The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[TheSeventhTiger]

anyone here in the state of mind, saying to themselves: you know, OJ walked away, Casey Anthony Walked Away, and its not as if George Zimmerman chloriphormed a child, its not as if George Zimmerman walked into a home and pulled an Anthony Perkins on a young couple,,,,right?

 

[PredFan]

If Zimmerman was truly "standing his ground" and "feared for his life", then why the **** did he get out of the vehicle and follow Trayvon around on foot?

Couldn't he have stayed in the vehicle after calling 911? Especially, when, as the defense claimed, he was out of shape and unable to fight?

If he'd stayed in his vehicle and was attacked, that would be "standing your ground". Following someone is not.

If Zimmerman is let go, I hope that someday after he's set free, someone else feels that Zimmerman is a threat and decides to stand their ground as well.

Hey moron, the guilty vs innocent TM thread is that way=======>

 

[Sunshine]

Juries are a crap shoot... time for attorney war story

I had one case where the jury was only required to render a decision upon one specific issue; to wit, whether the defendant had signed a particular document or not.

1.) Defendants grandson testified that defendant signed it in his presence.
2.) The signature was notarized and the notary testified that the defendant signed it in his presence
3.) My expert witness testified that defendant signed it
4.) Defendant's expert witness testified that it was defendants signature
5.) Defendant testified that it looked like her signature, but she could not remember signing it.

Jury deliberated 4 hours before deciding 10-2 that it was defendants signature.

Moral of the story, never try a case against grandma in front of a jury.

No war stories as I never practiced, but I learned in law school and working as an NP in a couple of prisons that I NEVER want a jury trial for anything. I believe I can convince a nice southern judge in a bench trial far more easily than I could a jury.

 

[Katzndogz]

You don't understand conservative logic. Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. Martin did not.

Martin had a right to beat the shit out of Zimmerman, but Zimmerman wasn't allowed to defend himself.

Liberal logic folks.

Who was stalking whom? Martin was being stalked by Zimmerman. Therefore, it was Martin who had good cause to fear for his life from an unknown and unidentified man in the dark. And why would Zimmerman fear for his life anyway when he was the one who had a gun?

No, in the conservative world where Bizzaro logic rules, a man with a gun can stalk someone in the dark, provoke a confrontation without identifying himself even though no crime had been reported in the area, and then kill someone and claim self-defense. And the conservative media hoists the killer on their shoulders as some kind of hero of 2nd Amendment rights.

Like I said, it's Bizzaro World logic.

If Martin was afraid, so afraid, he could have gone home, he could have called the police, he could have called his Dad and said "Some creepy ass cracker is following me, do you know what's going on?"

Martin wasn't afraid. He thought of himself as a tough guy. He had a number of street fights under his belt and he thought he could take this guy down. He chose wrong. He did not expect that someone he encountered would be armed.

In a rational world, every thug would have to assume that every person they intend to attack is armed. It's up to the George Zimmerman's of the world to make that happen.

 

[PredFan]

Zimmerman should get an award for saving the taxpayers a shitload of money in welfare payments that Trayvon would most certainly have received. We owe GZ a big thank you.

This. ^^^

 

[4Horsemen]

I remember stories from 911 where people who came down to the lobby trying to leave were told by the security people to go back up to their floors...

Well you might as well guess what happened then.

I don't think 911 dispatchers have the authority to tell someone anything other then maybe relay communications from the police.

and in most cases they don't even do that well. so why are we calling them to begin with is the question?

It's obvious calling them didn't serve Zimmerman well because he still took the law into his own hands.

Took the law into his own hands?

that's an ignorant statement. what law did he take into his own hands?

Are you THAT dumb? He thought TM was a criminal so obviously he took the law into his own hands when he tried to stop a "criminal in progress" so to speak. but that's for the TMZ threads not this one.

 

[Ernie S.]

Did anybody miss me? My dsl modem broke. I just got my new one you lucky dogs.

Who are you?

