The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[testarosa]

Monday can't get here too soon

Yep. This is called Trial Lull.

In our "regular" old thread we say hey! how ya doing? what's going on this weekend and review evidence from the week before.

In this one, we play some songs, speak some Ebonics, skim some Fantasy stuff.

I think there's an Offishthial Z thread somewhere, but the fun people are in this one and you know how the funners draw a crowd.

So whatev.

 

[testarosa]

IOU + rep when I can.

See agree with her, she provides a reach around. Disagree with her and she brings down her "rep" authority down on your ass. ROFL I bet she'd love it if negs sent electric shocks through the interweb

Cool!!! I think I could design the physical system. Any software designers here?

Maybe - what kind of money you talking?

 

[RKMBrown]

IOU + rep when I can.

See agree with her, she provides a reach around. Disagree with her and she brings down her "rep" authority down on your ass. ROFL I bet she'd love it if negs sent electric shocks through the interweb

I give rep. I get rep. If you don't have the stomach for an internet discussion forum you are free to find other digs.

There we go... take my authority or leave.. ROFL Authoritarians never disappoint.

Your negs have no effect on me, I think they are funny. But alas, since I see how much they mean to you and you are throwing them around in this vain attempt to manipulate opinion... for that reason alone I sort of wish I had a ton of rep so I could neg you in return to take away your presumed rep authority. Nah I'll stick around. Imagine how boring life would be if everyone bowed to your opinion and to your authority.

 

[legaleagle_45]

You get in touch with Cory yet and set her straight on that stalking deal?

Are you a nurse and a lawyer?

I have never been a nurse, have you?

 

[RKMBrown]

It is a jury of his peers, not Trayvon's peers.

Good point.. the all female jury does sort of meet up with the requirement to find Zimmerman's peers.

Misogynist too, huh? Point taken.

Heh... I like women... alot. But some do give me the creeps. Barbara Stanwick for example, man she gave me the creeps. I like women like Palin

 

[Snookie]

I did not become 'a nurse instead.' I was already a board certified NP when I enrolled in law school. I never intended to practice law. A person who only teaches law is not required to hold a license. I got the degree to be better in my field, and to be able to start my own business upon retirement. Fact is, my business has been started for some time now. And FYI a lot of nurses get doctorates, and a lot of us get JDs. We even get paid in our clinical practice for having it because it is a doctorate in a related field. We also have a professional organization known as The American Association of Nurse Attorneys.

As to the wiki and sites from which I post, well you can just suck that one up. I am under no obligation to pay for a service like WestLaw or Lexus/Nexus to post cases on a message board even though I can get free access to both of those through other services available to me through my schools, and through various court websites. But the thing you fail to recognize is that I know which cases to look for, obscure cases, obscure laws, etc. A person who does not have command of the law cannot hone in on those things because they don't have the knowledge of what to look for. So you can suck it up. And am still a board certified nurse practitioner, and I can legally teach the law if I so choose.

You are very young. You would do well to spend your time in pursuit of formal education. I can assure you your life will improve if you do.

Or maybe you just took a couple of criminal justice classes...none of us will ever know or care. You're just another online braggart to me who calls people they dont know faggot. You should have taken some maturity classes.

Im not as young as you think and have a degree. I just dont feel the need to boast of my degrees, certifications, sports trophies and employment as you do. Especially not to an internet message board. You have a need to post your resume every time you think your words or claims will give you some credibility or an edge in your argument.

LMAO. I haven't had any trouble convincing those who have JDs and those who are attorneys because we all know the sweat and toil that goes into it. Clearly you have no clue what it takes to get a JD. I can tell you, and so will they you will read more in your first year of law school than you read in your entire undergraduate career. I didn't even go full time and it was 2,000 pages a week. Every week.

And you have to suck up the faggot thing too. You called me a bigot, and my response was going to rhyme. Get over it. That's how forums work.

And yes, when I can produce the case laws and statutes and you cannot, I do have more credibility and an edge over you.

No you don't he's smarter than you.

 

[Cuyo]

Why don't you? Do you assume that because his story indicates self defense he has to be lying?

Not automatically, but I see that he has a vested interest in lying; in claiming the attack was more brutal and unprovoked than it was.

