The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Gardener]

Florida's SYG law says you can use force if you believe someone means you bodily harm.

Zimmerman angrily followed Martin in the dark and in the rain. That's reasonable justification to feel threatened. If Martin had a gun he could have pointed it at Zimmerman and said "stop following me". If Zimmerman didn't stop Martin could have blown his head off.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

Which part backs up your claim? Be very specific.

why, so you can insult me again in your Reputation comments?

 

[Amelia]

Not really - mostly circumstantial and inconclusive, like with Zimmerman.

It's trial by media.

With all due respect, Coyote? The ONLY reason that Trayvon is IN Sanford is that he's been suspended from high school for possession of pot and breaking into other kid's lockers and stealing jewelry. That's not "circumstantial and inconclusive"...that's a fact. We've got one of the two people involved in this fight using offensively racist language immediately prior to the fight and that person ISN'T George Zimmerman...it's Trayvon Martin calling someone a "Cracker". That also isn't circumstantial or inclusive...it's a fact...a fact that the main stream media chose to ignore because it didn't fit their "narrative" that a racist white man stalked and killed an innocent teen who only wanted to buy candy and return home...a narrative that wasn't supported by the facts.

You mean like when GZ called Trayvon a "fucking coon"? Listen to it here.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/302919-george-zimmerman-fucking-coons.html

Trayvon said cracker to his friend on the phone - not to GZ.

Doesn't matter though because none of what you've said is a crime punishable by murder.

This isn't the firs time a creepy ass cracker got away with murdering a black kid who was minding his own business and it won't be the last.

What's the use of all your modern gadgets if you don't employ them to ascertain facts?

 

[Connery]

Funny how everyone is so upset about a Hispanic shooting a black man but nobody cares about Aaron Hernandez shooting and killing a brother in cold-blood.

Totally different situation.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

I'm sorry, I couldn't answer your question because I'm not sure what it really means, or what point you are trying to get to. I feel like it's your responsibility to respect everyone in the same way you wish to be respected. What the hell is up with the latest rash of dumbassery? I've heard some of the most absolutely stupid shit being said the past few years, and I can't figure out why. When did we all lose our goddamn common sense? When did we start viewing "murder" as any time someone gets killed? When did we start finding people guilty of murder, based on what we think about their judgement or personality? Did none of you dumbasses ever study anything about laws or the justice system in school?

I've watched people during the Zimmerman trial, behave as if they are brainwashed zombies. We seem to be lulled into this false perception that a real-life legal case, is some sort of Hollywood-produced crime drama, presented to entertain us. As the viewer, we are drawn in to the liberal story line, made to feel sympathy for the character, and then when the time comes for the verdict, we somehow expect the "show" will all be wrapped up nicely with the "bad guy" being carted away to prison, and we're disappointed because that didn't happen. This was real life, real people were involved, and the evidence was not there to convict Zimmerman, of even manslaughter. He acted in self defense, it doesn't matter if he used poor judgement in confronting Martin, or if he disregarded the dispatcher's instructions. It doesn't even matter if he touched Trayvon first, he still has the right to defend his life if attacked.

Why do we call dispatchers? Because that's who answers at 911! That's who sends the Po-po! Should we listen to their advice? Most of the time, yes. Do we have to listen to their advice? No, we don't. And IF we don't obey their commands, it doesn't mean guilty of murder.

Wait a minute. You say, "it doesn't even matter if he touched Trayvon first, he still has the right to defend his life if attacked."

So, if I, a woman, am walking in my neighborhood at night and a man is following me and I end up face to face with him and ask him why he is following me...

You are saying that if he reaches toward me and even touches me and I perceive this as a clear and present danger and defend myself by punching him in the face...that he then has the right to shoot me dead?

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? ARE YOU NUTS?

Are you all fucking nuts? Or just evil?

No, that's not what I am saying, you are taking what I said and deliberately using it out of context because you don't like that I don't share your views on vigilante justice.

