The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[testarosa]

Why are those "The facts?" Because they're the accused's version of events? Are they universally accepted?

Again this POV is just bizarre. Do you think we should skip the trial then??

State v. Zimmerman: Evidence released by prosecutor

That link was posted earlier by WorldWatcher on the 4th page of this thread. It includes witness statements (yes, there is one, possibly two if I remember correctly, that witnessed TM stand over and repeatedly hit Z when he was on the ground). More than one witness stated that Z was yelling help, not TM. One of the police reports states that TM's father said it was not his son on the recording yelling for help. The various witness accounts do not contradict each other. It's worth reading through. I look forward to seeing the actual evidence and to hearing what the witnesses have to say in court, from both sides. No one is guilty of anything at this point, only accused.

Funny that when Zimmerman listened to the tape..he questioned whether the person yelling for help was him. Even after the officer that did the questioning said it was.

On the other foot - TM's father said it wasn't TM.

Muddled, muddled, muddled.

 

[Sunshine]

I admire the statement made by Mr Martin this morning:

"As we seek justice for our son Trayvon, we also seek a fair and impartial trial," said the statement, which was read by Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, in a media room at the courthouse.

"We ask that the community continue to stay peaceful as we place our faith in the justice system," the statement said.

I'd rep him if I could!

I doubt they thought of it on their own. The Martin family has been the biggest pack of frothing at the mouth mad dogs bucking for a lynching that I've seen in a while. They've gotten their prosecution, now their li'l Trayvon will be shown for the gang banger he was.

 

[testarosa]

I don't remember a POTUS "could've been my son" on any other trial since.... Let me think. Ever.

So what? Big deal.

The big deal here is he is Zimmerman's president too. He should keep his lying agitating mouth shut and stick to fucking things up for a citizen of the United States in a less direct manner.

Well that about summed it up. Lol

It's kind of a big deal when the POTUS sticks his nose in, in the first place, but then to say what he said... Not a very good thinker, that one.

 

[Sunshine]

Disgusting? So is the murder of an unarmed young man [for you, probably young boy].

Remember the good old days in America? Remember when people used to believe a man was innocent until proven guilty.

Now on to the scumbuckets known as the Prosecution.

Lawyer: Zimmerman prosecutor withheld evidence

By KYLE HIGHTOWER
Associated Press

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A court employee who retrieved photos and deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin's cellphone has been placed on administrative leave after an attorney testified that prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense, an attorney said Wednesday.

Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over.

Kruidbos was placed on leave shortly after White testified during a hearing in George Zimmerman's second-degree murder case on Tuesday. White said Kruidbos was interviewed by state attorney investigators twice before the action was taken.

White said he wasn't surprised of possible evidence violations by Zimmerman prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.

"I was saddened by it, but I'm not surprised," he said.

White first learned about the evidence through Kruidbos more than a month ago, he said.



ORLANDO, Fla.: Lawyer: Zimmerman prosecutor withheld evidence - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

Rep rep

Hear! Hear!

 

[Sallow]

State v. Zimmerman: Evidence released by prosecutor

That link was posted earlier by WorldWatcher on the 4th page of this thread. It includes witness statements (yes, there is one, possibly two if I remember correctly, that witnessed TM stand over and repeatedly hit Z when he was on the ground). More than one witness stated that Z was yelling help, not TM. One of the police reports states that TM's father said it was not his son on the recording yelling for help. The various witness accounts do not contradict each other. It's worth reading through. I look forward to seeing the actual evidence and to hearing what the witnesses have to say in court, from both sides. No one is guilty of anything at this point, only accused.

Funny that when Zimmerman listened to the tape..he questioned whether the person yelling for help was him. Even after the officer that did the questioning said it was.

On the other foot - TM's father said it wasn't TM.

Muddled, muddled, muddled.

Cool. So then the defense should let them into evidence..right?

Which they are fighting.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Funny that when Zimmerman listened to the tape..he questioned whether the person yelling for help was him. Even after the officer that did the questioning said it was.

