The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[testarosa]

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.

He was a 70,000 dollar, selling software, voice quack.

That has nothing to do with the PA testifying.

I'm not even sure how we got here. LOL

This is something like 2+2=7

 

[JakeStarkey]

if you did, i didn't see it, likely i just missed it, happens more often when you have such a huge thread

Yup, you missed it. I agree with this:

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

This is what the jury is going to have decide, and from what I hear 2nd and 3d hand, prosecution is not doing well.

how can you still believe an aggressor cannot claim self defense then?

If GZ did not or could not communicate (b) after initiating the conflict and if TM still believed that GZ was trying to get to a position where he could turn and shoot, then, yes, GZ can be convicted. No doubt about it.

 

[testarosa]

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.

I can't be party to this argument I weigh about 118, you're getting shot right out of the gate. lol

 

[Missourian]

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.

Emotion based appeals only sway the weak minded.


Sway me with facts.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

And that GZ acted in self defense. John Good established that damned convincingly.

 

[legaleagle_45]

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.

He did not say he was close, the testimony was:

Rachel Jeantel: “He was already by his house. He told me.”

Being "by" something is being adjacent to same... not "close". Otherwise, the expression “close by” would be redundant. Further, in the context of the testimony, it is clear she meant adjacent and not 70 to 100 yards away.. We know this because the question asked which brought the above response was this

West: "At that point he decided to approach this man and say ‘why you following me,” when he could have “just run home.”

Now if he was 70 to 100 yards away then she would need to explain why Martin did not run home.. instead she deflected that question by suggesting he did not need to do that because he was already by his home.

Why do you need to lie and misrepresent the facts of this case Sarah? Is your position so weak that you need to resort to falsehoods and hyperbole?

Did You contact Corey about how she messed up on the stalking bit yet? I bet she would love to hear from you..

PS it is spelled "legal", not "leagle". Did you go to the same high school as Rachel?

PPS, you are not too good at this, huh?

 

[Snookie]

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.

So you admit to being a coward by using a gunb on an unarmed juvenile

 

[Missourian]

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.

I can't be party to this argument I weigh about 118, you're getting shot right out of the gate. lol

Wish I could rep you again...that candor made me LOL.

 

[Snookie]

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.

And that GZ acted in self defense. John Good established that damned convincingly.

BS, it's easy to convince someone with your bias, though.

 

[Missourian]

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.

So you admit to being a coward by using a gunb on an unarmed juvenile

If I was in fear for my life...absolutely.

Wouldn't hesitate.

 

[Snookie]

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.

So you admit to being a coward by using a gunb on an unarmed juvenile

If I was in fear for my life...absolutely.

Wouldn't hesitate.

What a wimp.

 

[Sunshine]

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:



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.

He did not say he was close, the testimony was:

Rachel Jeantel: “He was already by his house. He told me.”

Being "by" something is being adjacent to same... not "close". Otherwise, the expression “close by” would be redundant. Further, in the context of the testimony, it is clear she meant adjacent and not 70 to 100 yards away.. We know this because the question asked which brought the above response was this

West: "At that point he decided to approach this man and say ‘why you following me,” when he could have “just run home.”

Now if he was 70 to 100 yards away then she would need to explain why Martin did not run home.. instead she deflected that question by suggesting he did not need to do that because he was already by his home.

Why do you need to lie and misrepresent the facts of this case Sarah? Is your position so weak that you need to resort to falsehoods and hyperbole?

Did You contact Corey about how she messed up on the stalking bit yet? I bet she would love to hear from you..

PS it is spelled "legal", not "leagle". Did you go to the same high school as Rachel?

PPS, you are not too good at this, huh?

She missed that edition of HuffPo.

 

[Missourian]

So you admit to being a coward by using a gunb on an unarmed juvenile

If I was in fear for my life...absolutely.

Wouldn't hesitate.

What a wimp.

So, I should let them kill me?

Just because they are unarmed?

That may be the dumbest argument I have ever seen presented.

 

[Sunshine]

So you admit to being a coward by using a gunb on an unarmed juvenile

If I was in fear for my life...absolutely.

Wouldn't hesitate.

What a wimp.

What a stupid racist asshole.

“Life is fucking long, especially if you're stupid.”
― Justin Halpern, I Suck at Girls

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

TM could have avoided the bullet in his heart. He did not need to confront GZ. He could have simply gone inside to get out of the rain. Or are you saying he didn't know to come in out of the rain?
He wanted to be the tough ghetto gangster and beat on a white dude. It turned out poorly for him.

 

[asterism]

he's not in an oversized jacket here http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/abc_george_zimmerman_2_dm_120621_wg.jpg

The medical standards for obese are pretty crazy. When done by weight and height alone they are often very in accurate.

My point is he doesn't appear to be a severely out of shape man.

You have no idea if he's out of shape or not if you're basing on just pictures and clothed at that. Weight and height are not 100% accurate, but 200 lbs. under 6 feet without a ripped body or some demonstrated physical prowess is out of shape.

He was exercising with MMA 3 times a week.

Which means he was trying to get in shape, not that he was actually in shape.

Head to a gym and see for yourself.

 

[testarosa]

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.

And that GZ acted in self defense. John Good established that damned convincingly.

This is me agreeing with Ernie and screwing up the quote thing:

I'm going to repeat myself again for those who either aren't watching the trial or can't see the forest through the "dead body, bullet heart" trees.

Yesterday's testimony solidified
a) Z was on the bottom
b) Z was the one yelling for help

That, established during the PROSECUTION'S CASE with PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

The defense hasn't even started their turn yet.

And I'm telling ya.... they've got the goods. You ain't seen nothing yet crackah asses.

 

[Snookie]

If I was in fear for my life...absolutely.

Wouldn't hesitate.

What a wimp.

So, I should let them kill me?

Just because they are unarmed?

That may be the dumbest argument I have ever seen presented.

Kill you? Paranoia will destroy ya.

 

[testarosa]

You have no idea if he's out of shape or not if you're basing on just pictures and clothed at that. Weight and height are not 100% accurate, but 200 lbs. under 6 feet without a ripped body or some demonstrated physical prowess is out of shape.

He was exercising with MMA 3 times a week.

Which means he was trying to get in shape, not that he was actually in shape.

Head to a gym and see for yourself.

This is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo irrelevant.

I mean the whole in shape / weight / MMA class conversation.

It's a total <facepalm>

 

[Sarah G]

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:



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.

He did not say he was close, the testimony was:

Rachel Jeantel: “He was already by his house. He told me.”

Being "by" something is being adjacent to same... not "close". Otherwise, the expression “close by” would be redundant. Further, in the context of the testimony, it is clear she meant adjacent and not 70 to 100 yards away.. We know this because the question asked which brought the above response was this

West: "At that point he decided to approach this man and say ‘why you following me,” when he could have “just run home.”

Now if he was 70 to 100 yards away then she would need to explain why Martin did not run home.. instead she deflected that question by suggesting he did not need to do that because he was already by his home.

Why do you need to lie and misrepresent the facts of this case Sarah? Is your position so weak that you need to resort to falsehoods and hyperbole?

Did You contact Corey about how she messed up on the stalking bit yet? I bet she would love to hear from you..

PS it is spelled "legal", not "leagle". Did you go to the same high school as Rachel?

PPS, you are not too good at this, huh?

Why not go read up on the case and then try and talk about it. You just aren't making much sense here.

Maybe I will talk to you about it when you can figure out what is actually going on.