The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[wharfrat]

@RKM and 25: I'm not a Florida attorney, so what I say take with a grain of sand. We don't operate the same where I live, but I think if you read the link to the blog that Foxfyre posted, you will see the issue a little more clearly. The link does a much better job explaining the argument than I can.

I have reproduced the link here: Don?t Believe Every Tweet You Read | blawg

 

[Redfish]

Notea,

Many, many trials have been decided on circumstantial evidence. I know someone who I believe killed his entire family, there was a book written about him and the murders. All the prosecution had was circumstantial evidence like stomach contents of the kids, stuff like that..

That guy is walking around free today. It's tough proving your case without real direct evidence, you need stuff like DNA reports to give you a better picture.

Anyone poo pooing these reports is simply inflexible. All evidence comes into play.

uhhh, the OJ trial, circumstantial evidence proved him the murderer, but a racist jury set him free.

 

[25Caliber]

This may have already been brought up by somebody, but I've been following a blog by a Flordia trial lawyer who has been following the Zimmerman case. He says it is Zimmerman's defense team who is not allowing a lesser charge of manslaughter to be considered because they are so sure the jury cannot convict on a Murder 2 charge and would therefore have to return a verdict of not guilty.

Specifically, because the State did not allege (in the alternative) that the death was by culpable negligence, the State should be unable to have Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence (Involuntary Manslaughter) given as a lesser included offense. See Ayala v. State, 879 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“It is fundamental error to instruct the jury on a variety of manslaughter that had not been included within the information.&#8221

What this means is that, should the defense object, they might be able to convince the judge only to have the jury instructed on Manslaughter by Act. If the judge overruled this request and also instructed on Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence, it would set up another excellent appellate issue.

Why would the Defense object to Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence, possibly because they know that if the jury is likely to convict George Zimmerman on any theory, it would be on a theory of culpable negligence
Don?t Believe Every Tweet You Read | blawg

Im not understanding this. The "quote" above says the defense CAN object to it being included...not that they were already successful in having the lesser charge excluded.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nevermind...you are a hopeless hack. You like to argue and scream and curse. You are not interested in honest discussion...carry on.

Translation: I've lost this round.
You cannot argue against what I posted without looking like a fool You cannot agree with what I posted without looking like a fool. So you dismiss the post.

Back on ignore...you are one rude and bitter person...others can look at the posts proving you wrong and decide for themselves...have a great day.

Translation: Damn I look stupid.
Yes, you do look stupid. You think a report of what someone said has more credibility than what someone actually said. I guess you never played telephone as a kid.
So to review: Zimmerman did not lie about Trayvon grabbing the gun. His testimony has not only been consistent but is also not contradicted by the DNA evidence. With some allowance for variance, given the horrific situation he found himself in and the adrenaline rush he must have had, Zimmerman has been a very good and consistent player. Like many of us in the gun community he undoubtedly practiced for a day like this. He was aware of all the rules and knew what to say.
The prosecution has failed so far to disprove his assertion of self defense. They would have to show that a reasonable person was not in fear of his life when he shot. Instead they are farting around trying to push a narrative of a wannabe cop that was discredited weeks ago. The prosecution will fail. Zimmerman will go fee.

 

[testarosa]

Rat How'd your scapin' go?

I got to run.

Happy 4th of July!!!

It went well. Everything nice and tidy now.


And they collected 50 pounds of sticks to send to the Sanford cop shop. Hopefully they'll start using one stick per finger for DNA scrapings.

That is mighty citizenry of you. Maybe you can get a tax deduction.

 

[Sarah G]

The testimony was that he "cut through" the gated community to get to his father's girlfriend's home. The entire gated community is private property, therefore TM was trespassing.

His father was not the owner of the home in question, which apparently was adjacent to the community, not a member. Even if the home was a member of the community TM's father was not a homeowner, therefore had no right to invite anyone.

Oh good grief..

tell us sarah, what race are you? and its a valid question since all you do is spout racial bullshit every day.

White Irish Catholic. I have my own opinions on this case and just about everything. It's why I am here.

Your opinion of me being racist is laughable, calm down and get back on topic.

