patrick.net

Bap33 says

Michael Madison .... what now racebaitors?

google Michael Madison bodies

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

The juror is confusing SYG and self defense. There is no SYG when you're pinned beneath someone who is punching you and slamming your head into the concrete.

I'm sure GZ was properly mirandized. Anything he said before then or after does not need to be "verified" or "cross examined" before it can be considered evidence by a jury. GZ said plenty during multiple police interviews and chose not to take the stand during his trial. It's was his right to do both of those things.

I don't think the jury was dumb. I think they made the correct choice. TM was largely responsible for this own death.

This is America, ghetto black people will scream "racism" any opportunity they get. Not because it applies, but because their racist leaders tell them it is. If Al Sharpton tells poor blacks to jump, they do. Herd mentality.

foxmannumber1 says

I'm sure GZ was properly mirandized. Anything he said before then or after
does not need to be "verified" or "cross examined" before it can be considered
evidence by a jury.

I don't think the jury was dumb. I think they made the correct choice. TM was
largely responsible for this own death.

Really, "Mirandized"????? "Any statement can and will be used against you", remember that from watching L A LAw???? To bad that the show couldn't have taught you some real info.

It's heresay that's not subject to verification/cross examination, and if the prosecutor were even remotely bright, wouldn't allowed any of his interview statements to have been entered. You have the right to not incriminate yourself, but not to advance your theory of defense. That's why the burden of proof is on the state/prosecutor.

But, it's Florida...............the land of paranoid and lazy boomers. Now they'll NEVER come out after dark(as if they did anyway).

FortWayne says

This is America, ghetto black people will scream "racism" any opportunity
they get. Not because it applies, but because their racist leaders tell them it
is. If Al Sharpton tells poor blacks to jump, they do. Herd mentality.

Seriously, yea, keep running with that motto, because it's worked so well in the past. Yawnnnnnnnn

You would think for as much ka-ching that the rwnj's pay Frank Luntz, that he would have come up with some new material for you dittoheads to repeat by now.

This says upisdown is a liar and a fraud:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+Madison&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

Bap33 says

This says upisdown is a liar and a fraud:

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn, what's next, that my pants are too short?

I thought you wore dresses, my bad.

I really am trolling like a mo-fo to get someone from your political view to read and respond to that crime ... because your side has some explaining to do

Bap33 says

I really am trolling like a mo-fo to get someone from your political view to
read and respond to that crime ... because your side has some explaining to
do

No shit. And apparently to you, bad attention is still attention.

lol, you're just sooooooo "misunderstood".

upisdown says

It's heresay that's not subject to verification/cross examination, and if the prosecutor were even remotely bright, wouldn't allowed any of his interview statements to have been entered. You have the right to not incriminate yourself, but not to advance your theory of defense. That's why the burden of proof is on the state/prosecutor.

You heard GZ say all those things on the recordings of the interviews. He was a direct witness and participant to the events. That is not 'heresay'.

I think all of GZ's statements he made to police that night, the subsequent police interview and even the Sean Hannity interview were admissible as evidence during his recent m2 trial. I'm not sure what you mean by 'verified'. The prosecution has no right to "cross examine" any previous statement of a defendant before arrest.

Police question people all the time and use it as evidence before charging them. Your statements are highly flawed.

robertoaribas says

so in this post you insinuate that black people are too stupid to think for themselves... because they are black I guess.

And yet you are bothered when people point out you are a racist?

I'm too old to be bothered by any insults. I say it like I see it, whatever their reasons for being sheep I don't care. Smart blacks aren't protesting, it's the poor welfare cases running around protesting.

foxmannumber1 says

I think all of GZ's statements he made to police that night, the subsequent
police interview and even the Sean Hannity interview were admissible as evidence
during his recent m2 trial. I'm not sure what you mean by 'verified'. The
prosecution has no right to "cross examine" any previous statement of a
defendant before arrest.

Police question people all the time and use it as evidence before charging
them. Your statements are highly flawed.

