The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[AVG-JOE]

​

 

[Gadawg73]

You're fucking crazy for taking a mans ability to defend himself way. Your entire case is based on your hatred of ones ability to defend himself.

Maybe when you grow up you can look at the evidence. One day your sorry ass may have to defend yourself...Well, I'll be their defending your right to do so...

George Zimmerman is the one who has thrown a monkey wrench into our right to defend ourselves. I keep telling you if he walks, there will be copycats and sooner or later, they'll have to crackdown on it hard, and then you'll really be screaming about your rights. Better to send the message now.

"crack down on it"
Don't you know by now that THE LAW in Florida allows exactly what Zimmerman did: defend himself against an attacker?
Go to the Legislature and change the law but "the'll have to crackdown on it hard" is an absurd claim.
Just who does the cracking down? Law enforcement? No, all they do is ENFORCE THE LAW.
Your vague and all over the map comments have no basis in reality.

 

[mudwhistle]

Absolutely! Trayvon Martin was trying to defend himself against an aggressive armed profiling assailant.

By straddling him and attempting to bash his fucken skull in.

A band-aids worth of injuries? Show us something "serious". You can't.

Besides, explain how Zimmerman got to his gun if he was being straddled and it was in his holster, down his pants, behind his back.

There was a struggle. A struggle that never should have taken place. A struggle that was initiated by the so-called victim. During a struggle things happen. If you want to claim that a 17 year old had such complete control of a grown man that he was completely helpless then you have shown that Trayvan was no child. Now if we're talking about a rainy night on a dark sidewalk it's highly possible that the defendant was able to get free enough to pull out his gun and shoot the perpetrator, in this case Trayvan Martin. If Trayvan had lived he would be named as the defendant in this case, not George Zimmerman.

1. The gun was not down his pants but on his hip where he could reach it.
2. Trayvan was on top of the defendant and thus was the agressor.
3. The seriousness of the injuries after the fact do not matter. What they turned out to be is not relevant. At the time of the attack the victim in this case felt like he was about to be beaten to death.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbFsDUsR6-k]Rev Al Sharpton Speaking at Trayvon Martin Rally - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v49Tp8MyFY4]Trayvon Martin Rally - Sanford, Florida - March 22, 2012 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eflatminor]

Am I wrong or did the prosecution LIE during their closing arguments?

The state's attorney told the jury yesterday that as Zimmerman was being handcuffed, he said to his neighbor who was on the phone with Zimmerman's wife, "Tell her I killed someone".

That is a lie.

That neighbor had previously testified that Zimmerman has said "Tell her I shot someone".

Big frickin' difference!

The state basically claimed that the defendant confessed and that he lied to the police when he later claimed he didn't know if TM was dead or alive when he did no such thing! That's outrageous!

I can't believe the defense lawyers didn't object.

Did anyone catch this? Am I missing something?

 

[mudwhistle]

Do you believe that if you're attacked you have the right to defend yourself? Let's say someone is bashing your head into the ground does that give you a right to use "deadly" force(gun, knife, etc) in order to save your own life.

If you are attacked without provecation, yes. If you are say following someone and they felt threatened and encountered you, no.

Go ahead and walk up to anyone that looks at you funny and see how that works out for you.

 

[Noomi]

Do you believe that if you're attacked you have the right to defend yourself? Let's say someone is bashing your head into the ground does that give you a right to use "deadly" force(gun, knife, etc) in order to save your own life.

Depends on the circumstances.

 

[Gadawg73]

Says the guy with 6k posts in 4 months. Get a life.

At least he can think through the evidence. Unlike fools like you that want to give blacks a double standard to beat people up without self defense.

I want to do no such thing. His mind was made up long ago. The fact that you and he continue to take Zimmerman's statements as fact tell me all I need to know.

In a court of law someone's statements are considered fact until they are proven otherwise. And there is NO testimony on this case Zimmerman attacked Martin. The presumption of innocence is that Zimmerman NEVER attacked Martin until PROVEN otherwise.
Especially in Florida with the 2 conclusive presumptions of fact in a self defense case that favor a defendant:
1. The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary, and
2. The presumption that the perpetrator intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

Martin on top of Zimmerman fits both of those presumptions under Florida LAW as stated above.
Sorry this does not match your ideology but we are a nation OF THE LAW, not our beliefs and opinions.

 

[Noomi]

Is it 'Self Defense' when the survivor of the fight is the one who started it?

No. They are the aggressor. At least IMO.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Am I wrong or did the prosecution LIE during their closing arguments?

The state's attorney told the jury yesterday that as Zimmerman was being handcuffed, he said to his neighbor who was on the phone with Zimmerman's wife, "Tell her I killed someone".

That is a lie.

That neighbor had previously testified that Zimmerman has said "Tell her I shot someone".

Big frickin' difference!

The state basically claimed that the defendant admitted to a crime when he did no such thing! That's outrageous!

