The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[RKMBrown]

The weirdest part of this case is when Z claimed that TM sat up after he shot him and said You got me.

Maybe you shot me?

 

[Sallow]

in my opinion, the state has done a bang up job if handing zimmermans defense gifts on a silver platter.

Actually they haven't.

They were able to get some pretty good testimony out of some pretty hostile witnesses (Rachel and the Police) and use forensics to reconstruct what happened that night.

Additionally they've landed a devastating blow to Zimmerman's credibility to point out he lied on national tv when he said he never heard of "Stand your ground."

And did so in a very cool and calm demeanor.

You really don't get it, do you? The police are never hostile to the state, the fact that the state is treating their own witnesses, called to make their case, like they are cross examining defense witnesses proves how stupid their case is.

Um..Bill Lee resigned for a bit.

And the Sanford police were treated, and rightly so, like keystone cops.

They can't be happy with that.

 

[25Caliber]

Unbelievable. You dont get to rewrite the law. Negligence is a failure to act appropriately. This was not a failure to act. It was a deliberate action. He is on trial for committing a deliberate act, namely shooting Trayvon and killing him. Everything before that is largely irrelevant.

negligence

n. failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence is accidental as distinguished from "intentional torts" (assault or trespass, for example) or from crimes, but a crime can also constitute negligence, such as reckless driving.

And YOU dont get to define "appropriate"...the jury does.

The failure to act appropriately came before the intentional act...it would be up to the jury to decide if his failure to act appropriately could have prevented the intentional act.

Trayvon walked away and past GZ on different occasions he eventually even ran from this strange man following him in the dark. He continued to be followed. GZ was told "we dont need you to do that"...thats a clue to go back to your truck...not continue up the path where the "suspect" ran. I think a case can be made that that he was negligent here and then a case could be made to the jury...it would be up to them to decide.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I just heard Martins mother is going to be allowed to take the stand. WTF kind 9f circus rules are they going by? She didn't see shit so what's she going to say that isn't completely skewed?

With a conviction this will be grounds for an automatic retrial or appeal.

Just plain dumb for the judge to allow. Her testimony will be COMPLETELY tainted with grief and emotion NOT facts.

 

[Snookie]

The weirdest part of this case is when Z claimed that TM sat up after he shot him and said You got me.

Maybe you shot me?

I did not know people could talk with an exploding bullet in the heart and lungs full of blood.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Unbelievable. You dont get to rewrite the law. Negligence is a failure to act appropriately. This was not a failure to act. It was a deliberate action. He is on trial for committing a deliberate act, namely shooting Trayvon and killing him. Everything before that is largely irrelevant.

negligence

n. failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence is accidental as distinguished from "intentional torts" (assault or trespass, for example) or from crimes, but a crime can also constitute negligence, such as reckless driving.

You're largely irrelevant. Negligence accounts for a myriad of facts in the lead-up to an event. Therefore he's not just on trial for 'one deliberate act.'

Now, if you and loserbility weren't so hostile towards people intelligently regarding the law, there could have actually been a discussion of potential culpable negligence. If it makes you feel any better, I think the prosecution's case is fluffy to non-existent in regards to culpable negligence. But, some juries are stupid and you never know if they'll even use a modicum of blame upon GZ to justify manslaughter in lieu of giving no punishment at all.

 

[Snookie]

Time for me to get off

Wait, tell us how you get off or videos later. Thank you. Sweet dreams.

 

[RKMBrown]

The weirdest part of this case is when Z claimed that TM sat up after he shot him and said You got me.

Maybe you shot me?

Maybe I shot you, you shot me, we're a happy family with a big shot here and a big shot there, we' re just shooting everywhere.

heh...

you got me
you shot me

similar sounding phrases to a guy who's ears are ringing from the gun shot.

 

[RKMBrown]

The weirdest part of this case is when Z claimed that TM sat up after he shot him and said You got me.

Maybe you shot me?

I did not know people could talk with an exploding bullet in the heart and lungs full of blood.

last gasp.. dunno

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah i'm outta here too... gonna watch tonto ride into the sunset.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unbelievable. You dont get to rewrite the law. Negligence is a failure to act appropriately. This was not a failure to act. It was a deliberate action. He is on trial for committing a deliberate act, namely shooting Trayvon and killing him. Everything before that is largely irrelevant.

negligence

n. failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence is accidental as distinguished from "intentional torts" (assault or trespass, for example) or from crimes, but a crime can also constitute negligence, such as reckless driving.

And YOU dont get to define "appropriate"...the jury does.

The failure to act appropriately came before the intentional act...it would be up to the jury to decide if his failure to act appropriately could have prevented the intentional act.

It's a legal definition. What happened before he shot Trayvon is largely irrelevant. He committed a deliberate act. That rules out negligence.
I can tell for the next 9 months or more the Left is going to be stuck on the meme of "the prosecutor over-charged the case". Like self defense is not a positive defense in murder.

 

[testarosa]

Maybe you shot me?

