The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Sallow]

If I shot every guy that I ever got in scrap with their would be a lot of dead people..and their would be a lot of hurting families and fatherless children...this loser did not think he was going to be beaten to death..he ended up on the losing end of a fist fight he appears to have instigated and killed someone over it..

Exactly.

 

[wharfrat]

The defense hasn't had their turn yet. It's still the prosecution presenting their case.

Stupid, tricky trial procedure. It's almost too complicated to bear.

Tricky? Complicated? Not in the least. All I see is standard rules of criminal procedure. I have seen NOTHING out of the ordinary. Well, except for the fact that the prosecution witnesses corroborate everything that Zimmerman said happened, including the brother. The prosecution simply doesn't have a case, and the witnesses aren't going to perjur themselves to make it look like they do. The media was speculating yesterday that the prosecution should 'rest' in order to blow it all over the prosecution. But they didn't and won't until they get that mother up there on the stand.

Egypt has overthrown a theocracy. The brother testified favorably for Zimmerman. Twice in one day, my faith in humans has been restored. No, make that 3 and add when, contrary to the racist element on this forum, our own High_Gravity said he had a life to live and no time to riot if the verdict was not favorable to the prosecution. But then HG is a really great guy who thinks for himself and has earned the respect of the forum.

Apparently, the sarcasm was lost on you; my apologies. I agree that criminal procedure isn't difficult to grasp or understand. I made that comment in response to Snookie, who felt the defense was putting on a boring case. Which in essence means Snookie actually feels the prosecution is boring us all to tears.

The media was speculating that the prosecution would rest soon because the judge, soon after yesterday's lunch, specifically stated she was interested to determine how much longer the State would take to finish, and apparently the State had informed her it wouldn't be much longer. I don't doubt one bit that the mother will be presented; most likely Friday.

 

[Sallow]

You really don't get it, do you? The police are never hostile to the state, the fact that the state is treating their own witnesses, called to make their case, like they are cross examining defense witnesses proves how stupid their case is.

Um..Bill Lee resigned for a bit.

And the Sanford police were treated, and rightly so, like keystone cops.

They can't be happy with that.

Bill Lee was fired, did he testify at the trial?

It sort of kiboshes your "cops are never hostile to the state" meme.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, I saw it on the news, plus anytime you Google it, you're gonna find a lot of places where friends of Zimmerman state that Trayvon tried to grab the gun.

Sorry.................but Zimmerman went way beyond the "stand your ground" laws and killed someone.

I hope he burns for it.

I am certain you can supply the "lot of places" where Zimmerman said that Trayvon grabbed the gun.

Oops, even you are backpedaling now to say "Trayvon tried to grab the gun." Which isn't the same thing, you dishonest little **********.

Nope.............Zimmerman said while he was on the stand that Trayvon tried to grab his gun which is why Zimmerman shot him.

Like I said.........................Google it and you'll see, only problem is that you're going to have to wade through a couple of pages where others have stated that Zimmerman said Trayvon grabbed the gun, but of course, they're only blog pages.

Zimmerman said it while he was being interviewed on FOX News, and also said it while he was on the stand. Matter of fact, it's supposedly one of the cornerstones that his defense is built on.

Trayvon never grabbed the gun, as well as never placed his hand over Zimmerman's nose and mouth (again, as he claimed in the courtroom), because the DNA evidence says otherwise.

Like I said.................I hope Zimmerman burns for at least 5 years in GP.

Yes, Zimmerman said Trayvon *tried* to grab the gun. That is not the same thing as saying Trayvon grabbed the gun. You understand the difference, right? So no surprise that T's DNA was not on the gun since he never touched it.

 

[The Rabbi]

This has to be the dumbest statement I have ever seen on a message board:

Rabbi said:

I showed that your statements were illogical and did not contradict mine.

Lord...forum dummie. Now I know...lol.

I thought you had me on ignore. That went fast.

You, like your boyfriend BikerSailor, think the fact that there was no DNA from Trayvon on the gun means Zimmerman is a liar because he testified that Trayvon grabbed the gun.
Except Zimmerman did not testify Trayvon grabbed the gun. He testified Trayvon grabbed FOR the gun. Not the same thing. That Zimmerman's friend testified differently is not really relevant here. He might have mis heard. He might have misinterpreted. That happens all the time.

