The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[TemplarKormac]

Witness says that Zimmerman was telling the truth. He answered that Zimmerman's account was corroborated by existing evidence at the time. And in his opinion, Zimmerman did not profile Martin nor did he seem uncaring or unmoved by the events that night.

Case closed.

 

[MarcATL]

Remember when all you Zimmerman supporters were SWEARING on the stand-your-ground law?

Wasn't SYG...... was self-defense against forcible felony.

Bull-shat.

The ENTIRE USMB RW squad was on the "Stand your ground choir" until the lawyer realized that shat wasn't flying and went another direction...which was mere months ago.

It's only then have you started singing the new "Self-defense" song.

Too funny.

 

[asaratis]

I saw only one mistake by Officer Singleton. When Zimmerman asked her if she was Catholic, she said that she was not...but that she was a Christian.

Catholic=Christian

Other than that, she did quite well. She looks to have some American Indian in her...but what do I know?

 

[Sallow]

It's so bad it's almost in fantasy land.

Like he "remembers" that Martin tried to cover his mouth and nose but there is a LOT of shouting that can be heard on the cell phone recording.

How exactly does that happen if Zimmerman's mouth is covered?

Or..if Martin is doing the shouting, why?

Why would he want attention?

Gotta love it.

What evidence suggests that his mouth was covered the entire time?

In Z's own words, when asked how long his nose and mouth were covered, It seemed like hours.

What's great about that, is the photos before the EMT's got there show no smearing.

Additionally, Martin must of been sorta super human..as with all the punching and head banging and holding Zimmerman's mouth..didn't do much damage to his hands.

 

[MarcATL]

Witness says that Zimmerman was telling the truth. He answered that Zimmerman's account was corroborated by existing evidence at the time. And in his opinion, Zimmerman did not profile Martin nor did he seem uncaring or unmoved by the events that night.

Case closed.

Case closed on a cotton-pickin' OPINION!?!?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Too funny.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Witness says that Zimmerman was telling the truth. He answered that Zimmerman's account was corroborated by existing evidence at the time. And in his opinion, Zimmerman did not profile Martin nor did he seem uncaring or unmoved by the events that night.

Case closed.

Case closed on a cotton-pickin' OPINION!?!?

Bwhahahahahahahahahah!!!

Too funny.

You don't seem to mind relying upon your opinions, you halfwit. You already had him convicted from DAY ONE.

So shut you mouth, you mentally unstable hypocrite.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Remember when all you Zimmerman supporters were SWEARING on the stand-your-ground law?

Wasn't SYG...... was self-defense against forcible felony.

Bull-shat.

The ENTIRE USMB RW squad was on the "Stand your ground choir" until the lawyer realized that shat wasn't flying and went another direction...which was mere months ago.

It's only then have you started singing the new "Self-defense" song.

Too funny.

SYG is a component of self-defense which allows summary judgment at a pre-trial immunity hearing.

 

[asterism]

It's so bad it's almost in fantasy land.

Like he "remembers" that Martin tried to cover his mouth and nose but there is a LOT of shouting that can be heard on the cell phone recording.

How exactly does that happen if Zimmerman's mouth is covered?

Or..if Martin is doing the shouting, why?

Why would he want attention?

Gotta love it.

What evidence suggests that his mouth was covered the entire time?

In Z's own words, when asked how long his nose and mouth were covered, It seemed like hours.

If you're going by Zimmerman's own words then you also know that Zimmerman says he was the one on the tape yelling.

Soo.......

 

[25Caliber]

You're believing that Zimmerman actually stopped pursuit.

I don't think he did. He wanted to "collar" the guy. I think he ran to the T caught up with Martin and initiated contact. He may have even tried to grab Martin which led to the first punch. Remember, Zimmerman went from having Martin come out of the bushes to coming out of the darkness. And by Zimmerman's account..he was walking toward him and talking. It's not far fetched to think Zimmerman caught up to Martin, who turned around to and asked him, "Why are you following me?" To which Zimmerman responded "What are you doing here?" That sounds more like what a cop would do.

And that's what Zimmerman was doing. Playing cop.

Incorrect and unsupported by the 911 tape. If your assumption were true it would have been on tape. Look where the 911 tape ended. DD doesnt support this with her timeline either.

