Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The one Witness for the Prosecution Sele Bahadoor was even caught lying when she claimed she didn't sign a Petition, and the Defense team had her Read it off her Macbook. She looks like a Moron that only sided with Trayvon Martin because he was Black.

The Prosecution's case against Zimmerman has being Racially Motivated and has been about Liberal Democrat Politics to try to get rid of Stand your Ground Laws. They do not want people protecting themselves against those that attack and attempt to either Murder or Disfigure them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uLoRZt9V1U

If Zimmerman was an African American or a Woman, there would be no Trial. But since the Liberal Media pinned him as a White Person, even tho he shows much more of his Hispanic side. This Case has become about Ethnicity more than Facts.

I'm about to eat my own words... I think Travon Martin was innocent, but the Prosecution have done a horrible job at it. I just got done talking to one of Trayvon's friends, and I know you can say that he is biased and all, but I really don't know how biased you can say he really is. He thinks both were at fault that night, but he also says he thinks that Zimmerman grabbed him and that is what caused Trayvon to whoop Zimmerman's ass.... Zimmerman was a wannabe cop if this friend is correct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57sZUokJgM0

His friend doesn't believe Trayvon Martin to be a Violent Person, and claims that Trayvon has been provoked in the past from others.

Had to delete video, the kid I talked to incriminated himself when he admitted he smoked weed. Anyways, I don't think this Kid was really a best Friend of Trayvon since they only played Football Together when they both were 15, and he didn't even know if Trayvon played video Games. They however lived on the same street, but I don't think they were as close as the Kid said they were. Plus, people change in a Year and maybe TM was different than the one that this kid knew.

At 7/5/13 01:24 PM, TheKlown wrote: Had to delete video, the kid I talked to incriminated himself when he admitted he smoked weed. Anyways, I don't think this Kid was really a best Friend of Trayvon since they only played Football Together when they both were 15, and he didn't even know if Trayvon played video Games. They however lived on the same street, but I don't think they were as close as the Kid said they were. Plus, people change in a Year and maybe TM was different than the one that this kid knew.

People don't change from "non-violent" to "violent" in a year really. But I'd definitely say based on the rest of what your saying this does look like a case of somebody who was maybe more of an acquaintance trying to puff himself up and look important as the trial and all the attention it grabs happens.

At 7/6/13 02:22 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

People don't change from "non-violent" to "violent" in a year really.

some can go from non-violent to violent within moments under the right circumstances, it just depends on how violent we're talking. Push a person too far, or put them under the wrong influence(s) and they can turn violent a lot quicker than 1 year. I'm not saying this is the case, but young men and women are impressionable. Getting caught in the wrong crowd can have profound effects on a person's personality. Luckily I was bullied by these types of people and not accepted by them, or else I could have ended up like Martin myself.

But I'd definitely say based on the rest of what your saying this does look like a case of somebody who was maybe more of an acquaintance trying to puff himself up and look important as the trial and all the attention it grabs happens.

don't you just heartily dislike people who do stupid things like that?

At 7/2/13 04:01 PM, Ceratisa wrote: But black teens were burglarizing the neighborhood and TM was a self proclaimed Thug with a Crippin life style. Not only that but the black community itself has thrown its support behind TM much like a large % of black voters did for Obama. (Much larger then would be the norm)

Which has what to do with the trial?

This trial is bogus and already exposed Trayvon Martin as a racist that racially profiled Zimmerman that night. This trial only got this much Media Attention because of channels like MSNBC making Zimmerman out to be white even tho he shows more of his Hispanic features. MSNBC made this trial a black vs white thing, and they've down played the racist words that came out of Trayvon's Mouth that Night. MSNBC has one of the lowest ratings on the News, and there's good reasons for that.

At 7/4/13 11:40 PM, TheKlown wrote: Why is Trayvon Martin's Mom allowed to testify?

Why was George ZImmerman's mother allowed to testify?

At 7/6/13 07:43 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 7/4/13 11:40 PM, TheKlown wrote: Why is Trayvon Martin's Mom allowed to testify?