If Zimmerman tried to physically restrain Martin, that constitutes simple assault under the law, and Zimmerman could have been placed under arrest as soon as officers arrived. You can't take the law into your own hands and try to beat the mans head into the pavement. You're not within your rights to do this, even if he puts his hands on you, lest you can be charged with assault as well. And while uttering phrases like "you gonna die tonight, cracka!" It's assault with intent to murder, a much more serious offense than simple assault. You may not like this, but it's the law and how our laws work. It's not "evil" it's how we do things, because we don't let people take matters into their own hands in situations like this, we're civilized human beings.

You're saying some kid, barely 17 years old, should have the presence of mind and knowledge of law and self-control to allow some weird fucker to restrain him when he hasn't done anything wrong? And if he doesn't, if he fights back, that gives the weird fucker the right to kill him?

As a woman, I know that if some fucker grabs me when I'm walking down my street at night I'm going to be SHRIEKING "YOU'RE GOING TO DIE TONIGHT, MOTHER FUCKER!" as I claw his eyes out. You're saying because I need to use that kind of technique (you know, it's like a karate shriek) to pump my adrenaline up enough to defend myself against a larger, stronger person, I am now guilty of assault with intent to murder? When this other person started the whole thing in the first place???

BULLSHIT.

 

[Meister]

Not really - mostly circumstantial and inconclusive, like with Zimmerman.

It's trial by media.

With all due respect, Coyote? The ONLY reason that Trayvon is IN Sanford is that he's been suspended from high school for possession of pot and breaking into other kid's lockers and stealing jewelry. That's not "circumstantial and inconclusive"...that's a fact. We've got one of the two people involved in this fight using offensively racist language immediately prior to the fight and that person ISN'T George Zimmerman...it's Trayvon Martin calling someone a "Cracker". That also isn't circumstantial or inclusive...it's a fact...a fact that the main stream media chose to ignore because it didn't fit their "narrative" that a racist white man stalked and killed an innocent teen who only wanted to buy candy and return home...a narrative that wasn't supported by the facts.

You mean like when GZ called Trayvon a "fucking coon"? Listen to it here.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/302919-george-zimmerman-fucking-coons.html

Trayvon said cracker to his friend on the phone - not to GZ.

Doesn't matter though because none of what you've said is a crime punishable by murder.

This isn't the firs time a creepy ass cracker got away with murdering a black kid who was minding his own business and it won't be the last.

That was debunked, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.

 

[Boss]

They should not assault anyone.

That's where it all went wrong, if you believe Zimmerman's account.

Unfortunately, he has been shown to lie....pretty straight faced at it too.

And here, you touch on what the entire problem is with arguing this case after the fact. You have decided to assume that Zimmerman is lying, and the events did not happen as he described, while also assuming the prosecutors were completely honest in their story about Martin. I would imagine, Martin had probably told a fib or two in his life, don't you think? Most of us probably have, unless we're all perfect like you. But you don't end up with contusions and lacerations on the back of your head from assaulting someone who is defending themselves. So the evidence supports Zimmerman's story, that he was having his head beaten into the pavement, when Martin spotted his gun and told him "you gonna die tonight, cracka!" then started to try and get the gun. He had no business assaulting Zimmerman, as the evidence clearly shows he did.

Now.... I challenge any of you... let someone get on top of you, and start pounding your head into the concrete, and tell me how long it takes for you to "feel" like your life is being threatened? Ten seconds? Less, more? In my opinion, the wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head, is the clincher. If those were not present, I can see the case for possible 2nd or 3rd degree manslaughter. This is the forensic proof that Zimmerman was being attacked, and he has every legal right to defend his life in that scenario, regardless of how that scenario transpired.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

With all due respect, Coyote? The ONLY reason that Trayvon is IN Sanford is that he's been suspended from high school for possession of pot and breaking into other kid's lockers and stealing jewelry. That's not "circumstantial and inconclusive"...that's a fact. We've got one of the two people involved in this fight using offensively racist language immediately prior to the fight and that person ISN'T George Zimmerman...it's Trayvon Martin calling someone a "Cracker". That also isn't circumstantial or inclusive...it's a fact...a fact that the main stream media chose to ignore because it didn't fit their "narrative" that a racist white man stalked and killed an innocent teen who only wanted to buy candy and return home...a narrative that wasn't supported by the facts.

