Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If Zimmerman was truly "standing his ground" and "feared for his life", then why the fuck did he get out of the vehicle and follow Trayvon around on foot?
Couldn't he have stayed in the vehicle after calling 911? Especially, when, as the defense claimed, he was out of shape and unable to fight?
If he'd stayed in his vehicle and was attacked, that would be "standing your ground". Following someone is not.
If Zimmerman is let go, I hope that someday after he's set free, someone else feels that Zimmerman is a threat and decides to stand their ground as well.
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.
You don't understand conservative logic. Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. Martin did not.
Martin had a right to beat the shit out of Zimmerman, but Zimmerman wasn't allowed to defend himself.
Liberal logic folks.
Who was stalking whom? Martin was being stalked by Zimmerman. Therefore, it was Martin who had good cause to fear for his life from an unknown and unidentified man in the dark. And why would Zimmerman fear for his life anyway when he was the one who had a gun?
No, in the conservative world where Bizzaro logic rules, a man with a gun can stalk someone in the dark, provoke a confrontation without identifying himself even though no crime had been reported in the area, and then kill someone and claim self-defense. And the conservative media hoists the killer on their shoulders as some kind of hero of 2nd Amendment rights.
Like I said, it's Bizzaro World logic.
Zimmerman should get an award for saving the taxpayers a shitload of money in welfare payments that Trayvon would most certainly have received. We owe GZ a big thank you.
I remember stories from 911 where people who came down to the lobby trying to leave were told by the security people to go back up to their floors...
Well you might as well guess what happened then.
I don't think 911 dispatchers have the authority to tell someone anything other then maybe relay communications from the police.
and in most cases they don't even do that well. so why are we calling them to begin with is the question?
It's obvious calling them didn't serve Zimmerman well because he still took the law into his own hands.
Took the law into his own hands?
that's an ignorant statement. what law did he take into his own hands?
Did anybody miss me? My dsl modem broke. I just got my new one you lucky dogs.
Hi everyone.
I have been sitting here reading everyone's thoughts on this case. Some of the things said have struck me as funny. This is a very sad case. This is a loos loos case. no matter what the verdict comes back at is going to make people very upset. I have seen so many hateful things said from both sides of the street. I find it very sad on the types of names that have been used that I personally find offensive. I wish there was a way to take some of the names that have been used and make them unusable. I feel there is no just cause to use the names that have been used even as a descriptive of a persons color weather meant in a nice way in a greeting. To me it is like nails on a chalk board.
Ok sorry for the rant I just needed to get this off my chest.
Yeah,. there does not seem to be any middle on this case.
I think we will get a hung jury on this trial.
Two of the jurors were crying during Guy's closing.
If Zimmerman get acquired then we must change the laws about self defense and killing witnesses.
Hate this hypocrisy in the media! Out of one side of their mouth they speak of maintaining calm in the wake of the verdict, and out of the other side they give reasons for the public to be incensed.
Reporters ceased, long ago, being reporters of news and opted instead to become the news. There is no more objective journalism but there is a hell of a lot of "personalities." It's a difficult task to report just the facts without interjecting your own spin. It's a shame that is no longer rewarded but has been replaced by the ability to bring in ratings and damn the truth.
In this case, all I see are reporters reporting about the "world is watching", "tensions are high", etc. etc. I don't see evidence of that and their repeating it seems to border on inciting it. The trial has been held and the jury is deliberating. Wasn't that what the protests were all about last year? Let the chips fall where they may.
And after all the evidence the general public has seen about TM, can't we all agree that he played a part, a large part in my opinion, but he played a part in his own demise. There should be no reason whatsoever to "riot" or create a disturbance given all we now know about what really went down. Anyone who thinks a violent reaction is warranted under any circumstances is truly ignorant. Message to the media: Just Stop.
I see it legal in the context of the watch program, and just as the dispatcher had suggested to Zimmerman when said "are you following him(?)", and GZ said yes, then next the dispatcher said "that we don't need you to do that sir". Now (imho) this was being said mainly for GZ's own protection in the situation, and in which GZ complied with afterwards when said OK.He is serious. It is total BS what you are assuming.
It is totally legal to follow people
Totally legal? Not necessarily so. It is not legal to stalk and spy on people, to create fear, to invade privacy. Sorry to disillusion, but it is not legal to do that.
GZ was not stalking. and him following TM was totally legal
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.
You know....................if someone were to follow me around for as long as GZ did to TM, I'd probably turn around and kick their ass as well.
GZ instigated it by stalking TM. If GZ is so innocent and was worried about his safety, why did he leave his vehicle to chase down TM?
Martin had a right to beat the shit out of Zimmerman, but Zimmerman wasn't allowed to defend himself.
Liberal logic folks.
Who was stalking whom? Martin was being stalked by Zimmerman. Therefore, it was Martin who had good cause to fear for his life from an unknown and unidentified man in the dark. And why would Zimmerman fear for his life anyway when he was the one who had a gun?
No, in the conservative world where Bizzaro logic rules, a man with a gun can stalk someone in the dark, provoke a confrontation without identifying himself even though no crime had even been reported in the area, and then kill someone and claim self-defense. And the conservative media hoists the killer on their shoulders as some kind of hero of 2nd Amendment rights.
Like I said, it's Bizzaro World logic.
Must I keep reminding you brain dead liberals that there's a difference between stalking and following? Martin was lying in wait, he had 4 minutes to get home. Guess what? He chose to act macho instead.
Your rant is tl;dr.
Let us not forget that Zimmerman passed 2 lie detector tests, so most likely his account of the incident is true. Zimm says Martin started taking off quickly before he had even gotten out of his vehicle, got out of the car, not to apprehend Martin but in order to be able to tell the cops where he was. Zimm says he thought he lost him and Martin pops up as he is heading back towards where he was to meet the officers. This is not a manslaughter or murder case if this is all true.
The crux of the matter is if GZ is telling the truth. Too many facts give lie to what he has said. Perhaps the most crucial of all is the lie about the gun. GZ could not have reached his gun if TM was straddling him as alleged. That means his entire account of the altercation is a fabrication. On that alone he deserves to be convicted of manslaughter. However given the weakness of the prosecutions case I expect him to be acquitted or a hung jury.
Imho FAR too much credence is being placed on this story. All we know is where Z's gun was holstered WHILE HE WAS STANDING. Cmon folks--he was knocked and his ass and wrestling all over the ground with MArtin on top of him. The grass was wet and slippery. It's highly unlikely that the holster or Z's pants didn't shift during the scuffle.
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial should be charged with "prosecutorial misconduct" for suggesting the defendant planned the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.
"That is something no prosecutor should be allowed to get away with to make up a story from whole cloth," Dershowitz told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"These prosecutors should be disbarred. They have acted absolutely irresponsibly in an utterly un-American fashion."
Dershowitz: Zimmerman Prosecutors 'Should Be Disbarred'
It's a unified white thing in some of these peoples minds, you ought to know that by now.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?
Easiest question of the year; manslaughter.
An all woman jury with 5 mothers on it. Prosecutors emphasized that the jury should decide with their heart. Logic doesn't enter into it.
Women are sops for emotional pleading.
Manslaughter.......case closed.
