Zimmerman trial

Originally Posted by WebSlave

This entire thing was completely a media driven event. I mean, come on!

I believe previous current events inspired many folks not only to protect but to exercise there 2nd Amendment rights. If Zimmerman is found not guilty & riots occur I don't believe it's to far fetched to imagine a few deaths with claims of self defense. It would pretty interesting to see if the media plays the same angle.

(CNN) -- The George Zimmerman investigation was hijacked "in a number of ways" by outside forces, said the former police chief of Sanford, Florida.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/10/ju...ive/index.html

(CNN) -- The George Zimmerman investigation was hijacked "in a number of ways" by outside forces, said the former police chief of Sanford, Florida.

Bill Lee, who testified Monday in Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial, told CNN's George Howell in an exclusive interview that he felt pressure from city officials to arrest Zimmerman to placate the public rather than as a matter of justice.

"It was (relayed) to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn't care if it got dismissed later," he said. "You don't do that."

When Sanford police arrived on the scene on February 26, 2012, after Zimmerman fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they conducted a "sound" investigation, and the evidence provided no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman at the scene, he said.

It had nothing to do with Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law, he said; from an investigative standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense.
Ex-police chief: I upheld my oath
Ex-police chief speaks about Zimmerman
Why did prosecutor, defense use a dummy?
Zimmerman trial standoff over evidence

Zimmerman told police he killed Martin after the teen attacked him. While the evidence at the time corroborated that claim, the ex-chief said, Lee's lead investigator made a recommendation that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter.

Justice Dept. 'peacekeepers' worked 'Trayvon' rallies, group claims

It was a matter of protocol, Lee said. Arresting Zimmerman based on the evidence at hand would have been a violation of Zimmerman's Fourth Amendment rights, he said. Thus, the Sanford police presented a "capias request" to the state's attorney, asking that the prosecutor determine whether it was a "justifiable homicide," issue a warrant for arrest or present the case to a grand jury.

"The police department needed to do a job, and there was some influence -- outside influence and inside influence -- that forced a change in the course of the normal criminal justice process," Lee said. "With all the influence and the protests and petitions for an arrest, you still have to uphold your oath."

"That investigation was taken away from us. We weren't able to complete it," he said.

One example involved the 911 tapes, in which neighbors implored dispatchers to send police as a voice in the background screamed for help.

The Sanford police intended to release the tapes once the probe was over, Lee said, because you can't publicize evidence amid an investigation.

Instead, the mayor told him on March 16 the tapes had been released to Martin's family and the public. The family was asked to help identify voices, Lee said, but if police were in charge of the investigation, they wouldn't have presented evidence to a group.

"It should be done individually so there's no influence on the other people in the room," he said. "Then, there's no questions that can be brought up about how (an identification) was obtained or whether it was influenced."
I'm happy that at the end of the day I can walk away with my integrity.
Ex-Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee

Releasing the evidence to the public was problematic, as well, because it created the potential for someone to concoct a "story about what they observed when they really didn't observe it," he said.

Martin family attorney Jasmine Rand said she doesn't believe playing the tapes to a room full of people "makes any difference to the outcome of the case."

"We have to remember that that was played for the family in a private room because they were hearing the last moments of their son's life as he cried for help," Rand told CNN's Erin Burnett on Wednesday night. "And I think Sybrina Fulton (Martin's mother) got up and walked out of that room. She didn't sit in there and talk to everybody, because she had a visceral reaction when she heard her son yell for help and she couldn't help him because she knew he was dead."

Lee was placed on paid leave March 22, 2012, after the Sanford City Commission expressed a lack of confidence in him. The same commission rejected his resignation in a 3-2 vote a month later, with dissenting commissioners questioning the fairness of Lee's losing his job.

Two months later, Lee was sacked. City Manager Norton Bonaparte said in a news release, "The police chief needs to have the trust and respect of the elected officials and the confidence of the entire community."

Lee believes lack of confidence did play a role in his dismissal, he told CNN, but he also believes Bonaparte faced political pressure and terminated him "without cause," which was permitted under his employment contract.

"I upheld my oath," Lee said. "I'm happy that at the end of the day I can walk away with my integrity."

Prosecutor seeks child abuse charge now?

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2013/07/11...mmerman-trial/

Pretty clear now,its all about the politics
The entire issue is a scam to bring about civil unrest and confusion
while the country's core issues slide idly by

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

Prosecutor seeks child abuse charge now?

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2013/07/11...mmerman-trial/

Judge just denied request to instruct jurors on child abuse and third degree murder.

