The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[TW]

Good morning everyone!

Tess, how's the foot?

How will the State prove GZ "demonstrat(ed) a depraved mind without regard for human life"? If this is all about Zimmerman's state of mind, without regard to TM's since we'll never know, then according to this definition it will be difficult to prove M2. It will be equally difficult to prove self-defense if the jury believes TM was in fear and lashed out when GZ reached for his "phone" or whatever, as @25caliber mentioned earlier.

Hey Santy. I'm on the way to urgent care (gag).

They can't prove it. The Feds did an investigation into race and hate crime and it wasn't. He's overcharged because of politics.

What happened to your foot?

 

[SantaFeWay]

TW - Tess stepped on a nail over the weekend and it went pretty deep. She was concerned cuz she hasn't had a tetanus shot in a long time.

Glad to see you here. Thanks for the M2 material. That's one of the problems with this case, IMO. Overcharged.

 

[testarosa]

Hey I am so with you on that.

To me the night of Trayvon and George is the ultimate FUBAR;d moment ever. And we have a dead child and a man and his family because of assholes like Sharpton a dead man.

What I don't get, and I think Trayvon's parents are really awesome by the way, why didn't they get a decent report on the how and why their child died.

If I remember correctly the idiot pd didn't even notify his dad so of course they are going to be beside themselves.

So if what I am reading the poor parents were left out of the loop and of course they started to lose it.

We can't blame them for that. Then of course as soon as Sharpton and Jackson get their names in print all hell breaks loose.

Sharpton and his ilk cause divide...The trial should be decided on its merits...let the chips fall where they may. Too many times Sharpton and others dont like the way the chips may fall so they cause a divide and try to win it that way.

Its disturbing because as soon as you look to divide people get defensive and instead of fighting against the merits they dont like being called racist, so they look for ways that the other side is correct. I fall into this to...as soon as the race card is pulled, I tend to look for reasons why they are wrong on the merits.

In this case, Im trying to wipe race away and look at both sides. Im honestly down the middle and I could debate the merits of either side. I am curious to see how the evidence is presented from both sides. Hopefully, race is removed from the equation and they stay with the facts. I believe that the Martin side has plenty to argue for or against the defense...they can win this with strong arguments and properly presented evidence...they dont need the ace in the hole race card to win.

pretty soon i will quit discussing the case

except for what comes out

in court each day

and let it unfold

I am totally in touch with that emotion, except "pretty soon" means now in my case.

I think every other thing that could be said, has been said, several times.

 

[testarosa]

Later gators, have to have a couple shots

Santy! Keep an eye on those potential jurors for me!

 

[TW]

Good morning everyone!

Tess, how's the foot?

How will the State prove GZ "demonstrat(ed) a depraved mind without regard for human life"? If this is all about Zimmerman's state of mind, without regard to TM's since we'll never know, then according to this definition it will be difficult to prove M2. It will be equally difficult to prove self-defense if the jury believes TM was in fear and lashed out when GZ reached for his "phone" or whatever, as @25caliber mentioned earlier.

That depends SFW. It doesn't have to be a hate crime, or racial bias, in order for him to have ill-will or spite. In the conversation with the operator, he states that "these fucking punks always get away". So, for one, it explains why he left the vehicle when it was wholly unnecessary, even before the operator tells him, "We don't need you to do that". In other words, he was on foot in pursuit so that this f*cking punk doesn't get away. His state of mind, was not fear, it was anger. He had already determined that TM was a F*ing punk, without just cause, and was upset about that. People who are in fear, versus those who are angry, do not risk exiting the safety of their vehicle. Now I know he used the excuse that he couldn't remember a street name in his own neighborhood, which sounds incredibly far-fetched, but if I can get to that degree of suspension of disbelief, because of ADD, then I have to consider the impact of amphetamines on his state of mind as well, since supposedly he was being treated for the condition. A possible side effect of Adderall :"Additional reports have included irritability, aggression, anger" Adderall Side Effects | Drugs.com

I suppose the defense can always put that in their back pocket as a reason for his actions as well. I guess it cuts both ways.

