First, let's kill all the lawyers....

[exedir]

We are a troublesome people, living in a troublesome society that has a troublesome view of just what and who is the point of justice, the American system of justice. And one of the troublesome part of Americans and their sense of justice is, to paraphrase another justice, Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward, " I know it when I see it".

Of course, this viewpoint has changed overtime and change more recently due to what people see and hear, see and hear on media that has brought the criminal and justice system into American homes as entertainment. And in that entertainment we have moved from those that enforce the system and operate our courts to the viewpoint of the individuals that experience the system not only as criminals but as victims, victims both of the crimes and the system of justice.

Once it was the point of justice was to carry out the enforcement, where we saw the police as the ultimate barrier against crime and criminals, from radio to television as shows such as Gang Busters and Dragnet had heroes defending us on a daily basis against criminals, both foreign and domestic. Then we saw justice from the defense bar; Perry Mason, The Defenders, Matlock and Ironside where sympathy was generated for those accused and the struggle for justice against the state. And now we have reality, or, a sense of reality with courtroom television to show us the "real" story as to how justice is done, and what the system can provide for both entertainment and education, if not drama.

We have had a range of cases brought before us, and the court of public opinion, to see, hear and to have mostly analyzed by those that are presented to have expertise and opinions, that can express what it is we are seeing and hearing, as to who is "winning" and who is "losing". Seeming we have been presented a combination of another reality TV genre, the game show, such as Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy where both skill and luck play. We are also entertained by the reality and eratz genre, court TV, where faux judges are placed in front of ginned up, scripted plaintiffs and defendants to fill syndicated afternoon airtime shared with the celebrity hosted talk shows.

And there have been the unscripted, live, as it happens, courtroom television of actual trials and courtroom proceedings that reached its peak with the O.J. Simpson murder trial and has continued with such trials as; Casey Anthony, Jodi Arias and now George Zimmerman. These widely covered actual trials have also included Michael Jackson(more than once), Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears as what inquiring minds want to know.

Overall the question remains, has justice been done, or, is it only in the eye of the beholder.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

"has justice been done, or, is it only in the eye of the beholder"

...depends whether you are an innocent unarmed black kid or an armed white activist.

[jayson]

So "justice" in this case would have been to ignore the law?   The prosecution had only actual facts to deal with, and none of them were enough to demonstrate that Zimmerman violated the law, period.  It would've been incredible INJUSTICE to convict a man merely because we were angry with him, or felt sorry for the victim.  THAT type of thinking leads us to pick and choose outcomes for people based on opinion, preferences, feelings, and emotions.  That is INJUSTICE.  Justice relies on the law, being applied consistently and uniformly no matter the opinions, feelings or emotions of people or any of the circumstances surrounding the case.  Even the President himself is not supposed to be able to affect it, try although he did in this case.  No, we have juries of our peers who hear facts and are read the law and given its standards for how they must decide things, based on how they receive the facts.  That is exactly what happened in this case.  

In a nutshell:

1) It was horrible that Zimmerman was let go in the immediate aftermath of the situation without more of an investigation. THAT more than likely had something to do with the fact that Travon was black.  

2) After that, what we had was equally as bad.  The President taking sides (something I never thought I'd see a sitting president, with a law degree nonetheless, do), Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson and the liberal media putting pressure to ultimately get the Justice Department to bypass the grand jury process and instead appoint a black special prosecutor who ought to be disbarred for charging 2nd degree murder with utterly no evidence to support the charge.

3) Then the media consistently portrayed Martin as a 13 year old kid using incredibly outdated pictures all while going out of its way to call Zimmerman a white latino instead of a Peruvian American, AND doctoring 911 tapes to make it appear as though Zimmerman commented on Martin's race which he completely did not do.    

From the facts in the trial we know that there were DOZENS of unsolved robberies and break-ins in that neighborhood.  Zimmerman was awre of all those break-ins and that the police had failed to catch the responsible party(s).  Zimmerman saw what appeared to be a young man (as his height would suggest) that he didn't know in a hood walking through the neighborhood.  It was a tragic mistake to think that this 17 year old might be the responsible for the break-ins.  Zimmerman is told to stay in his car.  BUT, he is then asked if he still sees him, and he didn't and AT THAT POINT he decides to get out of the car to try to re-establish a visual on him and not lose him.  We then know that Trayvon talks to his girl and uses a racial slur saying he's being followed by some "creepy CRACKER."  We don't know who started the fight that ensued after that.  BUT, we have eye-wtiness report that Martin was on top dealing blows and both sides claiming the calls for help was their guy.  HOWEVER, Martin's dad initially said the screams were NOT Travon and later changed his story.  Also, why would someone who is on top of someone else pounding their head be the one calling for help??  Doesn't matter, because we have only to consider the evidence in a case.  Anyway, we then have Zimmerman say he was fearing for his life and finally shoots and kills Martin.

