The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[wharfrat]

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.

Stupid, tricky trial procedure. It's almost too complicated to bear.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Sure:

The 2012 Florida Statutes





Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter




776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

That's the statute.

Point out which clause the defense is operating under. And thus far..they've said they aren't using "Stand Your Ground".

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Wrong, he is not required to prove anything. The burden is the state's alone. He need not even provide a defense if the state's case is as weak as it sounds.

Immie

 

[Intense]

Zone 2 Posting Rules apply. Thread Partially cleaned. Further violations will result in infractions and bans through the Holiday Weekend.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Forget it, Sarah G, NoTea; I should have ignored the both of you a long time ago. You can join the 16 others such as yourselves on my ignore list. Can anyone else give me a good argument?

Chocolate is better than vanilla

LOL.

 

[Snookie]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS Pam Bondi and pRick Scott appointed Angela Corey.

SHIT! Now I don't even have Pam in Tallahassee, that's it, throw them all out and let's start over.

The indictment of Corey, which was handed down last week (Citizens Grand Jury), charges Corey with intentionally withholding photographic evidence of the injuries to George Zimmerman’s head in the warrant she allegedly rushed to issue under oath, in an effort to boost her reelection prospects. At the outset of this case, black activists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who whipped up wrath against Zimmerman, demanded that he be charged with murder, after local police had thus far declined to arrest him pending investigation.

That stuff has been like that ever since that uppity nigga, rosa parks got on a bus.

 

[25Caliber]

Ummm.

What are those two little yellow bally things doing?

making up?

I'll buy that.

I'll just leave that one alone

 

[Snookie]

Sorry - for all you Link??? er's:

Angela Corey Indicted By Grand Jury Regarding Zimmerman Trial for False Arrest | The Last Refuge

It was in self defense.

 

[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.

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.

Oh, I'm not missing anything. I referenced Florida Law for a reason. All you liberals from the cesspool cities in the north don't understand.

The reality is Martin didn't even need to lay a finger on George to wind up being shot. All George has to say is he believed his life was in danger.
I'll admit it would be a tougher case to defend but it is the law.
Had the media not stirred up the shit pot, George would never have been arrested, because the law also protects us from prosecution when defending ourselves.

Now I understand how this can make the knees of a liberal shake, but that is my goal. The more liberals who understand the law here and learn how many of us have concealed weapons licenses may cause them to think twice about retiring here or vacationing here.

 

[Sallow]

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."

Everyone else in the Universe isn't a forensic pathologist.

If they had evidence to support that bump isn't a natural part of Mr. Zimmerman's head, I am sure they will provide it when it's their turn to bat.

They didn't do much to refute it on the cross.

 

[RKMBrown]

 

[Snookie]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS Pam Bondi and pRick Scott appointed Angela Corey.

SHIT! Now I don't even have Pam in Tallahassee, that's it, throw them all out and let's start over.

The indictment of Corey, which was handed down last week (Citizens Grand Jury), charges Corey with intentionally withholding photographic evidence of the injuries to George Zimmerman’s head in the warrant she allegedly rushed to issue under oath, in an effort to boost her reelection prospects. At the outset of this case, black activists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who whipped up wrath against Zimmerman, demanded that he be charged with murder, after local police had thus far declined to arrest him pending investigation.

That stuff has been like that ever since that uppity nigga, rosa parks got on a bus.

This isn't uppity niggas this is butt covering election first politician piece of shit ignaramoues.

I was talking about uppity niggas like al sharpton, jesse jackson. Martin luther king, medgar evers, duh.

 

[25Caliber]

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.

Cool hat....and its him...so pretty cool in my book...beats glittering cartoons of alter egos of yesteryear

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

First of all...nobody has stated that George Zimmerman was "dragged across a surface". His testimony is that his head was slammed against the cement. If Zimmerman DID have abrasions that look like what you pictured it would make his testimony suspect. The injuries that Zimmerman DID have are consistent with injuries that one would expect from the attack that GZ says happened.

Secondly...did you REALLY just propose that Zimmerman cut himself with a razor to create those cuts in the back of his head? That's got to one of the stupidest things I've heard on here. What did he use to accomplish this...where did this "razor" go once he had finished cutting himself...and when did he have time to do this with witnesses on the scene almost IMMEDIATELY following the gunshot.

As for the charge of assault on a police officer? It was a charge that was dropped. Why? Because while pushing away an undercover officer's arm when you don't realize that they ARE a police officer is technically assault...it's such a pathetic example that to charge someone for doing so is completely over the top...which is why it was changed to a lesser charge.

 

[Snookie]

George had fun, fun, fun, until the cops took his nine mil away.

 

[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.

Wrong, he is not required to prove anything. The burden is the state's alone. He need not even provide a defense if the state's case is as weak as it sounds.

Immie

Well no.

Zimmerman has admitted to killing Martin.

The state has to prove that's what occurred and that Zimmerman's story of self defense isn't accurate.

Thus far? That's what they are doing.

The Defense will get a turn to refute the case the Prosecution has put together.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The prosecution overcharged and they are living to regret it...they had political and social pressure to throw the book.

Manslaughter? Show negligence and let the jury decide

M2? You have to "prove" murder.

The two charges require a totally different approach to the trial. The evidence is not there for M2 and the states own witnesses are proving it.

Instead of there being a realistic shot at GZ serving some time for negligence, he will most likely get off. Personally? I think he should get off for M2? You have the state, who originally did not even arrest him now they are trying to prove murder going in direct contradiction with their own justification for not arresting and charging him in the first place. Sad sad sad.

Geexus. Another one. They charged appropriately. Murder 2. They had to do that because they could not show premeditation on Zimmerman's part AND there was no negligence involved. Zimmerman intentionally pulled the trigger. You cannot charge negligence for an intentional act.

The case should never have been brought. It is a waste of time and money. Their initial response to let Zimmerman go was correct. All of this was foisted on them, probably in part by the Holder Justice Dept.

As you usual, your ability to understand words has gotten you into trouble. Do you know the meaning of overcharge? He basically agrees with most of your viewpoint. He doesn't believe it's murder and like me, he's skeptical that it's even manslaughter. But you're so fucking averse to anyone that doesn't say things exactly how you see things, that you set off like a firecracker every time.

 

[Sarah G]

The DNA guy is really good for the prosecution. West is objecting to some weird thing already.

 

[Sallow]

George had fun, fun, fun, until the cops took his nine mil away.

 

[wharfrat]

That's the statute.

You're one subsection late on the governing statute. The one quoted in your post deals with "home protection," as indicated in the language of its title.

General self defense is covered in 776.012:

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine