The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

You know what's odd, and it's quite possible that the prosecution will absolutely blow this trial just like Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden did at the OJ Simpson trial when they asked OJ to pull that shriveled golf glove onto his hand, but this is my point:

This is what an abrasion looks like if your skin is dragged across a surface like a cement sidewalk:

Zimmerman had two 3/4" cuts on the back of his head that didn't require sutures. And even looks like he could have reached around with a razor and done it himself. Now....who would ever think to wound themselves in the aftermath of shooting somebody without any proof that it was self defense?

Well, besides someone who was charged with assault on a police officer in 2005?

 

[Sallow]

zimmerman has injuries, regardless of now minor consistent with his version of events.

an eye witness puts martin on top beating up on the person under him.

But that doesn't mean that Martin started the fight, if true. It merely means that at one point in time Martin may have had the upper hand in defending himself.

It doesn't matter if the state brings in 10,000 witnesses that Zimmerman started the fight if Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman.

And..that has not been proved.

Quite the contrary.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Martin wasn't armed.

That is irrelevant, all that is relevant is if Zimmerman thought he was going to be hurt or killed when he acted. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[Sallow]

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.

and again... we have a witness of marting on top of zimmerman.


it all depends on who you want to believe and what versions of events you want to believe, ravi.

So you believe that if you start a fight..and start losing, you have the right to kill the person beating you up?

 

[deltex1]

So George is on his back getting his ass kicked and he says to Trayvon...hold up a minute brother while I try to recall what the professor said in that criminal justice class about stand your ground....oh yeah now I remember...pow!!!

 

[Ravi]

None of Martin's dna on the gun either. Didn't Zimmerman claim that Martin grabbed his gun?

Believe it or not, touching something does not transfer DNA every single time. Then we have the fact that every single state's witness has testified that it was pouring that night, and that the gun got washed by the rain after the shooting, and you are left looking incredibly stupid for pointing out that there is no DNA on the gun.

But I didn't say there was no DNA on the gun. I said there was none of Martin's. There was some of Zimmerman's and another unidentified person.

Talk about looking stupid, you take the cake.

 

[Ravi]

Keep trying to convict----er I mean.. trying to make sure all the evidence is taken into consideration.

He's claiming self-defense therefore the burden is on him to prove it was self-defense.

The burden in a criminal case is always on the state, not the defendant. The state has to prove that what Zimmerman did was with malice and a depraved mind to prove murder, good luck with that when everything the state puts on actually corroborates Zimmerman.

Wrong. When claiming self-defense the defendant must prove self-defense. That's the way the law works.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Martin wasn't armed.

That is irrelevant, all that is relevant is if Zimmerman thought he was going to be hurt or killed when he acted. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It not irrelevant at all.

Because we are talking about Zimmerman's mindset.

And if his actions were justified.

Thus far, the evidence is showing that Zimmerman was not in danger of losing his life.

 

[syrenn]

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.

Martin wasn't armed.

no... but he could have been if he was going for the gun.

Armed means weapon......

Any idea how much damage i can do to someone i am sitting on top of...with a can of soda?

trust me.... a can of soda (iced tea) is a pretty darn good weapon.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That's correct.

And there are witnesses that testified that at some points in the struggle Zimmerman was on top.

It seems the fight was not as one sided as Zimmerman is leading everyone to believe.

There is one witness that says Zimmerman was on top. Unfortunately, for you, that witness also insists that there were three gunshots, and he continued to insist this even after the entire 911 call he made was played in court and it clearly showed there was only 1 shot. He also claimed he could tell who was on top from inside a brightly lit room looking out int a dark and stormy night.

By the way, can you explain why he didn't know who was on top until he was in court? Funny that in all the interviews before that he never mentioned that little detail, don't you think?

 

[testarosa]

LMAO [MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION] and [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

You go!

 

[ScienceRocks]

So George is on his back getting his ass kicked and he says to Trayvon...hold up a minute brother while I try to recall what the professor said in that criminal justice class about stand your ground....oh yeah now I remember...pow!!!

