The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Immanuel]

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.

Well no, the state has to prove that what happened was in fact murder. All the defense needs to do is poke holes in what the state claims happened. Basically Zimmerman only needs to get across the idea that he feared for his life, whether he proves it or not and whether or not it is true.

If an adult male is pounding my head into the concrete repeatedly, I am going to fear for my life and do everything I can to stop him. So the state needs to prove Martin was not even fighting back and was simply executed. I don't think they have proven that.

Of course, it is all up to the integrity of the jury and whether or not they hear about the threats of riots and want to prevent them at the expense of the life of an innocent man, assuming Zimmerman is innocent.

Immie

There's an entire series of events that happened before Martin was murdered.

And there are a couple of version that exist.

Zimmerman's and reality.

Thus far the reality is conflicting with Zimmerman's in some very big ways.

You sound as if you were there.

Pardon me, if I do not take your word for it.

Immie

 

[Sallow]

Well no, the state has to prove that what happened was in fact murder. All the defense needs to do is poke holes in what the state claims happened. Basically Zimmerman only needs to get across the idea that he feared for his life, whether he proves it or not and whether or not it is true.

If an adult male is pounding my head into the concrete repeatedly, I am going to fear for my life and do everything I can to stop him. So the state needs to prove Martin was not even fighting back and was simply executed. I don't think they have proven that.

Of course, it is all up to the integrity of the jury and whether or not they hear about the threats of riots and want to prevent them at the expense of the life of an innocent man, assuming Zimmerman is innocent.

Immie

There's an entire series of events that happened before Martin was murdered.

And there are a couple of version that exist.

Zimmerman's and reality.

Thus far the reality is conflicting with Zimmerman's in some very big ways.

You sound as if you were there.

Pardon me, if I do not take your word for it.

Immie

I wouldn't expect you too.

But the Trial is being televised.

It's, thus far, been pretty interesting.

I invite you to watch it.

Especially if you are participating in the threads concerning it.

 

[25Caliber]

Is it possible to act in self defense even though prior actions could show negligence?

I know that the prosecution is not going down the negligence route as Serino wanted. So they will not be hitting on the negligence issue too much...they are trying to prove murder...almost execution style...bad move.

A manslaughter charge and we would be seeing a slew of negligence.

Was it truly negligence? That would be for a jury to decide. But please dont keep asking for "proof" of negligence...that has been stated ad nausea. Put that reasoning in the mind of the jury and let them decide.

 

[Immanuel]

There's an entire series of events that happened before Martin was murdered.

And there are a couple of version that exist.

Zimmerman's and reality.

Thus far the reality is conflicting with Zimmerman's in some very big ways.

You sound as if you were there.

Pardon me, if I do not take your word for it.

Immie

I wouldn't expect you too.

But the Trial is being televised.

It's, thus far, been pretty interesting.

I invite you to watch it.

Especially if you are participating in the threads concerning it.

Sorry, I work for a living.

Nor have I stated that I felt one side or the other would win. Nor have I made post that seemed to indicate I was actually at the scene.

Here let me remind you of what you posted:

There's an entire series of events that happened before Martin was murdered.

And there are a couple of version that exist.

Zimmerman's and reality.

Immie

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

With all due respect, they have put on medical testimony stating that the wounds are consistant with the head striking concrete. Honestly, if it is really necessary for you to imagine a scenario where GZ uses a razor blade to self inflict injuries when witnesses were on the scene within a few seconds after the shot was fired and the police were there within 15-30 seconds and no razor blade is found on the scene or on GZ and not medical testimony is even suggested other than by yourself... well, you are admitting the weakness of the prosecutions case and complaining about them not putting on evidence that you have no factual basis for believing exists...

lol ... that's a good one. "Oh no, I shot someone. I better whip out a razor blade from my back pocket and cut myself before the cops get here. Wow, the cops are here already? That was fast. I only have time to make a few cuts."

Google Darlie Routier and Charles Stuart, just off the top of my head. It's not exactly a new idea, it's just new to you.

 

[KissMy]

Is it possible to act in self defense even though prior actions could show negligence?

I know that the prosecution is not going down the negligence route as Serino wanted. So they will not be hitting on the negligence issue too much...they are trying to prove murder...almost execution style...bad move.

