The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[RKMBrown]

I still think Zimmerman lied.

He never testified at the trial.
Under the law since the prosecution entered in the interview with him by police that is what the jury heard.
And nothing he stated was ever disputed or proved wrong by the prosecution.
So the judge's instructions are always to the jury in a criminal trial and were in this trial:
"George Zimmerman has to prove nothing"
"George Zimmerman is presumed innocent"
"The entire burden of proof is on the prosecution 100% to prove each and every element of their case"
They had no evidence he lied so that was not considered by the jury.

I suspect the prosecution got the verdict they were shooting for.

 

[Gadawg73]

I still think Zimmerman lied.

He never testified at the trial.
Under the law since the prosecution entered in the interview with him by police that is what the jury heard.
And nothing he stated was ever disputed or proved wrong by the prosecution.
So the judge's instructions are always to the jury in a criminal trial and were in this trial:
"George Zimmerman has to prove nothing"
"George Zimmerman is presumed innocent"
"The entire burden of proof is on the prosecution 100% to prove each and every element of their case"
They had no evidence he lied so that was not considered by the jury.

zimmerman testified without taking the stand

with one of the cleverest moves by the defense

knowing so well that the state was so hard up for evidence

that they would enter self serving hearsay into evidence

they took the bait in less then 24 hours of airing on fox news

NO, respectfully, there is never any testimony at trial without cross examination.
The interviews are not testimony and the Judge charged the jury on that.
But read my post again, it helped Zimmerman because there was nothing to dispute it.
And no offense, nothing clever about any of that. They knew ahead of time that the prosecution was entering into evidence the interviews. That is done all the time and has to be. Nothing about being hard up for evidence. ALL statements and interviews are entered into evidence. Nothing about taking any bait, that is standard procedure.
The interviews are not testimony and the Judge charged the jury on that.
Not putting Zimmerman on the stand is a different matter and no one thought they would do that after hearing and seeing the way the case went. That was a good move.

 

[Gadawg73]

I still think Zimmerman lied.

He never testified at the trial.
Under the law since the prosecution entered in the interview with him by police that is what the jury heard.
And nothing he stated was ever disputed or proved wrong by the prosecution.
So the judge's instructions are always to the jury in a criminal trial and were in this trial:
"George Zimmerman has to prove nothing"
"George Zimmerman is presumed innocent"
"The entire burden of proof is on the prosecution 100% to prove each and every element of their case"
They had no evidence he lied so that was not considered by the jury.

I suspect the prosecution got the verdict they were shooting for.

No, they got the verdict the EVIDENCE revealed.
You need evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.
And nothing that the media spun before the trial was true. They knew that going into the trial.
That was why everyone was so upset with the verdict. They believed what the media told them.

 

[jon_berzerk]

He never testified at the trial.
Under the law since the prosecution entered in the interview with him by police that is what the jury heard.
And nothing he stated was ever disputed or proved wrong by the prosecution.
So the judge's instructions are always to the jury in a criminal trial and were in this trial:
"George Zimmerman has to prove nothing"
"George Zimmerman is presumed innocent"
"The entire burden of proof is on the prosecution 100% to prove each and every element of their case"
They had no evidence he lied so that was not considered by the jury.

zimmerman testified without taking the stand

with one of the cleverest moves by the defense

knowing so well that the state was so hard up for evidence

that they would enter self serving hearsay into evidence

they took the bait in less then 24 hours of airing on fox news

NO, respectfully, there is never any testimony at trial without cross examination.
The interviews are not testimony and the Judge charged the jury on that.
But read my post again, it helped Zimmerman because there was nothing to dispute it.
And no offense, nothing clever about any of that. They knew ahead of time that the prosecution was entering into evidence the interviews. That is done all the time and has to be. Nothing about being hard up for evidence. ALL statements and interviews are entered into evidence. Nothing about taking any bait, that is standard procedure.
The interviews are not testimony and the Judge charged the jury on that.
Not putting Zimmerman on the stand is a different matter and no one thought they would do that after hearing and seeing the way the case went. That was a good move.

NO, respectfully, there is never any testimony at trial without cross examination.

there didnt need to be

the state made zimmermans self serving hearsay evidence actual evidence

in which the jury got the chance to "hear from George" with the safety

of not having to be cross examined

it was a huge blunder by the state offering the fox news interview

 

[testarosa]

zimmerman testified without taking the stand

with one of the cleverest moves by the defense

knowing so well that the state was so hard up for evidence

that they would enter self serving hearsay into evidence

they took the bait in less then 24 hours of airing on fox news

NO, respectfully, there is never any testimony at trial without cross examination.
The interviews are not testimony and the Judge charged the jury on that.
But read my post again, it helped Zimmerman because there was nothing to dispute it.
And no offense, nothing clever about any of that. They knew ahead of time that the prosecution was entering into evidence the interviews. That is done all the time and has to be. Nothing about being hard up for evidence. ALL statements and interviews are entered into evidence. Nothing about taking any bait, that is standard procedure.
The interviews are not testimony and the Judge charged the jury on that.
Not putting Zimmerman on the stand is a different matter and no one thought they would do that after hearing and seeing the way the case went. That was a good move.