So your lack of reading and comprehension skills shows you up for the uncritical dolt you are. And a loser of continental proportions.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I agree with you the states case is horrid...and yes...their witnesses have helped the defense for the most part. The state has overcharged and increased their burden of proof to actual murder...bad move. However, the lesser charge of manslaughter is in the instructions and that only takes showing negligence, which is a different issue.

It actually is what a juror feels like...they can have beyond a reasonable doubt and they dont have to explain why. This is why I actually have a problem with our system...the jurors have a lot of leeway..actually endless leeway as to what constitutes reasonable doubt to them. Im simply saying that presented correctly, his inconsistent statements could effect that...he can say, but they dont have to believe it...and one inconsistency leads to another to another as we are kind of seeing here.

If they pull it altogether in closing...he could be in trouble.

It takes one juror to hang it...if it gets hung...the state will drop the charge to manslaughter and lower their burden, imo. They will say they tried the M2 and we want to get at least something. This is what serino wanted to do in the first place and he pointed to negligence in several areas.

if zimmerman wins self defense

the is no lessor charge of manslaughter

Well yeah...if he wins...he wins.

But...they could drop the M2 in deliberations and find negligence and go with manslaughter.

In other words.

M2...not guilty...manslaughter...guilty.

if it is self defense he walks on it all

however if it is not self defense

and no ill will

then they could go manslaughter

if they find ill will

then it is M2

 

[The Rabbi]

Martin was not trespassing on private property as he was an invitee by his father.
Zimmerman never stalked Martin.

Zimmerman first told the 911 guy that he would meet the police at the mailboxes then changed his mind and said have them call me and I will tell them where I am.

To me, that says he intended to follow Treyvon. He took two flashlights and a loaded gun.

He stalked him alright.

He didnt take two flashlights and a loaded gun. He had them on him. I have a loaded gun and flashlight on me whenever I leave the house. Am I stalking people?
Your opinion of what Zimmerman's motives were is mere speculation on your part, driven by racism against Hispanics.

 

[RKMBrown]

if zimmerman wins self defense

the is no lessor charge of manslaughter

Well yeah...if he wins...he wins.

But...they could drop the M2 in deliberations and find negligence and go with manslaughter.

In other words.

M2...not guilty...manslaughter...guilty.

if it is self defense he walks on it all

however if it is not self defense

and no ill will

then they could go manslaughter

if they find ill will

then it is M2

Did you just make that up or can you back it up with facts?

 

[25Caliber]

I am certain you can supply the "lot of places" where Zimmerman said that Trayvon grabbed the gun.

Oops, even you are backpedaling now to say "Trayvon tried to grab the gun." Which isn't the same thing, you dishonest little **********.

Nope.............Zimmerman said while he was on the stand that Trayvon tried to grab his gun which is why Zimmerman shot him.

Like I said.........................Google it and you'll see, only problem is that you're going to have to wade through a couple of pages where others have stated that Zimmerman said Trayvon grabbed the gun, but of course, they're only blog pages.

Zimmerman said it while he was being interviewed on FOX News, and also said it while he was on the stand. Matter of fact, it's supposedly one of the cornerstones that his defense is built on.

Trayvon never grabbed the gun, as well as never placed his hand over Zimmerman's nose and mouth (again, as he claimed in the courtroom), because the DNA evidence says otherwise.

Like I said.................I hope Zimmerman burns for at least 5 years in GP.

Yes, Zimmerman said Trayvon *tried* to grab the gun. That is not the same thing as saying Trayvon grabbed the gun. You understand the difference, right? So no surprise that T's DNA was not on the gun since he never touched it.

What part of his best friend (mark osterman) testifying that Zimmerman said that Trayvon GRABBED the gun...again...GRABBED the gun and that he had to pry it out of his hands are you not understanding?

He also wrote about it in detail in his book? Did you watch the testimony?...did you read the link and the quote from the link?...it is clear that according to the friend Zimmerman told him that trayvon grabbed the gun...that is INCONSISTENT with his statement to police.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope.............Zimmerman said while he was on the stand that Trayvon tried to grab his gun which is why Zimmerman shot him.

Like I said.........................Google it and you'll see, only problem is that you're going to have to wade through a couple of pages where others have stated that Zimmerman said Trayvon grabbed the gun, but of course, they're only blog pages.

Zimmerman said it while he was being interviewed on FOX News, and also said it while he was on the stand. Matter of fact, it's supposedly one of the cornerstones that his defense is built on.

