The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Vox]

Getting really tired of all this race talk. Haven't we intermingled enough that we are all just Americans yet? Sure would be nice.

Ask the MSM media not to lie and not to propel race for their agenda and some here not to defend them in their lies - and all will be nice and peachy

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What evidence points to Zimmerman's nose being broken?

I mean hard evidence.

X-Rays.

A physical examination that's "deeper" than just looking at a picture.

Anyone even check it?

I am not the one that said his nose was broken, your problem is with the guy that is on your side, not me.

The question was simple.

Is there any hard evidence that Zimmerman's nose was broken?

A physical exam?

An X-Ray?

The answer is even simpler, I didn't say it was. I asked another person who made that claim to explain how it fit into his theory of the case.

 

[paulitician]

Project much? Just because you follow everything the President says and found GZ guilty in your heart based on the Presidents speech, does not mean everyone else did.

Many do. Too many do. It was very unwise. His comments made it very difficult for Zimmerman to receive a fair trial. But that's not the only reason. The MSM declaring him "Evil White Man" was the final nail. We're all entitled to a fair trial.

Who are these many that do?

Again, project much? Why do you believe anything the msm makes up?

"Who are these many that do?" Seriously? Ok, i can see this discussion is going nowhere. Ignorance really is bliss. Have a nice Sunday. See ya.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Heads can be held forcefully between the hands of an attacker. Indeed, this easy task can be even easier if the one getting his head knocked into the pavement has just suffered a broken nose.

Fingernails digging into flesh is not required.

Sallow's "problem" is with the physical and documented (including photographic) evidence. And his problem is with what is (and what is not) needed to diagnose a broken nose.

Tests and diagnosis
By Mayo Clinic staff

Your doctor may press gently on the outside of your nose and its surrounding areas. He or she may look inside your nasal passage to check for obstruction and further signs of broken bones. Your doctor may use anesthetics — either a nasal spray or local injections — to make you more comfortable during the exam.

X-rays and other imaging studies are usually unnecessary. * * * *

-- Broken nose: Tests and diagnosis - MayoClinic.com

 

[Sallow]

Is it normal, for you, to hold an object that you intend to hit against something in such a way that your hand is between the object and the impact area? If so, can I please watch the next time you pick up a hammer to pound a nail?

Zimmerman's own testimony was that Martin "grabbed" his head and pounded it into the concrete.

Okay? How was that accomplished? Where did Martin "grab" his head?

Why were the injuries so light if that's what he did?

Hate to burst your bubble, but Zimmerman has not testified to a damn thing. If you cannot grasp that fundamental fact, why should I believe that you can make the complicated effort to actually weigh the evidence?

My bad.

His statement to police..

And THAT IS part of the evidence.

 

[Sallow]

Heads can be held forcefully between the hands of an attacker. Indeed, this easy task can be even easier if the one getting his head knocked into the pavement has just suffered a broken nose.

Fingernails digging into flesh is not required.

Sallow's "problem" is with the physical and documented (including photographic) evidence. And his problem is with what is (and what is not) needed to diagnose a broken nose.

Tests and diagnosis
By Mayo Clinic staff

Your doctor may press gently on the outside of your nose and its surrounding areas. He or she may look inside your nasal passage to check for obstruction and further signs of broken bones. Your doctor may use anesthetics — either a nasal spray or local injections — to make you more comfortable during the exam.

X-rays and other imaging studies are usually unnecessary. * * * *

-- Broken nose: Tests and diagnosis - MayoClinic.com

So it's your contention that Zimmerman's injuries, what you know up to this point, were life threatening, right?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

What evidence points to Zimmerman's nose being broken?

I mean hard evidence.

X-Rays.

A physical examination that's "deeper" than just looking at a picture.

Anyone even check it?

They have the doctor's diagnosis. SEE: George Zimmerman Medical Report Sheds Light on Injuries After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News

They have the photograph which appears to confirm it.

That is hard evidence.

X-rays not required (and as I have noted earlier, not even all that useful in diagnosis in many cases -- such is the case with broken noses).

YOUR belief in his nose having been broken is not required.

Has this been entered into evidence?

Usually, the defense can not enter "stuff" into evidence until it's their case. The State has to rest first. The State finally did and the defense did not put on anyone yet except GZ's mom and his uncle Jorge.

While the State DID enter lots of the defense case into evidence, I don't think they entered into evidence the medical diagnosis for the defendant.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What evidence points to Zimmerman's nose being broken?

I mean hard evidence.

X-Rays.

A physical examination that's "deeper" than just looking at a picture.

Anyone even check it?

I am not the one that said his nose was broken, your problem is with the guy that is on your side, not me.

The question was simple.

Is there any hard evidence that Zimmerman's nose was broken?

A physical exam?

An X-Ray?