Now, if someone can point to a relevant fact that I have missed that proves Zimmerman killed Martin NOT in self defense, I'd like to hear it.  If someone can tell me what they heard in the trial establishes proof of either second degree murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, I'd like to hear it.  Instead, you hear "he shouldn't have gotten out of the car," "trayvon was just walking with Skittles not doing anything wrong,"  and " Zimmerman had a gun,"  NONE of which are relevant to A) who began the assault, and B) whether Zimmerman was justified in believing he was facing a serious and perhaps deadly harm.  Maybe he wasn't, BUT the prosecution MUST PROVE it b/c otherwise, you are right back to a system of convicting people we don't like or suspect did something wrong - that is not justice.  

Justice WAS done here.  Justice cannot always erase tragedies but it is always supposed to require that guilty men be proven so without a reasonable doubt.  That simply didn't happen here.  

 

[P.A.]

I have never seen or heard from you before Jayson with a y. But everything you say could be true but it doesn't change the fact that an unarmed teenager was killed by a wannabe cop and he went away scot free.
Not everybody thinks as you do.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/14/1223459/-A-Cop-s-take-on-t...

[ProblemAgain]

that is a pretty biased opinion piece..... example?

"I think what we have in George Zimmerman is a person who very likely has tried to be a police officer many, many, many times but couldn't for some very good reasons. He has probably tried to apply to police departments and could not pass the entry requirements.  Now from the surface you would say this is because of his size.  You may surmise that he probably couldn't meet the weight or fitness standard. But I disagree.  I would wager that Mr. Zimmerman has probably never gotten past the psyche evaluation.  I'm sure laws prohibit the release of applicant information but I would bet that he has applied to at least 2 or more sheriff or police departments in the area and has been declined.  You see even in a big city it's a relatively small community.  Once you begin applying and fail a polygraph or fail a psych, that follows you.  Chances are he's failed a few and has likely been blacklisted.  Judging from his demeanor and some of the witness statements he may have some delusions as well.  As many voter purges as FL has done it is amazing that this man was able to purchase a weapon after an altercation with police and a DV but I assume that is what having a father in law enforcement will get you."

lots of assumptions thruout the whole piece and, to compound it, drawing conclusions from assumptions. bad bad bad.....

here's another perspective....

The Right Verdict: A Defense Lawyer’s Perspective on the Zimmerman Trial

By Babble.com | Work + Money – 4 hours ago

• Email
• Share 34
• Tweet
• Print

A Defense Lawyer's Perspective on the Zimmerman TrialLike a lot of people around the United States, I've followed and wa... I've heard many of the witnesses testify and I've listened intently to the arguments between the lawyers about the rules of evidence. Unlike most people who have watched the Zimmerman trial, I'm an attorney who practices criminal defense and who has an understanding of what the State had to do to prove its case.

 As I've watched the witnesses testify I established opinions on how I believed a jury would view the testimony and from there I established an opinion on what verdict I thought would be given. When the verdict was finally read and George Zimmerman was found not guilty on all accounts, just as most experts I heard speak on various news programs, I was not surprised. The evidence was not there to convict Zimmerman.

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/verdict-defense-lawyer-8217-persp...

or another attorney opinion...

Famed Lawyer: Zimmerman's Trial Never Should Have Happened

By Erin Fuchs | Business Insider – Sun, Jul 14, 2013 12:16 PM EDT

• Email
• Recommend
  241
• Tweet
• Print

Reuters/Joe Burbank

Dr. Vincent DiMaio, a forensic pathologist and gunshot wound expert, describes the injuries of George Zimmerman while testifying for the defense in the trial in Seminole circuit court, in Sanford, Florida, July 9, 2013

 The famed criminal defense lawyer who defended notorious "subway vigilante" Bernhard Goetz says George Zimmerman never should have been indicted for the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Prosecutors caved to public pressure when they indicted Zimmerman for second-degree murder, attorney Barry Slotnick tells Business Insider, referring to the public outcry after police failed to arrest the neighborhood watchman in February 2012.

"The trial damaged the system," Slotnick told BI after the verdict came down. "Do we indict people and try them ... to satisfy a population? ... I understand the positions taken by people who believe Zimmerman was a racist. There are other ways to deal with it."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/famed-lawyer-zimmermans-trial-never-1...

the judicial system deals with what the laws are and the application of those laws. if in the struggle,  martyn had managed to get zimmerman's gun, the legal outcome should have been the same for martyn as it now is for zimmerman. selfdefense is a time honoured defense for the use of deadly and lethal force in our society. but remember...no actual witnesses.....and two testosterone-laden young men and a deadly weapon....the outcome of that is no surprise...the outcome of the trial is no surprise either. this was no byron de la beckwith....no kkk riding up....just two stupid young men and race is not really an issue in the situation.

[P.A.]

People keep saying race is not a factor in this case. How can that be true? If Martin had been white Zimmerman would have stayed in the car and nothing would ever have happened. Race was central to what happened regardless of the verdict.
And of course it is biased, it is an opinion piece. Your lawyer was biased also just in another direction. The expert witnesses are all biased on both sides. That is what they look for in an expert, someone who will tell it like your side wants it to be told.

