The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[animallover]

DH in back row. Come on 7 pm. It's dinnertime!

Lol...
what's for dinner Testa?

 

[animallover]

CRAP, this was supposed to be over at 7. I don't have a life until August.

Aww you still have us...Lmao

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Just a hypothetical for the above, take two scenarios:

1. I walk up to you and grab your jacket (or hoodie) and you surprise me by busting me in the nose.

or

2. You walk up to me and with no warning bust you in the nose.​

Does having a bloody nose indicated who started the altercation?



>>>>

 

[testarosa]

You guys are STILL pretending that you know what happened at the moments when Trayvon physically confronted Zimmerman face to face.

And the truth is: none of us know that.

You are no better than the rest of us Liability. The above statement assumes that Trayvon physically confronted Zimmerman. It could be very well be that Zimmerman physically confronted Trayvon face-to-face.

We do know that Zimmerman ended up with a busted nose. The implication is that Trayvon busted it for him.

True, however all that indicates is that Zimmerman got his nose busted. It does not indicate who started it.



True, however all that indicates is that Zimmerman didn't cause injuries. It does not indicate who started it.



True, however all that indicates is that Zimmerman was on the bottom during a struggle. It does not indicate who started it.



None of those facts indicate who started the altercation.



What evidence do you have (besides Zimmerman's story, the man charged with the crime and who has been known to lie to the court) that it was not Zimmerman who was engaging in the physical?



Agreed.



Agreed, yet in this post you assume it was Martin that started the physical.

But do I have some rational basis to believe that Trayvon was the physical aggressor? Yes. I do.

Great.

Without using Zimmerman's story, please provide the rational basis supported by 3rd party evidence, physical or forensic evidence that provides a rational basis for assuming Trayvon was the physical aggressor.

And thus I have precious little reason to doubt Zimmerman's account to the effect that he was having his head pounded on the sidewalk. That being the case, if the jury agrees with that assessment, it looks a whole lot to me like the legal defense of justification is VERY much in play. And it appears like a strong defense. Maybe even the clear winner.

Of course it is play, no doubt about it. I don't claim to be a lawyer, but my understanding is that the prosecution will make a case that a crime was committed and Zimmerman was the party that committed that crime. Then Zimmerman will make an affirmative defense that it was self-defense and therefore warrants immunity. The burden will then shift back to the prosecution to prove that under Florida Statutes Zimmerman does not qualify for such immunity. Now if they have a witness that had a well lighted and unobstructed view of the shot being fired while Martin is on top - then they don't have much of a rebuttal to the self-defense claim.

On the other hand **if** none of the witnesses actually observed the shot being fired, the prosecution can make a case that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor and that lack of GSR, lack of blood on his jacket, and the biomechanics of the bullet trajectory indicated that either Martin was attempting to break contact or Zimmerman had pushed him off to the side. At that point instead of attempting to end hostilities or escape he decided to pull his weapon and fire it into Martin's chest with foll arm extension (which explains the lack of GSR and blood) - he had given up his self-defense immunity.


*****************************

Fundamentally I agree though, we don't know at this point what information the jury will have in making it's decision and the reasonable person makes no assumptions.


>>>>

Do you do this quotey thing by adding

blahblah [\quote] around what part you want to comment on?

WATCH OUT if I can do that!

 

[TW]

So no one is actually listening to the trial....

Switching to different venue.

Is that you in the photo, Testy? Very cute.
And Pshaw, tetanus shots do not hurt. You must have had someone administer it who wasn't very good at it.

 

[Snookie]

You guys are STILL pretending that you know what happened at the moments when Trayvon physically confronted Zimmerman face to face.

And the truth is: none of us know that.

You are no better than the rest of us Liability. The above statement assumes that Trayvon physically confronted Zimmerman. It could be very well be that Zimmerman physically confronted Trayvon face-to-face.

We do know that Zimmerman ended up with a busted nose. The implication is that Trayvon busted it for him.

True, however all that indicates is that Zimmerman got his nose busted. It does not indicate who started it.



True, however all that indicates is that Zimmerman didn't cause injuries. It does not indicate who started it.



True, however all that indicates is that Zimmerman was on the bottom during a struggle. It does not indicate who started it.



None of those facts indicate who started the altercation.



What evidence do you have (besides Zimmerman's story, the man charged with the crime and who has been known to lie to the court) that it was not Zimmerman who was engaging in the physical?



Agreed.



Agreed, yet in this post you assume it was Martin that started the physical.

But do I have some rational basis to believe that Trayvon was the physical aggressor? Yes. I do.

Great.

Without using Zimmerman's story, please provide the rational basis supported by 3rd party evidence, physical or forensic evidence that provides a rational basis for assuming Trayvon was the physical aggressor.

And thus I have precious little reason to doubt Zimmerman's account to the effect that he was having his head pounded on the sidewalk. That being the case, if the jury agrees with that assessment, it looks a whole lot to me like the legal defense of justification is VERY much in play. And it appears like a strong defense. Maybe even the clear winner.

Of course it is play, no doubt about it. I don't claim to be a lawyer, but my understanding is that the prosecution will make a case that a crime was committed and Zimmerman was the party that committed that crime. Then Zimmerman will make an affirmative defense that it was self-defense and therefore warrants immunity. The burden will then shift back to the prosecution to prove that under Florida Statutes Zimmerman does not qualify for such immunity. Now if they have a witness that had a well lighted and unobstructed view of the shot being fired while Martin is on top - then they don't have much of a rebuttal to the self-defense claim.

On the other hand **if** none of the witnesses actually observed the shot being fired, the prosecution can make a case that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor and that lack of GSR, lack of blood on his jacket, and the biomechanics of the bullet trajectory indicated that either Martin was attempting to break contact or Zimmerman had pushed him off to the side. At that point instead of attempting to end hostilities or escape he decided to pull his weapon and fire it into Martin's chest with foll arm extension (which explains the lack of GSR and blood) - he had given up his self-defense immunity.


*****************************

Fundamentally I agree though, we don't know at this point what information the jury will have in making it's decision and the reasonable person makes no assumptions.


>>>>

If Zimmerman had not followed Martin there would not have been a fight.

 

[testarosa]

So no one is actually listening to the trial....

Switching to different venue.

Is that you in the photo, Testy? Very cute.
And Pshaw, tetanus shots do not hurt. You must have had someone administer it who wasn't very good at it.

Is that me?? Ha ha ha. Yeah, I'm 10. But she is my mini me. lol/

 

[Snookie]

WW... Quotey thing!!

>>>>Of course it is play, no doubt about it. I don't claim to be a lawyer, but my understanding is that the prosecution will make a case that a crime was committed and Zimmerman was the party that committed that crime. Then Zimmerman will make an affirmative defense that it was self-defense and therefore warrants immunity. The burden will then shift back to the prosecution to prove that under Florida Statutes Zimmerman does not qualify for such immunity. Now if they have a witness that had a well lighted and unobstructed view of the shot being fired while Martin is on top - then they don't have much of a rebuttal to the self-defense claim.

You're speaking of SYG "immunity" under that law vs self defense. Two different things. Defense waived SYG hearing "immunity". Self defense prima facia and prosecution proving it was NOT self defense is different than SYG.

The prosecutor has the corpse.

 

[testarosa]

WW... Quotey thing!!

>>>>Of course it is play, no doubt about it. I don't claim to be a lawyer, but my understanding is that the prosecution will make a case that a crime was committed and Zimmerman was the party that committed that crime. Then Zimmerman will make an affirmative defense that it was self-defense and therefore warrants immunity. The burden will then shift back to the prosecution to prove that under Florida Statutes Zimmerman does not qualify for such immunity. Now if they have a witness that had a well lighted and unobstructed view of the shot being fired while Martin is on top - then they don't have much of a rebuttal to the self-defense claim.

You're speaking of SYG "immunity" under that law vs self defense. Two different things. Defense waived SYG hearing "immunity". Self defense prima facia and prosecution proving it was NOT self defense is different than SYG.

