The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Ravi]

he has an eye witness to martin sitting on top of him beating him up.

And again, no witness as to who started the fight.

and again... we have a witness of marting on top of zimmerman.


it all depends on who you want to believe and what versions of events you want to believe, ravi.

Not really. At some point in time it was testified that Martin was on top. That doesn't mean Martin started the fight. It only means that at one point in time Martin was on top.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And again, no witness as to who started the fight.

and again... we have a witness of marting on top of zimmerman.


it all depends on who you want to believe and what versions of events you want to believe, ravi.

So you believe that if you start a fight..and start losing, you have the right to kill the person beating you up?

That is what the law says everywhere in the world, why should it be different just because you have a problem with it?

 

[Sallow]

Which actually proves they are dumber than you.

This is the first insult in the thread in this exchange.

It's from you to me.

Lets get that straight before moving on, okay?

No it isn't, the first was when I pointed out you are the only person in the universe that thinks Zimmerman did not have his head bounced off the ground.

My bad.

And that would be incorrect as well.

The Forensic Pathologist established that Zimmerman's head probably hit the concrete at some point. And the injuries were insignificant.

 

[syrenn]

Martin wasn't armed.

no... but he could have been if he was going for the gun.

Armed means weapon......

Any idea how much damage i can do to someone i am sitting on top of...with a can of soda?

trust me.... a can of soda (iced tea) is a pretty darn good weapon.

Except he wasn't using a can of soda to strike Zimmerman. He was using his hands.

i did not say he was using the can...i said...i could be used as a weapon.

if martin is going for the gun.... then the whole situation changes.

 

[Ravi]

and again... we have a witness of marting on top of zimmerman.


it all depends on who you want to believe and what versions of events you want to believe, ravi.

So you believe that if you start a fight..and start losing, you have the right to kill the person beating you up?

That is what the law says everywhere in the world, why should it be different just because you have a problem with it?

Link? That's total bullshit.

 

[syrenn]

But that doesn't mean that Martin started the fight, if true. It merely means that at one point in time Martin may have had the upper hand in defending himself.

It doesn't matter if the state brings in 10,000 witnesses that Zimmerman started the fight if Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman.

Of course it matters. If Z started the fight Martin had every right to defend himself.

And if M started the fight then Zimmerman has every right to defend himself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

None of Martin's dna on the gun either. Didn't Zimmerman claim that Martin grabbed his gun?

Believe it or not, touching something does not transfer DNA every single time. Then we have the fact that every single state's witness has testified that it was pouring that night, and that the gun got washed by the rain after the shooting, and you are left looking incredibly stupid for pointing out that there is no DNA on the gun.

But I didn't say there was no DNA on the gun. I said there was none of Martin's. There was some of Zimmerman's and another unidentified person.


Talk about looking stupid, you take the cake.

I just looked that up and it says the DNA was on the holster and somewhere on the gun. My guess is that if the DNA was tested against the cops it would prove cross contamination.

By the way, even though Zimmerman admits firing the gun there was no gunpowder on his hands. I think that proves that the rain was pretty heavy.

 

[Katzndogz]

I am hearing on TV that the little stunt the prosecution tried to pull accusing and proving Zimmerman that he lied about stand your ground is mere semantics. Since this case isn't about stand your ground, but one of self-defense, the prosecution seems to be floundering.

It proves that he is lying. They played that Hannity interview, and it was a long one, right in court. He actually laughed and said he had never heard of stand your ground. He must be fabricating other things in his version of events.

It would be important if he was using stand your ground as a defense but he's not. Other than that it's just something he wasn't thinking about at the time. If legal procedure was something he dealt with every day he might have remembered better.

There is just no way the prosecution can say "Mr. Zimmerman you knew about stand your ground when you pulled the trigger. You intended to use this as a defense didn't you."

Looking back this is probably why the defense attorney waived the immunity hearing. It was a masterful use of strategy. Now the prosecution just looks like it has so little it has to resort to deliberate confusion.

