The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Sunshine]

Maybe I'm wrong but I think you may have got this one backwards....just wondering.
[MENTION=27360]Jackson[/MENTION] "Did Martin make a habit of following persons who are alone and walking in the area?"

Irrelevant. Walking behind someone is not illegal. Your curiosity question is not a factor.


SS

 

[WorldWatcher]

Would any of you be arguing GZ's point of view if TM was one of your unarmed teenage relatives?

I doubt it seriously.

So what REALLY then are we debating here?

HMMMMMM?

I raised two teenagers. They were never out carousing around the neighborhood at night. They were never expelled from school. They stayed at home at night and did school work. In the summer they did other things like band and camp, etc. Your question is stupid and entirely moot.



SS

I find it hard to believe that your daughters never went to the store around 7:00PM, never?

Can we also assume that your daughters were never arrested for felony assault on a police officer, never directed to anger management classes as part of a pretrial diversion program?


>>>>

 

[Sunshine]

If Z is found not guilty can you imagine the precedent it will set?

What? You're going to stop sucking po It off or something?


SS

 

[25Caliber]

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION] and [MENTION=27321]WorldWatcher[/MENTION]....

I posed a question a few pages back (post 550) that I would be interested in both of your takes on. I think it really goes to the heart of this case and will be the number one obstacle that GZ will have to overcome in this trial.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/295416-zimmerman-trial-37.html

 

[Snookie]

If Z is found not guilty can you imagine the precedent it will set?

What? You're going to stop sucking po It off or something?


SS

Good way to get away with the perfect murder.

 

[Sunshine]

IOU a neg in <30 min.

You know what, **** you and your neg rep. Okay, I was at rep power 317 when I posted this, let's see what happens after I dare to challenge the mighty Sunshine.

The "F" word to a lady? Not good...man what is it with dudes talking to women this way? I mean have a meaningful debate, but the "F" word?

No worries, the lady wears big girl panties, and uses the 'f' word too at times. I DO still owe that neg. Will get done today.



SS

 

[Sunshine]

It did not cause serious injury in this case.

Slamming a head into concrete CAN cause serious injury and that is all that is needed...sorry I dont make the laws.

I dont like it....but in Florida, he was within his rights...floridians should be very careful...the law is somewhat vague. With that in mind, one would be smarter to just go home instead of swinging for the head.

This law will eventually be tested in court. What were they drinking/thinking when they made this law?

Self defense has been 'tested in court' many, many times already.

 

[WorldWatcher]

WW - what do you believe GZ's motivation was to call the police, say the right buzzwords, and summon police if he didn't believe TM was suspicious? Why would he do that? Cry wolf? That wouldn't serve him well in the future. Not understanding what you think GZ was trying to do. Are you saying he was out prowling around looking for black youths to shoot? What?

Just to be clear you are asking for a lot of opinion, I'm usually more comfortable discussion facts or scenarios.



#1 Let me address the last question first, IMHO, I don't think GZ was "out prowling around looking for black youths to shoot". I tend to ignore the whole race baiting crap presented by both sides.

#2 My opinion is that Zimmerman saw Martin and wanted him checked out by the police. Was Martin really doing something suspicious or was Martin simply using the cut-through commonly used by youths to cut down the distance to walk to the 7-11? We'll never know. I do find it interesting that in the very first communication Zimmerman gets all the buzz-words in such as "suspicious", "up to no good", and "drugs".

#3 What was Zimmerman's motivation? One side will say to serve his community, the other side will say it was to impress the Sanford police because of his desire to be a cop (he'd applied to other police forces for employment, state in interviews that he wanted a career in law enforcement, and had attended a gym for a couple of years to learn self-defense, loose weight, and help with a law enforcement career). His motivation for making the call, IMHO, is pretty irrelevant - it will be up to the jury to decide one what happened that night and why Zimmerman placed the initial call I don't see as that big a deal in terms of the jury.


>>>>

 

[Snookie]

You know what, **** you and your neg rep. Okay, I was at rep power 317 when I posted this, let's see what happens after I dare to challenge the mighty Sunshine.

The "F" word to a lady? Not good...man what is it with dudes talking to women this way? I mean have a meaningful debate, but the "F" word?

No worries, the lady wears big girl panties, and uses the 'f' word too at times. I DO still owe that neg. Will get done today.



SS

I never use that ******* word.

 

[Sunshine]

It's amazing how TM is vilified. A bag of Skittles.

Shot dead?

Smh

Gang photos, stealing in school, expelled from school, cannabis in his system. 'Vilified.' Yeah right!~

 

[25Caliber]

You know what, **** you and your neg rep. Okay, I was at rep power 317 when I posted this, let's see what happens after I dare to challenge the mighty Sunshine.

The "F" word to a lady? Not good...man what is it with dudes talking to women this way? I mean have a meaningful debate, but the "F" word?

