138 Responses to Bring me the head of George Zimmerman!

  1. Greg says: 101

    @Nathan Blue, #99:

    The Prosecution has the same right to bring in a paid expert like DiMaio. That DiMaio was being paid was made clear to the jury. Not new. Not a scandal. Not the reason GZ was found innocent.

    I didn’t bring the guy up. Someone else did, citing his testimony as evidence of the severity of Zimmerman’s beating. I responded by pointing out that DeMaio was paid to express opinions favorable to the defense, and that he has expressed opinions for pay in the past that seem to fly in the face of evidence and common sense.

    ReplyReply
  2. GREG
    THE PROSECUTORS WHERE VICIOUS, they assume on things that was fabricated by their incompetent
    suppose experts,
    the lawyer O’MARA WAS KEEPING ON FACTS AND FACTS PREVAILED TO PROVE THE INNOCENCE
    OF THEIR CLIENT,
    THEIR PROFESSIONALISM APPROACH WAS SO EVIDENT THAT ANY OUTSIDER WHO IS SOUND MIND
    EVEN WITHOUT LAW EXPERIENCE COULD SEE THE WAY THEY WHERE RIGOROUSLY STICKING TO THEIR DECISIONS ON FOLLOWING THE PLANNING OF THEIR CASE,
    I am very impress with the quality and class they brought in to FACE
    the LOW BLOWS BELOW THE BELT, EXPOSED BY THE PROSECUTORS.
    for a while ,I thought, that O’MARA AND MISTER WEST,WHERE TOO DECENT FOR THE PROSECUTOR,
    BUT THEIR STRATEGY MADE THE JURY UNDERSTOOD MORE THAN WHAT THE PROSECUTORS TRIED TO DO LIKE CHEAP THUGS,

    ReplyReply
  3. Dc says: 103

    Greg, the basic problem was evidence. There was not enough evidence to support the legal charges/claims by prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Is there something about that you’d like to see changed? Or are you just bitching about the verdict? Or think that it somehow means we should have “another” tangential discussion about something else?

    I would also like to reiterate that this was not a stand your ground case. It was a self-defense /2nd degree murder case.

    ReplyReply
  4. WEINER IN BED WITH SHARPTON,.
    WANT TO GET THE NEW YORK JOB

    ReplyReply
  5. leave SARGEANT MURPHY ALONE,
    YOU GUYS ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF LOGIC,
    BUT HIS REACTION IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE,
    ALL YOUR BUNCH OF GUYS TRYING TO JUSTIFY YOUR DECISION WHICH IS STUPID,
    YOU SHOULD STAND BY YOUR CO WORKER, INSTEAD OF GETTING HIM PUNISH,
    YOU JUST MAKE THE CITIZENS ANGRY AT YOU,
    THE SARGEANT IS CORRECT AND SHOW A SOUND MIND BY HIS REACTION TO THE ROLLING STONES’ WHO CARRY THEIR NAME OF STONE THEY ARE,
    ARE YOU GUYS JOINING WITH THOSE CORRUPT STONES? AND LET DOWN YOUR BROTHER AT WORK,
    YOU ARE A BUNCH OF DEGENERATE,

    ReplyReply
  6. Ditto says: 106

    @Dc:

    Greg + dead horse = Beat, beat, beat.

    ReplyReply
  7. Greg says: 107

    And how many threads have been started around here concerning the Zimmerman trial since Zimmerman’s acquittal?

    ReplyReply
  8. GREG
    it’s hard to calculate, there was at least 10 from last year maybe more,
    and now another dozens at the least.

    ReplyReply
  9. Redteam says: 109

    @Greg: If the prosecutors had access to everything there was to know and he showed it all to the jury, why wasn’t it enough to convict him. Because there was no proof. Something you have no problem finding, but the prosecutor, with the whole federal government behind him, couldn’t produce it. Strange, isn’t it?

    ReplyReply
  10. Redteam says: 110

    @Ditto

    : Greg or Tom should be around shortly to tell us Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck.

    yeah, das right. He should not have taken this into his own hands. Leave it to the 911 responders, even if they’re not there, yet. Sic em Greggie.