Sure, they are evidence to see if he may incriminate himself, or even perjure himself.
But, he can make ANY claim, such as; Ahnold S likes to shove large carrots up his ass.
That's a statement, and an unprovable statement also. And, if he said that in a recorded interview with the police, there's no way he can be questioned, or cross examined because it's after the fact. If GZ doesn't testify, there's absolutely NO way to challenge his statements, or refute them.
Any half-assed prosecutor(apparently not) wouldn't allow his interview/statements to be admitted into the trial because of that. And because of her total(or intentional?) incompetence, the jury was allowed to hear those ststements, and took them as FACT, according to the juror that Anderson Cooper interviewed.

I don't think you understand what heresay is or know how trials work.

The police interviews being in trial evidence is routine and lawful, as is GZ choosing not to testify. No one except you is arguing that.

foxmannumber1 says

I don't think you understand what heresay is or know how trials work.

The police interviews being in trial evidence is routine and lawful, as is GZ
choosing not to testify. No one except you is arguing that.

lol, THAT'S it, I'm clueless.

Interviews ascertain evidence, incrimination of oneself/confessions of any extent, and elements of a crime. Sure, they will be shown in entirety if there's a confession, basically to prove that it was not given illegally or under duress, promises of ?, etc.

Mark D says

meth is a very crazy drug. makes you extremely paranoia and stop talking it causes weight gain, even when in prison.

Which is why everyone should be so afraid of the 15+ million young americans that your worthless "doctors" have prescribed to be addicted to adderral

I never said clueless.

Using your horribly flawed logic, the trial and evidence introduction would go like this.

1. Prosecutor puts interviews into evidence.
2. Prosecutor points out inconsistencies between GZ's story in said interviews and physical evidence attempting to bolster its case. This would show that GZ is a liar with something to hide.
3. GZ chooses not to testify at the very end of the trial.
4. Prosecutor wants to throw out evidence they submitted because GZ chose not to testify right at the very end of the trial.

It doesn't make sense.

We don't know who started the fight, that is, who threw the first punch. Could have been Zimmerman, although it did not seem to land, could have been Trayvon. Trayvon did not testify.

It is beyond a reasonable doubt that Trayvon was on top of ZImmerman, preventing his escape, and likely bashing his head into the ground. That was an unfortunate thing to do for Trayvon. African Americans usually ignore this, or if they address it, either blame Zimmerman, or regard this as appropriate behavior when you are being followed.

Unfortunate all the way around.

foxmannumber1 says

The police interviews being in trial evidence is routine and lawful, as is GZ
choosing not to testify. No one except you is arguing that.

My point is, and I really think that you're willfully playing dumb so as to somehow not prove it, is that GZ's statements were allowed to be considered AS FACT, and did not get a chance to be refuted OR challenged BECAUSE he chose not to testify.
Again, any competent prosecutor wouldn't allow them to be admitted because SHE could not challenge them as to their truthfulness, and details such as time or a location.

The jurors were instructed to use common sense to determine if the story, as well as any other evidence, was true or false. They were never told that the interviews were facts in their instructions.

foxmannumber1 says

1. Prosecutor puts interviews into evidence.

Alright then. Gz says in the interview:
TM said he was going to rape me and them kill me(not really likely or believable, but maybe if GZ was a female). So, as a prosecutor, your going to allow that STATEMENT to be admitted into the trial as evidence, where it will be assumed to be a fact, and NEVER once be allowed to challenge the truthfullness of it or anything else about that statement if GZ never testifies.
Just why would you allow that to be admitted, especially considering the burden of proof is on you (or the state) to prove your allegation/s that GZ committed the crime/s that you claimed/charged him with, and that there was enough probable cause to do that?

Wouldn't that just be beyond fucking stupid???

foxmannumber1 says

The jurors were instructed to use common sense to determine if the story, as
well as any other evidence, was true or false. They were never told that the
interviews were facts in their instructions.