On the other foot - TM's father said it wasn't TM.

Muddled, muddled, muddled.

Cool. So then the defense should let them into evidence..right?

Which they are fighting.

it would be a mistake for the state

to put on their "expert audio witness"

--LOL

 

[Sunshine]

Disgusting? So is the murder of an unarmed young man [for you, probably young boy].

Remember the good old days in America? Remember when people used to believe a man was innocent until proven guilty?

Are you people insane?

Nobody's saying he should be guilty without a trial... What I keep seeing is some people (myself included) saying the prosecution has a mighty strong case... And a bunch of others seeming to say he's innocent without a trial...

Freedombecki you want it thrown out of court? Are you out of your mind? The guy pursued then shot dead an un-armed teenager!

He's entitled to his day in court and he's getting it... What is the source of these bizarre summary-judgments in favor of the defendant? Help me understand, because as I stated, it seems the prosecution has a MIGHTY strong case!

It seems its the Free-Zimmerman crowd that wants to forego the trial process, not the other way around!

It is not illegal to walk behind someone.

 

[jon_berzerk]

zimmerman live

Click Orlando l Orlando News, Orange County, Florida, News and Local Headlines l WKMG Local 6

 

[Sunshine]

Remember the good old days in America? Remember when people used to believe a man was innocent until proven guilty?

Are you people insane?

Nobody's saying he should be guilty without a trial... What I keep seeing is some people (myself included) saying the prosecution has a mighty strong case... And a bunch of others seeming to say he's innocent without a trial...

Freedombecki you want it thrown out of court? Are you out of your mind? The guy pursued then shot dead an un-armed teenager!

He's entitled to his day in court and he's getting it... What is the source of these bizarre summary-judgments in favor of the defendant? Help me understand, because as I stated, it seems the prosecution has a MIGHTY strong case!

It seems its the Free-Zimmerman crowd that wants to forego the trial process, not the other way around!

Well he followed, then was attacked, then he fired a weapon after yelling for help...lets be fair here.

Lets turn the table a little...if it were a cop that was tailing a suspicious person and that person then doubles back and attacks the police officer and then according to GZ went for the gun...if the cop is able to grab the gun first before the other can take it away and then fires the gun...is he wrong? This would have been dropped immediately with the same evidence in favor of a cop.

It is not illegal to walk behind someone whether or not you are a cop.

 

[Sallow]

On the other foot - TM's father said it wasn't TM.

Muddled, muddled, muddled.

Cool. So then the defense should let them into evidence..right?

Which they are fighting.

it would be a mistake for the state

to put on their "expert audio witness"

--LOL

So the defense is fighting the admission of the tapes into evidence because it would be a mistake on the part of the prosecution?

Really?

 

[testarosa]

On the other foot - TM's father said it wasn't TM.

Muddled, muddled, muddled.

Cool. So then the defense should let them into evidence..right?

Which they are fighting.

it would be a mistake for the state

to put on their "expert audio witness"

--LOL

Ha ha. Ya think? Frenchie and US Government Classified Guy creamed him.

 

[WorldWatcher]

i watched an interesting interview with some of the lawyers involved

in the case omara pointed out that during the call between zimmerman and dispatch

dispatch asked for feedback at least twice on what martin was doing now

as for the T the incident did happen close to the T

Look at crime scene photos and maps, the body was south of the "T" intersection.


>>>>

yes but the distance is short

your splitting hairs

Around 40 feet isn't short since Zimmerman described being pinned at the "T" intersection.

Since the physical evidence does not comport with Zimmerman's story there are two possibilities:

1. Zimmerman's description was false when he described what happened and the altercation and Martin did not knock him straight to the ground and "mount" him pinning him to the ground.

or

2. Zimmerman's description was false when he said he remained on the east/west walkway and didn't go down the south pathway.​

>>>>

 

[jon_berzerk]

Look at crime scene photos and maps, the body was south of the "T" intersection.