My position is not that enigmatic. He sought out a confrontation. I don't think he set out to kill or even hurt someone, but that's what happened. It stemmed from a God complex, from a guy who thought he was Wyatt Earp because he had a gun. He acted recklessly, confronted someone who was doing nothing wrong and who didn't want to be confronted, and got his ass whooped.

Had he not had a gun, the story probably would have ended there. He's all healed up now and he'd be getting on with his life, probably with the wisdom not to fuck with someone just because you don't like the way they look (meaning that he "looked suspicious," not black).

I think that Martin threw the first shot, but I think he did so because he feared he was about to be attacked. I don't think that was irrational on his part. A stranger is following you and now you ask him what the deal is and he reaches into his pocket. If this happens to me and I'm unarmed, I'm thinking this might be my only shot (like I said earlier).

The fact that he was losing a fight is not relevant. Who is ultimately responsible for that fight, is.

So you discount any altruistic motive Zimmerman may have had and assume the unpaid NW volunteer set out to kill instead of protect the property of his neighbors?

OK. Bias acknowledged.

Noooo... If you read my post, you'll see that the opposite of what you just asserted is true.

 

[RKMBrown]

IOU + rep when I can.

See agree with her, she provides a reach around. Disagree with her and she brings down her "rep" authority down on your ass. ROFL I bet she'd love it if negs sent electric shocks through the interweb

Cool!!! I think I could design the physical system. Any software designers here?

Yo! Yeah system engineer, I wrote and / or fixed most of Windows, Java, Netscape, pretty sure I could handle the software this one. Will your device be accessed through a keyboard interrupt or do you want to go bluetooth?

 

[Cuyo]

All you left wing racist asshats are ignoring an important pice of the testimony. That TM actuall got home and could have been in the house and safe, but instead he chose to go back and confront GZ.

That clearly puts TM in the wrong.

Fact.

Even if I stipulate, doesn't mean a goddamn thing.

All it proves is that Martin MAY be guilty of what we already know Zim is guilty of - NOT avoiding a confrontation that was avoidable.

At best, it puts him at par with Zim

Sorry to piss in your cereal... I know you probably thought you were pretty profound there.

And since there's been so much talk about Zim's rights - Right to follow, right to pack, etc - Wouldn't you agree also, that Martin had the right to confront the man following him?

 

[Missourian]

[MENTION=22602]Cuyo[/MENTION].

Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. DD, the prosecutions "star" witness testified to that.

That "God Complex" and "Wyatt Earp Syndrome" is a product of your bias...not any facts in evidence.

 

[Cuyo]

[MENTION=22602]Cuyo[/MENTION].

Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. DD, the prosecutions "star" witness testified to that.

That "God Complex" and "Wyatt Earp Syndrome" is a product of your bias...not any facts in evidence.

No, it comes from the now-infamous police call. Is that not in evidence?

 

[testarosa]

It is a jury of his peers, not Trayvon's peers.

Good point.. the all female jury does sort of meet up with the requirement to find Zimmerman's peers.

Misogynist too, huh? Point taken.

I believe in this jury. I think they are going to make the right decision and follow thru. Regardless of fear of consequences of their decision.

I wish the judge would make a decision on sealing their names and tell the media attorneys to FO and let the jury know they will be sealed for 6 months to give them that confidence before they have to start their deliberations.

Regardless, I believe this jury is dedicated and will make the right decision.

Gender/Race notwithstanding and irrelevant.

 

[Snookie]

Zimmerman came close to being a convicted felon. He assaulted a police officer once and beat up his girlfriend.

TM has a clean record.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

All you left wing racist asshats are ignoring an important pice of the testimony. That TM actuall got home and could have been in the house and safe, but instead he chose to go back and confront GZ.

That clearly puts TM in the wrong.

Fact.

Even if I stipulate, doesn't mean a goddamn thing.

All it proves is that Martin MAY be guilty of what we already know Zim is guilty of - NOT avoiding a confrontation that was avoidable.

At best, it puts him at par with Zim

Sorry to piss in your cereal... I know you probably thought you were pretty profound there.

And since there's been so much talk about Zim's rights - Right to follow, right to pack, etc - Wouldn't you agree also, that Martin had the right to confront the man following him?

