The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

What are your Initial Thoughts on the Guilt or Innocence of George Zimmerman?


  • Total voters
    84
Status
Not open for further replies.
How'd that not being able to defend yourself turn out for the Neanderthal, by the way? Not very well, if I remember correctly?

That's precisely what the Japanese expected us to do in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, also. You still speak English pretty good, don't you?
 
Dozens of thugs like Trayvon blow each other away each day. The thug jumped Zimmerman and started pounding his head into the ground. When can you use self defense...? Oh'yeah within your mind never.

Take it in blow it.

You know what happens when someone slams another person's head into the pavement? MASSIVE head injury including major blood loss because the head bleeds profusely when injured. You know what else? A cracked skull and leaking brain fluid. Like that!

Natalie Richardson died from a blow to the head and no skin was ever broken. No bleeding at all.

What about the Soccer Referee?

One punch to the head and he was dead.

Hey! I'm a poet and don't know it
 
Now matter what the verdict is, Zimmermans life is over.

I would say that theoretically he could 'disappear' into a city like Atlanta--sizable Hispanic population--there are places where he could go. But, then there's CNN--everywhere there is CNN.

It will be a terrible moment if that is how the verdict comes back--guilty.

Somehow Casey Anthony has been protected--I never imagined that could happen.

Casey Anthony was not about Al Sharpton's self promotion.

true.
Fox is reviewing --from the beginning. I tried hard not to hear a lot ---and seemed to have been successful.

Every day, it seems, from the time I could understand anything--civil rights and civil rights ...

Somewhere back in the 90's --I began listening to Boortz and have tried to gain a broader POV. Now we have Hermann Cain.
 
Dozens of thugs like Trayvon blow each other away each day. The thug jumped Zimmerman and started pounding his head into the ground. When can you use self defense...? Oh'yeah within your mind never.

Take it in blow it.

You know what happens when someone slams another person's head into the pavement? MASSIVE head injury including major blood loss because the head bleeds profusely when injured. You know what else? A cracked skull and leaking brain fluid. Like that!

Natalie Richardson died from a blow to the head and no skin was ever broken. No bleeding at all.

it was not even a blow. she fell and hit the snow.
she didn't even have a skin bruising.
But she suffered epidural intracranial bleed which is lethal when not addressed immediately
 
your assumption is irrelevant.

O'Mara was never disputing the legality of following somebody with a gun and a legal CCP

That wasn't an assumption. I was obviously saying it would be good to hear what the laws are concerning carrying a gun while following someone.

you do not make sense here. You can follow someone and you can do it with a legal gun and permit. That's the law. There is no case laws on it as it is PERMITTED, so can not be charged.

How do you know there are no case laws on it? Are YOU an attorney? I asked the question with the slight possibility that someone might have one about case law, but I didn't even expect that. I just said it would be good to hear them.
 
Book deal... Made for TV movie? I think he'll do well financially, but maay become reclusive.

He's going to have a huge civil suit to deal with.

Trayvon Martin wrongful death claim more than $1 million - Orlando Sentinel

A finding of self defense will make Zimmerman immune from civil liability and make the Martin's liable for Zimmermans cost damages and attorney fees. If there is no finding of self defense, there is still this problem known as "judgment proof".

I missed some of the jury instructions. Can the jury return a verdict of innocent by virtue of self defense? Or are their only options not guilty for manslaughter or murder 2?
 
If you get into a fight and start to get your ass kicked....and you are armed, you can shoot him, kill him, and get away with it in Florida. It seems. So, to recap, win the fight....you win....lose the fight,shoot him and say self defense. Simple enough.
 
Does it contain anything in it about following someone into the bar with a gun? Otherwise, it's worthless to this discussion.

I'm going to say it really clear. If I am licensed to carry a gun and my state allows me to take it into a bar then I can. I can not produce a law that does not exist, because following someone is not illegal.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Listen carefully, I didn't ask for a specific law. I asked for case law.

You're wasting my time. Learn to read.

Produce case law that says I can't breathe air. That is what you are asking for retard. No case law can be produced on legal things because there can be no charges filed.

Read what case law is.
Precedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Does it contain anything in it about following someone into the bar with a gun? Otherwise, it's worthless to this discussion.

I'm going to say it really clear. If I am licensed to carry a gun and my state allows me to take it into a bar then I can. I can not produce a law that does not exist, because following someone is not illegal.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Listen carefully, I didn't ask for a specific law. I asked for case law.

