The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[MarcATL]

We have a cop that testified that he believes that Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries yesterday.

Today we have the Chief Medical Examiner stating that his injuries were insignificant.

Can you recount what Zimmerman's testimony of his injuries were please?

Thanks.

Would you wait until you were beaten almost senseless before you did something about it?? No? Why expect Zimmerman to? By that time he probably would have been killed!

I can't believe how many people want to start the tape rolling from the middle instead of the beginning....You have a Wanna-be Cop who takes a gun out on Neighborhood Watch, clearly in violation of the HOA rules as set up by the fucking Sanford PD...But you just start the story wherever it suits your purposes.

That's how they always operate, starting where they want to start, ignoring all the facts.

Bill-O Da Klown did the same thing with the Rachel Maddow beat-down of Jim DeMint and Ralph Reed last Sunday, but Da Klown edited the clip to portray Reed as "the winner."

Same goes here. They want to give the killer George Zimmerman all the rights to fear for his life, ignoring the fact that Zimmerman STARTED it by following Trayvon who knew he was following him and had good reason to fear for HIS life.

A bunch of jokers these Zimmerman supporters are.

 

[Amelia]

MarcATL provides the quotes of the day!

"He had made about 50 calls to the cops reporting suspicious black people."

"I'm not making this stuff up dude."

Hmmmm, so no answer from Marc about this made-up claim of his.

Verdict is in. Marc is a troll who doesn't care about the facts of the situation.

Case closed.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Trayvondickton

A prick that keeps going and going!

I wish I knew Zimmerman as I'd love to buy him a drink.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Would you wait until you were beaten almost senseless before you did something about it?? No? Why expect Zimmerman to? By that time he probably would have been killed!

I can't believe how many people want to start the tape rolling from the middle instead of the beginning....You have a Wanna-be Cop who takes a gun out on Neighborhood Watch, clearly in violation of the HOA rules as set up by the fucking Sanford PD...But you just start the story wherever it suits your purposes.

That's how they always operate, starting where they want to start, ignoring all the facts.

Bill-O Da Klown did the same thing with the Rachel Maddow beat-down of Jim DeMint and Ralph Reed last Sunday, but Da Klown edited the clip to portray Reed as "the winner."

Same goes here. They want to give the killer George Zimmerman all the rights to fear for his life, ignoring the fact that Zimmerman STARTED it by following Trayvon who knew he was following him and had good reason to fear for HIS life.

A bunch of jokers these Zimmerman supporters are.

Trayvon feared for his life so much he made it 100 yards from the initial encounter in over 4 minutes ?

Come on.

 

[Avatar4321]

We only have Zimmerman's word that those words were actually said, he's on trial, and has been painted as a pathological liar.

Yet, you're taking his bogus claims as gospel truth.

You don't have a leg to stand on son.

First, simply because you believe he is a pathological liar, doesn't mean the State has proven that he is.

Second, as you say, the only evidence we have for what was is Zimmerman. We have absolutely zero evidence that it wasn't said.

Let's for the sake of argument say you are absolutely correct. Zimmerman is a pathlogical liar. We have a choice between evidence from someone we dont believe is credible or no evidence at all. Who has more evidence?

Obviously the side that actually has evidence, even if you aren't sure it's credible.

The only other witness we've heard from that was there cooberates Zimmerman's story.

Even absent any comment from Zimmerman, the eye witness testimony of Trayvon being on top of and attacking Zimmerman and the forensic evidence alone would provide reasonable doubt and a safe belief that Zimmerman was defending himself.

I know you guys think we should ignore that evidence. But you guys havent given any good reasons why

 

[MarcATL]

Marc, if that is what you believe actually happened, then I understand your outrage. However, in my opinion, based on the evidence available, I don't believe that is exactly went down.

But, I will respect your opinion, and I'm sure others would too, if you would just be willing to see over the fence to the other side and admit that the evidence leaves doubt to your account.

I'm seeing the other fence.

Number 1, Zimmerman on tape saying "These @#^&** punks always get away."
That goes to state of mind

Number 2, Zimmerman's many and differing testimonies given as to what happened that night, including the extent of the injuries he sustained.
It shows a pattern of lies.

Trayvon was not the aggressor here.

Number 1, TM according to his ear witness saying creepy ass cracker
That goes to state of mind

Number 2, Same ear witness many and differing testimonies given as to what she heard that night, including bias to where the deposition that led to probable cause was held.
It shows a pattern of lies.

