The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

What are your Initial Thoughts on the Guilt or Innocence of George Zimmerman?


  • Total voters
    84
Status
Not open for further replies.
Incorrect...he does not stop...stopping would be going back to his truck immediately...he didnt do that...he proceeds up the path and to the next street...he also says he looked to his right when he approached the courtyard and didnt see trayvon...in other words...still looking.

By continuing up the path even to look for this address in the dark and rain potentially gives the impression to the followeee that he is being followed on foot. He did not stop. Again, you are using hindsight information and your privy to the 911 tape...trayvon didnt hear the tape that you did. You are watching tv poker again...in all do respect.

Fair enough. But what is more important...what happened, or how it was perceived?

Zimmerman stopped following Martin.

He did not take the path he observed Martin take.

He did not know where Martin was.

He was not and could not be between Martin and Martin's house.

Martin had to double back AWAY from home to be at the T.

Not what I would call fearful of being followed.

More likely pissed-off about being surveilled .

You're believing that Zimmerman actually stopped pursuit.

I don't think he did. He wanted to "collar" the guy. I think he ran to the T caught up with Martin and initiated contact. He may have even tried to grab Martin which led to the first punch. Remember, Zimmerman went from having Martin come out of the bushes to coming out of the darkness. And by Zimmerman's account..he was walking toward him and talking. It's not far fetched to think Zimmerman caught up to Martin, who turned around to and asked him, "Why are you following me?" To which Zimmerman responded "What are you doing here?" That sounds more like what a cop would do.

And that's what Zimmerman was doing. Playing cop.

Z could never become a cop because of his record and mental state. Besides he admitted to having a bad memory.
 
Actually nobody knows. But if one feels "threatened" one simply goes home - one is a few steps from there.
It has NOT been established that T has felt "threatened". If he would he would go home, not engage in a fight - it does not matter who starts a fight, if one is in the vicinity of one's home and wants to avoid a physical fight, not a verbal one, one goes home.
You're back to relying on suppositions, maybes and unknown scenarios now.

Where you've been all along, I just helped you realize it in public.

Let's see how that holds up for the Defense...shall we?

LOL!!! :lol:

You got it backwards. Ain't nothing gotta hold for the Defense.

The persecution has the burden of proof.

100% of it.
Good, at least you've acknowledged that the nonsense you've been peddling as fact has just been hogwash.

What I will say about the defense is they are doing a MASTERFUL job at bringing in a lot of distractions. Starting on day one with the whole reason why Jeantel didn't go to the funeral, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with her original testimony on what occured moments before Trayvon was shot and killed by Zimmerman. Yet, this is what you and your ilk and the defense is focusing on.

Like a magician...look over there, so I can fool you over here.

Let's see if it works.
 
Serino actually just got in testimony that GZ mentored black children!

No effort whatsoever from M O'M! ZZZZZIIIINNNNGGGG!!!!!
 
Ahhhh....a what if? A supposition. A story that's conjured up in your mind.

Let's see how that holds up in court.

LOL!!!! :lol:

Zimmerman is TOAST!

So you can't answer how Trayvon went less than 100 yards in 4 minutes from a creepy ass cracka who was stalking him ?

Trayvon was staying another 300 yards further down the same sidewalk he died trying to bash Zim's head into.
What's interesting, and actually funny to me is, that how you people can use the calculation of the position of the car at a certain time to assert that Trayvon IN FACT doubled-back to attack Trayvon. Yet, even though you have the testimony, that has never wavered, from Jeantel, that states that Trayvon was very concerned about the "creepy" man that was following him, and on top of that had an exchange with her on how to deal with it, whether to run away or what.

Clearly he wasn't comfortable. Which means he felt threatened.

But you don't like those details, so you discard it.

But you accept the made up scenario of him doubling-back and attacking Zimmerman, because you like that. Although NO WHERE IN COURT has that been asserted, much-less established.

Too funny. :lol:

It does not matter. What matters is the use of deadly force justified - and it actually does not matter who started the fight ( yes, it does not). If you feel that you might be killed by somebody who is pounding your head to the concrete ( those are established FACTS) you might be justified in using the deadly force.

p.s. I don't understand what is so funny for you? the death of a 17 yo? I know you do not care about a poor AA kid, but do not make it so obvious
 
This is absolutely fascinating to watch. I can't stop watching these witnesses completely support Zimmerman. The police are right behind him. Serino just said he NEVER thought GZ had profiled TM; he believed him when Z was confronted about it; that Serino kept in his mind that Z may very well have been a victim.

