The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Sunshine]

I am "implying" that the restraining order would have barred Zimmerman from owning a handgun in New York, much less being able to carry it in the streets.

Things wrong with your assertions:

1.) The existence of a current civil domestic restraining order is a disqualifier to own any gun under federal law, New York Law and Florida Law.

2.) The existence of a lapsed civil restraining order is not a disqualifier to own a gun under federal law, New York Law and Florida Law. Source for NY law: New York State Penal Law Sections 265 and 400; New York General Business Law 39 - DD; #9 - DDD

3.) At the time Zimmerman received his concealed weapons permit, there was no current civil domestic restraining order in place.

4.) In connection with obtaining his concealed weapons permit, Zimmerman was required to undergo a full FBI fingerprint background check, which is much more extensive than the New York background check requirements to purchase a firearm.

5.) Zimmerman passed the full FBI fingerprint background check.

6.) Zimmerman would have also passed the NY background check and be eligible to purchase a gun under New York law if he were a resident of the state at the time as New York State Law merely requires a NICS background check which is not as extensive as a full FBI fingerprint background check.

7.) You obviously do not know what you are talking about.

I would be very interested in how you would go about defending Trayvon...lets here the other side. Help! lol.

Yeah, let's here (sic) the other side. Where'd you say you got that degree?

 

[Ernie S.]

OLD MAN BEATS UP YOUNG BLACK BOY ON METRO BUS - YouTube

Here's another sort of similar circumstance.

Had the young man shot the old man..I doubt one Zimmerman supporter on this board would be jumping to the young man's defense.

He got the shit kicked out of him because he approached the older whit dude. The white guy got up and moved away for God's sake. They traded some insults and the bad ass black kid goes up to confront him.
If he had stayed in his seat, he wouldn't have gotten his stupid ass beat down. He's lucky. I'm not bigger than he was and I'm older than the whit dude. I'd have considered putting him down.

And that has nothing to do with the point I made.

Had the young man shot the old man, because he was losing the fight and felt that his life with in danger..none of you folks would have any trouble putting the young man in jail.

And that's telling.

Because HE was the aggressor, you fool, not because of his color. The white guy had made his attempt to defuse the situation by moving to the front of the bus. The black kid pursued him and deserved his beat down. Self defense does not apply when the person committing the bad act is met with superior force. The white man in this case was the one acting lawfully.

This is further proof of your myopic black vs. white mentality. Why can't you see good vs. evil?

 

[Sallow]

Pretty sure she's sorta botched this..

Spoken like a true legal wiz. Perhaps you can inform the Governor of your credentials as internet legal wizard par excellance and he will appoint you to replace Cory?

Murder 2 is probably overcharging..and I think it's deliberate.

Err ---Sallow if it was deliberate that would mean she undercharged Zimmerman and should have gone for murder one.



Highly unlikely. DoJ assessment:

With all federal civil rights crimes, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person acted intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids – the highest level of intent in criminal law. Negligence, recklessness, mistakes and accidents are not prosecutable under the federal criminal civil rights laws.

But then again what does the Department of Justice know compared to your legal expertise? You should be in line to replace Holder... you can send your resume to

The White House
Attn: President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

Um..no.

I ain't a lawyer.

I already have a job as an IT professional with a major financial firm.

Just for the record. This isn't about "me".

Focus..dude..focus.

 

[Missourian]

OLD MAN BEATS UP YOUNG BLACK BOY ON METRO BUS - YouTube

Here's another sort of similar circumstance.

Had the young man shot the old man..I doubt one Zimmerman supporter on this board would be jumping to the young man's defense.

First, the black guy struck first.

Second, the white guy stopped hitting him once he was down.

Had he continued to wail on the black guy after he was down, and no one was stopping him...and the black guy believed he was in danger of death or grievous bodily harm, he would have been within his rights to use lethal force to stop the attack.

But it didn't come to that...white guy ended the threat to himself, and walked away.

Had Martin done that, he would be alive today.

There's no indication that Martin would not have done that. And there's nothing to indicate that Zimmerman didn't start the altercation other than Zimmerman..who's basically changed his version of events several times.

And, no, I do not think that use of lethal force against an unarmed opponent is justified in the majority of cases. That would really take an extraordinary event.

Part of which does not involve the person using the gun stalking his opponent and aggravating a tense situation.

Zimmerman never fought back.

Martin had no injuries from being struck by Zimmerman.

Martin had Zimmerman on the ground...Zimmerman wasn't fighting back and was yelling for help...

And Martin continued to pound on him...without relenting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


If you are in fear for your life or grievous bodily, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force.

That's straight from the statute.

A good rule of thumb...if you don't want to have lethal force applied...don't put yourself in a position that can be construed as putting another in fear for their life or grievous bodily harm.

Seems simple enough.

IMO, following this rule makes for a BETTER society.

Less assaults is a good thing, right?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Bullshit! That murdering racist was going to shoot that kid no matter what. He fantasized about it along with his racist friends and family. Let him go free. Its up to Trayvon's family to get revenge. The justice system doesn't give a shit about Black kids. That's our own fault. Doesn't mean we cant seek our own vengeance.

Now you're just being a creepy ass cracker.

I am in the Neighborhood Watch, and I'm calling 911 right now.



Did I do that right, Trayvon defenders???

 

[Sallow]

He got the shit kicked out of him because he approached the older whit dude. The white guy got up and moved away for God's sake. They traded some insults and the bad ass black kid goes up to confront him.
If he had stayed in his seat, he wouldn't have gotten his stupid ass beat down. He's lucky. I'm not bigger than he was and I'm older than the whit dude. I'd have considered putting him down.

And that has nothing to do with the point I made.

Had the young man shot the old man, because he was losing the fight and felt that his life with in danger..none of you folks would have any trouble putting the young man in jail.

And that's telling.

Because HE was the aggressor, you fool, not because of his color. The white guy had made his attempt to defuse the situation by moving to the front of the bus. The black kid pursued him and deserved his beat down. Self defense does not apply when the person committing the bad act is met with superior force. The white man in this case was the one acting lawfully.

This is further proof of your myopic black vs. white mentality. Why can't you see good vs. evil?

Exactly.

Give this man a cigar.

 

[testarosa]

Bullshit! That murdering racist was going to shoot that kid no matter what. He fantasized about it along with his racist friends and family. Let him go free. Its up to Trayvon's family to get revenge. The justice system doesn't give a shit about Black kids. That's our own fault. Doesn't mean we cant seek our own vengeance.

Now you're just being a creepy ass cracker.

creepy ass crackah

there I fixed it.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Um..no.

I ain't a lawyer.

I nominate this post as the understatement of the year.

 

[R.D.]

I still don't know whether Zimmerman's motives nor does anybody else here. I have followed suspicious looking personx in my neighborhood. My next door neighbor actually chased one down in a truck due to bizarre behavior after a series of burglaries in our area. (It turned out to be a UPS guy using a rental truck while the UPS truck was in the shop.) It is what people in a neighborhood watch area do. And some will be more zealous and/or aggressive about it than others despite our police training to not be proactive.

But again, the most compelling evidence in Zimmerman's favor at this time is the fact that we have a witness reporting Martin complaining about a "creepy ass cracker" following him. We have Zimmerman on the 911 tape saying he had lost sight of Martin and didn't know where he was. It was a dark rainy night. Does anybody think a physically fit teenager could not have easily run away from a perceived danger?

Jeantel also testified TM called GZ a rapist. It can be taken that TM was working himself up and justifying the attack on "the creepy ass cracker rapist".

 

[Ernie S.]

OLD MAN BEATS UP YOUNG BLACK BOY ON METRO BUS - YouTube

Here's another sort of similar circumstance.

Had the young man shot the old man..I doubt one Zimmerman supporter on this board would be jumping to the young man's defense.

First, the black guy struck first.

Second, the white guy stopped hitting him once he was down.

Had he continued to wail on the black guy after he was down, and no one was stopping him...and the black guy believed he was in danger of death or grievous bodily harm, he would have been within his rights to use lethal force to stop the attack.

But it didn't come to that...white guy ended the threat to himself, and walked away.

Had Martin done that, he would be alive today.

There's no indication that Martin would not have done that. And there's nothing to indicate that Zimmerman didn't start the altercation other than Zimmerman..who's basically changed his version of events several times.

And, no, I do not think that use of lethal force against an unarmed opponent is justified in the majority of cases. That would really take an extraordinary event.

Part of which does not involve the person using the gun stalking his opponent and aggravating a tense situation.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
[/sallow]

 

[Sunshine]

Pretty sure she's sorta botched this..

Spoken like a true legal wiz. Perhaps you can inform the Governor of your credentials as internet legal wizard par excellance and he will appoint you to replace Cory?

Murder 2 is probably overcharging..and I think it's deliberate.

Err ---Sallow if it was deliberate that would mean she undercharged Zimmerman and should have gone for murder one.



Highly unlikely. DoJ assessment:

With all federal civil rights crimes, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person acted intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids – the highest level of intent in criminal law. Negligence, recklessness, mistakes and accidents are not prosecutable under the federal criminal civil rights laws.

But then again what does the Department of Justice know compared to your legal expertise? You should be in line to replace Holder... you can send your resume to

The White House
Attn: President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

LMAO! You are killing me! They don't have time to go apply for those jobs. They are too busy trying to show that I don't have a JD. No doubt they are all up on the finer points of the law such as those that involve Conflicts of Law.

 

[Sunshine]

Those cases generally come with a "proportional use of force" and prior to stand your grand, you were required to try and get away, first.

It's be sliding thanks to the gun lobby into..who ever is the fastest draw, wins.

Grats.

Only in states that require you to retreat. And even then you are not always required to retreat.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (1921) (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".[4]

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm pretty sure if someone is beating your head into the concrete that you are not required to retreat.

Martin had a knife?

This gets better and better.

Martin had the concrete. Sorry you are too dimwitted to get the point.

 

[testarosa]

And that's where the institutional racism comes in the play.

Had the situation been reversed?

Zimmerman black and Martin white?

Zimmerman would already have been convicted.

Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in controversial warning shot case - CNN.com

No one died in that case.

I doubt that.
I do know I would still be on Zimmerman's side in this discussion assuming it had national attention.

This woman you are referring to with the 20 year 'stand your ground' case was prosecuted by Angela Corey right after she was assigned as special prosecutor to this case.

IMO she is another casualty in the long list of casualties of this case - ie Bill Lee and Ron King.

Rep Corinne Brown vs Angela Corey on Marissa Alexander:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyITmlJHALM]05.11.12: Rep. Brown + Angela Corey Talk on Marissa Alexander - YouTube[/ame]

Bumping the post.

 

[RKMBrown]

OLD MAN BEATS UP YOUNG BLACK BOY ON METRO BUS - YouTube

Here's another sort of similar circumstance.

Had the young man shot the old man..I doubt one Zimmerman supporter on this board would be jumping to the young man's defense.

He got the shit kicked out of him because he approached the older whit dude. The white guy got up and moved away for God's sake. They traded some insults and the bad ass black kid goes up to confront him.
If he had stayed in his seat, he wouldn't have gotten his stupid ass beat down. He's lucky. I'm not bigger than he was and I'm older than the whit dude. I'd have considered putting him down.

And that has nothing to do with the point I made.

Had the young man shot the old man, because he was losing the fight and felt that his life with in danger..none of you folks would have any trouble putting the young man in jail.

And that's telling.

Let's see.. bad ass old man walks away from argument with wannabe... Trayvon walks away from wannabe... wannabe pursues makes aggressive move (one wannabe makes sweep with hand at bad ass, the other wannabe makes fumbling reached for "pocket" when questioned)... wannabe gets ass handed to him...

Difference? Wannabe with the gun not happy about loosing the fight, screams for help, and then kills the bad ass in "self defense."

 

[Missourian]

It's called "menacing".

Menacing Law & Legal Definition

Perhaps you should contact Angela Corey and explain to her how she messed up by not including a menacing charge against Zimmerman? Maybe they can still amend the charging instrument to include "menacing". 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.

Pretty sure she's sorta botched this..

Murder 2 is probably overcharging..and I think it's deliberate.

In any case..if Florida gets this wrong..the Feds will probably get it right.

He's not walking.

The federal Hate Crime investigation is closed...no evidence was found that indicates Zimmerman was a racist or that the shooting was racially motivated.

That backdoor to persecution is already shut tight and locked...by Holder and the FBI.

 

[RKMBrown]

He got the shit kicked out of him because he approached the older whit dude. The white guy got up and moved away for God's sake. They traded some insults and the bad ass black kid goes up to confront him.
If he had stayed in his seat, he wouldn't have gotten his stupid ass beat down. He's lucky. I'm not bigger than he was and I'm older than the whit dude. I'd have considered putting him down.

And that has nothing to do with the point I made.

Had the young man shot the old man, because he was losing the fight and felt that his life with in danger..none of you folks would have any trouble putting the young man in jail.

And that's telling.

Because HE was the aggressor, you fool, not because of his color. The white guy had made his attempt to defuse the situation by moving to the front of the bus. The black kid pursued him and deserved his beat down. Self defense does not apply when the person committing the bad act is met with superior force. The white man in this case was the one acting lawfully.

This is further proof of your myopic black vs. white mentality. Why can't you see good vs. evil?

Ernie, he's agreeing with you on the bus video. The black guy is playing zimmerman. You appear to see the old man as zimmerman in this video. You are defending the white guy in both scenarios, that is the point. If this black kid on this bus had pulled a gun in self defense when loosing the fight would you have defended his shooting as self-defense? All the black kid did was "pursue" malign and poke. The old man beat the crap out of the black kid for the pursuit and for the poke.. the black kid by your measure would have been in his right to kill the old man in self defense.

 

[R.D.]

Clearly if Trayvon was the thug he's being made to be, Zimmerman would be dead today.

So you missed the part where the thug punched out an armed man??

Who btw when saw the gun told GZ " you're going to die tonight"

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Yes. Sad picture. Seems we would all be better off if we put the lives of others over our own. Then maybe we would not be so assuming in our defensive positions.

There are many Americans who put the lives of others ahead of their own: Policemen, nurses, doctors, soldiers, to name a few. All of them are voluntarily in harm's way. But even in those instances there are many situations which demand that the person defend his/her own life and they are legally allowed to do so.

Your statement has to be the stupidest one I have EVER read on a forum. Humans are genetically programmed to preserve their own lives, and the law allows it.

So in your mind, depraved as it appears to be, an 8year old little girl brandishing a toy gun and yelling bang, deserves to die. Nice.

 

[Sallow]

Now you're just being a creepy ass cracker.

I am in the Neighborhood Watch, and I'm calling 911 right now.



Did I do that right, Trayvon defenders???

Why yes..you did.

You crazy ass cracker.

 

[RKMBrown]

Clearly if Trayvon was the thug he's being made to be, Zimmerman would be dead today.

So you missed the part where the thug punched out an armed man??

Who btw when saw the gun told GZ " you're going to die tonight"

Have not seen that evidence yet, wasn't that GZ's story?