Trayvon Case Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steinhauer said:
Very wise decision.
Click to expand...

Why are you against on me? You don't understand about what I was saying about this case.

If I'm interested to become a lawyer so I will for that.

I'm glad that you aren't serve as jury in this case and your view is too extreme.

You have NO respect at all.
 
Foxrac said:
Why are you against on me? You don't understand about what I was saying about this case.

If I'm interested to become a lawyer so I will for that.

I'm glad that you aren't serve as jury in this case and your view is too extreme.

You have NO respect at all.
Click to expand...

I have to ask....How is "We will wait for all of the facts" an extreme view.
 
For some people, especially txgolfer, Steinhauer and some other members don't understand my post

My view on George Zimmerman is BASED on current evidence that we have right now so he is going charge as second degree murder, or at very least, manslaughter. I support justice for Trayvon Martin and it doesn't matters if it is second degree murder or manslaughter because I believe that George Zimmerman should pay for killing the unarmed teenager. I don't see George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death as in self defense because he wanted to follow and confront at first place. I already know that I will lose my self-defense if I want to confront wherever isn't in my property or my car. I'm not FUCKING robot that automatically follow Jiro's post and he is just explain so REALLY CLEAR about between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. I don't see any current evidences that prove about Trayvon Martin is aggressor, except for attack on George Zimmerman. Honest with you, both of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman made a HUGE mistake and it is already messed up. My decision with this justice for Martin Trayvon is tentative until it is final at court and I still support justice for VICTIMS in OJ Simspon's case and Casey Anthony's case, despite about both of cases are not guilty.

This case above doesn't INFLUENCE on my jury strategy and if I were juror so I will make decision that based on evidence, not from personal or emotion, PERIOD. Both of Steinhauer and Reba, you shouldn't say at first place because I don't live in Florida and it is very rude to say like that. I decided to talk back to tell both of you to not serve as jury.

Time for you to cease out any bashing.
 
Jiro said:
the point is - when you call 911... it's obviously a potentially dangerous situation.

he should not be checking out the situation. that's a cop's job.
Click to expand...
Which, they don't know about until someone observes something and gives them a call. He did that.

Are you saying that if you see something going on at a neighbor's house you wouldn't check it out? Don't you and your neighbors look out for each other?


the evidence and testimony will not reveal what he felt at that time. the only person who knows is Zimmerman himself and he's certainly not going to put himself on stand.
Click to expand...
I guess you haven't observed many trials.
 
TXgolfer said:
I have to ask....How is "We will wait for all of the facts" an extreme view.
Click to expand...

I'm NOT talking about you but just for Steinhauer, he sees George Zimmerman as innocent and self defense - see old thread that we debated for many hours.
 
Foxrac said:
I'm glad that you aren't serve as jury for Zimmerman's case.

Some of members don't understand about what I was saying, I just believe about George Zimmerman, based on current evidence. You don't know about my strategy with jury duty, same goes with Reba....
Click to expand...
That's the problem. What you have seen is not evidence. It's not evidence until it's presented in court.

News reports in the media or on the web are not evidence.
 
Foxrac said:
In bold, I already know about that and jurors are make a decision that based on evidence.

Some jurors hide their bias so difficult to revealed during jury selection and no jurors are perfect.
Click to expand...
I'll agree with that.
 
Reba said:
That's the problem. What you have seen is not evidence. It's not evidence until it's presented in court.

News reports in the media or on the web are not evidence.
Click to expand...

Whatever, wait and see in court!
 
Jiro said:
the point is - when you call 911... it's obviously a potentially dangerous situation.


he should not be checking out the situation. that's a cop's job.


the evidence and testimony will not reveal what he felt at that time. the only person who knows is Zimmerman himself and he's certainly not going to put himself on stand.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure he called 911. it looks like he called a non-emergency number that neighborhood watch types use.
https://www.google.com/search?q=zim...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
 
TXgolfer said:
That is exactly what we are saying. That's great advice.
Click to expand...

To be fair, that's mostly what Trayvon's family wanted, too. That's what they initially were most upset about- that there wasn't going to be any kind of trial where they got answers.

Al Sharpton et al got in on the deal with the frenzied race-bating and whipped up the media, which told the usual lies and half truths.
 
Jiro said:
Anybody with common sense and carrying a concealed gun knows very well that a situation can get POTENTIALLY bad if you confront a person whom you believe is very suspicious. Why in the god's name would you ever put yourself in a possibly dangerous situation especially if you're not a cop?

You're avoiding my question. I asked you - "What I said is that an armed citizen should never ever put himself in a potentially dangerous situation where somebody could get hurt or killed. Do you agree or not?"

This is the same question that I've been asking for weeks and nobody has answered this question. You and I both know why.


lol! have you ever seen a defendant taking a stand especially in murder trial? (the exception is a psychopathic person who prides in his work)


does it matter? no need to create many threads about same thing but you are free to make one.
Click to expand...

