ABC Legal Analyst: George Zimmerman Has to 'Prove That Trayvon Martin Was the Initial Aggressor'
Since that awful Sunday in Sanford, Florida, back in February, the media have shown time and time again they don't understand how the American justice system works.
Take ABC legal analyst Dan Abrams who on Thursday's Nightline said, "So even if Zimmerman was on his back, even if he was losing a fight, he still has a lot of explaining to do and is going to have to prove that Trayvon Martin was the initial aggressor" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
MATT GUTMAN, ABC: So, which side does this trove of information benefit?
DAN ABRAMS, ABC LEGAL ANALYST: There's a lot in these documents that seems to help George Zimmerman’s defense team. But let's remember: Trayvon Martin was still shot and killed by George Zimmerman. And so even if Zimmerman was on his back, even if he was losing a fight, he still has a lot of explaining to do and is going to have to prove that Trayvon Martin was the initial aggressor.
Actually, in America, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty and therefore doesn't have to prove anything.
Zimmerman's attorneys don't even have to mount a defense.
The burden is on the prosecution to prove Zimmerman "was the initial aggessor" especially as the charge is second degree murder.
Abrams, who has a law degree from Columbia University, should know better.
But this is how the media have prosecuted this case from day one.
Zimmerman was assumed to be guilty by our press right from the start thereby jading the public to the actual facts of the case.
With each passing day, we have have found out more and more that leads one to believe what happened that early evening in Sanford, Florida, was far different than what was initially reported.
In fact, as the the evidence supplants the assumptions, the likelihood Zimmerman will be found guilty of second degree murder appears to be approaching zero.
This is why people should be tried in a court of law and not by biased media members with an agenda.
(HT NB reader Varice Mire)
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
How long after the verdict?
Submitted by JayVee on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:51am.
And how long will it be after the "not guilty" verdict before the rioting begins?
"Rioting" has such a negative conotation
Submitted by IgnatzJFahrquar on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:55pm.
I prefer to think of it as Urban Renewal.
I prefer to think of it as
Submitted by Ars21689 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:01pm.
Jackasses destroying their own communities.
rioting
Submitted by milootoole on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:57pm.
Obama and libs think of it as an evolution!!
How presumptuous of you
Submitted by jpwcpa on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 5:59pm.
You seem to think that riots will not occur until _after_ the verdict is reached. I am not that optimistic.
The key to the defense is Stand Your Ground
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:52am.
I'm not certain what the elements of that law are, but we have two individuals here. Either one could be protected by the provisions of Stand Your Ground depending on who initiated the confrontation and how.
To my knowledge, Zimmerman had absolutely no law enforcement authority to engage Martin in anyway, so the issue then becomes: What did Zimmerman do after he called the police desk and was told by the desk officer not to interfere with Martin.
The fact that Zimmerman used his own gun to shoot Martin in the chest is not in dispute. Zimmerman's defense will likely anchor its case on Stand Your Ground, and attempt to create in the collective mind of the jury either certainty of SYG, or at a minimum, reasonable doubt so that the prosecution cannot porve murder.
Zimmerman, as with any other
Submitted by cristo on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:32am.
Zimmerman, as with any other citizen, had the right to be where he was. So did Martin. Zimmerman, as with most other citizens (felons excluded) had a right to carry his weapon, concealed as it was, because he had a permit from the state of Florida. It has been reported that Zimmerman first obtained the weapon after a pit bull threatened people in his neighborhood. It has been reported that Zimmerman told a police office he was going to get pepper spray for himself and his wife to protect against the pit bull, but the cop told him to get a gun. The reason being that by the time the pepper spray took affect, the pit bull could have attacked and done damage. Zimmerman took this advice and it has been reported that he and his wife purchased guns and took safety courses required by law in Florida for CCW permits. Zimmerman as a citizen in good standing (not a felon) had every right to carry that weapon. There is no law in Florida that prohibits a Neighborhood Watch Captain from carrying a gun. A 911 operator is not a police officer and it has been reported that the 911 operator Zimmerman spoke with did not have the authority to tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin. The 911 operator did, however, suggest to Zimmerman that he need not follow Martin. "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman said, "OK." Zimmerman may have continued to follow Martin, but there has been no evidence made public as yet to prove that. Martin family attorney Crump said Martin told his "young girlfriend" on the phone that he was "not going to run." Attorney Crump also said Martin confronted Zimmerman and asked, "Why are you following me." Zimmerman is 5'9" and stout, Martin was over 6' and athletic. It was getting dark. The were in the shadows. Zimmerman says Martin attacked him and knocked him to the ground. Zimmerman had a broken nose, cuts to his face, two gashes on the back of his hear, the back of his jacket was wet and showed traces of grass, an eye witness says he saw the man in the red jacket (Zimmerman) on the ground and the larger man on top of him. Martin had cuts on his knuckles. A reasonable person might think Zimmerman was in fear for his life.
cristo
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:39am.
Paragraphs please?! Some of us are beyond bifocals these days.
