The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you read minds, blowhard?

The verdict was not guilty, and it was unanimous.

There could have been a thousand reasons they didn't convict. Sometimes there are obstinate jurors that just won't go along with good reasoning, and the rest finally give in just to GTFO of there.

Ever here the term "Hung jury?"

Feel free to not answer, I am am tired of arguing with the wall.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The verdict was not guilty, and it was unanimous.

There could have been a thousand reasons they didn't convict. Sometimes there are obstinate jurors that just won't go along with good reasoning, and the rest finally give in just to GTFO of there.

Ever here the term "Hung jury?"

Feel free to not answer, I am am tired of arguing with the wall.

Ever hear of people being falsely convicted? It happens abundantly in this country, in case you hadn't heard. Why do you think that happens. One big reason IMO is obstinate jurors.

 

[pioneerpete]

Don't bother. He is to cheap to get CNN. She clearly told the exact circumstances that were addressed and how in the deliberations. Truly the closest we will ever get to being in that room. That isn't enough for Quick. He needed to be in the room to be able to see it right in front of his cataracts to believe it.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Don't bother. He is to cheap to get CNN. She clearly told the exact circumstances that were addressed and how in the deliberations. Truly the closest we will ever get to being in that room. That isn't enough for Quick. He needed to be in the room to be able to see it right in front of his cataracts to believe it.

So you're going to make comments in future forums based on a juror's book?

http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-trial-juror-hopes-write-book-agent-173535861.html

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

That juror B-37 might have an agenda and affinity with GZ.

George Zimmerman trial juror hopes to write a book, agent says

Juror B37 has been described as a mother of two who grew up in a military family and used to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

 

[dblack]

Jerry Springer is hosting a Zimmerman baby-momma ***** slap showdown this weekend.

 

[Kondor3]

The Law has spoken...

Not Guilty...

Next slide, please...

 

[BrianH]

People do not just punch out of nowhere. I guess I will say it. Trayvon walks up says Why you falling me for. George says What are you doing here grabs on too Trayvon's arm possibly to hold himtill the cops gets there, and Trayvon is pulling back all this causing the noise on the phone and saying get off, get off. Causing the ear piece to disconnect from his phone and drop in the grass and then the phone falls out of Trayvons hand and hits the grass and cuts off. Then Trayvon take the oposite fist and pops George in the nose to get him to let go of him.

That's how it starts. It fits together. Trayvon would only had the mark on his fist and George a bloody nose. And i'm only talking about how is started.

No evidence that GZ did anything to detain Martin. IN fact, while giving his statements to the Sanford detective after the incident, the detective tried to trip GZ up and told him that they caught the entire thing on video; to which GZ responed "Thank God." This implies that that Zimmerman was telling the truth. If the statements GZ made were false he would have fessed up when Serino told him there was a video of it; as I think anyone would have. You don't tell a lie of something that was caught on video...

Or he knows a good bluff when he hears it, and he's counter-bluffing to cover his lies.

Proof?

 

[George Costanza]

If they ever give you advice that puts you in harm's way, the government body they work for can be sued for libel. Therefore, it is standard policy to advise you of the safest thing possible in all scenarios.

Thank you. You listening to this, QW?

I am not going to be able to get anything out of our local police department. They aren't going to tell me bo-diddily, afraid that whatever they say (to a lawyer) will probably be used against them.

But think about it, QW - and Boss, I realize what I am about to say is not the Zimmerman case, but bear with me for a second anyway - if a dispatcher is being told by someone in a car that he is being chased by another car and that he is going to go home and get his shotgun, which scenario is probably going to result in the safest result: (1) advising the gun-threatening driver not to go home and get his gun but, instead, simply to drive to the police station or (2) saying nothing, followed by the gun-threatening driver doing exactly what he threatened he was going to do? Hint: No. 1.

It defies common sense to think that liability-fearing police departments have policies which would require a dispatcher to say nothing when confronted with the type of situation outlined, above.

I advise women who think they are being followed to head for the nearest firestation, they are more likely to get someone's attention there than at a police station, especially at night.

I think dispatchers should be able to tell people to avoid dangerous situations, but there is no way you can say that it is always safer to go to the police station than home. Let us go out of our way to create a ridiculous situation, the type that get lawyers thinking about losing money.

Someone calls in to report being followed, and the dispatcher advises him to drive to the nearest police station. He does so, and the guy following him happens to be a whacko crazed survivalist who is armed to the teeth. When they get to the police station the guy that called is killed in the ensuing gun battle, and it turns out that he was shot by one of the police officers that was aiming at the other guy.

Would you want to defend the police from the ensuing law suit under those circumstances?

Your situation here is too far-fetched. I see where you are going, but here's the deal - I truly believe that police departments, and the dispatchers that work for them, are mainly concerned with preventing violence, without all that much concern for liability. So far absent in our discussion here is the fact that it is virtually impossible to maintain a civil lawsuit against a police department (or any governmental agency, for that matter) based on negligent conduct. Intentional conduct, yes, but when a dispatcher messes up, it's negligent, not intentional. It's nice to THINK about holding a police agency liable in money damages for negligence, but in reality, it just doesn't happen.