    ReplyReply
  11. Ditto says: 111

    @Greg:

    And how many threads have been started around here concerning the Zimmerman trial since Zimmerman’s acquittal?

    Few. The majority of the FA “Zimmerman” articles since the trial have been about the aftermath. Some like you want to keep changing the subject and wasting our time arguing about the trial ad infinitum. The trial is over, the verdict is in. You don’t like it? Tough! The majority of Americans didn’t like the O. J. Simpson verdict, but we have to live with it. Protests and angry speeches will not change the verdict. When the jury finds “Not Guilty” because the Prosecution didn’t prove their case, the Prosecutors don’t get to appeal the jury’s decision.

    ReplyReply
  12. Redteam says: 112

    @Greg: #96 Actually Greg:

    Vincent DiMaio is paid for his performances. He plays the part of an expert delivering an objective opinion. His function is to sway the jury toward the side of his employer.

    He didn’t ‘play’ the part, he was certified by the court as an expert on the subject, otherwise he would not be allowed to state an opinion in court. You don’t think the County Medical Examiner was on to testify for the Prosecution? Really? Actually, the medical examiner in this case, that testified, was not the local one for the county involved. They shopped the State for one that would testify as the prosecution wanted, not completely objective to justice, just the prosecution’s version. Didn’t allow the ME to testify that Trayvon was high on Marijuana and possibly the lingering effects of ‘lean’. Don’t you think the jury was entitled to know that TM was a druggie?

    ReplyReply
  13. DrJohn says: 113

    @Greg:

    I responded by pointing out that DeMaio was paid to express opinions favorable to the defense, and that he has expressed opinions for pay in the past that seem to fly in the face of evidence and common sense.

    Greg

    Come on. The guy is the book on forensics. Even Ashley Banfield was gushing over him. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

    ReplyReply
  14. Dr John
    yes and he said, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN COULD HAVE DIED OF THOSE WOUNDS,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  15. W T Sherman
    I love it, thank you.

    ReplyReply
  16. Nathan Blue says: 117

    @Greg: “I didn’t bring it up . . . but hey, I tried to make it all about the paid testimony anyway.”

    Whether you brought it up is irrelevant. Anything else? This horse is dead and you are trying to give it mouth-to-mouth.

    You either work/volunteer for a pro-democrat or progressive organization, or you are unemployed. I’m sure your cause appreciates to the confusion and clutter you espouse.

    ReplyReply
  17. Dc says: 118

    Greg,
    You seem to be saying …I know what the evidence is…but despite that…we all just “know” what “really” happened.

    That was essentially the prosecutions case in this. (ie., just because there is no direct evidence to support what we are saying..doesn’t mean it didn’t happen that way.). And that Z’s actions of noticing T Martin in the first place and getting out of his car is what ultimately caused T Martin’s death.

    They had “nothing” to give to the jury to breach reasonable doubt—that’s according to two jury members who have spoken out. So, I’m not sure what it is you are trying to say here. He’s not guilty..legally…but that doesn’t mean he’s not a racist killer?

    I’m not getting the purpose of your argument? Are you arguing against self-defense laws? Or are you arguing that despite the verdict…Z is still guilty? Of what? And what do you base that on? I’m just trying to figure out what you arguing here other than the sake of arguing.

    ReplyReply
  18. Nan G says: 119

    @Dc:

    Great points, Dc.

    I noticed Obama/Holder want to dump as many ”Stand Your Ground,” laws and replace them with “Lay Down and Die,” laws.

    Andrew Klavan details how you must act when attacked by, ”a teenager trained in mixed martial arts techniques and stoned on cough syrup and watermelon soda who found himself smashing your head into the pavement for some reason, you would not be allowed to rush to judgement and automatically take this amiss just because the attacker happened to be African American. Instead, you would be required to say something like, “Excuse me, young man. Pardon me. I say, I understand your people have suffered from discrimination, but would you mind terribly not smashing my head into the pavement?” If he refused and went on to kill you, you would then be permitted to come back to life and shoot him.