You mean like when GZ called Trayvon a "fucking coon"? Listen to it here.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/302919-george-zimmerman-fucking-coons.html

Trayvon said cracker to his friend on the phone - not to GZ.

Doesn't matter though because none of what you've said is a crime punishable by murder.

This isn't the firs time a creepy ass cracker got away with murdering a black kid who was minding his own business and it won't be the last.

What's the use of all your modern gadgets if you don't employ them to ascertain facts?

The point was, and it was an excellent one that speaking in a private conversation is not even comparable to GZ talking to 911 or Trayvon. That's one implication. Also others like blacks sometimes use the words like "cracker" and "******" as everyday slang.

 

[Gardener]

Funny how gun extremists support the 2nd Amendment until its for your black men.

Then they support gun laws and restrictions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One day before I moved away, my children and a friend and I were in one of the small towns around here. We were passing the city hall which had the jail in the basement. My friend says, let's take them in to see t he jail. So, we did. The kids were not adolescents, but almost. We went in and asked the man at the front if we could have a tour. He took our purses and locked them up and then took us through the jail. In the kitchen, the cook gave us all a cupcake. It was a decent cupcake. When we went back outside, my son said, 'Now I know why they call it the gutter.'

When I was in high school, one of my teachers took his class on a tour of the state hospital. As I look back, it strikes me as strange that in that day our mentally ill were treated worse than our criminals. I've seen big changes in the treatment of mental illness, but we aren't where we need to be yet. Too bad all the money this trial consumed couldn't have been spent to help people who deserved it instead of trying to avenge the justifiable killing of a mugger.

The jails are where they send the mentally ill now days.

The prisons are where they send the mentally ill. I had a huge case load in both the prisons I worked in. Juries are fed up with the insanity defense. I used to say if I were a practicing attorney who had a client I knew to be guilty, I would use the insanity defense. That way he would go to prison and I would still have fervently represented my client. No one gets off on insanity any more, not even Andrea Yates, and you can look at her and tell she is crazy.

Well, just because someone is mentally ill doesn't automatically negate their ability to understand the nature and consequences of their actions, which is what counts - or is supposed to count - in court.

 

[bodecea]

They should not assault anyone.

That's where it all went wrong, if you believe Zimmerman's account.

Unfortunately, he has been shown to lie....pretty straight faced at it too.

And here, you touch on what the entire problem is with arguing this case after the fact. You have decided to assume that Zimmerman is lying, and the events did not happen as he described, while also assuming the prosecutors were completely honest in their story about Martin. I would imagine, Martin had probably told a fib or two in his life, don't you think? Most of us probably have, unless we're all perfect like you. But you don't end up with contusions and lacerations on the back of your head from assaulting someone who is defending themselves. So the evidence supports Zimmerman's story, that he was having his head beaten into the pavement, when Martin spotted his gun and told him "you gonna die tonight, cracka!" then started to try and get the gun. He had no business assaulting Zimmerman, as the evidence clearly shows he did.

Now.... I challenge any of you... let someone get on top of you, and start pounding your head into the concrete, and tell me how long it takes for you to "feel" like your life is being threatened? Ten seconds? Less, more? In my opinion, the wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head, is the clincher. If those were not present, I can see the case for possible 2nd or 3rd degree manslaughter. This is the forensic proof that Zimmerman was being attacked, and he has every legal right to defend his life in that scenario, regardless of how that scenario transpired.

