The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[dilloduck]

No, you wouldn't "get off". You'd be arrested and charged with murder. Someone following you is not cause to shoot them. Your concept of what "Stand Your Ground" law means is so fundamentally flawed that it's scary.

And if a man followed me in his truck and on foot I wouldn't have the right to feel I was in imminent danger?
And that if I was charged I wouldn't be able to show cause for fearing I might suffer bodily harm? I think you need to gain a little understanding on the law and how it has been used.
Have you looked up any cases that have been dropped due to stand your ground laws?


I think I easily could, and you not admitting that shows how dishonest you are. No wonder you defend Zimmerman no matter what.

We keep returning to the same thing, Luissa and it's a point that you lose on. It's not illegal to follow someone...especially at a distance. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that George Zimmerman did anything other than attempt to keep Trayvon Martin in sight until the Police arrived. That does not constitute "imminent danger". I'm sorry but it doesn't. This is a case that never should have been brought to trial because there was no crime committed. The ONLY reason that it has been is because it's become a "cause" for anti gun folks on the Left. They'll waste millions of taxpayer dollars and probably have riots when the verdict is announced. George Zimmerman will live in fear for the rest of his life as will the the jurors. Why? Because people like yourself have become totally irrational about this situation.

Liberals,anti gun folks and black racists. The only reason this trial is even happening is because of political pressure and the appointing of a special prosecutor.

 

[WorldWatcher]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/u...e-in-martin-shooting.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Zimmerman telling his side of the story--everyone needs to hear this before they comment.

He didn't follow Martin because the other criminals in the neighborhood got away---He was trying to find an address because the police were asking him one. That's when Martin ambushed him and slugged him in the face.

Yes of course, going away from where street signs are located and leaving a lighted street with house numbers on the front lit by garage lights to go behind houses to a darkened area to look for sign/numbers that are not there makes perfect sense.

What evidence do you have, besides Zimmerman's claims that Martin "ambushed" him? No doubt Martin got in a good shot to the face, but that does not mean that Martin ambushed him. Remember Zimmerman also claimed that he never when down the south fork of the "T" intersection, that Martin punched him in the face immediately knocking him to the ground, and then Martin jumped (or "mounted" him). Yet the body was, IIRC, 40-50 feet down the south path and 10-15 feet off the concrete.



>>>>

You need to look at Zimmerman's re enactment at the scene again. He didn't into the dark looking for street signs. He knew what street was ahead of him--He needed a house number to give to the police.
There is NO evidence indicating who started the fight. To convict you need evidence. Zimmerman walks.

I know, I've listened to the audio tapes and watched the reenactment video.

That night he was looking for street signs (12 minutes into the interview tape). The next day he's looking for a house number instead. He'd already described where his truck was on Twin Trees Lane, he could have met the police there. But instead he either choose to continue to follow Martin or to go behind houses looking for (your choice) either a street sign or house numbers were non existed.

Doesn't change the fact though that he left a lighted street and the front of houses with house numbers lit by garage lights to go behind the houses into a darkened area to find a house number or street sign.

If you go with the "house number" option, why leave a lighted area with house numbers right in front of your to proceed behind houses to find a house number it makes no sense.

It's apparent that part of the story is an attempt at CYA to provide a reason to go behind the houses. Problem is the reason doesn't hold water.


>>>>

 

[Oldstyle]

Zimmerman went behind the houses because that was where he saw Martin go. From everything I can gather he then loses sight of Martin and goes straight instead of right as Martin would have gone (if he were in fact heading for the condo he was staying in) ending up by a back gate. At that point he's still on the phone talking to the Police as he heads back towards his SUV to meet them. An important thing to reflect on is the amount of time that has passed since Zimmerman says that Martin is running and gets out of his vehicle to follow to the time he is walking back to meet the Police. It's over 4 minutes. 4 minutes and Martin is literally a few hundred yards away from the condo. But he doesn't choose to go to the condo even though Zimmerman has missed him...no, Trayvon Martin makes a decision to physically confront the man who is following him. He punches him in the face knocking him to the ground, straddles him and pounds his head against the ground. I'm sorry, Kiddies but THAT is assault and battery. Zimmerman is getting his ass kicked by someone who wasn't content just to sucker punch him and knock him down. Oh, no...this is an assailant who is doing his very best mixed martial arts imitation, mounting a downed opponent and raining blows to his head. Only in this case the person getting the beat down has a 9mm handgun, pulls it and shoots one time, killing the man who is beating on him.

You REALLY think you're going to make a case for murder out of THAT? Really?

 

[dilloduck]

Yes of course, going away from where street signs are located and leaving a lighted street with house numbers on the front lit by garage lights to go behind houses to a darkened area to look for sign/numbers that are not there makes perfect sense.

What evidence do you have, besides Zimmerman's claims that Martin "ambushed" him? No doubt Martin got in a good shot to the face, but that does not mean that Martin ambushed him. Remember Zimmerman also claimed that he never when down the south fork of the "T" intersection, that Martin punched him in the face immediately knocking him to the ground, and then Martin jumped (or "mounted" him). Yet the body was, IIRC, 40-50 feet down the south path and 10-15 feet off the concrete.