A huge part of the evidence supporting Zimmerman is his back. It proves without a doubt that he was on the bottom.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Martin wasn't armed.

no... but he could have been if he was going for the gun.

Armed means weapon......

Any idea how much damage i can do to someone i am sitting on top of...with a can of soda?

trust me.... a can of soda (iced tea) is a pretty darn good weapon.

Except he wasn't using a can of soda to strike Zimmerman. He was using his hands.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No need.

They are..

Which actually proves they are dumber than you.

This is the first insult in the thread in this exchange.

It's from you to me.

Lets get that straight before moving on, okay?

No it isn't, the first was when I pointed out you are the only person in the universe that thinks Zimmerman did not have his head bounced off the ground.

 

[Ravi]

zimmerman has injuries, regardless of now minor consistent with his version of events.

an eye witness puts martin on top beating up on the person under him.

But that doesn't mean that Martin started the fight, if true. It merely means that at one point in time Martin may have had the upper hand in defending himself.

It doesn't matter if the state brings in 10,000 witnesses that Zimmerman started the fight if Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman.

Of course it matters. If Z started the fight Martin had every right to defend himself.

 

[Sallow]

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

That's correct.

And there are witnesses that testified that at some points in the struggle Zimmerman was on top.

It seems the fight was not as one sided as Zimmerman is leading everyone to believe.

There is one witness that says Zimmerman was on top. Unfortunately, for you, that witness also insists that there were three gunshots, and he continued to insist this even after the entire 911 call he made was played in court and it clearly showed there was only 1 shot. He also claimed he could tell who was on top from inside a brightly lit room looking out int a dark and stormy night.

By the way, can you explain why he didn't know who was on top until he was in court? Funny that in all the interviews before that he never mentioned that little detail, don't you think?

Selma Mora is a "he?"

Rachel Jeantel is a "he"?

Who is this "he"?

 

[Snookie]

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.)

One thing? How about three?

He profiled a kid doing nothing wrong.

He chased the kid.

He murdered the kid.

There is no evidence of "profiling."

He followed. That is not "chasing."

And the QUESTION is whether or not he "murdered" Trayvon. It is not something he necessarily "did" wrong. He shot Trayvon, causing Trayvon's death. That is not the definition of "murder."

0 for 3, Sallow. I am disappointed in the lack of thought you just displayed. Seriously. You have the ability to do much better.

you are wrong again, bath salts.

 

[syrenn]

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

and again... we have a witness of marting on top of zimmerman.


it all depends on who you want to believe and what versions of events you want to believe, ravi.

So you believe that if you start a fight..and start losing, you have the right to kill the person beating you up?

^^^
that is presuming that zimmerman started the fight.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But that doesn't mean that Martin started the fight, if true. It merely means that at one point in time Martin may have had the upper hand in defending himself.

It doesn't matter if the state brings in 10,000 witnesses that Zimmerman started the fight if Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman.

And..that has not been proved.

Quite the contrary.

Strangely enough, it never will, because Martin is not on trial. Which is why your insistence that it is somehow relevant that it has not been proven means a damned thing in this trial proves that you should not be discussing it.

 

[Defiant1]

You know what's odd, and it's quite possible that the prosecution will absolutely blow this trial just like Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden did at the OJ Simpson trial when they asked OJ to pull that shriveled golf glove onto his hand, but this is my point:

This is what an abrasion looks like if your skin is dragged across a surface like a cement sidewalk:

Zimmerman had two 3/4" cuts on the back of his head that didn't require sutures. And even looks like he could have reached around with a razor and done it himself. Now....who would ever think to wound themselves in the aftermath of shooting somebody without any proof that it was self defense?

Well, besides someone who was charged with assault on a police officer in 2005?

Are you saying this is the standard? Once you have injuries that resemble the above you can shoot?

Please quote the Florida Statute where that appears because I must have missed it the numerous times I've read the law.