Since TM was safely out of it, his "decision" to go back and confront and assault Zimmerman for the "sin" of having followed TM earlier translates into something pretty clear: Zimmerman could NOT be guilty of having "provoked" anything. Indeed, it appears that the only things he did were all legal.

And no. TM had no right to "confront" Zimmerman in any manner that involved a physical assault.

 

[Truthseeker420]

They WANT it to say:

That is what they keep arguing - that Zimmerman's injuries weren't severe enough to justify deadly force....

It's easy for someone to want it that way when they weren't the one having their head slammed into the concrete and weren't the one that had their nose broken.

There is no evidence that anyone slammed his head into the concrete or he had a broken nose.. He could have got those two very small cuts from a number of things.

 

[RKMBrown]

[MENTION=22602]Cuyo[/MENTION].

Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. DD, the prosecutions "star" witness testified to that.

That "God Complex" and "Wyatt Earp Syndrome" is a product of your bias...not any facts in evidence.

Awe you don't like my avatar, not a John Wayne fan?

>>> Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. DD, the prosecutions "star" witness testified to that.

Nope, she testified to the exact opposite. She testified that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon.

 

[Snookie]

All you left wing racist asshats are ignoring an important pice of the testimony. That TM actuall got home and could have been in the house and safe, but instead he chose to go back and confront GZ.

That clearly puts TM in the wrong.

Fact.

Even if I stipulate, doesn't mean a goddamn thing.

All it proves is that Martin MAY be guilty of what we already know Zim is guilty of - NOT avoiding a confrontation that was avoidable.

At best, it puts him at par with Zim

Sorry to piss in your cereal... I know you probably thought you were pretty profound there.

And since there's been so much talk about Zim's rights - Right to follow, right to pack, etc - Wouldn't you agree also, that Martin had the right to confront the man following him?

Since TM was safely out of it, his "decision" to go back and confront and assault Zimmerman for the "sin" of having followed TM earlier translates into something pretty clear: Zimmerman could NOT be guilty of having "provoked" anything. Indeed, it appears that the only things he did were all legal.

And no. TM had no right to "confront" Zimmerman in any manner that involved a physical assault.

Twisted logic^

 

[testarosa]

Zimmerman came close to being a convicted felon. He assaulted a police officer once and beat up his girlfriend.

TM has a clean record.

<clears throat>

All of the above is biased and questionable.

Let's wait a bit until the everything comes out, then we can talk about "evidence".

Right now, I just want to play you a song for your post:

Sail Foam Song...

I gots sail foam,
He gots sail foam,
She gots sail foam,
Dey got sail foam,
Wudn ya like ta haz a sail foam too?

 

[Truthseeker420]

All you left wing racist asshats are ignoring an important pice of the testimony. That TM actuall got home and could have been in the house and safe, but instead he chose to go back and confront GZ.

That clearly puts TM in the wrong.

Fact.

Even if I stipulate, doesn't mean a goddamn thing.

All it proves is that Martin MAY be guilty of what we already know Zim is guilty of - NOT avoiding a confrontation that was avoidable.

At best, it puts him at par with Zim

Sorry to piss in your cereal... I know you probably thought you were pretty profound there.

And since there's been so much talk about Zim's rights - Right to follow, right to pack, etc - Wouldn't you agree also, that Martin had the right to confront the man following him?

Since TM was safely out of it, his "decision" to go back and confront and assault Zimmerman for the "sin" of having followed TM earlier translates into something pretty clear: Zimmerman could NOT be guilty of having "provoked" anything. Indeed, it appears that the only things he did were all legal.

And no. TM had no right to "confront" Zimmerman in any manner that involved a physical assault.

He never made it to his home before he was accosted by Zimmerman.

 

[testarosa]

That is what they keep arguing - that Zimmerman's injuries weren't severe enough to justify deadly force....

It's easy for someone to want it that way when they weren't the one having their head slammed into the concrete and weren't the one that had their nose broken.

There is no evidence that anyone slammed his head into the concrete or he had a broken nose.. He could have got those two very small cuts from a number of things.

Watch Friday PA testimony.

Sail Foam Song...

I gots sail foam,
He gots sail foam,
She gots sail foam,
Dey got sail foam,
Wudn ya like ta haz a sail foam too?