The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[TheGreatGatsby]

You appear to be using a summarized text of the law and not the actual worded law. That third point DOES NOT allow for "justifiable or excusable homicide" as an absolute defense when the 'victim' is a minor. It's just a matter of culpable negligence resulting in death.

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

I appear to be using the standard criminal jury charge in Florida. In fact, I am. I even cited it in my earlier post.

You fail to grasp the meaning of the words you are quoting.

That's not on me. It's on you.

I gave you the exact wording of the law. You gave me a misinformed summary without a source. The only failure is your inattention to reality.

 

[CrazedScotsman]

What it all boils down to is

1. Who was the aggressor?
Some say it was Zimmerman because he was following Martin while others say it was Martin because he had made it home but somehow was killed 100 yards away. The evidence and testimony says it was Martin because Jeantel said Martin was home or behind his dad's girlfriends house.

2. Did Zimmerman fear for his life or grave bodily harm?
Some say no because he's a grown man while others say yes because he was getting whooped up like a redheaded step child. The evidence and testimony all point to yes from what witnesses saw and heard plus common sense says someone whooping up on another isn't going to be screaming for help.

The woulda, shoulda and coulda has no place here.

 

[Edgetho]

Why the personal attack? Did I call you stupid? You know where it is not Tombstone? Chicago, Birmingham, Memphis, St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit. Why are you so distraught over one man with a gun that used it to defend himself, and not the hundreds of murders that are committed against mostly unarmed black males in their late teens and early 20's? The government is mostly liberal and black in most of these cities. Why isn't your supreme logic leading to less violence?

It's okay if Black people kill Black people and it's okay for Black people to kill White people but it's not okay for White people to kill Black people.

Got it?

Good. Write it down and remember it.

So is this why white flight occurs and tax bases dissolve and cities go into ruin? But it is racist to flee for your life or criminal <sic> to defend yourself.

Yup

 

[IlarMeilyr]

How in the Hell does playing this tape help the prosecution?

If they anticipate that Zimmerman will ultimately exercise his right not to testify, by playing this interview now, the prosecution might be thinking that it's as close as they can get to doing a "cross" exam.

I am kind of wondering why his lawyer permitted this, in fact.

Ultimately, I don't think it hurts Zimmerman. But at the time of the interview, it seems like a strange risk (and an unnecessary risk) to take.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You appear to be using a summarized text of the law and not the actual worded law. That third point DOES NOT allow for "justifiable or excusable homicide" as an absolute defense when the 'victim' is a minor. It's just a matter of culpable negligence resulting in death.

782.07&#8195;Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.&#8212;
(1)&#8195;The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2)&#8195;A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3)&#8195;A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4)&#8195;A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

I appear to be using the standard criminal jury charge in Florida. In fact, I am. I even cited it in my earlier post.

You fail to grasp the meaning of the words you are quoting.

That's not on me. It's on you.

I gave you the exact wording of the law. You gave me a misinformed summary without a source. The only failure is your inattention to reality.

The exact wording of a statute that deals with a "minor" does not say what you seem to imagine it says.

I gave you the charge from the STANDARD charge book used by judges in Florida in criminal cases. I did give the source in the earlier post. Here it is again, genius. Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases

My attention to reality is fine. Yours is not a problem of inattention to reality. It's just that you are sadly ignorant.

Section 782.07 (3) is NOT applicable to this case. Sorry you can't figure that out.

 

[pioneerpete]

The lead investigator said he was not skeptical. One of the phone calls that you are basing the harassment off of led to the capture of a black person committing a crime. Again, the lead investigator found it credible that GZ was not profiling blacks. The only reason he asked him this question was because of outside pressures, including an anonymous call to report GZ was a racist. No basis was found for these allegations, confirmed by SPD and the FBI. These are all facts of the case.

FBI said that there was not enough evidence to prove a hate crime. But that does not mean Zimmerman is not a racist.

It wasn't an anonymous call. It was witness # 9. It was Zimmerman's cousin which I made a thread about.

But CNN made it clear the other night that someone that is part black can't be racist to another black person. See "The N Word"

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Interesting that he admits Trayvon tried to run away but then changed it and said he "skipped" and then laughed a little.

He also complained about his "ordeal" and said 'the killing was part of god's plan'.