You're wasting my time. Learn to read.

at least 3 people explained to you that there could not be a case law on something LEGALLY PERMITTED
 
That wasn't an assumption. I was obviously saying it would be good to hear what the laws are concerning carrying a gun while following someone.

you do not make sense here. You can follow someone and you can do it with a legal gun and permit. That's the law. There is no case laws on it as it is PERMITTED, so can not be charged.

How do you know there are no case laws on it? Are YOU an attorney? I asked the question with the slight possibility that someone might have one about case law, but I didn't even expect that. I just said it would be good to hear them.

because it is impossible to have a charge on something permitted.

It is USA still, not Germany where everything not allowed is forbidden.
We have it vice verse here - everything not forbidden is allowed :D
 
I'm going to say it really clear. If I am licensed to carry a gun and my state allows me to take it into a bar then I can. I can not produce a law that does not exist, because following someone is not illegal.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Listen carefully, I didn't ask for a specific law. I asked for case law.

You're wasting my time. Learn to read.

at least 3 people explained to you that there could not be a case law on something LEGALLY PERMITTED

I've come to the conclusion that these are either emotionally or politically driven people that don't care about evidence or facts. They want to use this against guns....
 
you do not make sense here. You can follow someone and you can do it with a legal gun and permit. That's the law. There is no case laws on it as it is PERMITTED, so can not be charged.

How do you know there are no case laws on it? Are YOU an attorney? I asked the question with the slight possibility that someone might have one about case law, but I didn't even expect that. I just said it would be good to hear them.

because it is impossible to have a charge on something permitted.

It is USA still, not Germany where everything not allowed is forbidden.
We have it vice verse here - everything not forbidden is allowed :D

I have already repeated myself a dozen times. Earth to you, hello?
 
Listen carefully, I didn't ask for a specific law. I asked for case law.

You're wasting my time. Learn to read.

Produce case law that says I can't breathe air. That is what you are asking for retard. No case law can be produced on legal things because there can be no charges filed.

Read what case law is.
Precedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the fuck are you talking about?

I want you to produce a case law that says I'm allowed to breathe air. By your definition of case law this should exist. It would be nice to see.

How are you employed anywhere?
 
Listen carefully, I didn't ask for a specific law. I asked for case law.

You're wasting my time. Learn to read.

at least 3 people explained to you that there could not be a case law on something LEGALLY PERMITTED

I've come to the conclusion that these are either emotionally or politically driven people that don't care about evidence or facts. They want to use this against guns....

some are just judging by street ethics - see the post of someone on the previous page, that if you "loose the fight" you have to be ready to get killed and can not use the gun for self-defense, which is, by standards of street ethic, true, but is not true at all by the standards of the law.
they are forgetting it was not a street fight for leadership.
 

A finding of self defense will make Zimmerman immune from civil liability and make the Martin's liable for Zimmermans cost damages and attorney fees. If there is no finding of self defense, there is still this problem known as "judgment proof".

I missed some of the jury instructions. Can the jury return a verdict of innocent by virtue of self defense? Or are their only options not guilty for manslaughter or murder 2?

With ? 27 pages of instructions--I think it was M2 or Manslaughter.

What might legally be possible--I have no clue. They are to go strictly by the instructions--that was clarified.
 
That wasn't an assumption. I was obviously saying it would be good to hear what the laws are concerning carrying a gun while following someone.

you do not make sense here. You can follow someone and you can do it with a legal gun and permit. That's the law. There is no case laws on it as it is PERMITTED, so can not be charged.

How do you know there are no case laws on it? Are YOU an attorney? I asked the question with the slight possibility that someone might have one about case law, but I didn't even expect that. I just said it would be good to hear them.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010)

You are embarrassing.
 
How do you know there are no case laws on it? Are YOU an attorney? I asked the question with the slight possibility that someone might have one about case law, but I didn't even expect that. I just said it would be good to hear them.

because it is impossible to have a charge on something permitted.

It is USA still, not Germany where everything not allowed is forbidden.
We have it vice verse here - everything not forbidden is allowed :D

I have already repeated myself a dozen times. Earth to you, hello?

what did you repeat?
you want somebody to produce a case law, or a precedent where it was decided by court that following somebody with a legally owned gun is OK.
there could not be a case law on the issue as it is legal and OK by definition of the law regulating guns and CC.
 
tmidiot.jpg

I kind of miss the old dog!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top