I have never seen anything like this. Ever. And I've been watching trials religiously since OJ. 20 years and never seen this. WOW

Yeah he sounds more like Z's lawyer than he does a cop.

BTW, he was laterally moved to a patrolman. In my mind that is a demotion.

I'll bet he is an alcoholic.

The prosecutions should be checking these witnesses out for conflict of interest or collusion with the accused.

Oh Dear Snookie, these witnesses are the Prosecution's witnesses. It just happens to be that the state can't find any witnesses to contradict Z's statements.
 
What's interesting, and actually funny to me is, that how you people can use the calculation of the position of the car at a certain time to assert that Trayvon IN FACT doubled-back to attack Trayvon. Yet, even though you have the testimony, that has never wavered, from Jeantel, that states that Trayvon was very concerned about the "creepy" man that was following him, and on top of that had an exchange with her on how to deal with it, whether to run away or what.

Clearly he wasn't comfortable. Which means he felt threatened.

But you don't like those details, so you discard it.

But you accept the made up scenario of him doubling-back and attacking Zimmerman, because you like that. Although NO WHERE IN COURT has that been asserted, much-less established.

Too funny. :lol:

Doubled-back ? Wut ?

Do you know why being so threatened and all he only traveled less than 100 yard over 4 minutes and didn't go home ? What would a reasonable person do in that situation ?
 
Zimmerman quote: I have a very bad memory.

True.

It's so bad it's almost in fantasy land.

Like he "remembers" that Martin tried to cover his mouth and nose but there is a LOT of shouting that can be heard on the cell phone recording.

How exactly does that happen if Zimmerman's mouth is covered?

Or..if Martin is doing the shouting, why?

Why would he want attention?

Gotta love it.

What evidence suggests that his mouth was covered the entire time?
In Z's own words, when asked how long his nose and mouth were covered, It seemed like hours.
 
Remember when all you Zimmerman supporters were SWEARING on the stand-your-ground law?

Turns out that the defense determined that that shat wouldn't fly, so they went another route.

Now you folks are swearing about Trayvon being the attacker, although NOBODY IN COURT, or in the media has said or even asserted this.

Yet you think you're winning.

When you boil it down to the actual FACTS of the case, Zimmerman is in big, big trouble.

He's TOAST!!!

:lol:
 
This is absolutely fascinating to watch. I can't stop watching these witnesses completely support Zimmerman. The police are right behind him. Serino just said he NEVER thought GZ had profiled TM; he believed him when Z was confronted about it; that Serino kept in his mind that Z may very well have been a victim.

I have never seen anything like this. Ever. And I've been watching trials religiously since OJ. 20 years and never seen this. WOW

Yeah he sounds more like Z's lawyer than he does a cop.

BTW, he was laterally moved to a patrolman. In my mind that is a demotion.

I'll bet he is an alcoholic.

The prosecutions should be checking these witnesses out for conflict of interest or collusion with the accused.

Oh Dear Snookie, these witnesses are the Prosecution's witnesses. It just happens to be that the state can't find any witnesses to contradict Z's statements.
Especially the one who was murdered.
 
So you can't answer how Trayvon went less than 100 yards in 4 minutes from a creepy ass cracka who was stalking him ?

Trayvon was staying another 300 yards further down the same sidewalk he died trying to bash Zim's head into.
What's interesting, and actually funny to me is, that how you people can use the calculation of the position of the car at a certain time to assert that Trayvon IN FACT doubled-back to attack Trayvon. Yet, even though you have the testimony, that has never wavered, from Jeantel, that states that Trayvon was very concerned about the "creepy" man that was following him, and on top of that had an exchange with her on how to deal with it, whether to run away or what.

Clearly he wasn't comfortable. Which means he felt threatened.

But you don't like those details, so you discard it.

But you accept the made up scenario of him doubling-back and attacking Zimmerman, because you like that. Although NO WHERE IN COURT has that been asserted, much-less established.

Too funny. :lol:

It does not matter. What matters is the use of deadly force justified - and it actually does not matter who started the fight ( yes, it does not). If you feel that you might be killed by somebody who is pounding your head to the concrete ( those are established FACTS) you might be justified in using the deadly force.

p.s. I don't understand what is so funny for you? the death of a 17 yo? I know you do not care about a poor AA kid, but do not make it so obvious
See how easily you discard what you've been BUILDING AS YOUR MAIN CASE, once it's been totally DEBUNKED as hokum?

