The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Caroljo]

There couldn't have been any other outcome.

If there were six black women on that jury instead of six white women, you really think we'd have the same outcome?

No, because the six black women would ignore all of the forensic evidence, all of the eyewtiness testimony and all of the expert testimony and gone strictly on a wrongful and immoral need for revenge.

I don't think they would...possibly Not ALL blacks are racist...I watched a special on this that had a mix of whites and blacks and the majority of the blacks were coming out AGAINST this trial and were saying how racist it is! They were coming out against Obama for his statement, and against the people screaming for revenge. JoeB is just saying that black women are too stupid to think for themselves and come up with an accurate decision.

Besides....wasn't one juror said to be black and/or hispanic? Sounds like that person was dark skinned either way....they weren't ALL white.

 

[BlindBoo]

If Zimmerman had not had a gun, there would have not been an altercation.

Prove it. After all, apparently Martin didn't know that Zimmerman was armed, so he behaved as if Zimmerman was unarmed.

Well that is one side of the story. We'll never know the other side of the story because the only witness to that side was silenced forever.

 

[Caroljo]

There couldn't have been any other outcome.

If there were six black women on that jury instead of six white women, you really think we'd have the same outcome?

Yes, I do. The evidence was plain.

JoeB just has a hatred for women it sounds like....and he thinks black women are too stupid to do what is right. There are MANY blacks out there condemning the racists for what they're doing over this....it's an embarassment to them. The racists just don't know any better and are looking more foolish by the minute.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Jury as determiner of fact found Trayvon tried to kill or gravely injure Zim.

At that point it is BANG!

 

[Sunshine]

0bama has now uninvolved himself:

WASHINGTON — The White House says President Barack Obama won't involve himself in decisions by the Justice Department on whether to pursue civil rights charges against George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

White House spokesman Jay Carney says it would be inappropriate for Obama to express an opinion on how the department deals with Zimmerman after the neighborhood watch volunteer's acquittal in the shooting of the unarmed 17-year-old last year.

Obama Won't Press Justice Department On George Zimmerman Case: White House

 

[Sunshine]

If there were six black women on that jury instead of six white women, you really think we'd have the same outcome?

Yes, I do. The evidence was plain.

JoeB just has a hatred for women it sounds like....and he thinks black women are too stupid to do what is right. There are MANY blacks out there condemning the racists for what they're doing over this....it's an embarassment to them. The racists just don't know any better and are looking more foolish by the minute.

JoeB is black.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Zimmerman files a lawsuit with the Court claiming he has suffered damages of "emotional distress" from an edited 911 tape that he claims made him him look racist -- but at the same time -- Zimmerman gives the Court his own edited version of same 911 tape by cutting out his own comment: "F'cking Coons"

Daily Kos: #Zimmerman Edits out "F'cking Coon" from 911 Tape He Filed with Court in lawsuit against NBC
... wow! ... Just wow!

Was this on the news? How many times is he going to lie to the court? Another Jodi Arias?

Never happened.... been debunked for quite a while there LieSeeker.

 

[BlindBoo]

Jury as determiner of fact found Trayvon tried to kill or gravely injure Zim.

At that point it is BANG!

Nope. They found it reasonable that GZ(the pussy that he is) felt that he was in danger of serious bodily harm.

 

[Lumpy 1]

And he will not be the last.

He's a minority member, we've been told minorities can't be racists..

Sheesh...did the rules change?

Who told you that?

https://www.google.com/search?q=min...:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

 

[Sunshine]

The evidence was not there to convict Zimmerman. The black supremacists wanted a lynching. But the judge can overturn a guilty verdict if the jury has convicted without sufficient evidence.

In the U. S., a court may overturn a jury verdict of "Guilty" and enter a judgment of acquittal or order a new trial in a criminal case. The basis for such action includes situation where the jury has brough in a verdict that is not supported by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This may happen where a jury is prejudiced against a defendant or makes a mistake in its fact finding or application of the law to the fact after the court jury instruction.

United States Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 states:

(a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.

(b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.

(c) After Jury Verdict or Discharge.




(1) Time for a Motion. A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later.

(2) Ruling on the Motion. If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal.
Subsections (b) and (c) make it absolutely clear that a court may set aside a jury verdict of guilty in a criminal case. The Rules do not give the court any authority to set aside a verdict of acquittal.

The reason the FRCP do not permit a court to set aside a jury verdict of acquittal and enter a judgment of guilty is to preserve the Sixth Amendment guarantee that all criminal defendants shall enjoy the right to a trial by jury as well as to preserve the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy.

The reason the FRCP permit a trial court to set aside a jury verdict of guilty and enter one of not guilty, is to preserve the defendant's right not to be convicted of a crime except on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In the interests of justice, no trial court should let stand a verdict of guilty where the evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

These rights apply to state courts as well as to Federal courts because they have been incorporated into the 14th Amendment because they are a fundamental part of our jurisprudence.

Can a trial court judge overturn a guilty jury verdict

The evidence was simply not there to convict.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If Zimmerman had not had a gun, there would have not been an altercation.

Prove it. After all, apparently Martin didn't know that Zimmerman was armed, so he behaved as if Zimmerman was unarmed.

Well that is one side of the story. We'll never know the other side of the story because the only witness to that side was silenced forever.

That unfortunately is a possible, yet unintended, consequence of physically attacking people.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Jury as determiner of fact found Trayvon tried to kill or gravely injure Zim.