Yep
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:47pm.
...but he's pretty conservative, so I'll give him a break... this time. ; )
And yeah buddy, I'm about half-blind too, lol.
I agree, Cristo
Submitted by Name on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:47am.
I agree. I don't think stand your ground has anything to do with it. If the confrontation went down the way Zimmerman said, he didn't get a chance to turn away.
Cristo~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:19am.
You had some info there I had not heard -- interesting, including your analysis. Without knowing all the facts yet of the case, your thoughts on how this could have gone down is certainly one common sense explanation.
Did both these guys feel threatened, in their own ways? Possibly. Or maybe just one of them did. Did Zimmerman feel the way Martin was acting was suspicious and he was simply geared to watch out for that kind of thing in his neighborhood, especially late at night? Was Martin feeling stalked? Did one of them much more actively instigate the tragedy that followed? Was Martin more scared for his life or angry/defensive/acting out? Could Martin have just answered Zimmerman's questions (if he was asked any) or walked away from it? Could he have avoided the violent confrontation, or did he "go there" because he was just ticked or looking for a fight?
The jury has to sort through all that. We do know of the injuries now, which is one fact. We do have one eye witness account, and if deemed credible, that is another fact. We do have the distance the gun was fired, which is another fact. We do know Zimmerman called 911, and all that info adds to the info the jury can use to point to some possibly reasonable conclusions. These issues and facts are exactly what the jury will need to help them decide -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- what happened here. I did read this on a CNN blog, in regard to possible facts the jury may also consider:
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-23/justice/justice_florida-teen-shooting...
A LOT OF THE MSM REALLY MESSED UP HERE! That's an understatement. It's inexcusable. They needed to stay out of it until all the facts were in -- as we all know, it was irresponsible of them and likely has put many other people's lives in danger now, no matter which way this goes, in terms of a jury decision. Many in the MSM decided early on what the "right" conclusion was. They pushed that one-sided storyline.
All the media's innuendo and selective facts -- their clear bias -- has set the jury and process up in the worst possible way. Whenever anybody dies, it's a tragedy, but the issue for the jury is if Zimmerman had reasonable reason to feel his life was in danger, and if it was self-defense or not. This decision needs to play out in the courtroom, without the media's biased interference. That would be justice. The media have interfered with the criminal justice process and caused nothing but dangerous problems for all -- the prosecution, defense, defendent and even other U.S. citizens.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Umm...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:51am.
Frankly, SYG is the target of the lefties here.
Here's the irony. If Martin really did feel threatened just from being followed or yelled at (no firearms brandishing is even implied at this point), and he jumped Zimmerman, in self defense, then it would still be Martin's escalation of force that would have been illegal... unless, of course, you have SYG laws.
A private citizen does not need any authority to
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:17pm.
"engage" another private citizen under any circumstances. Which really boils down to speaking to another citizen, nothing more. And the law does not grant anyone the "right" not to be spoken to if they so desire, unless it rises to the level of harassment. Nor does the "engaged" private citizen (Martin) have any responsibility or requirement placed on him by the law to stop and speak. He could have just kept on walking and ignored Zimmerman altogether. He would not have any ill consequences with the law.
RIots
Submitted by dmntd1 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:56am.
All the media has done is instigated the riots that will undoubtedly occur after he is found not guilty.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
Dan Abrams is a criminal-coddling, government-educated dumba$$
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:57am.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Media has too much invested
Submitted by creekrat on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:06am.
In my view, he must be found guilty at any cost or the media loses face, they went way too far on this and had lots of help from their buddy race baiters.
...no authority to engage Martin...
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:09am.
I think that is THE question that has to be answered. As far as I know, I don't know who engaged who. I did read somewhere on a local (Orlando) media website that Martin had come back to confront Zimmerman, but I haven't seen it again.
Whatever may come from a verdict, one way or the other, I believe is the fault and responsibility of the media hucksters that have used this case for their own gain.
Follow the narrative (money)
Submitted by ontheright on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:41am.
I think you are absolutely right regarding the media - see the link below for an excellent disection of the preconceived narrative by the story "controllers" and the following run-up by the race-baiters, msm and other would be "stakeholders"...a very, very interesting analysis, IMHO.
I'm sharing this everywhere I find (sh)people who doubt claims of msm bias, and outright corruption and fraud.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/trayvon_and_zimmerman_the_structu...
Zimmerman's been Nifong'd
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:28am.
Which was as clear as the nose on my face the day Zimmerman was charged, and is not so abundantly clear that the facts would blind Stevie Wonder.
It is embarrassing that the State is continuing to press forward with this case, merely due to the media and community "pressure". We should not be coerced by the threat of force (rioting).
At the end of the day, I think we'll find the Zimmerman case more disgusting that of the Duke Lacrosse team.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Agreed - sad, but true.
Submitted by ontheright on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:32am.
Agreed - sad, but true.
Blonde, Alan Dershowitz has weighed in, again.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:03pm.
"A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally".