 

[testarosa]

Hi everyone.
I have been sitting here reading everyone's thoughts on this case. Some of the things said have struck me as funny. This is a very sad case. This is a loos loos case. no matter what the verdict comes back at is going to make people very upset. I have seen so many hateful things said from both sides of the street. I find it very sad on the types of names that have been used that I personally find offensive. I wish there was a way to take some of the names that have been used and make them unusable. I feel there is no just cause to use the names that have been used even as a descriptive of a persons color weather meant in a nice way in a greeting. To me it is like nails on a chalk board.
Ok sorry for the rant I just needed to get this off my chest.

Yeah,. there does not seem to be any middle on this case.

I think we will get a hung jury on this trial.

Two of the jurors were crying during Guy's closing.

If Zimmerman get acquired then we must change the laws about self defense and killing witnesses.

Are you watching Fancy Grapes again? No one was crying during Guy's closing except us because of the pain of poking our eardrums out.

 

[wavingrl]

Hate this hypocrisy in the media! Out of one side of their mouth they speak of maintaining calm in the wake of the verdict, and out of the other side they give reasons for the public to be incensed.

Reporters ceased, long ago, being reporters of news and opted instead to become the news. There is no more objective journalism but there is a hell of a lot of "personalities." It's a difficult task to report just the facts without interjecting your own spin. It's a shame that is no longer rewarded but has been replaced by the ability to bring in ratings and damn the truth.

In this case, all I see are reporters reporting about the "world is watching", "tensions are high", etc. etc. I don't see evidence of that and their repeating it seems to border on inciting it. The trial has been held and the jury is deliberating. Wasn't that what the protests were all about last year? Let the chips fall where they may.

And after all the evidence the general public has seen about TM, can't we all agree that he played a part, a large part in my opinion, but he played a part in his own demise. There should be no reason whatsoever to "riot" or create a disturbance given all we now know about what really went down. Anyone who thinks a violent reaction is warranted under any circumstances is truly ignorant. Message to the media: Just Stop.

another good post. Everything that I have wanted to say.

I don't want to riot but as I think of all that went wrong from the start in this case-I want justice, too. Others have indicated that there are channels--that will have to suffice.

It is not a good thing to contemplate that this goes all the way to the top. ie-'The Pelican Brief'--that was shown last weekend, during the Julia Roberts film festival.

I just can't evaluate how things 'are' in Sanford, FL--or that specific community. My area is very aware of people who might be up to no good and we will continue. Once I pulled out of some gridlock traffic and was just waiting in my car--middleaged, Caucasian woman--it was about time for school to let out--someone asked me to move along and I did. Another time I was walking my dog and got tired--we sat on the curb for a few minutes, perhaps too long and a homeowner suggested I move along.

Let a verdict be reached and god bless us all--or Higher Power bless us all.

I'm certain Charles Dickens has some good quotes for such occasions. I should google for some good quotes.

 

[beagle9]

He is serious. It is total BS what you are assuming.
It is totally legal to follow people

Totally legal? Not necessarily so. It is not legal to stalk and spy on people, to create fear, to invade privacy. Sorry to disillusion, but it is not legal to do that.

GZ was not stalking. and him following TM was totally legal

I see it legal in the context of the watch program, and just as the dispatcher had suggested to Zimmerman when said "are you following him(?)", and GZ said yes, then next the dispatcher said "that we don't need you to do that sir". Now (imho) this was being said mainly for GZ's own protection in the situation, and in which GZ complied with afterwards when said OK.

The dispatcher with the assumption of course that GZ is the good guy for making the call in the first place, was worried about his safety when told him we don't need you to do that sir (follow Martin in the dark), otherwise instead of the dispatcher sighting some kind of law to GZ to not follow Martin because of that law, otherwise if he was saying this because of a law, then GZ would be breaking that law. This is what some would want it to appear as to be the case in all of this when the dispatcher said this to GZ " we don't need you to follow him sir", as it being based on some law in which he was using when said this.

So now it is the detractors opinion that the dispatcher at this point is now looking upon GZ as an iffy player who is breaking the law in the situation, instead of the dispatcher looking out for his safety in which was what the dispatch was doing all along when said this.