The "timeline" is about 7 minutes long. And either 1 or 2 minutes there was a struggle.

Zimmerman calls the cops at around 7:09, Martin gets shot at around 7:16.

So you're talking about 5 minutes. That fits much more with someone racing across the Dog walk to catch a perp.

I agree about the time elapsed...I get it. But it could not have happened as quick as you say...we have the 911 tape...If it would have happened that quick it would be on the tape.

 

[asterism]

You're believing that Zimmerman actually stopped pursuit.

I don't think he did. He wanted to "collar" the guy. I think he ran to the T caught up with Martin and initiated contact. He may have even tried to grab Martin which led to the first punch. Remember, Zimmerman went from having Martin come out of the bushes to coming out of the darkness. And by Zimmerman's account..he was walking toward him and talking. It's not far fetched to think Zimmerman caught up to Martin, who turned around to and asked him, "Why are you following me?" To which Zimmerman responded "What are you doing here?" That sounds more like what a cop would do.

And that's what Zimmerman was doing. Playing cop.

Incorrect and unsupported by the 911 tape. If your assumption were true it would have been on tape. Look where the 911 tape ended. DD doesnt support this with her timeline either.

The "timeline" is about 7 minutes long. And either 1 or 2 minutes there was a struggle.

Zimmerman calls the cops at around 7:09, Martin gets shot at around 7:16.

So you're talking about 5 minutes. That fits much more with someone racing across the Dog walk to catch a perp.

Where do you get that this is a dog walk?

It's not. Look at the pictures of the neighborhood.

 

[Missourian]

I agree with you...later he is in retreat and Trayvon calls out to him. But initially he is still giving the following impression to Trayvon.

So there is a mistake by GZ followed by a mistake by Trayvon...although no one is doing anything illegal...GZ gives the impression of still following and Trayvon gives the impression of "oh S---" to GZ.

And this is where your vacillation falls flat IMO.

Zimmerman isn't following Martin...in his mind, he's good.

"Ho dee doe, I'll just head over here and get an address for the police, I've done my civic duty, the neighborhood is a little safer, if I didn't scare that guy off the police will."

Maybe he waits over there for the call from the police...I don't know...they kinda gloss over that in the walkthrough.

He doesn't get a call, says to himself "I'm bored, going to head over to the mailboxes."

Hum dee dum, across the dogwalk, to the T...and there's Martin!

Freeze everything!

Murder and manslaughter are predicated on intent.

If we agree up to this point, Zimmerman has zero intent.

Involuntary manslaughter is predicated on negligence.

Is it negligent to get out of your truck?

No.

Is it negligent to follow for the purpose of observing the activities of a suspicious person?

No.

Is it negligent to STOP following a person and go get an address for the police?

No.

Is it negligent to walk across a concrete sidewalk to meet a police car?

No.

Fair enough. However it was me prosecuting...my whole case would be built around his negligence...so we disagree here.

For example..."we dont need you to do that" does not mean to keep pursuing in the same direction that trayvon ran.

So Mr GZ...what does "we dont need you to do that" mean to you?

GZ: Well it means they dont need me to follow him or that they dont want me to follow him.

Okay....does it mean to keep pursuing in the same direction you saw him headed in the dark and rain?

GZ: Well no, but I did stop following...I was looking for an address so that I could meet the police.

Understandable...but what impression are you giving to the person you are following?

GZ: Well I guess he would assume I am following him...but I wasnt.

I would be making the case that he was negligent in continuing to travel in the path of the "suspect"..."we dont need you to do that" means just that...not keep traveling in the same direction looking for an apt number. He was meeting at the mailboxes and clubhouse...thats enough...the dispathers got it.

OK, you're on...you be the prosecutor and I'll be George Zimmerman.

Go.

 

[MarcATL]

What's interesting, and actually funny to me is, that how you people can use the calculation of the position of the car at a certain time to assert that Trayvon IN FACT doubled-back to attack Trayvon. Yet, even though you have the testimony, that has never wavered, from Jeantel, that states that Trayvon was very concerned about the "creepy" man that was following him, and on top of that had an exchange with her on how to deal with it, whether to run away or what.

Clearly he wasn't comfortable. Which means he felt threatened.

But you don't like those details, so you discard it.