What ELSE will you discard when it's shown to be nothing but lies and garbage...HMMMM!!?!???
 
He truly doesn't care about AA kids as he says nothing about the slaughter within our inner-cities. He's just hates WHITES. You see if he can smear it in our faces he will.

Fuck the evidence within his mind.
Every post I've made has been pertaining to the facts of this case.

Yet, here you are bringing up what OTHER people are doing elsewhere.

Things that make me go, "Hmmm.....!!"

:lol:
 
Fair enough. But what is more important...what happened, or how it was perceived?

Zimmerman stopped following Martin.

He did not take the path he observed Martin take.

He did not know where Martin was.

He was not and could not be between Martin and Martin's house.

Martin had to double back AWAY from home to be at the T.

Not what I would call fearful of being followed.

More likely pissed-off about being surveilled .

You're believing that Zimmerman actually stopped pursuit.

I don't think he did. He wanted to "collar" the guy. I think he ran to the T caught up with Martin and initiated contact. He may have even tried to grab Martin which led to the first punch. Remember, Zimmerman went from having Martin come out of the bushes to coming out of the darkness. And by Zimmerman's account..he was walking toward him and talking. It's not far fetched to think Zimmerman caught up to Martin, who turned around to and asked him, "Why are you following me?" To which Zimmerman responded "What are you doing here?" That sounds more like what a cop would do.

And that's what Zimmerman was doing. Playing cop.

Incorrect and unsupported by the 911 tape. If your assumption were true it would have been on tape. Look where the 911 tape ended. DD doesnt support this with her timeline either.

The "timeline" is about 7 minutes long. And either 1 or 2 minutes there was a struggle.

Zimmerman calls the cops at around 7:09, Martin gets shot at around 7:16.

So you're talking about 5 minutes. That fits much more with someone racing across the Dog walk to catch a perp.
 
Fair enough. But what is more important...what happened, or how it was perceived?

Zimmerman stopped following Martin.

He did not take the path he observed Martin take.

He did not know where Martin was.

He was not and could not be between Martin and Martin's house.

Martin had to double back AWAY from home to be at the T.

Not what I would call fearful of being followed.

More likely pissed-off about being surveilled .

I agree with you...later he is in retreat and Trayvon calls out to him. But initially he is still giving the following impression to Trayvon.

So there is a mistake by GZ followed by a mistake by Trayvon...although no one is doing anything illegal...GZ gives the impression of still following and Trayvon gives the impression of "oh S---" to GZ.


And this is where your vacillation falls flat IMO.

Zimmerman isn't following Martin...in his mind, he's good.

"Ho dee doe, I'll just head over here and get an address for the police, I've done my civic duty, the neighborhood is a little safer, if I didn't scare that guy off the police will."

Maybe he waits over there for the call from the police...I don't know...they kinda gloss over that in the walkthrough.

He doesn't get a call, says to himself "I'm bored, going to head over to the mailboxes."

Hum dee dum, across the dogwalk, to the T...and there's Martin!

Freeze everything!

Murder and manslaughter are predicated on intent.

If we agree up to this point, Zimmerman has zero intent.

Involuntary manslaughter is predicated on negligence.

Is it negligent to get out of your truck?

No.

Is it negligent to follow for the purpose of observing the activities of a suspicious person?

No.

Is it negligent to STOP following a person and go get an address for the police?

No.

Is it negligent to walk across a concrete sidewalk to meet a police car?

No.

Fair enough. However if it was me prosecuting...my whole case would be built around his negligence...so we disagree here.

For example..."we dont need you to do that" does not mean to keep pursuing in the same direction that trayvon ran.

So Mr GZ...what does "we dont need you to do that" mean to you?

GZ: Well it means they dont need me to follow him or that they dont want me to follow him.

Okay....does it mean to keep pursuing in the same direction you saw him headed in the dark and rain?

GZ: Well no, but I did stop following...I was looking for an address so that I could meet the police.

Understandable...but what impression are you giving to the person you are following?

GZ: Well I guess he would assume I am following him...but I wasnt.

Thank you, no further questions...a quick wink at the jury...and let them put it together....lol. Let them decide.

I would be making the case that he was negligent in continuing to travel in the path of the "suspect"..."we dont need you to do that" means just that...not keep traveling in the same direction looking for an apt number. He was meeting at the mailboxes and clubhouse...thats enough...the dispathers got it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top