Anyway, he was following TM without ever informing him that he was a neighborhood watch person. If what he said is true, that TM circled his car a few times, what else would he expect to happen by exiting the car with a gun?

These are things that can go to murder 2. I'm not saying that they will, but they can.
As to who confronted whom, there are no corroborating witnesses to that. The jurors have to find Zimmerman credible in his version of events. But if he didn't want a confrontation, why didn't he explain that he was a watch person while Martin supposedly went around his car?

 

[TW]

Later gators, have to have a couple shots

Santy! Keep an eye on those potential jurors for me!

You don't even feel the tetanus shot, very easy to get through. Then you are good for 10 years.

 

[TW]

TW - Tess stepped on a nail over the weekend and it went pretty deep. She was concerned cuz she hasn't had a tetanus shot in a long time.

Glad to see you here. Thanks for the M2 material. That's one of the problems with this case, IMO. Overcharged.

I thought that too, but FL M2 doesn't require proof of intent, they just need to prove malice, and that may be there.

 

[testarosa]

TW - Tess stepped on a nail over the weekend and it went pretty deep. She was concerned cuz she hasn't had a tetanus shot in a long time.

Glad to see you here. Thanks for the M2 material. That's one of the problems with this case, IMO. Overcharged.

I thought that too, but FL M2 doesn't require proof of intent, they just need to prove malice, and that may be there.

what he said on the non emergency line could be key to proving the 'depraved mind' and the state of mind element of second-degree murder . But, if defense claims self defense (which they are expected to) and the state does not prove there was no self-defense he could be acquitted. This could go either way.

 

[SantaFeWay]

Yes, malice may be there. So far, even with the comments you quoted, I don't see it yet but the trial hasn't begun. I wonder if the prosecution will go into GZ's reputation in order to prove that, or just present the 911 call and let the jury consider what you/we have.

Tess, I'm interested in the different biases of the various news channels the lawyers keep asking about. What's the deal in FL regarding those stations? What was 13's perspective? Channel 9's? etc.

 

[TW]

TW - Tess stepped on a nail over the weekend and it went pretty deep. She was concerned cuz she hasn't had a tetanus shot in a long time.

Glad to see you here. Thanks for the M2 material. That's one of the problems with this case, IMO. Overcharged.

I thought that too, but FL M2 doesn't require proof of intent, they just need to prove malice, and that may be there.

what he said on the non emergency line could be key to proving the 'depraved mind' and the state of mind element of second-degree murder . But, if defense claims self defense (which they are expected to) and the state does not prove there was no self-defense he could be acquitted. This could go either way.

It could go any which way, because there is no way to predict jurors' verdicts. I was just speaking to the M2 charge, and after reading the statute, it's not necessarily an overcharge, depending on the state's theory. Remember, he knew, if what he said was true about the teenager circling the car, that Martin would approach him, getting out set in motion a confrontation. A reasonable person would know what would happen based on the prior alleged circling. I don't think that there is a chance in hell that Zimmerman would have exited the vehicle had he not had a gun. Martin was considerably taller and bigger than him.

If you intentionally put yourself in what you know will be a confrontation, and you are not protecting property, home or self, then you are actively encouraging exactly what transpired. When you are carrying a gun as courage, a reasonable person might assume you'd use it.

 

[testarosa]

I freaking can't tell on this juror...

Totally on the fence. My flag isn't up, but I'm not entirely comfortable with her answers either.

 

[testarosa]

Yes, malice may be there. So far, even with the comments you quoted, I don't see it yet but the trial hasn't begun. I wonder if the prosecution will go into GZ's reputation in order to prove that, or just present the 911 call and let the jury consider what you/we have.

Tess, I'm interested in the different biases of the various news channels the lawyers keep asking about. What's the deal in FL regarding those stations? What was 13's perspective? Channel 9's? etc.

