The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Meathead]

I guess when you don't have a case your best bet is to demonize the kid you killed.

You mean cute little Trayvon who sent texts with a photo of an illegal handgun, talked about how many blows were thrown in the last fight, and of course the ever popular references to smoking weed should be silenced to demonize someone who was simply defending himself from a street thug. The only case that will make this entire media generated fiasco relevant is the cases of vandalism and theft that will be brushed aside after Zimmerman is found innocent. The Rodney Kingesque free for all sure is going to be entertaining to watch, I'm sure... The media is counting on it. This entire case is being constructed by the media with a clear goal of infuriating small minded individuals to use this nonsense as an excuse to ravage other people's property in the name of false justice, and without question cameras will be right in the middle of it with circus clowns masquerading as journalists asking "how on earth could this happen?" I'm sorry you are so gullible to have bought into this fiasco.

Who came up with the idea that smoking pot was something only the really bad teenagers did? If that was the case, about 80% of our kids are borderline or for real gang bangers and thugs who deserve to be shot for taking a walk to the corner store after dark. Jesus.

FFS, STFU you ditz! Just letters BTW.

 

[Oldstyle]

He was trying to keep him in sight so he could help the police find him and check it out. He called the police, for Christ's sake. He didn't hunt him down like a dog.

And you know this how other that from Zimmerman's statements? A person BTW who has already show a propensity to lie to the court.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2 based on the evidence that is in the public domain and without the testimony of expert witnesses on how that evidence is to interpreted. I think it's much more of a case of a overzealous individual that got himself into a situation and whose action caused him to take a life. If I was a juror right now, based on what we know (or can logically assume) I'd vote not guilty on the charge of Murder 2 as I don't think he had a reckless disregard for human live in his actions.

That doesn't mean I can't look at the evidence and identify those things that undermine or show Zimmerman was not truthful about the events that night.



>>>>

You don't think there is a reckless disregard for human life involved in shooting someone?

When that person is in the process of beating the shit out of you? Is this a trick question?

 

[Oldstyle]

Even in a self-defense situation, he'd be still be showing reckless disregarded for human life. Self-defense means that he should not be punished because it was justified under the circumstances, not that he didn't commit the underlying crime.

When you defend yourself you are showing "regard" for your own life. What part of that concept escapes you?

 

[jon_berzerk]

He was trying to keep him in sight so he could help the police find him and check it out. He called the police, for Christ's sake. He didn't hunt him down like a dog.

And you know this how other that from Zimmerman's statements? A person BTW who has already show a propensity to lie to the court.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2 based on the evidence that is in the public domain and without the testimony of expert witnesses on how that evidence is to interpreted. I think it's much more of a case of a overzealous individual that got himself into a situation and whose action caused him to take a life. If I was a juror right now, based on what we know (or can logically assume) I'd vote not guilty on the charge of Murder 2 as I don't think he had a reckless disregard for human live in his actions.

That doesn't mean I can't look at the evidence and identify those things that undermine or show Zimmerman was not truthful about the events that night.



>>>>

You don't think there is a reckless disregard for human life involved in shooting someone?

most of the time no

 

[JoeB131]

Zimmerman shot an unarmed child.

Why is anything else relevent here?

For God's sake...this never ending attempt to portray Trayvon Martin as some defenseless "waif" has gotten SO tired. He wasn't a "child". He was in his late teens and from his text messages and his suspensions from school he was anything but a little angel.

Never said he was an angel.

He also wasn't doing anything that justified murdering him in the middle of the street.

 

[KissMy]

He also wasn't doing anything that justified murdering him in the middle of the street.

Yes he was. He was beating a man who had not injured him, was not fighting back & was screaming for help. That will get anyone legally shot.

 

[dilloduck]

Zimmerman shot an unarmed child.

Why is anything else relevent here?

For God's sake...this never ending attempt to portray Trayvon Martin as some defenseless "waif" has gotten SO tired. He wasn't a "child". He was in his late teens and from his text messages and his suspensions from school he was anything but a little angel.

Never said he was an angel.

He also wasn't doing anything that justified murdering him in the middle of the street.

perhaps smashing someone's head on the sidewalk would be enough motive for you---if you saw someone smashing a skull on a sidewalk would you just turn the other cheek ?

Ahhhh my bad-- Joe is from Chicago--that explains everything.

 

[Polk]

And you know this how other that from Zimmerman's statements? A person BTW who has already show a propensity to lie to the court.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2 based on the evidence that is in the public domain and without the testimony of expert witnesses on how that evidence is to interpreted. I think it's much more of a case of a overzealous individual that got himself into a situation and whose action caused him to take a life. If I was a juror right now, based on what we know (or can logically assume) I'd vote not guilty on the charge of Murder 2 as I don't think he had a reckless disregard for human live in his actions.

That doesn't mean I can't look at the evidence and identify those things that undermine or show Zimmerman was not truthful about the events that night.



>>>>

You don't think there is a reckless disregard for human life involved in shooting someone?

When that person is in the process of beating the shit out of you? Is this a trick question?

Well, that's Zimmerman's story, at least. Then again, prison is full of "innocent" people.

 

[Ravi]

No we don't dillo, the evidence leans toward Zimmerman being told he didn't need to follow and following anyway.

I have to laugh at the threads whining about kids bringing play guns to school getting in trouble (right wing whines) and this thread that appears to be saying Martin deserved to die because he had a text of a gun on his phone.

 

[dilloduck]

No we don't dillo, the evidence leans toward Zimmerman being told he didn't need to follow and following anyway.

I have to laugh at the threads whining about kids bringing play guns to school getting in trouble (right wing whines) and this thread that appears to be saying Martin deserved to die because he had a text of a gun on his phone.

