The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[asaratis]

You did lie or you just didn't know what you were talking about. The blood stain was not on the cuff like you all have been spewing, both arms were checked elbow to cuff. The stain was on the waist part of the sweatshirt and it was a small little tiny spot.

May not mean much but what else have you been spinning here? If you're watching the WP for info instead of looking at all the reports, we now know you are getting less than accurate info. LA Times too.

I told you about the hoodie just as an aside. It was what I heard the DNA guy talk about.

sorry marilyn, the state put on a terrible case based on very sketchey evidence. GZ will be acquited and blacks will riot in the streets of all of our cities and burn their own neighborhoods.

We are living in a sick society when the media decides which cases will go to trial based on racial issues that will generate ratings.

If TM was white of GZ was black this case would never have made the news and the shooter would never have been charged because there is no evidence of a crime.

Oh, no evidence huh? This case went to trial because he murdered a kid.

No. The case went to trial to get to the truth. The State presumes that he murdered Martin.

 

[Gadawg73]

Martin was not trespassing on private property as he was an invitee by his father.
Zimmerman never stalked Martin.

 

[KissMy]

The prosecution is politically motivated, is this because of Obama's "son" comment?

According to the article it was in response to Sharpton and Jackson demanding Zimmerman be tried for murder. Of course, even for her, there is a presumption of innocence. But if she is convicted, damn, I hope she is disbarred.

Obama should have stayed the hell out of it. He is Zimmerman's president too. AND he is a lawyer who should know all about the presumption of innocence. Obama leaves little doubt that Harvard sells mail order degrees.

Somehow I don't think a "Beer Summit" is going to get Obama out of this one if GZ goes free.

 

[Sunshine]

a Citizen's Grand Jury has no legal standing--pity.

But the ABA does.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Martin was not trespassing on private property as he was an invitee by his father.
Zimmerman never stalked Martin.

apparently he was on someones private property when zimmerman seen him

 

[Sarah G]

sorry marilyn, the state put on a terrible case based on very sketchey evidence. GZ will be acquited and blacks will riot in the streets of all of our cities and burn their own neighborhoods.

We are living in a sick society when the media decides which cases will go to trial based on racial issues that will generate ratings.

If TM was white of GZ was black this case would never have made the news and the shooter would never have been charged because there is no evidence of a crime.

Oh, no evidence huh? This case went to trial because he murdered a kid.

No. The case went to trial to get to the truth.

So would you and I go to trial because we disagree and we want to get to the truth? You all are really minimizing the fact that he did kill that kid. Spin, spin, spin..

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The prosecution is politically motivated, is this because of Obama's "son" comment?

According to the article it was in response to Sharpton and Jackson demanding Zimmerman be tried for murder. Of course, even for her, there is a presumption of innocence. But if she is convicted, damn, I hope she is disbarred.

Obama should have stayed the hell out of it. He is Zimmerman's president too. AND he is a lawyer who should know all about the presumption of innocence. Obama leaves little doubt that Harvard sells mail order degrees.

Somehow I don't think a "Beer Summit" is going to get Obama out of this on if GZ goes free.

Maybe if he had a "Hennessy Summit" with DeeDee?



Ater all, if Obama had a third daughter, she would look just like DeeDee.

 

[25Caliber]

it is not (my) beyond a reasonable doubt

that is the standard we have in this system

in the heat of the moment

zimmerman probably isnt sure exactly what happened

if martin did or didnt touch the gun

as for lack of dna

the flashlight and the skittles didnt have DNA on it either

is there any doubts on who had what

The standard in the system is what the jury considers reasonable doubt or a juror. They do not have to give a reason why either...it could be that they dont believe a word that comes out of his mouth because of the inconsistencies. That is their right and that is our system.

There is nothing in our system that says a juror has to defend their decision to anyone. In fact, in our system, if only one lie is found out...you can disregard everything they say. That will be part of the deliberation instructions from the judge to the jury after closing arguments.

Slight inconsistencies are common...not big ones. Furthermore, GZ seems to be very sure of everything he says...even the police said that all of his statements to them added up and were very consistent. Problem is, there is a professor and his best friend that have come forward with major inconsistencies that the police werent privy to in interrogation.

I respect your opinion, I just see it differently.

what

the instruction is beyond a reasonable doubt

not what the juror feels like

it isnt just zimmerman showing reasonable doubt

there have been many (state) witnesses that have shown reasonable doubt

in this case

I agree with you the states case is horrid...and yes...their witnesses have helped the defense for the most part. The state has overcharged and increased their burden of proof to actual murder...bad move. However, the lesser charge of manslaughter is in the instructions and that only takes showing negligence, which is a different issue.