NO, respectfully, there is never any testimony at trial without cross examination.

there didnt need to be

the state made zimmermans self serving hearsay evidence actual evidence

in which the jury got the chance to "hear from George" with the safety

of not having to be cross examined

it was a huge blunder by the state offering the fox news interview

One of many huge blunders

There I fixed it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

NO, respectfully, there is never any testimony at trial without cross examination.
The interviews are not testimony and the Judge charged the jury on that.
But read my post again, it helped Zimmerman because there was nothing to dispute it.
And no offense, nothing clever about any of that. They knew ahead of time that the prosecution was entering into evidence the interviews. That is done all the time and has to be. Nothing about being hard up for evidence. ALL statements and interviews are entered into evidence. Nothing about taking any bait, that is standard procedure.
The interviews are not testimony and the Judge charged the jury on that.
Not putting Zimmerman on the stand is a different matter and no one thought they would do that after hearing and seeing the way the case went. That was a good move.

NO, respectfully, there is never any testimony at trial without cross examination.

there didnt need to be

the state made zimmermans self serving hearsay evidence actual evidence

in which the jury got the chance to "hear from George" with the safety

of not having to be cross examined

it was a huge blunder by the state offering the fox news interview

One of many huge blunders

There I fixed it.

thanks
send

 

[testarosa]

NO, respectfully, there is never any testimony at trial without cross examination.

there didnt need to be

the state made zimmermans self serving hearsay evidence actual evidence

in which the jury got the chance to "hear from George" with the safety

of not having to be cross examined

it was a huge blunder by the state offering the fox news interview

One of many huge blunders

There I fixed it.

thanks
send

any
stop
time
send

 

[jon_berzerk]

One of many huge blunders

There I fixed it.

thanks
send

any
stop
time
send

say i could not find in the jury instructions anything that said the jury was

to disregard zimmermans outside the court statements

 

[testarosa]

thanks
send

any
stop
time
send

say i could not find in the jury instructions anything that said the jury was

to disregard zimmermans outside the court statements

oopsie

 

[Gadawg73]

zimmerman testified without taking the stand

with one of the cleverest moves by the defense

knowing so well that the state was so hard up for evidence

that they would enter self serving hearsay into evidence

they took the bait in less then 24 hours of airing on fox news

NO, respectfully, there is never any testimony at trial without cross examination.
The interviews are not testimony and the Judge charged the jury on that.
But read my post again, it helped Zimmerman because there was nothing to dispute it.
And no offense, nothing clever about any of that. They knew ahead of time that the prosecution was entering into evidence the interviews. That is done all the time and has to be. Nothing about being hard up for evidence. ALL statements and interviews are entered into evidence. Nothing about taking any bait, that is standard procedure.
The interviews are not testimony and the Judge charged the jury on that.
Not putting Zimmerman on the stand is a different matter and no one thought they would do that after hearing and seeing the way the case went. That was a good move.

NO, respectfully, there is never any testimony at trial without cross examination.

there didnt need to be

the state made zimmermans self serving hearsay evidence actual evidence

in which the jury got the chance to "hear from George" with the safety

of not having to be cross examined

it was a huge blunder by the state offering the fox news interview

Not disagreeing but that was not any slick move by the defense as they knew ahead of time the interviews were going in.
The state always has to provide the defense everything they are putting in evidence before the trial starts.
Called DISCOVERY and everyone knew the interviews were going in.
The defense could have put up the Fox interview.
Again, respectfully, the interviews were not what the defense had to defend against and really offered nothing for the prosecution.
A jury looks at what THE STATE has and NOT what the defendant says as he has to prove nothing.
But they did NOT hurt him at all and DID get in without cross examination everything they wanted anyway.
However, O'Mara did not want Zimmerman giving ANY interviews. Zimmerman was a damn fool for doing that.

 

[testarosa]

Ok, you're armed and have a large bucket full of KFC. You eat a few pieces while shopping downtown. You inadvertently set it down on a park bench while you walk back to your car to drop off some groceries. When you come back, you see someone has walked off with your chicken and is eating it while they walk. Having a gun now, would you approach them and demand your chicken back or let them be, thinking they must be hungry?

What difference does it make that you have a gun? LOL Seriously, dude...what's wrong with you? If I REALLY wanted my chicken, I'd politely ask the guy to give it back. Chances are they're going to apologize and do just that.

Let me guess...you think that if someone has a gun that they're going to whip it out and start blasting the "chicken thief"? Too funny...

Thanks for wasting our time again and totally ignoring the wording of the question. While armed, would you demand the chicken back?

I was just wondering if you read what you wrote there about your make believe Fantasy Unicorn Land chicken and chicken thieves or if you post without thinking all the time.