The prosecutor has the corpse.

<sigh>

It's not that easy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do you do this quotey thing by adding [quote] blahblah [\quote] around what part you want to comment on?

WATCH OUT if I can do that!

Pay attention young one...


Post formatting is controlled by the use of "Tags" or Tag Pairs. Normally each control tag consists of a pairs of tags: one to start and one to end a function. Ending tags have a "/" in them. For example the BOLD beginning tag is [b] and the corresponding ending tag is [/b], for underlining it's [u] with an ending of [/u].

Quote tags come in three - ah - flavors, each ends with the [/quote] tag. The flavors are:
1. Simple - [quote] - creates a quote box with no identification of who the quote is from.
2. Person - [QUOTE=WorldWatcher] - creates a quote with the name of the individual to which you wish credited with the cite.
3. System - [quote="testarosa, post: 7393164"] - this is what you get when you click the "reply with quote" button. The number identify the system ID number of the post. When you submit the post the system displays a link to that post.


NOTE: Tags must alway occur in pairs, forgetting the ending tag can cause unexpected results. If you make a post and see something is "messed up" look for an omitted tag for that formatting option.


When you press the "Reply With Quote" button it sets you up in a rely field with the previous quote embedded in the box. By carefully noting the position of the open quote tags and close quote tags you can break a long post into component parts to then respond to specific items.

So let's take your post above as an example.

Do you do this quotey thing by adding [quote] blahblah [\quote] around what part you want to comment on?

WATCH OUT if I can do that!

So I want to reply to this in two different section, so I'll break it into two quotes each with a pair of tags using the following steps:
1. After the first paragraph enter [/QUOTE]. This pairs with the System Quote Opening Tag "[quote="testarosa, post: 7393164"]".
2. Type my reply for that section.
3. Copy the System Quote Opening Tag ("[quote="testarosa, post: 7393164"]") and paste it in front of the second paragraph.
4. The closing [/quote] tag is already there to complete the pair.
5. Type my replay.
6. Click the post button.

You end up with a reply that looks like this in raw text form:

[quote="testarosa, post: 7393164"]
Do you do this quotey thing by adding [quote] blahblah [\quote] around what part you want to comment on?[/quote]

Reply #1

[quote="testarosa, post: 7393164"]WATCH OUT if I can do that![/quote]

Reply #2​

When I allow the tags to actually work, this is what you then see on the screen:

Do you do this quotey thing by adding [quote] blahblah [\quote] around what part you want to comment on?

Reply #1

WATCH OUT if I can do that!

Reply #2​

*********************************


Note: I use the [plain] tags in the above post. "No Parse" tells the system to ignore control tags between the two parse tags.

>>>>>

 

[TW]

My arm is freaking killing me, she got me in the big muscle.

I had the same done about a month ago. I didn't even know the nurse had done it. I was bracing for it, but it was already over.

(from the other comment) Couldn't tell she was 10. Tiny pic. I only know about the red hair.

 

[WorldWatcher]

WW... Quotey thing!!

>>>>Of course it is play, no doubt about it. I don't claim to be a lawyer, but my understanding is that the prosecution will make a case that a crime was committed and Zimmerman was the party that committed that crime. Then Zimmerman will make an affirmative defense that it was self-defense and therefore warrants immunity. The burden will then shift back to the prosecution to prove that under Florida Statutes Zimmerman does not qualify for such immunity. Now if they have a witness that had a well lighted and unobstructed view of the shot being fired while Martin is on top - then they don't have much of a rebuttal to the self-defense claim.

You're speaking of SYG "immunity" under that law vs self defense. Two different things. Defense waived SYG hearing "immunity". Self defense prima facia and prosecution proving it was NOT self defense is different than SYG.

No I'm referring to Florida Statutes -->> Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2012->Chapter 776 : Online Sunshine

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.


No I'm speaking of self-defense and it has nothing to do with SYG. 776.012, 775.013, and 776.031 are the self defense provisions and cover SYG by not requiring retreat. 776.041 says the preceding sections (list above) do not apply to people that are the initial aggressor. Review 776.041 for the full explanation.