Zimmerman is a sick little twitch.

 

[25Caliber]

What it all boils down to is

1. Who was the aggressor?
Some say it was Zimmerman because he was following Martin while others say it was Martin because he had made it home but somehow was killed 100 yards away. The evidence and testimony says it was Martin because Jeantel said Martin was home or behind his dad's girlfriends house.

2. Did Zimmerman fear for his life or grave bodily harm?
Some say no because he's a grown man while others say yes because he was getting whooped up like a redheaded step child. The evidence and testimony all point to yes from what witnesses saw and heard plus common sense says someone whooping up on another isn't going to be screaming for help.

The woulda, shoulda and coulda has no place here.

Some believe all of it to be true but that both are responsible in part for what eventually happened that night...one guy paid with his life and the other should pay with time in the slammer. There were too many obvious situations that he could have avoided and given his position should have avoided...instead he made wrong choices one after the other...not the least of which was calling the police on someone who had committed no crime....people are missing that. And his reasoning for thinking he was suspicious doesnt jive...not with me anyway.

Why? Because he avoids the reasoning of suspicion being that he racially profiled...theres a bunch of other reasons in there, but not that one...and he clearly was. If you listen to the tapes really close along with the interviews you will hear it. He did it, so just say it...otherwise it makes me question other things that he says. Like how he states conveniently that when the gun was exposed that Trayvon said "im gonna kill you"... and that trayvon then tried to slide his hand down to his gun...basically he is trying to make the case that essentially the gun was gonna be pulled on him, so he shot him. Very convenient when the lone witness to retort is dead. Translation: I followed when i shouldnt have...I panicked when approached...i never identified myself...he broke my nose...i was losing the fight so I shot him...yep that is why you heed to "we dont need you to do that"...not continuing in the same direction.

 

[Missourian]

So you intend to stop or restart the bickering by insulting me...or are you just another forum idiot full of shit?

I didn't insult you. I corrected you.

You correcting my post is considered an insult to me...I aint your bud. When you can put a logical thought together instead of criticizing others thought, then you can work on correcting people....you havnt earned that privilege as of yet.

Uh...yes, he has.

You should consider pulling the brakes on your crazy train...quit while you're behind.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

How in the Hell does playing this tape help the prosecution?

If they anticipate that Zimmerman will ultimately exercise his right not to testify, by playing this interview now, the prosecution might be thinking that it's as close as they can get to doing a "cross" exam.

I am kind of wondering why his lawyer permitted this, in fact.

Ultimately, I don't think it hurts Zimmerman. But at the time of the interview, it seems like a strange risk (and an unnecessary risk) to take.

I don't see it as a risk. He only said the same things he said to Serino & Singleton during his interrogations.

And since the state's defense team couldn't question the tape, I think playing it was pointless.

 

[Sarah G]

Another thing that ought to be noted is that George Zimmerman didn't have to obey the voice on the other line. It had no binding.

The voice on the other end of the line was not ordering him to do anything. The rules he did have to follow were the rules he was given when he was being trained to do the block watch. You don't follow people you feel are suspicious. You don't get to question anyone asking things like what are you doing around here.

He should have been calling the police which he did but now there are questions about profiling.

He killed the kid after profiling and stalking him and it shouldn't be too hard for the jury to figure it all out.

 

[CrazedScotsman]

How in the Hell does playing this tape help the prosecution?

If they anticipate that Zimmerman will ultimately exercise his right not to testify, by playing this interview now, the prosecution might be thinking that it's as close as they can get to doing a "cross" exam.

I am kind of wondering why his lawyer permitted this, in fact.

Ultimately, I don't think it hurts Zimmerman. But at the time of the interview, it seems like a strange risk (and an unnecessary risk) to take.

I don't see it as a risk. He only said the same things he said to Serino & Singleton during his interrogations.

And since the state's defense team couldn't question the tape, I think playing it was pointless.

It was pointless and it hurt the States case.

This prosecutor should be fired after the trial or hell, right now.

 

[Sarah G]

Interesting that he admits Trayvon tried to run away but then changed it and said he "skipped" and then laughed a little.

He also complained about his "ordeal" and said 'the killing was part of god's plan'.

Zimmerman is a sick little twitch.

That he is..