Ravi--no it doesn't--The evidence does not show Zimmerman being a vigilante nor hunting martin down like a dog. Vigilantes don't call the cops and you can't link to anyone who said " martin deserved to die because he had a text of a gun on his phone". Your just flat making shit up again

 

[Luissa]

No we don't dillo, the evidence leans toward Zimmerman being told he didn't need to follow and following anyway.

I have to laugh at the threads whining about kids bringing play guns to school getting in trouble (right wing whines) and this thread that appears to be saying Martin deserved to die because he had a text of a gun on his phone.

Ravi--no it doesn't--The evidence does not show Zimmerman being a vigilante nor hunting martin down like a dog. Vigilantes don't call the cops and you can't link to anyone who said " martin deserved to die because he had a text of a gun on his phone". Your just flat making shit up again

Yes it does, he followed him twice. He was armed and followed him. He was trying to okay vigilante and catch that horrible hooded criminal. And in the end an innocent person was shot.

 

[dilloduck]

No we don't dillo, the evidence leans toward Zimmerman being told he didn't need to follow and following anyway.

I have to laugh at the threads whining about kids bringing play guns to school getting in trouble (right wing whines) and this thread that appears to be saying Martin deserved to die because he had a text of a gun on his phone.

Ravi--no it doesn't--The evidence does not show Zimmerman being a vigilante nor hunting martin down like a dog. Vigilantes don't call the cops and you can't link to anyone who said " martin deserved to die because he had a text of a gun on his phone". Your just flat making shit up again

Yes it does, he followed him twice. He was armed and followed him. He was trying to okay vigilante and catch that horrible hooded criminal. And in the end an innocent person was shot.

dramatic bullshit

 

[Luissa]

Ravi--no it doesn't--The evidence does not show Zimmerman being a vigilante nor hunting martin down like a dog. Vigilantes don't call the cops and you can't link to anyone who said " martin deserved to die because he had a text of a gun on his phone". Your just flat making shit up again

Yes it does, he followed him twice. He was armed and followed him. He was trying to okay vigilante and catch that horrible hooded criminal. And in the end an innocent person was shot.

dramatic bullshit

Dramatic bullshit? Yeah! I would say the killing of a child is pretty dramatic.

You guys keep claiming Martin came after him but why didnt Zimmerman go back to his truck or the mailboxes? If he had he wouldn't have been on the back sidewalk. And like someone asked he couldn't see house numbers back there, so that excuse doesn't work.
So in other words he followed an innocent minor twice while armed. And you are taking his side, why?

 

[dilloduck]

Yes it does, he followed him twice. He was armed and followed him. He was trying to okay vigilante and catch that horrible hooded criminal. And in the end an innocent person was shot.

dramatic bullshit

Dramatic bullshit? Yeah! I would say the killing of a child is pretty dramatic.

You guys keep claiming Martin came after him but why didnt Zimmerman go back to his truck or the mailboxes? If he had he wouldn't have been on the back sidewalk. And like someone asked he couldn't see house numbers back there, so that excuse doesn't work.
So in other words he followed an innocent minor twice while armed. And you are taking his side, why?

very simply because what he did was legal

 

[Luissa]

dramatic bullshit

Dramatic bullshit? Yeah! I would say the killing of a child is pretty dramatic.

You guys keep claiming Martin came after him but why didnt Zimmerman go back to his truck or the mailboxes? If he had he wouldn't have been on the back sidewalk. And like someone asked he couldn't see house numbers back there, so that excuse doesn't work.
So in other words he followed an innocent minor twice while armed. And you are taking his side, why?

very simply because what he did was legal

Following a minor while armed twice who had commented no crime then killing him is legal?
I hope not.

 

[dilloduck]

Dramatic bullshit? Yeah! I would say the killing of a child is pretty dramatic.

You guys keep claiming Martin came after him but why didnt Zimmerman go back to his truck or the mailboxes? If he had he wouldn't have been on the back sidewalk. And like someone asked he couldn't see house numbers back there, so that excuse doesn't work.
So in other words he followed an innocent minor twice while armed. And you are taking his side, why?

very simply because what he did was legal

Following a minor while armed twice who had commented no crime then killing him is legal?
I hope not.

I'm sorry but what you hope and feel is NOT the law.

 

[Luissa]

But last time I checked manslaughter is illegal. I think following someone twice and not retreating back to his truck to prevent anything more from happening, then shooting him will probably get him a manslaughter conviction.

 

[Luissa]

very simply because what he did was legal

Following a minor while armed twice who had commented no crime then killing him is legal?
I hope not.

I'm sorry but what you hope and feel is NOT the law.

I was joking, hack.

But like I just said, manslaughter is still illegal.


This is where you claim you won't post anymore because I am untruthful but still post, and continue to support a liar.

So who do think he lied to? Sean Hannity or the 911 operator?

 

[Polk]

But last time I checked manslaughter is illegal. I think following someone twice and not retreating back to his truck to prevent anything more from happening, then shooting him will probably get him a manslaughter conviction.

Florida law doesn't require retreat.

 

[Trajan]

I agree his state of mind is relevant. I'm just on the fence if texts sent eariler in the day where he was "hostile" to friends go to his state of mind.

yea, thats a tough judgment call...if it says , like; 'hey you made me mad you dissed me lets talk' , no, thats not what I would see as germane but, if it is, well, pretty harsh.....*shrugs*...

I also think that the past for both is important, IF Zimmerman had a history of bing a deputy dog, hostile behaviors etc. that gets in, if Trayvon has a nefarious history that to speaks to predictive/predelict behavior as well....