He goes on to reference a "columnist" from the Daily Beast, who wants Zimmerman's lawyer to broker a deal, plead him guilty to something, to "become a “savior” by brokering a deal to plead his client guilty to a crime that “has him back on the streets within this decade.” According to Mansfield Frazier, the "columnist", it's the "responsibility of the legal system to “avert a large scale racial calamity." Apparently doing justice takes second place to avoiding a "racial calamity".
Up, and Blonde, you both make great points!
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:08pm.
J, I just hope the state attorney general gets her "Nifong" treatment in the end, because she deserves it!
Up, if a "racial calamity" does happen, it should fall squarely at the feet of the irresponsible MSM! Any deaths, destruction that may occur, they, along with the "Justice Brothers", should be held LEGALLY liable for it, and made to pay restitution! Maybe then they wouldn't be so quick to "invent" news, and omit the facts.
Since when do we cut deals to avoid riots that were created by the media and the "Justice Brothers"? "Sorry Mr. Zimmerman, we need you to fall on your sword for the good of society".....What a crock of c***!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Zimmerman doesn't have to
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:09am.
Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" anything.
All his lawyer has to do is create "reasonable doubt" on the case that the prosecutor makes.
All his lawyer has to do...
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:17am.
AND hope he doesn't have an "O.J." jury!!
Good luck with that...
Submitted by ontheright on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:52am.
The jury pool is so incredibly tainted there's only a slim chance Zimmerman will ever get a fair trial. Roll out the tents, let the O.J. circus, part II begin...very sad, really.
This has all been by design - see my earlier post and link...
This is the Duke rape case to another magnitude.
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:16am.
The media have tried and convicted Zimmerman already. Now they want the defendant in a murder trial to have to prove that he is innocent. This whole society has been turned on it's head over the last few years.
I heard a news "reporter" yesterday evening (not sure which network) say that Zimmerman was the aggressor because he left his car and didn't wait for police. So by there standards now, no one is allowed to go anywhere that they have any suspicion of crime or danger or else you will be the "aggressor".
So all you New Yorkers better stay in your apparetments huddled in the corner. If you go out for food, you will be the "aggressor".
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Kooks
Submitted by JLin on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:17am.
You have to go some serious mental and logical contortions to contend that George Zimmerman is guilty of a crime here. The Lefties and race hustlers need to walk away and cut their losses --- just as Martin should have done instead of sucker punching a man he didn't like watching him.
The burdon of proof is on the
Submitted by texastommy on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:19am.
The burdon of proof is on the prosecution. Zimmerman doesn't have to proove anything.
Biased and obviously lying legal analyst, but what's new.
ABC = Always Bakarak's Cheerleaders
I see that the media is still
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:39am.
I see that the media is still using an out of date photo of Martin in their attempt to make him just a fresh-faced kid at the time of the incident.
I'm not a lawyer or anything,
Submitted by RDD on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:51am.
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I would think that from the prespective of a juror if a defendent claims self defense he's going to have to prove to me that it was.
You're admitting to killing the person, it would be up to you to prove to me that you had to to defend yourself and the prosecution would do everything it can to disprove that claim.
Now if he was saying he didn't kill him, then it would be on the prosecution to prove that he did.
And before anyone jumps on me, I whole heartedly agree that the media has been complete asshats on the case and already convicted the man in their minds.
In reality...
Submitted by ontheright on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:55am.
...it's the prosecution's job to prove that it wasn't self-defense, not the other way around.
After you explained that to the
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:00pm.
prosecutor and defense attorney in voir dire, the next thing you'd hear is "excused". There is no burden of proof on the defense in a criminal trial.
In the Zimmerman case, he'll probably testify. There's an old saying amongst prosecutors and defense attorneys, "What do you call a defendant who doesn't testify in his own defense? An inmate".
UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:09pm.
"There is no burden of proof on the defense in a criminal trial"
In most jurisdictions, but not all.
"What do you call a defendant who doesn't testify in his own defense? An inmate".
I believe that should read "...defendant who testifies..."
Jer
Could be, Jer.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:08pm.
But I've heard it both ways. Perhaps that's why I'd never take a Public Defender? Also, it's said, if you're guilty, don't testify, if you aren't, you had better testify.
As to your first point, granted, but Zimmerman isn't being tried in Ohio. I guess I should have specified that Zimmerman would be tried in Florida?
Well, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:17pm.
as we all know, a defendant is not required to prove his innocence. The prosecution must prove his guilt. So, the inherent advantage of not testifying becomes readily apparent. Many cases have ended in juries acquitting defendants they believed were more likely than not guilty of the crime alleged, but also believed the state failed to make the case.
Jer
Really? Did you read RDD's post that started this?
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:24pm.
There is more than one person sitting on a jury somewhere today, who feels the same way.
I'm speaking in general terms, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:41pm.
RDD is referring to those occasions where a defendant is asserting an affirmative defense, or something akin to an affirmative defense--e.g. justifiable homicide as in the Zimmerman case--in which event he does need to establish the elements of the defense and demonstrate how his behavior satisfied those elements. And he can do this through personal testimony or by the submission of physical evidence, witness statements, police reports, etc.