But you accept the made up scenario of him doubling-back and attacking Zimmerman, because you like that. Although NO WHERE IN COURT has that been asserted, much-less established.

Too funny.

Doubled-back ? Wut ?

Do you know why being so threatened and all he only traveled less than 100 yard over 4 minutes and didn't go home ? What would a reasonable person do in that situation ?

You're back to suppositions again. Which is what you're entire defense is all about. Throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

Let's see if that gets, the killer, George Zimmerman off the hook.

 

[testarosa]

And this is where your vacillation falls flat IMO.

Zimmerman isn't following Martin...in his mind, he's good.

"Ho dee doe, I'll just head over here and get an address for the police, I've done my civic duty, the neighborhood is a little safer, if I didn't scare that guy off the police will."

Maybe he waits over there for the call from the police...I don't know...they kinda gloss over that in the walkthrough.

He doesn't get a call, says to himself "I'm bored, going to head over to the mailboxes."

Hum dee dum, across the dogwalk, to the T...and there's Martin!

Freeze everything!

Murder and manslaughter are predicated on intent.

If we agree up to this point, Zimmerman has zero intent.

Involuntary manslaughter is predicated on negligence.

Is it negligent to get out of your truck?

No.

Is it negligent to follow for the purpose of observing the activities of a suspicious person?

No.

Is it negligent to STOP following a person and go get an address for the police?

No.

Is it negligent to walk across a concrete sidewalk to meet a police car?

No.

Fair enough. However it was me prosecuting...my whole case would be built around his negligence...so we disagree here.

For example..."we dont need you to do that" does not mean to keep pursuing in the same direction that trayvon ran.

So Mr GZ...what does "we dont need you to do that" mean to you?

GZ: Well it means they dont need me to follow him or that they dont want me to follow him.

Okay....does it mean to keep pursuing in the same direction you saw him headed in the dark and rain?

GZ: Well no, but I did stop following...I was looking for an address so that I could meet the police.

Understandable...but what impression are you giving to the person you are following?

GZ: Well I guess he would assume I am following him...but I wasnt.

I would be making the case that he was negligent in continuing to travel in the path of the "suspect"..."we dont need you to do that" means just that...not keep traveling in the same direction looking for an apt number. He was meeting at the mailboxes and clubhouse...thats enough...the dispathers got it.

OK, you're on...you be the prosecutor and I'll be George Zimmerman.

Go.

WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

25, if you're going to prosecute, throw all the bullshit out, flip it on him and go straight for manslaughter to get a conviction - even do involuntary WHOOPSIE! manslaughter.

Go.

 

[Snookie]

Did anybody notice the home made jail tattoo on z's arm which the cop quickly covered?

 

[MarcATL]

Wasn't SYG...... was self-defense against forcible felony.

Bull-shat.

The ENTIRE USMB RW squad was on the "Stand your ground choir" until the lawyer realized that shat wasn't flying and went another direction...which was mere months ago.

It's only then have you started singing the new "Self-defense" song.

Too funny.

SYG is a component of self-defense which allows summary judgment at a pre-trial immunity hearing.

I just want you to realize that the entire case changed drastically...at least as far as the Zimmerman supporters are concerned.

 

[Sallow]

Incorrect and unsupported by the 911 tape. If your assumption were true it would have been on tape. Look where the 911 tape ended. DD doesnt support this with her timeline either.

The "timeline" is about 7 minutes long. And either 1 or 2 minutes there was a struggle.

Zimmerman calls the cops at around 7:09, Martin gets shot at around 7:16.

So you're talking about 5 minutes. That fits much more with someone racing across the Dog walk to catch a perp.

I agree about the time elapsed...I get it. But it could not have happened as quick as you say...we have the 911 tape...If it would have happened that quick it would be on the tape.

This is the time line I am using.

Timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[OODA_Loop]

What's interesting, and actually funny to me is, that how you people can use the calculation of the position of the car at a certain time to assert that Trayvon IN FACT doubled-back to attack Trayvon. Yet, even though you have the testimony, that has never wavered, from Jeantel, that states that Trayvon was very concerned about the "creepy" man that was following him, and on top of that had an exchange with her on how to deal with it, whether to run away or what.

Clearly he wasn't comfortable. Which means he felt threatened.

But you don't like those details, so you discard it.

