The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Rat in the Hat]

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.

You crazy ass cracka

Fixed it again.

You're both wrong.

It's creepy azz cracka.




So there.

 

[testarosa]

Why yes..you did.

You crazy ass cracker.

You crazy ass cracka

Fixed it again.

You crazy assed weird cracka..

Fixed yet again.

OBJECTION

Speculation on "weird".

 

[Ernie S.]

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]

Did you actually read this?

And when did Martin enter Zimmerman's tent?

I did, especially 776.012 (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

 

[testarosa]

Why yes..you did.

You crazy ass cracker.

You crazy ass cracka

Fixed it again.

You're both wrong.

It's creepy azz cracka.


So there.

Rat wrote the Cracka Song - he's the expert.

 

[The Rabbi]

And if Zimmerman's testimony is believed that 'he thought he was near death' at the time he shot Martin, how do we on a message board determine when the proper point of 'near death' might be? That seems to be important to some here--that Zimmerman was not near enough to death to shoot. How does one determne if they are near enough to pull the trigger?

Being near death is not a prerequisite for using deadly force. Reasonable fear of death or severe bodily harm is the standard. Zimmerman was certainly that.

 

[Sallow]

Why yes..you did.

You crazy ass cracker.

You crazy ass cracka

Fixed it again.

You're both wrong.

It's creepy azz cracka.




So there.

My bad.

Point goes to the rat.

 

[testarosa]

I saw. I see similarity, BUT Ms. Alexander fired a warning shot that hit a child. I would fully expect that George Zimmerman would be found guilty if he had missed Martin and killed someone else.

I agree that 20 years is very harsh.

At best, reckless endangerment 5 years, out in 2.

The point is Angela prosecuted her right after she was assigned to this case, and she made an example out of this lady because it was smack in the middle of everyone covering their asses and trying to keep the piece.

Which piece were they trying to keep?

Is this a zombie thing?

I was having a piece moment, see my edit note.

peace piece peece pese

 

[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.

"struck first" chest poke at best.. yeah the black guy pushed him .. just as Zimmerman pushed Trayvon by chasing and chasing and chasing then reaching for his pocket when asked who he is why he's following him..

The white guy stopped hitting him probably because there were witnesses, because he probably had bad knees, and also because he's probably a better man than either Zimmerman or Trayvon. BS that gang banger did not pull a gun probably because he didn't have one and/or because there were witnesses.

There are no facts here, just emotion and speculation.

Look at the diagram of the scene...there was no "chasing and chasing and chasing"...that's a figment of your imagination.

"The white guy stopped probably stopped because..." more speculation and imagination.

He stopped...that is a fact...you should learn to recognize them.

Here are some examples:

Marin did not stop until he was forcibly stopped.

Another fact.

Following someone does not justify a physical attack.

Another fact.

Reaching for a cellphone after saying you don't have a problem is not just cause for being physically attacked.

These are the facts.

Now, show me your FACTS.

Not your feelings.

Not your speculations.

Not your overactive imaginings.

Just the facts.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

NO!!!! because the black kid was the aggressor. Find a youtube of a white man attacking a black man. I will always come down on the side of the one attacked. Sallow will always come down on the side of the black. See the difference?

I see your point. But I'm just talking about this video. The black man in this video did not "attack" the old man. Watch it again. He poked him. If you call that an "attack" were just not using the same definition of attack. Poke.. is attacking? Instigating, yes. Encouraging, yes. But then so is yelling I'll beat the shit out of you. Watch the video again.

 

[Ernie S.]

And that's the "shooting match".

Here in this scenario..the young man is doing what Zimmerman did.

Absofuckinglutely not! The young man is the aggressor, just like the other young man who is dead.
You have this idea in your head that Martin was justified to attack Zimmerman because he was an armed dude with a gun. Trayvon Martin was the aggressor and his irresponsible actions caused his death.