If there's a stand your ground issue raised, I believe FL provides a separate preliminary hearing to address that question.
Jer
Yes, Florida does provide that hearing.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:28pm.
I don't know yet, if Zimmerman's attorneys will raise stand your ground, or self-defense. I saw a case the other night on ID, where Stand Your Ground was raised, and it showed the hearing for that defense.
I don't know if SYG will be used, but:
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:20pm.
It doesn't matter what Zimmerman was doing, as long as he didn't threaten Martin.
All i want to know is, if Zimmerman was on a public street, even if he WAS following Martin, since in and of itself, that is not illegal, and with no proof of initial aggression on Zimmermans part, how is this not clear:
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
I suspect that once his head was splattered on the ground, he reasonably concluded that there might be "... great bodily harm to himself..."
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:01pm.
From the facts in this case that we do have, which I laid out, above (unless what is now out there is made up and we have no facts!), there is plenty the defense can do to make a good showing for self-defense.
So without putting myself in the jury box to say what I would do IF those are the facts and without seeing the prosecution's case (I just feel so wrong doing that), I just wanted to say that if the defense has enough facts to add up that is convincing that it was self-defense, yes, I can see them making their case without Zimmerman getting up there.
However, there is a tough aspect here in that I have to believe there may be jurors who just so want to hear the "missing link," -- that being what happened after the time Zimmerman hung up with 911 and the shooting. If Zimmerman can get up there and lay that out and is credible, that takes care of that gap. It shouldn't be a gamble for him to do that if he is telling the truth, but I know how lawyering goes. Usually, it is caution in doing that if feel they have all the facts to persuade. I get it. And he could be nervous and appear dishonest when he is actually not, etc. etc.
But some jurors may want that link explained. However, they may not NEED it.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
I agree, GG...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:11pm.
I think juries in almost all cases would prefer to hear from the defendant, and, that will be especially true in this case. I think it likely that Zimmerman will both need and want to testify because of the nature of his defense, assuming it reaches that stage. It's possible there could be a plea deal. Also possible the state's case could collapse before or during trial.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 05/19/2012 - 1:00am.
To clarify/expand on Ohio "Castle Doctrine" law -- IN THE HOME OR VEHICLE there is no duty to retreat. Anywhere outside your home or vehicle, such as the driveway or an unattached garage, there is a duty to retreat if possible.
BTW, an attached porch is considered part of the home, but it is unclear if an attached garage would be.
To put this in perspective, if the Martin-Zimmerman shooting were to occur in Ohio, Martin would need to defend his use of force in public. His duty to retreat may be satisfied in that he was on the bottom of the fight and the injuries he sustained, particularly in comparison to Martin's. Based on the evidence from medical reports, forensic evidence from investigators, and an eye witness account, Zimmerman may convince a jury that he was in fear for his life.
If Martin was in the process of entering or had already entered Zimmerman's home or vehicle, then there is no duty to retreat.
Another brief article comparing Florida and Ohio's self-defense laws.
A surprisingly good Cleveland TV news segment on Ohio's Castle Doctrine law.
Reasonable doubt
Submitted by octavioj on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:02am.
Is not the role of the accuser to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman WAS the aggressor? Why is it Zimmerman's burden? And these people are legal analysts?
did you mean Martin?
Submitted by wizardjr on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:44am.
did you mean Martin was the aggressor?
Affirmative Defense
Submitted by Nathan on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:20am.
I believe in some jurisdictions, if a criminal defendant raises an affirmative defense such as stand-your-ground, the defendant bears the burden of proving the elements of the defense. The prosecution must of course prove the elements of the crime itself beyond a reasonable doubt, but the affirmative defense is a separate matter.
Abrams knows better. But
Submitted by NCfairandbalanced on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:56am.
Abrams knows better. But he's so wrapped up in this media blitz. He knows the principle of innocent until proven guilty. But you see, from his viewpoint, the media has already done that. The trial is just for confirmation. I really believe he thinks that.
I don't have a dog in this fight, and I want justice to prevail. If Zimmerman really did kill because Martin was black, put him in jail and throw away the key. But if he's not, and it was self-defense, then he's free.
But I gotta say...I'm rooting for Zimmerman. Why?
Because I'm white? No.
Because of no specific reason, really? No, again.
Because the media and Sharpton will look like the idiots they are? You guessed it. Yes!
One last thing about ol' Rev. Al. His thinking on being wrong (again):
The people who think he's an idiot...he doesn't care.
The people who don't think he's an idiot...they don't care!
I'm no lawyer but what i see
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:17am.
I'm no lawyer but what i see is Zimmerman's civil rights being violated. How's he going to get a fair trial, especially since the mobs are threatening riots if a verdict doesn't go their way? How is he going to get a fair trial if the media already found him guilty and has been skewing or witholding evidence from the public. (Yes I know the public is not a jury, but where does the jury come from? The public). Plus it's not up to Zimmerman to prove his innocence but the prosecutor's job.
