The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[wavingrl]

I've got the feeling GZ will be acquitted. The prosecution has been relying on emotions—not hard facts—to convict the man.

I'm not so certain. They say one woman is married to an attorney and another has a son that is an attorney. One member had a CCP, another managed a call center of 1200--? all but one have children.

On and on. Unless someone can clarify that a 'compromise verdict' is really not possible--I am hesitant to speculate. shrug--I suppose one may utilize knowledge of the legal system gained prior to becoming a juror. Manslaughter--up to 30 yrs, etc.

One of the jurors was the victim of a violent crime and another is a security guard. So, who knows. Much will depend on who emerges as the leader and who they elect as foreman.

I selected the former manager of a call center and someone on TV agreed.

Another thought the wife of the attorney or the mother of an attorney--because they asked for a list of evidence. lol--might have been the mother of 6 or 8 children. Organizational skills--Mothers have those.

 

[Sarah G]

Did you know that motorcycles have higher IQs than some of their owners?

 

[Pheonixops]

Ask any 5 y/o what you do when a stranger approaches you. Come on.

Martin wasn't 5 years old. I joined the Military at his age......................

So you will admit that he was capable of jumping a man and causing serious damage????

What's there to "admit"? Of course a 17 year old has the capability to defend himself physically and inflact damage on his aggressor/opponent who has a few years on him.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I have for you all the most definitive answer to the question before us: Will this jury acquit Zimmerman?

The answer is --


<<drumroll>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~









maybe.



You heard it here first.












Disclaimer: this IS the most definitive answer UNTIL the jury concludes its business and announces its verdict or they get hung.

 

[lilburnjoe]

If it's a hung jury, how long will deliberation go ?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why should I HAVE to avoid him? I'm not a slave, I am an American citizen who has a right to travel unmolested.

Wasn't Martin already on the phone with his friend? Where you always that "rational" when you were seventeen?

If you were on the jury what is your impression of this girl friend of Trayvon Martin? This uneducated girl that admits she can neither read or write and comes across as ghetto as there ever could be.
Honestly, isn't Rachel Jeantel Exhibit A of the street thug Martin was as we now know but was kept away from the jury?
Can you at least admit the obvious?
That was what the jury got. An uneducated girl that can not read or write, speaks like a gangster and this is Martin's girl friend.
Not trying to offend, just posting the obvious.

In all candor, I was questioning the rationality of the Prosecution putting her on the stand, it felt like they were "throwing the case" when they put her on the stand. Then I realized that she was a material witness. I'm surprised they didn't work with her to make her more "presentable" to the jury.

Wait what? Why would the prosecution intentionally try to throw it's own case?

 

[Ernie S.]

Did you know that motorcycles have higher IQs than some of their owners?

I've got a Benjamin that says mine is half again what yours is.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Did you know that motorcycles have higher IQs than some of their owners?

I've got a Benjamin that says mine is half again what yours is.

That could be an IQ of three, though.

 

[Wake]

I'm not so certain. They say one woman is married to an attorney and another has a son that is an attorney. One member had a CCP, another managed a call center of 1200--? all but one have children.

On and on. Unless someone can clarify that a 'compromise verdict' is really not possible--I am hesitant to speculate. shrug--I suppose one may utilize knowledge of the legal system gained prior to becoming a juror. Manslaughter--up to 30 yrs, etc.

Yeah, you're right about that. There's that risk of the jurors convicting GZ based on emotions... but then that'd be an injustice... There's no way to know for sure what's going on in their minds.

The evidence is NOT there to convict. Gut feelings are great, I learned working in psych. They can save your life. But when you go to the master's level, you have to remember your models and theories. Same with studying the law. The law can be harsh and many times even unfair. (My Dean used to say, 'this is not fair school, this is law school') Anytime I climb upon that fence and try to see which way I will fall, there is just something there telling me that nothing is a given in this trial, social factors are at work, and juries as well as judges bend to them. As to verdict, I personally believe GZ acted in self defense, but I can't honestly say that I think a jury will acquit him. For those reasons, if he is convicted and his case goes up on appeal, I really can't predict that an appellate court, no doubt watching this case with bated breath, will change anything.

Hm, I see.

It's really something, isn't it?

