Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Assault against a law enforcement officer.

Rape and child molestation

Domestic abuse

Kicking a dog

Road rage including death threats and stalking

Barricading himself in a home with a bag full of guns, refusing to allow police inside

And of course, shooting and killing someone who wasn't armed, while claiming he was in fear for his life.
Click to expand...



TheL8Elvis said:
We will have to use our imagination, since neither GZ or TM has that rap sheet.
Click to expand...

Really dude?

Really?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Yet he was suspended for vandalism (vandal, as you know, is a synonym for "thug"). Therefore it must be true.

Martin has been conclusively proven to have been a thug.
Click to expand...

I swear to FSM I need a flow chart to understand your position on defining who's a thug and who's not.
 
http://www.wesh.com/news/grand-jury-to-decide-if-trayvon-martins-civil-rights-were-violated/29552664

Grand jury to decide if Trayvon Martin's civil rights were violated

SANFORD, Fla. —A federal grand jury is scheduled to determine whether George Zimmerman violated civil rights laws when he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in 2012.

Witnesses, including one of Zimmerman’s friends, will testify in front of the grand jury.
During Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial, Frank Taeffe claimed he didn’t believe Zimmerman was motivated by race on the night he shot and killed Martin.

Taeff has since reversed that position and said he does believe race was a factor.

Not sure why anyone cares what Frank Taaffe thinks, but I am going to go with "no" on the jury decision about Martins civil rights being violated, unless some evidence that hasn't already been discussed has magically appeared...
 
I'm pretty sure only governments (be they federal, state, or local) can violate civil rights. I don't think a neighborhood watch really count as a "government".
 
Upchurch said:
I'm pretty sure only governments (be they federal, state, or local) can violate civil rights. I don't think a neighborhood watch really count as a "government".
Click to expand...

A cursory Google search says that you are correct. I wonder if wesh.com simply used the wrong words? Zimmerman could be prosecuted for a federal hate crime, which would be why they'd ask his neighbor about his attitudes towards the black people who lived in his complex. I actually agree with TheL8Elvis about Taffe, though. He's hardly a good witness. He's on tape calling Oprah Winfrey the n-word. Although he could show that in addition to holding racist views, Zimmerman hung out with Taffe and other racists. Judging by his family, Zimmerman clearly grew up learning racism from his mother and father.
 
This is interesting.


Pal Who Defended George Zimmerman Changes Tune
Frank Taaffe testifies for grand jury, thinks former friend may be racist after all


Now, as a grand jury hears a case this week to decide whether Zimmerman will face federal charges for violating Trayvon's civil rights, Taaffe—who testified before the grand jury yesterday—is saying that Zimmerman was probably in the wrong and just might be a racist after all, based on a mysterious phone call he received shortly after Martin's death, Raw Story reports.
Click to expand...

Good 'ol Taaffe.
 
12AX7 said:
This is interesting.


Pal Who Defended George Zimmerman Changes Tune
Frank Taaffe testifies for grand jury, thinks former friend may be racist after all




Good 'ol Taaffe.
Click to expand...

...we're talking about testimony from a guy who was known for openly appearing on white supremacist podcasts and the like. Not trustworthy - it came out earlier this year that Taafe had reformed, and if so, then good for him.

And I'm still not sure if a civil rights charge is appropriate here. Granted, Zimmerman has plenty of other reasons to charge him with various violent crimes, but as far as Martin goes, the prosecution dropped the ball, end of discussion. I'm leaning against.
 
LTC8K6 said:
So what would have happened if the DA just made the announcement that he and his prosecution team had reviewed all the evidence, and weren't going to press charges?

That's exactly what he would have done, absent the political pressure circus, imo.
Click to expand...

The "Zimmerman Protocol" would have been invoked. The Gov would have appointed a special prosecutor to press the case. It would have been a more public showing of the whole bag of evidence, some presented by the prosecutor, some by the defense. A not guilty verdict would have ensued. Wilson would have had a much larger legal bill, for the same result.

Now, re: federal civil rights suits- is there a statute of limitations? Has Zimmermans run out?
 
casebro said:
Now, re: federal civil rights suits- is there a statute of limitations? Has Zimmermans run out?
Click to expand...

