The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[25Caliber]

Trayvon was provoked...that much is obvious. He saw a gun during the struggle and continued the pounding...if he were here to defend himself in court, GZ would be going away for awhile. In fact, he might still, even with the lousy job the prosecution is doing...thats the way I see it. But then again, I hold no bias, therefore I can think clearly.

Didn't you just deny saying trayvon saw the gun and that is why he attacked? Make up your mind, which is it? And why didn't the prosecution make that claim at ALL?

Small caliber is so open minded he can entertain truth,falsehood, fantasy and fiction all at the same time and be unable to tell the difference!

This is what I mean...what does this add to the conversation outside of putting someone on the immediate defensive?

 

[Amelia]

under florida rules

the defense can not bring up those things about the victim

unless he/she knew the victim

they can however bring them up if a door to it was opened

The prosecution's witness sure opened that door. But the judge slammed it shut.

Do you mean Dr. Rao...the most inept and discreditable witness in the history of this trial?..the one who changes his opinion by the hour?

Bao. Whether he should be discredited or should be believed, he adds to the reasonable doubt which is key for Zimmerman's case.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

so is this the hope and change we all voted for in 2008?

 

[testarosa]

The lawyerees are probably going to jump me and add their lawyeree stuff. The defense does a prima facie of self defense or shows enough that it could be self defense, then the burden shifts to the state to prove that it was not self defense as well as their M2 charge.

Feel free to jump in with the lawyer talk.

 

[mudwhistle]

You know what is really amusing in all this? Seeing all you racist white people put in the position of defending a fat hispanic dude. lol

But I guess if you have to choose, you choose the lesser of the two evils, eh? The lighter skin?

Only a racist thinks like that.

It's your idea.....what does that say about you?


Right or wrong doesn't matter to you.....only skin color.

 

[Ernie S.]

The overall impression, even by many anti-Zimmerman media outlets, is that the prosecution has failed miserably to prove elements of the M2 charge. Since their side has rested, and the motion for dismissal of the charge(s) was well-argued by M O'M, I am shocked at the total lack of consideration Judge Nelson paid to those arguments.

Usually motion to dismiss is a standard motion at the end of the P case and it is merely a formality done to preserve the defendant's rights in the event of an appeal. But in this case that motion deserved more thought and weight given the prosecution's failure to present evidence to support the M2
charge. Where is evidence or testimony to prove depravity or disregard for human life? Nothing shown to even remotely prove that. Could the speed in which the Judge ruled on this motion be a basis for appeal? Or no, because she had the arguments in writing for review prior to them being presented in court?

I have more than one thought on why the judge wouldn't grant the acquittal, but I'll only give one. The main reason, for me, is that she did not want to be the one to say Z acted in self-defense, since she is fully aware of what has happened in her community since the political BS started over a year ago from this lynching; she didn't want to bear the burden of telling people Z within his rights.

So she's a coward and would rather the jury have targets on their backs when they acquit? I'm going to bet she is a registered Democrat

 

[Oldstyle]

Trayvon was provoked...that much is obvious. He saw a gun during the struggle and continued the pounding...if he were here to defend himself in court, GZ would be going away for awhile. In fact, he might still, even with the lousy job the prosecution is doing...thats the way I see it. But then again, I hold no bias, therefore I can think clearly.

Wrong. It is not obvious; and there is no evidence that it is even likely.

We don't know that TM ever saw the gun, either.

If you believe GZs words, then you have to believe that the gun was exposed after they were on the ground. GZ said so... and that they were both going for it. If he were here to defend himself, that would be his reasoning to continue the punching. If you were defending him...wouldnt that be your approach?

Its obvious that Trayvon was provoked, imo, because he was followed in the dark and rain first in a truck and then on foot. Trayvon didnt follow him...he followed trayvon.

I would love to discuss this with you IM, because I think you have the smarts to hold a decent conversation even if we disagree...unfortunately, its almost impossible to do so in between the other Bs of a certain few with a lot of hate for some reason.

Ah, but there's the rub, 25! George Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin from a distance. Let's face it, George ISN'T a confrontational person. He's just not. He's rather meek actually. It's the way that he was described by witness after witness. George Zimmerman is not a tough guy...he's Barney Fife...not Charles Bronson.

The person who chose to force a confrontation was in fact Trayvon Martin. He was the one who made the decision to leave the safety of the condo where he was staying and walk BACK to brace the stranger who had been following him. He was the one who chose to come out of the darkness with the words "You got a problem?"...and he was the one who chose to punch George Zimmerman in the face. He was the one who chose to follow up that punch that knocked Zimmerman down by climbing on top of Zimmerman and raining blows down upon him. I find it hard to accept that someone "following" you from a distance should be such a "provocation" that it would excuse Martin's actions.

