Zimmerman Trial? Predictions?

I have seen some tweets saying it is now legal to kill teenagers in Florida, but after all the crap Zimmerman has been going through, think people are going to be less likely to get into these situations? I sure do.

LadyJazzer wrote: He's not "innocent"...He's "not guilty"... Two different things...

After 46 calls to 911 in 5 years, describing a "suspicious black man", this vigilante is not done with the legal system. NOW the DoJ will file a criminal civial rights action, and the parents will likely file a civil suit. And in both cases the standard is a "preponderance of evidence"...not "reasonable doubt."

It's not over....

I don't care who you are, that there is funny. The FBI has already investigated and found no evidence of racial motivations. The trial which just concluded established beyond any doubt that can be sustained by reason that Martin, not Zimmerman, was the aggressor that night. The parents would be fools to file any kind of a civil suit after an impartial jury rendered a verdict which can only be viewed as affirming that Zimmerman was defending himself from Martin's aggression that night.

Printsmith.....keep in my mind that "some" on the left are disappointed that attempts to highjack the court system have failed. They have a predictable MO that we will have to bare with. Same ole crap.....different day.

PrintSmith, they found OJ guilty in a civil trial after he was found not guilty in the criminal trial.... It's a much lower bar for civil court. I would be surprised if no wrongful death suit was filed. I think a case could be made that the decisions Zimmerman made that night directly caused the death of Martin.

Time will tell.

archer wrote: PrintSmith, they found OJ guilty in a civil trial after he was found not guilty in the criminal trial.... It's a much lower bar for civil court. I would be surprised if no wrongful death suit was filed. I think a case could be made that the decisions Zimmerman made that night directly caused the death of Martin.

Time will tell.

It's nice to see you admit that a high bar lead to the acquittal.

frogger wrote: Printsmith.....keep in my mind that "some" on the left are disappointed that attempts to highjack the court system have failed. They have a predictable MO that we will have to bare with. Same ole crap.....different day.

Which is why it is important to expose their lies for what they are. Martin wasn't shot because he was black, or for wearing a hoodie, or for looking like the president's son if the president had a son. Martin was shot because his assault on another person that night made the victim of that assault reasobably fear for his own safety.

archer wrote: PrintSmith, they found OJ guilty in a civil trial after he was found not guilty in the criminal trial.... It's a much lower bar for civil court. I would be surprised if no wrongful death suit was filed. I think a case could be made that the decisions Zimmerman made that night directly caused the death of Martin.

Time will tell.

And what decision would that be archer, the one he made to defend himself from Martin's assault? That is, after all, what the jury decided he did, isn't it? You honestly think a judge is going to allow a man to be sued for doing what any reasonable person would do when their own safety was imperiled?

You actually believe, even a little bit, that someone who defended their own life from an assualt is liable for the loss of the life of their assailant? No, if such a suit is brought, then there will be a motion entered to have Zimmerman declared immune from that suit because an impartial jury rendered a verdict that establishes he acted in defense of himself. The Florida courts have already endured the embarrassment of one politically motivated trial, I can't see them permitting a second one to occur in their civil court branch.

So far as the 46 calls goes (assuming the number is correct), that was explained pretty well in the trial. The police lady who trains people for neighborhood watch testified that they set up one person as a neighborhood liaison with the police, and in this case it was Zimmerman. It's better to have one person making the 911 or nonemergency phone calls than several people calling for the same thing. So Zimmerman may of simply been relaying calls he got from neighbors, though I don't think they had a way to break it down. Not that everyone in the neighborhood would necessarily know about this liaison either.

She also made an interesting point in that she was impressed with Zimmerman and his demeanor and she offered him a position on a volunteer citizen patrol where you get to drive an official car with lights, and wear a uniform. But the the super cop wannabe Zimmerman (as portrayed by the prosecution) turned her down. Wouldn't a cop wannabe take a job like that thinking it could be a stepping stone?

One of the big early falsehoods in this case was that Zimmerman was told to stay in his car. That was not the case. After he left his vehicle (to find an address according to Zimmerman) the dispatcher could tell he was outside from the sounds and it wasn't until then that he said "we don't need you to do that" in reference to following Martin. Zimmerman replied "OK" as I recall. It was also made clear that the dispatcher has no legal authority and in fact they are trained not to tell people specifically what to do because they can face legal action if wrong. Hence the unspecific "we don't need you to do that".

Still, the police lady who trained the neighborhood watch did testify that watch people are told not to follow people (for their own safety) and just call 911. So Zimmerman should of known he shouldn't of left his car, probably even if he was looking for an address.

But leaving your car, or even following someone is not a crime so I don't see how that act was a big part of determining innocence or guilt in this criminal trial. But in a civil suit things can be much different. They might find Zimmerman was irresponsible to leave his car and could be at least partially liable for the events that happened after that point. Of course Martin (had he lived) could of been found partially liable too.

It was also interesting that the head of the townhouse association testified about a previous burglary that took place. Some stucco worker(s) saw a suspicious person leaving a home and called 911. As I recall the person was leaving the townhomes and the worker(s) followed him while keeping in contact with 911. The guy ended up being arrested in that case.

archer wrote: Not Guilty....

Still think it shouldn't have gone to trial? Zimmerman will have more peace in his life after being found not guilty than if it had never gone to trial.

I disagree... Zimmerman will have no peace in his life because he will forever be the villian of the new black icon which people like Al Sharpton have created. Z is the new Casey Anthony and he better find a good plastic surgeon. Al Sharpton is now pressuring the Justice Dept and of course, Holder will oblige. Zimmerman will find peace when he takes his last breath, or if he finds his own private island.

And BTW, I admit I was dead wrong about the verdict.

archer wrote: PrintSmith, they found OJ guilty in a civil trial after he was found not guilty in the criminal trial.... It's a much lower bar for civil court. I would be surprised if no wrongful death suit was filed. I think a case could be made that the decisions Zimmerman made that night directly caused the death of Martin.

Time will tell.

And speaking of bars... the original charge was 2nd degree murder... and then, when the prosecution realized that they screwed up badly... they threw the manslaughter charge into the mix. That lower bar didn't help either.

How much lower do you want to go... how about a lynching?