An adherence to the law... clashing against emotions and/or feelings of right and wrong. What does it say about onlookers like us who agree more with the law here (in support of GZ), and those who defy what the law says in support of feelings of right and wrong (in support of Edward Snowden)?

The construct of the law clashes with morality and emotions. Sometimes the law is "right." Othertimes morals or emotion are.

Whatever it is, it's riveting to watch a trial—a serious debate—like this unfold live on TV.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Juries are a crap shoot... time for attorney war story

I had one case where the jury was only required to render a decision upon one specific issue; to wit, whether the defendant had signed a particular document or not.

1.) Defendants grandson testified that defendant signed it in his presence.
2.) The signature was notarized and the notary testified that the defendant signed it in his presence
3.) My expert witness testified that defendant signed it
4.) Defendant's expert witness testified that it was defendants signature
5.) Defendant testified that it looked like her signature, but she could not remember signing it.

Jury deliberated 4 hours before deciding 10-2 that it was defendants signature.

Moral of the story, never try a case against grandma in front of a jury.

 

[Pheonixops]

it is. that is why hearing it from the dude who is "from the 60s" that "911 are authorities" is laughable to the highest degree.

Or is it early Alzheimer on your part?

Son, just admit you didn't know 911 were the authorities, Ok? You're embarrassing yourself.

Who the hell made them authorities? They are not authorities, just phone operators.

Well, if you saw the movie named "The Call" , you can see that they actually are an "authority" of sorts......................
The Call (2013 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia







psyche!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Why would the defense bring up SYG when their client was the one breaking the law by profiling, stalking and murdering an innocent kid? GZ was the aggressor. The bogus Neighborhood Watch angle was just a ruse so GZ could act like a cop with a big gun.
Are you confused as to who the criminal was here? Just because GZ had duped the SPD and the community with his phony NHW shit, that deception didn't give him any more of a right to do the things he did that night. Thats why cops and security guards wear identifiable uniforms; so people can have some semblance of an assurance that when they are approached, followed, whatever, it is one of the good guys doing it! NHW, according to the National Sheriffs Association that sanctions the REAL organization, does not condone any of the behavior exhibited by GZ on the night he killed Martin!

The prosecution should be using SYG to justify Martin's actions.

They couldn't you simpleton.

TM was the initial aggressor. He provoked the violence, you stupid plodding moron.

How do you know TM was the aggressor . . . ? YOU DON"T! SO STFU!

I would never shut up when a scumbag cocksucker like you tells me to, you pin dick fly fucker.

And of course I do know who initiated the physical altercation.

Beyond ANY doubt it WAS TM, you idiot.

Physical evidence confirms it.

The non gun shot wound injuries were entirely on the VICTIM of the assault, Mr. Zimmerman.

See, unbeknownst to retards like you, it is quite possible (it's actually simple) to use physical evidence to piece together what HAD to have happened. Here, the physical evidence leaves zero room for doubt. TM assaulted GZ and GZ did NOT assault TM until he fired in what is clearly self defense.

Now, go suck another bag of syphilitic cocks, you pitiable loser moron asshole.

 

[lilburnjoe]

If it's a hung jury, will the state retry ?

 

[Sarah G]

I've got the feeling GZ will be acquitted. The prosecution has been relying on emotions—not hard facts—to convict the man.

We'll see. Not all women can be defined as emotional in situations like this in fact, they don't want people to see them that way so they may try hard to lean the other way. It was a tragic event and there are certain facts that lean toward convicting Georgie so we'll see.

Love all the speculation here though. We should call it the Nancy Grace thread.

 

[percysunshine]

If it's a hung jury, will the state retry ?

Of course. Tax payer funding is a bottomless pit if CNN can sell enough advertising.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If it's a hung jury, will the state retry ?

It would be a disaster if they retry. The prosecution has already been caught withholding evidence from the defense, and on top of other things Judge Debra Nelson has proven she is biased and corrupt. She fired Ben Kruidbos for blowing the whistle on hers and De La Rionda's antics in the pre-trial hearings.

But I wonder why double jeopardy doesn't apply here...

 

[testarosa]

It's hard to predict what a jury will do. A jury of women, harder yet. I've seen juries that have women on them hang because one woman got into a snit with another juror and refused to agree with him. One time it was a hung jury because one of the women developed a crush on the defense attorney and refused to convict. (they eventually married) I've had women jurors spend a couple of hours discussing the outfits worn by the attorneys before they came to a decision.