At that point it is BANG!

Nope. They found it reasonable that GZ(the pussy that he is) felt that he was in danger of serious bodily harm.

Ironside, the jury's finding he was in reasonable danger of great bodily harm was precipitated by what event ?

 

[Sunshine]

He's discredited but your youtube voice analysis is legit?

I have looked through many videos of Dershowitz on youtube, but they are all about his tirades against Angela Corey. His failed statements that came before the indictment don't appear to still be posted there, but I'm still looking.

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Constituional Law Professor, former National Board Member of the ACLU and famed appelate attorney opined that Corey overcharged GZ by bringing a 2nd degree murder charge against him. Most legal commentators agreed and he was vindicated by the Not Guilty verdict. Dershowitz went further and opined that Corey breached her ethical responsibilities based upon political pressures in charging GZ and should be disciplined. Most legal commentators kept their mouth shut on this assertion because it is a common failing of prosecutors to overcharge even though it is clearly a violation of ethical responsibilities.

I believe that is what went wrong in the Casey Anthony case. It was the prosecutor's last case. He wanted to go out with a bang. He did, but not the kind he wanted.

 

[JQPublic1]

TM was in a place where he had a right to be. He could have certainly put the SYG law to the test of applicability by shooting his perceived stalker!

Only if the "stalker" attacked TM. He didn't.

It is reasonable to conclude that TM thought an attack was imminent. He did NOT have to wait for Z to literally attack him...that would be unwise, even for a teenager!

Well, thanks for making my point. GZ engaged in a course of conduct directed at Martin causing emotional distress ( evidenced by Martin initially running from him) and serving no legitimate purpose.

The legitimate purpose was protecting his neighborhood.

No, there was no legitimacy at all. Protecting his neighborhood from a teen waking down the street doing nothing wrong? Where is the logic there? What gave Z the legitimacy to stalk and harass TM? In fact his "Neighborhood Watch" moniker was not even sanctioned by the National Sheriff's Association which the real NW operates under! Z's NW was nothing more than a vigilante shell that circumvented all the rules that would have prevented the tragedy he instigated!

No, the florida statute is clear on what stalking is...read it again!

I read it. I'm still laughing at your confusion.

Its probably a nervous laugh... one that emanates for the pit of an upset stomach when you know the truth is being revealed!

Well, words to the effect of " Are you still following him followed by Z's "yes" and then a " We don't need you to do that" is tantamount to a desist.

Not at all. And in America, you can still follow someone, even if it makes you sad.

That depends on the manner in which you follow them and the reason! You can't tell me WHY GZ was following TM can you?

That fact GZ was on the phone with SPD seems to make him the good guy here but to Martin he was an unknown creep who seemed to be threatening him.

No response from toddster

He dissed Trayvon, that's why he came back and attacked. That's why he's dead.

Now you are just guessing, aren't you? You don't know that TM came back and attacked GZ. Their paths could have crossed for any number of reasons but your response better fits the ideal outcome for you doesn't it?

All he would have to do is lie like GZ did.

TM "GZ punched me in the nose, knocked me down and beat my head against the concrete."

Police "But Trayvon, you have no injuries."

You're right, that would have worked.

Yes, that IS Thats why I would never post such a thing

Sorry, you don't get to shoot someone, just because they follow you. Even if they're a creepy ass cracker.

I think that determination is best left to the person being followed. There are many nuances to being followed that only the person being followed can truly appreciate. If you feel threatened it would be better to dispatch your harasser and live to have your day in court than foolishly waiting for a perceived stalker to unleash whatever he has on you. The stalking laws of fla. seem to substantiate that.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Only 20% of murders are committed by strangers. That's what I meant when I misspoke.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mf.pdf

The trouble with that fact:
It is for murder convictions only
It is based on 1994 data
It idoes not tell you that rival gang members know each other, they are considered an "aquaintance" rather than a stranger.

Accordong to FBI Uniform Crime Reports official statistics for 2011(latest avalbale)

Total Homicides in the US in 2011: 12,664

Husbands murdered 108

Wife murdered 552

Mother murdered 123

Father murdered 130

Son murdered 263

Daughter murdered 182

Brother murdered 86

Sister murdered 29

Other family murdered 279

TOTAL FAMILY HOMICIDES =1752.... or less than 14% of all homicides.

Continuing with the listing:

Acquaintance murdered 2,700

Friend murdered 377

Boyfriend murdered 161

Girlfriend murdered 474

Neighbor murdered 107

Employee murdered 10

Employe rmurdered 14

Stranger murdered 1,481

Unknown relationship murdered 5,588

Your link is based on 1994 data and only covers those cases prosecuted to conviction. You will note from my data that the lagest sigle category consists of "Unknown relationship". This is because the murder has not been solved, no conviction.. disproportionately associated with stranger homicides.

Link for my data:

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 10

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is the roll model Obama wants for America! The second one is georges head from the roll model.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Martin attacking him and beating the shit out of him?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Martin attacking him and beating the shit out of him?

Yep. The jury had to make that finding of fact first to get to justifiable self-defense.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Apparently if I am walking around in my neighborhood and some creepy-ass fucker starts following me, approaches me and when I ask him what he wants he reaches for his gun...apparently in that case i do NOT have the right to defend myself and after he kills me he will be exonerated.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny how that works...