[ProblemAgain]

it's not MY lawyer....i try to take an unbiased view of the whole situation. and it is a LEGAL situation...period....if you noticed, i pretty well steered clear of all the he said, he said arguments before this simply because it is not productive to argue a case without facts...to do so is to sound like the one author making assertions and assumptions without any concrete basis to those claims...if the 'winner' of the fight had been martyn, the outcome of a trial would be the same with a fair jury because it is the way the laws are written. and it is an assumption on your part that 'if martyn had been white zimmerman would have stayed in the car'...but be that as it may, race did not play any part in the outcome of the trial.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Nothing new, white juries have not convicted white murderers of blacks in the south forever.  No matter what proof or law.

However, looking at the weight Zimmerman has put on in the last year, I think Zimmerman may have killed the kid for his Skittles. 

[Ioruach]

I remember that as soon as I heard news of O.J. Simpson's acquittal I raced out of my house into the street prepared to protest, riot and maybe break some windows or light fires in garbage cans.  But there was no one else out there. I ran over to the park where I expected surely to see others preparing to raise hell, possibly even some of those dudes who wear those silly white sheets.  Still, no one at all.   So I said, "screw it," went down to the bar, had a couple beers and watched the rest of a baseball game on TV. 

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Me too...

[LoveLife&Laughter]

A jury has found George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges in connection to death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But while the verdict came as a surprise to some people, it makes perfect sense to others. This verdict is a crystal-clear illustration of the way white supremacy operates in America.

Throughout the trial, the media repeatedly referred to an “all-woman jury” in that Seminole County courtroom, adding that most of them were mothers. That is true—but so is that five of the six jurors were white, and that is profoundly significant for cases like this one. We also know that the lone juror of color was seen apparently wiping a tear during the prosecution’s rebuttal yesterday. But that tear didn’t ultimately convince her or the white people on that jury that Zimmerman was guilty of anything. Not guilty. Not after stalking, shooting and killing a black child, a child that the defense insultingly argued was “armed with concrete.”

In the last few days, Latinos in particular have spoken up again about Zimmerman’s race, and the “white Hispanic” label especially, largely responding to social media users and mass media pundits who employed the term. Watching Zimmerman in the defense seat, his sister in the courtroom, and his mother on the stand, one can’t deny the skin color that informs their experience. They are not white. Yet Zimmerman’s apparent ideology—one that is suspicious of black men in his neighborhood, the “assholes who always get away—” is one that adheres to white supremacy. It was replicated in the courtroom by his defense, whose team tore away at Rachel Jeantel, questioning the young woman as if she was taking a Jim Crow–era literacy test. A defense that, during closing, cited slave-owning rapist Thomas Jefferson, played an animation for the jury based on erroneous assumptions, made racially coded accusations about Trayvon Martin emerging “out of the darkness,” and had the audacity to compare the case of the killing of an unarmed black teenager to siblings arguing over which one stole a cookie.

When Zimmerman was acquitted today, it wasn’t because he’s a so-called white Hispanic. He’s not. It’s because he abides by the logic of white supremacy, and was supported by a defense team—and a swath of society—that supports the lingering idea that some black men must occasionally be killed with impunity in order to keep society-at-large safe.

Media on the left, right and center have been fanning the flames of fear-mongering, speculating that people—and black people especially—will take to the streets. That fear-mongering represents a deep white anxiety about black bodies on the streets, and echoes Zimmerman’s fears: that black bodies on the street pose a public threat. But the real violence in those speculations, regardless of whether they prove to be true, is that it silences black anxiety. The anxiety that black men feel every time they walk outside the door—and the anxiety their loved ones feel for them as well. That white anxiety serves to conceal the real public threat: that a black man is killed every twenty-eight hours by a cop or vigilante.

People will take to the streets, and with good reason. They’ll be there because they know that, yes, some people do always get away—and it tends to be those strapped with guns and the logic of white supremacy at their side. John Nichols

[ProblemAgain]

argue the legal....not the perceptions.....and there is a case coming up in wisconsin that can delve into this better since there is no self defense issue

After Zimmerman verdict, a Milwaukee man faces trial in death of teen

Associated Press

Posted:   07/15/2013 12:01:00 AM CDT | Updated:   about 6 hours ago

MILWAUKEE -- Jurors were selected Monday in the case of a 76-year-old white man charged with gunning down a 13-year-old black boy last year on a Milwaukee sidewalk over a theft allegation.

The proceedings come two days after a jury acquitted George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., last year. In the Milwaukee shooting, which has been compared to the Florida case, John Henry Spooner is charged with first-degree intentional homicide in the May 2012 death of his next-door neighbor, Darius Simmons.

Spooner suspected Simmons of breaking into his Milwaukee home and stealing guns, prosecutors said. Spooner confronted the teen on the sidewalk two days after the weapons came up missing and demanded that he return them. When Simmons denied stealing anything, Spooner shot him in the chest from five feet away as the teen's mother watched, according to the criminal complaint.

http://www.twincities.com/breakingnews/ci_23661945/after-zimmerman-...

[LoveLife&Laughter]

He was acquitted via the "Stand Your Ground Law.

This "Law" was pushed by the NRA's obsession to not only have every one carrying guns, but making it legal to use them indiscriminately too.

Not everyone thinks this is a good idea; i.e., the DOJ is looking into it to see what can be done.