I haven't really listened to anything but clickorlando channel 6 - they are straight down the middle on facts. I'll watch the news tonight and see.

 

[TW]

Hole E. Crap you're over here.

Yeah. But I think I won't be here for long, though. Plus I need to get work done. I hope you feel better.

 

[testarosa]

If Z is acquitted it will encourage vigilantism. This was not the intention or the purpose of the stand your ground law.

Z's defense is a stretch of the law and of his imagination.

I absolutely positively disagree with that statement.

This was a single incident. I disagree with that as much as the entire race issue being rammed down the throat of and put on the back of this single event.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Yes, malice may be there. So far, even with the comments you quoted, I don't see it yet but the trial hasn't begun. I wonder if the prosecution will go into GZ's reputation in order to prove that, or just present the 911 call and let the jury consider what you/we have.

Tess, I'm interested in the different biases of the various news channels the lawyers keep asking about. What's the deal in FL regarding those stations? What was 13's perspective? Channel 9's? etc.

If they bring in Z's 'reputation', shouldn't the defense be allowed to bring in M's? I know this has been brought up before, and that the judge already ruled M's past can't be brought in during the opening.

"Nelson has already ruled that defense attorneys won't be able to mention Martin's past marijuana use, suspension from school and past fighting during opening statements, though Nelson left open the possibility that the defense could try again later during the trial if it could show relevance."

Read more: George Zimmerman murder trial begins with judge denying delay | Fox News

As far as the different tv channels, I believe that has to do with MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc.

 

[testarosa]

Yes, malice may be there. So far, even with the comments you quoted, I don't see it yet but the trial hasn't begun. I wonder if the prosecution will go into GZ's reputation in order to prove that, or just present the 911 call and let the jury consider what you/we have.

Tess, I'm interested in the different biases of the various news channels the lawyers keep asking about. What's the deal in FL regarding those stations? What was 13's perspective? Channel 9's? etc.

If they bring in Z's 'reputation', shouldn't the defense be allowed to bring in M's? I know this has been brought up before, and that the judge already ruled M's past can't be brought in during the opening.

"Nelson has already ruled that defense attorneys won't be able to mention Martin's past marijuana use, suspension from school and past fighting during opening statements, though Nelson left open the possibility that the defense could try again later during the trial if it could show relevance."

Read more: George Zimmerman murder trial begins with judge denying delay | Fox News

As far as the different tv channels, I believe that has to do with MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc.

She (Judge Nelson) can't and she won't bring it in. It's irrelevant and he's dead. Victim assassination isn't copacetic. In this case, I think there's some relevancy there that goes to his state of mind (fighting), but even still, ain't going to happen with Judge No Way.

I don't know if she's ruled on/there's been a motion on Z's past yet, if so I missed it.

Judge Sherry let the victim character assassination go weeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllll beyond where it should have, i.e. that whole pedophile thing was hearsay and hearsay on the part of a liar, there was no evidence of that. She bent over backwards to a fault to avoid a mistrial because it was dp.

 

[testarosa]

I think they let that one go for cause.

 

[Snookie]

If Z is acquitted it will encourage vigilantism. This was not the intention or the purpose of the stand your ground law.

Z's defense is a stretch of the law and of his imagination.

I absolutely positively disagree with that statement.

This was a single incident. I disagree with that as much as the entire race issue being rammed down the throat of and put on the back of this single event.

I said nothing about race. I was talking vigilantism.

 

[testarosa]

The Bernster is such a faker, I can't stand him. In the dictionary next to Lawyer is his picture.

 

[testarosa]

If Z is acquitted it will encourage vigilantism. This was not the intention or the purpose of the stand your ground law.

Z's defense is a stretch of the law and of his imagination.

I absolutely positively disagree with that statement.

This was a single incident. I disagree with that as much as the entire race issue being rammed down the throat of and put on the back of this single event.

I said nothing about race. I was talking vigilantism.

I know I was making a comparison. I disagree with a) as much as I disagree with b)