The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Ernie S.]

The Physician's Assistant who saw Zimmerman after the incident is up now.

I'm wondering why they're trying to ask her about a visit in August of 2011?

something about 09 too? Strange.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is Florida. Florida laws apply. Once Martin put his hands on Zimmerman, George had the right to defend himself.

Not if George provoked the fight. That is what the trial is about.

that is not correct. if martin elevated the conflict beyond a reasonable self defense, then zimmerman can still claim self defense.

False that, Yurt. Martin can defend himself, but he was not in danger of life or limb from a guy he may have provoked. That is what the case is about.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

relevance of medical records. Prosecution wants to bring in something from 2009? How is THAT relevant?

Good question. Maybe it has something to do with rumors of medication Z has been said to be on.

 

[Sarah G]

His previous medical records are being reviewed and a decision will be made about whether it's admissable from August 2011. Not only for his records but for any possible statements he may have made previously that could lead to the shooting of that kid, Treyvon.

Doubt it's admissable but could be interesting.

 

[Yurt]

Not if George provoked the fight. That is what the trial is about.

that is not correct. if martin elevated the conflict beyond a reasonable self defense, then zimmerman can still claim self defense.

False that, Yurt. Martin can defend himself, but he was not in danger of life or limb from a guy he may have provoked. That is what the case is about.

reread, SLOWLY, what i said. i never said he could not defend himself, i said if he elevated his defense beyond a reasonable self defense <-- pay attention now...that self defense turns martin into the aggressor and zimmerman into the defender.

you're wrong again jakey.

 

[Edgetho]

This is Florida. Florida laws apply. Once Martin put his hands on Zimmerman, George had the right to defend himself.

Not if George provoked the fight. That is what the trial is about.

Yeah, he beat up St Skittles fists with his face.

Hate it when that happens.

 

[Sarah G]

Btw, O'Mara made a concerted effort to not show those cleaned up photos. Just one was shown by the prosecution.

 

[Yurt]

Btw, O'Mara made a concerted effort to not show those cleaned up photos. Just one was shown by the prosecution.

why was he a prosecution witness then?

 

[Ernie S.]

relevance of medical records. Prosecution wants to bring in something from 2009? How is THAT relevant?

Good question. Maybe it has something to do with rumors of medication Z has been said to be on.

Are the medication Martin was on relevant?

 

[JakeStarkey]

that is not correct. if martin elevated the conflict beyond a reasonable self defense, then zimmerman can still claim self defense.

False that, Yurt. Martin can defend himself, but he was not in danger of life or limb from a guy he may have provoked. That is what the case is about.

reread, SLOWLY, what i said. i never said he could not defend himself, i said if he elevated his defense beyond a reasonable self defense <-- pay attention now...that self defense turns martin into the aggressor and zimmerman into the defender.

you're wrong again jakey.

I answered it clearly and correctly. There is no indication that George had the right to take TM's life if he, George started the fight.

Why are you acting afraid again, Yurt?

 

[Defiant1]

Not if George provoked the fight. That is what the trial is about.

that is not correct. if martin elevated the conflict beyond a reasonable self defense, then zimmerman can still claim self defense.

False that, Yurt. Martin can defend himself, but he was not in danger of life or limb from a guy he may have provoked. That is what the case is about.

So if you provoke someone they then have the right to beat you to death?

 

[Edgetho]

False that, Yurt. Martin can defend himself, but he was not in danger of life or limb from a guy he may have provoked. That is what the case is about.

reread, SLOWLY, what i said. i never said he could not defend himself, i said if he elevated his defense beyond a reasonable self defense <-- pay attention now...that self defense turns martin into the aggressor and zimmerman into the defender.

you're wrong again jakey.

I answered it clearly and correctly. There is no indication that George had the right to take TM's life if he, George started the fight.

Why are you acting afraid again, Yurt?

You're conflating self-defense with SYG (Stand Your Ground).

If you get in a fist fight and the guy you're fighting pulls a knife, you can shoot him and claim self-defense. You can NOT however claim SYG.

I live in Florida and have a CCW

 

[KissMy]

relevance of medical records. Prosecution wants to bring in something from 2009? How is THAT relevant?

Good question. Maybe it has something to do with rumors of medication Z has been said to be on.

Most likely. Zimmerman is on meds & has been accused of molesting his cousin when he was younger. He is no boy-scout. But he was justified in this shooting even though his following may have initiated the dangerous confrontation.

 

[Yurt]

False that, Yurt. Martin can defend himself, but he was not in danger of life or limb from a guy he may have provoked. That is what the case is about.

reread, SLOWLY, what i said. i never said he could not defend himself, i said if he elevated his defense beyond a reasonable self defense <-- pay attention now...that self defense turns martin into the aggressor and zimmerman into the defender.

you're wrong again jakey.

I answered it clearly and correctly. There is no indication that George had the right to take TM's life if he, George started the fight.

Why are you acting afraid again, Yurt?

you're absolutely incorrect. if someone starts a fight, you may not use unresaonable force to defend yourself, period. you're dead wrong.

further, no indication? are fucking serious? are you following the prosecution's case? the witnesses are claiming it appeared martin was the one on top and zimmerman on the bottom being pummeled MMA style.

it doesn't matter if zimmerman started the fight, martin does not have the right to elevate his defense or the conflict beyond that which is reasonably necessary to defend himself. period.

just admit you're wrong and move on.

