Trayvon Martin

[southsider2k5]

Depends on if you can give a convincing explanation about why you didn't bring the case. If you can stand up for 2 hours and take questions about why you can't bring charges and answer every one of them in an honest way, and also sitting down with the family and detailing why you can't prove the case for however long it takes to outline every single thing that was investigated...then that'd be enough to keep my vote.

 

Bringing charges and then having the accused get off would be incredibly inflammatory.

 

So you would have been happy if they didn't bring charges in this case?

[Balta1701]

So you would have been happy if they didn't bring charges in this case?

I still half expect the guy to get off and I'm really surprised they were able to bring charges in the first place, so yeah. But if nothing else, something needed to be done to get past the "ho-hum, he killed a black guy, no big deal" initial version of the investigation that was so weak everyone involved stepped aside as soon as there was scrutiny.

 

Someone needed to be able to at least tell the family why charges couldn't be brought. If they uncovered more details than what has been printed in the press, then charges might well be reasonable, but that's why I'm saying that the prosecutor just put her reputation and career firmly on the line by bringing them.

[southsider2k5]

I still half expect the guy to get off and I'm really surprised they were able to bring charges in the first place, so yeah. But if nothing else, something needed to be done to get past the "ho-hum, he killed a black guy, no big deal" initial version of the investigation that was so weak everyone involved stepped aside as soon as there was scrutiny.

 

Someone needed to be able to at least tell the family why charges couldn't be brought. If they uncovered more details than what has been printed in the press, then charges might well be reasonable, but that's why I'm saying that the prosecutor just put her reputation and career firmly on the line by bringing them.

 

It would have been worse if they didn't. If they lose they case, more than likely the "racist system" gets blamed for it, instead of the prosecutor.

[Balta1701]

It would have been worse if they didn't. If they lose they case, more than likely the "racist system" gets blamed for it, instead of the prosecutor.

If they lose the case, I'd expect both get blamed, but the prosecutor gets to be the public face of it. Marcia Clark style.

[Texsox]

And what is more likely to get you not-releected again... Not bringing a case, or losing the case?

 

Ooh Ooh let me answer!

 

Not bringing the case. It's much easier to be the tough on criminal prosecutor fighting a system that allows criminals to go free and innocent people getting killed.

[Soxbadger]

It also depends on your circuit.

 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1263650.html

 

Seminole County (where Sanford is located):

 

White persons, percent, 2010 (a) 78.2%

Black persons, percent, 2010 (a) 11.1%

 

Jackson County (Where special prosecutor is located):

White persons, percent, 2010 (a) 69.1%

Black persons, percent, 2010 (a) 26.6%

 

Now surprisingly Sanford population Black persons, percent, 2010 (a) 30.5%

 

As you can see, the Original DA who passed on the charges came from a County that was not as racially diverse as the County that the Special Prosecutor is from. What may be bad for one political group may be good for another.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

What unfounded fears?

 

Balta's insistence that Zimmerman would be getting away with murder without being arrested or charged. That based on the language of the statute, there is no way any charges could be brought against him. In the end that was all crap, because there was a baseline determination of "probable cause" (as is there is in EVERY criminal case) that justified the charges, which were some pretty basic facts that didn't defer 100% to a self defense claim by Zimmerman.

 

I see that just a page ago Balta continues to believe something that's just not true, that as soon as Zimmerman screams self-defense everyone drops the case and moves on because there's nothing they can do under the wording of the statute. That again, is not true and never has been. It's the same determination as any criminal case - are there enough facts to bring charges, regardless of the self-defense DEFENSE to the charges.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Media pressure is why the investigation was resumed.

 

Putting him on trial with a weak case tht is thrown out in the self-defense hearing would inflame the public reaction more than spelling out that she has no case.

 

This makes zero sense. You're saying that letting him off without any kind of judicial determination about his guilt would be better? Really?

[Balta1701]

This makes zero sense. You're saying that letting him off without any kind of judicial determination about his guilt would be better? Really?

If the prosecutor came out, said she looked at the case and just doesn't have the evidence...that'd be very different in terms of public reaction from her saying that she believes a crime was committed and yet having the accused walk.

[Jenksismyhero]

If the prosecutor came out, said she looked at the case and just doesn't have the evidence...that'd be very different in terms of public reaction from her saying that she believes a crime was committed and yet having the accused walk.

 

Jessie Jackson would parade the family out in a press conference and start claiming it was a conspiracy and that racism still exists and that Zimmerman got away with murder. At least this way if the jury or a judge doesn't agree then it's on the "public," not the police/state's attorneys office.

 

Laying out what she has, even if a little weak, but still making the argument of a crime is better than just saying "nope, there's nothing here, everyone go home."

[Jenksismyhero]

And really, based on the nature of this case, it's a 50/50 call that's going to come down to the credibility of Zimmerman. So that would probably make it even more suspect to just not bring charges since SHE would then be making the determination that she believes the racist kid killer over the saintly boy eating skittles.

[Balta1701]

Laying out what she has, even if a little weak, but still making the argument of a crime is better than just saying "nope, there's nothing here, everyone go home."

Is there anything that would stop her from "Laying out what she has" after concluding an investigation if she decided not to bring charges?

[Jenksismyhero]

Is there anything that would stop her from "Laying out what she has" after concluding an investigation if she decided not to bring charges?

 

Probably not, but then she's putting her reputation (i.e., re-election chances) on the line by doing so because again, this is a credibility case not an evidentiary one.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

If they lose the case, I'd expect both get blamed, but the prosecutor gets to be the public face of it. Marcia Clark style.