No one can prove GZ was the aggressor here.

1. Yes, he was creeped out, and thus afraid, aka felt threatened by Zimmerman following him.

2. What "pattern of lies" are you referring to. Spell it out.

 

[Missourian]

This story is from a blog that links to another blog.

Where is the original story?

 

[legaleagle_45]

You clearly have no idea what negligence even is.

Sigh.. you are of course wrong..

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection

I am assuming that you understand what you understand what immunity from criminal prosecution means and that you are aware that manslaughter is a criminal matter right?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Chief Medical Examiner recently stated that the injuries Zimmerman experienced were "not life threatening," adding that there were "insignificant."

That's another blow to the defense that shows Zimmerman to be the pathological liar that he is.

When you make baseless assumptions, you turn yourself into a spectacle. Which in turn becomes nothing more than comic relief for everyone else.

I'm not sure you're suggesting that I'm making baseless assumptions or not, but I'll repeat again, the testimonies given today and yesterday show Zimmerman to have lied about the extent of his injuries.

It's in his interest to portray himself as having a reasonable threat to his life, and not just embarrassed that he was losing a fist-fight to a 17 year old kid.

He has all the reason in the world to lie.

He had the balls to give testimony to Sean Hannity, he should have the balls to give testimony on trial and defend himself.

He did not lie about his injuries. He had a perception about them. In any case, the extent of his injuries is irrelevant. If he wasn't injured at all he could still be justified in shooting. The magic question is, Was he reasonably in fear of his life when he shot? The answer is clearly yes.

 

[Avatar4321]

As accurate as you may have been in the pas, I sure hope you're wrong for the first time on this one.

I don't see how an unarmed kid can be where he was supposed to be, unarmed, not committing any crime, gets targeted and ultimately killed and the killer gets to walk away Scot free as if nothing happened.

Does that sound like justice to you?

Marc, if that is what you believe actually happened, then I understand your outrage. However, in my opinion, based on the evidence available, I don't believe that is exactly went down.

But, I will respect your opinion, and I'm sure others would too, if you would just be willing to see over the fence to the other side and admit that the evidence leaves doubt to your account.

I'm seeing the other fence.

Number 1, Zimmerman on tape saying "These @#^&** punks always get away."
That goes to state of mind

Number 2, Zimmerman's many and differing testimonies given as to what happened that night, including the extent of the injuries he sustained.
It shows a pattern of lies.

Trayvon was not the aggressor here.

So what? Trayvon just happened to trip on top of Zimmerman and his fists just managed to make repeated contact by accident? The eye witness was lying about Zimmerman being on the ground yelling for help?

The evidence doesnt support you.

 

[Wake]

The Chief Medical Examiner recently stated that the injuries Zimmerman experienced were "not life threatening," adding that there were "insignificant."

That's another blow to the defense that shows Zimmerman to be the pathological liar that he is.

When you make baseless assumptions, you turn yourself into a spectacle. Which in turn becomes nothing more than comic relief for everyone else.

I'm not sure you're suggesting that I'm making baseless assumptions or not, but I'll repeat again, the testimonies given today and yesterday show Zimmerman to have lied about the extent of his injuries.

That, too, is an assumption. If you watched the trial today, you could see the defense prosecutor sparring with the chief medical examiner who, in her dubious opinion, stated that at minimum there were only 3 blows. It was then pried out of her, after she asserted that 3 blows were also the maximum, that she didn't know what the maximum number of blows could have been.

It's in his interest to portray himself as having a reasonable threat to his life, and not just embarrassed that he was losing a fist-fight to a 17 year old kid.

That can be said of anyone who has ever been on trial. He may be lying. He may not.

One thing you should consider is that it's not about the objective threat on his life, but what his perceptions were. If he thought his life was at risk, and if indeed his head were continuously being slammed, and if Martin said "You're gonna die tonight, motherfucker," well, that may be good enough reason. Do you assume that he was simply embarrassed that he was "losing a fist-fight" to a 17-year-olf kid? Because you don't know that. So, I'm just curious, here.

He has all the reason in the world to lie.

Anyone does.

The problem is whether or not you assume he has indeed lied. Look, it's alright to admit to admit that you're biased. Everyone in some form or another is biased, so there's no reason not to acknowledge the tint of your glasses. We can work through that.

He had the balls to give testimony to Sean Hannity, he should have the balls to give testimony on trial and defend himself.