Why was George ZImmerman's mother allowed to testify?

those are BOTH good questions.

At 7/6/13 09:11 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/6/13 07:43 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 7/4/13 11:40 PM, TheKlown wrote: Why is Trayvon Martin's Mom allowed to testify?

Why was George ZImmerman's mother allowed to testify?

those are BOTH good questions.

Hint: the 911 call.

At 7/6/13 10:08 PM, Feoric wrote:

Hint: the 911 call.

and nothing of value was gained by having each person's mother on the stand saying, "Yep, that's my son screaming! I know it!"

Personally, I can't wait for this trial to be over. it was kind of comical to watch the prosecution struggle to make their case and flounder so hard.

Problem is, if the Casey Anthony trial is any indication of how things can go horribly wrong due to people who let their emotions, rather than logic and common sense guide them, Zimmerman may be behind bars for a very long time.

we'll see.

At 7/6/13 10:59 PM, Korriken wrote: and nothing of value was gained by having each person's mother on the stand saying, "Yep, that's my son screaming! I know it!"

That's not a legal argument, considering he said/she said is a bulk of what the jury is going to have to draw inferences from.

Problem is, if the Casey Anthony trial is any indication of how things can go horribly wrong due to people who let their emotions, rather than logic and common sense guide them, Zimmerman may be behind bars for a very long time.

I find it odd that you would claim the Casey Anthony trial is a good example of a trial gone awry due to "emotions" rather than prosecutorial failure, which is what you just accused the prosecutor of in the Zimmerman case right before you said this. If you are on the jury and your conviction is not grounded on the evidence presented to you, then you're not doing your job.

At 7/7/13 11:56 AM, Feoric wrote:

That's not a legal argument, considering he said/she said is a bulk of what the jury is going to have to draw inferences from.

perhaps, but then you got conflicting statements. Unless one can be proven wrong, neither should be considered.

I find it odd that you would claim the Casey Anthony trial is a good example of a trial gone awry due to "emotions" rather than prosecutorial failure, which is what you just accused the prosecutor of in the Zimmerman case right before you said this.

*head scratch* What I was trying to say is that even though the prosecutions succeeds or fails to make a case, emotions can swing the verdict away from what it should be. Emotions such as hate, lust, fear, envy, pity, or any emotion really.

Actually, I'm still not entirely sure HOW Case Anthony was not convicted myself, I'll admit. Given the evidence provided, it seemed like a slam dunk case, then comes the not guilty verdict. I can't imagine what was said in the deliberation chamber... Given it only took 1 day to come back with an acquittal, it must not have been much.

If you are on the jury and your conviction is not grounded on the evidence presented to you, then you're not doing your job.

Sadly, at the end of the day, they're still humans with emotions, and emotions can be manipulated. Manipulated emotions could have been the cause of many convictions and acquittals that were dead wrong.

At 7/7/13 07:36 PM, Korriken wrote: *head scratch* What I was trying to say is that even though the prosecutions succeeds or fails to make a case, emotions can swing the verdict away from what it should be. Emotions such as hate, lust, fear, envy, pity, or any emotion really.

It can, but that's not supposed to be what is used to decide the case. When it is, that's how you get successful appeals and such.

Actually, I'm still not entirely sure HOW Case Anthony was not convicted myself, I'll admit.

Because they went for the hardest possible crime for them to prove: 1st Degree Murder. Had they gone for a lesser charge, they might have been able to convict her. When you're talking about the death penalty, or life in prison without parole (which is a kind of death sentence itself) a jury is (correctly) going to have a much more difficult time handing back a guilty verdict without overwhelming evidence.

Given the evidence provided, it seemed like a slam dunk case, then comes the not guilty verdict.

I felt the evidence was strong, but not strong enough to prove the charge. Especially when the Defense did an excellent job of stalemating the Prosecution by having an expert to refute the Prosecutions expert. Criminal cases are beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on what I heard and saw during the trial, while I don't have a doubt she's responsible for her daughters death, I didn't see enough evidence for me to feel like I could say it was 1st Degree Murder beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the media made the case for her guilt seem much stronger then it was.