    He adds Holder requires “if you found yourself under violent attack by someone whose race or gender or sexual orientation had suffered from past prejudices, you would be required to apologize for that prejudice, make reparative payments and stand in the public square holding a cardboard sign confessing your privileged status before you would be allowed to fall to the earth and expire.”

    ReplyReply
  19. drjohn says: 120

    @Wm T Sherman:

    Ever watch the whole thing? Quite a back-up band. It’s amazing

    ReplyReply
  20. NAN G
    THEY ARE CORRUPT TO THE BONES,
    REPARATION PAYMENT TELL IT ALL
    WHY THEY WANT TO REDO THE CASE,
    THE MOTHER SAID ALL we WANT IS AN ARREST,
    she want the only way to sue for millions as reparation money,

    ReplyReply
  21. Greg says: 122

    @Nan G, #119:

    From Stand Your Ground Laws, Homicides, and Injuries, a statistical study published in June, 2012. (Emphasis added):

    “The controversies surrounding gun control policies have recently moved to the forefront of public’s attention in the United States and elsewhere. Since 2005, eighteen states in the United States have passed laws extending the right to self-defense with no duty to retreat to any place a person has a legal right to be, and several additional states are debating the adoption of similar legislation. Despite the implications that these laws may have for public safety, there has been little empirical investigation of their impact on crime and victimization. In this paper, we use monthly data from the U.S. Vital Statistics to examine how Stand Your Ground laws affect homicides and firearm injuries. We identify the impact of these laws by exploiting variation in the effective date of these laws across states over time. Our results indicate that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in the number of homicides among whites, especially white males. According to our estimates, between 28 and 33 additional white males are killed each month as a result of these laws. We find no consistent evidence to suggest that these laws increase homicides among blacks. Auxiliary analysis using data from the Supplemental Homicide Reports indicates that our results are not driven by the killings of assailants. We also find that the stand your ground laws are not related to non-homicide deaths, which should not respond to gun laws. Finally, we analyze data from the Health Care Utilization Project to show that these laws are also associated with a significant increase in emergency room visits and hospital discharges related to firearm inflicted injuries. Taken together, these findings raise serious doubts against the argument that Stand Your Ground laws make public safer.”

    ReplyReply
  22. Greg says: 123

    @Nan G, #119:

    An independent study of castle doctrine laws conducted in Texas by Texas A & M, resulted in a similar conclusion. This quote is from page 28. (The link is to a pdf copy of the entire document. Again, emphasis added.):

    “More significantly, results indicate that castle doctrine laws increase total homicides by around 8 percent. Put differently, the laws induce an additional 600 homicides per year across the 21 states in our sample that expanded castle doctrine over this time period. This finding is robust to a wide set of difference-in-differences specifications, including region-by-year fixed effects, state-specific linear time trends, and controls for time-varying factors such as economic conditions, state welfare spending, and policing and incarceration rates. These findings provide evidence that lowering the expected cost of lethal force causes there to be more of it.”

    So, we’ve got histrionic articles like Klavan’s, which get people fired up without presenting factual arguments. And then we’ve got some statistical studies, and the factual conclusions based upon them. The facts seem to be that stand your ground laws result in an increase in deaths and injuries, and that the increase cannot be attributed to justifiably killed assailants.

    ReplyReply
  23. Ditto says: 124

    @Greg:

    The National Bureau of Economic Research is a research organization dedicated to promoting a greater understanding of how the economy works. The NBER is committed to undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic research among public policymakers, business professionals, and the academic community.

    The NBER is clearly not made up of legal and medical experts. Their focus is on the economy. Both authors are economists from Georgia State University with no background in law or medicine. The referenced paper in the second posting is also by collegiate economists (Texas A&M), (one also associated with NBER,) not legal or medical professionals. So I place little legal value on these papers which are clearly little more than opinions by collegial economic associates who have no formal training in law or healthcare.

    Nice try, no cigar.

    ReplyReply
  24. Greg says: 125

    @Ditto, #124:

    My opinion differs. Such people are adept at analyzing and determining the underlying meaning of statistics—certainly more so than lawyers or doctors would be. This sort of analysis is right up their alley.

    I haven’t been able to find any comparable studies that support the notion that the new laws are having beneficial effects. If anyone knows of any, I’d certainly like to have a link.

