The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[JQPublic1]

It's pretty easy to figure out.

She dictated the statement to another person. Who wrote it down in cursive.

And these folks are questioning her "intellect". She's from Haiti and could well speak 2 or three languages.

Wonder how many folks on this board have that skill?

Well, that is a deposition! She should not have to read a deposition in court. ANd on the question of equating cursive literacy with intelligence, the old timers had better test their own children... cursive writing is no longer taught in many parts of the country!

Depositions are printed, no one ever said she couldn't read printing. The point here is that she testified that she wrote that letter, and then couldn't read it. Feel free to ignore that in your effort to blame Zimmerman for everything.

No, depositions are not always printed. I have taken many from witnesses so I know! First the person writes their statement in their own words. The person's initials are placed at the beginning and at the end of the statement. After that it is signed and dated. Then, if nothing more than for the sake of clarity, the investigator can make a typed copy of the original statement, have it initialed and signed the same way, and attach both documents together after copies are made!

Zimmerman IS to blame for everything! If he had left that kid alone Martin would still be alive and GZ wouldn't have his fat ass on the line for murder!

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

I forgot a group in my speech.

The stupid group.

Some of them seem to have gone MIA.

Not enough have.

 

[Missourian]

LOL

No wonder it took you so long.

It's as hard on us as it is on you to give you A List.

;-)

I told her y'all were waitin' on me.

She would have none of it.

She said I could play with my friends after my chores were done.

Missed the big rulin' and errithing...

But did you get your piano lessons in?

Don't give her any ideas.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nah, I'm making homemade French fries tonight.

Twice cooked? I like to boil mine, rinse em, then fry em..

I never use two pans to cook something that one pan will cook. I cook them up crisp and brown, then salt and malt vinegar them down.

Isn't that bad for your heart?

 

[Sunshine]

Twice cooked? I like to boil mine, rinse em, then fry em..

I never use two pans to cook something that one pan will cook. I cook them up crisp and brown, then salt and malt vinegar them down.

Isn't that bad for your heart?

Yes, but no one can be good all the time, and I've lost 10 pounds since I retired!

 

[ScienceRocks]

The whole notion that Zimmerman "stalked" Trayvon Martin with the intent of using his gun flies right out the window when you actually look at the situation.

Zimmerman doesn't draw his weapon until he fears that the man who is atop him and has been beating him without letup has noticed his gun and is trying to get it. Only then...does Zimmerman elect to use the weapon.

But more importantly...if Trayvon Martin REALLY is frightened by the "creepy assed Cracker" that followed him...what possible reason would he have to leave the safety of the condo he was staying at...a condo that he could have very easily called the police himself to report the "stalking"...and walk back up the hundred yards plus to get to where Zimmerman is returning to his SUV? And if he DID do that simply to see if the man was still there (your claim that I'm sorry to say that I find to be almost laughable, 25) why wouldn't he let the man continue on his way? Why would he step out of the darkness and ask "You got a problem?"...an opening salvo that anyone who's ever been in a fight recognizes as threatening.

I agree...I dont think he was out to kill anyone...hes not that type of person. He was a concerned citizen who made some mistakes.

He and trayvon both have their own responsibility for what happened that night. Trayvon paid the ultimate price and GZ needs to pay with some time in jail, IMO. Will that happen to GZ? As it looks now...i dont think so.

That may not even be right.

Zimmerman was pretty cold after the killing. Previously, he's expressed a desire to "hunt for fugitives". He called Trayvon's killing, "God's plan" and he called him a "suspect".

If I was going on a killing spree I wouldn't be on the bottom getting my ass kicked. Think about it.

 

[Sunshine]

I forgot a group in my speech.

The stupid group.

Some of them seem to have gone MIA.

Not enough have.

IOU + rep. But I have to spread it around first.

 

[TemplarKormac]

George Zimmerman’s relevant past



George Zimmerman?s relevant past

It took you 45 minutes to come up with this? A blog? Just because a blog says it's relevant does not make it relevant. Do you understand me?

Just as you, a member of a messageboard is not always right either, my friend.

I am right. Multiple posters on this thread either agree with me, or hold the same opinion I do on this case. I have been following this trial from the beginning. You have already indicated your support of the "silent victim".

 

[RKMBrown]

You're making the argument for me there. "Stop attacking you" is continued aggression. Which would be precisely why a person would have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury.

I understand your point. How can I explain...

When two guys meet in the middle of a yard that have been doing the dance (following each other and making obscene gestures)... it is not unusual for a verbal and / or physical interaction to occur. It happens.

Typically most of those interactions do not escalate. However, when issues of race are involved, and when prior acts are fresh in the minds of the two parties, they will sometimes do things they would not otherwise do. TM was freshly suspended (fact) and looking for someone to take it out on.. (my guess) GZ was freshly disappointed by "them getting away" (fact).

