The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Snookie]

And according to Zimmerman's sworn testimony, that's exactly what he did. Zimmerman claimed it was Martin that came back and assaulted him.

I'm not saying that's the truth (how could I know?), but I wonder how you're so damn sure it isn't. Care to explain?

TM's dead body.

...you're joking, right?

What's funny about a dead young man?

 

[Katzndogz]

Unless the jury intended to convict before they were sworn or is bought off Zimmerman is going to walk. The prosecution announces they have no case with every witness. Or the prosecution intended to throw the case.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Recess until Monday 9 AM ET.

Folgate was another prosecution witness that wound up being an excellent defense witness.

 

[Snookie]

FB Coach says Trayvon was a great kid. Non-confrontational.

What year did TM play FB?

Bering suspended from school = losing the privilege to play FB.

Annnnnnnnnd...how can anyone be non-confrontational if they do play FB, unless someone is the water boy? One has to be somewhat aggressive!!

Disclaimer: I am not implying that TM was a water boy.

Look at Z. Molested his cousin. Had a restraining order for beating his girlfriend.

Paranoid, bully, coward.

 

[Snookie]

it appears things didn't go well for the prosecution today?

Wrong, the only thing new was Z's attire.

The state is winning.

 

[Missourian]

You have the right to self-defense to the extent that you may not be eligible for a Murder I conviction. But Man II or Man I is a strong possibility.

You can't have a CCW in Florida and go around starting fights. You're going to jail if you do.

If it's ancillary, if you're defending another person.... It's called "Stand In Shoes" down here, then that's not starting a fight. Different ballgame. If you're chasing a bad guy that ran off with your personal property, that's also allowed. If you're defedning your porperty, your family, etc. Okay.

But if you just decide you don't like somebody's looks and start an altercation with him? Regardless of who escalates what, you got a problem.

I can't envision a man like Z doing that. Most of us with a CCW are very aware of the rules.

here is the main issue in this case: self defense.

even if zimmerman started the altercation, if martin escalated it beyond reasonable self defense, and zimmerman can prove killing martin was reasonable self defense, then zimmerman likely walks. no MS or anything else should be allowed if the killing is deemed justifiable. if the jury believes he had a right to defend himself in the manner he did, then he should be exonerated.

Maybe.

I'd like to see some case law on that.

It's written into the statute as an aggressor exception...

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:​

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

http://www.self-defender.net/law2.htm
​

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Recess until Monday 9 AM ET.

Folgate was another prosecution witness that wound up being an excellent defense witness.

I think the only prosecution witness so far that testified the way they wanted was the T-Mobile guy discussing phone call durations,

 

[Edgetho]

here is the main issue in this case: self defense.

even if zimmerman started the altercation, if martin escalated it beyond reasonable self defense, and zimmerman can prove killing martin was reasonable self defense, then zimmerman likely walks. no MS or anything else should be allowed if the killing is deemed justifiable. if the jury believes he had a right to defend himself in the manner he did, then he should be exonerated.

Maybe.

I'd like to see some case law on that.

the plethora of case law on this will provide you ample opportunity to review the issue. i have, however, provided a more concise view in the california penal code:

CA Codes (pen:187-199)

see specifically for this case 197-199

Doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

Here's the operative part....

but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed;

Edge:
Like I said, I already knew that.

Like I said, he's got problems. The burden shifts to him.

BTW, I never said you were wrong, I just said he's got problems. If you start a fight and you kill the man (or in the case of libtards, the little girl) you're fighting with?

You got serious problems. The burden falls to you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The defense had a good day. It is beginning to look like the 2nd Degree Murder charge is going to be hard to prosecute.

I expect it to be reduced to manslaughter before the trial ends.

 

[testarosa]

I thought this was the prosecutions case. Why are all the defense witnesses testifying.

 

[Sunshine]

Will she turn out to be better for the defense too?

She did. Yes.

 

[25Caliber]

Hi 25!

Yes, GZ reaching for his phone/gun you're concentrating on is sort of a red herring. According to GZ and DD/Rachel Jeantel, TM had lost GZ and was near his father's condo. While TM had no obligation to go home, logic tells me that if he was going back to where GZ was, then he was doing so for a reason. I don't know what that would be and it really doesn't matter. Certainly TM was not afraid of GZ or he would have gone inside. Instead, he came back to GZ (whom I believe was headed back to his car since he didn't know where Martin went) and DD says TM spoke first, asking "What you following me for?" So TM escalated this situation to his own detriment. I'm sure the whole incident happened very quickly, with little time for either of these guys to think things through rationally.