I can't wait for the riots.
Submitted by wizardjr on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:49am.
I wonder if the porch monkie brigade will burn their own homes down like 1960's. If they come out to the burbs that's okay too - target rich environment as they try to burn other people's houses.
Hmmm, I'll have to be sure to stock in extra popcorn and vodka when the verdict is due.
Noel, you are not 100% right, but you are mostly correct--at
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 11:56am.
least with respect to Zimmerman and FLA law--and your assessment is definitely more accurate than Abrams'.
In some jurisdictions a defendant claiming self-defense would indeed have an affirmative burden of proving the decedent's death or other violent response on his [the defendant's] part was justified, i.e. arising from a reasonable fear of suffering serious bodily harm, etc. However, the standard for meeting that burden would only necessitate proof by a preponderance of evidence rather than the far more rigorous 'beyond any reasonable doubt'--the latter always remaining the standard of proof applicable to the prosecution for establishing the guilt of the accused.
Furthermore, Florida and most jurisdictions do not even place this lesser [preponderance] burden on a defendant claiming self-defense and instead adhere to the principle that the burden never shifts from the prosecution. Of course there are specified elements comprising a proper claim of self-defense, all of which must be credibly shown and accepted by the jury for a defendant to prevail. And, in that regard, it is incumbent upon the defense to make sure relevant facts are adduced either by statements of the accused or from other sources to ensure sufficient rebuttal evidence is in the record to establish a prima facie case of justifiable homicide which would then require the trial judge to instruct the jury on the issue.
At the present time, FLA criminal law is very defendant-friendly. That doesn't guarantee a friendly jury of course. But it might impact an appeal in the event of an unfavorable verdict against Zimmerman at the trial level.
Jer
give me one juror
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:39pm.
that is White-Hispanic with a black Grand Parent and I'll get an acquittal.
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:38pm.
Sorry to go off-topic on this thread, everyone. I just had a quick question for Jer that he never answered for me on another thread. :(
Is there ANY chance you will vote for Romney? If it's too personal, you can PM me. If you don't even want to answer that for me, just ignore me. I can take a hint -- if I ask twice and get nothing. ;)
[Uh, back on topic a tad. I like your new pic, Noel...Well, his pic is with his blog, so it applies a tiny bit!]
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Yes, GG. there is a chance, albeit a small one.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:05pm.
After all, I don't know if you or anyone recalls, but my candidate of choice for 2008 was Evan Bayh, and I stated publicly here that I would vote for Mitt Romney if he were the GOP candidate and if Hillary were the Democratic nominee. Of course, he wasn't and she wasn't.
I was only mildly enthusiastic about Obama, but I am a Democrat, and, even though I liked McCain, I did not view a McCain presidency favorably. I believed Obama would most likely tack toward the center once taking office, and in many (but obviously not all) respects--and despite all the hand-wringing about tyranny and treason and communism and destroying America, he has done exactly that.
But if the economy remains sluggish--with either only slight improvement, or especially if there are further declines--I think the election is Romney's to lose.
Jer
Good evening Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:15pm.
Spoken like a true democrat. Your loyalty to rhe religion of liberalism and his Dirtiness, Pope Obama is admirable.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good evening, cocodrie...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:20pm.
Thank you for your compelling and thoughtful analysis.
Jer
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:25pm.
To summarize...".Obama has made ..a tack toward the center"...???
And you actually typed that?
For someone who will read a post, inspect every minute detail, then regale on every piece of minutae, and then you post ....a slight tack toward the center...???
Cajun is disappointed in the Jerster.
cajun...you're referring to someone [moi] who has had the
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:01pm.
phrase "could care less" sliced and diced ad nauseum on two occasions, who has been hounded with repeated questions as to why I sign my name to my comments, who posted a searing criticism of the MSM only to have the single phrase "recent laudable efforts at balance" parsed to pieces...and I ?? am obsessed with minutiae??? Pu-leeze, cajun.
I said "in many (but obviously not all) respects, he has tacked toward the center." And he has. All you need to do is check out the lefty bloggers and progressives who have been seriously P.O'd at his doing so.
I am amazed and saddened by cajun's disappointment.
Jer
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:34pm.
You expect far left bloggers and progressives to define Obama's move to the "center"????
Obama has said he would "transform America" and he has done as much as he can to make that transformation. To do that transformation, no" centrist " could ever accomplish that since that defies the definition of "centrist".!!!!
cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:03pm.
I expect as reasonable a definition from the left regarding his sporadic "centrism" as I can expect from the right with respect to his allegedly being mired in far-left Marxism and contemplating the imposition of martial law and a suspension of the elections.
Jer
➚ Mr. Bare-Wrister
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:09pm.
You still don't see a Government takeover of 1/6th of the economy?
To Jer...
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:04pm.
That is GREAT! Few things make him more sick that Americans make their own medical decisions, and pay for them, every day. Jer needs the government to micromanage and control every aspect American's life - for their own good, of course.