Maybe I shot you, you shot me, we're a happy family with a big shot here and a big shot there, we' re just shooting everywhere.

heh...

you got me
you shot me

similar sounding phrases to a guy who's ears are ringing from the gun shot.

That's the Barney song. If I can't have fun in this thread I'm taking my ball and going home.

 

[Missourian]

Time for me to get off

Might I direct your attention to post #6665....http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/295416-zimmerman-trial-167.html#post7478489​

 

[The Rabbi]

Unbelievable. You dont get to rewrite the law. Negligence is a failure to act appropriately. This was not a failure to act. It was a deliberate action. He is on trial for committing a deliberate act, namely shooting Trayvon and killing him. Everything before that is largely irrelevant.

negligence

n. failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence is accidental as distinguished from "intentional torts" (assault or trespass, for example) or from crimes, but a crime can also constitute negligence, such as reckless driving.

You're largely irrelevant. Negligence accounts for a myriad of facts in the lead-up to an event. Therefore he's not just on trial for 'one deliberate act.'

Now, if you and loserbility weren't so hostile towards people intelligently regarding the law, there could have actually been a discussion of potential culpable negligence. If it makes you feel any better, I think the prosecution's case is fluffy to non-existent in regards to culpable negligence. But, some juries are stupid and you never know if they'll even use a modicum of blame upon GZ to justify manslaughter in lieu of giving no punishment at all.

So sayeth the man who took many law classes and thinks we have a right to open carry.
Can you get your tuition back, dumbo?
At least two posters have explained the legal issues here. But you're stuck on stupid.

 

[Oldstyle]

I just heard Martins mother is going to be allowed to take the stand. WTF kind 9f circus rules are they going by? She didn't see shit so what's she going to say that isn't completely skewed?

With a conviction this will be grounds for an automatic retrial or appeal.

Just plain dumb for the judge to allow. Her testimony will be COMPLETELY tainted with grief and emotion NOT facts.

The assumption is that Martin's mother will testify that the screams for help on the 911 call are Trayvon's. That would normally be powerful testimony except in this case Trayvon's father initially told the Police that the screams on the 911 tape WERE NOT his son's. So if the Defense calls him and brings that into evidence...then presents witnesses that know George Zimmerman to testify that it IS him screaming for help then Trayvon's mother's testimony will essentially be cancelled out. Especially when it's pointed out that the father's testimony changed prior to a civil suit in which the Martin family got an estimated million dollar settlement from the homeowners group.

 

[Missourian]

Maybe you shot me?

Maybe I shot you, you shot me, we're a happy family with a big shot here and a big shot there, we' re just shooting everywhere.

heh...

you got me
you shot me

similar sounding phrases to a guy who's ears are ringing from the gun shot.

I think you're on to something here

 

[Vox]

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?

Not damning. Not even really troubeling as the expert testified under cross that weather conditions of the day could account for same.

More troubeling, but not damning was the absence of Zimmerman DNA from under Martin's finger nails.

The dna thing proves Zimmermans story is bullshit, but sadly he will get away with killing an unarmed innocent kid.

Sad but true.

The DNA "thing" does not prove ANYTHING.

Sad. For you. But true.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Hm. Did GZ state that TM scratched GZ in self-defense? You probably know more on this than me, so do you want to help a simple guy out, please?

No. The claim is that Martin grabbed GZ's head and slammed it against the concrete. It seems reasonable that in doing so, som GZ DNA would get under Martin's fingernails... thus the absence of same is troubeling but not damning.

Huh. That's a good point.

Maybe TM's finger tips weren't deeply clutching GZ's skull. Maybe so. Do you know if they swabbed not only TM's fingernails, but also palms, fingers, etc? IF there was no speck at all of GZ's DNA on any part of TM's hands, then I'd say that's pretty doggone damning.

Trials can be so riveting.

They did not swab any other portion of TM's hands.

What we have here is a half point for the prosecution.

Conversely, Zimmermans blood was found on the cuff of Martin's shirt that he wore underneath the hoody, indicative of his hands being close to where GZ was bleeding... and supporative of the the claim by Zimmerman that TM was slamming his head into the concrete.

What we have here is 2 points for the defense.

 

[Missourian]

The weirdest part of this case is when Z claimed that TM sat up after he shot him and said You got me.

Maybe you shot me?

I did not know people could talk with an exploding bullet in the heart and lungs full of blood.

They can.

Now you know.

 

[pioneerpete]

Not damning. Not even really troubeling as the expert testified under cross that weather conditions of the day could account for same.

More troubeling, but not damning was the absence of Zimmerman DNA from under Martin's finger nails.

The dna thing proves Zimmermans story is bullshit, but sadly he will get away with killing an unarmed innocent kid.

Sad but true.

The DNA "thing" does not prove ANYTHING.

Sad. For you. But true.

We can all admit that GZ pulled the trigger. Yet, they could not conclusively say that his DNA was on the trigger. Also when there was no definite finger prints on the gun of either person, I don't think you can prove or disprove GZ's claim that he had the gun or reached for the gun.