 

[Ravi]

It doesn't matter if the state brings in 10,000 witnesses that Zimmerman started the fight if Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman.

Of course it matters. If Z started the fight Martin had every right to defend himself.

And if M started the fight then Zimmerman has every right to defend himself.

Yes. Except Z was following Martin and in reality made his own bad situation.

 

[SantaFeWay]

If Sybrina Fulton is supposed to be the final prosecution witness, I think it would have been a better tactic to call her tonight and let the jury keep her testimony on their minds for the next day and a half. If they call her, it will be on Friday just before they rest. Then the defense witnesses will be on jurors' minds all weekend.

This prosecution is a joke!

Is Pam Bondi Angela Corey's boss?

 

[The Rabbi]

Simple enough question , if, as you claim, he can not use self defense as a means to avoid manslaughter, then why is he USING it? Are you claiming his lawyer is incompetent?

Wow, you just make wicked jumps in logic. Who says that the lawyer is using the self defense as an absolute defense against manslaughter? He has to defend the murder charge first and foremost and of course the self defense is part of the equation.

^ Despite repeatedly having his ignorance exposed, Gatsby stubbornly persists in repeating his erroneous claim.

Let's set the record straight (again) for him and anyone who might otherwise be misled by his ignorant and erroneous claim:

In the Zimmerman trial, justification IS an absolute defense for the accused.

If the jury determines that Mr. Zimmerman was justified in his use of force, they will acquit him. Period.

IM, some people are just stuck on stupid. It does no good trying to teach him. He took law classes! Just ignore the git and move on.

 

[syrenn]

Of course it matters. If Z started the fight Martin had every right to defend himself.

And if M started the fight then Zimmerman has every right to defend himself.

Yes. Except Z was following Martin and in reality made his own bad situation.

and the 911 tapes clearly show zimmerman saying.

he lost him.

 

[The Rabbi]

The prosecution overcharged and they are living to regret it...they had political and social pressure to throw the book.

Manslaughter? Show negligence and let the jury decide

M2? You have to "prove" murder.

The two charges require a totally different approach to the trial. The evidence is not there for M2 and the states own witnesses are proving it.

Instead of there being a realistic shot at GZ serving some time for negligence, he will most likely get off. Personally? I think he should get off for M2? You have the state, who originally did not even arrest him now they are trying to prove murder going in direct contradiction with their own justification for not arresting and charging him in the first place. Sad sad sad.

Geexus. Another one. They charged appropriately. Murder 2. They had to do that because they could not show premeditation on Zimmerman's part AND there was no negligence involved. Zimmerman intentionally pulled the trigger. You cannot charge negligence for an intentional act.

The case should never have been brought. It is a waste of time and money. Their initial response to let Zimmerman go was correct. All of this was foisted on them, probably in part by the Holder Justice Dept.

 

[wharfrat]

If Sybrina Fulton is supposed to be the final prosecution witness, I think it would have been a better tactic to call her tonight and let the jury keep her testimony on their minds for the next day and a half. If they call her, it will be on Friday just before they rest. Then the defense witnesses will be on jurors' minds all weekend.

This prosecution is a joke!

Is Pam Bondi Angela Corey's boss?

The State completely blew the order...if they bring Ms. Fulton tonight, then they present her after a complete afternoon of verbal Valium; if they wait, then you have the problem you have alluded to.

A comedy of errors, really.

 

[Sarah G]

I am hearing on TV that the little stunt the prosecution tried to pull accusing and proving Zimmerman that he lied about stand your ground is mere semantics. Since this case isn't about stand your ground, but one of self-defense, the prosecution seems to be floundering.

It proves that he is lying. They played that Hannity interview, and it was a long one, right in court. He actually laughed and said he had never heard of stand your ground. He must be fabricating other things in his version of events.

