The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[MaryL]

I think of Zimmerman, I think of OJ Simpson. If and if only race wasn't an issue. Racism and white guilt and all that heady stuff.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yep

Sorry you guys missed my earlier post. My point here is not that GZ is a dirt bag.. My bad. My point raised earlier is that if GZ can do this why not anyone else? For that matter why not TM? As was pointed out earlier the only reason we have GZ on trial and not TM is cause TM did not shoot GZ in self defense. If TM had that gun he was talking about getting, he may have shot GZ in the chest. Then we'd be talking about whether or not TM did it in self defense. Same circumstances different players, same arguments? Or does the argument change when the guy who'd claim self defense is a person we assume is a good guy and the guy he killed is someone we assume is the bad guy. Or does the argument change when the guy who's claiming self defense is a person we assume is a bad guy and the guy he killed is someone we assume is the good guy?

This is it for me for the night; I'm beating a dead horse.

You drank the media Kool-Aid. Why else would you assume either one was a "bad guy?"

If you want to see an egregious case of self-defense and its limits, research this case:

Self-Defense Case: Pharmacist Guilty - WSJ.com

This gentleman makes the Zimmerman story seem like a children's book,

I don't assume either GZ or TM was a good or bad guy. Quite the contrary. I think they were just young and stupid both them.

 

[Snookie]

This is what we are up against...

Huffington Post headline for the Georgia Mom story...


Melinda Herman, Mom Who Shot Intruder, Inspires Gun Control Foes

??

She was in her own home--hiding, with two 9 yr old girls.

I can't remember exactly but the suspect said he went looking for her.
maybe I can find a link.

At any rate LE never considered charges against this woman.

Doesn't make any difference...ask Snookie.

In this case the woman was justified. I think they ought to give her a medal but please it is amazingly incorrect to compare her to zimmerman.

 

[testarosa]

I'll leave you with Marissa Alexander.

The first side victim of the trial:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyITmlJHALM]05.11.12: Rep. Brown + Angela Corey Talk on Marissa Alexander - YouTube[/ame]

 

[wavingrl]

This is what we are up against...

Huffington Post headline for the Georgia Mom story...


Melinda Herman, Mom Who Shot Intruder, Inspires Gun Control Foes

What we are up against is freedom of speech.

No, a warped perspective, where the victim is a criminal for protecting herself and her family.

here's another link

Alleged intruder shot by Loganville mother out of hospital | www.ajc.com

He said he was there to steal. In another article he said more but I can't locate that one.

There was another case not long after that--the homeowner was charged. He heard a car backfire, IIRC, in his driveway one night and went out and began firing.

I can see the difference between those two cases.

 

[Jackson]

Look, we aren't going to change any minds here. I realize I am in the tiny minority opinion, but I haven't heard all of the evidence yet, either. I am open to listening but right now I stand by my original objection to Zimmerman initiating the entire scenario.

The one thing that really does bother me, is the passion by which some of us have for their cause. We really have to stick to facts and realize the actual crime, if any will be felt by the Z who is convicted, and if he is acquitted we all must accept that the evidence demonstrated that he indeed was not guilty.

Those who are showing passion are not in the courtroom to see the entirety of the evidence and have to accept the verdict.

ALL of America has to accept the verdict, realizing they don't know all of the facts, but the jury did.

 

[Jackson]

One of these posters, (and I won't name names) was a private detective for over three decades, he has done work for many defense attorneys in his career, and he happens to be from my home state. Suffice it to say he has prior experience in this field. So the fact he and I agree on most of the same things on this case should tell you something, Jackson.

I could tell you three posters are from the CIA and agree with me. (I call, and raise you 2)

It is preferable to have experience on your side, rather than conjecture. Grow up.

Poor Templar. Can't take a joke.

 

[pioneerpete]

Just because multiple posters believe you, doesn't make you right. And as how I would vote if I were on a jury, don't be so sure. I haven't heard all of the evidence and what I heard from the prosecution did not sway me in their direction at all. I can't believe the prosecutions own witness, Jeantel (sp?), and the mother is, well, a mother.

I know Murder2 is out and FWIW, I would have to know the details of manslaughter or let him go, if I felt he was fighting for his life. I don't like the idea that he gained 110 lbs to look like an overweight old man who couldn't fight back; I'm wondering how he could get his gun out when TM was on top of him but maybe he could; wouldn't TM have more bruises and cuts on his hands if he really hit him more that once?

The defense is good and they might sway me in thinking this really was a life and death situation. But then again...who really started it by following in the first place when the kid wasn't acting suspicious. That's the rub.