>>>>

 

[jon_berzerk]

My arm is freaking killing me, she got me in the big muscle.

glad it all went well for ya

 

[jon_berzerk]

You guys are STILL pretending that you know what happened at the moments when Trayvon physically confronted Zimmerman face to face.

And the truth is: none of us know that.

You are no better than the rest of us Liability. The above statement assumes that Trayvon physically confronted Zimmerman. It could be very well be that Zimmerman physically confronted Trayvon face-to-face.



True, however all that indicates is that Zimmerman got his nose busted. It does not indicate who started it.



True, however all that indicates is that Zimmerman didn't cause injuries. It does not indicate who started it.



True, however all that indicates is that Zimmerman was on the bottom during a struggle. It does not indicate who started it.



None of those facts indicate who started the altercation.



What evidence do you have (besides Zimmerman's story, the man charged with the crime and who has been known to lie to the court) that it was not Zimmerman who was engaging in the physical?



Agreed.



Agreed, yet in this post you assume it was Martin that started the physical.




Great.

Without using Zimmerman's story, please provide the rational basis supported by 3rd party evidence, physical or forensic evidence that provides a rational basis for assuming Trayvon was the physical aggressor.

And thus I have precious little reason to doubt Zimmerman's account to the effect that he was having his head pounded on the sidewalk. That being the case, if the jury agrees with that assessment, it looks a whole lot to me like the legal defense of justification is VERY much in play. And it appears like a strong defense. Maybe even the clear winner.

Of course it is play, no doubt about it. I don't claim to be a lawyer, but my understanding is that the prosecution will make a case that a crime was committed and Zimmerman was the party that committed that crime. Then Zimmerman will make an affirmative defense that it was self-defense and therefore warrants immunity. The burden will then shift back to the prosecution to prove that under Florida Statutes Zimmerman does not qualify for such immunity. Now if they have a witness that had a well lighted and unobstructed view of the shot being fired while Martin is on top - then they don't have much of a rebuttal to the self-defense claim.

On the other hand **if** none of the witnesses actually observed the shot being fired, the prosecution can make a case that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor and that lack of GSR, lack of blood on his jacket, and the biomechanics of the bullet trajectory indicated that either Martin was attempting to break contact or Zimmerman had pushed him off to the side. At that point instead of attempting to end hostilities or escape he decided to pull his weapon and fire it into Martin's chest with foll arm extension (which explains the lack of GSR and blood) - he had given up his self-defense immunity.


*****************************

Fundamentally I agree though, we don't know at this point what information the jury will have in making it's decision and the reasonable person makes no assumptions.


>>>>

If Zimmerman had not followed Martin there would not have been a fight.

if martin had not got suspended from school

he would not have been there that night

how far back ya want to go --LOL

 

[testarosa]

Do you do this quotey thing by adding [quote] blahblah [\quote] around what part you want to comment on?

WATCH OUT if I can do that!

Pay attention young one...


Post formatting is controlled by the use of "Tags" or Tag Pairs. Normally each control tag consists of a pairs of tags: one to start and one to end a function. Ending tags have a "/" in them. For example the BOLD beginning tag is [b] and the corresponding ending tag is [/b], for underlining it's [u] with an ending of [/u].

Quote tags come in three - ah - flavors, each ends with the [/quote] tag. The flavors are:
1. Simple - [quote] - creates a quote box with no identification of who the quote is from.
2. Person - [QUOTE=WorldWatcher] - creates a quote with the name of the individual to which you wish credited with the cite.
3. System - [quote="testarosa, post: 7393164"] - this is what you get when you click the "reply with quote" button. The number identify the system ID number of the post. When you submit the post the system displays a link to that post.


NOTE: Tags must alway occur in pairs, forgetting the ending tag can cause unexpected results. If you make a post and see something is "messed up" look for an omitted tag for that formatting option.


When you press the "Reply With Quote" button it sets you up in a rely field with the previous quote embedded in the box. By carefully noting the position of the open quote tags and close quote tags you can break a long post into component parts to then respond to specific items.

