The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[KissMy]

I would agree except that know how badly one's property values can plummet if their neighborhood goes to hell. I've seen that happen, thankfully not to me, but to friends. Anybody can search out records on crimes committed in their neighborhood or one they are thinking about moving into. If they find your neighborhood is crime ridden, no matter how good the curb appeal of your how is, you will either not sell it, or you will take a considerable loss on it. That's what HOAs are all about - maintaining property values.

He should have just sold, and left. Nobody was backing him up, why should he have single-handedly tried to save the whole neighborhood?

Wannabe... playing cop was hot on the trail of a guy he called a "fucking punk" on the dispatch call.

The problem you have is GZ was right on saying that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Every conservative here thinks Zimmerman did nothing wrong? Is that correct?

Are there any conservatives viewing this thread who think that Zimmerman did anything wrong that night?

I do. Zimmerman was not vigilant enough guarding his 6. He should have never allowed Martin within arms length of him.

Maybe GZ could not keep TM away. As this unfolds it is looking more like that was the case. TM came out of hiding, came at him & kept beating GZ as he was retreating.

Retreating to? I thought the evidence shows them heading to TM's place of residence away from GZ's vehicle. If GZ was retreating he was sure making a poor effort of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is also the testimony of the cop the judge threw out because the cop drew a personal assumption about Zimmerman telling the truth. But the testimony included the cop saying he told Zimmerman (as bait) that there was video footgage of the whole incident. He reported that Zimmerman was very excited about that as it would verify his account of what happened. And this convinced the cop that Zimmerman was being truthful. But unfortunately it is apparently not allowed for a witness to draw such a conclusion.

 

[Sallow]

Actually I dont think Zimmerman mentioned anything about bushes. He just said that Trayvon appeared out of nowhere. Perhaps he speculated about bushes.
But typical for you to fasten on to a minor detail and spin it to make the case you wanted anyway. I think thats called confirmation bias. In your case stupidity covers it pretty well.

Someone else found some things 'in the bushes' but I can't recall exactly what. I am not all that clear on who the testimony came from because I was occupied doing other things in my house.

It was a broken piece of awning that the defense construed to be something called a "slim jim" used to break into cars.

It was found 5 days after Martin was killed in an unsecured crime scene.

It's amazing the defense got away with that.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Bla bla bla. I could care less about your bold faced denials. I've showed you in black and white what the law says. I don't care about the fantasy inside your head. I've told you a million times that 'lawful justification' does not apply as a defense if there is 'negligent culpability' that 'causes' the death of 'someone under the age of 18.'

You know what you've came back with?

- 'Well minor isn't what you think it is?' Whatever the fuck that means you senile tool.

- 'Here's what some judge somewhere read.' - Yea, I'm showing you in black and white what the law actually says, you fucking tool.

- 'Well I'm going to apply the first definition of mansalughter and not the third definition that applies to minors. In that definition there's justification.' You're a fucking loser.

[Ilar] didn't have an answer for that. It was just easier to throw out mindless insults then face his mindless line of thinking.

[my correction of Gatsby's stupid error is in brackets! ]

Actually, I had not been back in time to see that moronic post of yours.

You quoted a statute without the slightest hint of what it actually addresses and what it does NOT address.

I cited for you the very law that the judge is almost certainly going to give the jury in the Zimmerman case FROM the law book that spells out Criminal Jury Instructions in the State of Florida.

You, being a mindless and ignorant hack, cannot grasp it.

That's ok.

Your opinions are of no value anyway.

So, your giving me ten degrees of shit because you want to speculate that the judge is going to ignore the statute for manslaughter of a minor in favor of regular manslaughter? That's fucking pathetic loserbility. You could have just that you thought that would be the case. But all your bull shit about me not knowing the law is just that; bull fucking shit. Go fuck yourself.

 

[TemplarKormac]

DNA expert has been called to the stand. My guess the prosecution is trying to tie the fact there was no DNA under Martin's nails into the fact he didn't start the fight.

 

[RKMBrown]

He should have just sold, and left. Nobody was backing him up, why should he have single-handedly tried to save the whole neighborhood?

Wannabe... playing cop was hot on the trail of a guy he called a "fucking punk" on the dispatch call.

The problem you have is GZ was right on saying that.

Ok. Based on what, did GZ make his determination? We have hindsight. GZ did not.... or did he? Show me some evidence that they had a prior run in. (i'm not asking you to show.. just saying...) That's what started this whole thing.. the profiling.

