The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[TemplarKormac]

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?

He ducked and dodged, shucked and weaved. He did not return to his home.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.)

Trayvon WAS a minor. He was just days past his 17th birthday. He was barely 17.

But that section still has no applicability to the Zimmerman prosecution.

 

[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?

No.

To me it sounds like a tragedy. A horrible, unfortunate tragedy.

Whether you like George Zimmerman or not, you have to be intellectually honest... If not with me, with yourself, and admit that GZ may have been frightened out of his gourd, that he was getting the living shit beat out of him by a kid who is a street fighter and, by all accounts, a good one.

And that GZ pulled his gun.... A gun he had EVERY legal right to carry -- And shot Trayvon dead.

A tragedy.

Two tragedies don't cancel each other out. And neither does a tragedy and an injustice

Trayvon is subject to the same fear for his life that you give Zimmerman the rights to have.

It boils down to who was the aggressor.

I believe that the evidence points to Zimmerman being the aggressor. Had he followed the suggestion of the dispatcher he would not be in this mess...at least not today.

Based on his past he seemed like he was destined to kill somebody's child. He had made about 50 calls to the cops reporting suspicious black people.

He was a wannabe cop that finally found the trouble he was looking for.

I'm not making this stuff up dude.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence of Zimmerman being the agressor. Do you understand that? Zero, Zilch, Nada. Not one iota of testimony supports the idea that Zimmerman attacked Travyon. There are no injuries on Trayvon other than the gun shot and the bruises to his knuckles from where he was attacking Zimmerman.

The eye witness we've heard from indicated that Zimmerman was being attacked by Trayvon and calling for help.

Is it possible that Zimmerman somehow made the first move and was unable to make any contact and that Trayvon had control of the rest of the fight until he was shot? Yes it's possible. But that is nothing than pure speculation until we have any evidence that that is what happened. But there isn't any evidence.

If we are going to follow the law with the evidence provided, there is only one conclusion: Zimmerman was defending himself and hence Not Guilty of Second Degree murder.

 

[Edgetho]

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.

St Skittles was a Wide Receiver on the Football Team.

Think he can run fast?

 

[OODA_Loop]

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.

Avatar wins.

 

[Wake]

Someone refresh my memory, please.

Martin did NOT have any marks on his hands at all? If not, how could he have punched zimmermans face without having damage to his own hand? Does punching leave marks on the hand used?

Second...zimmerman and his friend said Martin grabbed for the gun. Then why are there no dna or prints on the gun that belong to Martin? How easily is dna deposited on a surface of a material object?

If memory serves, I believe the chief medical examiner testified that there was bruising on Martin's knuckles consistent with punching facial skin and bone. Memory's a bit foggy, though.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 - It can't be any clearer. That's the law. You are the ignorant one. The exact law trumps your hearsay.

It can be a LOT clearer especially if you quote that entire sentence. For some reason you didn't.

Need an assist to help you figure out just how and why you are completely wrong?

Plus, it would help you gain your first basic glimmer of understanding if you'd get it through your pin head that all parts of a statute must be read together.

 

[pioneerpete]

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.

1. I learned the other night on CNN that cracker is a racial slur. So this goes to state of mind that he felt hostile towards the white man he saw.

2. Lies of age, name, and admitted catering to whatever audience she is in front of. Also who can prove she wrote a letter or statement that she admits she can not read or write. She puts TM at his house. And when you start talking about not understanding her culture, when defense tried to clarify she called him retarded.

Other than any circumstantial, at best, without emotion or inject a what if scenario, produce an eye witness or video of some sort that says GZ was the aggressor.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

YOU LOSE! lol.

 

[Missourian]

I found it...

Are you shitting yourself "Truth"seeker?

 

[Wake]

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

Ah, a smoking gun. Marc, this is why you have no credibility. You should go sit in a quiet corner with a some canned pineapple and quietly watch the case proceedings.

Do you remember what I told you about making baseless assumptions?

It was 46 times. Please read out loud what the content of each call was.

46 Calls - The Daily Beast

You have no credibility. So, you're dismissed.

 

[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?

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.

End of the story? You are trying to pretend that Trayvon is innocent. The forensics and eye witness testimony indicate that Trayvon was attacking Zimmerman. There is Zero evidence that Zimmerman iniciated a conflict.

It's not illegal to follow or watch someone you think is suspicious. It is illegal to attack them.

And you wont respond to me because you dont have the evidence to support your nonsense and you know it.

 

[Missourian]

I think Zimmerman had a warped mind. To him all blacks are criminals.

Zimmerman tutored black kids on the weekend and lived in a MIXED race community that INCLUDED Blacks, you fucking mental midget!

George Zimmerman « YWN Coffee Room

The only reason Zimmerman would get a group of blacks together would be to keep an eye on the and to profile them...

Any of them disappear ?

^I want to save this post for posterity.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 - It can't be any clearer. That's the law. You are the ignorant one. The exact law trumps your hearsay.

It can be a LOT clearer especially if you quote that entire sentence. For some reason you didn't,

Need an assist to help you figure out just how and why you are completely wrong?

Li'l Trayvon was 18.

No. He was not. He was 17.

Trayvon Benjamin Martin (February 5, 1995 – February 26, 2012).* He was just about three weeks into BEING 17 years old at the time of his death.

* see reason for edit comment.

 

[Missourian]

All Black people are "suspicious" I guess.

[MENTION=26153]High_Gravity[/MENTION]...Chin up H.G....you'll enjoy this.

 

[jon_berzerk]

A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 - It can't be any clearer. That's the law. You are the ignorant one. The exact law trumps your hearsay.

It can be a LOT clearer especially if you quote that entire sentence. For some reason you didn't,

Need an assist to help you figure out just how and why you are completely wrong?

Li'l Trayvon was 18.

i thought he was 17

what was his birth date

 

[pioneerpete]

Marc's emotional claim is don't walk to close to black people. They are entirely within their rights to beat you to a fear for your life, and there is nothing you white folks can do about it.

About right Marc?

 

[Sunshine]

It can be a LOT clearer especially if you quote that entire sentence. For some reason you didn't,

Need an assist to help you figure out just how and why you are completely wrong?

Li'l Trayvon was 18.

No. He was not. He was 17.

Trayvon Benjamin Martin (February 5, 1995 – February 26, 2012). He was just about three weeks into BEING 17 years old at the time of his death.

I misunderstood the prosecution's comment about 'days from his 18th.'

 

[The Rabbi]

A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 - It can't be any clearer. That's the law. You are the ignorant one. The exact law trumps your hearsay.

It can be a LOT clearer especially if you quote that entire sentence. For some reason you didn't,

Need an assist to help you figure out just how and why you are completely wrong?

Li'l Trayvon was 18.

No, he was 17. Born 2/5/95 according to Wikipedia.

 

[asterism]

A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 - It can't be any clearer. That's the law. You are the ignorant one. The exact law trumps your hearsay.

It can be a LOT clearer especially if you quote that entire sentence. For some reason you didn't,

Need an assist to help you figure out just how and why you are completely wrong?

Li'l Trayvon was 18.

He was 17 when he died.

Trayvon Benjamin Martin, born February 5, 1995

Trayvon Martin Shooting Fast Facts - CNN.com