I can't believe the defense lawyers didn't object.

Did anyone catch this? Am I missing something?

i do not believe they can object during closing

on the other hand if defense did not pick up on that right away

crowd source service did

omara one way or the other is aware of it

 

[MeBelle]

Am I wrong or did the prosecution LIE during their closing arguments?

The state's attorney told the jury yesterday that as Zimmerman was being handcuffed, he said to his neighbor who was on the phone with Zimmerman's wife, "Tell her I killed someone".

That is a lie.

That neighbor had previously testified that Zimmerman has said "Tell her I shot someone".

Big frickin' difference!

The state basically claimed that the defendant confessed and that he lied to the police when he later claimed he didn't know if TM was dead or alive when he did no such thing! That's outrageous!

I can't believe the defense lawyers didn't object.

Did anyone catch this? Am I missing something?

You are correct.
Maybe defense will use it against the State?

 

[Sunshine]

Re DD:

Are you freaking kidding me? She lies and it's everyone else's fault. Oh looky! Al's back!

MSNBC's Al Sharpton spoke today with Rod Vereen, the attorney representing Rachel Jeantel, a key witness for the state in the murder trial of George Zimmerman. Sharpton noted how the defense attorneys went out of their way to discredit her testimony, and brought up some of the vicious attacks on Jeantel during and following her two days in the courtroom. Immediately following the interview, Sharpton condemned the attacks on her that "have been nothing short of offensive to any American.Vereen explained that because Jeantel is still under subpoena, she cannot talk to anyone about her testimony, but said that "her body language tells me that she's happy that it's over with." Sharpton brought up how the defense "tried to discredit Rachel" by grilling her about initially lying over why she didn't attend Trayvon Martin's funeral. Sharpton found her explanation, that she felt guilty about being the last person who spoke to him before he died, "pretty reasonable to me.Vereen explained his client never wanted to be dragged into the spotlight over this, but now the credibility of a teenage girl has become the topic of national discussion. Sharpton asked Vereen if Jeantel is aware of the attacks on her in the media and online. Vereen said he recommended she avoid social media, because if she's called back to testify, the negative criticism could influence her. He also slammed the media for nitpicking her "stumbling," saying that witnesses will always have "inconsistencies in statements," but that does not always mean they're lying.Sharpton concluded the segment with a swift condemnation of the attacks on Jeantel's character.The attacks that I've heard on Rachel Jeantel have been nothing short of offensive to any American that wants to see young people... to do the right thing and come forward. No matter what happens in this trial, if people come forward, they ought not be ridiculed. They ought not be in any way given the kind of treatment that this young lady was given... To castigate her, to characterize her, to stereotype her, and use all kind of attacks, I think, is something that does an injustice to the criminal justice system."

Al Sharpton Talks With Rachel Jeantel's Lawyer,Condemns 'Offensive' Stereotyping Of Her In The Media - YouTube

The funeral thing was a bit of a stretch, after all if Florida had Early Funeraling or Absentee Funeraling, DD probably been able to participate.

I think I made up a new word.

I was hauled up in class one night for saying something critical about public defenders, so I won't go there on this post because I was informed by the prof that most public defenders will be a better advocate than the lawyer who stops defending you because you violate "Rule number 1" the first time you are late on your payment. Zimmerman would not have had such good representation were it not for people who contributed to his defense. I didn't contribute to it, but I would contribute to his 'get out of the country' fund for him and his family if there is one WHEN he is found to be NOT guilty.

I wonder how his father and his uncle will fare.

Another thing I wonder--why is there no talk of a foundation for Trayvon? It seems like that is what is done now to honor the memory of a victim. Maybe there is and I have had my head in the sand.

There are some good lawyers in FL --to be a fly on the wall when this case is discussed in private quarters. That would be interesting.

I believe there was some sort of foundation established shortly after the incident. I read about it in some of the links posted many pages back. I also remember reading that the family used the account for their personal expenses. I believe that was about the time that AS and JJ were doing marches.
Call me hard- hearted but Sybrina did not raise lil Trayvon ( lil Trayvon was raised by the next woman Tracy took up with). I learned in all my reading that she actually spent not a lot of time with him.
While I have some sympathy for them, had they been better parents to him, he may still be around.

Get ready to take that and that and that, just like I have for suggesting same. I raised two and they never had to walk to the convenience store in the dark alone. Well, in the daylight either. In this industrialized society teens have no use. Time was when they were a great asset on the farms. But now, there is really no place for them. Doesn't matter how good your teens are, they are hated because they are teens. Any parent who doesn't keep their teens under his/her thumb is not in touch with reality.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think I agree. A chance to walk not taken is a major factor.

 

[Noomi]

I think I agree. A chance to walk not taken is a major factor.