Trayvon never grabbed the gun, as well as never placed his hand over Zimmerman's nose and mouth (again, as he claimed in the courtroom), because the DNA evidence says otherwise.

Like I said.................I hope Zimmerman burns for at least 5 years in GP.

Yes, Zimmerman said Trayvon *tried* to grab the gun. That is not the same thing as saying Trayvon grabbed the gun. You understand the difference, right? So no surprise that T's DNA was not on the gun since he never touched it.

What part of his best friend (mark osterman) testifying that Zimmerman said that Trayvon GRABBED the gun...again...GRABBED the gun and that he had to pry it out of his hands are you not understanding?

He also wrote about it in detail in his book? Did you watch the testimony?...did you read the link and the quote from the link?...it is clear that according to the friend Zimmerman told him that trayvon grabbed the gun...that is INCONSISTENT with his statement to police.

Yes. What Zimmerman's friend said is not the same thing as what Zimmerman said. Which is more trustworthy: the direct statement of the person there or someone who claims to have heard it from that person?
QED.
You are a moron and a half poured into a sack full of shit.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I am certain you can supply the "lot of places" where Zimmerman said that Trayvon grabbed the gun.

Oops, even you are backpedaling now to say "Trayvon tried to grab the gun." Which isn't the same thing, you dishonest little **********.

Nope.............Zimmerman said while he was on the stand that Trayvon tried to grab his gun which is why Zimmerman shot him.

Like I said.........................Google it and you'll see, only problem is that you're going to have to wade through a couple of pages where others have stated that Zimmerman said Trayvon grabbed the gun, but of course, they're only blog pages.

Zimmerman said it while he was being interviewed on FOX News, and also said it while he was on the stand. Matter of fact, it's supposedly one of the cornerstones that his defense is built on.

Trayvon never grabbed the gun, as well as never placed his hand over Zimmerman's nose and mouth (again, as he claimed in the courtroom), because the DNA evidence says otherwise.

Like I said.................I hope Zimmerman burns for at least 5 years in GP.

Yes, Zimmerman said Trayvon *tried* to grab the gun. That is not the same thing as saying Trayvon grabbed the gun. You understand the difference, right? So no surprise that T's DNA was not on the gun since he never touched it.

lack of DNA does not prove that martin did not touch the gun

many factors including poor collection cause that

 

[25Caliber]

This has to be the dumbest statement I have ever seen on a message board:

Rabbi said:

I showed that your statements were illogical and did not contradict mine.

Lord...forum dummie. Now I know...lol.

I thought you had me on ignore. That went fast.

You, like your boyfriend BikerSailor, think the fact that there was no DNA from Trayvon on the gun means Zimmerman is a liar because he testified that Trayvon grabbed the gun.
Except Zimmerman did not testify Trayvon grabbed the gun. He testified Trayvon grabbed FOR the gun. Not the same thing. That Zimmerman's friend testified differently is not really relevant here. He might have mis heard. He might have misinterpreted. That happens all the time.

So your lack of reading and comprehension skills shows you up for the uncritical dolt you are. And a loser of continental proportions.

I dont know him actually...I make my own statements and only stand by my own statements not his. But nice deflection.

You said that GZ never said he grabbed the gun...I showed that he did say it...TO HIS BEST FRIEND WHO TESTIFIED TO IT.

So move on...you were wrong...it happens.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So would you and I go to trial because we disagree and we want to get to the truth? You all are really minimizing the fact that he did kill that kid. Spin, spin, spin..

Are you minimizing the fact that Zimmerman acted in self defense?

Spin

Spin

Spin

Bluuuuarrgh!

Would it be self defense if there was a bully who bullied a kid, tormented, day in and day out and finally the kid gave him a kicking he deserved and the bully shot him right between the eyes. Self defense. Right?

Uhh, what? Where have they proved he "bullied" him? I think that hamster running the show in that head of yours went on strike...

 

[jon_berzerk]

Well yeah...if he wins...he wins.

But...they could drop the M2 in deliberations and find negligence and go with manslaughter.

In other words.

M2...not guilty...manslaughter...guilty.

if it is self defense he walks on it all

however if it is not self defense

and no ill will

then they could go manslaughter

if they find ill will

then it is M2

Did you just make that up or can you back it up with facts?

if it is ruled self defense

he walks on all of it

go read the Florida statues

 

[paulitician]

Zimmerman has not received a fair trial. His rights have been violated. That happened the day the U.S. President weighed in, and the corrupt MSM declared him 'Evil White Man.' If he's found guilty, he'll have an excellent chance on appeal. We are all guaranteed a fair trial. It's one of our sacred rights. And that clearly has not happened in this case. It's a real injustice.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Would it be self defense if there was a bully who bullied a kid, tormented, day in and day out and finally the kid gave him a kicking he deserved and the bully shot him right between the eyes. Self defense. Right?

