The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[TemplarKormac]

I would still like to know if Jeantel ever told Travon to "Get off, Get off...."

I am wondering if the the nickname DD is a reference to her bra size.

DD...

As in Dumb and Dumber

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm concerned about the almost all-white upper-middle class jury for this reason...

What White People Don't Understand About Rachel Jeantel By Rachel Samara | Global Grind

Interesting perspective.



p.s., article's assumption that Trayvon was murdered is noted.

Third party news. It's toxic to rational thinking.

 

[Duped]

This case should have never been brought. They were worried that the blacks would riot if they didn't put Zimmerman on trial - cowards. If it was a cop who had his nose broke, and his head was attempted to be slamed on the concrete, martin would have had more holes in him than one, and the case would have been closed.

 

[25Caliber]

Yes we follow them until we don't need to follow teenagers around in the dark. The whole point of neighborhood watch is not to prevent situations like Martin/Zimmerman, but to prevent break-ins and robberies. That is what Zimmerman was trying to do.

The problem is not armed men trying to prevent crime. The problem is criminals. This is not to say Martin was about to commit a crime, just that Zimmerman was trying to perform his function and reacting as a reasonable person in his capacity would given today's society.

I think GZ was trying to do the right thing...dont doubt that for a second. Its just my opinion that given the situation again, his approach would be different. It would start with identifying yourself and speaking to a kid you dont recognize in the neighborhood...if there is a problem after that then take the appropriate steps.

The Martins just settled a million dollar lawsuit from the Homeowners association. Not sure what the by laws or written procedures of the neighborhood watch are, but Im guessing following a kid in the dark packing a pistol without identifying yourself is not one of them. That may have cost the HA a million.

In our NH watch, you are not to pursue or follow in the dark...you report. I wonder why?

We took orders from a police officer. Sometimes it was necessary to follow on foot to maintain eyes on a subject. I would not comply unless armed. I essentially always was unless I was actually in a patrol car with an officer. Even then, there was a weapon available to me.

My experience is that most POs are very cautious about who they allow to follow. In fact, they can be held liable for actually instructing it and something happening as a result. So not sure how your community works, but definitely different than mine.

You took orders from a cop to do this? Hmmm.

Most of the time they advise against it and they are pretty firm about it. Why? Hello....GZ.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This case should have never been brought. They were worried that the blacks would riot if they didn't put Zimmerman on trial - cowards. If it was a cop who had his nose broke, and his head was attempted to be slamed on the concrete, martin would have had more holes in him than one, and the case would have been closed.

You sound like the low information folks on the other side of the question.

Leave it to jury.

 

[25Caliber]

AND you would be in jail for assault. You can't assault a person for following. If you did that, the entire population of Manhattan would have black eyes, broken noses and cuts on the back of their heads.

This is true...a slight exaggeration on my part.

Of course, as I approach...and the guy acts dumbfounded and reaches for what I think is a weapon and it later turns out he had a gun there...I may have a case.

You have no justification if you THINK he is armed. Carrying a concealed weapon with a permit is not illegal.
Now if you confronted a man who was following your 17 year old son and told him you were going to beat him, he would be at least morally justified in indicating he was armed.

You see, we come at this from different perspectives. We both believe that any loss of life is tragic, but you believe that someone has to pay. You don't respect Mr. Zimmerman's right to defend himself from a physical assault, but do support Martin's right to defend himself from being followed.

Seems horribly biased to me.

Im not biased...read my posts...I have come down on both sides of the issue. To me not seeing anything that Zimmerman could have done differently is ignoring the obvious and extremely biased.

You cant see anything that he could have done differently...I find that intellectually dishonest. Not buying that cops are instructing you to follow suspicious people on foot either packing a weapon.

Police officers are instructed to do the exact opposite...not encourage you to pursue. They could be held liable for that if something were to happen.