    ReplyReply
  25. GREG
    YOU SHOULD FINISH YOUR DIATRIBE BY STANDING UP AND WITH A STRONG VOICE
    SAY, HAIL HITLER, MY COMMANDER I OBEY YOUR MINUTE WISHES,
    AND FALL ON YOUR KNEES , GIVE YOURSELF AN HARAQIRI,

    ReplyReply
  26. Ditto says: 127

    @Greg:

    The opinion you are trying to put forward is pure Poppycock. Yes, ‘financially speaking’, it may be more ‘economically beneficial’ for the victim if they can evade the attack. Unfortunately, that may not be possible. Economical statisticians have no training in law or law enforcement. You can’t find any legal proof to support your arguments so you are floundering, desperately trying to find anything to back your claims. I am unimpressed with your use of the opinion of statisticians (who don’t even bother to provide the statistics to support their opinion).

    There are essentially only four choices for a potential victim when there is threat of bodily harm or death: Evade, Barricade, Defend or Surrender. The potential victim may have mere seconds to decide which to choose, but if they are ambushed and attacked, their choices can be severely limited by the circumstances. Law enforcement personnel and the legal system recognize that self defense or surrender may have been the only options available. The victim is not required to die to protect the civil rights of their attacker.

    ReplyReply
  27. MONTANA
    THROW THOSE 6 VOTER WHO DON’T HAVE ANY GUTS OUT.
    THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GOOD LAW TO FAIL,
    SIX RENEGADES YOU DON’T NEED

    ReplyReply
  28. Redteam says: 130

    @Ditto:#124 Ditto

    So I place little legal value on these papers which are clearly little more than opinions by collegial economic associates who have no formal training in law or healthcare.

    Aaannnndddd, I’ll bet they’re black…..

    ReplyReply
  29. Ditto says: 131

    @Redteam:

    The author’s racial background are not relevant as far as I’m concerned. The fact that they are all collegial “professionals” makes it very likely that they have a political bias, as we are all certainly well aware of the tendency for college staffers to have a far-left bias. Statisticians, much like pollsters, can manipulate data, limit what data or classification of data is included, Their conclusions can be even worse reliable than polls, because the statistician can exempt data that does not support their theory and massage statistical datum to “prove” whatever predetermined outcome is desired. It is very easy to cherry pick only the statistics that you want to include in such studies, ignore other relevant factors, and make it all appear to support their theory. “Figures lie and liars figure” & “lies, damned lies, and statistics” are the common phrase created to describe such papers, where there is no professional review of the facts therein.

    Greg is obsessed the Zimmerman/Martin case. He knows he doesn’t have the facts to back him up. So he is now scrambling. trying to find “evidence” to try to con us into accepting his bogus gun control fanaticism derived theories as “reason.” He is not alone in this, as there are hundreds of far-left gun control fanatics who who have been looking desperately for a reason to restart the Senate gun control bill that Harry shelved. They and their MSM cohorts pushed for Zimmerman’s arrest and sensationalized the Zimmerman/Martin case because they expected Zimmerman to use the “Stand Your Ground” defense. When the Defense discarded “SYG” it threw them for a loop. They were counting on this defense so they could use the case to go after the “SYG” laws that they hate so much, and to give their gun-control cause a shot in the arm. The reason why they need to get the Senate gun control bill back in play, is because they need it to get passed long before the 2014 election campaign season starts. They do not want gun control to be an issue during the campaign season because it will hurt their chances of keeping the Senate and regaining the House.

    This is why they fell back and punted, using their typical back-up plan of playing the race card. Their problem is that racism and SYG laws had nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case and they know it. So in their desperation they are continuing in their protests and their preplanned propaganda, ignoring the fact that there is no evidence to justify their argument.

    ReplyReply
  30. Dc says: 132

    I will reiterate Greg….the Z trial was NOT a stand your ground case. Secondly, at least in FL, the language in the statute regarding the self-defense aspect of SYG was already in place in FL. What SYG adds mainly is that in a limited range of circumstances, (ie., in your home, during the commission of a felony, where you are someone else is in “reasonable” fear that they may be seriously harmed and/or killed) you do not have to retreat before applying deadly force.