Again, who says he wasn't acting suspicious? No one can say that he wasn't because there is simply no evidence that he wasn't acting suspicious. Take out his (TM) past actions. This is obviously a town where crime is prevalent. You can't really make an accurate opinion if say you live in the Nashville suburbs of Franklin or Brentwood as to what you would see suspicious compared to someone who lives next to the bus stop in downtown Nashville.

I understand what you are saying, but unless the Zimmerman can get on the stand and tell us what made TM suspicious, we just won't know, will we? If Z can do that, all doubt is released from my mind. Z was doing what he was supposed to be doing and got caught in a pickle. Acquit.

If he takes the stand what stops him from just reading the real time transcript of the non-emergency call? He said what made him suspicious in that call to the non-emergency number. I've heard that phone call over and over. What will one more time do with Zimmerman on the stand? We can establish that he was walking in the grass near homes, at night, in the rain and at a pace that didn't seem to match that environment. With those factors in a town that has a crime rate that is higher than 96% of the towns in this country I can see him being suspicious.

 

[Snookie]

What we are up against is freedom of speech.

No, a warped perspective, where the victim is a criminal for protecting herself and her family.

here's another link

Alleged intruder shot by Loganville mother out of hospital | www.ajc.com

He said he was there to steal. In another article he said more but I can't locate that one.

There was another case not long after that--the homeowner was charged. He heard a car backfire, IIRC, in his driveway one night and went out and began firing.

I can see the difference between those two cases.

But, but, but, but, he was in fear for his life.

 

[Amelia]

Let me get this straight.

If I want to get away with murder, all I have to do is shoot someone and then claim that I was in imminent danger.

To make it fool proof I would do it on a dark rainy night with no witnesses.

Then there would be reasonable doubt that I killed him on purpose.

Just be sure to say "thank God" convincingly during the police interrogation when someone tells you it was caught on camera.

 

[Snookie]

Let me get this straight.

If I want to get away with murder, all I have to do is shoot someone and then claim that I was in imminent danger.

To make it fool proof I would do it on a dark rainy night with no witnesses.

Then there would be reasonable doubt that I killed him on purpose.

Just be sure to say "thank God" convincingly during the police interrogation when someone tells you it was caught on camera.

That could be construed to mean that as neighborhood watch commander he knew there were no video cameras there and he also knew how dark it was. It was a self serving statement. The guy is a master trained manipulator who got an a in self defense.

 

[Jackson]

Again, who says he wasn't acting suspicious? No one can say that he wasn't because there is simply no evidence that he wasn't acting suspicious. Take out his (TM) past actions. This is obviously a town where crime is prevalent. You can't really make an accurate opinion if say you live in the Nashville suburbs of Franklin or Brentwood as to what you would see suspicious compared to someone who lives next to the bus stop in downtown Nashville.

I understand what you are saying, but unless the Zimmerman can get on the stand and tell us what made TM suspicious, we just won't know, will we? If Z can do that, all doubt is released from my mind. Z was doing what he was supposed to be doing and got caught in a pickle. Acquit.

If he takes the stand what stops him from just reading the real time transcript of the non-emergency call? He said what made him suspicious in that call to the non-emergency number. I've heard that phone call over and over. What will one more time do with Zimmerman on the stand? We can establish that he was walking in the grass near homes, at night, in the rain and at a pace that didn't seem to match that environment. With those factors in a town that has a crime rate that is higher than 96% of the towns in this country I can see him being suspicious.

I'd like to hear a cross on that.

 

[SantaFeWay]

Yep

Sorry you guys missed my earlier post. My point here is not that GZ is a dirt bag.. My bad. My point raised earlier is that if GZ can do this why not anyone else? For that matter why not TM? As was pointed out earlier the only reason we have GZ on trial and not TM is cause TM did not shoot GZ in self defense. If TM had that gun he was talking about getting, he may have shot GZ in the chest. Then we'd be talking about whether or not TM did it in self defense. Same circumstances different players, same arguments? Or does the argument change when the guy who'd claim self defense is a person we assume is a good guy and the guy he killed is someone we assume is the bad guy. Or does the argument change when the guy who's claiming self defense is a person we assume is a bad guy and the guy he killed is someone we assume is the good guy?

There is no reason TM could not have killed someone justifiably if he was in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. Not sure what you mean here. I personally don't know the law on this, but if I found that the person claiming self-defense was the instigator of the violence, then I would have a problem exonerating him or her. But that may not be the law and I would defer to whatever the law is.