Btw...I do believe that GZ has a right to defend himself...I have stated so repeatedly. I also believe that Tray has a right to ask why he is being followed? I also think that GZ has a responsibility to defuse the situation and identify himself. Its not surprising that he didnt...hes not a cop and not trained in doing so. So he should have handled it differently. It turns out his suspicion was bs anyway...the kid was just walking home as it turns out. So whatever GZ thought may happen or did happen--didnt.

What happened instead was a fight on his hands because a teen thought he was being followed by some strange creep in the dark. Ill advised.

If Im a cop...I dont want him following anyone on foot...certainly not packing in the process. That would be a hell no...no way...get out of there and wait for us!!

 

[jon_berzerk]

I think GZ was trying to do the right thing...dont doubt that for a second. Its just my opinion that given the situation again, his approach would be different. It would start with identifying yourself and speaking to a kid you dont recognize in the neighborhood...if there is a problem after that then take the appropriate steps.

The Martins just settled a million dollar lawsuit from the Homeowners association. Not sure what the by laws or written procedures of the neighborhood watch are, but Im guessing following a kid in the dark packing a pistol without identifying yourself is not one of them. That may have cost the HA a million.

In our NH watch, you are not to pursue or follow in the dark...you report. I wonder why?

We took orders from a police officer. Sometimes it was necessary to follow on foot to maintain eyes on a subject. I would not comply unless armed. I essentially always was unless I was actually in a patrol car with an officer. Even then, there was a weapon available to me.

My experience is that most POs are very cautious about who they allow to follow. In fact, they can be held liable for actually instructing it and something happening as a result. So not sure how your community works, but definitely different than mine.

You took orders from a cop to do this? Hmmm.

Most of the time they advise against it and they are pretty firm about it. Why? Hello....GZ.

at least for this trial

the state quite by accident

blew the idea about zimmerman not allowed to follow

 

[TemplarKormac]

This case should have never been brought. They were worried that the blacks would riot if they didn't put Zimmerman on trial - cowards. If it was a cop who had his nose broke, and his head was attempted to be slamed on the concrete, martin would have had more holes in him than one, and the case would have been closed.

You sound like the low information folks on the other side of the question.

Leave it to jury.

You are a hellion, Jake. You'd rather they send him to the gallows than have him get his fair go under the law.

 

[MeBelle]

I got hit with a 2000 point neg rep for stating the obvious.

Yes you did, but not for the reason you gave here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/295416-zimmerman-trial-92.html#post7452205

My question is why is it that (predictably) the rightwing tea party types are rooting so hard for Zimmerman?

My question is why do you ASSume the rightwing tea party types are rooting so hard for Zimmerman?

The majority are looking at established evidence and rooting for a clean trial.

post #3650

Did you answer the question I asked?

 

[25Caliber]

We took orders from a police officer. Sometimes it was necessary to follow on foot to maintain eyes on a subject. I would not comply unless armed. I essentially always was unless I was actually in a patrol car with an officer. Even then, there was a weapon available to me.

My experience is that most POs are very cautious about who they allow to follow. In fact, they can be held liable for actually instructing it and something happening as a result. So not sure how your community works, but definitely different than mine.

You took orders from a cop to do this? Hmmm.

Most of the time they advise against it and they are pretty firm about it. Why? Hello....GZ.

at least for this trial

the state quite by accident

blew the idea about zimmerman not allowed to follow

If GZ takes the stand...he will be pursued relentlessly about every action he did that night and what he could have differently. And he should be.

 

[SuMar]

I'm concerned about the almost all-white upper-middle class jury for this reason...

What White People Don't Understand About Rachel Jeantel By Rachel Samara | Global Grind

Do you have a problem with white people?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You sound like the low information folks on the other side of the question.

Leave it to jury.

You are a hellion, Jake. You'd rather they send him to the gallows than have him get his fair go under the law.

(1) I posted the appropriate law on the case elsewhere.

(2) I said we should leave this to jury and stop listening to the nutters from the far sides.

And

(TK's conclusion) I want to send people to the gallows rather than be tried by jury.

Factual conclusion: Templar Kormac is a nutter.

 

[Ernie S.]

I think GZ was trying to do the right thing...dont doubt that for a second. Its just my opinion that given the situation again, his approach would be different. It would start with identifying yourself and speaking to a kid you dont recognize in the neighborhood...if there is a problem after that then take the appropriate steps.

The Martins just settled a million dollar lawsuit from the Homeowners association. Not sure what the by laws or written procedures of the neighborhood watch are, but Im guessing following a kid in the dark packing a pistol without identifying yourself is not one of them. That may have cost the HA a million.

In our NH watch, you are not to pursue or follow in the dark...you report. I wonder why?

We took orders from a police officer. Sometimes it was necessary to follow on foot to maintain eyes on a subject. I would not comply unless armed. I essentially always was unless I was actually in a patrol car with an officer. Even then, there was a weapon available to me.

My experience is that most POs are very cautious about who they allow to follow. In fact, they can be held liable for actually instructing it and something happening as a result. So not sure how your community works, but definitely different than mine.

You took orders from a cop to do this? Hmmm.

Most of the time they advise against it and they are pretty firm about it. Why? Hello....GZ.

We had a Police coordinator. In all fairness, this was 20 years ago. I was still a good deal older than Zimmerman and smaller than Martin. It was "advised" that we not be armed, but except for one guy who Wayne La Pierre wouldn't want owning a gun we all carried except in the coordinator's cruiser.

The weird guy had a CCP, but wanted to carry exposed while on duty. He dressed like a cop carried cuffs and spare mags. Just too much of a "hobby cop".

He came in my house one day to talk scheduling and when he sat, his holster which was in the small of his back, irritated him so he unholstered the weapon and set it on my coffee table in easy reach of my small children.
I grabbed the gun racked a round. (it was a Colt 1911) and told him to get the fuck out of my house and to pick up his weapon from the coordinator that evening. That's when he became (armed) persona non grata.

 

[Geaux4it]

I'm sure all the folks in Florida are happy they stocked up on ammo before this powder keg goes off.

SHTF may actually happen if the lazy thugs can get out of bed to bring the cause

-Geaux

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Martin was reaching for Zimmerman's gun, then there's reason to believe it was.

Only if, and this has not been proven, that GZ did not provoke an incident or attack. If he did not and TM reached for the, gun, then, yes, GZ was justified in shooting.

absolutely wrong. zimmerman can provoke an incident and still claim self defense.

how many times do i have to say this?

Because you can't understand is why, Yurt. Go back and read what you posted about the requirements of the law. (1) if GZ did not threaten TM yet TM reached for the gun, then GZ was right to protect himself. (2) if GS attacked TM and if TM thought his life was in danger and reached for the gun, then GZ was not justified.

You better start studying the Purdue University OWL site I gave you, because you have comprehension problems.

 

[Geaux4it]

Reasonable doubt as defined was just verified by the mumbling, overweight, teen.

I'm sure her weight issue is a thyroid problem.

Or perhaps her education is such her weekly pay can afford reams of Chicken and bacon

IDK

-Geaux

 

[25Caliber]

We took orders from a police officer. Sometimes it was necessary to follow on foot to maintain eyes on a subject. I would not comply unless armed. I essentially always was unless I was actually in a patrol car with an officer. Even then, there was a weapon available to me.

My experience is that most POs are very cautious about who they allow to follow. In fact, they can be held liable for actually instructing it and something happening as a result. So not sure how your community works, but definitely different than mine.

You took orders from a cop to do this? Hmmm.

Most of the time they advise against it and they are pretty firm about it. Why? Hello....GZ.

We had a Police coordinator. In all fairness, this was 20 years ago. I was still a good deal older than Zimmerman and smaller than Martin. It was "advised" that we not be armed, but except for one guy who Wayne La Pierre wouldn't want owning a gun we all carried except in the coordinator's cruiser.

The weird guy had a CCP, but wanted to carry exposed while on duty. He dressed like a cop carried cuffs and spare mags. Just too much of a "hobby cop".