>>>>

You need to look at Zimmerman's re enactment at the scene again. He didn't into the dark looking for street signs. He knew what street was ahead of him--He needed a house number to give to the police.
There is NO evidence indicating who started the fight. To convict you need evidence. Zimmerman walks.

I know, I've listened to the audio tapes and watched the reenactment video.

That night he was looking for street signs (12 minutes into the interview tape). The next day he's looking for a house number instead. He'd already described where his truck was on Twin Trees Lane, he could have met the police there. But instead he either choose to continue to follow Martin or to go behind houses looking for (your choice) either a street sign or house numbers were non existed.

Doesn't change the fact though that he left a lighted street and the front of houses with house numbers lit by garage lights to go behind the houses into a darkened area to find a house number or street sign.

If you go with the "house number" option, why leave a lighted area with house numbers right in front of your to proceed behind houses to find a house number it makes no sense.

It's apparent that part of the story is an attempt at CYA to provide a reason to go behind the houses. Problem is the reason doesn't hold water.


>>>>

He didn't know the name of the street he was on--he went to find a house # that was on a street re recognized. What's Martins side of the story ?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Zimmerman went behind the houses because that was where he saw Martin go.

Thank you for your honesty.

From everything I can gather he then loses sight of Martin and goes straight instead of right as Martin would have gone (if he were in fact heading for the condo he was staying in) ending up by a back gate.

During the various interviews he indicated that he never when down the south path and that Martin jumped him at the "T" intersection, knocking him to the ground, and then jumping on him. Beating his head on the concrete. Martin was then shot in the chest through the heart and lung. He died pretty much instantly. Problem is his body was, IIRC, 40-50 down the south path and 10-15 away from the concrete.

At that point he's still on the phone talking to the Police as he heads back towards his SUV to meet them.

During the phone call he cancelled the "I'll meet you at the truck", he instead instructed the dispatcher to have the police call him and he would tell them directly where he was.

An important thing to reflect on is the amount of time that has passed since Zimmerman says that Martin is running and gets out of his vehicle to follow to the time he is walking back to meet the Police. It's over 4 minutes. 4 minutes and Martin is literally a few hundred yards away from the condo. But he doesn't choose to go to the condo even though Zimmerman has missed him...no,

Martin had attempted to evade the unknown person multiple times each time he was followed. From the intitial contact in the Northeast quadrant, Martin walked away and Zimmerman followed, from the clubhouse Martin walked away and Zimmerman followed, on Twin Trees Land Martin ran away and Zimmerman followed.

Martin, under Florida law is under no obligation to retreat from a location he is legally permitted to be in, such as common grounds of a community. Martin is the one that tried to evade the situation 3-times.

Trayvon Martin makes a decision to physically confront the man who is following him. He punches him in the face knocking him to the ground, straddles him and pounds his head against the ground.

And your evidence of this "decision" and the actions that followed are? (Ignoring Zimmerman's telling of the story, you know the person on trial and already shown a propensity to lie to the court.)

I'm sorry, Kiddies but THAT is assault and battery.

Not under Florida law which authorizes the use of force if you fear imminent injury based on the threatening actions of others. That is what the jury will decide.

You REALLY think you're going to make a case for murder out of THAT? Really?

"I'm" not trying to do anything, "I'm" not the prosecution. At the end of the day I think the prosecutions case is pretty weak for Murder 2, I think they would have had a better shot at Manslaughter.


But that's JMHO.


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

oddly if memory serves

the same guy who was cleared in the case

was shot dead three months later

by a stray bullet

Zimmerman may meet a similar fate. I've thought that he really should change his appearance and immigrate to another country after this is all over.

When this is all over, his occupation is going to be "Prison Bitch".

 

[dilloduck]

oddly if memory serves

the same guy who was cleared in the case

was shot dead three months later

by a stray bullet

Zimmerman may meet a similar fate. I've thought that he really should change his appearance and immigrate to another country after this is all over.

When this is all over, his occupation is going to be "Prison Bitch".

experienced at the job title, huh ?

 

[JoeB131]

Zimmerman may meet a similar fate. I've thought that he really should change his appearance and immigrate to another country after this is all over.

When this is all over, his occupation is going to be "Prison Bitch".

experienced at the job title, huh ?

Nope, I don't go around shooting black children because I'm a useless thug who can't get a real job.

 

[dilloduck]

When this is all over, his occupation is going to be "Prison Bitch".

experienced at the job title, huh ?

Nope, I don't go around shooting black children because I'm a useless thug who can't get a real job.

lol it's "children" now.

 

[JoeB131]

Yup, keeping attacking the victim, that's going to work for you.

 

[dilloduck]

Yup, keeping attacking the victim, that's going to work for you.

you're calling Martin a child. Is that a truth in your mind ?

 

[Montrovant]

Yup, keeping attacking the victim, that's going to work for you.

you're calling Martin a child. Is that a truth in your mind ?

I've got to say, I don't see anything wrong with calling Martin a child. I've certainly seen 17 year olds called children many times before. According to the law they are usually considered children.