No worries, the lady wears big girl panties, and uses the 'f' word too at times. I DO still owe that neg. Will get done today.



SS

Good morning, Sunshine

 

[WorldWatcher]

WW - what do you believe GZ's motivation was to call the police, say the right buzzwords, and summon police if he didn't believe TM was suspicious? Why would he do that? Cry wolf? That wouldn't serve him well in the future. Not understanding what you think GZ was trying to do. Are you saying he was out prowling around looking for black youths to shoot? What?

I believe he found him suspicious, but that doesn't mean he was actually suspicious. Meaning he thought he was up to no good and thus contacted the police figuring they would find something on him. But as we now know he had nothing on him. Meaning just because someone believes something to be true doesn't make it so.

Hi Tink! I agree TM was doing nothing wrong. Seems to me he was headed slowly home, talking on the phone to a female and eating Skittles. But I do think GZ was being watchful, didn't recognize him, thought he might have been part of the local "Goons" hoodie-wearing gang (referenced in Chris Serino's FBI interview/report), and alerted police because there had been burglaries in the neighborhood. GZ was wrong in his assumptions but I think he was well-meaning and that his intent was to be protective of himself and his neighbors and the property.

Just a technical correction, he wasn't eating Skittles, the bag was unopened. Secondly at the time that Zimmerman made the dispatcher call Martin wasn't on the phone. Martin received the inbound phone call from Witness #8 later when they were on Twin Trees Lane.


Carry on.



>>>>

 

[Sunshine]

Fair point, king. You are right...as it turns out, GZs suspicions were wrong. Trayvon went to the store, bought some skittles, was talking to his gf on the phone and then walking in pretty much a direct route to his dads fiances house.

I think the temporary stop that Trayvon had standing in the middle of GZs neighbors house was the cause for the initial suspicion. But again, as it turns out, Trayvon was not scoping out a house to rob or vandalize...GZs suspicion was wrong.

That said, he is a neighborhood watch captain and his suspicions wont always be correct. Trayvon could have simply asked why he was being followed and went about his day. He didnt do that. GZ wasnt breaking any laws either and did not deserve to be punched in the face either...as it turns out Trayvons suspicions were wrong also.

we do not know if zimmermans suspicions was wrong or right

We won't know because he was followed for walking along eating skittles, drinking tea and that was deemed "suspicious." Now he's dead. Would this person be alive if it was a white woman, 40 years old, wearing a dress and eating those same skittles and tea?

Irrelevant.

 

[Snookie]

It's amazing how TM is vilified. A bag of Skittles.

Shot dead?

Smh

Gang photos, stealing in school, expelled from school, cannabis in his system. 'Vilified.' Yeah right!~

Irrelevant to the case. TM is not on trial here.

 

[Sunshine]

We won't know because he was followed for walking along eating skittles, drinking tea and that was deemed "suspicious." Now he's dead. Would this person be alive if it was a white woman, 40 years old, wearing a dress and eating those same skittles and tea?

Hey Jackson, I see your point and my quick answer would be yes a person fitting that description would still be alive for sure. But that description doesnt fit the profile of the recent robberies in the neighborhood...trayvons does...so to me the descriptions are apples and oranges.

Pure speculation. If you don't think white women can be dangerous you need to check out Jody Arias.

True. The worst take downs we ever had in the psych hospitals where I worked were petite little woman who fought like wildcats.

 

[Snookie]

we do not know if zimmermans suspicions was wrong or right

We won't know because he was followed for walking along eating skittles, drinking tea and that was deemed "suspicious." Now he's dead. Would this person be alive if it was a white woman, 40 years old, wearing a dress and eating those same skittles and tea?

Irrelevant.

We both said the same thing at the same time. Must be our vast legal experience.

 

[Sunshine]

From my understaing, not quite.

From the same link that Sunshine provided:

"The Supreme Court reversed Street's conviction because his comments, considered a possible factor in his conviction, were constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Emphasizing that the mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content."​

The fighting words doctrine does not protect whatever words are spoken. Only offensive speech. If a person conveys a thread of immediate violence, that is not protected under fighting words.


ETA: Just to be clear I'm not saying there is any evidence of fighting words that night.


>>>>

I never said that threats of violence were protected. I posted that to show you dweebs that the 'n' word or it's equivalents, which you all claim Z said, is not considered by the courts to be a 'fighting word.' I even bolded it and put it in red. Now, what did Z say to li'l Trayvon that was a threat of violence. And don't give me any more of that 'following' shit. Z lived there in that complex, and had the right to be there.


SS

Maybe not to the courts but to a black person it is fighting words in the circumstances and context in which the ****** word was used.

So blacks are above the law. Got it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The SCOTUS on 'fighting words.'

Just curious, what does that have to do with the discussion about someone following someone else half-way across a housing development who tried to evade at least twice. That the person followed in a vehicle and then chased them on foot created a situation where they could be perceived as provoking hostile action by creating an imminent treat (from Martins perspective)?