A manslaughter charge and we would be seeing a slew of negligence.

Was it truly negligence? That would be for a jury to decide. But please dont keep asking for "proof" of negligence...that has been stated ad nausea. Put that reasoning in the mind of the jury and let them decide.

It seemed GZ was negligent at first. But after reading TM texts GZ read the situation correctly & conducted himself appropriately the entire time. He was lead into a trap & attacked. It is difficult to watch someone, drive & talk on the phone to police at the same time, so he was a little slow to realize he was led into an ambush.

 

[Sallow]

You sound as if you were there.

Pardon me, if I do not take your word for it.

Immie

I wouldn't expect you too.

But the Trial is being televised.

It's, thus far, been pretty interesting.

I invite you to watch it.

Especially if you are participating in the threads concerning it.

Sorry, I work for a living.

Nor have I stated that I felt one side or the other would win. Nor have I made post that seemed to indicate I was actually at the scene.

Here let me remind you of what you posted:

There's an entire series of events that happened before Martin was murdered.

And there are a couple of version that exist.

Zimmerman's and reality.

Immie

You can catch the streaming videos..

 

[Amelia]

With all due respect, they have put on medical testimony stating that the wounds are consistant with the head striking concrete. Honestly, if it is really necessary for you to imagine a scenario where GZ uses a razor blade to self inflict injuries when witnesses were on the scene within a few seconds after the shot was fired and the police were there within 15-30 seconds and no razor blade is found on the scene or on GZ and not medical testimony is even suggested other than by yourself... well, you are admitting the weakness of the prosecutions case and complaining about them not putting on evidence that you have no factual basis for believing exists...

lol ... that's a good one. "Oh no, I shot someone. I better whip out a razor blade from my back pocket and cut myself before the cops get here. Wow, the cops are here already? That was fast. I only have time to make a few cuts."

Google Darlie Routier and Charles Stuart, just off the top of my head. It's not exactly a new idea, it's just new to you.

How long did Darlie Routier and Charles Stuart have to stage their evidence? We're talking seconds for Zimmerman to pull that off.

 

[Missourian]

Yeah it's me... sometimes it's better to show your real face so folks know who they are talking too. Course it also gives em something to shoot at.

Is everyone on the thread going to change to face avs now?

I'm so yesterday with the whole repsol bike thing.

Snook? What's thread wardrobe of the day.

Speedos for men, bikinis for women.

Cod pieces and no no optional

I'm feeling nauseous already...

...and that's just from imagining myself in speedos...

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

There was already testimony that Zimmerman's injuries were minimal.

Until you've been punched in the nose and had your head slammed onto concrete several times, Sarah...do you REALLY think you have the right to decide what WAS and WASN'T "minimal"?

You seem to think that Zimmerman should have allowed Trayvon Martin to slam his head against the concrete until he had some serious brain damage and only THEN make a decision to use his gun...a notion that's almost laughable.

This isn't someone who drew and shot his gun as someone approached him in a threatening manner...this is someone who drew and shot his gun only after that person punched him in the face, knocked him down onto the ground, straddled him...and slammed his head against the pavement.

Admit it...you don't REALLY feel that there is a legitimate reason for a private citizen to use a firearm to defend themselves.

So says the only witness. You make it sound like there's video from a CCTV instead of an excuse made by an jerk who should have had his gun rights yanked in 2005.

 

[Oldstyle]

With all due respect, they have put on medical testimony stating that the wounds are consistant with the head striking concrete. Honestly, if it is really necessary for you to imagine a scenario where GZ uses a razor blade to self inflict injuries when witnesses were on the scene within a few seconds after the shot was fired and the police were there within 15-30 seconds and no razor blade is found on the scene or on GZ and not medical testimony is even suggested other than by yourself... well, you are admitting the weakness of the prosecutions case and complaining about them not putting on evidence that you have no factual basis for believing exists...

lol ... that's a good one. "Oh no, I shot someone. I better whip out a razor blade from my back pocket and cut myself before the cops get here. Wow, the cops are here already? That was fast. I only have time to make a few cuts."

Google Darlie Routier and Charles Stuart, just off the top of my head. It's not exactly a new idea, it's just new to you.

You don't have the good sense to quit while you are behind...do you? Does it really matter if an idea is old or new if it's ridiculous? If you're left with this kind of nonsense, NoTea...it simply points out how bad the case IS against George Zimmerman.