    It does NOT remove the legal bar/justification for applying deadly force. It’s purpose was “mainly” to protect those persons who had otherwise legally defended themselves in those limited circumstances (ie., your house, during the commission of a felony, and with danger of serious consequences to you or someone else), to be immune from future prosecution and lawsuits once they were cleared of any liability in the SYG case.

    It was to prevent what is now happening to G Z. He was found not guilty and the jury accepted his “self defense” argument. But, now, he’s being sued in Civil court, etc, and it goes on and on and on, thousands and thousands of dollars in legal fees, etc….for someone who justifiably defended themselves.

    Z could not apply SYG in this case because both of them were on mutual ground when the altercation occurred and the shooting happened as the result of an escalated fight. It did not meet the criteria of being in Z’s home, during the commission of felony.

    SYG cases do not use or require a jury. It’s a straight application of clearly written laws under limited scenarios. A Judge decides whether it applies or not to any given case circumstances. If the judge decides your case meets the reasonable standards and specific conditions of SYG…any charges brought by the state against you are dismissed and you are granted immunity from future prosecutions.

    This purpose of this law was for 70 year old retires in FL..who are forcibly robbed, beaten and killed in their own home….who defend themselves with a gun….to keep them from spending the next 4 years going through trial after trial after trial defending themselves in court, squandering their retirement savings, from over zealous prosecutors who are just throwing everything they can at the wall to see what can stick, as well as the family of victim and/or suing you for justifiably using deadly force.

    It was never meant, nor does it apply, to “any” shooting as pure justification for using deadly force under other circumstances. I would point out as well, the shooting victim in these cases doesn’t necessarily have to “die” for it to be a SYG case. (ie., the person trying to mug you and stab you, doesn’t get to sue you cause they ended up in a wheel chair cause you happened to be armed and they didn’t know it).

    Lastly, SYG is not just about “shootings”. It applies to “any” use of deadly force….(ie., if you hit someone over the head with a frying pan and kill them, or you stab them with a butcher knife in your kitchen, etc).

    The self-defense laws of most states, provide citizens with the right to apply force, even deadly force, against someone who is trying to or threatening to do serious bodily injury to them or someone else during the commission of a felony. There was a WWII vet, who was in a seniors bingo hall, when 3 punks came in armed wiht pistols and started robbing everybody, pistol whipped a couple people. When they turned their backs..the old man pulled his snubby .38 and let loose on all 3 of them. He shot “all” of them…at least once. Two of them made it down the street, one collapsed in the doorway trying to get out. One of them died, the other 2 lived.

    Under SYG, this man would have had “one” trial. If found not guilty under SYG…he’d have gone on with his life. Without it, the man ends up for the rest of his days in court, looses his retirement savings on legal bills, and spends all of his time defending himself from one law suit after another for “legally” and justifiably using his firearm. Even the criminals who survived…sued him from jail for compensation for their injuries sustained during their attempted armed robbery.

    ReplyReply
  31. Greg says: 133

    @Ditto, #131:

    Greg is obsessed the Zimmerman/Martin case. He knows he doesn’t have the facts to back him up. So he is now scrambling. trying to find “evidence” to try to con us into accepting his bogus gun control fanaticism derived theories as “reason.”

    What I’ve been doing is responding to many unfounded conclusions people seem to have drawn owing to Mr. Zimmerman’s acquittal. The acquittal was not an endorsement of the details of George Zimmerman’s account of events, nor was it an endorsement of all of the negative bullshit people have been rolling out about the unarmed young man George Zimmerman killed.

    Juror B37 came forward in a televised interview and suggested that the jury had concluded Zimmerman wasn’t at fault. This same juror tried for a book deal the next day. (A sad attempt to exploit the event for profit, which, I am happy to say, has fallen through.)

    Now four other juror have responded, stating that B37’s opinions were not their own. One of those, juror B29, has publicly identified herself and expressed the opinion that George Zimmerman essentially “got away with murder.” She stated that other jurors shared that view, but that they were unable to convict him following the letter of the law, so they reluctantly voted for acquittal.

    That sounds about right to me.

