatever she was doing the next day was more important to her than this trial.
 
BroomWagon said:
Okay, she lied, very few people in the history of the world have ever lied!
Click to expand...
Actually the problem with this lie is it had implications for how much access the defense team could have to her as a minor. And the prosecution didn’t reveal her real age to the defense for months after they found out about it.

So, ok, folks lie and it would be interesting as to the why. Was it more convenient for Jeantel to have folks believing she was a minor? That is, not a nefarious purpose in undermining justice, just less personal hassle for her?
 
styrgwillidar said:
I think its incorrect to portray folks having a problem with her because she’s black. Or that folks don’t understand her because of some kind of cultural attributes to the way she speaks or her intelligence.

She struck me as, like a lot of young people of any/every color and background, as being fairly self-centered and not wanting to be inconvenienced. She attributed prior inconsistencies and omissions by stating that she said things (or omitted them) just because she wanted to get an interview over with, or to get the lawyer off the phone, that she didn’t get involved because she didn’t think of herself as a witness. It came off to me as she didn’t want to be a witness, didn’t want the inconvenince and trouble. Not a cultural thing, an attribute of folks who are self-centered.

Hence, I do think her testimony on the stand had more impact to me, and was more believable than her prior statements where she admitted to telling people what they wanted to hear, either to spare feelings or get things over with. One of the big problems with having interviews arranged and directed by non-law enforcement personnel with other lawyers and interested parties present. I think that self centeredness came off in her indignation at being told she’d be coming back a second day. Her schedule for whatever she was doing the next day was more important to her than this trial.
Click to expand...
She may have been self-centered, one could also be scared, intimidated by the police.

I don’t think anyone says they have a problem with her because of skin color, in turn, I don’t think it’s a sure thing that Black people would be dismissive of her words and find “not guilty”. We don’t know.
 
BroomWagon said:
George Zimmerman had a trial with a jury of his peers, not a jury of the peers of Trayvon Martin.
Click to expand...
There was not one male on the jury, so how can you say they were a jury of his peers? Were there any “white hispanics” on the jury? Any neighborhood watch volunteers? Chubby guys with CHLs?

Is it your point that one must have people just like them on a jury to have a jury of one’s peers? If not, what is the point of your observation?

Peace

Tim
 
Lost_Sheep said:
Dershowitz also says Zimmerman has a defamation case against prosecutor Angela Corey who, in a interview on last night’s HLN Afterdark, called him a “murderer” even though he was duly acquitted.

It’s also worth mentioning that despite all the hot air by pundits and armchair lawyers, the Justice Department cannot bring civil rights charges against Zimmerman. Civil rights violations are something that the government does; not private individuals.

If Zimmerman had been a real cop employed by the state or the local government and paid out of taxpayers’ money then that would be different. But since Zimmerman was an unpaid volunteer taking his turn as a neighborhood watchman they can’t touch him.

Hopefully, Eric Holder is smart enough to know that.
Click to expand...
Dershowtiz has been highly critical of Corey and the prosecution since this mess began. He had a scathing opinion of the affidavit that charged Zimmerman calling it unethical and irresponsible.

realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/12/alan_dershowitz_zimmerman_arrest_affidavit_irresponsible_and_unethical.html

She in turn contacted Harvard to try and get him disciplined or fired for criticizing her.

link to a review of the affidavit, which also has embedded links to othe opinions at the time.

statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-2-the-prosecutor-and-the-affidavit/
 
livingwordunity said:
Following someone isn’t a crime, but physically assaulting someone, as TM did to GZ, is a crime. TM made the wrong move by initiating the attack against GZ. TM didn’t figure that attacking GZ would cost him his life. It’s sad, but TM was the one to initiate a crime. GZ was not guilty of murder since murder has to do with premeditation and not heat of the moment. And if GZ would have premeditated using his gun he would have just unloaded his gun on TM from a distance. But instead, there was only one shot fired, and it was while GZ was getting his head pounded into the concrete by TM. In the heat of the moment, there was a reasonable basis for GZ to fear for his life since he had no way of knowing if TM would stop short of killing GZ.
Click to expand...
What is your source Trayvon Martin initiated the attack?

The only thing we know is that George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder and other charges. There are 4 minutes where we basically only have Zimmerman’s narrative.

One and only one of the Jurors as of now states she believes Martin threw the first punch.

newsok.com/juror-b37-says-she-believes-martin-threw-first-punch-in-confrontation-with-zimmerman/article/3862765

However, a finding of Zimmerman being not guilty is not a statement of fact that Martin initiated the struggle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top