The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Rat in the Hat]

Well, I have to leave for a bit. I've got landscapers coming to do some cutting. Hopefully they do a better job doing cuttings than Mr Boring currently on the stand.


And i'm going to keep the sticks and send them to the Sanford cops. They don't seem to have enough sticks.

 

[Immanuel]

if you are siting on top of someone and you punch them in the face.... their head will hit the ground. Same with a bitch slap.

so nothing would be under martins fingernails now would it? You get dna under the victims nails since it is a defensive move.

That's not what Zimmerman stated.

He said Martin grabbed his head and slammed it into the ground.

The evidence does not back that up.

Unless Martin scratched Zimmerman he is not going to have DNA under the nails. When you are on top of someone and grab their head, you do not use your nails, you use your fingertips, the pads of your fingers. Sounds to me like you are grasping for straws here.

Immie

 

[Sallow]

if you are siting on top of someone and you punch them in the face.... their head will hit the ground. Same with a bitch slap.

so nothing would be under martins fingernails now would it? You get dna under the victims nails since it is a defensive move.

That's not what Zimmerman stated.

He said Martin grabbed his head and slammed it into the ground.

The evidence does not back that up.

Unless Martin scratched Zimmerman he is not going to have DNA under the nails. When you are on top of someone and grab their head, you do not use your nails, you use your fingertips, the pads of your fingers. Sounds to me like you are grasping for straws here.

Immie

Not at all.

The injuries aren't consistent with being "slammed" into the concrete. The forensic pathologist testified to that.

This is just another point the corroborates that Zimmerman's account isn't accurate.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you conduct yourself inversely to SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) case law?

Are you posting from jail or the poorhouse?

Your inability to deal with my posting relevant fact is not a deflection.

Sorry. I just thought the statement SCOTUS law defines right & wrong was funny. I thought their job, primarily, was to determine the constitutionality of federal and state laws. Right and wrong... not so much.

Do we have to follow stupid laws that SCOTUS struck down?

If you are acting the way you define as right, but against laws upheld by the SCOTUS, do you win?

>>> Do we have to follow stupid laws that SCOTUS struck down?
Have to? No. Laws that are struck down, are no longer laws of the land.

>>> If you are acting the way you define as right, but against laws upheld by the SCOTUS, do you win?

Win? Maybe. Sans, any discernible scenario in your question, I can only point to the purpose of the appeals court system is to bring some matters of constitutionality, eventually, to the SCOTUS. Many SCOTUS decisions are overturned by subsequent courts.

This is really a different thread... which is why I said nice deflection. Like I said too bad you negged me for your deflection. Odd.

 

[Sarah G]

DNA is circumstantial evidence.

Does that make you feel better about things?

 

[Missourian]

It'ss been so long since I put someone on ignore that I've forgot how to do it...can you give me a refresher?

One last post before I go...

Go to your user CP

scroll down until yo u see "edit ignore list" in the left column.

click on that, and you'll see a field to enter his username. type it in, then click "okay" on the right.

Then you can enjoy the same peace and quiet that I am.

@Rat in the Hat...Thanks...have fun with the landscaping.

 

[Sarah G]

No objections from the prosecution. I think they know their case er goose is cooked.

This commentary is getting tiresome. The jury was likely very interested.

 

[Sarah G]

No objections from the prosecution. I think they know their case er goose is cooked.

I wouldn't draw that assumption.

 

[Survivalist]

That's almost the shootin' match.


There's little evidence now that Martin "grabbed" Zimmerman head and slammed it into the concrete.

Hence the dispelling of one of the major Zimmerman's lies.

Sallow, weren't you you one of jurors on the first OJ trial?

"If the glove don't fit you can't convict!"

Stick with the Zimmerman case, buddy.

Keep grasping at straws and ingore the greater picture.

No DNA on St. Trayvon's nails! No DNA on the gun!

Zimmerman must be guilty!

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

No objections from the prosecution. I think they know their case er goose is cooked.

I wouldn't draw that assumption.