Just what "irresponsible" actions were those?

Buying candy and a drink from a convenience store?

Walking home?

Trying to get away from Zimmerman?

Which one?

Zimmerman called police at 7:09. At 7:16 he killed Trayvon Martin.

That's a whole, what? 7 minutes?

The "fight" lasted under a minute.

It's ALOT like the video I just showed you.

No. Like punching George Zimmerman in the nose and jumping on top and raining down blows "MMA style". Had Martin simply had the sense to come in out of the rain, he'd be alive. What part of that is so hard for you to grasp?

Do we need to get Dee Dee to translate for you?

 

[Sallow]

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]

Did you actually read this?

And when did Martin enter Zimmerman's tent?

I did, especially 776.012 (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

And what "great bodily harm" or "imminent death" did Zimmerman "believe" he was going to prevent?

Zimmerman, who after his under a minute long "life and death" struggle, was, by the testimony of multiple witnesses, in complete composure.

And, he refused medical treatment.

My my..didn't he know his "severe" hematomas could have ended his life?

What a "risk taker", no?

 

[Ernie S.]

Exactly.

Give this man a cigar.

Light bulb moment? maybe... maybe not

Probably not.

Racism is a very difficult thing to overcome. Couple that with the "holy" gun and there you go.

Show me where I have ever been racist or STFU.

 

[Sallow]

Absofuckinglutely not! The young man is the aggressor, just like the other young man who is dead.
You have this idea in your head that Martin was justified to attack Zimmerman because he was an armed dude with a gun. Trayvon Martin was the aggressor and his irresponsible actions caused his death.

Just what "irresponsible" actions were those?

Buying candy and a drink from a convenience store?

Walking home?

Trying to get away from Zimmerman?

Which one?

Zimmerman called police at 7:09. At 7:16 he killed Trayvon Martin.

That's a whole, what? 7 minutes?

The "fight" lasted under a minute.

It's ALOT like the video I just showed you.

No. Like punching George Zimmerman in the nose and jumping on top and raining down blows "MMA style". Had Martin simply had the sense to come in out of the rain, he'd be alive. What part of that is so hard for you to grasp?

Do we need to get Dee Dee to translate for you?

Again.

Zimmerman pursued Martin. He caught up to Martin.

At that point, it was a fight or flight situation.

By Zimmerman's own account, Martin asked him if he had a problem.

I don't believe that account by the way.

And it could have been Zimmerman who struck the first blow.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The point is Angela prosecuted her right after she was assigned to this case, and she made an example out of this lady because it was smack in the middle of everyone covering their asses and trying to keep the piece.

Which piece were they trying to keep?

Is this a zombie thing?

I was having a piece moment, see my edit note.

peace piece peece pese

Let me help you keep them straight...

Peace...

Piece...

Cleese...

Meese...

Hope that helps.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

The evidence that he confronted George is in, that he was punching George is and that George had a gun is in and that Travon is dead is most certainly in. So
Your assertion that " if Travyon was the thug he's being made to be, Zimmerman would be dead today" is remarkably dim witted.

Yes the defense has not actually begun yet...my last line was just a reminder of what's already common knowledge for those following the case.

Well actually no.

That's George's first story..when he told police he got out of the car to check the address and was hit from behind.

That didn't quite jibe with the 911 tape or the proximity of where body was found so Zimmerman told a couple of other stories..

And wound up with Martin asking him "What's your problem"..

Sort of a deviation..eh?

He had just killed a kid. I don't know about you, but I would be pretty emotional at that point. Suppose YOU explain for us the evolution of Dee Dee's story, OK?

 

[Oldstyle]

And if Zimmerman's testimony is believed that 'he thought he was near death' at the time he shot Martin, how do we on a message board determine when the proper point of 'near death' might be? That seems to be important to some here--that Zimmerman was not near enough to death to shoot. How does one determne if they are near enough to pull the trigger?

I'm bemused by the notion some people have that Zimmerman's injuries were not extensive enough to make him fear for his life. They seem to think that Zimmerman should have allowed Martin to continue to slam his head against the ground until his injuries were more pronounced.

Here's the deal, folks. When someone gets into a physical confrontation with you and throws a sucker punch that puts you down on your back on the ground...that's the end of most such confrontations. If that person continues to strike you while you are on the ground then you're in a world of trouble. This isn't someone who is content with making a point with the punch that knocked you down...this is someone who wants to cause you serious injury. This is someone you need to be very afraid of.

 

[Sallow]

Which piece were they trying to keep?

Is this a zombie thing?

I was having a piece moment, see my edit note.

peace piece peece pese

Let me help you keep them straight...

Peace...

Piece...

Cleese...

Meese...

Hope that helps.

You forgot Joe Pesci.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d2LAs-WL_4]"You Think I'm Funny?" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Cuyo]

Absofuckinglutely not! The young man is the aggressor, just like the other young man who is dead.
You have this idea in your head that Martin was justified to attack Zimmerman because he was an armed dude with a gun. Trayvon Martin was the aggressor and his irresponsible actions caused his death.

Just what "irresponsible" actions were those?

Buying candy and a drink from a convenience store?

Walking home?

Trying to get away from Zimmerman?

Which one?

Zimmerman called police at 7:09. At 7:16 he killed Trayvon Martin.

That's a whole, what? 7 minutes?

The "fight" lasted under a minute.

It's ALOT like the video I just showed you.

No. Like punching George Zimmerman in the nose and jumping on top and raining down blows "MMA style". Had Martin simply had the sense to come in out of the rain, he'd be alive. What part of that is so hard for you to grasp?

Do we need to get Dee Dee to translate for you?

First off, getting your ass kicked doesn't automatically translate into reasonable fear for your life.

Second, how do you know Trayvon didn't fear for his life when Zim reached for 'Something' in his pocket?

It's irrelevant that Zim was losing a fight. The question is who is ultimately responsible for the fight, and did the fight warrant lethal force.

I'm being serious here Ernie because we're all firing off speculations.

Suppose there was a way to prove that Martin feared for his life when Zim reached for the gun; Certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Would that change your outlook one iota?

 

[testarosa]

Just what "irresponsible" actions were those?

Buying candy and a drink from a convenience store?

Walking home?

Trying to get away from Zimmerman?

Which one?

Zimmerman called police at 7:09. At 7:16 he killed Trayvon Martin.

That's a whole, what? 7 minutes?

The "fight" lasted under a minute.

It's ALOT like the video I just showed you.

No. Like punching George Zimmerman in the nose and jumping on top and raining down blows "MMA style". Had Martin simply had the sense to come in out of the rain, he'd be alive. What part of that is so hard for you to grasp?

Do we need to get Dee Dee to translate for you?

Again.

Zimmerman pursued Martin. He caught up to Martin.

At that point, it was a fight or flight situation.

By Zimmerman's own account, Martin asked him if he had a problem.

I don't believe that account by the way.

And it could have been Zimmerman who struck the first blow.

Small itsy problem with that. Not a mark on the ME report except the finger and the gunshot wound.

 

[Ernie S.]

Light bulb moment? maybe... maybe not

Probably not.

Racism is a very difficult thing to overcome. Couple that with the "holy" gun and there you go.

Well to Ernie's defense, his issue may be old guys verses younger guys.. or based on the the lack of video and / or decent witnesses for the prosecution in the TM case. Have to remember we don't have a video like this bus showing zimmerman's face as he cursed about Trayvon and gave chase and reached for his "phone" at the start of the conversation.

You don't suppose he could have actually been reaching for his phone, do you? He was very likely going to call dispatch to inform responding officers of his location and his contact with the subject.

But you are convinced that he was reaching for his gun without regard to logic and Zimmerman's account.