The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[testarosa]

M O'M: The state's case is.... well I'm not exactly sure what the state's case is yet."

Yeah. We're with ya Mark.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You're right. You have the right to shoot someone who is doing something that would put fear of death in a reasonable person. Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin. Hell, he had an obligation to.

But according to GADAWG, you have the right to shoot someone just because they hit you. That's it.

It doesn't work like that, you have to be in fear of your life.

We do not live in the wild wild West anymore. Those days are long gone.

Apparently, your just talking about how emotional you are about this case with leaving out the evidence that of the prosecuting attorney's own witnesses have given.

Same as 90% of the black population last election. All they care about is RACE, NOT evidence or fact.

These people disgust me. RACIST FUCKERS!

 

[Sunshine]

It would be interesting to compare his notes to the DeeDee cursive letter.

Dee Dee's cursive problem wasn't funny the first 50 times you said it either.

Are you listening to the same trial? Everything about Dee Dee's testimony was funny.

Sarah would convict an innocent man because she doesn't like his attorney's attempt at levity.

 

[Gadawg73]

Hey, when all else fails there is always the race card.
RAYZIZM was the cause of Martin's death.
Amazing it took this long to get it out.
And it was 60 years ago that Robinson was wrongly persecuted in Sanford, Florida.
Interesting that in the late 60s my father and 2 other men with the College Entrance Examination Board went to that area because the school board of a county near there would not allow blacks to take the SAT. Dad and his friends from CEEB told them that if the blacks could not take the SAT NO ONE WOULD.
And they caved in.
Racism has nothing to do with this trail TODAY. All of that was 50 YEARS AGO.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I am officially a home team rooter at this point. My bias is now offical. I side with GZ and his lawyer.

I think his Circumstantial Evidence argument -- based on the evidence brought forth at THIS godforsaken trial -- is RIGHT on the mark.

The Judge really SHOULD grant the motion to dismiss the charges.

Aside from HUGE headlines, it would simply be the right thing to do logically, morally and legally.

I seriously doubt the judge will do it.

Too bad.

 

[Sunshine]

The State rests.

And should be sentenced to 50 years hard labor after this debacle!

 

[testarosa]

Ok this is not a trial, it is live from the Improv, right?

MOM:I am not exactly sure what the States case is

Jinx

Lol

 

[R.D.]

Indisputable fact my client was attacked by Trayvon Martin

Bingo!

 

[Missourian]

Ho. Lee. Shit.

I think hes trying to get Bernie disbarred.

He also has the sanctions thing going on for hiding discovery and it was said on the stand that neighbor witness was in the state investigators office talking to her sister (other witness) about testimony for 45 minutes - the state called the sister off of testifying after that.

The slimeball is coming out. Whether intentional or not with all this stuff, he has a career to manage after this trial and all this looks very bad.

He supervises the techs, but doesn't know how they do their job.

Really?

Nurses supervise nursing assistants.

Lawyers supervise paralegals.

How can the supervisor not know how the non professionals do their jobs?

How can you supervise if you have no idea what they are supposed to do???

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The only REASONABLE hypothesis from the EVIDENCE is consistent with innocence (i.e., justification).

There is no REASONABLE hypothesis from the EVIDENCE consistent with his alleged guilt: there is no reasonable hypothesis that warrants a denial of the defense motion.

 

[Sunshine]

He also has the sanctions thing going on for hiding discovery and it was said on the stand that neighbor witness was in the state investigators office talking to her sister (other witness) about testimony for 45 minutes - the state called the sister off of testifying after that.

The slimeball is coming out. Whether intentional or not with all this stuff, he has a career to manage after this trial and all this looks very bad.

He supervises the techs, but doesn't know how they do their job.

Really?

Nurses supervise nursing assistants.

Lawyers supervise paralegals.

How can the supervisor not know how the non professionals do their jobs?

How can you supervise if you have no idea what they are supposed to do???

Winner, winner! Chicken dinner!!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hey, when all else fails there is always the race card.
RAYZIZM was the cause of Martin's death.
Amazing it took this long to get it out.
And it was 60 years ago that Robinson was wrongly persecuted in Sanford, Florida.
Interesting that in the late 60s my father and 2 other men with the College Entrance Examination Board went to that area because the school board of a county near there would not allow blacks to take the SAT. Dad and his friends from CEEB told them that if the blacks could not take the SAT NO ONE WOULD.
And they caved in.
Racism has nothing to do with this trail TODAY. All of that was 50 YEARS AGO.