Have you ever gotten involved in a road rage incident? I have - several times. Fortunately, none of them ever came to anything physical, just your usual posturing, gesturing, etc. But if I was ever being followed by a guy in a road rage incident, and I was on my home turf, I would go STRAIGHT to the police station, pull up in front, get out, and invite the jerk to take it inside if he has a complaint.

 

[millyvanilly]

HLN is STILL showing the god-damn 12 year old Trayvon in his pretty little football uniform, and now they are interviewing his kiddie football coach on the Fancy Grapes show.

Did anyone catch DD slip up and statie that Trayvon was looking in homes confirming what George had stated he saw him doing? That right there destroy's the DOJ's case if they decide to bring another case against him.

Of course she was. And I lost count of the prejudiced statements she made about 'their generation' and 'my generation', 'dumb blondes'. She came off as one of the most prejudiced people I have ever seen in my life.

And they have OH SUCH an issue with the jury. Someone did manage to remind the nation that the DEFENDANT is the one who has the right to a jury of HIS peers.

well said. The jury got trashed because they're old white and stupid.

Piers Morgan needs to haul his fat ass back across the pond. Which is what he will do after he has stirred up all this shit and it gets too hot for him to handle.

I was pleased that someone had the balls to put it all back in the laps of the racist media.

I made the mistake of watching that crap interview of the racist Rachel. I should not have wasted my time when Hannity had a first class show with O'Mara and West and several others. I won't bother tuning in to Piers ever again and, you are correct, he can get his fat ass back across the pond. He is absolutely worthless.

I am in the process or DVR'ing Hannity.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Wow. some of the comments here.

I believe the lesson from all of this, if there is any, is that if someone is following you it is wise not to turn around and attack them because they might have a gun... Wouldn't it be so much simpler to call the cops and tell them someone's following you? Had Martin done this the PD would have linked this up and told both men to stand down and wait for their arrival...

Zimmerman called the cops and they told him to stand down. He didn't listen and pursued anyway.

There are a lot of ifs and buts in the case but for you to try to turn it around into "simple police involvement" and pretend no police contact was made, directions given by the police and they were ignored is dealing in fantasy

With all due respect, did you even watch the trial? Or listen to the 911 call?

1. The 911 Dispatcher did not give him an order. He said, "we don't NEED you to do that" and not "Please do NOT follow him." 911 Dispatchers are required to tell people that in EVERY situation. If you ask a 911 dispatcher if it's alright to shoot a home invader they won't tell you yes or no. IF you are asking a dispatcher if it's ok to save someone from a burning building they'll tell you that they don't need to you to that in order to take liability off themselves.

2. According to Zimmerman's statements, corroborated by his own 911 call, he only "chased" Martin for a few seconds before the 911 dispatcher made his comment about not needing him to follow and Zimmerman replied "Ok." What prompted the dispatcher to ask this question was because he heard Zimmerman's heavy breathing in the phone. After Zimmerman said, "ok" his breathing returned to normal indicating that he'd stopped running after Zimmerman.

3. Now here's a physics lesson, or perhaps a mathematical one. According to Zimmerman's statements he was returning to his vehicle when Martin attacked him, implying that Martin must have turned around and returned in order to confront Zimmerman. (I think this is actually what happened seeing has how the only evidence of initial verbal contact was when Martin asked "What are you following me for?" while Jeantel was on the phone with him.

NOW, Let's hypothetically say that Zimmerman continued following Martin at a walking pace. You have a 17 year old black boy running in the other direction being followed by an overweight hispanic guy at a walking pace. How did they end up running back in to one another? Either way Martin would have HAD to have turned around and came back to confront Zimmerman. He was only 300+ feet from his house and had plenty of time to get there...

4. There's no doubt that, in the space time continuum, the actions of Zimmerman ultimately led to Martin's death. But we could say that about ANYTHING! We could say that Martin's poor behavior, leading to him being kicked out of school, put him in that neighborhood that day. The "domino" theory can be used to explain EVERYTHING that happens. If only somone had set their alarm 5 minutes earlier like a responsible working American, they wouldn't have gotten in that car accident that killed someone. The problem is that the domino theory is not "law."

Nothing that Zimmerman did that day, leading up to the shooting ,was illegal. Nothing Martin did, leading up to the confrontation, was illegal. Hell, Martin could have stood there and called Zimmerman a racist profiling ***** and nothing illegal would have been done. The first crime that was committed was when Martin decided to punch Zimmerman. That would have ended up being a misdemeanor charge. But when he decided to keep pummeling his head into the concrete, it would have escalated the charge to Assault and Battery; a felony. Then, according to Zimmerman, Martin saw Zimmerman's gun on his hip and said "You're going to die tonight ************." This statement right there ups the charge to Attempted Murder.