Consider it like this.
I see you, walking alone at night, and I follow you, and demand to know what you are doing. You are frightened, and ignore me, trying to get away.
I continue to follow you, and you feel more threatened, like your life might be in danger.
In self defense, you turn around and hit me, and tell me to leave you alone. I pull out my gun and shoot you, and claim that my life was in danger, and therefore I had the right to shoot.

But if I hadn't followed you in the first place, the incidence wouldn't have occurred.

The situation with George and Trayvon could have been prevented - George didn't have to follow, but he chose to.

 

[eflatminor]

Am I wrong or did the prosecution LIE during their closing arguments?

The state's attorney told the jury yesterday that as Zimmerman was being handcuffed, he said to his neighbor who was on the phone with Zimmerman's wife, "Tell her I killed someone".

That is a lie.

That neighbor had previously testified that Zimmerman has said "Tell her I shot someone".

Big frickin' difference!

The state basically claimed that the defendant confessed and that he lied to the police when he later claimed he didn't know if TM was dead or alive when he did no such thing! That's outrageous!

I can't believe the defense lawyers didn't object.

Did anyone catch this? Am I missing something?

You are correct.
Maybe defense will use it against the State?

I find that incredible. He should be disbarred for such an outrage! Is there no law preventing state prosecutors from lying in order to obtain a conviction? Are they not under oath to tell the truth just like everyone else?

Shame!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Am I wrong or did the prosecution LIE during their closing arguments?

The state's attorney told the jury yesterday that as Zimmerman was being handcuffed, he said to his neighbor who was on the phone with Zimmerman's wife, "Tell her I killed someone".

That is a lie.

That neighbor had previously testified that Zimmerman has said "Tell her I shot someone".

Big frickin' difference!

The state basically claimed that the defendant confessed and that he lied to the police when he later claimed he didn't know if TM was dead or alive when he did no such thing! That's outrageous!

I can't believe the defense lawyers didn't object.

Did anyone catch this? Am I missing something?

You are correct.
Maybe defense will use it against the State?

I find that incredible. He should be disbarred for such an outrage! Is there no law preventing state prosecutors from lying in order to obtain a conviction? Are they not under oath to tell the truth just like everyone else?

Shame!

the state had several lies and lies by omission as well as hiding evidence favorable to the
defense

plus the judge has erred on several points some serious

which will be reviewed after the conclusion of this trial

 

[martybegan]

I think I agree. A chance to walk not taken is a major factor.

Consider it like this.
I see you, walking alone at night, and I follow you, and demand to know what you are doing. You are frightened, and ignore me, trying to get away.
I continue to follow you, and you feel more threatened, like your life might be in danger.
In self defense, you turn around and hit me, and tell me to leave you alone. I pull out my gun and shoot you, and claim that my life was in danger, and therefore I had the right to shoot.

But if I hadn't followed you in the first place, the incidence wouldn't have occurred.

The situation with George and Trayvon could have been prevented - George didn't have to follow, but he chose to.

Being able to have made a better decsion does not make you criminally liable for the results, unless the results are criminal. Also, according to the evidence in the trial so far, zimmerman had given up his pursuit. At that point Martin becomes the pursuer.

An altercation starts when "fighting words" are used, or physical force is initiated. You dont have the right to pop someone following you unless you feel in iminent danger.

 

[DiamondDave]

Say you are walking home from buying a bag of Skittles and someone starts following you so you run off. Say you think you got away and suddenly, you hear "You punks always get away" so you turn around. Then they shoot you in the chest and you die. Guess you didn't get the chance to defend yourself.

Say you are following the law, following someone in your neighborhood who you think is suspicious.. then suddenly you get hit with a punch that breaks your nose and then that person who broke your nose is on top of you beating on you repeatedly...

yes.. you do have a right to defend yourself.. even if you called that person a punk and they called you a cracker

 

[PredFan]

The answer is yes.

If I call you an ignorant liberal douchebag, and you attack me for it and then I have to shoot you it is self-defense. I started it but you don't have the right to assault me for it.

 

[dilloduck]

I think I agree. A chance to walk not taken is a major factor.

Consider it like this.
I see you, walking alone at night, and I follow you, and demand to know what you are doing. You are frightened, and ignore me, trying to get away.
I continue to follow you, and you feel more threatened, like your life might be in danger.
In self defense, you turn around and hit me, and tell me to leave you alone. I pull out my gun and shoot you, and claim that my life was in danger, and therefore I had the right to shoot.

But if I hadn't followed you in the first place, the incidence wouldn't have occurred.

The situation with George and Trayvon could have been prevented - George didn't have to follow, but he chose to.

Punching someone because you are paranoid is not self defense. Trayvon wasn't scared. Trayvon walked right up to George's truck. You'll find this out when the jury brings back it's verdict.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

Question, why hasn't the judge dismissed the case yet due to Obama/Holder/DOJ sticking their noses in this dilemma? She is aware of this, isn't she?