I can't imagine what was said in the deliberation chamber... Given it only took 1 day to come back with an acquittal, it must not have been much.

Probably not, but again, given the charge, and the evidence, and the stalemate created by the defense, not much probably needed to be said for them to decide they didn't have enough to take her life.

Sadly, at the end of the day, they're still humans with emotions, and emotions can be manipulated. Manipulated emotions could have been the cause of many convictions and acquittals that were dead wrong.

It sure does happen, sometimes emotions and prejudices can lead into false charges being brought in the first place. There are times the legal system aggregiously does not work, but thankfully the times that can be proven are pretty few and far between. No system will be perfect.

At 7/7/13 07:36 PM, Korriken wrote: perhaps, but then you got conflicting statements. Unless one can be proven wrong, neither should be considered.

That's not how things should be done at all, nor is it. The jury has to consider all the bits of evidence as a whole, not just a select few. The identity of the person screaming during the 911 call is a big piece, and both the prosecution and the defense did as good of a job they possibly could have in making their case to the jury about who it supposedly was. There will always be conflicting statements, or at the very least one side of the story which contradicts another. This is literally a design of the American court system.

*head scratch* What I was trying to say is that even though the prosecutions succeeds or fails to make a case, emotions can swing the verdict away from what it should be. Emotions such as hate, lust, fear, envy, pity, or any emotion really.

I don't know if you've ever been on a jury or know anyone who has, but the judge drills your responsibilities as a juror into your head to the point of it being brainwashed. The emotional aspect in theory shouldn't have any bearing on the guilt of the defendant, and I'd like to think that a large majority of jurors are able to understand this fact.

Actually, I'm still not entirely sure HOW Case Anthony was not convicted myself, I'll admit.

For fear of a derail I will keep it short: the prosecutor didn't do a good enough job. If the supposed emotional aspect like you described took over the jury then the opposite of what you're saying would have happened: she would have been found guilty for murdering her sweet innocent baby in spite of the fact there wasn't enough evidence to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sadly, at the end of the day, they're still humans with emotions, and emotions can be manipulated. Manipulated emotions could have been the cause of many convictions and acquittals that were dead wrong.

All it takes is a single juror to not be convinced for him to walk.

Thinking further on all of this, I'm not sure what I'm trying to get across.... *shrug*

Either way, the trials should end next week, one way or another.

All I can say is, if you live in a medium to large city, especially if you live in or near the low income sector(s) of your city, be ready for anything to happen. As for me, I live in a small redneck town. nothing is gonna happen here, either way. No one here but me really cares about this case, and I'm only marginally interested, mostly interested in the aftermath and what's gonna happen if he's acquitted.

The whole "THOSE people are gonna riot" insinuation is the most blatant form of "around blacks, never relax" I've seen in a while.

At 7/7/13 10:12 PM, Feoric wrote: The whole "THOSE people are gonna riot" insinuation is the most blatant form of "around blacks, never relax" I've seen in a while.

That's just how you wish to view it. I never even said they're going to riot either. I just said be ready for anything to happen.

You see what is not there because you want to see it, not because it is there. you put words in my mouth because you that's what you want my words to mean.

At 7/7/13 10:50 PM, Korriken wrote: That's just how you wish to view it. I never even said they're going to riot either. I just said be ready for anything to happen.

Why even say that, then? What are you trying to say here?

At 7/7/13 10:52 PM, Feoric wrote:

Why even say that, then? What are you trying to say here?

do you not understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? ok fine, I'll put it in simple terms.

No matter how this trial ends, someone is going to be pissed and believe that justice was not done in the court. How far they take it is anyone's guess. there could be someone whining about it in their house, to full blown crowd control situations for the cops. Most likely people are just gonna say "that's bullshit" and go about their lives, some talking heads will gloat because they predicted the outcome while the others rant and scream as to why the justice system is broken.