It seems that most of the people disagreeing with this verdict simply don't understand self-defense laws and, honestly, haven't watched but a fraction of the trial, if at all. Most of the people rioting and protesting are just sheep being corralled by the race baiting of the media. A media that presented Martin as a 12 year old boy while they flashed Zimmerman's booking photos. A media that deliberately edited Zimmerman's 911 call to make him sound racist even though the ONLY time Zimmerman mentioned Martin's race was when the dispatcher asked for one and gave him options...A media that continuously injects white vs black racism into the issue when Zimmerman is obviously more hispanic than he is white.
I'm not accusing you of this because I don't know how much of the trial you watched. I watched almost every bit of it. I sat here at work with it live streaming on the computer. I watched it at home. I probably missed a few hours of it here and there. Also, being a CHL holder myself I was originally under the impression that Zimmerman was guilty; based on the reports by the media of course. However, after watching the trial, seeing the evidence, listening to witnesses, etc... I changed my mind.

Actually, the first crime was when Zimmerman left his vehicle and followed Trayvon up into the backyards of the complex.

Sorry...............but he'd followed Trayvon for quite a while, as well as quite a ways up the backyards.

If Zimmerman lived on that row, I may be able to see a connection, but if he didn't, he's nothing more than a wanna be cop who fucked up and killed an innocent teen.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

No evidence that GZ did anything to detain Martin. IN fact, while giving his statements to the Sanford detective after the incident, the detective tried to trip GZ up and told him that they caught the entire thing on video; to which GZ responed "Thank God." This implies that that Zimmerman was telling the truth. If the statements GZ made were false he would have fessed up when Serino told him there was a video of it; as I think anyone would have. You don't tell a lie of something that was caught on video...

Or he knows a good bluff when he hears it, and he's counter-bluffing to cover his lies.

Proof?

Just what came to mind.

 

[horselightning]

The juror implied that showed her that TM swung first.

People do not just punch out of nowhere. I guess I will say it. Trayvon walks up says Why you falling me for. George says What are you doing here grabs on too Trayvon's arm possibly to hold himtill the cops gets there, and Trayvon is pulling back all this causing the noise on the phone and saying get off, get off. Causing the ear piece to disconnect from his phone and drop in the grass and then the phone falls out of Trayvons hand and hits the grass and cuts off. Then Trayvon take the oposite fist and pops George in the nose to get him to let go of him.

That's how it starts. It fits together. Trayvon would only had the mark on his fist and George a bloody nose. And i'm only talking about how is started.

No evidence that GZ did anything to detain Martin. IN fact, while giving his statements to the Sanford detective after the incident, the detective tried to trip GZ up and told him that they caught the entire thing on video; to which GZ responed "Thank God." This implies that that Zimmerman was telling the truth. If the statements GZ made were false he would have fessed up when Serino told him there was a video of it; as I think anyone would have. You don't tell a lie of something that was caught on video...

I speeking of the only way matching sounds heard by Trayvon's friend by the only way that phone could have landed sperate from the ear peace. It does not fit Trayvon doing it himself , exspecially at how fast it began. He had no intention of disconecting that phone call or he would have done it before hand. I also wonder why George never mentioned anything about Trayvon's phone , he had to have scene it in his hand when Trayvon came up to him and said what are you following me for. And I do not thnk he would fess up, exspecially sense it could send him to jail.

 

[pioneerpete]

If you ever wondered what a ***** slap looked like, well here you go:

 

[horselightning]

Welcome I think? LOL

That's exactly what I needed for help with a question that came up not long ago. You really are quite good with your comments here. Keep it going.

Thank You! Glad to be able to help.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This is a thinly veiled reference to the GZ case.

1. "We don't need you to do that (follow TM)" is not an order. It's a suggestion. The dispatcher does not give orders due to liability issues.
2. There actually is no proof that GZ did follow TM after that suggestion.

So it begs the question, why should dispatchers even be called in the first place if all we need to do is take the law into our own hands?

And thats about the stupidest thing I've heard all day. Congratulations ....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

...Since Police Dispatchers are a part of the Police Department which is an official agency established in every state of the union, and not some 3rd party private vendor doing the dispatching?

simple question.

While they may be the telecommunications for the Police Dept, they are not Police Officers.

Do a quick search on the responsibilities of Police dispatchers.

Believe it or not, some cities, counties, etc, do contract out for dispatchers.

. don't just talk outta yourr ass, Post a link, let's see what states do this

Please go there! You ill informed twit.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

We have a winner of the stupidest ass post of the year.

911 Operators have no authority.

They are civilians.

The only stupid ass is you, 4Horsmen for not knowing what the facts are and pretending that you do.

It they have no authority, why call them in the first place? why not take the law into your own hands and lie your way out of it?

Are you serious? I guess there's no reason for fire and ambulance dispatchers either.
You should probably get rid of the guy at the drive through window at Micky Ds as well.
Because he provides the same service...passing along info to the right people.
You're going to get schooled and you might want to exit now before you look any more ridiculous.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

4H: Why would you want a dispatcher, who is functionally blind during the interaction, to have some sort of (absolute) legal authority over a person who has called him or her? That seems counter intuitive.

The counter-intuitive part is calling them to begin with. they take forever to dispatch, and as you guys pointed out, they are just "middle men" not worthy of respecting, and therefore calling. So from now on I'm taking the law into my own hands and just go from there.

seems plausible.

Knock yourself out...