The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[CrusaderFrank]

Why does the Left hate Hispanics who defend themselves?

 

[Immanuel]

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.

No witness = reasonable doubt in my book. He is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the state to prove murder. If the state cannot prove that Zimmerman was the only aggressor and that Trayvon was only headed home and jumped without any provocation, they seem to have a problem.

Remember, the burden of proof is on the state. The defense need not prove a doggone thing.

Immie

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

You are missing my point.

Those prosecutors need a couple of ER docs as expert witnesses to show how injuries are sustained. They see people every day who have been beat up in fights and know the difference between a wound made by a cut as opposed to skin being abraded by concrete.

How can he miss a point you didn't make?

Did you hear of the term "punctate abrasions"? That was what was seen on his forehead and on the posterior of his head, which is consistent with abrasion with concrete.

Were you even paying attention?

 

[Sallow]

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.

Not in Florida, New York, Washington, or even federal court. All self defense is an argument that any reasonable person would have reacted the same way, the state still has to prove that what you did was not reasonable. The only time there is a burden on a defendant is if they claim self defense under the battered woman theory where their life was not in immediate danger.

Oh gosh..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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"?

He is a generic pronoun used because I am not following the trial closely enough to know the gender of all the witnesses. Would you prefer that I used the word asshole?

 

[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.

No witness = reasonable doubt in my book. He is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the state to prove murder. If the state cannot prove that Zimmerman was the only aggressor and that Trayvon was only headed home and jumped without any provocation, they seem to have a problem.

Remember, the burden of proof is on the state. The defense need not prove a doggone thing.

Immie

The state has done a pretty good job of eviscerating Zimmerman's version of events and constructed a theory as to why and how he came to shoot an innocent kid.

The last 2 days have been extremely good for the prosecution.

 

[Snookie]

The defense strategy is to bore people to death.

 

[The Professor]

I don't see how this is overcome.

The only contact that Martin had with Zimmerman was with his fists.

Or possibly bitch slapping him.

still desperate I see.

Well if you can come up with something..go for it.

How does Martin slam Zimmerman's head into the concrete without grabbing it?

Or for that matter, how does he hold his mouth and nose closed with his hands without the transference of skin, saliva or blood?

Well, I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I suppose if I wanted to slam someones head into the concrete, I would simply knock him to the ground, straddle him and hit him on the face. As I recall, this is what Zimmerman said happened.

But here is a question for you: If a man is on lying on his back on the ground, and you are sitting on top of him pummeling him, how in the hell can you hit him in the face (remember Zimmerman's broken nose) and NOT drive his head into the ground/concrete??? As I said, I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier and I don't know how it could be done. The simple laws of physics would seem to apply here; that is when you hit in man in the face, his entire head moves in a direction opposite the force of impact. This would suggest to me that the head would hit the concrete with the same force which had been applied to his face.

But I could be wrong. I was wrong once before. That was in the 1970s when I though I was wrong and I wasn't. Joking.

 

[Gracie]

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.

You are never hot in anything.

Well, I dunno. He has a pretty nice looking hat!

 

[Sallow]

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.

The extent of injuries is irrelevent unless you can prove that Zimmerman had the training and the presence of mind to evaluate his injuries while getting the crap beaten out of him. Frankly, you have a better chance of proving he is actually Batman.

Funny you posted that.

Because that's sort of exactly what the state is doing.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

The defense strategy is to bore people to death.

The defense hasn't had their turn yet. It's still the prosecution presenting their case.

 

[Sallow]

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"?

He is a generic pronoun used because I am not following the trial closely enough to know the gender of all the witnesses. Would you prefer that I used the word asshole?

There are multiple testimonies that put Zimmerman on top in the fight.

So you might want to point out which witness said what.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

My bad.

And that would be incorrect as well.

The Forensic Pathologist established that Zimmerman's head probably hit the concrete at some point. And the injuries were insignificant.

The forensic pathologist that couldn't see the injuries in the photos of Zimmerman? Even that idiot said that the injuries were consistent with his head hitting the ground, possibly more than once. You are still the only person in the universe that doesn't believe that little fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 what the law says everywhere in the world, why should it be different just because you have a problem with it?

Link? That's total bullshit.

If it total bullshit prove me wrong.

 

[Sallow]

still desperate I see.

Well if you can come up with something..go for it.

How does Martin slam Zimmerman's head into the concrete without grabbing it?

Or for that matter, how does he hold his mouth and nose closed with his hands without the transference of skin, saliva or blood?

Well, I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I suppose if I wanted to slam someones head into the concrete, I would simply knock him to the ground, straddle him and hit him on the face. As I recall, this is what Zimmerman said happened.

But here is a question for you: If a man is on lying on his back on the ground, and you are sitting on top of him pummeling him, how in the hell can you hit him in the face (remember Zimmerman's broken nose) and NOT drive his head into the ground/concrete??? As I said, I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier and I don't know how it could be done. The simple laws of physics would seem to apply here; that is when you hit in man in the face, his entire head moves in a direction opposite the force of impact. This would suggest to me that the head would hit the concrete with the same force which had been applied to his face.

But I could be wrong. I was wrong once before. That was in the 1970s when I though I was wrong and I wasn't. Joking.

First off..no it's not.

Second off, there's nothing to establish that Zimmerman's nose was broken.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 what the law says everywhere in the world, why should it be different just because you have a problem with it?

Well no..it doesn't.

Prove it. it should be easy.

 

[Sallow]

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.

My bad.

And that would be incorrect as well.

The Forensic Pathologist established that Zimmerman's head probably hit the concrete at some point. And the injuries were insignificant.

The forensic pathologist that couldn't see the injuries in the photos of Zimmerman? Even that idiot said that the injuries were consistent with his head hitting the ground, possibly more than once. You are still the only person in the universe that doesn't believe that little fact.

The defense was trying to say that the natural shape of Zimmerman's head..was an injury.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Eh.. I could squeeze Zimmerman's head between two hands and smash it to the ground without getting anything under my nails... At best you could argue, the lack of evidence does not prove or disprove the accusation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The extent of injuries is irrelevent unless you can prove that Zimmerman had the training and the presence of mind to evaluate his injuries while getting the crap beaten out of him. Frankly, you have a better chance of proving he is actually Batman.

Funny you posted that.

Because that's sort of exactly what the state is doing.

Except they aren't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My bad.

And that would be incorrect as well.

The Forensic Pathologist established that Zimmerman's head probably hit the concrete at some point. And the injuries were insignificant.

The forensic pathologist that couldn't see the injuries in the photos of Zimmerman? Even that idiot said that the injuries were consistent with his head hitting the ground, possibly more than once. You are still the only person in the universe that doesn't believe that little fact.

The defense was trying to say that the natural shape of Zimmerman's head..was an injury.

Not the way it looked to everyone else in the universe, but thanks for playing "Lets say something really stupid in order to look dumber than dog shit."