A federal grand jury convened in November to hear witnesses against Zimmerman in a civil rights case. Mainly former neighbor Frank Taaffe who now suddenly remembers a phone call he got before GZ's arrest from someone claiming to be GZ but from an unknown number that he's not 100% certain was GZ but had made a “racial comment” about the shooting.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman/os-george-zimmerman-grand-jury-testimony-20141112-story.html
 
LTC8K6 said:
So what would have happened if the DA just made the announcement that he and his prosecution team had reviewed all the evidence, and weren't going to press charges?

That's exactly what he would have done, absent the political pressure circus, imo.
Click to expand...
Spot on.
 
HenryLee said:
A federal grand jury convened in November to hear witnesses against Zimmerman in a civil rights case. Mainly former neighbor Frank Taaffe who now suddenly remembers a phone call he got before GZ's arrest from someone claiming to be GZ but from an unknown number that he's not 100% certain was GZ but had made a “racial comment” about the shooting.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman/os-george-zimmerman-grand-jury-testimony-20141112-story.html
Click to expand...

Mainly, eh?

Nice to get up-to-date news links. This guy was big news a month ago. I somehow doubt that this is what they GJ was "mainly" looking into, considering that the DoJ has been investigating for almost two years.

Zimmerman will not be charged with civil rights violations. There's less proof of that than the charge that he's already been acquitted of. Was he profiling? Probably. Can it be proved? No.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Mainly, eh?

Nice to get up-to-date news links. This guy was big news a month ago. I somehow doubt that this is what they GJ was "mainly" looking into, considering that the DoJ has been investigating for almost two years.

Zimmerman will not be charged with civil rights violations. There's less proof of that than the charge that he's already been acquitted of. Was he profiling? Probably. Can it be proved? No.
Click to expand...

You got something more up to date? Someone asked a question, I gave an answer. You, I'm sure, have something better you're not sharing with the group, right? Since the press only covers Taaffe's silly little story they must be hiding the really damaging stuff, right?
 
HenryLee said:
You got something more up to date? Someone asked a question, I gave an answer. You, I'm sure, have something better you're not sharing with the group, right? Since the press only covers Taaffe's silly little story they must be hiding the really damaging stuff, right?
Click to expand...

The press covered Taaffe's story because he was a public figure due to his defense of Zimmerman on talk radio and the like. He changed his mind. It was "news" (for the current definition of that term). Unlike Ferguson, no one's been leaking anything out of the GJ hearings on this case.

The fact that we have no news is a better indication that they're doing their job correctly than that they are concentrating on the one bit of testimony above all others. I objected to "mainly". I suppose it reads better than "I just don't know", but it's not necessarily accurate.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
(except for Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman, but you can't charge a dead man)
Click to expand...


Zimmerman's own testimony in the Hannity interview shows quite conclusively that Martin was well within his rights to defend himself.


I foresee several Zimmerman fanatics now claiming that the DOJ saying "not enough evidence" literally means "innocent" just like last time.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Zimmerman's own testimony in the Hannity interview shows quite conclusively that Martin was well within his rights to defend himself.


I foresee several Zimmerman fanatics now claiming that the DOJ saying "not enough evidence" literally means "innocent" just like last time.
Click to expand...

"Hannity interview" <> court of law
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Zimmerman's own testimony in the Hannity interview shows quite conclusively that Martin was well within his rights to defend himself.


I foresee several Zimmerman fanatics now claiming that the DOJ saying "not enough evidence" literally means "innocent" just like last time.
Click to expand...
As far as the courts are concerned, it literally does mean exactly that. Innocent until proven guilty, etc.

But whatever. Like OJ, we can all form our own opinions. And like OJ, we can judge for ourselves the value of Zimmerman's trial, and his investigation by the Justice Department, and decide for ourselves how much weight to give their conclusions.

I think for most of us, we formed an opinion of what "really" happened from media accounts and trial materials, and waited to see if the government entities would arrive at a conclusion that agreed with us or not.

Whether you think Zimmerman is guilty, or you think he's innocent, the Justice Department's conclusion doesn't really tell you anything you hadn't already figured out for yourself.

That said, is it important for the federal government to have the authority to declare certain things crimes? Yes. Is it important for the federal government to investigate crimes that are alleged within its jurisdiction? Yes. Is it significant when the federal government investigates an allegation of crime and concludes that there is insufficient evidence that a crime has been committed? Yes.
 
Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman on Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, as he returned from a local convenience to the home of his father’s fiancée. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, claimed that Martin had been acting suspiciously before he shot the teenager.
Click to expand...

Yup, it was just "suspicious activity" that led Zimmerman to shoot Martin, nothing else. :covereyes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom