State never proved its case, legal analysts say [George Zimmerman]

Miamai Herald ^ | July 13, 2013 | DAVID OVALLE

[grundle]

SANFORD -- After five weeks of trial and 56 witnesses, few legal observers believed prosecutors came close to proving Sanford neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman committed second-degree murder when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in February 2012.

So for many legal analysts, it was no surprise that jurors rejected even a lesser

[A_Former_Democrat]

“They didn’t have a case they had political and racial motives and hoped to snooker a jury into using emotion not law.”

Nailed it

God bless those brave women. They applied the law as it was meant to be applied.

[TalBlack]

You can damn well bet the press are sharpening their knives even now to make the lives of the jurors a pure living hell.

[ThunderSleeps]

They didn’t have a case they had political and racial motives and hoped to snooker a jury into using emotion not law.

That is perhaps the best, most correct and succinct summary of the situation I have heard to date. Well said.

[Stingray]

My major complaint was against Whorealdo, who made a big point that George was only found “not guilty”, not “innocent”.

Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them “not guilty.” Defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

---

Exactly right. Zimmerman was as innocent of the charges before and during the trial as he was after the trial. The only thing the jury did was to affirm this by stating he was not guilty. Why not guilty instead of innocent? The state was trying to prove him guilty. The jury said he wasn’t. Simple. Again, he was as innocent going in as he was coming out. “Not guilty” addresses the charge, not the defendant.

[Graybeard58]

Your comments #63,#64 and #65 were erroneously addressed to me, I didn’t say it.

[KAESNO2]

Wow, ya think?

[DoughtyOne]

A clearly shaken NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous...

He referenced another killing of a black youth that many have compared to the Trayvon Martin slaying, the 1955 killing of 14-year-old Emmett Till, who was killed in Mississippi for allegedly flirting with a white woman.

It boggles the mind to see the muddled thinking on display regarding the Zimmerman/Martin incident.

Here NAACP Justice compares Martin's predicament to that of Emmett Till. Till is described as being killed for flirting with a white woman. How is Trayvon imagined to be the victim of that level of racism? How is appearing to be casing homes for potential vandalism later the same as merely flirting with a white woman?

Why is Martin getting this type of support? Is it okay to sneak around behind homes in the middle of the night, apparently checking them out. Think about this. How long does it take to traverse through a housing tract like this? If you're bookin' it, it wouldn't take you more than a few minutes. Here we seem to have a guy loitering around behind or in between homes, checking them out. He isn't bookin' it. He's taking his sweet time. Why? Isn't it rather obvious he was not just walking back home?
 
Zimmerman observes, makes a phone call, leaves his vehicle, checks out the address, heads back to his car, all the while Martin is still not headed back to his Dad's home.

Something was up here. Zimmerman was on to something. It seem obvious that he was.

Is it now a civil right to case potential crime scenes? I doubt that. So what is going on here is racism on display. Martin was black. That's where the story line ends for the race baiting set. It's where the story line ends for those who condemn Zimmerman.

The black woman in the video at the LINK stated she would have probably voted Zimmerman not-guilty too, based on what was presented to the jury.  None the less she thinks justice was not served here.  This truly made sense to her.  She evidently saw no racism in her take on things.  The black kid was dead.  It had to be racism.  This evidently came from her very core beliefs.

Racism was and still is a problem in America. At one time some whites were prejudiced against blacks. Most of that has diminished. What has taken it's place, is the polar opposite. Now it's some blacks who are prejudiced against whites.

If Martin were the victim of racism, I would defend him. This was not racism on display. It was a young man seemingly up to no good on display. The real crime on display here, is that some blacks can't objectively look at this and realize Martin was at fault. He wasn't simply walking back to his dad's place. He wasn't approached and hassled by Zimmerman. He wasn't placed in a bad situation by a racist. Martin was the problem. He wound up beating a man up, breaking his nose and pounding his head into the cement.

How do you judge a young kid like this to be the victim? He was perpetrating a serious crime.

What we see here, are people for whom race trumps everything else. There is no guilt, if you're black. If you're black you can do anything to anyone, and it's justified. You can pound someone's head into the cement if you like. You are justified. You can pummel their face if you like. You are justified. If someone objects, and fights back, they are not justified. If they can't physically defend themselves and use a gun, they are the problem, the black man isn't.

This is pure racism. Is this what Martin Luther King fought for?

We have a community that is racist. We have a broader group of people in America who are racist. We have a Justice Department head who is a racist. We have a president who is a racist.

Welcome to the ultimate end game of white guilt.

We have a massive amount of self-examination needed in this nation. This time, it does not involve whites.

At some point in time, the criminal must be assessed for being who he is regardless of race. I am sorry that a 17 year old kid is dead today. I don't care what his race was. I care that he made poor choices and paid the ultimate price for it. Although I am sorry he is dead, I recognize the part he played in it. He started a chain of events, that he couldn't back down from, he didn't back down from, and ultimately it cost him his life.

Somewhere in the fabric of this kid's life, it was instilled in him that he could do no wrong. His skin was black, and he was justified in anything he could imagine to do.

There is a sickness in the land...

[Darren McCarty]

No s%%t Sherlock. The case should have never been sent to trial. We’re still at least supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[usmom]

I thought the same thing- why would anyone want someone like that to be a nurse? No amount of education could make me comfortable with having her provide medical care to people!

[usmom]

Excellent analysis!

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you USMom.

[CH3CN]

If you don’t have facts, argue the law. If you don’t have the law, argue facts. If you have neither facts nor law, pound the table.

[RginTN]

My conclusion is these CNN "analysts" would have been ok with that child beating Zimmerman to death since all their focus is on the "child" and not his assault that night.