But you accept the made up scenario of him doubling-back and attacking Zimmerman, because you like that. Although NO WHERE IN COURT has that been asserted, much-less established.

Too funny.

Doubled-back ? Wut ?

Do you know why being so threatened and all he only traveled less than 100 yard over 4 minutes and didn't go home ? What would a reasonable person do in that situation ?

You're back to suppositions again. Which is what you're entire defense is all about. Throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

Let's see if that gets, the killer, George Zimmerman off the hook.

The location of the truck, the distance traveled, elapsed time and the location Trayon's corpse are not suppositions, but fact.

How did Trayvon end up dead so close to the truck encounter with so much time to get away ? He was threatened ? You can't answer that.

 

[asterism]

I agree with you...later he is in retreat and Trayvon calls out to him. But initially he is still giving the following impression to Trayvon.

So there is a mistake by GZ followed by a mistake by Trayvon...although no one is doing anything illegal...GZ gives the impression of still following and Trayvon gives the impression of "oh S---" to GZ.

And this is where your vacillation falls flat IMO.

Zimmerman isn't following Martin...in his mind, he's good.

"Ho dee doe, I'll just head over here and get an address for the police, I've done my civic duty, the neighborhood is a little safer, if I didn't scare that guy off the police will."

Maybe he waits over there for the call from the police...I don't know...they kinda gloss over that in the walkthrough.

He doesn't get a call, says to himself "I'm bored, going to head over to the mailboxes."

Hum dee dum, across the dogwalk, to the T...and there's Martin!

Freeze everything!

Murder and manslaughter are predicated on intent.

If we agree up to this point, Zimmerman has zero intent.

Involuntary manslaughter is predicated on negligence.

Is it negligent to get out of your truck?

No.

Is it negligent to follow for the purpose of observing the activities of a suspicious person?

No.

Is it negligent to STOP following a person and go get an address for the police?

No.

Is it negligent to walk across a concrete sidewalk to meet a police car?

No.

Fair enough. However if it was me prosecuting...my whole case would be built around his negligence...so we disagree here.

For example..."we dont need you to do that" does not mean to keep pursuing in the same direction that trayvon ran.

So Mr GZ...what does "we dont need you to do that" mean to you?

GZ: Well it means they dont need me to follow him or that they dont want me to follow him.

Okay....does it mean to keep pursuing in the same direction you saw him headed in the dark and rain?

GZ: Well no, but I did stop following...I was looking for an address so that I could meet the police.

Understandable...but what impression are you giving to the person you are following?

GZ: Well I guess he would assume I am following him...but I wasnt.

Thank you, no further questions...a quick wink at the jury...and let them put it together....lol. Let them decide.

I would be making the case that he was negligent in continuing to travel in the path of the "suspect"..."we dont need you to do that" means just that...not keep traveling in the same direction looking for an apt number. He was meeting at the mailboxes and clubhouse...thats enough...the dispathers got it.

That would be the slam dunk for manslaughter.

But since it's murder, the prosecution has to make the case for intent to kill or the jury buys the self-defense case. It's difficult to expect a jury to then deny self-defense on manslaughter when legally the standards are the same. However, if there was no murder charge the prosecution would only have to make a case for negligence and culpability.

Of course if the prosecution still screwed it up this much that would be difficult too.

 

[asaratis]

He truly doesn't care about AA kids as he says nothing about the slaughter within our inner-cities. He's just hates WHITES. You see if he can smear it in our faces he will.

**** the evidence within his mind.

Every post I've made has been pertaining to the facts of this case.

Yet, here you are bringing up what OTHER people are doing elsewhere.

Things that make me go, "Hmmm.....!!"

Your avatar gives you away. Malcolm X was extremely racist.

 

[MarcATL]

Witness says that Zimmerman was telling the truth. He answered that Zimmerman's account was corroborated by existing evidence at the time. And in his opinion, Zimmerman did not profile Martin nor did he seem uncaring or unmoved by the events that night.

Case closed.

Case closed on a cotton-pickin' OPINION!?!?

Bwhahahahahahahahahah!!!

Too funny.

You don't seem to mind relying upon your opinions, you halfwit. You already had him convicted from DAY ONE.

So shut you mouth, you mentally unstable hypocrite.

List one opinion that I've propositioned as fact please?