It's pretty obvious. And took me all of thirty seconds.

http://images.christianpost.com/full/56944/george-zimmerman-broken-nose.jpg?w=262

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/files/2012/12/510218023_image_1024w.jpg

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Heads can be held forcefully between the hands of an attacker. Indeed, this easy task can be even easier if the one getting his head knocked into the pavement has just suffered a broken nose.

Fingernails digging into flesh is not required.

Sallow's "problem" is with the physical and documented (including photographic) evidence. And his problem is with what is (and what is not) needed to diagnose a broken nose.

Tests and diagnosis
By Mayo Clinic staff

Your doctor may press gently on the outside of your nose and its surrounding areas. He or she may look inside your nasal passage to check for obstruction and further signs of broken bones. Your doctor may use anesthetics — either a nasal spray or local injections — to make you more comfortable during the exam.

X-rays and other imaging studies are usually unnecessary. * * * *

-- Broken nose: Tests and diagnosis - MayoClinic.com

So it's your contention that Zimmerman's injuries, what you know up to this point, were life threatening, right?

Nope. As I have repeatedly tried to tell you (and others) the defense has exactly NO BURDEN WHATSOEVER to show that any injury was life threatening.

That is not a requirement of the justification defense. Never was and still isn't.

 

[Sallow]

They have the doctor's diagnosis. SEE: George Zimmerman Medical Report Sheds Light on Injuries After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News

They have the photograph which appears to confirm it.

That is hard evidence.

X-rays not required (and as I have noted earlier, not even all that useful in diagnosis in many cases -- such is the case with broken noses).

YOUR belief in his nose having been broken is not required.

Has this been entered into evidence?

Usually, the defense can not enter "stuff" into evidence until it's their case. The State has to rest first. The State finally did and the defense did not put on anyone yet except GZ's mom and his uncle Jorge.

While the State DID enter lots of the defense case into evidence, I don't think they entered into evidence the medical diagnosis for the defendant.

Well..I would expect them to enter this into evidence.

Do you?

 

[Sallow]

Heads can be held forcefully between the hands of an attacker. Indeed, this easy task can be even easier if the one getting his head knocked into the pavement has just suffered a broken nose.

Fingernails digging into flesh is not required.

Sallow's "problem" is with the physical and documented (including photographic) evidence. And his problem is with what is (and what is not) needed to diagnose a broken nose. -- Broken nose: Tests and diagnosis - MayoClinic.com

So it's your contention that Zimmerman's injuries, what you know up to this point, were life threatening, right?

Nope. As I have repeatedly tried to tell you (and others) the defense has exactly NO BURDEN WHATSOEVER to show that any injury was life threatening.

That is not a requirement of the justification defense. Never was and still isn't.

First off..yeah..he does have a burden to show why he thought it was reasonable to kill an unarmed human being not involved in criminal activity.

This is not self defense..per se..this is murder.

 

[JQPublic1]

Who cares if anybody saw it?

You can't be serious! If you are serious the pathology that characterizes your thinking surpasses even that of Zimmerman.

GZ spoke of it and has some injuries to the back of his head that tends to corroborate his account.

So, his account of the incident should be unquestioned? You barbarian, where is your civility today!

And I have no idea why anybody even pretends to care about no DNA under the nails. Completely irrelevant. Who would even EXPECT to find GZ's skin under TM's nails? That wouldn't be consistent with the account given by GZ, in fact.

Blood is DNA evidence. Z was allegedly bleeding profusely from both the back of his head and from his nose. He said Martin was pounding his (Z's) head against concrete. That statement seems to be inconsistent with the lack of blood on Martin's hands ( including under his fingernails). Martin would have had to grab Z's bloody head to repeatedly bang it on the ground as claimed. The lack of DNA on Martin's hands does NOT support Z's account.

There is not a thing in the evidence that undermines GZ's account that TM was on top and that TM was doing the old pound and ground. That is just a fact: not a thing in the record. And that's a problem for the State since the State has the obligation to disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, Martin was unarmed so he was Standing His Ground with his fists against a man who was threatening him. Or does that law only apply to "fair skinned" people with guns?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So it's your contention that Zimmerman's injuries, what you know up to this point, were life threatening, right?

Nope. As I have repeatedly tried to tell you (and others) the defense has exactly NO BURDEN WHATSOEVER to show that any injury was life threatening.

That is not a requirement of the justification defense. Never was and still isn't.

That's up a jury.

No. It's not. It is a matter of law. The judge will TELL the jury as much. The jury will NEVER ever be told that the injuries on Zimmerman needed to BE life threatening. Such an instruction would be erroneous, in fact.

What the defense has to do is demonstrate enough evidence to show the jury that a defendant reasonably felt that his life was in danger or that he was facing the risk of serious physical injury.

 

[Sunshine]

Bernie makes George's mom subject to recall. He just doesn't want the jury to see them support their son.

She might want to give some thought to staying off Twitter for a while.