 

[pioneerpete]

Are the rules of neighborhood watch legal doctrine? Is it a felony to not follow those guidelines?

 

[testarosa]

How in the Hell does playing this tape help the prosecution?

If they anticipate that Zimmerman will ultimately exercise his right not to testify, by playing this interview now, the prosecution might be thinking that it's as close as they can get to doing a "cross" exam.

I am kind of wondering why his lawyer permitted this, in fact.

Ultimately, I don't think it hurts Zimmerman. But at the time of the interview, it seems like a strange risk (and an unnecessary risk) to take.

I don't see it as a risk. He only said the same things he said to Serino & Singleton during his interrogations.

And since the state's defense team couldn't question the tape, I think playing it was pointless.

I didn't hear one contradictory statement. Are they filling dead air?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

If they anticipate that Zimmerman will ultimately exercise his right not to testify, by playing this interview now, the prosecution might be thinking that it's as close as they can get to doing a "cross" exam.

I am kind of wondering why his lawyer permitted this, in fact.

Ultimately, I don't think it hurts Zimmerman. But at the time of the interview, it seems like a strange risk (and an unnecessary risk) to take.

I don't see it as a risk. He only said the same things he said to Serino & Singleton during his interrogations.

And since the state's defense team couldn't question the tape, I think playing it was pointless.

I didn't hear one contradictory statement. Are they filling dead air?

Maybe they feel the jurors are missing watching TV, so they decided to give them some viewing time.

 

[Defiant1]

Are the rules of neighborhood watch legal doctrine? Is it a felony to not follow those guidelines?

More important - do you have to follow those guidelines when you are not on duty?

It seems once you have sat in on the class you have to follow them 24/7 until you die....

 

[Ernie S.]

I mean this beats trying to talk trial with you people...ive tried...its a joke. Hanging on every damn word of zimmerman and cant see one mistake...boooooriiiiiiiing. Not a thinking head in this joint...completely fooled.

I reached for my phone...yeah right

He said he was gonna kill me when he saw my gun...yeah right

I was gonna call the other 911...yeah right

I didnt follow I was looking for an apartment number and trayvon should have known...yeah right

I was too scared to identify myself...I was too scared to talk to a teen...yeah right.

He was standing in the rain looking around at houses...thats a good one...yeah right

Damnit...hes up to no good...i dont know what his problem...get here quick...lmao...yeah right.

No crime...none nata...just a paranoid creepy follower with the brains of a peanut...let me walk up this dark pathway following a guy who I think has a weapon...whats the worst that could happen...yeah right

What does "we dont need you to do that" mean...ummm...it means I should continue on the same path as the suspicious guy who is running from me? did i get that right?

i wasnt racially profiling...honest I wasnt...oh btw, yes he did fit the description of a half a dozen other crimes in the area...he looks black...yep he racially profiled...and the funny thing is people in here admit it and support it...thats fine...but dont deny it took place...what are you stupid? Of course he did...just admit it...nobody is gonna shoot youuuuu.

Forum full of dummies...full of bias worse than what they accuse of the other side. damn shame.

You guys couldnt investigate your way out of a wet paper bag...you would be asking GZ to give you directions.

Do you have one single shred of evidence that shows he was not reaching for his phone?
Now, you can prattle on and on about what you think he was reaching for, but absent proof, he was reaching for a sail foam. 289, I see.

 

[25Caliber]

LOL...people didnt catch anything in the sean interview...omg...i think im gonna be sick. Unbelievable.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They should just drop the murder charge now and save everyone the time. We all know this is about whether GZ will get manslaughter or not.

More ignorant yawp.
Zimmerman raised a claim of self defense. The prosecutor must overcome that claim no matter the charge. He cannot and Zimmerman will go free.

Let me clarify that I'm not saying Zimmerman should or shouldn't be convicted of manslaughter.

Now, get to your retarded muck; Self defense is a valid defense against murder. It is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT (Saying it enough times to sink into your pudding brain) an absolute defense against manslaughter. The FL statute for manslaughter regards whether GZ exercised culpable negligence that led to Travis's death. Now that this has been explained to you for the fourth fucking time; you should get it now.

The Statute you cited clearly states that manslaughter does not apply to justified killing, meaning self defense. You can't even read your own quotes.