Women are emotional, but there is no way to predict where an emotional decision will lead. What ever this jury decides, that will be the verdict. Hopefully everyone, including federal authorities abides by the decision.

I'm getting really tired of the 'women are emotional' shit. I am an INTJ on the Meyer's Briggs personality inventory. Katz, you are pissing me off.

INTJs spend a lot of time inside their own minds, and may have little interest in the other people's thoughts or feelings. Unless their Feeling side is developed, they may have problems giving other people the level of intimacy that is needed. ....

Portrait of an INTJ

You beat me to this.

BS on the women and emotional decisions crap.

 

[Pheonixops]

It was dark, raining and Martin was walking near the homes looking in - that is in evidence -

If this is true then all Zimmerman had to do was report Trayvon and the Laws pick him up because he's already been fingered and profiled as the "thug" doing all the stealing. But that's not the case now is it? So that "evidence" is just fuckin hearsay.

GTFOH!

A window break-in tool was found under a window that TM spent some time near, so there is some validation of GZ contention.

And it was more than one person doing the break-ins. Those guys usually work in teams of two or three people.

Were Martin's fingerprints on that "tool"?

 

[wavingrl]

I'm not so certain. They say one woman is married to an attorney and another has a son that is an attorney. One member had a CCP, another managed a call center of 1200--? all but one have children.

On and on. Unless someone can clarify that a 'compromise verdict' is really not possible--I am hesitant to speculate. shrug--I suppose one may utilize knowledge of the legal system gained prior to becoming a juror. Manslaughter--up to 30 yrs, etc.

Yeah, you're right about that. There's that risk of the jurors convicting GZ based on emotions... but then that'd be an injustice... There's no way to know for sure what's going on in their minds.

The evidence is NOT there to convict. Gut feelings are great, I learned working in psych. They can save your life. But when you go to the master's level, you have to remember your models and theories. Same with studying the law. The law can be harsh and many times even unfair. (My Dean used to say, 'this is not fair school, this is law school') Anytime I climb upon that fence and try to see which way I will fall, there is just something there telling me that nothing is a given in this trial, social factors are at work, and juries as well as judges bend to them. As to verdict, I personally believe GZ acted in self defense, but I can't honestly say that I think a jury will acquit him. For those reasons, if he is convicted and his case goes up on appeal, I really can't predict that an appellate court, no doubt watching this case with bated breath, will change anything.

Hm, I see.

It's really something, isn't it?

An adherence to the law... clashing against emotions and/or feelings of right and wrong. What does it say about onlookers like us who agree more with the law here (in support of GZ), and those who defy what the law says in support of feelings of right and wrong (in support of Edward Snowden)?

The construct of the law clashes with morality and emotions. Sometimes the law is "right." Othertimes morals or emotion are.

Whatever it is, it's riveting to watch a trial—a serious debate—like this unfold live on TV.

The prediction is that they will reach a unanimous verdict. I suppose--I need to take my head off and clear it out--I don't know about the jurors.

Since I wasn't sequestered--so outraged over the perceived egregrious mistakes of the prosecution that it is difficult to really consider what they said.

 

[testarosa]

Juries are a crap shoot... time for attorney war story

I had one case where the jury was only required to render a decision upon one specific issue; to wit, whether the defendant had signed a particular document or not.

1.) Defendants grandson testified that defendant signed it in his presence.
2.) The signature was notarized and the notary testified that the defendant signed it in his presence
3.) My expert witness testified that defendant signed it
4.) Defendant's expert witness testified that it was defendants signature
5.) Defendant testified that it looked like her signature, but she could not remember signing it.

Jury deliberated 4 hours before deciding 10-2 that it was defendants signature.

Moral of the story, never try a case against grandma in front of a jury.

Holy man! Wow.

The jury did not convict baby killer of the agg child abuse charge - by her own lie - she left the baby at the bottom of the stairs at an apt complex. WHO DOES THAT? You take the baby in with all the baby stuff and get the baby settled, then you leave, you don't leave them at the bottom of the stairs. The state didn't prove their case, but no child abuse?

POOF! Baby disappears at the "bottom of the stairs", by her own words, that's should have been a conviction on that charge.

I'm not speculating this decision, it's a total crapshoot. I'm just here to make up the Disney pedicure stories.