What does that scenario have to do with the facts in this case?
Anyone can make up any scenario in an attempt to match it to what they want to see happen.
What you stated above is not what happened in this case. They DID NOT KNOW EACH OTHER AND HAD NEVER MET.
And if Zimmerman bullied Martin and never touched him then Martin HAS NO RIGHT TO PUT HIS HANDS ON HIM.
And if he does then under Florida law Zimmerman is justified legally to shoot him.
Right, that is self defense.
Your example is 100% hypothetical nothing close to the reality of what happened in this case.
Right?

Right. Just wanted to know about self defense.

I punch you in the face, and I continue punching you in the face (although you're armed) then I back you up into a corner and start ramming your head into the wall. What would you do? You can't go on forever, you're in danger! Would you:

A) Submit, and continue to be beaten to death.

Or

B) Shoot me, to defend yourself.

 

[Sarah G]

You mean besides this, right?

Both injuries are minor.

No they aren't. The man has had a weight gain this past year consistent with hitting damage to the skull. People with that kind of an injury are candidates for early onset dementia, personality change, etc. The blood pattern is consistent with having his head being hit on concrete that has an edge to it, such as the edge of a sidewalk or curb, pebbles on the concrete, or whatever.

What happened to Zimmerman was horrific. His response was to save himself, because he thought he was being hit so hard he could die. Especially when the guy says something to the effect of the other person is going to die.

Don't think so, HaHa.. He's just a fatass. I read somewhere he isn't working out anymore, he is very depressed (probably because he murdered a kid) and he eats too much.

Glad he has enough to eat..

 

[paulitician]

Zimmerman has not received a fair trial. His rights have been violated. He has already been found guilty. That happened the day the U.S. President weighed in, and the corrupt MSM declared him 'Evil White Man.' If found guilty, he has a good chance on appeal. We are all entitled to a fair trial. It's our sacred right. This is just an ugly show-trial at this point. It's a shameful injustice.

 

[25Caliber]

if zimmerman wins self defense

the is no lessor charge of manslaughter

Well yeah...if he wins...he wins.

But...they could drop the M2 in deliberations and find negligence and go with manslaughter.

In other words.

M2...not guilty...manslaughter...guilty.

if it is self defense he walks on it all

however if it is not self defense

and no ill will

then they could go manslaughter

if they find ill will

then it is M2

you are right on everything but the first one, imo....they could very well in deliberations find that he was in fear of severe injury and defended himself thus eliminating M2, but still negligent and guilty of manslaughter.

Its not an all or nothing...thats why there are lesser charges included.

Now if they find that he rightly acted in self defense and was not negligent...then he walks free and clear...one or the other? And he will be found guilty of either M2 (not likely at all...no way they give him M2...I wouldnt) or manslaughter.

 

[The Rabbi]

This has to be the dumbest statement I have ever seen on a message board:

Rabbi said:

I showed that your statements were illogical and did not contradict mine.

Lord...forum dummie. Now I know...lol.

I thought you had me on ignore. That went fast.

You, like your boyfriend BikerSailor, think the fact that there was no DNA from Trayvon on the gun means Zimmerman is a liar because he testified that Trayvon grabbed the gun.
Except Zimmerman did not testify Trayvon grabbed the gun. He testified Trayvon grabbed FOR the gun. Not the same thing. That Zimmerman's friend testified differently is not really relevant here. He might have mis heard. He might have misinterpreted. That happens all the time.

So your lack of reading and comprehension skills shows you up for the uncritical dolt you are. And a loser of continental proportions.

I dont know him actually...I make my own statements and only stand by my own statements not his. But nice deflection.

You said that GZ never said he grabbed the gun...I showed that he did say it...TO HIS BEST FRIEND WHO TESTIFIED TO IT.

So move on...you were wrong...it happens.

You were there? You heard the conversation between Zimmerman and his friend?
No, of course not.

Again, which is more reliable: the testimony of the guy who was there or someone who claims he told him something?
The answer is obvious to anyone who isnt trying desperately to save face.