The best way to do that? Make damn sure that an American won't be able to get as much as a bandage for a paper cut without having to go begging to the government for permission.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Obama tacking port
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:23pm.
I agree the Obama the POTUS moved to the center in some areas but the people he put in charge in various functionary and advisory positions are left of where he even campaigned. So with the exception of military actions his administration is probably right on track with Obama the candidate or even very slightly to the left.
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:55pm.
Okay, I have a tiny (very tiny) smile on my face -- that you would even acknowledge a "small" chance.
Now there is no way on God's green earth I can agree with you that O went to the Center. He only did so in small doses in small ways when his hand was forced -- or IMO, political calculations in trying to keep Independents from running away from him, thinking of his re-election chances. There were only a few times (and I mean a FEW) I agreed with him on a decision he made in almost 3 years, but those were times I felt his hand was forced.
However, given that you believe he went to the Center (and I KNOW I cannot possibly dissuade you of this), I implore of you...if he gets a second term, it will not even be YOUR definition of "Center." It WILL be scary.
With your views, I know I can only appeal to you in a few areas. I will write another very brief post after this to lay out a few points that you may want to consider. I am not setting this up as a debate because that is not my intent -- just a few things, if you so care to consider them. Then I am done.
But you gave me a tiny bit of hope. Tiny. But it's something.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Jer Part II~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:20pm.
Okay. This is my only appeal to you:
1) WHAT RECOVERY?
The economic statistics that the Obama Administration is pushing showing economic "recovery" are phony. The unemployment rate is not dropping -- frustrated job-seekers (tens of millions) have simply given up on finding work.
2) SPEND AND BORROW
Obama's solution to improving the economy has been to spend and borrow. That has always been his only solution, and this policy has only made things worse.
3) MORE OF THE SAME
Re-elect this man and his economic policy will remain the same. Do you want four more years to see the economic/international fallout from more of that?
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
I think that's a good assessment, Jer
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 1:42pm.
I believe that once he was in office, reality set in, and he realized that there's only so much a President can do, and changing the way Washington does business isn't one of them. He must also realize that President's never get to do in their second term what they didn't get done in the first.
In 2009, he relied heavily on the 'experienced' entrenched power of his Party's elite to carry out his vision, and they failed. His lack of leadership experience left him unable to counter that, and the heavily flawed Obamacare was a result. The 'green' investments are also a flop.
He needs a significant acceleration of the 'recovery' in order to win, but he can win. If the GOP had come up with a stronger candidate, Obama would be in deep trouble right now.
Galvanic...I think Romney is the best candidate with
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:47pm.
the best shot at toppling Obama. All of the other contenders had too much baggage of one kind or another that would have really crippled any one of them as a GOP standard-bearer.
On the other hand, Romney has a lot going for him. The conservative base will be energized against Obama regardless of their level of enthusiasm for him and doubts about his philosophical purity. Plus, all of Romney's flip-flops have been toward the right. And even though he may try to broaden his appeal with centrists and independents, he is unlikely to execute any dramatic policy shifts either before the election or afterward assuming he were victorious in November. Nor could he afford to alienate conservatives with ideological heresies once inaugurated.
If unemployment remains problematic, growth anemic, housing gasping for breath, debt choking us, gas prices still too high, spillover from the European mess impacting our economy, strapped cities verging on insolvency...Mitt's solid business credentials and promises to get the nation's fiscal house in order will be awfully appealing.
Jer
It's a win-win for dems*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:11pm.
Even if Romney wins, we know that our financial situation is in dire straights much as Greece. Romney will never do the difficult tasks it will take to undo the damage of 44 yrs of democrat rule. He will go along to get along, kick the can down the road, as every R has done before him. As congress has done for 56 yrs.
When the truth begins to leak from the liberal media, ( which wont happen til after the election) then the media can blame Romney for all the country's ills like they have with Bush. The dems will "sell" the bad news, as once again, the fault of Republicans. To hell with history.
dire straghts
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:20pm.
I agree we are in a dangerous predicament but there is something very important to remember about economics and that trends are almost as influential as reality. If the US is heading in the right direction long enough there will be snowball effect - especially with other markets having difficulty. Two things I still worry about is the ability of DC to devalue the dollar as a means of 'paying' debt and the lame duck period should President Obama lose. The lame duck period, not so much for what will be done as how much will be done. Greenspan was right when he indicated that the market is best influenced by small incremental changes.
Darn those Democrats...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:22pm.
I guess I need to track down those charts which demonstrate that over the past hundred years or so according to every significant financial and economic metric, the nation's has--in most cases--fared far better under Democratic administrations than it has under Republicans.
Please memorize the material. There will be a quiz.
Jer
Darn those democrats*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:35pm.
The GOVERNMENT has fared well under democrat rule and raise taxes is their answer to all economic woes. The PEOPLE fare better under republican rule.
Democrats represent government, not the people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To
Which one do you want Jer?
Caj~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:40pm.