 

[KissMy]

Almost everything in the record is an example of GZ doing something wrong. If by wrong you mean illegal... that's another question isn't it?

Moving goalpost to fit your ignorance does prove GZ did anything wrong. SCOTUS law defines right & wrong not you.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The things they both did wrong are in evidence. I really don't wish to list all of the evidence again. Please read the thread.

Like others you are merely regurgitating the contention as though that somehow constitutes support.

You are wrong.

I didn't ask anybody to share the entire record.

Just point to one thing OBJECTIVELY which Zimmerman did "wrong" that night and tell us HOW it was wrong?

(I am not talking bout the shooting itself, since it is a very open question whether that WAS "wrong" under the circumstances.)

Almost everything in the record is an example of GZ doing something wrong. If by wrong you mean illegal... that's another question isn't it?

Again, you regurgitate your mere conclusion (an opinion devoid of support) as though that somehow constitutes evidence of your assertion.

It doesn't.

There was nothing EITHER illegal or "wrong" in following Trayvon.

There is no EVIDENCE that the physical encounter was initiated by Zimmerman.

There is no EVIDENCE that Zimmerman so much as touched Trayvon.

So, point to something in the evidence concrete: what EXACTLY did Zimmerman do wrong? Legally or morally or whatever. I keep asking. Don't just say it. Support it and tell us in what way it was allegedly "wrong."

You don't do so because -- face facts -- you cannot do so.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you agree with Trayvon attacking & seriously injuring GZ because he snitched on him to police!!!!!!!!!

That certainly explains your depraved view of GZ on this thread. SMH!

Seriously injuring?

Is that what you kids are calling it today?

In my day we called those "Boo-Boos".

According to TM texts the injury GZ suffered were not nearly serious enough for snitches. TM was no where near done injuring GZ for snitching on him to police.

Good point. And we have that in hindsight. Interesting problem. Do we allow "gut" instincts expressed by a defendant to be justified by prior evidence that proves accuracy of "gut" instinct?

Very very interesting point.

 

[Defiant1]

Every conservative here thinks Zimmerman did nothing wrong? Is that correct?

Are there any conservatives viewing this thread who think that Zimmerman did anything wrong that night?

I do. Zimmerman was not vigilant enough guarding his 6. He should have never allowed Martin within arms length of him.

^^^

reckless behavior

Oh, I forgot to add: that way when Martin jumped out of the bushes to attack him, he could have dropped him on the spot.

 

[RKMBrown]

Like others you are merely regurgitating the contention as though that somehow constitutes support.

You are wrong.

I didn't ask anybody to share the entire record.

Just point to one thing OBJECTIVELY which Zimmerman did "wrong" that night and tell us HOW it was wrong?

(I am not talking bout the shooting itself, since it is a very open question whether that WAS "wrong" under the circumstances.)

Almost everything in the record is an example of GZ doing something wrong. If by wrong you mean illegal... that's another question isn't it?

Again, you regurgitate your mere conclusion (an opinion devoid of support) as though that somehow constitutes evidence of your assertion.

It doesn't.

There was nothing EITHER illegal or "wrong" in following Trayvon.

There is no EVIDENCE that the physical encounter was initiated by Zimmerman.

There is no EVIDENCE that Zimmerman so much as touched Trayvon.

So, point to something in the evidence concrete: what EXACTLY did Zimmerman do wrong? Legally or morally or whatever. I keep asking. Don't just say it. Support it and tell us in what way it was allegedly "wrong."

You don't do so because -- face facts -- you cannot do so.

Blah blah blah... IOW you did not want anyone to present you with the facts you wanted do dispel the facts. You were just trolling.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

[Ilar] didn't have an answer for that. It was just easier to throw out mindless insults then face his mindless line of thinking.

[my correction of Gatsby's stupid error is in brackets! ]

Actually, I had not been back in time to see that moronic post of yours.

You quoted a statute without the slightest hint of what it actually addresses and what it does NOT address.

I cited for you the very law that the judge is almost certainly going to give the jury in the Zimmerman case FROM the law book that spells out Criminal Jury Instructions in the State of Florida.

You, being a mindless and ignorant hack, cannot grasp it.

That's ok.

Your opinions are of no value anyway.

So, your giving me ten degrees of shit because you want to speculate that the judge is going to ignore the statute for manslaughter of a minor in favor of regular manslaughter? That's fucking pathetic loserbility. You could have just that you thought that would be the case. But all your bull shit about me not knowing the law is just that; bull fucking shit. Go fuck yourself.