Now if he would have ignored the dispatcher telling him " we don't need you to do that sir", otherwise with silence, and the law would have shown up with Martin dead, and Zimmerman alive as the person who shot Martin dead, then Zimmerman would have a serious problem on his hands, but the fact that Martin replied to the dispatcher in compliance with the dispatchers alarming assessment of the situation, by him telling him that suggestion for his safety, places Zimmerman in a much better position for what would be found next in conjunction with everything that happened in testimony there of afterwards, because it makes sense as to how Zimmerman could have found himself facing an escalating situation after surveying the supposed suspect Martin that night, and Martin now knowing that he was being surveyed or looked upon by Zimmerman in a way in which he did not understand, so it became next a situation of grave confusion between the two, where as in the coming together of this confusion it unfortunately turns deadly within the dark of a stormy night for one of the people involved.

Now did Martin feel that he could take Zimmerman, for whom was following or surveying him in which he did not like, so he confronts Zimmerman in the thinking I am going to kick this creepy ass crackers butt for following me, but not knowing that the creepy ass cracker also had a gun because he was part of a neighborhood watch program ? If this is what Martin did or thought, then it should become a lesson learned by all in the future, that you don't come to a fight armed with nothing but your fist, when you ain't sure who this creepy ass cracker is in the fist place, and so if you could get yourself to safety and report that a creepy ass cracker was following you in the dark for no good reason, wouldn't that have been the best solution for Martin in the situation in hindsight now ? I have taken on some situations in my time in a foolish manor, and I was just fortunate that the one I was taking on did not have a gun, or I wouldn't be here today.

So what it comes down to, is if Zimmerman was within his legal right to survey the neighborhood under the watch program, and if he was within his legal means to be doing it in the way in which he was doing it, then he is in the clear, other than the fact of sadly allowing himself to be placed into a situation where a young man is dead now, and all because of his possible mistakes that were made upon his possible miss-identifying of Martin as a possible suspect in the problems that have been going on in the neighborhood lately in which are not proven he was linked to, and then Martin just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sadly it all added to the confusion due to the time of night that it was, the conditions of the night, the setting, the wearing of clothes that appear suspect, the walking and acting strangely that Zimmerman noticed as a watchman based on his supposed training I'm guessing, thus creating the perfect storm of confusion in which could even place a seasoned police officer in the same boat of miss-identifying a potential suspect in such a case, where as such conditions would make the police officer want to question the suspect as to where he is going maybe, and why he is out walking in such horrid conditions in a neighborhood plagued with crime ? It appears that what we have is the perfect storm of confusion in this whole tragic situation, and in such a situation people must know to keep their heads calm cool and collected or face the same possible results again and again, just as these types of scenarios sadly play out all over this nation in confusion there of, but it takes all to learn and keep themselves safe, and ultimately out of these perfect storms regardless of who it is that we may encounter or are dealing with at anytime in our lives.

Stay safe everybody and learn or educate yourselves, it is the only way forward in life.

 

[George Costanza]

I recently had a case involving the following: Two cars got into a road rage incident, i.e., cutting each other off, finger flashing, shouting, etc. One of the drivers called 911 while the chase continued. He told the 911 operator that he was being chased, that he was headed home and that he intended to go into his house and get his shotgun as soon as he got home.

The 911 operator did NOT tell him to to do that. Instead, she just kept questioning him about the description of the other car, their location, etc.

The guy went home (followed all the way by the other car), went into his house and came out with his shotgun as the other car was pulling up, into his driveway. The other driver stormed up to him, words were exchanged and shotgun guy (hereafter, SG) told the other guy (hereafter, OG) to leave. OG got into his car. SG's family members had come out of the house also. SG's mother was standing in front of other guy's car. SG later told police that the reason he fired a shotgun blast into the front portion of OG's car was that he thought OG was trying to drive his car into SG's mother. This was stoutly denied by OG, who told police, "this guy just capped off a shotgun round at me as I was trying to back out of the driveway; I never tried to drive my car forward."