>>>>

yes but the distance is short

your splitting hairs

Around 40 feet isn't short since Zimmerman described being pinned at the "T" intersection.

Since the physical evidence does not comport with Zimmerman's story there are two possibilities:

1. Zimmerman's description was false when he described what happened and the altercation and Martin did not knock him straight to the ground and "mount" him pinning him to the ground.

or

2. Zimmerman's description was false when he said he remained on the east/west walkway and didn't go down the south pathway.​

>>>>

review the police video with zimmerman

 

[Sunshine]

Whats going against Trayvon is that he threw the first punch and he returned the pursuit. GZ didnt chase him down...he was following from a distance with 911 on the phone...he then was headed back to his car when Trayvon approached him. Those are the facts...Trayvon could have just kept walking to where he was going and been fine...but nope he circled back and punched the guy in the face and slammed his head into the sidewalk.

Oh boy.

Why are those "The facts?" Because they're the accused's version of events? Are they universally accepted?

Unfortunately, Trayvon isnt alive to defend himself, but throwing the punch and getting in a fight with the neighborhood watch guy does not help him. Until the shot went off, it was GZ that was the victim. GZ followed from a distance but he didnt assault the kid...trayvon did the assaulting and lost his life because of it.

Again this POV is just bizarre. Do you think we should skip the trial then??

They are the facts because it is supported by the tape to 911...he was following trying to give a location deep into the complex (he gave the approximate apartment number)....then he was told to stop and he was almost back to his car when trayvon approached him...the proximitiy of the fight and where he was when he gave 911 the location suggests and proves that he was on his way back to his car as the dispatcher suggested he do.

If the fight was in the back of the complex, then I could see your point...it wasnt and that is in evidence and complies with the GZ story. It is not criminal for a NW captain to follow someone who looks suspicious to him...it is a crime to punch someone that is going back to their car and then slamming their head into the pavement. Those facts do not bode well for trayvon and its why MSNBC did their creative editing to fit their narrative...remember that?

No I dont think we should skip the trial at all. I think the case should be heard by a jury...but florida law is florida law and according to the law, GZ has a good case for self defense....the law says he can do what he did.

I think that because it was a kid and someone died, then a jury does need to hear it for sure. Otherwise everyone would just make up a self defense and never be arrested. When someone dies, that changes things, when it is someone under the age of 18 killed by an adult 10 years older, then I think a jury most definitely needs to hear it. Im just saying that Trayvon could have avoided it...he was being followed from a distance and the follower was going back to his car. Trayvon was not cornered at gun point...he wasnt chased and screamed at or threatened. Trayvon wanted to fight...if he didnt want to fight, then he didnt have to...he could have just went home...agree?

It is not illegal to walk behind someone while talking on the phone.

 

[testarosa]

Oh boy.

Why are those "The facts?" Because they're the accused's version of events? Are they universally accepted?

Again this POV is just bizarre. Do you think we should skip the trial then??

They are the facts because it is supported by the tape to 911...he was following trying to give a location deep into the complex (he gave the approximate apartment number)....then he was told to stop and he was almost back to his car when trayvon approached him...the proximitiy of the fight and where he was when he gave 911 the location suggests and proves that he was on his way back to his car as the dispatcher suggested he do.

If the fight was in the back of the complex, then I could see your point...it wasnt and that is in evidence and complies with the GZ story. It is not criminal for a NW captain to follow someone who looks suspicious to him...it is a crime to punch someone that is going back to their car and then slamming their head into the pavement. Those facts do not bode well for trayvon and its why MSNBC did their creative editing to fit their narrative...remember that?

No I dont think we should skip the trial at all. I think the case should be heard by a jury...but florida law is florida law and according to the law, GZ has a good case for self defense....the law says he can do what he did.

