The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[testarosa]

This is mean but here's some justice - the jury hangs, it flips back to the state to retry or drop the charges and let them take the fall for it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

There's a difference between stalking and following? I would agree with that statement only if the person behind someone is merely walking in the same direction because both people are on the same sidewalk. That happens on the street everyday in every city and town in America. But when a person is specifically following another person and not simple walking in the same direction, he's stalking the person. Stalking, in and of itself, is threatening.

If and when Zimmerman is convicted, maybe based on his civilian experience as a member of the Neighborhood Defense Force, he'll be made a trustee with all the rights and privileges therein.

And speaking of which, Zimmerman was a member of neighborhood WATCH, not neighborhood STALK!

Yes, following and stalking are two different things. I have been a personal witness to a stalking. A stalker always follows you no matter where you are or where you go. Following itself is not illegal, since you intend to break off your pursuit.

Stalking = harassment and intimidation

Following = out of curiosity without criminal intent.

Once again, the rest of your rant is tl;dr.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

and not one peep from Obama today? telling his Panthers to keep their cool if Zimmerman walks? only because we are going into the Mid-Term Election season?

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Yep. Almost, I won't say all, but almost every one of our leftist friends are wanting a guilty verdict. And that HAS to be based on emotion--they don't like him, they don't like that he is a 'white guy' who killed a black guy, they assume he is racist, that he acted vindictively out of racist hatred, a wanna be vigilante cop who acted like all vigilante wanna be cops act, yadda yadda. And that--a purely emotional response--is what drives them as there as simply no facts in evidence to support a conviction. Almost all of the prosecution's case was built on emotion. Is it any coincidence that the now infamous mannequin the prosecution brought in was black?

In my opinion, most, not all but most, leftists are not abstract or objective thinkers but are motivated almost entirely by how they feel about something and don't want that emotional response challenged by facts.

So now the question is, are any jurors people driven and motivated by emotion? In which case we could have a hung jury. Or are they people who are able to set aside feelings and are willing to focus on the facts? If so, we will almost certainly have an acquittal.

Abstract thinking is not a function of intelligence. I test every patient I get for their ability to abstract. There have been PhD's who were concrete, and borderline intellectual functioning who could abstract. Every now and then I would get someone who would interpret my questions both abstractly and concretely, and some who just wanted to know the 'right' answer.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

TM's leg was between GZ's hand and where his gun was according to GZ's alleged account of what happened. GZ alleged that TM was pounding his head into the pavement while reaching for the gun at the same time. GZ claimed he was screaming for help while TM had his hands over his mouth. TM would have to be an octopus to do everything that GZ alleged was happening during the altercation.

 

[Sunshine]

Regarding abstract thinking: I went to a seminar once where one of the presenters, an PhD, said that he is naturally a concrete thinker, but that through the use of multiple tools has helped himself be able to think more abstractly. I have noticed in my practice it is people who have gone to Sunday school who are the abstract thinkers. They have been taught the Christian 'parables' and what they mean. So they can apply that skill in other area.

 

[Sunshine]

now they are polling victims/families of victims of the Boston bombing to determine if they would prefer the death penalty.

taking a deep breath

this is how we do things now---fine. that's great. So GZ's sentence if it can be compared to Tsarnaev's will be much harsher?