By who??? The tooth fairy???? No judge, especially in a high profile case as this one was, would tell them to use common sense over a very specifically worded staute, as the verdict would be overturned very easily.

The elements of a crime are VERY specific, and those elements are what the jury uses to consider whther he committed the crime he was charged with, along with all the supporting evidence that has been to be proven factual or qualified.

FortWayne says

it's the poor welfare cases running around protesting.

You mean being bussed in by Liberal White based PACs.

In the good ole days, these assholes were called Agitators.
Until that aptly suitable word for what is going on, was hijacked and made to mean that the user of the word is a racist.

CaptainShuddup says

FortWayne says

it's the poor welfare cases running around protesting.

You mean being bussed in by Liberal White based PACs.

In the good ole days, these assholes were called Agitators.

Until that aptly suitable word for what is going on, was hijacked and made to mean that the user of the word is a racist.

Maybe they are part of Organizing for America or Acorn. Not like our president is above these kinds of Chicago style tactics. That's right up his alley.

CaptainShuddup says

FortWayne says

it's the poor welfare cases running around protesting.

You mean being bussed in by Liberal White based PACs.

In SFBA, especially Oakland, we see peaceful protests disrupted by mostly white anarchists who start smashing windows. They wear masks and gloves but you can see their necks and wrists on the news video. Local people refer vaguely to people from outside of town etc., by which they mean anarchists who ride the freights up and down the coast. Anarchists grab opportunities to launch false flag attacks that they imagine will 'bring down the system,' even attacking public transit that is usually a liberal favorite. Most of the local protesters are peaceful and show no interest in turning their neighborhood into a reenactment of the 1960s Detroit riots, but damage does occur due to a small % taking advantage of the crowd.

BTW, possibly the most cogent, dispassionate analysis of "stand your ground" continues to be this 2012 review. The statute is basically procedural, not substantive, i.e. it drove the fact that GZ wasn't immediately arrested but it didn't change the outcome.

The President in his comments referred to the self-defense vs duty to retreat issue, which is a separate issue that people and states have disagreed about for centuries. He's right that there should be a duty to retreat if possible, which Florida has; the jury found reasonable doubt as to whether safe retreat was possible. I don't know if a different prosecutor might persuade a different jury to reach a different conclusion: this particular prosecution seemed to overplay its hand going for maximum charges and rhetoric, with the court adding the possibility of lesser charges only after the original case became doubtful, so a more modest prosecution on federal charges might do better; either way, the facts seem to merit a civil case to prevent GZ from profiting off a book deal or movie deal.

foxmannumber1 says

Other obvious facts of this case being TM beat up people and did illegal drugs. GZ beat up no one and did not do illegal drugs.

Lies.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Zimfuck had to open up on Martin. In fact, he would have been acting rationally if he just gunned down Martin from his car while driving by because he had no way to know that Martin didn't have an AK-47 under his coat machined for full-auto and, at any instant, could pull it out and shred him.

Clearly this is correct. Anyone who denies it in an immoral and unethical psychopath (aka a liberal)

upisdown says

By who??? The tooth fairy???? No judge, especially in a high profile case as this one was, would tell them to use common sense over a very specifically worded staute, as the verdict would be overturned very easily.

From http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions

WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE

It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than other evidence.

The m2 murder trial is a case of historic fact. Anyone with an internet connection can look up these facts within seconds. You should use all these resources if you wish to give an informed opinion.

Obama has fallen out of favor with me over the last few months, and I haven't really been paying much attention to him any more....but a friend did point out Obama's recent comments on the Trayvon Martin case, and I took the time to listen.

I actually thought Obama did a good job in providing a pretty balanced take on the situation, and particularly the way he put the case into context for black Americans. He gets good marks from me on this one...but I couldn't help but think that the people who need to hear it the most are unlikely to.

upisdown says

TM said he was going to rape me and them kill me(not really likely or believable, but maybe if GZ was a female). So, as a prosecutor, your going to allow that STATEMENT to be admitted into the trial as evidence, where it will be assumed to be a fact, and NEVER once be allowed to challenge the truthfullness of it or anything else about that statement if GZ never testifies.