 

She got berated because she was an awful, awful attorney and made monumental mistakes during the trial - the Mark Furman racism stuff, putting the glove on, etc.

[southsider2k5]

She got berated because she was an awful, awful attorney and made monumental mistakes during the trial - the Mark Furman racism stuff, putting the glove on, etc.

 

She had what this case doesnt... evidence.

[StrangeSox]

[Soxbadger]

She had what this case doesnt... evidence.

 

What do you mean there is no evidence?

 

OJ Case- Denied he was the murderer, thus had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ actually committed the crime, had to find the murder weapon had to try and put all of the pieces together.

 

Zimmerman case- Confessed to the murder, have murder weapon.

 

So how exactly is there less evidence?

 

Because in neither the OJ case nor this case is there an eye witness who testified to seeing the murder.

[mr_genius]

 

I'm surprised u would post that

[StrangeSox]

It is fantastic but not for the reason the artist intended.

[Balta1701]

Link

Trayvon Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, and older brother, Jahvaris Fulton, 21, were in New York City on Thursday for an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, not thinking they were going to visit Madison Square Garden the following day.

 

But New York Knicks All-Star Carmelo Anthony had a surprise invite awaiting the family, which included Martin's younger brother who's three and a half years old.

 

Anthony met privately in the Knicks' locker room with the family and posed for pictures before New York's 103-65 win over the Washington Wizards on Friday night. Fearing additional media attention, the family did not stay for the game.

 

Anthony said Martin's death struck a bigger chord with him because it made him reflect on the passing of his sister, Michelle, who died from a pre-existing medical condition in December 2010. Anthony now remembers Michelle while he's playing by having her name stitched on to his sneakers.

 

"(It was) a blessing, an honor," Anthony said after Knicks' practice on Saturday morning in regards to meeting the Martin family. "We all know the tragedy that happened and just to get in a different space of mind right now, just bringing them to not even the game, but to the locker room in the back, meeting all the players, meeting the coaches. That was the easy part. We had no media there. It was just something that I wanted to do.

 

"I lost my sister last year, so I know what it feels like, even with his little brother. He didn't even want to come to the game, didn't even know what was going on. He wanted to go see 'The Lion King,' but just for them to be there, that meant a lot."

[The Sir]

Hopefully this racist, douche bag vigilante gets what's coming for him.

 

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

 

Is it too hard to wait for this guy's trial? If he's guilty, he'll be convicted and punished for his crimes. But the fact of the matter is that the affidavit from this so-called prosecutor, Angela Corey, is garbage. The evidence is that Trayvon Martin's mother says the screams were her son's? Which is contrary to what each of the witnesses on the scene said? And the affidavit doesn't even bother to refute the initial police report, it just ignores it. The affidavit seems more like an attempt for Corey to jump into politics as some sort of populist hero than an actual administration of justice. Even liberal law prof Alan Dershowitz thinks the document is bulls***.

 

Can someone dig back to January 2007 and show me the thread where BS cries about how much of a racist Lemaricus Davidson is? Or is it only racism when non-blacks murder blacks? I guess racism wasn't involved when a group of people defended a purse snatcher from a white good Samaritan while chanting "Trayvon"? Hell, why does racism have to be involved at all? Why isn't it possible that George Zimmerman was legitimately trying to protect his neighborhood when he got into an encounter he shouldn't have been in and, even if he wasn't acting in self defense and is actually guilty of murder, that his actions were not determined by racial hatred? Why must he be tried in the court of public opinion by ignorant dickheads like yourself?

 

As in any other criminal case, the guy deserves his day in court. What disgusts me most here is not that George Zimmerman is going to be tried; if the evidence is there, he deserves to be prosecuted. What disgusts me is that idiots all over the place are calling for his head. Mob justice has always been wrong, and the victims of lynch mobs in our history were not delivered to justice; they were murdered. And it's no different with the racial roles reversed.

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

[BigSqwert]

I thought you were a man of God. God said "Thou shalt not kill" as it's one of the 10 most important things a Christian must abide by. George Zimmerman admittedly killed someone. Turned out to be an unarmed child. What commandment did the unarmed child break that day? Figured a devout Christian would be more up in arms about the evil act that Zimmerman committed as opposed to towing some political party line. But that's Christianity for you*! "The rules only apply when we want them to!"

 

* As practiced by the far right

Edited April 15, 2012 by BigSqwert

[kapkomet]

This thread is a cesspool of bulls***.

 

[The Sir]

I thought you were a man of God. God said "Thou shalt not kill" as it's one of the 10 most important things a Christian must abide by. George Zimmerman admittedly killed someone. Turned out to be an unarmed child. What commandment did the unarmed child break that day? Figured a devout Christian would be more up in arms about the evil act that Zimmerman committed as opposed to towing some political party line. But that's Christianity for you*! "The rules only apply when we want them to!"

 

* As practiced by the far right

 

Is it wrong to grant him a trial in a court of law and not in the court of public opinion? Is it wrong to think that racism had nothing to do with it? Is it wrong to think that posting an accused man's address with the hopes that vigilante justice would be administered makes you a criminal in your own right? Is any of this wrong? Am I celebrating Trayvon's death? Is supporting proper justice really equal to being a partisan thug?

 

 

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

[The Sir]

Oh, another thing, since you want to mock my religious beliefs. Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". So the persecutors of Zimmerman really shouldn't run around quoting the Bible.