The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[RKMBrown]

Let's explore this logically.

If Martin doesn't know the gun is there...and he never sees it...it's like it really isn't there.

So, let's make it disappear.

Zimmerman has no gun.

He reaches for his cell phone and Martin attacks him.

Was he negligent?

No.

Did Martin assault Zimmerman?

Yes.

Who is in the wrong?

Martin, he is the first to engage in an illegal act.

Gun there/gun not there...if Martin never saw it...for all intents and purposes it wasn't there.

And Martin would have never seen it had he not attacked Zimmerman.

That's the way I see it.

Well at least you finally admit you are basing your view on your imagination.

Feel free to explain your point.

If Martin never saw the gun, and didn't know or suspect it was there...then from his point of view it wasn't there.

Nothing imaginary about that...it's a variation of Schrodinger Cat.

Look it up, you'll learn something.

>>> If Martin doesn't know the gun is there...and he never sees it...it's like it really isn't there.

Requires imagination. Have you never fought and/or wrestled before? To imagine the guy wrestling with you has no idea you are packing moments after the start of the fight.. is a fantasy. You think you can't feel a massive gun and holster on a guy you are fighting with? What do you think he thought was there?

>>> So, let's make it disappear.

Requires imagination. Why not imagine Z pulled it right away and was holding it with one hand on TM the whole time? Let's make it appear...

>>> Zimmerman has no gun.

Requires imagination and a fantasy world. He not only had a gun it was registered to him and he used it to kill the kid. Then he swore to it in testimony that was played today.

>>> He reaches for his cell phone and Martin attacks him.

Requires imagination. The gun was in the location where GZ says he reached just before the fight.

>>> Did Martin assault Zimmerman? Yes.

Requires imagination. Just as likely Zimmerman assaulted Martin.

>>> Who is in the wrong? Martin, he is the first to engage in an illegal act.

Requires imagination. Just as likely Zimmerman was first to engage in an illegal act.

>>> Gun there/gun not there...if Martin never saw it...for all intents and purposes it wasn't there. And Martin would have never seen it had he not attacked Zimmerman.

If if if if .. then insert your view based on GZ's view... then some more imagination about Zimmerman's intentions that you appear to believe you can channel.

>>> That's the way I see it.

Ok this is where you admitted you are not using facts you are telling it like you "see it."

 

[earlycuyler]

It doesn't matter. Have you not figured this out yet?

I have figured out that both sides have such a heavy bias that neither one can see thru the trees and use their own common sense. Yeah, I figured that out.

Its either looking at the situation solely from GZs eyes or Solely from Trayvons eyes. Thats no fun to me...I like to look at all of it and let the chips fall where they may.

Right now the defense is winning...the prosecution is horrid.

Sunshine is right. We are biased toward the law. The law is clear in this case. We have stated it many times and for some reason you think it is irrelevant. It is not irrelevant. It is crucial.
So unless the prosecution can show that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life when he shot he will be acquitted.

Not so. Persuit is not allowed under stand your ground. The way you state it, Marten was standing his ground.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Have some sense about you Avatar. You don't get to be the VICTIM AFTER you've PROVOKED and INSTIGATED a fight.

Just like how RWers are acting as if the world began on Jan 1, 2009 and blaming Obama for everything since then, the RWers are acting as if everything began AFTER the fight started.

It just doesn't work that way Avatar. Get a clue.

There is no evidence that zimmerman provoked and instigated a fight and the eye witness testimony has established he was being attacked.

There's also evidence that Zimmerman FOLLOWED Trayvon for no reason other than in his demented mind. AFTER being told that he didn't have to do that.

So it's six of one, and half-a-dozen of the other.

Which witness claimed the Zimmerman was attacking Trayvon? See what I mean folks? You haven't got a clue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't the ink I meant you're personal quotes, I meant folks who are GZ supporters in general.

I'll be more specific going forward.

You just need to be more quiet going forward.

Hahahaha!!! That was funny.

And I do like a good joke. You get a thank you from me.

You think this is funny? You've tried and convicted a man based on your opinions. How dare you think this is a joke? How dare you insert your prevaricated and biased opinions into objective discussions? You are sickening.

>:|

 

[pioneerpete]

I'm sorry. Has this been established:

Give if applicable. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.

The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:

1. another’s attempt to murder [him] [her], or

2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon [him] [her], or

3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling, residence, or vehicle occupied by [him] [her].

Insert and define applicable felony that defendant alleges victim attempted to commit.

Give if applicable. §§ 776.012, 776.031, Fla. Stat.

A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or

2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.

Insert and define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.

 

[25Caliber]

It doesn't matter. Have you not figured this out yet?

I have figured out that both sides have such a heavy bias that neither one can see thru the trees and use their own common sense. Yeah, I figured that out.

Its either looking at the situation solely from GZs eyes or Solely from Trayvons eyes. Thats no fun to me...I like to look at all of it and let the chips fall where they may.

Right now the defense is winning...the prosecution is horrid.

YOU are the one who is biased. I know the law. I'm on the side of the law. You do not know the law. You have sat on here for days and days making shit up out of the air.