The point of all this is, that the 911 operator obviously SHOULD have told SG NOT to go home and get his shotgun. This omission on the part of the 911 operator is probably going to result in her being fired. Consider this: what if, instead of merely blasting out the front of OG's car, SG had blown OG's head off? What would have been the liability, if any, of the police department employing the 911 operator for her failure to order SG not to go home and get his shotgun?

 

[B. Kidd]

Easiest question of the year; manslaughter.
An all woman jury with 5 mothers on it. Prosecutors emphasized that the jury should decide with their heart. Logic doesn't enter into it.
Women are sops for emotional pleading.
Manslaughter.......case closed.

 

[Sunshine]

I'm not so certain. They say one woman is married to an attorney and another has a son that is an attorney. One member had a CCP, another managed a call center of 1200--? all but one have children.

On and on. Unless someone can clarify that a 'compromise verdict' is really not possible--I am hesitant to speculate. shrug--I suppose one may utilize knowledge of the legal system gained prior to becoming a juror. Manslaughter--up to 30 yrs, etc.

Yeah, you're right about that. There's that risk of the jurors convicting GZ based on emotions... but then that'd be an injustice... There's no way to know for sure what's going on in their minds.

The evidence is NOT there to convict. Gut feelings are great, I learned working in psych. They can save your life. But when you go to the master's level, you have to remember your models and theories. Same with studying the law. The law can be harsh and many times even unfair. (My Dean used to say, 'this is not fair school, this is law school') Anytime I climb upon that fence and try to see which way I will fall, there is just something there telling me that nothing is a given in this trial, social factors are at work, and juries as well as judges bend to them. As to verdict, I personally believe GZ acted in self defense, but I can't honestly say that I think a jury will acquit him. For those reasons, if he is convicted and his case goes up on appeal, I really can't predict that an appellate court, no doubt watching this case with bated breath, will change anything.

Hm, I see.

It's really something, isn't it?

An adherence to the law... clashing against emotions and/or feelings of right and wrong. What does it say about onlookers like us who agree more with the law here (in support of GZ), and those who defy what the law says in support of feelings of right and wrong (in support of Edward Snowden)?

The construct of the law clashes with morality and emotions. Sometimes the law is "right." Othertimes morals or emotion are.

Whatever it is, it's riveting to watch a trial—a serious debate—like this unfold live on TV.

The prediction is that they will reach a unanimous verdict. I suppose--I need to take my head off and clear it out--I don't know about the jurors.

Since I wasn't sequestered--so outraged over the perceived egregrious mistakes of the prosecution that it is difficult to really consider what they said.

I predict they will march out of the jury room, stand on their heads, and shit in their watch pockets. That's about what I think of all the talking heads' predictions.

One of them just said that Zimmerman is a killer and will be back before the court. Jeeze, I HOPE he IS suing their lying, malicious asses for defamation.

This country exists so we would not have to fear the government. NOW we have to fear the media.

 

[deltex1]

It will take someone with balls to find him not guilty...

 

[Immanuel]

You know....................if someone were to follow me around for as long as GZ did to TM, I'd probably turn around and kick their ass as well.

GZ instigated it by stalking TM. If GZ is so innocent and was worried about his safety, why did he leave his vehicle to chase down TM?

Then essentially, you are saying that GZ should be acquitted, because if TM turned and attacked GZ with the intention of kicking GZ's ass, GZ had every right to protect his own life. You are saying that you would have done exactly what the defense is claiming TM did. I would say, seeing as how I have always felt you were a reasonable person, that there remains reasonable doubt as to who was the aggressor and that in my opinion leads to an acquittal.

I have not been able to watch the trial, but it seems to me that any reasonable person understands that we have the right to defend ourselves. If TM attacked GZ, then I would have to side with the defense. Personally, I think GZ was partially at fault because he needlessly followed TM, but he had the right to defend himself when attacked. He should have backed off and let the police handle the threat. That does not mean he actually expected a confrontation.

Immie

 

[Mustang]

Martin had a right to beat the shit out of Zimmerman, but Zimmerman wasn't allowed to defend himself.

Liberal logic folks.