 

[JQPublic1]

Actually, they kinda do............................

Especially if the person they are slamming has a broken nose and is spewing blood all over the place (as GZ claimed).

Ever had a broken nose? 95 percent of the time, you spew like a geyser.

The other 5 percent of the time, at least you have a runner (which is a slight nosebleed).

I've never had a broken nose (and I've had at least 3) without some blood coming through.

Why was there none of GZ's DNA on Trayvon?

Ummmm, and this is merely a guess...Trayvon was on top of GZ and the last time I checked gravity wants to push things towards the center of the planet...not out into space.
That would explain the cut to the back of his head and the obviously messed up nose in the pictures.

Please note I don't approve of what GZ did, but you armchair CSI types are amusing as hell.
You ignore basic physics and believe whatever the CSI BS you watched last night. The real world works different from TV and you should take that into consideration. Real cases are messy and rarely go together easy. In fact good detectives are always suspicious when a case falls together easy because THAT isn't normal.

While I think DNA from Z would have been on M, I do not think it would have necessarily been under his nails.

Thank you for pointing out that simply believing that Z did not commit murder does not equate to approving of his actions. I, personally, think Z put himself into a dangerous situation needlessly. He could have easily let the police deal with the problem, if there even was a problem, but I think he was playing hero. That being said, it does not mean he ever expected the tide to turn in the manner it did.

By the way, why has no one mentioned the I-4 shooting from last week? Now that is apparently murder, but it seems to me that since they cannot play the race card everyone ignores it.

Mistaken identity, not road rage, led to I-4 shooting

Besides the fact that Trayvon lost his life, my sympathy resides with his parents and family. They have lost a loved one and if things play out as they could, they will feel as if justice let them down.

Immie

yes, it will suck to be you.

In that case, if GZ is acquitted it will suck to be any unarmed person who ventures into the night. It won't suck to be me because I am armed!

BTW, you did not answer my question... Why would a coward like GZ chase a "dangerous suspect" without having his gun out and ready when and if he caught up to him? Ignoring that question won't make it go away!

he never described martin as "dangerous"

or dont you understand the difference between dangerous and auspicious/out of place?


Nor was GZ chasing anyone.... he clearly says he "lost him" in the 911 tape.

I used quotes around the phrase "dangerous suspects" to inform intelligent people that I was being a bit facetious here. Sorry I mistook you for one of those intelligent people...it won't happen again! I still cannot imagine a fat slob like Z walkihg up to a suspicious person with no weapon at the ready!

What Zimmerman said immediately before and after he shot Martin is to be taken with a grain of salt!

 

[mudwhistle]

And your spin is ridiculous in light of the evidence. The victim WAS engaged in criminal behavior (pummeling the defendant) at the time that GZ allegedly found it necessary to defend himself.

Since when did neutralizing a stalking, armed menace become a criminal act? Martin was defending HIMSELF but lost the battle to do so when Z shot him. undoubtedly, Z was acting irrationally or Martin would never have responded at all and there would have been no confrontation. If YOU were Martin what would you have done if a strange person rapidly walked up to you and chased you , probably with a gun in his hand. Granted, Z probably never had the intent to shoot Martin initially and the gun was likely supposed to be for intimidation. At some point M and Z got close enough that a confrontation ensued. We can't take Z's word for anything that happened so we don't know when he pulled the gun or whether he had it out the whole time.We don't know what happened except what the physical evidence shows and the testimony of one person reflects.. And the possibility that evidence and witness testimony
might be flawed or tainted is fairly high.

I saw no evidence during the trial TM was defending himself. It's clear he was the aggressor.

If you listen to his parents' idiot lawyer nobody has a right to defend themselves once they open their mouth and somebody opens a can of whoopass.

The guy doesn't deserve to practice law. He's essentially condoning aggravated assault.

 

[wharfrat]

Well, which is it? Obviously the pros has the burden to prove M2. But...

As to self-defense, does the defense have the burden to prove that? Or does the prosecution have the burden to disprove it?

If self-defense is an affirmative defense, similar to a not guilty by reason of insanity plea, isn't the burden somewhat shifted onto the defense to prove that affirmative justification? Am I wrong on that?

Sorry if I'm opening up a sore subject. If so then....never mind. LOL

This is how it works in Florida, quoting from Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277:

But, with these additional facts, did he also incur a burden of proof identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value – other than they might be true? The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense.