It actually is what a juror feels like...they can have beyond a reasonable doubt and they dont have to explain why. This is why I actually have a problem with our system...the jurors have a lot of leeway..actually endless leeway as to what constitutes reasonable doubt to them. Im simply saying that presented correctly, his inconsistent statements could effect that...he can say, but they dont have to believe it...and one inconsistency leads to another to another as we are kind of seeing here.

If they pull it altogether in closing...he could be in trouble.

It takes one juror to hang it...if it gets hung...the state will drop the charge to manslaughter and lower their burden, imo. They will say they tried the M2 and we want to get at least something. This is what serino wanted to do in the first place and he pointed to negligence in several areas.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, no evidence huh? This case went to trial because he murdered a kid.

No. The case went to trial to get to the truth.

So would you and I go to trial because we disagree and we want to get to the truth? You all are really minimizing the fact that he did kill that kid. Spin, spin, spin..

Are you minimizing the fact that Zimmerman acted in self defense?

Spin

Spin

Spin

Bluuuuarrgh!

 

[jon_berzerk]

The standard in the system is what the jury considers reasonable doubt or a juror. They do not have to give a reason why either...it could be that they dont believe a word that comes out of his mouth because of the inconsistencies. That is their right and that is our system.

There is nothing in our system that says a juror has to defend their decision to anyone. In fact, in our system, if only one lie is found out...you can disregard everything they say. That will be part of the deliberation instructions from the judge to the jury after closing arguments.

Slight inconsistencies are common...not big ones. Furthermore, GZ seems to be very sure of everything he says...even the police said that all of his statements to them added up and were very consistent. Problem is, there is a professor and his best friend that have come forward with major inconsistencies that the police werent privy to in interrogation.

I respect your opinion, I just see it differently.

what

the instruction is beyond a reasonable doubt

not what the juror feels like

it isnt just zimmerman showing reasonable doubt

there have been many (state) witnesses that have shown reasonable doubt

in this case

I agree with you the states case is horrid...and yes...their witnesses have helped the defense for the most part. The state has overcharged and increased their burden of proof to actual murder...bad move. However, the lesser charge of manslaughter is in the instructions and that only takes showing negligence, which is a different issue.

It actually is what a juror feels like...they can have beyond a reasonable doubt and they dont have to explain why. This is why I actually have a problem with our system...the jurors have a lot of leeway..actually endless leeway as to what constitutes reasonable doubt to them. Im simply saying that presented correctly, his inconsistent statements could effect that...he can say, but they dont have to believe it...and one inconsistency leads to another to another as we are kind of seeing here.

If they pull it altogether in closing...he could be in trouble.

It takes one juror to hang it...if it gets hung...the state will drop the charge to manslaughter and lower their burden, imo. They will say they tried the M2 and we want to get at least something. This is what serino wanted to do in the first place and he pointed to negligence in several areas.

if zimmerman wins self defense

the is no lessor charge of manslaughter

 

[Jackson]

No. The case went to trial to get to the truth.

So would you and I go to trial because we disagree and we want to get to the truth? You all are really minimizing the fact that he did kill that kid. Spin, spin, spin..

Are you minimizing the fact that Zimmerman acted in self defense?

Spin

Spin

Spin

Bluuuuarrgh!

Would it be self defense if there was a bully who bullied a kid, tormented, day in and day out and finally the kid gave him a kicking he deserved and the bully shot him right between the eyes. Self defense. Right?

 

[Sallow]

That's not what Zimmerman stated.

He said Martin grabbed his head and slammed it into the ground.

The evidence does not back that up.

Trayvon must have been pretty weak then, because Zimmerman just has a few scratches he could have caused himself.

yes Zimmerman beat himself up.

No one is disputing there was a fight.

 

[Sallow]

Trayvon must have been pretty weak then, because Zimmerman just has a few scratches he could have caused himself.

yes Zimmerman beat himself up.

It's been done before to frame a "black".

My bad.

But then again, rdean is the exception..not the rule.

 

[RKMBrown]

if zimmerman wins self defense

the is no lessor charge of manslaughter

Explain how self defense excuses negligence leading to the death of a human being.

 

[25Caliber]

what

the instruction is beyond a reasonable doubt

not what the juror feels like

it isnt just zimmerman showing reasonable doubt

there have been many (state) witnesses that have shown reasonable doubt

in this case

I agree with you the states case is horrid...and yes...their witnesses have helped the defense for the most part. The state has overcharged and increased their burden of proof to actual murder...bad move. However, the lesser charge of manslaughter is in the instructions and that only takes showing negligence, which is a different issue.