Not on Zimmermans side, but on the other side it is sure as fuck is.

 

[wharfrat]

He was only 5'-11 and 156 lbs. or so.

Floyd Mayweather is 5' 8" and weighs around 150 lbs. He has never lost a professional fight. Size isn't everything.

So now we know why GZ carries a gun. If hes following someone in the dark and they confront him he shoots them.

Sorry his injuries do not reflect his embellishments. If Trayvon is the bigger kid, then what is the result of the 12-14 punches to the face that GZ said he got?

He looks like he received one good shot to the nose...12-14 shots?...wheres the damage from those? His face doesnt look like its been punched a dozen times. He would have been an absolute bloody mess with abrasions all over his face if that were true.

Why are you sorry about anything? I'm certainly not, other than that a terrible situation unfolded that evening, which took one life and tarnished another.

This has been stated over and over again: the severity of his injuries is not the issue. The issue is whether Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of either death or serious bodily injury. He suffered injuries, and even the State's witnesses concluded they most likely came from contact with the concrete. I'm not willing to say it is unreasonable to believe a person might have fear of death or serious bodily injury when that occurs.

 

[CrazedScotsman]

If the judge does dismiss the charges, can the State refile?

I guess they could if a new witness were to come forward, but I don't know.

It don't matter, this judge isn't going to throw it out, she isn't brave enough to do it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Are we to believe his best friend testifying under oath or you? How bout the jury who are they to believe? They can believe he gave conflicting statements.

He testified to it...defense didnt challenge it. Conflicting statements...it is what it is.

His best friend testified under oath to what GZ told him...are you saying that his best friend lied about it? Did the defense team deny he said it....has GZ denied he said that to his friend? This best friend and US. Air Marshal got up on the stand and lied to hurt his friend? You have quite the imagination.

Zimmerman's "best friend" wrote in his book four months after the incident took place about a conversation that took place during the car ride home from the police station. He didn't record the conversation...he didn't take notes about the conversation...he wrote what he did from his recollections of what was said to him that night. Now think back to a random conversation that you had with someone four months ago. Can you remember it word for word? If you tried to you think it would most likely NOT be word for word? This notion that the recollection of someone else which may very well not be accurate somehow proves that Zimmerman is being dishonest is almost laughable.

My point is you cant have it both ways...you cant take what one person says literally and then when another statement doesnt match up, make excuses for that person and why its not the same...I find it a big discrepancy...not a tiny one...look at the way he describes the Grabbed the gun incident...very different from what Z told police.

My conclusion would have to be this...either 1) Mark Osterman deliberately made it up and lied or 2) GZ gave one statement to police knowing that Trayvons hands were never on the gun and then when telling it to his friend embellished to make it look there was this MMA style struggle for the gun and he won the battle.

The statements are inconsistent. I tend to believe Marks account of what his best friend told him...hes also a cop. Furthermore, Im not inclined to believe GZs version of the hand sliding down to the gun and the "Youre gonna die tonight" statement.

Why would I? No one can back it up and at the time it was in his direct beneft to show self defense when without that information it would be subjective even to him. Speculation? Sure. But, so is believing the literal word of GZ with no one to corroborate Trayvons statements.

We are seeing that in some cases when GZs words can be backed up or challenged by another witness, his statements conflict. So why would I believe everything him that cant be backed up especially when it would be in his direct benefit to embellish a tad? LIke: Oh, btw when he saw my gun he yelled "youre gonna die tonight" and then he went for my gun...lol...When Im suspicious in the first place on whether that was even said and then I hear a rather different account from his best friend and cop...it makes me go hmmmmm.

You're REALLY shocked that an account from a third party made four months after a conversation might not be consistent with the account of the person who was actually there and had recounted what took place numerous times over a space of days...weeks...and months...with that account remaining essentially the same?

 

[Missourian]

I don't think the judge has the intestinal fortitude to take the heat for acquittal here.

She should...but I don't think she will.

I hope I am wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

After all of this, she will still deny a judgement of acquittal.

 

[R.D.]

Any chance she'll aquit now?

I don't think she's brave enough

 

[CrazedScotsman]

I don't think the judge has the intestinal fortitude to take the heat for acquittal here.

She should...but I don't think she will.

I hope I am wrong.

Yeah, this is going to continue on. This judge has been for the prosecution from the beginning.

Although, it would be cool if she did.

 

[pioneerpete]

After all of this, she will still deny a judgement of acquittal.

And she will do so based on Dee Dee, The fired ME from another district, and the mother's statement in the mayor's office. Reversible error. He walks