Thus it's not imagination to say one or both of them caused, in part, the incident to occur. GZ through negligence and stupidity, TM through youthful bravado and anger.

Given that they are in a fight.. there are unwritten rules in any given fight that civilized men are expected to adhere to. For example, you don't stab or shoot someone cause you lost the fight.

Stupid rule? Suicidal rule? Maybe... What we have is a society that simultaneously pushes for ZERO tolerance, but somehow 100% tolerance is expected in cases of self defense.

IMO there needs to be some sort of civil code where escalating a fight from fist to weapons is seen as an escalation. You appear to argue the busted nose and scratches and accusation of strangulation are evidence that he had to kill him.. but the nose was minor, the scratches, minor and the strangulation has no proof.

I see the communication problem here.

Many people on this thread are sifting through, talking about the evidence and the law and what's going on day to day in the trial and what comes out. And then there's the imagining, scratches, put yourself in shoes you've never been in, who did what at what minute and which bad thing they did, then there's the lingering media race fanatics.

Big communication gap.

The red above is a great statement other than the negligence part, but it doesn't deter from the evidence so far and the law.

The jury is hearing the evidence and the jury will be instructed on the law.
So that is my primary focus. The time (for me) for who did what did how you did race bullshit has been over for awhile. It's evidence and trial time.

Yeah from a strictly law perspective.. from the evidence presented so far... my view is GZ is innocent of 2nd degree murder, and also innocent of voluntary manslaughter.

I do believe he would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter based on negligence (following the suspect into the dark while armed.) If GZ had not followed him into the dark the the subsequent fight and self defense would not have occurred.

That's based on law. I already gave that opinion hours ago. I moved on to... ok so he's innocent of murder and / or voluntary manslaughter. What does that mean to society that we can have dirt bags with no honor running around looking for people to kill as long as they call 911 first and get the guy to hit them. (Rope a-Dope my contention from the start of the thread...

 

[pioneerpete]

Doesn't anyone have a link to the percentage of crimes committed by race? What I was saying is that if 80-90% of crimes are committed by one race. Shouldn't that one race be most of the calls???

Calling the police on the criminal seems to be the right thing to do.

Sanford FL crime rates and statistics - NeighborhoodScout

Doesn't include race.

With a crime rate of 66 per one thousand residents, Sanford has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes - from the smallest towns to the very largest cities. One's chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is one in 15. Within Florida, more than 92% of the communities have a lower crime rate than Sanford.

Separately, it is always interesting and important to compare a city's crime rate with those of similarly sized communities - a fair comparison as larger cities tend to have more crime. NeighborhoodScout has done just that. With a population of 53,926, Sanford has a combined rate of violent and property crime that is very high compared to other places of similar population size. Regardless of whether Sanford does well or poorly compared to all other cities and towns in the US of all sizes, compared to places with a similar population, it fares badly. Few other communities of this size have a crime rate as high as Sanford.

The crime data that NeighborhoodScout used for this analysis are the seven offenses from the uniform crime reports, collected by the FBI from 17,000 local law enforcement agencies, and include both violent and property crimes, combined.

Now let us turn to take a look at how Sanford does for violent crimes specifically, and then how it does for property crimes. This is important because the overall crime rate can be further illuminated by understanding if violent crime or property crimes (or both) are the major contributors to the general rate of crime in Sanford.

For Sanford, we found that the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the nation, across communities of all sizes (both large and small). Violent offenses tracked included forcible rape, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, including assault with a deadly weapon. According to NeighborhoodScout's analysis of FBI reported crime data, your chance of becoming a victim of one of these crimes in Sanford is one in 164.

In addition, NeighborhoodScout found that a lot of the crime that takes place in Sanford is property crime. Property crimes that are tracked for this analysis are burglary, larceny over fifty dollars, motor vehicle theft, and arson. In Sanford, your chance of becoming a victim of a property crime is one in 17, which is a rate of 60 per one thousand population.

Importantly, we found that Sanford has one of the highest rates of motor vehicle theft in the nation according to our analysis of FBI crime data. This is compared to communities of all sizes, from the smallest to the largest. In fact, your chance of getting your car stolen if you live in Sanford is one in 369.

 

[MeBelle]

Anyone have a good link to the number of 911 calls and how many were about white and how many were about blacks?

46 Calls - The Daily Beast


Judge in Trayvon Martin case weighs police calls - The Denver Post

 

[wharfrat]

Say I goad you at a bar. Call your woman a whore. I am clearly a sorry ass for doing so, and probably deserve a good beating. I'm dishonorable, clearly not on moral high ground. But in the eyes of the law, if you throw the first punch, you are the initial aggressor, and I can respond with the force necessary to defend myself.