It actually is what a juror feels like...they can have beyond a reasonable doubt and they dont have to explain why. This is why I actually have a problem with our system...the jurors have a lot of leeway..actually endless leeway as to what constitutes reasonable doubt to them. Im simply saying that presented correctly, his inconsistent statements could effect that...he can say, but they dont have to believe it...and one inconsistency leads to another to another as we are kind of seeing here.

If they pull it altogether in closing...he could be in trouble.

It takes one juror to hang it...if it gets hung...the state will drop the charge to manslaughter and lower their burden, imo. They will say they tried the M2 and we want to get at least something. This is what serino wanted to do in the first place and he pointed to negligence in several areas.

if zimmerman wins self defense

the is no lessor charge of manslaughter

Well yeah...if he wins...he wins.

But...they could drop the M2 in deliberations and find negligence and go with manslaughter.

In other words.

M2...not guilty...manslaughter...guilty.

 

[Gadawg73]

So would you and I go to trial because we disagree and we want to get to the truth? You all are really minimizing the fact that he did kill that kid. Spin, spin, spin..

Are you minimizing the fact that Zimmerman acted in self defense?

Spin

Spin

Spin

Bluuuuarrgh!

Would it be self defense if there was a bully who bullied a kid, tormented, day in and day out and finally the kid gave him a kicking he deserved and the bully shot him right between the eyes. Self defense. Right?

What does that scenario have to do with the facts in this case?
Anyone can make up any scenario in an attempt to match it to what they want to see happen.
What you stated above is not what happened in this case. They DID NOT KNOW EACH OTHER AND HAD NEVER MET.
And if Zimmerman bullied Martin and never touched him then Martin HAS NO RIGHT TO PUT HIS HANDS ON HIM.
And if he does then under Florida law Zimmerman is justified legally to shoot him.
Right, that is self defense.
Your example is 100% hypothetical nothing close to the reality of what happened in this case.
Right?

 

[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.

That scenario shows that Martin was standing HIS ground and trying to neutralize the stalking menace who threatened him.

the "following" incident ended..... the moment zimmerman "lost him"

So, no.... the scenario does not show martin standing his ground at all. The re engaging of zimmerman in my opinion puts zimmerman in the position of stranding his ground.

These aren't two separate incidents.

And going by Zimmerman's recollection of events, that he left his car to walk off a well lit street into a very dark courtyard to get the name of a street in a three street community, just seems highly implausible.

It makes more sense that Zimmerman left his car to pursue Martin (Something he's admitted too), did not break off the chase as he said, caught up with Martin, and initiated the confrontation.

 

[Sallow]

You mean besides this, right?

Both injuries are minor.

No they aren't. The man has had a weight gain this past year consistent with hitting damage to the skull. People with that kind of an injury are candidates for early onset dementia, personality change, etc. The blood pattern is consistent with having his head being hit on concrete that has an edge to it, such as the edge of a sidewalk or curb, pebbles on the concrete, or whatever.

What happened to Zimmerman was horrific. His response was to save himself, because he thought he was being hit so hard he could die. Especially when the guy says something to the effect of the other person is going to die.

That's really quite a stretch Becki.

It's almost like saying those injuries will eventually kill him in 50 years or so..

 

[Jackson]

Are you minimizing the fact that Zimmerman acted in self defense?

Spin

Spin

Spin

Bluuuuarrgh!

Would it be self defense if there was a bully who bullied a kid, tormented, day in and day out and finally the kid gave him a kicking he deserved and the bully shot him right between the eyes. Self defense. Right?

What does that scenario have to do with the facts in this case?
Anyone can make up any scenario in an attempt to match it to what they want to see happen.
What you stated above is not what happened in this case. They DID NOT KNOW EACH OTHER AND HAD NEVER MET.
And if Zimmerman bullied Martin and never touched him then Martin HAS NO RIGHT TO PUT HIS HANDS ON HIM.
And if he does then under Florida law Zimmerman is justified legally to shoot him.
Right, that is self defense.
Your example is 100% hypothetical nothing close to the reality of what happened in this case.
Right?

Right. Just wanted to know about self defense.

 

[Sarah G]

Martin was not trespassing on private property as he was an invitee by his father.
Zimmerman never stalked Martin.

Zimmerman first told the 911 guy that he would meet the police at the mailboxes then changed his mind and said have them call me and I will tell them where I am.

To me, that says he intended to follow Treyvon. He took two flashlights and a loaded gun.

He stalked him alright.