I am not thinking very well. Random thoughts.

~~~
and I have been typing O'Mara for days--just saw on HLN scrawl--'O'Meara'.

kindly clarify --I just don't want to check.

O'Meara is an athlete. O'Mara is the Zimmerman defense attorney.

 

[testarosa]

Whatever the verdict, I hope that ends it and the madness stops.

have you figured out the next one to watch

Oops. I'm having an attention span issue. lol

Ummmm. No. I can't see the forest through the trees right now. Can we please not make it an emotional one? I'm fn tired and I need to do some work bad.

Jodi DP hearing is the 16th I think to set the next DP date.

When is Castro going up? He's slapped with THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY NINE COUNTS! and pled not guilty.

 

[testarosa]

Based upon the defense witnesses, I believe Travon Martin was on top ( John Good's impression ) and GZ was in fear for his life and acted in self-defense.

I dislike the fact that the prosecution changed--started out with GZ on top, IIRC.

and I would not forget that.

2nd degree murder--and we will tell you why and then in closing--maybe not.

It's fitting that the prosecution called Zimmerman a liar several times but was caught lying to the jury on numerous occasions.

We haven't been in the same thread - you caught that huh? Sheesh.

 

[Sunshine]

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 don't think the world is watching. I don't think the world gives a shit. I think most parents here are out watching their kids play T ball.

Here is the link for the China Daily. Anyone who can find the name Zimmerman in it wins the cyber dollar!

Beijing News

 

[testarosa]

that is the way the set it up to the jurors

dont vote on what the law dictates but vote on emotion

That's how Democrats vote.

somewhat wading into the weeds

the judge in this case is a democrat

and both defense attorneys contributed to her campaign

Her campaign manager is on the RNC - this is an R state issue, although I wish it wasn't, every state player is R. Did you read my B / C post this morning? I think this was a D national game and it was over PC'ed by the state R's. So what we've got is a f'ed up government as a whole.

Also Z is registered D.

So much for that whole "guns and R's" lib argument.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I would like one of you nutters to prove to me that Martin threw the first punch or initiated the confrontation. You keep saying it like it is fact. It is conjecture. Nobody saw it. Nobody witnessed the start of the confrontation.

Thanks.

 

[LoneLaugher]

and not one peep from Obama today? telling his Panthers to keep their cool if Zimmerman walks? only because we are going into the Mid-Term Election season?

His panthers?

Man, you are a dick.

 

[B. Kidd]

It will take someone with balls to find him not guilty...

Most think this case is about race. While they were looking the wrong way, when all is said and done, it is actually more about gender.

 

[Sunshine]

Alan Dershowitz was an advisor to the defense team for the OJ trial so who gives a shit what he says.

Besides you're drawing from some interview on Newsmax. Strike two.

Alan Dershowitz... former National Board member of the ACLU, Harvard Constitutional Law Professor and famed appellate attorney and you dismiss him because he was an advisor to a defense team which successfully defended someone most people think was guilty?

I suppose you also denigrate Bill Gates' computer software expertise because he is rich and successful?

You caught on to that troll in record time, with all those pics of a smart person as her avatar notwithstanding..

 

[beagle9]

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.

You don't understand conservative logic. Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. Martin did not.

And you are just a political hack. where as you only hold one logic, and that logic is messed up and I think you know it by now or do you ?

 

[Sunshine]

If the jurors were crying during Guy's closing, it was because they were at the end of their rope out of sheer unbearable boredom.

Did they show the jury? Seems to me the cameras were facing in the other direction. The defendant faces the jury, and we sure saw a lot of Zimmerman shots.

 

[Duped]

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.

Following is not stalking - following is not against the law. GZ did not fear for his life until TM brokes his nose, and started slamming his head into the concrete. It was very dark - TM was very dark - inscrutable. Tm had 4, minutes to vacate the area, instead he decided to lie, and wait for GZ totally cocealed where he could spring on GZ, and beat the life out of him.

TM broke the law when he assaulted zimmerman; no illegal act was perpetrated until then.
GZ killed in self defense; not before. GZ did what any one in his shoes would have done if they were concerned with self preservation. His gun was used for the purpose for which it was made.

You liberals take the politically expedient view on everything. Your insane ideology makes you dangerous. You do not have the ability to rationalize from a objective viewpoint.
Your post is as about as stupid as I have ever read.

 

[Vox]

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.

There's a difference between stalking and following? I would agree with that statement only if the person behind someone is merely walking in the same direction because both people are on the same sidewalk. That happens on the street everyday in every city and town in America. But when a person is specifically following another person and not simple walking in the same direction, he's stalking the person. Stalking, in and of itself, is threatening.

If and when Zimmerman is convicted, maybe based on his civilian experience as a member of the Neighborhood Defense Force, he'll be made a trustee with all the rights and privileges therein.

And speaking of which, Zimmerman was a member of neighborhood WATCH, not neighborhood STALK!

Yes, and a big one. Z was not stalking and following T was legal.

 

[Sunshine]

This is mean but here's some justice - the jury hangs, it flips back to the state to retry or drop the charges and let them take the fall for it.

The 'state' is going to do what the angry mob wants.