Let's take a similar situation, if some guy was following my daughter half-way across campus in a car and when she tried to escape that individual jumped out and began pursuit (from her perspective) is there any doubt that the male following her could be perceived as a threat?


>>>>

Just walking behind someone is not illegal nor is it a threat regardless where it happened or how long it happens. Hell, if it were, I would be attacking half the neighborhood where I live 40 minutes away from town. Occasionally a car will be behind or I behind another car and one of us will follow the other through the entire 40 miles with all the turns and twists. It is just someone else who lives here. You all are trying to make it look like Z provoked li'l Trayvon with words into attacking him, and that just won't fly.

And the thing about the 'following' is that Z lived in the same neighborhood and had every right to be there even walking behind li'l Trayvon.

The defense will make a case much as you do. The prosecution will make a case that Zimmerman created the situation by following Martin in his vehicle, that when Martin attempted to evade Zimmerman TWICE that Zimmerman continued to pursue and therefore is responsible for the events that occurred behind the darkened houses. They will probably try to make a case that it was Zimmerman that confronted Martin based on logic and Zimmerman's stories not matching the physical and forensic evidence and this his story about what happened is not the truth.


Then it will be up to the jury to decide.



>>>>

 

[Sunshine]

Are you still on the hypothetical about the yelling and grabbing arm? I made that up, it was pretend. Go back back back! I want to know about the prima facie the defense is going to do and how the trial is going to go with the defense presentation of self defense. Give me a legal-less hypothetical on how the process is going to work.

Just read my post on affirmative defense.

You mean the one where you said it was only for civil trials?

Rut roe, I think the quote feature is used properly here, how will you insult me whilst avoiding the question this time...

I never said it was only for civil trials.

 

[jon_berzerk]

We won't know because he was followed for walking along eating skittles, drinking tea and that was deemed "suspicious." Now he's dead. Would this person be alive if it was a white woman, 40 years old, wearing a dress and eating those same skittles and tea?

Hey Jackson, I see your point and my quick answer would be yes a person fitting that description would still be alive for sure. But that description doesnt fit the profile of the recent robberies in the neighborhood...trayvons does...so to me the descriptions are apples and oranges.

Pure speculation. If you don't think white women can be dangerous you need to check out Jody Arias.

Shit I log off before 7 p.m. and this thread grows 9 pages.

The SCOTUS on 'fighting words.'

Just curious, what does that have to do with the discussion about someone following someone else half-way across a housing development who tried to evade at least twice. That the person followed in a vehicle and then chased them on foot created a situation where they could be perceived as provoking hostile action by creating an imminent treat (from Martins perspective)?

Let's take a similar situation, if some guy was following my daughter half-way across campus in a car and when she tried to escape that individual jumped out and began pursuit (from her perspective) is there any doubt that the male following her could be perceived as a threat?


>>>>

Just walking behind someone is not illegal nor is it a threat regardless where it happened or how long it happens. Hell, if it were, I would be attacking half the neighborhood where I live 40 minutes away from town. Occasionally a car will be behind or I behind another car and one of us will follow the other through the entire 40 miles with all the turns and twists. It is just someone else who lives here. You all are trying to make it look like Z provoked li'l Trayvon with words into attacking him, and that just won't fly.

And the thing about the 'following' is that Z lived in the same neighborhood and had every right to be there even walking behind li'l Trayvon.

Just curious, what does that have to do with the discussion about someone following someone else half-way across a housing development who tried to evade at least twice. That the person followed in a vehicle and then chased them on foot created a situation where they could be perceived as provoking hostile action by creating an imminent treat (from Martins perspective)?

Let's take a similar situation, if some guy was following my daughter half-way across campus in a car and when she tried to escape that individual jumped out and began pursuit (from her perspective) is there any doubt that the male following her could be perceived as a threat?


>>>>

Just walking behind someone is not illegal nor is it a threat regardless where it happened or how long it happens. Hell, if it were, I would be attacking half the neighborhood where I live 40 minutes away from town. Occasionally a car will be behind or I behind another car and one of us will follow the other through the entire 40 miles with all the turns and twists. It is just someone else who lives here. You all are trying to make it look like Z provoked li'l Trayvon with words into attacking him, and that just won't fly.

And the thing about the 'following' is that Z lived in the same neighborhood and had every right to be there even walking behind li'l Trayvon.

The defense will make a case much as you do. The prosecution will make a case that Zimmerman created the situation by following Martin in his vehicle, that when Martin attempted to evade Zimmerman TWICE that Zimmerman continued to pursue and therefore is responsible for the events that occurred behind the darkened houses. They will probably try to make a case that it was Zimmerman that confronted Martin based on logic and Zimmerman's stories not matching the physical and forensic evidence and this his story about what happened is not the truth.


Then it will be up to the jury to decide.



>>>>

in the 9-1-1 call

dispatch encouraged zimmerman at least twice to stay engaged in the situation