In this case, the defense is arguing that, in fact, Mr. Martin was armed. Not with a knife, but with the concrete sidewalk as a weapon.

Two points to respond to:

>>> Say I goad you at a bar. Call your woman a whore. I am clearly a sorry ass for doing so, and probably deserve a good beating. I'm dishonorable, clearly not on moral high ground. But in the eyes of the law, if you throw the first punch, you are the initial aggressor, and I can respond with the force necessary to defend myself.

That is my point as well. Now please show me the "proof" that TM threw the first punch. GZ's accusation is not proof. The witness that puts TM on top minutes later is not proof of who started the fight.

>>> In this case, the defense is arguing that, in fact, Mr. Martin was armed. Not with a knife, but with the concrete sidewalk as a weapon.

Yes, but oddly enough Zimmerman himself said he scooted off the "weapon." Once he scooted off the weapon the weapon was no longer a part of the fight. It was out of reach. Further, having been in such fights I can assure you that the lighter guy on top is not the person controlling the location of the ground in which they are fighting. Thus, why GZ was able to scoot them onto then off of the concrete. Why did GZ scoot onto the concrete in the first place? Ask him, or better yet ask the investigator why he did not think to ask that question.

Fair enough; I'll address them in order.

1) First, Zimmerman's accusation is evidence. The witness's statements are evidence. Hell, DD's testimony is evidence. What a jury does is weighs the evidence to come to an outcome, which is then considered proof. Thus far, I simply feel that the evidence leads to a more logical conclusion that Mr. Martin initiated aggression. I think Zimmerman was scampering towards Martin, got too close to Martin, words were had, and Martin started working Zimmerman over. The burden is on the prosecution to show me that it didn't happen that way, which is how the evidence thus presented seems to portray.

2) I don't have a damn clue why Zimmerman did any scooting, or why investigators did or didn't ask him certain questions. What I do have a clue about is what was actually asked of him during his interrogation(s), and I know that his head at one point was in contact with the concrete. The State's witnesses stated as much. Until they rebut that evidence, I don't have much choice but to agree with the defense's theory of the case. One final analogy on this point: if you were being attacked by a person with a knife, would you not fear for your life? What if they dropped the knife? Would you still have that fear? What if they got the knife back?

In short, I believe that Zimmerman was getting his head bashed on the ground, was getting his ass kicked, formulated a fear for his life, and felt he was going to get pummeled into unconsciousness. Thus he screamed for help, and when none came, he made the decision to defend himself with a gun. I think the force was reasonable if he felt his life was in danger. And I don't think he had to wait until he was clinically brain dead before reacting.

 

[RKMBrown]

I never use two pans to cook something that one pan will cook. I cook them up crisp and brown, then salt and malt vinegar them down.

Isn't that bad for your heart?

Yes, but no one can be good all the time, and I've lost 10 pounds since I retired!

You can use one sauce pan to boil then fry..

Malt vinegar! yum... Got a hankerin for fish and chips british style when I spent some time in England.

 

[Missourian]

Those rules you refer to...the gentleman's agreement...might have been in force when we were young men...but this was a stranger who Zimmerman believed was suspicious, and/or on drugs, in a crime ridden neighborhood...not two hayseeds out on Saturday night.

Yes sir. The unwritten rules of honor among some men have given way to something that is arguably less honorable.

Is that an improvement?

No...

But whether it is an improvement or not is irrelevant in this case.

First, I don't thing ZImmerman was ever a party to a fight...it was a sucker punch and then a beating.

According to the autopsy, Zimmerman never got a lick in.

Further...

If you or I were fighting with Zimmerman...once he was screaming for help and obviously given up...we would have grabbed his hands and asked him in our most obscenity laced Southern vernacular if he was done, and exactly what would happen if he wasn't.


And WE would have done the talking to Good and others, explained the circumstance "This dude was following me and....", not continue pounding away after help had arrived.

Martin wasn't abiding by any unwritten rules, he was beating a man who wasn't fighting.

 

[Gracie]

Have I mentioned how much I HATE the biased yappers on HLN?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

[MENTION=23063]Rat in the Hat[/MENTION]

Can you be in charge of Fancy Grapes updates so we can see what pointers the prosecution is getting? I don't have HLN.

Putting a lot on you, FGs, sigs, humor relief, language translations.

No worries, it's the Rep Thread and your efforts are duly noted.

This just in. HLN is advertising a rerun of Fancy Grapes Mysteries tonight. I guess she just couldn't take it.

BWA-HAHAHAHA JVM didn't show up for her hollar-a-thon either

 

[Amelia]

Anyone have a good link to the number of 911 calls and how many were about white and how many were about blacks?

If you don't want any unnecessary filtering, here's a link:

http://cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/911CallHistory-George-Zimmerman.pdf

I admit to not reading every page there. I relied on a shorter call-by-call summary. Still looking for that one.