No, I do not agree, and I have told you so before and I explained why. You seem to believe that owning a gun reduces your rights, which is false. Neighbors have the right to ask strangers in the neighborhood what they are doing. That right doesn't change just because they also carry a legal weapon. I think that's being a good neighbor, not a bad citizen.

Also, you are assuming facts not in evidence, we do not know if Zimmerman confronted Trayvon or not.

It's also silly. You cannot make blanket statements about what a person should 'never' do, regardless of whether he is carrying a legal weapon or not. You do not always know what is or is not a 'dangerous' situation until too late. And what one person thinks is obviously a dangerous situation, another person would not agree with. It's just your opinion that keeping an eye on a stranger in the neighborhood is 'dangerous.' I disagree. Attitudes like yours are behind the disgraceful situations where people are raped or murdered in public while their screams for help were ignored by people who believed they should never put themselves "in a potentially dangerous situation where somebody could get hurt or killed".

My husband has a concealed weapon permit precisely so that he can defend the defenseless, not so he can run away and hide from a potentially dangerous situation just in case somebody gets hurt. He carries a weapon to make sure that innocent people do not get hurt.

once upon a time in this country neighbors looked out for each other, and crime rates were much lower.
 
Grayma said:
To be fair, that's mostly what Trayvon's family wanted, too. That's what they initially were most upset about- that there wasn't going to be any kind of trial where they got answers.

Al Sharpton et al got in on the deal with the frenzied race-bating and whipped up the media, which told the usual lies and half truths.
Click to expand...
I would say, the mass media usually gives misinformations, not telling lies. If they tell lies, they would be out of business.
 
One commenter at CNN.com made a good point about the first confrontation, if that is a fact that there were two confrontations. During the 1st confrontation, why didn't TM answer GZ that he was visiting his father who lives in that area and then walk away instead of getting out of control so the 2nd confrontation would not happen?
 
CrazyPaul said:
One commenter at CNN.com made a good point about the first confrontation, if that is a fact that there were two confrontations. During the 1st confrontation, why didn't TM answer GZ that he was visiting his father who lives in that area and then walk away instead of getting out of control so the 2nd confrontation would not happen?
Click to expand...

Good question
 
CrazyPaul said:
I would say, the mass media usually gives misinformations, not telling lies. If they tell lies, they would be out of business.
Click to expand...

I disagree somewhat, some in the media give out disinformation in the effort to whip up the people into a frenzy frothing mass of ......
 
kokonut said:
I disagree somewhat, some in the media give out disinformation in the effort to whip up the people into a frenzy frothing mass of ......
Click to expand...

You mean like this....


Where is the outrage? More to the point, where is the news coverage?

You may have missed it. Actually, unless you were searching for it (or are a frequent viewer of Sean Hannity's show), you probably did.

It seems that a version of the 911 tape that we all heard over and over again of George Zimmerman calling the cops to report suspicious behavior by 17-year-old Trayvon Martin just before fatally shooting the boy was like something out of the Nixon White House -- edited. Sure, we all heard it with our own ears, but it is what we didn’t hear that’s key to understanding the confrontation between the neighborhood watchman and the Skittles-toting youngster.
Back on March 27, a full month after the shooting, NBC’s Today Show aired Zimmerman’s call to the police, featuring these words: “This guy looks like he's up to no good … he looks black.” The recording then went viral as did the presumption of racism in Zimmerman’s overreaction. The juxtaposition of Martin looking suspicious and looking black was enough to accelerate a firestorm of anger and protest.

Apparently, hearing is not exactly believing, or rather shouldn’t be. The folks at the the Today Show had shortened the Zimmerman tape for broadcast (as if the show didn’t have lots of time to devote to the story).

Here is the fuller version of the recording:

Zimmerman: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."
911 dispatcher: "OK, and this guy -- is he black, white or Hispanic?"

Zimmerman: "He looks black."

And so, Zimmerman’s description of Martin as looking black came only in response to a specific question about race/ethnicity.

Earlier this week, NBC revealed its blunder. "During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret," said the network said in a prepared statement. "We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers."

It surely helps that NBC has apologized for altering the tape. This should alter how we all view the incident and perhaps we should collectively apologize for prejudging, if not misjudging, the circumstances surrounding divisive episode.

NBC has to answer for its error of "omission" -- omission of a few key seconds from the 911 recording. But so too does the broader news media need to answer for its decision largely to ignore NBC's distortion after having reported heavily on the response.
Click to expand...

http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/04/altered_meaning_of_zimmermans.html
 
kokonut said:
I disagree somewhat, some in the media give out disinformation in the effort to whip up the people into a frenzy frothing mass of ......
Click to expand...
If the media gives out disinformation (false or inaccurate info intentionally), they can get in trouble for slander/libel/defamation. Misinformation is a false or inaccurate info that is spread unintentionally which the media usually gives out ("jump to conclusions").

Earlier this week, NBC revealed its blunder. "During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret," said the network said in a prepared statement. "We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers."

That means that they didn't make a mistake on purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top