I told you...youre opinion is dead to me. All of your supposed experience? You should be flat out ashamed of yourself.

 

[25Caliber]

It doesn't matter. Have you not figured this out yet?

I have figured out that both sides have such a heavy bias that neither one can see thru the trees and use their own common sense. Yeah, I figured that out.

Its either looking at the situation solely from GZs eyes or Solely from Trayvons eyes. Thats no fun to me...I like to look at all of it and let the chips fall where they may.

Right now the defense is winning...the prosecution is horrid.

Sunshine is right. We are biased toward the law. The law is clear in this case. We have stated it many times and for some reason you think it is irrelevant. It is not irrelevant. It is crucial.
So unless the prosecution can show that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life when he shot he will be acquitted.

I get that...and I have made cases for it. You love the word irrellevant...only what has come from Mr Zs mouth is relevant to you. Youre not a deep thinker....you just argue your bias every day...even I could do that....boooooooriiiiiiiing!

 

[Sunshine]

I have figured out that both sides have such a heavy bias that neither one can see thru the trees and use their own common sense. Yeah, I figured that out.

Its either looking at the situation solely from GZs eyes or Solely from Trayvons eyes. Thats no fun to me...I like to look at all of it and let the chips fall where they may.

Right now the defense is winning...the prosecution is horrid.

Sunshine is right. We are biased toward the law. The law is clear in this case. We have stated it many times and for some reason you think it is irrelevant. It is not irrelevant. It is crucial.
So unless the prosecution can show that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life when he shot he will be acquitted.

Not so. Persuit is not allowed under stand your ground. The way you state it, Marten was standing his ground.

Repeat: Stand your ground is NOT at issue in this trial. The defense is based on self defense. Not stand your ground.

 

[legaleagle_45]

>>> Did Martin assault Zimmerman? Yes.

Requires imagination. Just as likely Zimmerman assaulted Martin.


>>> Who is in the wrong? Martin, he is the first to engage in an illegal act.

Requires imagination. Just as likely Zimmerman was first to engage in an illegal act.

If it was "just as likely" that GZ assualted TM as TM assualting GZ and if it is just as likely that Martin acted illegally and was in the wrong as it is for GZ to have acted illegally and be in the wrong then..........

The prosecution loses as they must establish their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that includes disproving self defense beyond a rerasonable doubt. Can you do so?

 

[Sunshine]

I have figured out that both sides have such a heavy bias that neither one can see thru the trees and use their own common sense. Yeah, I figured that out.

Its either looking at the situation solely from GZs eyes or Solely from Trayvons eyes. Thats no fun to me...I like to look at all of it and let the chips fall where they may.

Right now the defense is winning...the prosecution is horrid.

YOU are the one who is biased. I know the law. I'm on the side of the law. You do not know the law. You have sat on here for days and days making shit up out of the air.

I told you...youre opinion is dead to me. All of your supposed experience? You should be flat out ashamed of yourself.

For what? Knowing the law? You should try it sometime. Bottom line is that you have been making shit up from the day you started posting here. You are NOT credible. Not in the slightest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm sorry. Has this been established:

Give if applicable. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.

The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:

1. another’s attempt to murder [him] [her], or

2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon [him] [her], or

3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling, residence, or vehicle occupied by [him] [her].

Insert and define applicable felony that defendant alleges victim attempted to commit.

Give if applicable. §§ 776.012, 776.031, Fla. Stat.

A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or

2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.

Insert and define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.

1. Martin says, "you're going to die tonight, motherfucker," reaches for gun.

2. Assault and battery on Zimmerman by Martin

3. Not applicable.

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

1. See number 2.

2. See 1 and 2.

 

[Sunshine]

>>> Did Martin assault Zimmerman? Yes.

Requires imagination. Just as likely Zimmerman assaulted Martin.


>>> Who is in the wrong? Martin, he is the first to engage in an illegal act.

Requires imagination. Just as likely Zimmerman was first to engage in an illegal act.

If it was "just as likely" that GZ assualted TM as TM assualting GZ and if it is just as likely that Martin acted illegally and was in the wrong as it is for GZ to have acted illegally and be in the wrong then..........

The prosecution loses as they must establish their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that includes disproving self defense beyond a rerasonable doubt. Can you do so?

They never listen to themselves evidenced by your quote. No reason they should listen to you or me!

 

[Snookie]

Gotcha...fair enough. But (I hate buts...lol) if he doesnt know he was reaching for a gun, then he doesnt know he is reaching for a phone either. However, we do know that a gun was there and a phone wasnt.

Let's explore this logically.

If Martin doesn't know the gun is there...and he never sees it...it's like it really isn't there.

So, let's make it disappear.

Zimmerman has no gun.

He reaches for his cell phone and Martin attacks him.

Was he negligent?

No.

Did Martin assault Zimmerman?

Yes.

Who is in the wrong?

Martin, he is the first to engage in an illegal act.

Gun there/gun not there...if Martin never saw it...for all intents and purposes it wasn't there.

And Martin would have never seen it had he not attacked Zimmerman.

That's the way I see it.