No you imbecile. I am trying to educate you. Limited by the material I am stuck working with.

The judge will follow the ACTUAL law, not your uneducated, ignorant, uninformed and misguided "understanding" of the law.

The judge WILL (almost beyong doubt) READ the legal jury instructions which I shared for your benefit.

I can lead the jackass (you) to water, but I cannot make you drink from the font of knowledge or wisdom.

You have the right - one you studiously exercise - to remain willfully ignorant.

It is a shame that it's all you have any knack for.

 

[Defiant1]

It proves that he is lying. They played that Hannity interview, and it was a long one, right in court. He actually laughed and said he had never heard of stand your ground. He must be fabricating other things in his version of events.

In most circumstances wouldn't you give him a medal for lying to FoxNews?


And I would think lying to Sean Hannity would earn one a nomination to the Nobel committee.

Your question and comment are irrelevant. Watch the trial and learn.

FYI - I don't use tags, sarcasm or otherwise.

 

[RKMBrown]

I do. Zimmerman was not vigilant enough guarding his 6. He should have never allowed Martin within arms length of him.

^^^

reckless behavior

Oh, I forgot to add: that way when Martin jumped out of the bushes to attack him, he could have dropped him on the spot.

Ayup... crazy guy followed me called me a "___ing punk" reached for his gun... so I shot him.

Nutz. FYI if an unarmed football player really wanted to hurt Zim he would have run full speed into him picked him up and slammed him onto the concrete, then proceeded to use his shoes or elbows to bash the blank out of him as the guy gasped for air.

 

[RKMBrown]

Almost everything in the record is an example of GZ doing something wrong. If by wrong you mean illegal... that's another question isn't it?

Moving goalpost to fit your ignorance does prove GZ did anything wrong. SCOTUS law defines right & wrong not you.

Nice deflection.. SCOTUS... ROFL

 

[TemplarKormac]

In most circumstances wouldn't you give him a medal for lying to FoxNews?


And I would think lying to Sean Hannity would earn one a nomination to the Nobel committee.

Your question and comment are irrelevant. Watch the trial and learn.

FYI - I don't use tags, sarcasm or otherwise.

FYI- I don't troll people when I don't have an argument. Shut the fuck up.

 

[testarosa]

>>He will testify George Zimmerman blood found on front right hem of Trayvon Martin sweatshirt.

Don't know what that will prove, but I'm sure M O'M will flip the witness and let us know.

heh heh heh.

 

[Wake]

TK, thanks for providing up-to-date info from the trial here. I haven't been able to watch any of it today, so it's convenient to learn of it here. So, yeah, thanks for that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Like others you are merely regurgitating the contention as though that somehow constitutes support.

You are wrong.

I didn't ask anybody to share the entire record.

Just point to one thing OBJECTIVELY which Zimmerman did "wrong" that night and tell us HOW it was wrong?

(I am not talking bout the shooting itself, since it is a very open question whether that WAS "wrong" under the circumstances.)

Almost everything in the record is an example of GZ doing something wrong. If by wrong you mean illegal... that's another question isn't it?

Again, you regurgitate your mere conclusion (an opinion devoid of support) as though that somehow constitutes evidence of your assertion.

It doesn't.

There was nothing EITHER illegal or "wrong" in following Trayvon.

There is no EVIDENCE that the physical encounter was initiated by Zimmerman.

There is no EVIDENCE that Zimmerman so much as touched Trayvon.

So, point to something in the evidence concrete: what EXACTLY did Zimmerman do wrong? Legally or morally or whatever. I keep asking. Don't just say it. Support it and tell us in what way it was allegedly "wrong."

You don't do so because -- face facts -- you cannot do so.

Zimmerman exited his vehicle to follow a person he didn't recognize and reported to be acting suspiciously. That alone is sufficient for some here to brand Zimmerman a racist profiler who stalked and wantonly murdered Martin.

Moral of story: never report a suspicious person in your neighborhood, don't participate in neighborhood watch programs, don't consider becoming a police officer, don't attend any law classes of any kind, and don't be a 'WHITE hispanic" if you exit your vehicle in the vicintiy of a minority person, or you will be immediately accused of being up to no good, of having nefarious motives, and will be automatically guilty if you are attacked and defend yourself.

Again I don't know whether Zimmerman is gulty of any crime or not, but I know for damn sure the prosecution has not made a case that he was so far. But the rush to judgment by some on this thread is just mind boggling.