 

[RKMBrown]

Zimmerman had a gun, he'd been doing this for a long time, he expressed that "they always get away", he went to a class on "self defense laws." My proposal is not that far fetched. How does a skinny teen beat the hell out of an armed adult who has been training to fight to the point where the adult can't even manage ONE PUNCH in defense? Which is more plausible? The adult was playing rope a dope for the self defense excuse he had just studied about in school, or the armed adult with fight training was such a wimp that he could not defend himself without killing the teen?

Not that far fetched? You're daft!
Skinny teen? He was 5'11" and 158 pounds. That's hardly skinny. Martin played football. We can assume he was in excellent shape, being a football player, while Zimmerman at 5'7" and 185 or 200 pounds was kind of paunchy.

5'11" And 158 is skinny. Damn. We het it . You want Martin to be bigger than he was.

My son is 5'11" he weighs 175. He has 3% body fat. Was TM still playing FB? I saw one FB pic when he was like 12...

 

[JakeStarkey]

reread, SLOWLY, what i said. i never said he could not defend himself, i said if he elevated his defense beyond a reasonable self defense <-- pay attention now...that self defense turns martin into the aggressor and zimmerman into the defender.

you're wrong again jakey.

I answered it clearly and correctly. There is no indication that George had the right to take TM's life if he, George started the fight.

Why are you acting afraid again, Yurt?

you're absolutely incorrect. if someone starts a fight, you may not use unresaonable force to defend yourself, period. you're dead wrong. further, no indication? are fucking serious? are you following the prosecution's case? the witnesses are claiming it appeared martin was the one on top and zimmerman on the bottom being pummeled MMA style. it doesn't matter if zimmerman started the fight, martin does not have the right to elevate his defense or the conflict beyond that which is reasonably necessary to defend himself. period. just admit you're wrong and move on.

You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. You are claiming that GZ is defending himself, the prosecution is saying that GZ instigated it (my point), and the jury will decide that.

You are talking about matters you don't understand.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sure! We'll just go with that.

Do you have a witness that saw TM was slamming GZs head on the concrete?

Yes. John Good.

I thought Good said straddling in the MMA style. I did not hear him say slamming, pounding.. nothing more than on top. But I might have missed it had to do some work.

 

[Edgetho]

reread, SLOWLY, what i said. i never said he could not defend himself, i said if he elevated his defense beyond a reasonable self defense <-- pay attention now...that self defense turns martin into the aggressor and zimmerman into the defender.

you're wrong again jakey.

I answered it clearly and correctly. There is no indication that George had the right to take TM's life if he, George started the fight.

Why are you acting afraid again, Yurt?

you're absolutely incorrect. if someone starts a fight, you may not use unresaonable force to defend yourself, period. you're dead wrong.

further, no indication? are fucking serious? are you following the prosecution's case? the witnesses are claiming it appeared martin was the one on top and zimmerman on the bottom being pummeled MMA style.

it doesn't matter if zimmerman started the fight, martin does not have the right to elevate his defense or the conflict beyond that which is reasonably necessary to defend himself. period.

just admit you're wrong and move on.

That scenario is a tough one. If Z started the fight, if he laid hands on St Skittles first, he's got problems.

Unless St Skittles pulled a knife or a gun.

Technically without St Skittles having a gun or knife...... Yeah, Z could still claim self-defense but it would a hard row to hoe.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I answered it clearly and correctly. There is no indication that George had the right to take TM's life if he, George started the fight.

Why are you acting afraid again, Yurt?

you're absolutely incorrect. if someone starts a fight, you may not use unresaonable force to defend yourself, period. you're dead wrong.

further, no indication? are fucking serious? are you following the prosecution's case? the witnesses are claiming it appeared martin was the one on top and zimmerman on the bottom being pummeled MMA style.

it doesn't matter if zimmerman started the fight, martin does not have the right to elevate his defense or the conflict beyond that which is reasonably necessary to defend himself. period.

just admit you're wrong and move on.

That scenario is a tough one. If Z started the fight, if he laid hands on St Skittles first, he's got problems.

Unless St Skittles pulled a knife or a gun.

Technically without St Skittles having a gun or knife...... Yeah, Z could still claim self-defense but it would a hard row to hoe.

Yup, but the defense is doing well, so, we will see.

 

[Edgetho]

I answered it clearly and correctly. There is no indication that George had the right to take TM's life if he, George started the fight.

Why are you acting afraid again, Yurt?

you're absolutely incorrect. if someone starts a fight, you may not use unresaonable force to defend yourself, period. you're dead wrong. further, no indication? are fucking serious? are you following the prosecution's case? the witnesses are claiming it appeared martin was the one on top and zimmerman on the bottom being pummeled MMA style. it doesn't matter if zimmerman started the fight, martin does not have the right to elevate his defense or the conflict beyond that which is reasonably necessary to defend himself. period. just admit you're wrong and move on.

You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. You are claiming that GZ is defending himself, the prosecution is saying that GZ instigated it (my point), and the jury will decide that.

You are talking about matters you don't understand.

I have not seen or heard one bit of evidence that Z started anything.