Good points. Also had Zimmerman not been trolling Martin, nothing would have happened. Z. should have listened to the police and stopped "the hunt" but just because he didn't doesn't make him a cold-blooded murderer. A fight ensued and someone died. Happens all the time in Chicago, and Detroit and Oakland and bars....

especially if he shoots a suspicious hoodie. thank god for the right to bear arms and kill heathen bastards who look suspicious.

 

[Ernie S.]

Gotcha...fair enough. But (I hate buts...lol) if he doesnt know he was reaching for a gun, then he doesnt know he is reaching for a phone either. However, we do know that a gun was there and a phone wasnt.

Let's explore this logically.

If Martin doesn't know the gun is there...and he never sees it...it's like it really isn't there.

So, let's make it disappear.

Zimmerman has no gun.

He reaches for his cell phone and Martin attacks him.

Was he negligent?

No.

Did Martin assault Zimmerman?

Yes.

Who is in the wrong?

Martin, he is the first to engage in an illegal act.

Gun there/gun not there...if Martin never saw it...for all intents and purposes it wasn't there.

And Martin would have never seen it had he not attacked Zimmerman.

That's the way I see it.

Well at least you finally admit you are basing your view on your imagination.

And what are you basing yours on? Logically, Martin never saw the gun. BANG! He assaulted Mr. Zimmerman. BANG! The first punch breaks Zimmerman's nose and knocks him down. BANG! Martin jumps on top and starts beating Zimmerman senseless. BANG! Zimmerman pleads for help. BANG! Martin is dead.

Not based on imagination, or at least not on wild speculation, but based on Zimmerman's account which has been given credibility by the recording of the call to dispatch, an autopsy report, the testimony of the only witness to see what happened immediately before the gun shot and the testimony of the Physician's Assistant and paramedics that examined Zimmerman's injuries.
It's safe to assume that at least until the point where the 2 men met face to face, George Zimmerman's account was pretty much spot on, yet for some reason, you assume at that point, Zimmerman started lying. WHY?

You must offer more than a motive to depict the events in a light favorable to himself. You can't put a man in jail for life because you expect a man with a gun to lie.

 

[Zona]

Let's explore this logically.

If Martin doesn't know the gun is there...and he never sees it...it's like it really isn't there.

So, let's make it disappear.

Zimmerman has no gun.

He reaches for his cell phone and Martin attacks him.

Was he negligent?

No.

Did Martin assault Zimmerman?

Yes.

Who is in the wrong?

Martin, he is the first to engage in an illegal act.

Gun there/gun not there...if Martin never saw it...for all intents and purposes it wasn't there.

And Martin would have never seen it had he not attacked Zimmerman.

That's the way I see it.

Good points. Also had Zimmerman not been trolling Martin, nothing would have happened. Z. should have listened to the police and stopped "the hunt" but just because he didn't doesn't make him a cold-blooded murderer. A fight ensued and someone died. Happens all the time in Chicago, and Detroit and Oakland and bars....

especially if he shoots a suspicious hoodie. thank god for the right to bear arms and kill heathen bastards who look suspicious.

Damn I read this wrong at first.

You are right. When "certain" people wear hoodies, they are SUSPICIOUS. Others, not so much.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Gone most of the day. Only caught the very last of Serina's testimony before recess. Man! I see the prosecution is still defending this case.

me too sounds like serino flipped to defense

Zimmerman Trial | Live video | Prosecution Witnesses

 

[jon_berzerk]

The last O’Mara question of the day, the last words the jury heard to take with them into the evening recess, could only be characterized as catastrophic for the State’s theory of the case. Looking directly at the man who had been the chief investigator on the case, who had possessed access to ever bit of evidence of any sort, who had interviewed, and re-interviewed, and re-re-interviewed–applying increasing from each interview to the next–O’Mara asked him:

“Do YOU think George Zimmerman was telling you the truth?”

Serino succinct answer: “Yes.”

Zimmerman Trial | Live video | Prosecution Witnesses

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Gone most of the day. Only caught the very last of Serina's testimony before recess. Man! I see the prosecution is still defending this case.

me too sounds like serino flipped to defense

Zimmerman Trial | Live video | Prosecution Witnesses

So far, the only prosecution witness that hasn't flipped to defense was the T-Mobile guy giving call durations.

 

[Ernie S.]

I just asked a marine on the other Z thread what he would do in war if the enemy went reaching upon confrontation...I asked him if he would wait for the person to pull out a phone?

Valid question I think.

Except that this wasn't a confrontation between 2 soldiers. In war, you would be stupid to assume your enemy is NOT planning your death. Martin could not logically make the assumption that Zimmerman was even the "enemy" unless he was planning on beating down a white guy that annoyed him.

 

[Sunshine]

Y'all, take a look at 25's list of posts. He has posted non stop 24/7 for 3 days and maybe longer. I was just tired of looking at his list of posts. Is he some kind of bot? Getting paid to post? Is he the new incarnation of she who shall not be named? We all know she got paid to post. How does 1 person post for 3 days (maybe more) straight without taking time out to eat and sleep? Manic high? Meth? Any ideas?