It harder to say as an individual measurement, but 18 tends to be considered the age of adulthood in the US.

 

[dilloduck]

Yup, keeping attacking the victim, that's going to work for you.

you're calling Martin a child. Is that a truth in your mind ?

I've got to say, I don't see anything wrong with calling Martin a child. I've certainly seen 17 year olds called children many times before. According to the law they are usually considered children.

It harder to say as an individual measurement, but 18 tends to be considered the age of adulthood in the US.

pfft If he was alive and you called him a child he would laugh in your face. Y'all are disgusting with the victim bullshit.

 

[Montrovant]

you're calling Martin a child. Is that a truth in your mind ?

I've got to say, I don't see anything wrong with calling Martin a child. I've certainly seen 17 year olds called children many times before. According to the law they are usually considered children.

It harder to say as an individual measurement, but 18 tends to be considered the age of adulthood in the US.

pfft If he was alive and you called him a child he would laugh in your face. Y'all are disgusting with the victim bullshit.

Whether he was an adult or a child has nothing at all to do with whether or not he was a victim. I am fairly neutral on that question.

This is simply a semantics question to me. Would you prefer referring to him as a kid? That works fine for me as well.

Why you think he's a victim if he's a child but not if he's an adult I'm not clear on.

 

[dilloduck]

I've got to say, I don't see anything wrong with calling Martin a child. I've certainly seen 17 year olds called children many times before. According to the law they are usually considered children.

It harder to say as an individual measurement, but 18 tends to be considered the age of adulthood in the US.

pfft If he was alive and you called him a child he would laugh in your face. Y'all are disgusting with the victim bullshit.

Whether he was an adult or a child has nothing at all to do with whether or not he was a victim. I am fairly neutral on that question.

This is simply a semantics question to me. Would you prefer referring to him as a kid? That works fine for me as well.

Why you think he's a victim if he's a child but not if he's an adult I'm not clear on.

referring to Martin as a child or a kid evokes more pity. It's merely another attempt to use feelings as opposed to facts.

 

[Montrovant]

pfft If he was alive and you called him a child he would laugh in your face. Y'all are disgusting with the victim bullshit.

Whether he was an adult or a child has nothing at all to do with whether or not he was a victim. I am fairly neutral on that question.

This is simply a semantics question to me. Would you prefer referring to him as a kid? That works fine for me as well.

Why you think he's a victim if he's a child but not if he's an adult I'm not clear on.

referring to Martin as a child or a kid evokes more pity. It's merely another attempt to use feelings as opposed to facts.

The fact is a 17 year old is, at least in the opinion of many, a kid.

I don't doubt that many will use such terminology just to elicit sympathy. My own comment, however, was not meant as such. I don't consider Martin a victim as I'm unsure what happened in this case. Whether he is a child or an adult plays no part in that. Just wanted to clarify.

 

[dilloduck]

Whether he was an adult or a child has nothing at all to do with whether or not he was a victim. I am fairly neutral on that question.

This is simply a semantics question to me. Would you prefer referring to him as a kid? That works fine for me as well.

Why you think he's a victim if he's a child but not if he's an adult I'm not clear on.

referring to Martin as a child or a kid evokes more pity. It's merely another attempt to use feelings as opposed to facts.

The fact is a 17 year old is, at least in the opinion of many, a kid.

I don't doubt that many will use such terminology just to elicit sympathy. My own comment, however, was not meant as such. I don't consider Martin a victim as I'm unsure what happened in this case. Whether he is a child or an adult plays no part in that. Just wanted to clarify.

no harm no foul I'm admittedly hypervigilant

 

[JoeB131]

Yup, keeping attacking the victim, that's going to work for you.

you're calling Martin a child. Is that a truth in your mind ?

17 years old.

Unable to vote, get a drink, enter into a contract, still required to go to school.

Yes, legally, still a child.

And certainly not doing anything that deserved being shot in the middle of the street by a bully.

 

[JoeB131]

you're calling Martin a child. Is that a truth in your mind ?

I've got to say, I don't see anything wrong with calling Martin a child. I've certainly seen 17 year olds called children many times before. According to the law they are usually considered children.

It harder to say as an individual measurement, but 18 tends to be considered the age of adulthood in the US.

pfft If he was alive and you called him a child he would laugh in your face. Y'all are disgusting with the victim bullshit.

He went to the store and wound up dead. I'm reasonably sure that makes him a victim.

 

[Esmeralda]

pfft If he was alive and you called him a child he would laugh in your face. Y'all are disgusting with the victim bullshit.

Whether he was an adult or a child has nothing at all to do with whether or not he was a victim. I am fairly neutral on that question.

This is simply a semantics question to me. Would you prefer referring to him as a kid? That works fine for me as well.

Why you think he's a victim if he's a child but not if he's an adult I'm not clear on.

referring to Martin as a child or a kid evokes more pity. It's merely another attempt to use feelings as opposed to facts.

Yes, there is no way we should feel pity for an innocent, unarmed young man who simply went for a walk one evening and ended up dead.