I think that because it was a kid and someone died, then a jury does need to hear it for sure. Otherwise everyone would just make up a self defense and never be arrested. When someone dies, that changes things, when it is someone under the age of 18 killed by an adult 10 years older, then I think a jury most definitely needs to hear it. Im just saying that Trayvon could have avoided it...he was being followed from a distance and the follower was going back to his car. Trayvon was not cornered at gun point...he wasnt chased and screamed at or threatened. Trayvon wanted to fight...if he didnt want to fight, then he didnt have to...he could have just went home...agree?

It is not illegal to walk behind someone while talking on the phone.

I don't believe he was actually told to stop, the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that".

 

[testarosa]

oh boy.... I jumped on the feed and the potential jurors know, the guy on the stand is narrating what he thinks happened and what he's heard. This is going to be tough, if it keeps going like this I hope M O'M files for change of venue.

 

[Sallow]

Oh boy.

Why are those "The facts?" Because they're the accused's version of events? Are they universally accepted?

Again this POV is just bizarre. Do you think we should skip the trial then??

They are the facts because it is supported by the tape to 911...he was following trying to give a location deep into the complex (he gave the approximate apartment number)....then he was told to stop and he was almost back to his car when trayvon approached him...the proximitiy of the fight and where he was when he gave 911 the location suggests and proves that he was on his way back to his car as the dispatcher suggested he do.

If the fight was in the back of the complex, then I could see your point...it wasnt and that is in evidence and complies with the GZ story. It is not criminal for a NW captain to follow someone who looks suspicious to him...it is a crime to punch someone that is going back to their car and then slamming their head into the pavement. Those facts do not bode well for trayvon and its why MSNBC did their creative editing to fit their narrative...remember that?

No I dont think we should skip the trial at all. I think the case should be heard by a jury...but florida law is florida law and according to the law, GZ has a good case for self defense....the law says he can do what he did.

I think that because it was a kid and someone died, then a jury does need to hear it for sure. Otherwise everyone would just make up a self defense and never be arrested. When someone dies, that changes things, when it is someone under the age of 18 killed by an adult 10 years older, then I think a jury most definitely needs to hear it. Im just saying that Trayvon could have avoided it...he was being followed from a distance and the follower was going back to his car. Trayvon was not cornered at gun point...he wasnt chased and screamed at or threatened. Trayvon wanted to fight...if he didnt want to fight, then he didnt have to...he could have just went home...agree?

It is not illegal to walk behind someone while talking on the phone.

Menacing Law & Legal Definition

 

[testarosa]

They are the facts because it is supported by the tape to 911...he was following trying to give a location deep into the complex (he gave the approximate apartment number)....then he was told to stop and he was almost back to his car when trayvon approached him...the proximitiy of the fight and where he was when he gave 911 the location suggests and proves that he was on his way back to his car as the dispatcher suggested he do.

If the fight was in the back of the complex, then I could see your point...it wasnt and that is in evidence and complies with the GZ story. It is not criminal for a NW captain to follow someone who looks suspicious to him...it is a crime to punch someone that is going back to their car and then slamming their head into the pavement. Those facts do not bode well for trayvon and its why MSNBC did their creative editing to fit their narrative...remember that?

No I dont think we should skip the trial at all. I think the case should be heard by a jury...but florida law is florida law and according to the law, GZ has a good case for self defense....the law says he can do what he did.

I think that because it was a kid and someone died, then a jury does need to hear it for sure. Otherwise everyone would just make up a self defense and never be arrested. When someone dies, that changes things, when it is someone under the age of 18 killed by an adult 10 years older, then I think a jury most definitely needs to hear it. Im just saying that Trayvon could have avoided it...he was being followed from a distance and the follower was going back to his car. Trayvon was not cornered at gun point...he wasnt chased and screamed at or threatened. Trayvon wanted to fight...if he didnt want to fight, then he didnt have to...he could have just went home...agree?

It is not illegal to walk behind someone while talking on the phone.

Menacing Law & Legal Definition

>>Menacing is a crime governed by state laws, which vary by state

State of Florida reference?