Wow, really bumming me out, about your thoughts on Romney. You are sounding like a tougher sell than Jer. :(
I hold out hope that Romney (being a pretty darn successful businessman) will improve this economic hole. I think he does have it in him to make difficult decisions for the sake of an improved economy, with his background. I look at it like a fabulous editor who steps in to save a failing magazine enterprise and can turn it around in time. That's what one of my editors did, and she was incredibly successful at it -- it is her talent -- her "thing," and she takes pride in that.
Romney doesn't strike me as a slacker, and I do think he takes pride in turning failing businesses into successes and also starting up and running many companies well. I think it's entirely possible that he will look at running the country that way. And remember -- he has made hard decisions in business. We've read about them.
Of course, I don't know...but I am sure willing to give him a chance!
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Sorry GG*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:46pm.
Let me clarify. I was arguing with Jer about "centrists". Obama is nowhere near that but Romney probably closer.
The media will sing Obama's praises as the ship goes down. They will attack Romney no matter what he does. Talking about the media and the largest voice in our country, the "progressives".
For Romney to succeed, we must take back both houses of congress. We cannot have those long time insiders kick the can down the road. We need people with the courage to put us back on the right track. Romney cannot do it alone. He must have the support of congress and THE PEOPLE if he is to bring us back to sound fiscal safety. He has the experience and the knowledge to do that but he cannot do it alone. We must change a lot more than POTUS.
Divisiveness from democrats and the media has to be first order of business and bring us back to ONE country, one people, all citizens equal. THAT I think is what Romney can do and we must support him But if conservatives lose both houses of Congress, Romney will be unable to accomplish much.
Am I cautious? Very much so because Romney cannot do this alone. He must have the support of the DC insiders as well as the American people working together as a team and I see the media as working hard to make sure that never happens.
I dont blame Romney, I blame the powerful elitist voices of progressives in the media that will refuse to accept the difficult tasks facing Romney when he takes office.
Caj~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:58pm.
Oh, gotcha. I am in total agreement on that. You are right -- we have to have the cards stacked in D.C. to get big stuff done.
What a relief. I thought I'd have to convince you to vote. Shame on me -- I should have known! ;)
I know Romney is not ideal...but compared to O...we at least stand a chance to stop the bleeding in so many areas.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Hey giggles*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:03pm.
" ....we have to have the cards stacked in D. C. to get big stuff done..."
You just saved me from 3 or 4 more posts....LOL
cajun...I'm not interested in "parsing" my words, but I would
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:11pm.
appreciate your accurately repeating them. For the third time now, I stated--and now emphasize in part--that Obama in many [but obviously not all] respects has tacked toward the center since entering office.
I did not claim he is now a "centrist", nor that he has moved to the center. He was a solid left/progressive/lib who, as President, has governed closer to the center. Romney was once a centrist who has tacked toward the right over the past few years. Consequently, Obama is center/left and Romney is center/right. It is difficult to gauge who is now closer to the geometric center.
Jer
Oh, Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:33pm.
If Romney is anywhere NEAR Obama's supposed "Geometric Center," I will just cry myself to sleep every night!
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Please don't, GG...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:43pm.
I can't stand the thought of you crying. I'll start crying, too.
Everything's gonna be okay. I promise. No matter WHO gets elected. Well, unless it's Newt.
Jer
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 5:02pm.
No...sniff, sniff...it really won't be okay no matter who gets elected. But thanks for the sympathy. :)
Oh my gosh. I just realized (major delayed reaction) that I have been posting all this on Noel's thread when I said I just had one quick question for Jer. But I've gone way off the track of his topic now for several posts. Sorry, Noel!
Jer and Caj...if you guys post more comments on Romney and etc., let's move over to the Open Thread Friday!
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
I started to move over there, but I had the urge to
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 5:05pm.
begin every post with "This may sound corny, but..."
Jer
Wait a minute. What happened to the Nebraska thread? You ruined my joke.
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 5:10pm.
I'm sorry! I changed it to the Friday Thread because it's the most recent one. But funny joke noted. :)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
One country, one people...sounds nice.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:22pm.
I've lost count how many different posters here have announced their unqualified hatred for all liberals. Do you think Romney will be able to bring them around? A GOP Congressman just a couple of days ago opined that Obama isn't even American. He was applauded.
How about after a Romney victory, a chorus of libs--enough to influence an audience of millions--blares on the day before his inauguration that "they hope he fails!" That should kick things off on a harmonious note.
Jer
Not my point Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 5:13pm.
Not talking about political divide but racial divide. Groups in this country have been brought to warfare, violent protests and violence. Blacks against whites, rich against poor, war against women, war against Christians. THAT is what needs to stop. Issues, regardless of political sides, can be openly debated among those with different views. We are all Americans first, talk about how to protect our republic, our freedoms, and our borders. Why is the issue of gay marriage media obsessive when we have a $65T debt? How can we fix that without pitting blacks against whites when all people of various colors will be unemployed, out of business, and social security will collapse?
We have different views on politics, of course, that is why we are the most free country in the world. To have one voice, one vote, and we would be China. Not a good alternative. DIversity in politics is how we learn, experience, grow, but divisiveness in our society amidst different groups is destructive. That is what this president has focused on since he first announced his candidacy. We need someone who will unite us to save America, we may have different views on how to get there but saving our country should be the goal FOR ALL AMERICANS!!!
Shame on you for misquoting Rush. If Obama wants to turn us to violent civil war in order to bring about his "transformation" to a socialist country, then damn right I hope he fails. If Obama wants to bring us to the brink of financial collapse by borowing from China, printing more money and devalue the dollar, gutting our military, then damn right I hope he fails. If he wants to pit cultural, ethnic, and religious groups against each other instead of uniting us then damn right I hope he fails.
If Obama truely wants to bring about a strong capitalist economy, improve opportunity for all, protect our citizens, less power of our lives by big brother government, then I would be one of his biggest supporters. But he is FOR none of those things. So , damn right I hope he fails.
I didn't misquote Rush. And shame on you for falsely
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 5:24pm.
accusing me of doing so.
I've read the transcript many times. It's what he said [other than stating "I" instead of "they" hope he fails.] I understand his point. It was still gauche.
Jer
➚ OK, so he has succeeded
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:36pm.
Is that somehow better that he has succeeded in his plan to trounce Americans in debt?
I wish he had failed, but I have to admit he has succeeded.
I still hope
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:11pm.
He fails
One major point of contention
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 1:03am.
ONLY borrowing from America's Scapegoat (I mean People's Republic) of China is bad. That one trillion dollars we owe Japan? No big deal.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Actually this moron is quite
Submitted by John21 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:46pm.
Actually this moron is quite wrong.
In America you are “Innocent until proven Guilty” not the other way around. If this was my case and actually made it to court I would just sit quietly while the prosecution swung in the wind. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence that creates doubt in the Zimmerman story all the witness statements and the physical evidence supports his alibi. The prosecution has no evidence of wrong doing on the part of Zimmerman and serious evidence against the Martin family story.
My client would be walking free 10 minutes after this sad excuse for a muder case is presented to the jury.
John~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:56pm.
You mean "account," not "alibi," right?
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
SYG
Submitted by Nonanon on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:00pm.
How can this be a SYG case when Zimmerman is on his back on the ground being beat up by Martin? He only had two options, one is to continue receiving a beating or fight back in self-defense. He had no decision to make regarding standing or turning away at that point.
There may still be some things we do not know yet, but the way this has been handled is certainly wrong. It is unbelieveable how out of control the overwhelmingly liberal so-called news media are! Then add in the supposedly legal experts and the talking heads who push the liberal line and it looks worse and worse for America. It seems there has to be some way to hold them accountable for the damage they do with this kind of crap. There are several cases where people have been attacked under the premise of 'justice' for Martin. This is the vigilante type stuff liberals constantly charge conservatives are pushing for. On second thought, this is more mob rule type stuff since it wasn't the accused who was attacked. It is one more piece of evidence that they despise the Constitution and what it stands for.
I am not sure which is worse, these liberals spewing forth such lies and dishonesty or that so many believe said stuff.
To those who still unbelieveingly claim there is no liberal bias in the media, how often do you hear things labelled as liberal or Democrat vs how often things are labelled as conservative or Republican. Why do you believe it is that way?
➚ It's not a SYG case
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 3:25pm.
It's a self-defense case.
But imagine how much fun Liberals will have if Z-man is found guilty. DOJ has already given a nod & wink to baton-wielding thugs at polling places.
Wow
Submitted by Lamdog on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:11pm.
He is the legal analyst? I watched two episodes of Law and Order and realize it is the prosecution responsibility to prove guilt. Not Zimmerman to prove innocence.
Then again, are these not the same people surprised about the Supreme Court line of questioning concerning ObamaCare?
Where did this guy. . .
Submitted by rickbren on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 4:31pm.
. . . get his law degree, Watsamatta U?
The Big Goal Is Money
Submitted by Thom of WI on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:06pm.
If the the Martin family can a get a conviction for George Zimmerman, that is permission to bring a lawsuit for millions against the police dept. and the states attorney's office. The the big money will roll in only then. The Zimmerman case is just the first step for millions of dollars. That is all this is about!!!!! MONEY!!!!
➚ I don't buy that
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:19pm.
I think Trayvon's parents genuinely loved their kid.
I want to think that of all parents.
Cool~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:02pm.
I agree. I saw his parents on a news program. They seemed very genuine and in pain to me. I also find it hard to wrap my mind around parents not loving their children -- I think it is a rarity.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Turn The Tables
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 9:47pm.
What if Trayvon was the one on the bottom and had killed Zimmerman? This guy's "legal opinion" would be 180 degrees opposite.
When are white race baiters going to realize that a mob of blacks can't tell if a white is a leftist or a conservative? It won't matter, they will be attacked just for being white just the same.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html