This whole thing is a sad joke of what we as a whole have become. The Job of a "Prosecutors" is to "Prove" wrong, illegal doing. The Job of the "Defense" is to Defend against false claims or provide justification. Even with the Judge's bias decision making which can only be considered as an attempt to improve the chances of a conviction, the prosecution has done nothing but help the defense, in showing these charges should have never been filed & the case should have never seen a court room. I truly believe if any riots are to rightfully take place after the outcome of this case it should be only if Zimmerman is found guilty, not innocent.

Not just in relation to this case alone but to our current situation as a whole, we people of this country that made it once strong have allowed to much compromising. The time of turning a blind eye needs to stop, if we don't stand up & take responsible for what we once believed in soon it may be to late & honestly we cant blame anyone but ourselves.

If people understood the 17th Amendment and the trouble it has caused this Country
there would be riots,Justifiable Riots

People need to learn the source of this discourse

The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
.
The Seventeenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1913, provided for the direct election of U.S. senators by citizens. Until 1913 state legislatures had elected U.S. senators. Ratification of the amendment followed decades of insistence that the power to elect senators should be placed in the hands of ordinary voters. This successful struggle marked a major victory for progressivism—the early twentieth-century political movement dedicated to pushing government at all levels toward reform. In addition to serving the longer-range goals of the reformers, the campaign on behalf of the amendment sought to end delays and what was widely perceived as corruption in the election of senators by state legislatures.
From 1787 until 1913, the U.S. Constitution specified that state legislatures would elect U.S. senators. Article 1, Section 3, reads:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

In giving the elective power to the states, the framers of the Constitution hoped to protect state independence. The framers were suspicious of majority rule and sought to restrain what they regarded as the potentially destructive forces of democracy. Thus, while providing for direct election to the House of Representatives, they countered this expression of the people's will by allowing legislatures to select members of the Senate. At the Constitutional Convention, the proposal for state election of senators aroused no controversy. Only one proposal for senatorial election by popular vote was offered, and it was soundly defeated. The states were receptive and did not protest when the Constitution was sent to them for ratification. Nor, over the next decades, did the system incur more than occasional criticism.
By the late nineteenth century, however, political opinion was changing in favor of a more fully participatory democracy. Starting in the 1880s, the concentration of elective power in the hands of state legislatures provoked criticism. The critics complained that the legislatures were dominated by party bosses who prevented citizen participation and thwarted popular political action. The critics also pointed to practical and ethical problems: lengthy deadlocks, which sometimes resulted when legislatures could not agree upon a candidate, and alleged Bribery. Progressivism, the reform movement that sought to address social inequities by broadening government power, helped to bring about this change in outlook. Under the pressure of the Progressive movement and the popular belief that citizens were capable of choosing their own senators, the states began to bend. By the turn of the century, several states were holding popular elections that served as advisories to the legislatures in selecting senators.
Over the next decade, increasing calls for change reached Congress, where the resistance to change was considerable. Federal lawmakers argued that direct election would strip states of their independence and sovereignty. The pressure continued to increase, however, until by 1910, thirty-one state legislatures had requested that Congress hold a constitutional convention to propose an amendment. The next year Congress buckled and passed the amendment; within two years, the amendment had been ratified by the states. It read, in relevant part:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Only ten states opposed ratification.
Ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment introduced significant changes to Congress. When states elected senators, they exercised the power of instruction—they could direct their senators to vote a certain way on important matters. The Seventeenth Amendment formally ended this power, for now senators were beholden to the voters. Historians and legal scholars continue to debate the other effects of the amendment. Some view it as a grave surrender of state sovereignty; others see it as a benign or even positive outgrowth of popular will. Direct election has seemingly contributed to the decline in the power of party bosses, but its impact upon the actual practice of Senate business has been negligible.

Take the Poll here
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ur-prediction/

It is seldom I can agree with Geraldo,but this has to be as relevant
as anything thats been made public in a good while.

He nails this down well above reproach



Geraldo Rivera on Friday blamed Rev. Al Sharpton for George Zimmerman being charged with Trayvon Martin’s murder.
“This was a case brought because of political pressure, race politics in this country,” Rivera said on “Fox and Friends.” “I hate to say it — I hold Reverend Al Sharpton in much higher regard than many of my colleagues…I strongly believe that the Reverend Al is the catalyst behind the murder two charge six weeks after the incident. I believe that the original prosecutor got it right, I think it is a self-defense situation…that should have been the charge — manslaughter — at best if any charge was going to be brought.”
Rivera’s comments, made just before closing arguments for Zimmerman’s defense got underway, came one day after the judge agreed to allow the jury to consider the lesser charge of manslaughter in addition to the second-degree murder Zimmerman is charged with.
“The fact that they are resorting to it now is a sign of the desperation of the prosecution. They know how weak their case is, they have zero chance of convicting this man on murder two.”
Rivera ignited controversy last year after he called Martin’s choice of wearing a hoodie sweatshirt “as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.”