Indeed, he decided to have an interview way back when. Is it normal for a suspect to willingly have an interview with a media figure?

As for the trial, Zimmerman has no obligation to do so. He could, if he wants to, but no one's going to make him. Making him give testimony is like making you debate fairly. It'd be unlikely, wouldn't it?

 

[OODA_Loop]

1. Yes, he was creeped out, and thus afraid, aka felt threatened by Zimmerman following him.

Yet he didn't continue another 200 yards down the same sidewalk he died on to the safety of his house ?

 

[asterism]

I didn't say that it did. Though it normally does actually, but not if the 'victim' is a minor. And the NOTs were to explain to dickcheese the deal. He keeps pretending the self defense is a be-all factor as to whether GZ can be convicted of man slaughter.

And I also see no "exception" to the right of a person to resort to justification IF the "victim" is a minor.

The Florida jury instruction with regard to manslaughter says:

7.7 MANSLAUGHTER
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that
caused the death of (victim).

b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused
the death of (victim).

c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).

The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:

Negligence:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.

Justifiable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.

Excusable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:

1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or

2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or

3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.

Give only if 2a alleged and proved.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.

Give only if 2b alleged and proved.
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something.
Give only if 2c alleged and proved.
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.

The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

§ 782.07(2)-(4), Fla. Stat. Enhanced penalty if 2c alleged and proved. Give a, b, or c, as applicable.
If you find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, you must then determine whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a. (Victim) was at the time [an elderly person] [a disabled adult] whose death was caused by the neglect of (defendant), a caregiver.

b. (Victim) was a child whose death was caused by the neglect of (defendant), a caregiver.

c. (Victim) was at the time [an officer] [a firefighter] [an emergency medical technician] [a paramedic] who was at the time performing duties that were within the course of [his] [her] employment. The court now instructs you that (official title of victim) is [an officer] [a firefighter] [an emergency medical technician] [a paramedic].

Definitions. Give if applicable.
“Child” means any person under the age of 18 years.

§782.03, Fla. Stat.
“Dangerous weapon” is any weapon that, taking into account the manner in which it was used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

“Elderly person” means a person 60 years of age or older who is suffering from the infirmities of aging as manifested by advanced age, organic brain damage, or physical, mental, or emotional dysfunctioning, to the extent that the ability of the person to provide adequately for the person=s own care or protection is impaired.

“Disabled adult” means a person 18 years of age or older who suffers from a condition of physical or mental incapacitation due to developmental disability, organic brain damage, or mental illness, or who has one or more physical or mental limitations that restrict the person=s ability to perform the normal activities of daily living.

“Facility” means any location providing day or residential care or treatment for elderly persons or disabled adults. The term “facility” may include, but is not limited to, any hospital, training center, state institution, nursing home, assisted living facility, adult family-care home, adult day care center, group home, mental health treatment center, or continuing care community.

As applied to an Elderly Person or a Disabled Adult.
“Caregiver” means a person who has been entrusted with or has assumed responsibility for the care or the property of an elderly person or a disabled adult. “Caregiver” includes, but is not limited to, relatives, court-appointed or voluntary guardians, adult household members, neighbors, health care providers, and employees and volunteers of facilities.

As applied to a Child.
“Caregiver” means a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare.

§ 825.102(3)(a) or § 827.03(3)(a), Fla. Stat. Give 1 or 2 as applicable.
“Neglect of [a child”] [an elderly person”] [a disabled adult”] means:

1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide [a child] [an elderly person] [a disabled adult] with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain [a child’s] [an elderly person’s] [a disabled adult’s] physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the [child] [elderly person] [disabled adult];

or

2. A caregiver’s failure to make reasonable effort to protect [a child]
[an elderly person] [a disabled adult] from abuse, neglect or exploitation by another person.

Repeated conduct or a single incident or omission by a caregiver that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, a substantial risk of death of [a child] [an elderly person] [a disabled adult] may be considered in determining neglect.

Definitions. As applied to Designated Personnel.
§ 112.191 and § 633.35, Fla. Stat.
“Firefighter” means any full-time duly employed uniformed firefighter employed by an employer, whose primary duty is the prevention and extinguishing of fires, the protection of life and property there from, the enforcement of municipal, county, and state fire prevention codes, as well as the enforcement of any law pertaining to the prevention and control of fires, who is certified by the Division of State Fire Marshal of the Department of Financial Services, who is a member of a duly constituted fire department of such employer or who is a volunteer firefighter.