He came in my house one day to talk scheduling and when he sat, his holster which was in the small of his back, irritated him so he unholstered the weapon and set it on my coffee table in easy reach of my small children.
I grabbed the gun racked a round. (it was a Colt 1911) and told him to get the fuck out of my house and to pick up his weapon from the coordinator that evening. That's when he became (armed) persona non grata.

LOL...good for you. Dont blame ya a bit. Hey maybe this guy could be a mall cop? Probably a bad idea.

 

[Oldstyle]

Jesus...Joe! If you think that was "holding your own" then your standards are rather low. That young woman embarrassed herself on national TV with the level of sheer ignorance she displayed. If I had kids in the Florida public school system I'm pretty sure I'd be rushing out to find a good private school to put them in before any further damage was done.

 

[Ernie S.]

This is true...a slight exaggeration on my part.

Of course, as I approach...and the guy acts dumbfounded and reaches for what I think is a weapon and it later turns out he had a gun there...I may have a case.

You have no justification if you THINK he is armed. Carrying a concealed weapon with a permit is not illegal.
Now if you confronted a man who was following your 17 year old son and told him you were going to beat him, he would be at least morally justified in indicating he was armed.

You see, we come at this from different perspectives. We both believe that any loss of life is tragic, but you believe that someone has to pay. You don't respect Mr. Zimmerman's right to defend himself from a physical assault, but do support Martin's right to defend himself from being followed.

Seems horribly biased to me.

Im not biased...read my posts...I have come down on both sides of the issue. To me not seeing anything that Zimmerman could have done differently is ignoring the obvious and extremely biased.

You cant see anything that he could have done differently...I find that intellectually dishonest. Not buying that cops are instructing you to follow suspicious people on foot either packing a weapon.

Police officers are instructed to do the exact opposite...not encourage you to pursue. They could be held liable for that if something were to happen.

Btw...I do believe that GZ has a right to defend himself...I have stated so repeatedly. I also believe that Tray has a right to ask why he is being followed? I also think that GZ has a responsibility to defuse the situation and identify himself. Its not surprising that he didnt...hes not a cop and not trained in doing so. So he should have handled it differently. It turns out his suspicion was bs anyway...the kid was just walking home as it turns out. So whatever GZ thought may happen or did happen--didnt.

What happened instead was a fight on his hands because a teen thought he was being followed by some strange creep in the dark. Ill advised.

If Im a cop...I dont want him following anyone on foot...certainly not packing in the process. That would be a hell no...no way...get out of there and wait for us!!

Of course he could have acted differently, but thinking he could have defused the situation once Martin began his assault is both ludicrous and irrelevant.

The facts are (apparently) that Zimmerman broke no law and his weapon remained hidden from view in its holster until he was assaulted. You keep harping on what Zimmerman could or should have done differently, but I don't recall any speculation on what Trevon could/should have done differently.

 

[25Caliber]

Someone needs to take the girl over their knee and give her something she has probably never had...a good whoopin'. If I was trays mom, Id be going after her throat the way she has disrespected this court and that it could have an effect on the verdict. Id be pissed at her if I was the Martins.

She is a poorly educated (possibly special needs) young woman who appears to be not very smart (or her intelligence hasn't been developed); she is unsophisticated; she doesn't know how to behave (no one has taught her). That doesn't maker her a liar or a punk or deserve a 'good whooping.' She's a simple, poorly educated young person who has been thrown into a situation of national media attention and criticism she doesn't want. Give her a break.

Good point, and I'm going to go one further. Here you have a poorly educated 19 year old girl who stood up against a college-educated lawyer- and she held her own. The lawyer came off as a bit snarky and even a little mean-spirited.

You assume she is poorly educated because? Because the college educated lawyer made it obvious. She was a horrible witness and a disgrace to the martin family, imo. I would be ashamed of her as a witness...surprised that so many Martin supporters arent just as outraged...she flicked all of you off and you guys are praising her...lol.