In your hypothetical scenario, the prosecutor would present that evidence that GZ was lying and attempting to hide something. The police questioned everything GZ said the day of the interview. It's GZ's right to give an interview to the police and it's GZ right not to testify during his trial without any impact on his guilty or innocence.

No prosecutor ever would not introduce a legal police interview into evidence. The defense would have a field day with that omission, especially if it made the suspect appear innocent.

I don't see why you're still standing by this.

foxmannumber1 says

The m2 murder trial is a case of historic fact. Anyone with an internet
connection can look up these facts within seconds. You should use all these
resources if you wish to give an informed opinion.

She's set herself up for dis. action as the judge alone interprets the law, not any member of the jury. Shit, she might have well of told them to ignore the letter of the law, and go with what they think the spirit of the law is.

But, it is Florida.

It's routine to tell the jurors to use their own common sense in weighing evidence. If you read the other parts of the jury instructions, she does spell out the very specific statues that had to be met in order find GZ guilty.

Again, I don't know why you're questioning something that happens literally hundreds of times a day in this country's legal system.

foxmannumber1 says

In your hypothetical scenario, the prosecutor would present that evidence that
GZ was lying and attempting to hide something.

Hypothetical??? WTF????? The interviewed juror even mentioned his statement SPECIFICALLY during her interview.

I don't know why(actually I do....because playing dumb isn't admitting that you're wrong AND it drives up the post count)you continually take the idiotic stance that you have up to this point. But, your vast court/case experience must apparently trump mine in some altered version of the universe.

foxmannumber1 says

Again, I don't know why you're questioning something that happens literally
hundreds of times a day in this country's legal system.

Prove it.

LOL, if you can.

For once, maybe you shithouse lawyers could provide some proof, ANY PROOF. You never will, mainly because it was never your intent to begin with, as you're trying to instigate a reaction, any reaction, from or someone else. Go back to loading up the Yahoo comment section for fun/work.

I don't believe you can follow a conversation well. GZ never mentioned 'rape' at all during any interview.

The short answer is all legal police interviews are entered into evidence at court. Content of said interview doesn't matter. You are wrong if you think otherwise.

Let's move on.

foxmannumber1 says

I don't believe you can follow a conversation well.

The short answer is all legal police interviews are entered into evidence at
court. Content of said interview doesn't matter. You are wrong if you think
otherwise.

Let's move on.

Nope, that's absolutely not true, and you wouldn't know either way. You've continually shown to be wrong and have a very limited scope of knowledge of how a trial works, not to mention your lack of understanding any type of strategy.

You want to "move on" because I've got you to show your lack of knowledge on the subject and you don't want to be cornered any more to further embarrass yourself and show the true depth of that lack of knowledge.

You can have opinions, even though they're not based upon facts, but you pulling things out of your ass and passing it off as truth when I know better ain't gonna wash with me.

And you're not even entertaining while being so ignorant.

swebb says

Obama has fallen out of favor with me over the last few months, and I haven't really been paying much attention to him any more....but a friend did point out Obama's recent comments on the Trayvon Martin case, and I took the time to listen.

I actually thought Obama did a good job in providing a pretty balanced take on the situation, and particularly the way he put the case into context for black Americans. He gets good marks from me on this one...but I couldn't help but think that the people who need to hear it the most are unlikely to.

I finally listened to this speech. You're right the closed minded ones around here wouldn't listen to this to save their life.

I too have been progressively disappointed with Obama on several fronts. But I also agree that this speech is very thoughtful and balanced and he did an excellent job.

I recommend the speech to the Baps and Fox#1s, and Captainstfus of the world.

A couple of good points he brings up.

I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the "stand your ground" laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see?

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

He clearly says that he''s not talking about any big federal programs and but he tries to address the challenges faced by communities over how to help black youth.

Number three -- and this is a long-term project -- we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?

I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program. I'm not sure that that’s what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed -- I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.