I saw pics of the back of Zimmerman's head....not much pounding there....you DO know head wounds, even slight ones, bleed a great deal....not much blood there and it looks more like a couple of razor slices....dare I say, paper cuts.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Which brings up an interesting thought. If it had been me, a 5'1" white woman that Zimmerman had provoked, and he had killed me, do you think he would have gotten away with it? I don't.

So what's the difference? Why was it okay for him to kill Martin and not me. Or would it, in your eyes have been okay for him to kill me if I'd fought back? Am I supposed to let him restrain me and then maybe haul me off to an empty warehouse to rape me like the neighborhood watch in my area of town did to a woman?

Is this like Nazi Germany, we have to "obey" any cop wannabe who approaches us in the night when we aren't doing anything wrong at all?

What the fuck.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Technically, under scientific human classification, there are only 3 races. White, black, Asian.

Then there are attorneys... not sure if they are classified as human, however.

 

[Snookie]

They are POS for trying to railroad an innocent man in order to gain fame & fortune. They knew the truth, they kicked their own son out of the house. He called himself a gangster & he was not just playing around. He bragged about beating the hell out of snitches like GZ. They are a POS!

It was the US government that brought the trial on. The parents are humans that were hurt and have a pain that will stay with them until the day they die. They loved their child like any parent would.

Two wrongs don't make it right. The Martins tried to railroad GZ for fame & fortune. They knew full well their son was a thug & could not even stand to have him under their roof. The Martins & Crump saw opportunity, organized rallies & pushed the government to make a case of lies & prosecute it after the government had found no reason for prosecution. The feds & FBI also investigated & found nothing. Now the media is saying the Martins will sue.

Tracy Martins ex-girlfriend says she raised TM, but was told to stay out of sight & let Tracy & Sabrina take their place for show. They hate each-other but when the cameras are rolling they put on one hell of a show. This is all about prosecuting for the money, not justice or pain they are selling you on, that is why they were not there for the verdict. Tracy & Sabrina were busy moving foreword with their (FFFF) fraud for fame & fortune. They were busy tweeting & lying the press: "The jury of six White women ultimately deciding that the life of a Black, unarmed teenager means nothing in the United States of America." That is another total lie the low information person won't catch. Juror B29 is a black Hispanic who just moved to Florida four months ago from Chicago. She has eight children and works at a nursing home. Even she saw through the lies.

Hispanic? Coincidence, Z was hispanic too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you are being followed by someone who is armed, motivated solely by the belief that all male blacks are potential violent criminals, then any black person in such a situation should be armed himself and prepared to indeed defend himself using lethal force.

This is the current case law in Florida, blacks living in the state need to understand this and prepare accordingly to protect themselves as authorized by this case law.

If you are being followed by someone who is armed, motivated solely by the belief that all male blacks are potential violent criminals

Trayvon had xray vision and could read minds?

Wow! It's a shame he's dead.

You don’t understand.

The Zimmerman case isn’t at issue anymore, we’re addressing the consequences of its case law.

Any armed private citizen is now authorized to pursue any black male for whatever reason, even in the context of racial profiling, with impunity; he no longer bears any responsibility for the outcome of that pursuit – up to and including the death of the black male, provided he can contrive a claim of ‘self-defense’ concerning the death of the person pursued.

The OP is therefore correct, all persons, not just young black men, need to exercise their Second Amendment right to self-defense, where the instrument of that self-defense is the handgun, as determined by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

The OP is also correct that this situation is exactly as conservatives wanted.

Enjoy.

Hey, chucklehead, it's not illegal to follow someone.

Authorized?


1 : to establish by or as if by authority : sanction <a custom authorized by time>


2 : to invest especially with legal authority

Hardly.

even in the context of racial profiling

OMG! Profiling! LOL!

 

[Meister]

You mean like when GZ called Trayvon a "fucking coon"? Listen to it here.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/302919-george-zimmerman-fucking-coons.html

Trayvon said cracker to his friend on the phone - not to GZ.