 

[Sunshine]

They are the facts because it is supported by the tape to 911...he was following trying to give a location deep into the complex (he gave the approximate apartment number)....then he was told to stop and he was almost back to his car when trayvon approached him...the proximitiy of the fight and where he was when he gave 911 the location suggests and proves that he was on his way back to his car as the dispatcher suggested he do.

If the fight was in the back of the complex, then I could see your point...it wasnt and that is in evidence and complies with the GZ story. It is not criminal for a NW captain to follow someone who looks suspicious to him...it is a crime to punch someone that is going back to their car and then slamming their head into the pavement. Those facts do not bode well for trayvon and its why MSNBC did their creative editing to fit their narrative...remember that?

No I dont think we should skip the trial at all. I think the case should be heard by a jury...but florida law is florida law and according to the law, GZ has a good case for self defense....the law says he can do what he did.

I think that because it was a kid and someone died, then a jury does need to hear it for sure. Otherwise everyone would just make up a self defense and never be arrested. When someone dies, that changes things, when it is someone under the age of 18 killed by an adult 10 years older, then I think a jury most definitely needs to hear it. Im just saying that Trayvon could have avoided it...he was being followed from a distance and the follower was going back to his car. Trayvon was not cornered at gun point...he wasnt chased and screamed at or threatened. Trayvon wanted to fight...if he didnt want to fight, then he didnt have to...he could have just went home...agree?

It is not illegal to walk behind someone while talking on the phone.

Menacing Law & Legal Definition

Menacing Law & Legal Definition






Menacing is a crime governed by state laws, which vary by state, but typically involves displaying a weapon or a course of conduct that intentionally places another person in reasonable fear of physical injury or death. The following is an example of a state law that deals with menacing:

S 120.13 Menacing in the first degree.

A person is guilty of menacing in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of menacing in the second degree and has been previously convicted of the crime of menacing in the second degree within the preceding ten years.

Menacing in the first degree is a class E felony.

S 120.14 Menacing in the second degree.


A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:
He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or
He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or
He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law, or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued.

Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

S 120.15 Menacing in the third degree.

A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury.

Menacing in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor.

Too bad you weren't honest enough to actually post that law. Li'l Trayvon couldn't have known the person BEHIND him had a gun. And someone just walking behind you ONCE is not sufficient to rise to the level of menacing.

There was a guy here convicted of menacing and it involved multiple, multiple incidences of driving too close to pedestrians on the street, flipping them off, repeated driving by their house.

Just walking behind someone ONCE and talking on the phone is not menacing. And if Li'l Trayvon was walking FORWARD, unless his head turned all the way around, he would not have seen any gun and if it was concealed likely wouldn't have anyway. DUH!

 

[testarosa]

It is not illegal to walk behind someone while talking on the phone.

Menacing Law & Legal Definition

Menacing Law & Legal Definition






Menacing is a crime governed by state laws, which vary by state, but typically involves displaying a weapon or a course of conduct that intentionally places another person in reasonable fear of physical injury or death. The following is an example of a state law that deals with menacing:

S 120.13 Menacing in the first degree.

A person is guilty of menacing in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of menacing in the second degree and has been previously convicted of the crime of menacing in the second degree within the preceding ten years.

Menacing in the first degree is a class E felony.

S 120.14 Menacing in the second degree.


A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:
He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or
He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or
He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law, or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued.

Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

S 120.15 Menacing in the third degree.

A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury.

Menacing in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor.

Too bad you weren't honest enough to actually post that law. Li'l Trayvon couldn't have known the person BEHIND him had a gun. And someone just walking behind you ONCE is not sufficient to rise to the level of menacing.

There was a guy here convicted of menacing and it involved multiple, multiple incidences of driving too close to pedestrians on the street, flipping them off, repeated driving by their house.

Just walking behind someone ONCE and talking on the phone is not menacing. And if Li'l Trayvon was walking FORWARD he would not have seen any gun. DUH!

I'm in love with your law degree.