Who was stalking whom? Martin was being stalked by Zimmerman. Therefore, it was Martin who had good cause to fear for his life from an unknown and unidentified man in the dark. And why would Zimmerman fear for his life anyway when he was the one who had a gun?

No, in the conservative world where Bizzaro logic rules, a man with a gun can stalk someone in the dark, provoke a confrontation without identifying himself even though no crime had even been reported in the area, and then kill someone and claim self-defense. And the conservative media hoists the killer on their shoulders as some kind of hero of 2nd Amendment rights.

Like I said, it's Bizzaro World logic.

Must I keep reminding you brain dead liberals that there's a difference between stalking and following? Martin was lying in wait, he had 4 minutes to get home. Guess what? He chose to act macho instead.

Your rant is tl;dr.

There's a difference between stalking and following? I would agree with that statement only if the person behind someone is merely walking in the same direction because both people are on the same sidewalk. That happens on the street everyday in every city and town in America. But when a person is specifically following another person and not simple walking in the same direction, he's stalking the person. Stalking, in and of itself, is threatening.

If and when Zimmerman is convicted, maybe based on his civilian experience as a member of the Neighborhood Defense Force, he'll be made a trustee with all the rights and privileges therein.

And speaking of which, Zimmerman was a member of neighborhood WATCH, not neighborhood STALK!

 

[PredFan]

Let us not forget that Zimmerman passed 2 lie detector tests, so most likely his account of the incident is true. Zimm says Martin started taking off quickly before he had even gotten out of his vehicle, got out of the car, not to apprehend Martin but in order to be able to tell the cops where he was. Zimm says he thought he lost him and Martin pops up as he is heading back towards where he was to meet the officers. This is not a manslaughter or murder case if this is all true.

The crux of the matter is if GZ is telling the truth. Too many facts give lie to what he has said. Perhaps the most crucial of all is the lie about the gun. GZ could not have reached his gun if TM was straddling him as alleged. That means his entire account of the altercation is a fabrication. On that alone he deserves to be convicted of manslaughter. However given the weakness of the prosecutions case I expect him to be acquitted or a hung jury.

Imho FAR too much credence is being placed on this story. All we know is where Z's gun was holstered WHILE HE WAS STANDING. Cmon folks--he was knocked and his ass and wrestling all over the ground with MArtin on top of him. The grass was wet and slippery. It's highly unlikely that the holster or Z's pants didn't shift during the scuffle.

Here's what the Zimmerman haters saw of your post:

"Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah gun blah blah blah blah blah blah Martin blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

 

[Sunshine]

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial should be charged with "prosecutorial misconduct" for suggesting the defendant planned the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

"That is something no prosecutor should be allowed to get away with … to make up a story from whole cloth," Dershowitz told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"These prosecutors should be disbarred. They have acted absolutely irresponsibly in an utterly un-American fashion."

Dershowitz: Zimmerman Prosecutors 'Should Be Disbarred'

I'm absolutely positive they would rather face the Bar than the angry black mob.

 

[beagle9]

If you were on the jury what is your impression of this girl friend of Trayvon Martin? This uneducated girl that admits she can neither read or write and comes across as ghetto as there ever could be.
Honestly, isn't Rachel Jeantel Exhibit A of the street thug Martin was as we now know but was kept away from the jury?
Can you at least admit the obvious?
That was what the jury got. An uneducated girl that can not read or write, speaks like a gangster and this is Martin's girl friend.
Not trying to offend, just posting the obvious.

In all candor, I was questioning the rationality of the Prosecution putting her on the stand, it felt like they were "throwing the case" when they put her on the stand. Then I realized that she was a material witness. I'm surprised they didn't work with her to make her more "presentable" to the jury.

Wait what? Why would the prosecution intentionally try to throw it's own case?

It's a unified white thing in some of these peoples minds, you ought to know that by now.

 

[PredFan]

Easiest question of the year; manslaughter.
An all woman jury with 5 mothers on it. Prosecutors emphasized that the jury should decide with their heart. Logic doesn't enter into it.
Women are sops for emotional pleading.
Manslaughter.......case closed.

Nail head...hammer....bam!