Doesn't matter though because none of what you've said is a crime punishable by murder.

This isn't the firs time a creepy ass cracker got away with murdering a black kid who was minding his own business and it won't be the last.

What's the use of all your modern gadgets if you don't employ them to ascertain facts?

The point was, and it was an excellent one that speaking in a private conversation is not even comparable to GZ talking to 911. That's one implication. Also others like blacks sometimes use the words like "cracker" and "******" as everyday slang.

Please explain....now that we know he really didn't say, "fucking coon."

 

[Snookie]

I hope some of you racists have been enjoying rubbing salt into the wounds.

You know who I mean.

Especially the goobers calling Travon Martin a thug.

It's like beating a dead horse.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

With all due respect, Coyote? The ONLY reason that Trayvon is IN Sanford is that he's been suspended from high school for possession of pot and breaking into other kid's lockers and stealing jewelry. That's not "circumstantial and inconclusive"...that's a fact. We've got one of the two people involved in this fight using offensively racist language immediately prior to the fight and that person ISN'T George Zimmerman...it's Trayvon Martin calling someone a "Cracker". That also isn't circumstantial or inclusive...it's a fact...a fact that the main stream media chose to ignore because it didn't fit their "narrative" that a racist white man stalked and killed an innocent teen who only wanted to buy candy and return home...a narrative that wasn't supported by the facts.

You mean like when GZ called Trayvon a "fucking coon"? Listen to it here.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/302919-george-zimmerman-fucking-coons.html

Trayvon said cracker to his friend on the phone - not to GZ.

Doesn't matter though because none of what you've said is a crime punishable by murder.

This isn't the firs time a creepy ass cracker got away with murdering a black kid who was minding his own business and it won't be the last.

That was debunked, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.

I thought the CIA were the majority debunkers in the U.S.

 

[Amelia]

You mean like when GZ called Trayvon a "fucking coon"? Listen to it here.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/302919-george-zimmerman-fucking-coons.html

Trayvon said cracker to his friend on the phone - not to GZ.

Doesn't matter though because none of what you've said is a crime punishable by murder.

This isn't the firs time a creepy ass cracker got away with murdering a black kid who was minding his own business and it won't be the last.

What's the use of all your modern gadgets if you don't employ them to ascertain facts?

The point was, and it was an excellent one that speaking in a private conversation is not even comparable to GZ talking to 911 or Trayvon. That's one implication. Also others like blacks sometimes use the words like "cracker" and "******" as everyday slang.

The point was that Trayvon actually used a racial epithet while Zimmerman was falsely accused of using one to advance the narrative that a racist white man had murdered a cherubic black boy who was doing nothing but walking home.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

I can guarantee that he also 'knew' OJ was guilty from the moment he heard anything about the incident.

The white conservatives on this board took Zimmerman's side almost unanimously before the facts were out, and what makes that worse is that now that the verdict is in,

they perversely believe that their wild, baseless, racially motivated GUESS was somehow vindicated.

Actually you swallowed NBC's story hook, line, & sinker without even questioning it, then when the facts started coming out you totally ignored them. It doesn't matter to you that NBC used a doctored patch-job of a audio tape to help indict Zimmerman. It's like this with everything. You never question the acts nor the motives of the mainstream media.

Far too many people take what the media has to say as the gospel truth. If those people took just 5 minutes to do a little research from credible sources on their own, they'd realize (hopefully) the truth isn't what the tv stations report on if it won't bring them viewers. If those same people had taken time to research the background of TM and GZ, they'd also find things that would have answered questions they probably had.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

What's the use of all your modern gadgets if you don't employ them to ascertain facts?

The point was, and it was an excellent one that speaking in a private conversation is not even comparable to GZ talking to 911. That's one implication. Also others like blacks sometimes use the words like "cracker" and "******" as everyday slang.

Please explain....now that we know he really didn't say, "fucking coon."

What do you think he said?

What do you want me to explain???