At 7/7/13 11:07 PM, Korriken wrote: do you not understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? ok fine, I'll put it in simple terms.

No matter how this trial ends, someone is going to be pissed and believe that justice was not done in the court. How far they take it is anyone's guess. there could be someone whining about it in their house, to full blown crowd control situations for the cops. Most likely people are just gonna say "that's bullshit" and go about their lives, some talking heads will gloat because they predicted the outcome while the others rant and scream as to why the justice system is broken.

This is a reasonable opinion but is much different than " if you live in a medium to large city, especially if you live in or near the low income sector(s) of your city, be ready for anything to happen." That is very obviously a codified message, the type of which I have seen a lot from the more "passionate" folks who maintain Zimmerman's innocence (see page 16, you know what I mean). Take that as you may.

At 7/7/13 10:12 PM, Feoric wrote: The whole "THOSE people are gonna riot" insinuation is the most blatant form of "around blacks, never relax" I've seen in a while.

How so? Sometimes you just gotta recognize that the people who will be rioting will, for the most part, belong to the same demographic. From the NY Draft Riots to the LA Riots, sometimes it ends up being one race of people who will be doing the rioting, and given a case like this, it is to be expected that it will be black youth to be the ones rioting if it were to occur

At 7/8/13 12:36 AM, RacistBassist wrote: How so? Sometimes you just gotta recognize that the people who will be rioting will, for the most part, belong to the same demographic.

Who is going to riot if Zimmerman is acquitted?

At 7/8/13 12:36 AM, RacistBassist wrote: How so? Sometimes you just gotta recognize that the people who will be rioting will, for the most part, belong to the same demographic. From the NY Draft Riots to the LA Riots, sometimes it ends up being one race of people who will be doing the rioting, and given a case like this, it is to be expected that it will be black youth to be the ones rioting if it were to occur

I'm not sure if feoric was making a point about the likelihood of a riot, or just that Korriken should have just come right out and said what he meant instead of insinuating it. I personally don't see this case as something where people are so emotionally charged that a verdict will cause a riot. I think it's going to be like any other publicized trial: People who think justice wasn't done will bitch a bit, say "that's bullshit" and then go back to getting numbed by the disaster/tragedy/reality porn that TV continuosly provides

At 7/7/13 11:18 PM, Feoric wrote:

This is a reasonable opinion but is much different than " if you live in a medium to large city, especially if you live in or near the low income sector(s) of your city, be ready for anything to happen." That is very obviously a codified message...

you see what you want to see. minorities aren't the only people who live in low income sections of town.

If I wanted to say "If Zimmerman is acquitted and you live near the ghetto, get ready because the blacks are gonna go full retard!" that's exactly what I would have said.

At 7/8/13 12:53 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Korriken should have just come right out and said what he meant instead of insinuating it.

I said what I meant.

At 7/8/13 05:24 AM, Korriken wrote: you see what you want to see. minorities aren't the only people who live in low income sections of town.

That's very inclusive of you. I guess you're the first person ever to warn of rioting poor blacks as well as rioting poor whites. But didn't you say you lived in a small redneck town? Implying it's a homogeneous habitat which consists of lower-income white people? And that nothing was going to happen there? That's weird....

If I wanted to say "If Zimmerman is acquitted and you live near the ghetto, get ready because the blacks are gonna go full retard!" that's exactly what I would have said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

At 7/8/13 11:55 AM, Feoric wrote: That's very inclusive of you. I guess you're the first person ever to warn of rioting poor blacks as well as rioting poor whites. But didn't you say you lived in a small redneck town? Implying it's a homogeneous habitat which consists of lower-income white people? And that nothing was going to happen there? That's weird....

At the May Day "Riots" that took place in Seattle a year or two ago, I was not expecting low income blacks or low income whites to riot, I was expecting middle class white kids. You need to recognize that acknowledging that in some cases it will be one race, or one income group, or one race from one income group, that ends up being the ones to riot. I really don't get what your point is by pushing that people are saying that if a riot to occur, it will be black people doing it.