Operative words in the post:
>>Thanks for wasting our time again

 

[Oldstyle]

Ok, you're armed and have a large bucket full of KFC. You eat a few pieces while shopping downtown. You inadvertently set it down on a park bench while you walk back to your car to drop off some groceries. When you come back, you see someone has walked off with your chicken and is eating it while they walk. Having a gun now, would you approach them and demand your chicken back or let them be, thinking they must be hungry?

What difference does it make that you have a gun? LOL Seriously, dude...what's wrong with you? If I REALLY wanted my chicken, I'd politely ask the guy to give it back. Chances are they're going to apologize and do just that.

Let me guess...you think that if someone has a gun that they're going to whip it out and start blasting the "chicken thief"? Too funny...

Thanks for wasting our time again and totally ignoring the wording of the question. While armed, would you demand the chicken back?

I just stated that I would politely ask the guy to give it back. Is English not your first language? The waste of our time is your inane scenario.

 

[testarosa]

What difference does it make that you have a gun? LOL Seriously, dude...what's wrong with you? If I REALLY wanted my chicken, I'd politely ask the guy to give it back. Chances are they're going to apologize and do just that.

Let me guess...you think that if someone has a gun that they're going to whip it out and start blasting the "chicken thief"? Too funny...

Thanks for wasting our time again and totally ignoring the wording of the question. While armed, would you demand the chicken back?

I just stated that I would politely ask the guy to give it back. Is English not your first language? The waste of our time is your inane scenario.

Those damn KFC chicken thieves! Always eating your chicken.

 

[KissMy]

Again Zimmerman supporters have said a thousand times that Trayvon started the fight. Yet when the alternative is just suggested, we hear the same supporters screaming.

Screaming because there is no evidence of the alternative. If there was, do you think you're the ONLY one who knows about it? If there was a shred of evidence supporting what you're supposing don't you think the prosecution would have presented it? Just. Be. Real.

There is no dispute TM started the fight. The prosecution even thinks TM started the fight. There star witness Rachel Jeantel said TM started the fight.

There is also no dispute that GZ did not flash his gun threaten or threaten TM with it starting the fight.

SlowShitCrupon is to stupid for rational discussion.

 

[Snookie]

I have several decades of experience with both Tae Kwon Do and Kempo Karate. In 1983 I took 3rd in the J. Park East Coast Nationals, men's fighting, middleweight division. The whole black belts have to register their hands and feet as lethal weapons is nothing more than an old wives tale. Nor do you have to inform someone that you are a black belt before you fight them. That also is an urban legend. I really wish people would research things at least a LITTLE bit before they state them as fact.

You can have your black belt. I'll take a tec 9.

You'd take the tec 9?

I guess Zimmerman is your hero eh?

No, but I believe in fighting fire with fire.

 

[Snookie]

Again Zimmerman supporters have said a thousand times that Trayvon started the fight. Yet when the alternative is just suggested, we hear the same supporters screaming.

Screaming because there is no evidence of the alternative. If there was, do you think you're the ONLY one who knows about it? If there was a shred of evidence supporting what you're supposing don't you think the prosecution would have presented it? Just. Be. Real.

There is no dispute TM started the fight. The prosecution even thinks TM started the fight. There star witness Rachel Jeantel said TM started the fight.

There is also no dispute that GZ did not flash his gun threaten or threaten TM with it starting the fight.

SlowShitCrupon is to stupid for rational discussion.

Show me in her testimony that Martin started the fight. You hallucinating again?

 

[Snookie]

Coming next from the Zmericans.

 

[Oldstyle]

I have several decades of experience with both Tae Kwon Do and Kempo Karate. In 1983 I took 3rd in the J. Park East Coast Nationals, men's fighting, middleweight division. The whole black belts have to register their hands and feet as lethal weapons is nothing more than an old wives tale. Nor do you have to inform someone that you are a black belt before you fight them. That also is an urban legend. I really wish people would research things at least a LITTLE bit before they state them as fact.

You can have your black belt. I'll take a tec 9.

A Tec 9? C'mon...those are for gang bangers who can't hit what they're aiming at. It's a "thug" weapon. The kind of thing a wannabe tough guy buys.

 

[Snookie]

I have several decades of experience with both Tae Kwon Do and Kempo Karate. In 1983 I took 3rd in the J. Park East Coast Nationals, men's fighting, middleweight division. The whole black belts have to register their hands and feet as lethal weapons is nothing more than an old wives tale. Nor do you have to inform someone that you are a black belt before you fight them. That also is an urban legend. I really wish people would research things at least a LITTLE bit before they state them as fact.

You can have your black belt. I'll take a tec 9.

A Tec 9? C'mon...those are for gang bangers who can't hit what they're aiming at. It's a "thug" weapon. The kind of thing a wannabe tough guy buys.

It's not so much the gun itself. It's the street cred that comes with packing one.

 

[testarosa]

Coming next from the Zmericans.

You totally stole my Fantasy Unicorn Land unicorn!

Give it back!