The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[RKMBrown]

Or a broken jaw, a subdural hemotoma or a fractured skull.

Objection, speculation, the poster is making shit up. Neg yourself Ernie.

Um. He's referring to the PA's testimony yesterday.

Sigh.. either way it's speculation.

 

[testarosa]

Heh..

Florida law state establishes two types of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary. While voluntary manslaughter describes an intentional act performed during a provocation or heat of passion, involuntary manslaughter does not require an intent to kill or even an intent to perform that act resulting in the victim's death.

To establish involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor must show that the defendant acted with "culpable negligence." Florida statutes define culpable negligence as a disregard for human life while engaging in wanton or reckless behavior. The state may be able to prove involuntary manslaughter by showing the defendant's recklessness or lack of care when handling a dangerous instrument or weapon, or while engaging in a range of other activities that could lead to death if performed recklessly. - See more at:

- See more at: Florida Involuntary Manslaughter Laws - FindLaw

IOW... if the state can prove GZ chased after TM while GZ was armed they can argue that was reckless behavior. You'd have a hard time convincing me an armed wannabe chasing after TM in the rain in the dark was not reckless. He killed the kid, his behavior was not typical of the prior behavior, and was not typical of the behavior he was told to follow, ... self defense or not he killed the kid.

Florida state laws also establish involuntary manslaughter if the prosecutor shows that the defendant used excessive force during self-defense or the defense of another person.

Hard to argue against shooting a kid in the chest as "excessive" as compared to a bloody nose.

Too bad the state is already busy not proving a damn thing.

Or they are playing rope-a-dope. What I read, is that the lesser crime of involuntary man-slaughter is incorporated by default when the higher crime of 2nd degree murder is being tried. Thus .. perhaps they are letting the defense win 2nd degree murder so they can get what they wanted in the first place... involuntary manslaughter.

How do you think changing tactics and their story in the middle of trial is going to come off to the jury?

 

[Snookie]

I guess most folks on this message board have never been hit or been in a fight before (my experience is related to bar brawls in some really amazing joints with my bands and have ducked a flying chair and or jug and or flying body or two but I've been hit as well when I wasn't fast enough to duck )

So none of them get what Zimmerman was going thru.

If you get sucker punched like Z said he was you can't react right away. Then if you start getting your head smashed you are still in a state of shock and there is no doubt that Martin was pounding his head on the ground.

Zimmerman stopped Trayvon the only way he could. I would too. Who wouldn't?

I would never shoot an unarmed man with a gun. I have a conscience.

Obviously you've never had your head grabbed by someone and pounded into the ground. It's a street fighting move.

AND IT FUCKING HURTS. Pardon the caps but I wanted to make it very clear that Z was in pain.

Z obviously felt Trayvon was not going to stop. Martin seemed to be in a frenzy. Z thought he was going to die.

And no one on this planet ever that I have witnessed has screamed for help while they are kicking the shit out of someone else.

Those screams for help were from Zimmerman. And no one helped. No one came.

I've been in plenty of fights and never needed a gunb to defend myself. Only cowards do that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Too bad the state is already busy not proving a damn thing.

Or they are playing rope-a-dope. What I read, is that the lesser crime of involuntary man-slaughter is incorporated by default when the higher crime of 2nd degree murder is being tried. Thus .. perhaps they are letting the defense win 2nd degree murder so they can get what they wanted in the first place... involuntary manslaughter.

How do you think changing tactics and their story in the middle of trial is going to come off to the jury?

They don't have to change tactics. They can present the case and arguments for 2nd degree murder. I believe the way this works is the judge will inform the jury they must decide on 2nd degree or not and if not they can also decide on voluntary or involuntary manslaughter based on the facts presented. I don't think the state gives a poo how they come off to the jury. The idea is to get to the truth.

 

[Snookie]

You don't "discuss". You make shit up. THAT is what gets you negged. (That and the fact that I detest anyone who misspells my name.)
There is no evidence presented so far to point to anything but self defense.

Heh..

Florida law state establishes two types of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary. While voluntary manslaughter describes an intentional act performed during a provocation or heat of passion, involuntary manslaughter does not require an intent to kill or even an intent to perform that act resulting in the victim's death.

To establish involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor must show that the defendant acted with "culpable negligence." Florida statutes define culpable negligence as a disregard for human life while engaging in wanton or reckless behavior. The state may be able to prove involuntary manslaughter by showing the defendant's recklessness or lack of care when handling a dangerous instrument or weapon, or while engaging in a range of other activities that could lead to death if performed recklessly. - See more at:

- See more at: Florida Involuntary Manslaughter Laws - FindLaw

IOW... if the state can prove GZ chased after TM while GZ was armed they can argue that was reckless behavior. You'd have a hard time convincing me an armed wannabe chasing after TM in the rain in the dark was not reckless. He killed the kid, his behavior was not typical of the prior behavior, and was not typical of the behavior he was told to follow, ... self defense or not he killed the kid.

Florida state laws also establish involuntary manslaughter if the prosecutor shows that the defendant used excessive force during self-defense or the defense of another person.

Hard to argue against shooting a kid in the chest as "excessive" as compared to a bloody nose.

Too bad the state is already busy not proving a damn thing.

The important things have already been proven. TM was unarmed and Z capped him.

 

[testarosa]

Objection, speculation, the poster is making shit up. Neg yourself Ernie.

Um. He's referring to the PA's testimony yesterday.

Sigh.. either way it's speculation.

Experts are allowed to speculate (is there an echo in here) and that's why she did.

 

[Snookie]

Consider yourself laying on your back getting the shit kicked out of you. How are you going to rack a shell into the chamber? You'll have maybe a 1/2 second after your assailant sees the weapon to react.
Cops carry 1911's cocked and locked. I carry an auto with a round chambered so I can use it with one hand. My 629 is carried fully loaded but uncocked. It is a double action so I can cock and fire without having to get my thumb to the hammer.

Ayup he might have gotten a fat lip too just before the cops showed up 2min later, or maybe a third scratch.. oh the horror.

Or a broken jaw, a subdural hemotoma or a fractured skull.

None of which he had.

I noticed that the photo taken of Z after the fight of the back of his head that the injuries to his head were so slight that the blood had clotted in a short period of time.

If you examine the photo the blood is stopped before it even reaches his upper back.

Fucking hypochondriacs.

 

[RKMBrown]

Um. He's referring to the PA's testimony yesterday.

Sigh.. either way it's speculation.

Experts are allowed to speculate (is there an echo in here) and that's why she did.

Yeah? Then why were the experts on voice analysis not allowed to provide any testimony let alone speculate?

 

[Snookie]

Sigh.. either way it's speculation.

Experts are allowed to speculate (is there an echo in here) and that's why she did.

Yeah? Then why were the experts on voice analysis not allowed to provide any testimony let alone speculate?

Yeah and btw, the witness was not an expert in the legal sense.

 

[Sunshine]

You're getting mixed up here. Maybe you should just listen for awhile. Leagleeagle

Obviously I am not the one who is confused. You are the one who believes they are smarter than the special prosecutor and can prove Zimmerman was guilty of stalking. Perhaps you should contact Angela Corey and explain to her how she messed up? Maybe they can still amend the charging instrument to include "stalking". You can drop her a line at:

Courthouse Annex
220 East Bay Street
Jacksonville, Florida, 32202

I am sure she will be so impressed with your credentials as legal wiz extraordinaire on the US Message Boards that she will hire you at once.

You dummies are the ones saying the first time Rachel Jeantel talked to Treyvon was after he was being followed by Zimmerman and he was in front of his house. In reality she and he texted each other 200 times that day, she even talked to him on the way to the 711 and most of the way back.

He didn't say he was in front of his house, he said he was close.

But you continue to believe you are a leagle eagle.. I'm sure all your buddies will believe that.

Well, now look who is the dummy. He didn't say he was close to his house. He said he was close to his father's fiancée's house.

Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon Martin Friend: Teen Was Trying To Escape George Zimmerman

I would think you would be reading HuffPo a little closer than that.

 

[Missourian]

Objection, speculation, the poster is making shit up. Neg yourself Ernie.

Um. He's referring to the PA's testimony yesterday.

Sigh.. either way it's speculation.

There is a difference between speculation and a logical conclusion.

That Zimmerman initiated the confrontation is speculation.

That receiving repetitive blows to the head could cause the aforementioned injuries is a logical conclusion.

 

[testarosa]

Sigh.. either way it's speculation.

Experts are allowed to speculate (is there an echo in here) and that's why she did.

Yeah? Then why were the experts on voice analysis not allowed to provide any testimony let alone speculate?

OMG

Really? Do I have to explain this trial to you?

Because the state voice experts method was bullshit - read the Judge's ruling for a full explanation - she went into detail about it.

The PA was actually not an expert, she was a prosecution witness. The prosecution wanted to bring out all of Z's past medical history and after a very long sidebar going through line by line, the judge said they can't do that. HIPPA and relevance and all ya know. However, she ended up testifying as a medical expert because the prosecution opened the door and the defense stepped through and asked her opinion on what could happen with those types of head injuries, etc.

Do I have to keep typing? Can you go watch the testimony and read the motion and ruling on the voice expert.

My fingers are getting tired explaining what's going on in the trial.

 

[testarosa]

Um. He's referring to the PA's testimony yesterday.

Sigh.. either way it's speculation.

There is a difference between speculation and a logical conclusion.

That Zimmerman initiated the confrontation is speculation.

That receiving repetitive blows to the head could cause the aforementioned injuries is a logical conclusion.

Please take over

 

[Ernie S.]

[MENTION][/MENTION]
I've been neg'd twice by both Earnie and Sunshine. They can't discuss anything with anyone that is not giving them a reach around.

So far, IMO, the evidence points to GZ being guilty of involuntary manslaughter while defending himself from the beating TM was giving him.

You don't "discuss". You make shit up. THAT is what gets you negged. (That and the fact that I detest anyone who misspells my name.)
There is no evidence presented so far to point to anything but self defense.

Heh..

Florida law establishes two types of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary. While voluntary manslaughter describes an intentional act performed during a provocation or heat of passion, involuntary manslaughter does not require an intent to kill or even an intent to perform that act resulting in the victim's death.

To establish involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor must show that the defendant acted with "culpable negligence." Florida statutes define culpable negligence as a disregard for human life while engaging in wanton or reckless behavior. The state may be able to prove involuntary manslaughter by showing the defendant's recklessness or lack of care when handling a dangerous instrument or weapon, or while engaging in a range of other activities that could lead to death if performed recklessly. - See more at:

- See more at: Florida Involuntary Manslaughter Laws - FindLaw

IOW... if the state can prove GZ chased after TM while GZ was armed they can argue that was reckless behavior. You'd have a hard time convincing me an armed wannabe chasing after TM in the rain in the dark was not reckless. He killed the kid, his behavior was not typical of the prior behavior, and was not typical of the behavior he was told to follow, ... self defense or not he killed the kid.

Florida state laws also establish involuntary manslaughter if the prosecutor shows that the defendant used excessive force during self-defense or the defense of another person.

Hard to argue against shooting a kid in the chest as "excessive" as compared to a bloody nose.

What's next my wife slapped me so I killed her?

Absolutely no evidence that would support involuntary manslaughter. NONE
Following a suspicious character is not wanton disregard. Deadly force is justified if one has a reasonable fear for live of bodily harm.
No you don't get to shoot your wife for slapping you, but if she has you on the ground and is beating the crap out of you, you have the right to end the confrontation. There is NOTHING to suggest that Zimmerman acted unreasonably except for your emotional instability.

 

[Snookie]

Um. He's referring to the PA's testimony yesterday.

Sigh.. either way it's speculation.

There is a difference between speculation and a logical conclusion.

That Zimmerman initiated the confrontation is speculation.

That receiving repetitive blows to the head could cause the aforementioned injuries is a logical conclusion.

So could a bullet in TM's young healthy heart.

 

[Ernie S.]

Ayup he might have gotten a fat lip too just before the cops showed up 2min later, or maybe a third scratch.. oh the horror.

Or a broken jaw, a subdural hemotoma or a fractured skull.

Objection, speculation, the poster is making shit up. Neg yourself Ernie.

Over ruled. Prosecution opened the door to speculation.

 

[Sunshine]

The Feds cleared him last year after their investigation. They aren't going to do anything.

You have absolutely no idea what's going on and are just making shit up right and left aren't you?

You're on to Sallow's modus operandi already. He simply makes up "facts" to support his warped perspective. When he gets called out, he goes all wolf shit on you and tries to intimidate. It stopped working on me a long time ago.

If I called him on everything he said that was bullshit I wouldn't have time to do anything else. I use the ignore method of reading whenever I see the teeth.

You are a quick study.

 

[Snookie]

Proof of Zimmerman's head injury show that he was not seriously injured.

If you will notice the blood clotted very quickly. None of the blood even reached his neck or clothes.

Newly Released Photos Taken Night Of Trayvon Shooting Show Zimmerman?s Head Injuries | Mediaite

 

[Missourian]

Experts are allowed to speculate (is there an echo in here) and that's why she did.

Yeah? Then why were the experts on voice analysis not allowed to provide any testimony let alone speculate?

OMG

Really? Do I have to explain this trial to you?

Because the state voice experts method was bullshit - read the Judge's ruling for a full explanation - she went into detail about it.

The PA was actually not an expert, she was a prosecution witness. The prosecution wanted to bring out all of Z's past medical history and after a very long sidebar going through line by line, the judge said they can't do that. HIPPA and relevance and all ya know. However, she ended up testifying as a medical expert because the defense asked her opinion on what could happen with those types of head injuries, etc.

Do I have to keep typing? Can you go watch the testimony and read the motion and ruling on the voice expert.

My fingers are getting tired explaining what's going on in the trial.

Plus, after reading the testimony from the Voice Analysis Motion Hearing...the so called "expert witness's" methods were debunked by his peers and were not reproducible.

That was why his testimony was ruled inadmissible.

 

[Ernie S.]

I would never shoot an unarmed man with a gun. I have a conscience.

Obviously you've never had your head grabbed by someone and pounded into the ground. It's a street fighting move.

AND IT FUCKING HURTS. Pardon the caps but I wanted to make it very clear that Z was in pain.

Z obviously felt Trayvon was not going to stop. Martin seemed to be in a frenzy. Z thought he was going to die.

And no one on this planet ever that I have witnessed has screamed for help while they are kicking the shit out of someone else.

Those screams for help were from Zimmerman. And no one helped. No one came.

I've been in plenty of fights and never needed a gunb to defend myself. Only cowards do that.

Gunbs are ineffective for self defense. I have won most fights I've been in, but I've lost a few. I've never been involved in one while armed. Had I been armed, and was in reasonable fear of my life, you bet your ass I would shoot.