§ 943.10(14), Fla. Stat.
“Officer” means any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-time or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer.

§ 401.23, Fla. Stat.
“Emergency Medical Technician” means a person who is certified by the Department of Health to perform basic life support.
§ 401.23, Fla. Stat.
“Paramedic” means a person who is certified by the Department of Health to perform basic and advanced life support.

Lesser Included Offenses

MANSLAUGHTER 782.07
CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO.
None
Vehicular homicide 782.071 7.9
Vessel homicide 782.072 7.9
(Nonhomicide lessers) Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1
Aggravated assault 784.021 8.2
Battery 784.03 8.3
Assault 784.011 8.1
Culpable negligence 784.05 8.9

* * * *

The references to minors or children do NOT translate into the proposition that "justification" is inapplicable if the victim is a child. You are apparently misreading the law.

Trayvon was not a minor. He was 'just days past his 18th birthday' according to the prosecution. Why the media continues to promote him as a minor is unconscionable.

Quote for the day: "This trial is not going to be a slam dunk for the prosecution." (Says Marcia Clark who couldn't even get OJ convicted. But is now a media 'legal expert.)

Bernie said "17th" not "18th."

It's well established that Martin was a 17 year old minor.

 

[Yurt]

MarcATL provides the quotes of the day!

"He had made about 50 calls to the cops reporting suspicious black people."

"I'm not making this stuff up dude."

marc is a liar

 

[Pheonixops]

I can't believe how many people want to start the tape rolling from the middle instead of the beginning....You have a Wanna-be Cop who takes a gun out on Neighborhood Watch, clearly in violation of the HOA rules as set up by the fucking Sanford PD...But you just start the story wherever it suits your purposes.

That's how they always operate, starting where they want to start, ignoring all the facts.

Bill-O Da Klown did the same thing with the Rachel Maddow beat-down of Jim DeMint and Ralph Reed last Sunday, but Da Klown edited the clip to portray Reed as "the winner."

Same goes here. They want to give the killer George Zimmerman all the rights to fear for his life, ignoring the fact that Zimmerman STARTED it by following Trayvon who knew he was following him and had good reason to fear for HIS life.

A bunch of jokers these Zimmerman supporters are.

Trayvon feared for his life so much he made it 100 yards from the initial encounter in over 4 minutes ?

Come on.

How long does it take you to walk 100 yards? Did he cover those 100 yards in a straight line?

 

[Missourian]

The Daily Beast opinion piece only says:

On April 22, 2011, Zimmerman called to report a black male about “7-9” years old, four feet tall, with a “skinny build” and short black hair.

The AUTHOR adds the commentary..."There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy."

And the PDF link to the original report is broken.

 

[MarcATL]

As accurate as you may have been in the pas, I sure hope you're wrong for the first time on this one.

I don't see how an unarmed kid can be where he was supposed to be, unarmed, not committing any crime, gets targeted and ultimately killed and the killer gets to walk away Scot free as if nothing happened.

Does that sound like justice to you?

Not committing any crime? The eye witness says Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman attacking him. The Forensic evidence agrees with the eye witness.

How can you possibly claim that Trayvon wasnt doing anything when the evidence says otherwise?

Why are you starting almost at the END of the story?

You're supposed to begin at the beginning, where Zimmerman says to the 911 dispatcher, "These #%%^ punks always get away with it," while following Trayvon Martin on his way home from the store.

Trayvon WAS NOT committing any crime when George Zimmerman took it upon himself to target him and follow him home.

I don't think I'll respond to you going forward, you're blinded by partisan loyalty to Zimmerman, the facts mean nothing to you.

Peace.

 

[ScienceRocks]

No the thug attacked Zimmerman like many other black on ----(fill in the gap) cases. Maybe his parents should of taught him not to turn to violence?

 

[OODA_Loop]

How long does it take you to walk 100 yards? Did he cover those 100 yards in a straight line?

With someone I am creeped out at and fear of my life of ?

Guesstimate = 30 seconds +/-

 

[Wake]

1. Yes, he was creeped out, and thus afraid, aka felt threatened by Zimmerman following him.

If he were indeed creeped out and afraid, would he use his long legs to run away? I don't know of anyone who, when afraid and creeped out and supposedly 100 feet away, rebounded to attack the person causing said fear. If within 10 feet or so, that'd be more... reasonable. If it's 100 feet, that makes no sense.