You can read the entire case here: http://www.4dca.org/Sept 2006/09-13-06/4D05-3691.op.pdf

 

[25Caliber]

Wrong. It is not obvious; and there is no evidence that it is even likely.

We don't know that TM ever saw the gun, either.

If you believe GZs words, then you have to believe that the gun was exposed after they were on the ground. GZ said so... and that they were both going for it. If he were here to defend himself, that would be his reasoning to continue the punching. If you were defending him...wouldnt that be your approach?

Its obvious that Trayvon was provoked, imo, because he was followed in the dark and rain first in a truck and then on foot. Trayvon didnt follow him...he followed trayvon.

I would love to discuss this with you IM, because I think you have the smarts to hold a decent conversation even if we disagree...unfortunately, its almost impossible to do so in between the other Bs of a certain few with a lot of hate for some reason.

Ah, but there's the rub, 25! George Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin from a distance. Let's face it, George ISN'T a confrontational person. He's just not. He's rather meek actually. It's the way that he was described by witness after witness. George Zimmerman is not a tough guy...he's Barney Fife...not Charles Bronson.

The person who chose to force a confrontation was in fact Trayvon Martin. He was the one who made the decision to leave the safety of the condo where he was staying and walk BACK to brace the stranger who had been following him. He was the one who chose to come out of the darkness with the words "You got a problem?"...and he was the one who chose to punch George Zimmerman in the face. He was the one who chose to follow up that punch that knocked Zimmerman down by climbing on top of Zimmerman and raining blows down upon him. I find it hard to accept that someone "following" you from a distance should be such a "provocation" that it would excuse Martin's actions.

I agree with you...hes not a very intimidating character.

But once again, I think I have shown that we do not know for sure at all that he was back in the safety of his condo...I dont see any evidence that supports that. Certainly not DD...she said that she thought he was a couple of houses down.

I do think he went back to see if he was still being followed, but I dont think he came all the way back from his condo. If he did, then maybe the defense will call someone that was in the house that night to confim it...thus far there is no evidence to support it.

And torii hunter just hit a 3 run homer to tie in the 8th for my Tigers...yes!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

I've noticed that in almost every case if it's a black person talking about the case they want to ignore the evidence and simply get a conviction. They don't care about the facts. They absolutely ignore the facts. Race is everything them.

I'm curious how this effects the Hispanic community. I imagine alot of them are taking note.

 

[Zona]

The overall impression, even by many anti-Zimmerman media outlets, is that the prosecution has failed miserably to prove elements of the M2 charge. Since their side has rested, and the motion for dismissal of the charge(s) was well-argued by M O'M, I am shocked at the total lack of consideration Judge Nelson paid to those arguments.

Usually motion to dismiss is a standard motion at the end of the P case and it is merely a formality done to preserve the defendant's rights in the event of an appeal. But in this case that motion deserved more thought and weight given the prosecution's failure to present evidence to support the M2
charge. Where is evidence or testimony to prove depravity or disregard for human life? Nothing shown to even remotely prove that. Could the speed in which the Judge ruled on this motion be a basis for appeal? Or no, because she had the arguments in writing for review prior to them being presented in court?

I have more than one thought on why the judge wouldn't grant the acquittal, but I'll only give one. The main reason, for me, is that she did not want to be the one to say Z acted in self-defense, since she is fully aware of what has happened in her community since the political BS started over a year ago from this lynching; she didn't want to bear the burden of telling people Z within his rights.

So she's a coward and would rather the jury have targets on their backs when they acquit? I'm going to bet she is a registered Democrat

God I hope so. I hope all the jurors are as well. We can all hope but thanks for the small glimmer of hope.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, which is it? Obviously the pros has the burden to prove M2. But...

As to self-defense, does the defense have the burden to prove that? Or does the prosecution have the burden to disprove it?

If self-defense is an affirmative defense, similar to a not guilty by reason of insanity plea, isn't the burden somewhat shifted onto the defense to prove that affirmative justification? Am I wrong on that?

Sorry if I'm opening up a sore subject. If so then....never mind. LOL

The defense doesn't really have the burden to do much beyond insert reasonable doubt into the jury's minds. The prosecution must prove the charges it has brought against the defendant.

 

[Oldstyle]

If you believe GZs words, then you have to believe that the gun was exposed after they were on the ground. GZ said so... and that they were both going for it. If he were here to defend himself, that would be his reasoning to continue the punching. If you were defending him...wouldnt that be your approach?

Its obvious that Trayvon was provoked, imo, because he was followed in the dark and rain first in a truck and then on foot. Trayvon didnt follow him...he followed trayvon.