 

[wharfrat]

[MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] and wharfrat

So even if they would have come with the charge of manslaughter he could have pleaded self defense even still and negligence is a non issue as long as he shows self defense?

That is correct; Florida's manslaughter statute provides for self-defense in 782.07. See the language "without lawful justification": Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

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

Thus the issue, is not self defense for the lesser charge of invol. manslaughter. But rather did GZ have reason to believe imminent death was upon him for those scratches on his head and the alleged smothering while he was screaming for help.

Yes, the central issue in this case, regardless of charge, is whether or not Zimmerman's belief that it was necessary to use force to prevent death/great bodily harm was a reasonable one.

 

[testarosa]

@RKM and 25: I'm not a Florida attorney, so what I say take with a grain of sand. We don't operate the same where I live, but I think if you read the link to the blog that Foxfyre posted, you will see the issue a little more clearly. The link does a much better job explaining the argument than I can.

I have reproduced the link here: Don?t Believe Every Tweet You Read | blawg

"If the judge denies"..... the defense objection are the operative words in that. ; )

 

[Sallow]

So if the testimonies do not agree in every detail someone is lying? You're not very bright are you?
His friend made a mistake. His friend mis-heard. It is second hand testimony. Zimmerman's own testimony is clear. And the DNA evidence does not contradict it.
The obvious conclusion to anyone with two functioning brain cells is that his friend mis-heard what Zimmerman told him.

Hey, I thought you had me in ignore. What's with suddenly deciding to salvage whats left of your reputation by puking some more bullshit into this thread?

Nevermind...you are a hopeless hack. You like to argue and scream and curse. You are not interested in honest discussion...carry on.

Translation: I've lost this round.
You cannot argue against what I posted without looking like a fool You cannot agree with what I posted without looking like a fool. So you dismiss the post.

Actually no.

This establishes a pattern of knowingly telling lies.

Alone? It wouldn't have made much difference. But in the scope of the totality of what Zimmerman has been saying? It paints a different story.

It's really to bad that Zimmerman's previous violent behavior and trouble with the law can't be let into the record. Because that completes the picture.

 

[Redfish]

Oh good grief..

tell us sarah, what race are you? and its a valid question since all you do is spout racial bullshit every day.

White Irish Catholic. I have my own opinions on this case and just about everything. It's why I am here.

Your opinion of me being racist is laughable, calm down and get back on topic.

always siding with the black guy is racist, and thats what you do. Are one of the "white guilt" obama voters?

 

[The Rabbi]

Nevermind...you are a hopeless hack. You like to argue and scream and curse. You are not interested in honest discussion...carry on.

Translation: I've lost this round.
You cannot argue against what I posted without looking like a fool You cannot agree with what I posted without looking like a fool. So you dismiss the post.

Actually no.

This establishes a pattern of knowingly telling lies.

Alone? It wouldn't have made much difference. But in the scope of the totality of what Zimmerman has been saying? It paints a different story.

It's really to bad that Zimmerman's previous violent behavior and trouble with the law can't be let into the record. Because that completes the picture.

There is no pattern of telling lies. Zimmerman didnt lie in this case. As far as I can tell ZImmerman never lied.
You are the only one lying here. You lie because you think Trayvon was right and you identify with him as an aggressor.

 

[Foxfyre]

The defense is clearly not interested in asserting involuntary anything. The defense is that GZ intentionally killed TM in self-defense. They are not trying to say it was an accident and would be opposed to agreeing to any charge involving negligence.

As for whether lesser charges are included here, I have to defer to those who seem to know that, in this case, the defense so far has been successful keeping lesser charges out and forcing the P to prove M2. Correct?

No. The defense is that GZ shot TM in self defense, not intentionally killed him. Important distinction there.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The testimony was that he "cut through" the gated community to get to his father's girlfriend's home. The entire gated community is private property, therefore TM was trespassing.

His father was not the owner of the home in question, which apparently was adjacent to the community, not a member. Even if the home was a member of the community TM's father was not a homeowner, therefore had no right to invite anyone.

Oh good grief..

tell us sarah, what race are you? and its a valid question since all you do is spout racial bullshit every day.

There's a lot of racial bullshit out there. It's not like we have to go looking for it. Like it or not, Spike Lee is right: There are two Americas and most whites don't have even the slightest scintilla of a notion for what it is like to be black.