Edit: I see Belle has already posted a link ...

 

[Ernie S.]

This is total bull shit. He has to have a REASONABLE belief that his life is in imminent danger or great bodily harm. A REAONBLE BELIEF. He doesn't just get to decide, if someone punches him in the nose or knocks him down, that his life is in imminent danger so he gets to use deadly force.

You contradicted yourself.

And yes he does get to decide even without getting punched in the nose or knocked to the ground.

YOU don't get to decide for him how he felt.

He can say his life was in danger but that doesn't automatically equate to him walking free because he felt that way. They still have to prove their case, not just say oh he felt threatened so he shot the kid, don't we all feel sorry for this jerk?

I feel like I'm hearing a lot of excuses for that bad decision that day. This isn't the old West.

NO the defense doesn't have to prove shit. The prosecution has to prove theirs beyond a reasonable doubt. Most people believe that they have failed miserably. It will only get worse as the defense presents their case.

 

[KissMy]

Those rules you refer to...the gentleman's agreement...might have been in force when we were young men...but this was a stranger who Zimmerman believed was suspicious, and/or on drugs, in a crime ridden neighborhood...not two hayseeds out on Saturday night.

Yes sir. The unwritten rules of honor among some men have given way to something that is arguably less honorable.

Is that an improvement?

So there are unwritten rules of honor among Thieves, Blacks, KKK members, Drug Dealer Thugs, CCW Neighborhood Watch, Police, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Women, Men, etc. Lots of them are not consistent with eachother or the law. This case is about law, not honor among groups. Your fantasy is not the reality of this nation of laws we & our groups with unwritten honor & rules live in.

 

[RKMBrown]

Say I goad you at a bar. Call your woman a whore. I am clearly a sorry ass for doing so, and probably deserve a good beating. I'm dishonorable, clearly not on moral high ground. But in the eyes of the law, if you throw the first punch, you are the initial aggressor, and I can respond with the force necessary to defend myself.

In this case, the defense is arguing that, in fact, Mr. Martin was armed. Not with a knife, but with the concrete sidewalk as a weapon.

Two points to respond to:

>>> Say I goad you at a bar. Call your woman a whore. I am clearly a sorry ass for doing so, and probably deserve a good beating. I'm dishonorable, clearly not on moral high ground. But in the eyes of the law, if you throw the first punch, you are the initial aggressor, and I can respond with the force necessary to defend myself.

That is my point as well. Now please show me the "proof" that TM threw the first punch. GZ's accusation is not proof. The witness that puts TM on top minutes later is not proof of who started the fight.

>>> In this case, the defense is arguing that, in fact, Mr. Martin was armed. Not with a knife, but with the concrete sidewalk as a weapon.

Yes, but oddly enough Zimmerman himself said he scooted off the "weapon." Once he scooted off the weapon the weapon was no longer a part of the fight. It was out of reach. Further, having been in such fights I can assure you that the lighter guy on top is not the person controlling the location of the ground in which they are fighting. Thus, why GZ was able to scoot them onto then off of the concrete. Why did GZ scoot onto the concrete in the first place? Ask him, or better yet ask the investigator why he did not think to ask that question.

Fair enough; I'll address them in order.

1) First, Zimmerman's accusation is evidence. The witness's statements are evidence. Hell, DD's testimony is evidence. What a jury does is weighs the evidence to come to an outcome, which is then considered proof. Thus far, I simply feel that the evidence leads to a more logical conclusion that Mr. Martin initiated aggression. I think Zimmerman was scampering towards Martin, got too close to Martin, words were had, and Martin started working Zimmerman over. The burden is on the prosecution to show me that it didn't happen that way, which is how the evidence thus presented seems to portray.

2) I don't have a damn clue why Zimmerman did any scooting, or why investigators did or didn't ask him certain questions. What I do have a clue about is what was actually asked of him during his interrogation(s), and I know that his head at one point was in contact with the concrete. The State's witnesses stated as much. Until they rebut that evidence, I don't have much choice but to agree with the defense's theory of the case. One final analogy on this point: if you were being attacked by a person with a knife, would you not fear for your life? What if they dropped the knife? Would you still have that fear? What if they got the knife back?

In short, I believe that Zimmerman was getting his head bashed on the ground, was getting his ass kicked, formulated a fear for his life, and felt he was going to get pummeled into unconsciousness. Thus he screamed for help, and when none came, he made the decision to defend himself with a gun. I think the force was reasonable if he felt his life was in danger. And I don't think he had to wait until he was clinically brain dead before reacting.

Agreed. Based on the "poor" prosecution and NO evidence and/or even accusation of the involuntary manslaughter beyond the initial recommendation of the investigator, GZ should go free. We'll just have to let god prosecute him at a later time since we don't have any evidence that GZ had a reasonable alternative to killing the teen.