And then, finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there's the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

The entire speech of about 15 minutes is well worth listening to. This version might be a little less delayed than the one above (or maybe the same - not sure).
http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/billhandel.html?article=11502525

upisdown says

Nope, that's absolutely not true

It's comical how wrong you are. Your last post is nothing but "you're wrong and ignorant".

You incorrectly claim GZ's statements were heresay when he was directly involved in the incident.

You incorrectly claim that evidence needs to be "verified" without explaining what "verified" means in legal terms.

You incorrectly claim a suspect can't make a statement before arrest without forcing himself to be cross examined.

You then say the judge did not instruct jurors to use 'common sense' when weighing evidence when the juror instructions explicitly said to use common sense.

The police do not conduct legal interviews with suspects, charge those suspects with crimes they interviewed them about and then choose not to present the interview as evidence at trial.

0 lawyers that gave a public statement on this case agree with you. You are the only person who thinks the prosecutor did something wrong by putting the interviews into evidence. You are the only person who thinks the judge did something wrong by allowing the interview into evidence. You are the only person who thinks this trial and evidence was abnormal.

If you know of someone that holds the same opinion as you on this, please link us.

foxmannumber1 says

If you know of someone that holds the same opinion as you on this, please
link us.

How about procedural rules of evidence defined by STATUTE for the state of Florida?
foxmannumber1 says

You are the only person who thinks the prosecutor did something wrong by putting
the interviews into evidence.

You are really, a truly ignorant of how the court system works. You're implying now that the prosecutor didn't have the burden of proof to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it was totally assinine for her to allow GZ's statements to be entered into the trial(which would then accept them as wholely factual) and then not have any chance whatsoever to refute ANY part of those statements or the WHOLE of them. She knew that there was a high likelihood that he wouldn't testify, too.

She had that option and chose to allow them to be admitted into the trial as evidence, and doing so would accept that would make them factual also. Then, knowing that the juror who was interviewed SPECIFICALLY referred to those same statements in a publicized interview as to her reason, and others' reason, that they used to make the decision that they made that was the outcome.

So, you're in a sense then also claiming that the juror is lying? Mistaken? What?

To recap: The prosecutor could have chose not to have GZ's statements allowed to be admitted, but did, and the juror cited those same statements are what influenced or made her(and others)decide the way she did.
And you don't get it, or say that it didn't happen. You're as obviously ignorant as the prosecutor.

Just go change screen names again instead of constantly contradicting and embarrassing yourself. Yahoo! calling you yet?

I think you providing no links to people who make the same statements as you is not shocking.

Even if the prosecutor chose not to have the statements put into evidence, the defense could have put them into evidence. It is legitimate evidence. A suspect making legal statements to a police officer will never be kept out of court. Attempting to keep that out is the best way to get a mistrial.

You are correct in stating that the state does not get a chance to question GZ about any statements he made prior to the trial. Once again, GZ can give numerous statements to police and choose not to testify. This is done in many trials and no one bats an eye.

The police asked numerous questions in that interview, to which GZ gave plausible answers to.

If you had read the juror instructions, which it appears you did not, you would find that there was a whole section on GZ's statements and GZ not testifying. There is nothing in these statements that made these statements by GZ "factual". Just the opposite, the juror instructions say to weigh these very carefully and use caution. Upon doing so, the jurors found that GZ was telling the truth.

To quote part of it:

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN'S STATEMENTS

A statement claimed to have been made by George Zimmerman outside of court has been placed before you. Such a statement should always be considered with caution and be weighed with great care to make certain it was freely and voluntarily made. Therefore, you must determine from the evidence that George Zimmerman’s alleged statement was knowingly, voluntarily and freely made. In making this determination, you should consider the total circumstances, including but not limited to

1. whether, when George Zimmerman made the statement, he had been threatened in order to get him to make it, and

2. whether anyone had promised him anything in order to get him to make it. If you conclude George Zimmerman’s out of court statement was not freely and voluntarily made, you should disregard it.