I would love to discuss this with you IM, because I think you have the smarts to hold a decent conversation even if we disagree...unfortunately, its almost impossible to do so in between the other Bs of a certain few with a lot of hate for some reason.

Ah, but there's the rub, 25! George Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin from a distance. Let's face it, George ISN'T a confrontational person. He's just not. He's rather meek actually. It's the way that he was described by witness after witness. George Zimmerman is not a tough guy...he's Barney Fife...not Charles Bronson.

The person who chose to force a confrontation was in fact Trayvon Martin. He was the one who made the decision to leave the safety of the condo where he was staying and walk BACK to brace the stranger who had been following him. He was the one who chose to come out of the darkness with the words "You got a problem?"...and he was the one who chose to punch George Zimmerman in the face. He was the one who chose to follow up that punch that knocked Zimmerman down by climbing on top of Zimmerman and raining blows down upon him. I find it hard to accept that someone "following" you from a distance should be such a "provocation" that it would excuse Martin's actions.

I agree with you...hes not a very intimidating character.

But once again, I think I have shown that we do not know for sure at all that he was back in the safety of his condo...I dont see any evidence that supports that. Certainly not DD...she said that she thought he was a couple of houses down.

I do think he went back to see if he was still being followed, but I dont think he came all the way back from his condo. If he did, then maybe the defense will call someone that was in the house that night to confim it...thus far there is no evidence to support it.

And torii hunter just hit a 3 run homer to tie in the 8th for my Tigers...yes!!!

You know me, 25...I'm a guy who looks at things logically. If a 17 year old athlete starts running and is still out of breath when his friend calls back a minute and a half later...does it make any sense to you that the 17 year old in question would NOT have covered the 120 yards to get from the T of the sidewalk to where the condo was? If he only ran half way how long would that take and how out of breath would he be? Still sucking air a minute and a half later? Does that sound plausible to you? I would contend that the reason that Trayvon is breathing hard when Rachel Jenteal calls back is that he HAS run from the T all the way to the condo and he IS standing outside of it, as she testified.

 

[Oldstyle]

And if Rachel Jenteal REALLY thought he was "a couple houses away" then why did she testify that she wasn't worried about Trayvon getting in a fight because he was close enough that his Dad would come help him?

 

[Oldstyle]

More importantly...even if he was "a couple houses away"...then why did he decide to walk BACK to the T and intercept George Zimmerman as he was walking back to his SUV? It's pitch dark back there behind those condos. People needed flashlights to see which means Martin is not going to be visible to Zimmerman unless HE chooses to confront him by walking back to the T and bracing Zimmerman with his "You got a problem?".

 

[25Caliber]

And if Rachel Jenteal REALLY thought he was "a couple houses away" then why did she testify that she wasn't worried about Trayvon getting in a fight because he was close enough that his Dad would come help him?

Jeantels testimony does not put him back in the safety of his condo. I have stated before that jeantel contradicts her own statement by saying she heard things in the background and then in her next sentence says she doesnt think he was home but a couple of doors down...or that she thought he was near his home...near does not mean IN.

So what were these voices in the background? People standing outside in the rain talking a couple of doors down?

I believe that Rachel is trying to deflect her not taking the "fight" serious enough that eventually killed her friend. She passed the buck to a father and noises in the background as being able to help him.

She says father because she knew that Tray was close to home, which I agree, compared to being all the way back at the store...he was! I think he was a building down. Officer

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Trayvon was provoked...that much is obvious. He saw a gun during the struggle and continued the pounding...if he were here to defend himself in court, GZ would be going away for awhile. In fact, he might still, even with the lousy job the prosecution is doing...thats the way I see it. But then again, I hold no bias, therefore I can think clearly.

Didn't you just deny saying trayvon saw the gun and that is why he attacked? Make up your mind, which is it? And why didn't the prosecution make that claim at ALL?

I have said repeatedly that Trayvon did not know what GZ was reaching for at the point of attack and that he didnt wait to find out. The gun was seen later by trayvon when they were on the ground...those are GZs own words. Im really tired of giving you the respect of answering your confusion...only to have you turn around and ask the same damn question.

You are so confused...I am tired of explaining myself to you. I have shown you are a marine with no honor. You made false allegations...you were shown with the chance to acknowledge it and apologize...you refused. So now you come back with the same confused allegation with the same question. Lata!!!

You flatly deny that you said That while Zimmerman was "fumbling in his pocket martin saw the gun? You flatly deny that you said martin attacked Zimmerman because he saw the gun?

 

[Missourian]

Link to every argument I've made previously in this thread so far.

Please imagine I'm repeating it again here.

Thank you.

That is all.