To me, the pertinent issues are 1) who was the initiator of contact - the aggressor? And 2) what was GZ's state of mind when he pulled the trigger? Following someone is not aggressive nor is it unlawful. Confronting someone in the dark could be considered aggressive. At the very least it was TM who made the first contact, not GZ.

Hey SF!

My point with the reaching is that if he is following in the dark and rain and is not identifying himself, then at the point of confrontation when he reaches could be argued an aggressive action.

Trayvon asking his follower why he is being followed is not unlawful either.

To me the prosecution should be trying to show that it was GZ who was the aggressor...sure, we all know now that GZ was the NH watch captain, but Tray didnt know at the time, nor would have any of us. It was just someone following him.

 

[Sunshine]

I thought this was the prosecutions case. Why are all the defense witnesses testifying.

OMG~! !! I OU + rep!!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

The witness said
-Lighter colored man on bottom(Zimmerman)
-Darker on top(trayvon)
-Red coat man on bottom(Zimmerman)

Cuts on back of head and broken nose(Zimmerman)

A 5 year old can tell that Trayvon was beating up Zimmerman. There's at the very least reasonable doubt...I'd say NOT guiltily.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I thought this was the prosecutions case. Why are all the defense witnesses testifying.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to testarosa again.

Dammit!

 

[testarosa]

It's the rep thread!

 

[Sunshine]

Hi 25!

Yes, GZ reaching for his phone/gun you're concentrating on is sort of a red herring. According to GZ and DD/Rachel Jeantel, TM had lost GZ and was near his father's condo. While TM had no obligation to go home, logic tells me that if he was going back to where GZ was, then he was doing so for a reason. I don't know what that would be and it really doesn't matter. Certainly TM was not afraid of GZ or he would have gone inside. Instead, he came back to GZ (whom I believe was headed back to his car since he didn't know where Martin went) and DD says TM spoke first, asking "What you following me for?" So TM escalated this situation to his own detriment. I'm sure the whole incident happened very quickly, with little time for either of these guys to think things through rationally.

To me, the pertinent issues are 1) who was the initiator of contact - the aggressor? And 2) what was GZ's state of mind when he pulled the trigger? Following someone is not aggressive nor is it unlawful. Confronting someone in the dark could be considered aggressive. At the very least it was TM who made the first contact, not GZ.

Hey SF!

My point with the reaching is that if he is following in the dark and rain and is not identifying himself, then at the point of confrontation when he reaches could be argued an aggressive action.

Trayvon asking his follower why he is being followed is not unlawful either.

To me the prosecution should be trying to show that it was GZ who was the aggressor...sure, we all know now that GZ was the NH watch captain, but Tray didnt know at the time, nor would have any of us. It was just someone following him.

It has already been stated on national TV that in Florida it doesn't matter who started the fight. When you believe your life is in danger you can use deadly force. Are you watching ANY of this. It is NOT going well for the prosecution because the prosecution doesn't have anything. This is not 3rd grade. "He started it isn't going to work." Please move on.

The defense owned the day today.

And on CNN, they seem to think the prosecution has hoards of witnesses waiting in the wings who will turn the case their way. The more they come, the better shape the defense is in.

And it is not in the post I am responding to but FFS, what is the issue with Zimmerman wearing a suit. EVERY lawyer tells their client to dress well for court. If you go buy a suit, if your mother buys you a suit, if your wife buys you a suit, if your lawyer buys you a suit. That is all irrelevant.

 

[testarosa]

I thought this was the prosecutions case. Why are all the defense witnesses testifying.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to testarosa again.

Dammit!

I'll just rep you and we'll call it a day. I'm sure I missed some gem from you today.

 

[Sunshine]

I thought this was the prosecutions case. Why are all the defense witnesses testifying.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to testarosa again.

Dammit!

Yeah, meeeeee2.

 

[Snookie]

Why didn't Z use his flashlight when he had two of them?

Police often use flashlights for non lethal weapons. Whu did not Z use them for self defense?

Because 9 mil more better?

Because criminals love darkness.