Originally Posted by NJblue (Post 708035)

I see a lot of posts saying that they were relieved and that the system worked. Did it? I happen to agree with what Mark O'Mara said last night: two aspects of the sysytem failed George Zimmerman. First, the media failed in its responsibility to objectively report the news and instead was used as a powerful tool of the professional rable rousers like Al Sharpton. I must admit, I too fell for this initially. I saw the distorted, one-sided reports and was convinced that Zimmerman had preyed on an innocent teenager.

Secondly, and most importantly, the legal system failed George Zimmerman. I'm sure he felt like he didn't do anything wrong and that the system would work and never press charges against him. Little did he know that our legal system no longer works like the blindfolded symbol that is used to portray it. He didn't realize that when politics get involved and people like Angela Corey get involved, your rights are thrown away and power of the state can marshalled against you with no attempt of giving you any benefit of the doubt.


Ultimately, the system did work - but only after successfully destroying a person whose primary motivation was nothing more than helping keep his neighborhood safe.

Originally Posted by Challenger (Post 708053)

All the noise about this case doesn't change the primary reason for GZs acquittal. It was " reasonable doubt" The jurors voted unanimously and each side was well represented. No one knows what was in the hearts of the combatants, but after hearing the evidence "reasonable doubt" remained. I for one am happy that this standard takes precedence in our judicial process.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit (Post 708058)

I respectfully disagree with the OP and the poster who agrees with NJBlue. To me the decision to engage in violent confrontation carries a heavy responsibility, especially if the party making the decision is armed. Mr. Zimmerman made the decision to initiate that confrontation, without being forced, or having the jurisdiction to do so, and in fact being told not to do so.

And let's leave race out of the incident, even though there is evidence of how Mr. Zimmerman felt about young blacks in the neighborhood, and what might have motivated him to continue into that confrontation.

Originally Posted by NJblue (Post 708070)

There is zero credible evidence that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. Those who claim that Martin reacted from fear of Zimmerman refuse to accept the reality that Martin had four minutes to go the short distance to where he was staying. He chose not to do this. Then, by virtue of the physical evidence, it is apparent that Martin was the one who initiated the physical confrontation. Finally, after hearing Zimmerman's cries for help for over 45 seconds he had the opportunity to break the fight off under the presence of a third party (John Good) and he again chose not to avail himself of that out. Unfortunately, the responsibility of this tragedy falls on Martin.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit (Post 708084)

Are you suggesting that some force compelled Mr Zimmerman to become involved in this incident?

If so, what was that?

Originally Posted by ijusluvit (Post 708084)

Are you suggesting that some force compelled Mr Zimmerman to become involved in this incident?

If so, what was that?

Originally Posted by l2ridehd (Post 708118)

Our legal system has an established process for dealing with these issues. It is called a trial by jury. It has been completed and the members of that jury heard all the arguments and evidence submitted by both the prosecution and the defense. It was a jury selected and approved by both sides. After hearing all the facts and information they made a unanimous decision of not guilty. For all of us to pontificate as to why this was good or bad is stupid. We only hear what so the so called media wants us to hear, not everything as that jury did. The media has made a circus of this and will not let it go. Either we accept our legal system as is or work to change it. But stop trying to second guess it.

And if Eric Holder or Harry Reid or Al Sharlaton or the NAACP continue to stir the pot, they are the one's that should be prosecuted. You can't try a person a second time for the same thing, that is called double jeopardy and is not allowed under our legal system. They are all grand standing for political gain.

Originally Posted by l2ridehd (Post 708118)

Our legal system has an established process for dealing with these issues. It is called a trial by jury. It has been completed and the members of that jury heard all the arguments and evidence submitted by both the prosecution and the defense. It was a jury selected and approved by both sides. After hearing all the facts and information they made a unanimous decision of not guilty. For all of us to pontificate as to why this was good or bad is stupid. We only hear what so the so called media wants us to hear, not everything as that jury did. The media has made a circus of this and will not let it go. Either we accept our legal system as is or work to change it. But stop trying to second guess it.

And if Eric Holder or Harry Reid or Al Sharlaton or the NAACP continue to stir the pot, they are the one's that should be prosecuted. You can't try a person a second time for the same thing, that is called double jeopardy and is not allowed under our legal system. They are all grand standing for political gain.