 

[George Costanza]

The State of Florida even INCLUDES the list of LESSER INCLUDED offenses that a jury may consider.

Yes. The State (by the prosecution) may indeed ask for the lesser charges, and if they aren't too embarrassed to ask (since it might be seen as acknowledging the basic weakness of the charges they specified in the first damn place), it is almost a certainty that they will ask to have the jury consider such lesser included charges.

Correct. Either side can request instructions on so-called lessers, provided such an instruction would be reasonabley supported by the evidence that has been presented.

It has been my personal experience that, many times, in high-profile murder cases, the prosecution gets macho and decides to go "all or nothing" with murder one. They do not file any additional (lesser) charges nor do they ask for lesser instructions. Most of the time when they do that, they get their ass handed to them.

For that reason, if the prosecution is going for a lesser (or lessers), I would say that's a smart move. From the prosecution's standpoint, a convicition for SOMETHING has to be better than a not guilty verdict.

 

[Immanuel]

I wouldn't expect you too.

But the Trial is being televised.

It's, thus far, been pretty interesting.

I invite you to watch it.

Especially if you are participating in the threads concerning it.

Sorry, I work for a living.

Nor have I stated that I felt one side or the other would win. Nor have I made post that seemed to indicate I was actually at the scene.

Here let me remind you of what you posted:

There's an entire series of events that happened before Martin was murdered.

And there are a couple of version that exist.

Zimmerman's and reality.

Immie

You can catch the streaming videos..

Even if I wanted to waste all evening catching up, I would never make such preposterous posts that more or less said I was there and I, only I, know what reality is.

That was what you indicated.

No one knows what the jury will find. And quite frankly, you don't know jack shit about the reality of what happened on the tragic night that Trayvon Martin lost his life, I do not care if you have watched every second of the trial fifteen times. You don't know what happened. You made up your mind many months ago and if you were on that jury, the defense would not have a prayer. Let's hope reasonable people are sitting on that jury, not people who made up there minds long ago.

Immie

 

[Gracie]

Is everyone on the thread going to change to face avs now?

I'm so yesterday with the whole repsol bike thing.

Snook? What's thread wardrobe of the day.

Speedos for men, bikinis for women.

Cod pieces and no no optional

I'm feeling nauseous already...

...and that's just from imagining myself in speedos...

Us gals wanna see.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

lol ... that's a good one. "Oh no, I shot someone. I better whip out a razor blade from my back pocket and cut myself before the cops get here. Wow, the cops are here already? That was fast. I only have time to make a few cuts."

Google Darlie Routier and Charles Stuart, just off the top of my head. It's not exactly a new idea, it's just new to you.

How long did Darlie Routier and Charles Stuart have to stage their evidence? We're talking seconds for Zimmerman to pull that off.

Looks like Zimmerman decided to bleed for the cameras AFTER he left the police station.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oJjeUY6I-A]Raw Video: Zimmerman at Fla. Police Station - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Wake]

Watching the DVR'd trial on America Live today, I'm not so sure about the outcome.

The troubling part is where the scientific guy whose name I don't remember stated that there was no DNA of Trayvon Martin's on GZ's gun. How much weight does that carry? Is it damning?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

You are the one that is arguing that self defense is negated if someone starts the fight. Prove it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The bump that was bleeding is a natural part of Zimmerman's head? Did he shave his head to make cleaning up the blood easier?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

They proved that? When?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Google Darlie Routier and Charles Stuart, just off the top of my head. It's not exactly a new idea, it's just new to you.

In both instances they had plenty of time to commit the act. We do not have that here and it is directly contradicted by the medical evidence produced by the prosecution which indicates that the wounds are consistent with striking ones head on concrete.

So you wish to assert that in a time window of perhaps 2 seconds, GZ was able to slash himself with a razor blade and dispose of it so no one could find it That the medical personnel who examined and treated the wound could not tell a slash from an abrasion... but somehow you can tell it was a slash instead of an abrasion and are now complaining that medical evidence which you have no factual basis for believing exists, should be presented to the court. Do you know how silly that sounds?

PS, another good one woud be Jeffrey R. MacDonald, but again, he had plenty of time to self inflict wounds without fear of discovery.