    @Dc, #132:

    I will reiterate Greg….the Z trial was NOT a stand your ground case.

    That’s correct, but the trial has led to much discussion and debate about those laws.

    ReplyReply
  32. Dc says: 134

    That doesn’t even make sense Greg. If it’s not a stand your ground case…why would it lead to much discussion about the SYG laws? ???

    Greg, there is no question that a verdict in a trial is based on evidence that the jury has to use….and application of the law…EVEN if a particular jurist disagrees with it, or thinks there “could” be more to the story, or just has a personal feeling about the people involved or what could not otherwise be proven. That’s very true.

    But, I think you conflating two different things here. One is…the legal case and verdict….vs….the factual evidence we DO know …much of which supports Z’s case….(obviously), but for which there are things that could not be known as well.

    Can we just agree to be accurate with what we “do” know and the facts? I can’t tell you how many lefty blogs and opinions pieces I’ve seen that use the same distorted facts to describe Zimmerman and the events of that day to put it into a different context in order to make arguments about facts that simply were not part of this case. Whether that be gun laws, neighborhood watch rules, or SYG law. None of those things were issues in this case.

    So, I fail to see how things that didn’t exist in the case, or have an influence in this case…would “spur” conversations? It doesn’t even make sense. It seems to me the purpose of these “sideways” discussions is to “use” this case…as a spring board for “other” issues (ie., race and social issues, gun control, SYG, “republican” govs and states, etc.

    I dunno, just seems intellectually dishonest to me, not to mention all it does is foment hate and division. But, I get that it happens to be a popular tactic these days….even for the POTUS (ie., divide people, pit one against the other, etc, the dismiss facts as inconvenient and call everything else a distraction).

    ReplyReply
  33. Ditto says: 135

    @Dc:

    I dunno, just seems intellectually dishonest to me, not to mention all it does is foment hate and division. But, I get that it happens to be a popular tactic these days….even for the POTUS (ie., divide people, pit one against the other, etc, the dismiss facts as inconvenient and call everything else a distraction).

    That is how the current Democratic party works. If there is any indication that something happened between two person’s of different races, then they disingenuously bring up the race card regardless of whether it is applicable or not. If there is a gun involved, well then they demand for more gun control laws. Unless of course, it is the Obama Administration trafficking in guns with criminal cartels, then we must ignore it at all costs. In the latest Senate gun control bill, these elite made sure that the bill included language whereby the laws within would not apply to them. “All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.”

    With the far-left Democratic machine of today, (most clearly demonstrated by this Presidential administration,) he end justifies the means. Lies, hate, fear and racial division are the talking point means, socialist totalitarianism is their desired end. Greg is a Koolaid drinking Quisling. His obsession with the case has an agenda that has nothing to do with justice for Martin, it is nothing but an excuse being used to further the far-left political machine’s agenda. You will note Greg does not deny that there is an ulterior motive to his continued protestations.

    ReplyReply
  34. Redteam says: 136

    @Ditto:#131

    The author’s racial background are not relevant as far as I’m concerned. The fact that they are all collegial “professionals” makes it very likely that they have a political bias, as we are all certainly well aware of the tendency for college staffers to have a far-left bias.

    Certainly the racial background is relevant. See the school they were at? The remainder of yourcomment reminds me of the famous Doctoral Thesis entitled “Can You Prove a Thesis if you Want to Prove it” The result of the Thesis reasearch was that you can prove any thesis you want to, you just have to tailor your facts to fit your thesis.

    ReplyReply
  35. Redteam says: 137

    @Greg: Greg, you know that the sky is green, in fact you are positive of it, but you just can’t provide proof of it but the fact that you can’t provide proof of it doesn’t mean it’s not green, it just means you or no one else can prove it is green so you are left with the seemingly true fact that it’s blue. But according to the rules of evidence, while it may really appear to be blue, you can still ‘claim’ it is actually green. If you think that is silly, substitute your argument for it, it makes just as much sense. The fact that you are personally convinced that Zimmerman committed a crime has absolutely zero credibility.

    ReplyReply
  36. Redteam
    hi,
    I like to prove thesis my way,
    bye

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>