 

[CrazedScotsman]

If Zimmerman had his gun out, walking around in the dark and killed Martin after a scuffle, I could see negligence. But he didn't, or so we think since no one saw and the evidence suggests that Martin attacked Zimmerman. The gun didn't come out until Zimmerman thought he had no other choice.

 

[RKMBrown]

That is correct; Florida's manslaughter statute provides for self-defense in 782.07. See the language "without lawful justification": Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

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

Thus the issue, is not self defense for the lesser charge of invol. manslaughter. But rather did GZ have reason to believe imminent death was upon him for those scratches on his head and the alleged smothering while he was screaming for help.

Yes, the central issue in this case, regardless of charge, is whether or not Zimmerman's belief that it was necessary to use force to prevent death/great bodily harm was a reasonable one.

Thus I suspect why the jury is all female? I would guess the defense would believe that women would be more inclined to believe that fist fight was TM trying to kill someone, than guys that have been in similar fist fights would.

 

[Katzndogz]

Notea,

Many, many trials have been decided on circumstantial evidence. I know someone who I believe killed his entire family, there was a book written about him and the murders. All the prosecution had was circumstantial evidence like stomach contents of the kids, stuff like that..

That guy is walking around free today. It's tough proving your case without real direct evidence, you need stuff like DNA reports to give you a better picture.

Anyone poo pooing these reports is simply inflexible. All evidence comes into play.

uhhh, the OJ trial, circumstantial evidence proved him the murderer, but a racist jury set him free.

OJ denied being the killer. DNA evidence is very helpful when the killer is unknown or the defendant denies being the killer. That is not the case here where the killer is known and admitted.

 

[RKMBrown]

If Zimmerman had his gun out, walking around in the dark and killed Martin after a scuffle, I could see negligence. But he didn't, or so we think since no one saw and the evidence suggests that Martin attacked Zimmerman. The gun didn't come out until Zimmerman thought he had no other choice.

no other "way" to win the fist fight...

 

[Sallow]

Translation: I've lost this round.
You cannot argue against what I posted without looking like a fool You cannot agree with what I posted without looking like a fool. So you dismiss the post.

Actually no.

This establishes a pattern of knowingly telling lies.

Alone? It wouldn't have made much difference. But in the scope of the totality of what Zimmerman has been saying? It paints a different story.

It's really to bad that Zimmerman's previous violent behavior and trouble with the law can't be let into the record. Because that completes the picture.

There is no pattern of telling lies. Zimmerman didnt lie in this case. As far as I can tell ZImmerman never lied.
You are the only one lying here. You lie because you think Trayvon was right and you identify with him as an aggressor.

Well sure..he has.

He lied to the police. And he's lied on national television.

 

[testarosa]

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

Thus the issue, is not self defense for the lesser charge of invol. manslaughter. But rather did GZ have reason to believe imminent death was upon him for those scratches on his head and the alleged smothering while he was screaming for help.

Yes, the central issue in this case, regardless of charge, is whether or not Zimmerman's belief that it was necessary to use force to prevent death/great bodily harm was a reasonable one.

Thus I suspect why the jury is all female? I would guess the defense would believe that women would be more inclined to believe that fist fight was TM trying to kill someone, than guys that have been in similar fist fights would.

No. It's because they know women are more reasonable and logical and they will come to the right decision.

Duh.

 

[Sarah G]

Notea,

Many, many trials have been decided on circumstantial evidence. I know someone who I believe killed his entire family, there was a book written about him and the murders. All the prosecution had was circumstantial evidence like stomach contents of the kids, stuff like that..

That guy is walking around free today. It's tough proving your case without real direct evidence, you need stuff like DNA reports to give you a better picture.

Anyone poo pooing these reports is simply inflexible. All evidence comes into play.

uhhh, the OJ trial, circumstantial evidence proved him the murderer, but a racist jury set him free.

OJ denied being the killer. DNA evidence is very helpful when the killer is unknown or the defendant denies being the killer. That is not the case here where the killer is known and admitted.

The killer is known but he is telling stories that just don't add up. DNA is good evidence regardless, so is the autopsy report coming soon.. Tomorrow.