So let's take your post above as an example.

. This pairs with the System Quote Opening Tag "

".
2. Type my reply for that section.
3. Copy the System Quote Opening Tag (" tag is already there to complete the pair.
5. Type my replay.
6. Click the post button.[/plain]

You end up with a reply that looks like this in raw text form:

[quote="testarosa, post: 7393164"]
Do you do this quotey thing by adding

Reply #1



Reply #2​

When I allow the tags to actually work, this is what you then see on the screen:

Do you do this quotey thing by adding

Reply #1



Reply #2[/indent][/indent]


*********************************


Note: I use the [plain][plain] tags in the above post. "No Parse" tells the system to ignore control tags between the two parse tags.

>>>>>

You had me at "young one" and I was paying attention to the rest of it. Thanks Grand Master Flash.​

 

[testarosa]

WW... Quotey thing!!

>>>>Of course it is play, no doubt about it. I don't claim to be a lawyer, but my understanding is that the prosecution will make a case that a crime was committed and Zimmerman was the party that committed that crime. Then Zimmerman will make an affirmative defense that it was self-defense and therefore warrants immunity. The burden will then shift back to the prosecution to prove that under Florida Statutes Zimmerman does not qualify for such immunity. Now if they have a witness that had a well lighted and unobstructed view of the shot being fired while Martin is on top - then they don't have much of a rebuttal to the self-defense claim.

You're speaking of SYG "immunity" under that law vs self defense. Two different things. Defense waived SYG hearing "immunity". Self defense prima facia and prosecution proving it was NOT self defense is different than SYG.

No I'm referring to Florida Statutes -->> Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2012->Chapter 776 : Online Sunshine

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.


No I'm speaking of self-defense and it has nothing to do with SYG. 776.012, 775.013, and 776.031 are the self defense provisions and cover SYG by not requiring retreat. 776.041 says the preceding sections (list above) do not apply to people that are the initial aggressor. Review 776.041 for the full explanation.


>>>>

Okay... Just asking for clarification that you always have. You're my [MENTION=43880]TW[/MENTION] of the Zimmerman trial

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

So no one is actually listening to the trial....

Switching to different venue.

Is that you in the photo, Testy? Very cute.
And Pshaw, tetanus shots do not hurt. You must have had someone administer it who wasn't very good at it.

Actually, after the last tetanus shot I got, going on 10 years ago, my arm hurt for a long time after. I did some research on it and there was a site, I believe it was government, and if my arm continued to hurt for like three or months after the shot, I might be eligible for some monetary compensation. I was getting ready to submit my case when about two days before the three months were up...my arm quit hurting. : ) Damn!

 

[Zona]

If found guilty....I hope he gets 50 years.

 

[25Caliber]

>


Just a hypothetical for the above, take two scenarios:

1. I walk up to you and grab your jacket (or hoodie) and you surprise me by busting me in the nose.

or

2. You walk up to me and with no warning bust you in the nose.​

Does having a bloody nose indicated who started the altercation?



>>>>

Hey [MENTION=27321]WorldWatcher[/MENTION],

Tonight on "After Dark"...Vinnie Politan had the lengthier interview with Frank Taaffe. This is the neighbor I was referring to a few days ago.

Trayvon was on this neighbors lawn when GZ initially spotted him...why would this give reasonable cause for suspicion?

1) GZ knew this neighbor quite well and he lived just down the street from George.

2) A Couple of weeks prior, George had witnessed a young black male smoking a cigarette on Franks porch (under the overhang) when Frank was not home.

3) A few weeks prior (Feb 2nd) to the shooting (Feb 26th), George had actually thwarted a burglary in progress to the same house, same neighbor by calling into the Non Emergency 911 line. George observed a young black male peaking in the windows of Franks house...again when Frank was not home...the police were called and the burglary was prevented.

Just 4 days later, this same burglar did burglarized Franks neighbor and was apprehended. This person was jailed in the Seminole County Jail and it was later found out that he was responsible for 8 other burglaries in the complex and that he actually lived in the complex.

4) The influx of recent robberies that had been committed in this neighborhood had happened mostly in Franks building and the one next to it according to Frank. I say building because they appear to be Townhomes that are joined together one after another for several houses.

I know this neighbor (Frank Taaffe) has not received a lot of media attention and I know that some are confused as to when George was initially suspicious and why. I was confused also and had the same questions. This pretty much answered that for me.

George, given his observance and knowledge of previous incidents in that building and the one next to it, where the perps resembled the same profile as trayvon, was within his rights to be suspicious. Add to that, him being a neighborhood watch captain, and I believe it was his duty to be suspicious initially. This neighbor was extremely grateful to George and feels like George was doing what was in the best interest of the neighborhood and its residents given the recent criminal activity in that exact location.

George mentions to the detective the day after the shooting while they were doing a drive through of the neighborhood that it seemed odd to him that a teen would just be standing in the middle of Franks yard while it was raining for no apparent reason.

I know this doesn't excuse the actions that followed, just giving an explanation as to his initial suspicion. For some strange reason Franks house is a loitering spot for young black males...lol. Yet Frank has no children living there and these kids aren't friends of Frank.

I was only able to find this audio interview from about 11 months ago with Vinnie and Frank...this is a separate interview, but Frank brings mention of Geroges initial suspicion at around the 5:30 mark:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/12/03/the-fabrication-of-evidence-is-a-crime/

I will keep looking for the more recent video that was aired in full tonight on HLNs "After Dark".

 

[jon_berzerk]

>


Just a hypothetical for the above, take two scenarios:

1. I walk up to you and grab your jacket (or hoodie) and you surprise me by busting me in the nose.

or

2. You walk up to me and with no warning bust you in the nose.​

Does having a bloody nose indicated who started the altercation?



>>>>

Hey [MENTION=27321]WorldWatcher[/MENTION],

Tonight on "After Dark"...Vinnie Politan had the lengthier interview with Frank Taaffe. This is the Neighbor I was referring to a few days ago.

Trayvon was on this neighbors lawn when GZ initially spotted him...why would this give reasonable cause for suspicion?

1) GZ knew this neighbor quite well and he lived just down the street from George.

2) A Couple of weeks prior, George had witnessed a young black male smoking a cigarette on Franks porch (under the overhang) when Frank was not home.

3) Few weeks prior to the shooting (Feb 2), George had actually thwarted a potential robbery to the same house, same neighbor. George observed a young black male peaking in the windows of Franks house...again when Frank was not home...the police were called and the subject was apprehended.

4) The influx of recent robberies that had been committed in this neighborhood had happened in Franks building and the one next to it. I say building because they appear to be Townhomes that are joined together one after another for several houses.

I know this neighbor (Frank Taaffe) has not received a lot of media attention and I know that some are confused as to when George was initially suspicious and why. I had the same questions. This pretty much answered that for me.

George, given his observance and knowledge of previous incidents in that building and the one next to it, where the perps resembled the same profile as trayvon, was within his rights to be suspicious. Add to that, him being a neighborhood watch captain, and I believe it was his duty to be suspicious initially. This neighbor was extremely grateful to George and feels like George was doing what was in the best interest of the neighborhood and its residents given the recent criminal activity in that exact location.

I know this doesn't excuse the actions that followed, just giving an explanation as to his initial suspicion. For some strange reason Franks house is a loitering spot for young black males...lol. Yet Frank has no children living there and these kids aren't friends of Frank.

I was only able to find this audio interview from about 11 months ago with Vinnie and Frank...this is a separate interview, but Frank brings mention of Geroges initial suspicion at around the 5:30 mark:

The Fabrication of Evidence Is A Crime | The Last Refuge

i will keep looking for the more recent video that was aired in full tonight on HLNs "After Dark".

i happened to catch some HLN this afternoon

there was a panel of four discussing the zimmerman case (go figure right--LOL)

anyways one of them says "if he would have stayed in is car after the dispatcher told him not to get out ..."

not one person of the panel even bothered to correct it

such a misleading network

and this is why i try and stick to the internet