Or wishful thinking, either.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you conduct yourself inversely to SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) case law?

Are you posting from jail or the poorhouse?

Your inability to deal with my posting relevant fact is not a deflection.

Sorry. I just thought the statement SCOTUS law defines right & wrong was funny. I thought their job, primarily, was to determine the constitutionality of federal and state laws. Right and wrong... not so much.

You should not think. You are inept at thinking and your repeated failed attempts only bring embarrassment for you.

You are sooo hot in that new avatar.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not what Zimmerman stated.

He said Martin grabbed his head and slammed it into the ground.

The evidence does not back that up.

Umm, when I grab something I do it with my palms toward the object I am grabbing, not my fingernails.

There's two parts to this.

First, the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head weren't significant. As in, if someone were physically slamming the head into the concrete multiple times, the expectation would be that the trauma would be moderate to severe. That's not the case.

Second, that sort of action requires a person to grab the head. Martin had no hair, so in order to get a firm grip to do something like that, you'd need to claw the head. Bear in mind, it was raining that night, making his head slippery.

Zimmerman was very clear about this. He said Martin "grabbed" his head, and slammed it into the concrete.

The evidence simply does not support that.

Every single witness the state has put on the stand has testified that the injuries to Zimmerman are consistent with his head being banged against concrete. In other words, the only person in the entire universe who believes that Zimmerman did not get his head banged against concrete is you.

 

[koshergrl]

That's almost the shootin' match.


There's little evidence now that Martin "grabbed" Zimmerman head and slammed it into the concrete.

Hence the dispelling of one of the major Zimmerman's lies.

Zimmerman claims that his dna was under Martin's nails?



Seek help.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Simple enough question , if, as you claim, he can not use self defense as a means to avoid manslaughter, then why is he USING it? Are you claiming his lawyer is incompetent?

Wow, you just make wicked jumps in logic. Who says that the lawyer is using the self defense as an absolute defense against manslaughter? He has to defend the murder charge first and foremost and of course the self defense is part of the equation.

^ Despite repeatedly having his ignorance exposed, Gatsby stubbornly persists in repeating his erroneous claim.

Let's set the record straight (again) for him and anyone who might otherwise be misled by his ignorant and erroneous claim:

In the Zimmerman trial, justification IS an absolute defense for the accused.

If the jury determines that Mr. Zimmerman was justified in his use of force, they will acquit him. Period.

Go ahead and repeat the same lies. You know your arbitrarily applying the manslaughter of an adult as opposed to manslaughter of a minor standard. And though I've said this a dozen times and you've bold faced lied every time, I'm just setting the record straight for anybody passing through.

As usual though loserbility - go ahead and fuck yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's almost the shootin' match.


There's little evidence now that Martin "grabbed" Zimmerman head and slammed it into the concrete.

Hence the dispelling of one of the major Zimmerman's lies.

You mean besides this, right?

Both injuries are minor.

It doesn't matter if the injuries were minor or not, all that matters is whether Zimmerman acted under the legal definition of self defense, which does not require you to wait to get shot in order to shoot back anywhere in the world.

 

[syrenn]

Right, it doesn't really tell us anything. And apparently Zimmerman "found" him again.

you can also argue that martin found zimmerman and attacked.

Right. But again, with a self-defense defense, the burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self-defense.

he has an eye witness to martin sitting on top of him beating him up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course it refutes it.

The damage to Zimmerman's head doesn't support what he stated.

And neither does the forensics on Martin.

call the state's attorneys and have them run with it.

No need.

They are..

Which actually proves they are dumber than you.

 

[koshergrl]

More than one.

The burden is on the STATE to prove Zimmerman acted maliciously...

They haven't done it, so far.

 

[TemplarKormac]

DNA is circumstantial evidence.

Does that make you feel better about things?

No, it's reality. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

 

[Ravi]

you can also argue that martin found zimmerman and attacked.

Right. But again, with a self-defense defense, the burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self-defense.

he has an eye witness to martin sitting on top of him beating him up.

And again, no witness as to who started the fight.