I haven't seen George's mom using twitter, facebook, or any of that stuff.

It's little Tampon's mother doing that.

My bad. I was thinking TM.

 

[Synthaholic]

if you are siting on top of someone and you punch them in the face.... their head will hit the ground. Same with a ***** slap.

so nothing would be under martins fingernails now would it? You get dna under the victims nails since it is a defensive move.

You desperately want that to be so.

Why are you so invested in the outcome of this trial?

 

[asaratis]

Getting really tired of all this race talk. Haven't we intermingled enough that we are all just Americans yet? Sure would be nice.

Ask the MSM media not to lie and not to propel race for their agenda and some here not to defend them in their lies - and all will be nice and peachy

Try pissing against the wind!

 

[Sallow]

Nope. As I have repeatedly tried to tell you (and others) the defense has exactly NO BURDEN WHATSOEVER to show that any injury was life threatening.

That is not a requirement of the justification defense. Never was and still isn't.

That's up a jury.

No. It's not. It is a matter of law. The judge will TELL the jury as much. The jury will NEVER ever be told that the injuries on Zimmerman needed to BE life threatening. Such an instruction would be erroneous, in fact.

What the defense has to do is demonstrate enough evidence to show the jury that a defendant reasonably felt that his life was in danger or that he was facing the risk of serious physical injury.

And..by the evidence..it seems that:

A. Zimmerman instigated the fight.
B. He was not in danger at any time. None of his injuries were life threatening. The fight itself was very short. And the police arrived 15 seconds after Martin was killed.

 

[Sunshine]

Yep, an illiterate crazy ass cracker. Nothing gets past you haters

My side is not the one who killed somebody, hillbilly.

"My side"

No sense in having any disillusion of non bias, open mindedness or thinking skills. Just change your sig to Team Tampon and let's be done with it.

He has always wanted to be white, uptight, and outta sight! That would definitely give him his wish.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Besides (N)Obama, the Judge is clearly in the tank for the prosecution. Not unusual, and has been discussed here yesterday, but many of her rulings have been unduly prejudicial to the defense, I feel.

Two off the top of my head...1) allowing in "profiling" and "wannabe cop" into openings, and 2) disallowing GZ's family to be present in court to support their son. The limited testimony they were on witness lists for did not warrant their ban. And the P never even called them. Again, been discussed, but still not a fair Judge-ment call.

how about “the dead man cannot stand Fact ”

vital testimony

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Who cares if anybody saw it?

You can't be serious!

No. YOU are simply and totally wrong, which comes as no surprise. Not only AM I serious, I am also correct.

It is very often the case in a trial involving the claim of "justification" that the only two people who could testify before a jury are the victim (who can't because he's dead) and the defendant himself who managed to survive. Therefore, it is not surprising that nobody else may have SEEN the incident and it isn't necessary.

It might be helpful to a defendant if there WERE witnesses to corroborate his account. But it is not a needed legal element.

Your ignorance continues unabated.

* * * *

So, his account of the incident should be unquestioned? * * * *

I also never said that, you incredibly dense laughable moron. In fact, it is the JOB of the prosecutor to question it. Have a blast. But that does not mean he will be able to do so effectively. He might just find that nobody else alive on planet Earth today can coherently undermine GZ's account. Tough luck. Mr. Prosecutor, it's YOUR burden of proof. Live with it.

And I have no idea why anybody even pretends to care about no DNA under the nails. Completely irrelevant. Who would even EXPECT to find GZ's skin under TM's nails? That wouldn't be consistent with the account given by GZ, in fact.

Blood is DNA evidence.

No. It isn't. Blood evidence is BLOOD evidence. DNA analysis of blood often yields DNA evidence, but they are not synonymous you abysmally ignorant twit.

Z was allegedly bleeding profusely from both the back of his head and from his nose. He said Martin was pounding his (Z's) head against concrete. That statement seems to be inconsistent with the lack of blood on Martin's hands ( including under his fingernails).

Not even a little. Only one as mindless as you would "expect" to find anything under TM's fingernails.

Martin would have had to grab Z's bloody head to repeatedly bang it on the ground as claimed.

Yeah. And?

The lack of DNA on Martin's hands does NOT support Z's account.

No. It does not. But it also doesn't serve to undermine it either. You can pick up a recently polished handgun and shoot it and not leave a fingerprint. You can break a guy's nose and then grab his head and not get his blood on your hands, too.

There is not a thing in the evidence that undermines GZ's account that TM was on top and that TM was doing the old pound and ground. That is just a fact: not a thing in the record. And that's a problem for the State since the State has the obligation to disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, Martin was unarmed so he was Standing His Ground with his fists against a man who was threatening him. Or does that law only apply to "fair skinned" people with guns?

Again with this stupid "stand your ground" bullshit. It has NO applicability to this case. Not for TM and not for GZ. I cannot help undo your ignorance. It is something you hold too close.