It would be important if he was using stand your ground as a defense but he's not. Other than that it's just something he wasn't thinking about at the time. If legal procedure was something he dealt with every day he might have remembered better.

There is just no way the prosecution can say "Mr. Zimmerman you knew about stand your ground when you pulled the trigger. You intended to use this as a defense didn't you."

Looking back this is probably why the defense attorney waived the immunity hearing. It was a masterful use of strategy. Now the prosecution just looks like it has so little it has to resort to deliberate confusion.

I think they brought it up to show that he actually is more knowledgeable than he lets on about stand your ground and also that he lied in the interview.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He's claiming self-defense therefore the burden is on him to prove it was self-defense.

The burden in a criminal case is always on the state, not the defendant. The state has to prove that what Zimmerman did was with malice and a depraved mind to prove murder, good luck with that when everything the state puts on actually corroborates Zimmerman.

Wrong. When claiming self-defense the defendant must prove self-defense. That's the way the law works.

Not in Florida, New York, Washington, or even federal court. All self defense is an argument that any reasonable person would have reacted the same way, the state still has to prove that what you did was not reasonable. The only time there is a burden on a defendant is if they claim self defense under the battered woman theory where their life was not in immediate danger.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

You know what's odd, and it's quite possible that the prosecution will absolutely blow this trial just like Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden did at the OJ Simpson trial when they asked OJ to pull that shriveled golf glove onto his hand, but this is my point:

This is what an abrasion looks like if your skin is dragged across a surface like a cement sidewalk:

Zimmerman had two 3/4" cuts on the back of his head that didn't require sutures. And even looks like he could have reached around with a razor and done it himself. Now....who would ever think to wound themselves in the aftermath of shooting somebody without any proof that it was self defense?

Well, besides someone who was charged with assault on a police officer in 2005?

Are you saying this is the standard? Once you have injuries that resemble the above you can shoot?

Please quote the Florida Statute where that appears because I must have missed it the numerous times I've read the law.

You are missing my point.

Those prosecutors need a couple of ER docs as expert witnesses to show how injuries are sustained. They see people every day who have been beat up in fights and know the difference between a wound made by a cut as opposed to skin being abraded by concrete.

 

[Sallow]

and again... we have a witness of marting on top of zimmerman.


it all depends on who you want to believe and what versions of events you want to believe, ravi.

So you believe that if you start a fight..and start losing, you have the right to kill the person beating you up?

That is what the law says everywhere in the world, why should it be different just because you have a problem with it?

Well no..it doesn't.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It proves that he is lying. They played that Hannity interview, and it was a long one, right in court. He actually laughed and said he had never heard of stand your ground. He must be fabricating other things in his version of events.

It would be important if he was using stand your ground as a defense but he's not. Other than that it's just something he wasn't thinking about at the time. If legal procedure was something he dealt with every day he might have remembered better.

There is just no way the prosecution can say "Mr. Zimmerman you knew about stand your ground when you pulled the trigger. You intended to use this as a defense didn't you."

Looking back this is probably why the defense attorney waived the immunity hearing. It was a masterful use of strategy. Now the prosecution just looks like it has so little it has to resort to deliberate confusion.

I think they brought it up to show that he actually is more knowledgeable than he lets on about stand your ground and also that he lied in the interview.

You are purposefully making shit up Sarah! I can see right through you little charade. The evidence points in a completely different direction that from what you are asserting!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Martin wasn't armed.

That is irrelevant, all that is relevant is if Zimmerman thought he was going to be hurt or killed when he acted. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It not irrelevant at all.

Because we are talking about Zimmerman's mindset.

And if his actions were justified.

Thus far, the evidence is showing that Zimmerman was not in danger of losing his life.

The extent of injuries is irrelevent unless you can prove that Zimmerman had the training and the presence of mind to evaluate his injuries while getting the crap beaten out of him. Frankly, you have a better chance of proving he is actually Batman.