Of course I assume the guy getting killed in justifiable self-defense is the bad guy since he would be the one threatening great harm or death to the person who killed him. In this case TM had no reasonable fear of GZ so he would be a murderer if he shot GZ in the chest with the current available evidence and facts.

You're a nice guy but you're really not making any sense to me with all this.

 

[25Caliber]

Eggzactly.. why on earth would anyone think screaming for someone to come help you win a fight is gonna get the guy winning the fight to stop attacking you.

More particularly why would a hispanic guy ask a white guy to help him restrain a black guy? Wouldn't the black guy get even more angry at the hispanic guy for asking the white guy to help him? duh?

It's almost as if GZ does not want the guy to stop. Or more particularly that he's really just trying to stop TM from "getting away."

Daggone it, cowboy!

I think you're all logical and then you say something like this:

It's almost as if GZ does not want the guy to stop.

That makes zero sense and ends up in psychobabble land.

Yeah that might not be read by you the way I intended.

At that point of the fight what do you think was more important in GZ's mind... to make sure the teen was caught and brought to justice or to get away? I don't believe GZ did anything to get away. I think he wanted to "apprehend" I think he wanted someone to help him "apprehend" I don't think he wanted someone to make the kid stop. If he wanted the kid to stop GZ would have tried to get away.

I've got this nagging feeling that TM may have actually been starting to leave and that's when GZ freaked out tried to hold him then shot him. Remember GZ's testimony that he "pinned TM's hand under his arm?" That is consistent with trying to hold onto him so he could not get away.

This is a huge reach...huge reach....imho of course.

 

[pioneerpete]

I understand what you are saying, but unless the Zimmerman can get on the stand and tell us what made TM suspicious, we just won't know, will we? If Z can do that, all doubt is released from my mind. Z was doing what he was supposed to be doing and got caught in a pickle. Acquit.

If he takes the stand what stops him from just reading the real time transcript of the non-emergency call? He said what made him suspicious in that call to the non-emergency number. I've heard that phone call over and over. What will one more time do with Zimmerman on the stand? We can establish that he was walking in the grass near homes, at night, in the rain and at a pace that didn't seem to match that environment. With those factors in a town that has a crime rate that is higher than 96% of the towns in this country I can see him being suspicious.

I'd like to hear a cross on that.

If you think that a cross would be more likely to establish a different version than a professional interrogation that allows the officer to lie to pressure the person being questioned then you aren't really aware of what would be allowed from a cross examination.

 

[wavingrl]

No, a warped perspective, where the victim is a criminal for protecting herself and her family.

here's another link

Alleged intruder shot by Loganville mother out of hospital | www.ajc.com

He said he was there to steal. In another article he said more but I can't locate that one.

There was another case not long after that--the homeowner was charged. He heard a car backfire, IIRC, in his driveway one night and went out and began firing.

I can see the difference between those two cases.

But, but, but, but, he was in fear for his life.

As I have said previously --I fall into the group that should never own a gun.

Anyone that I know that does own a gun would not be inclined to be a Neighborhood Watch captain or if they were they would contact LE and consider that sufficient.

I guess I will just have to wait for a verdict. Going back and forth gets me nowhere.

 

[Ernie S.]

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...

See...sometimes you seem so logical, then you come out with a ridiculous statement like this nonsense.

Do you honestly believe GZ is a dirtbag with no honor running around looking for people to kill? And that he goaded TM to hit him so he could claim self-defense even though his real intention was to find someone, anyone I suppose, to kill? Say you were just trying to be provocative, please.

That is just crazy talk! Completely unfounded, unproven, and unsuggested - even by the prosecution.

My opinion of george is that he is a loose cannon, an accident waiting to happen.

He was on mind altering meds at the time. They should have used that as a defense and then sued the drug company$

Where do you get this shit? Somewhere, there is a psychiatrist dying to write a book about you.

 

[RKMBrown]

Testarosa, these are completely different types of cases.

The case we are talking about is a case where two young men confronted each other and fought in the grass and one of the two young men killed the other because he was loosing the fight.

A fist fight between two young men is not the same as a mother shooting a home invader to defend her children.

It doesn't matter! Same law applies.

If it was me in this situation reversed, would everyone be after me?

The answer is:

NO.

The law is the law.

Yes ma'am. Thus the problem. If the law is the law... then the lawless can use the law to wantonly murder indiscriminately while hiding behind self defense. There needs to be some measure of reason to differentiate between the mother protecting her children from a home invader and a predator killing a victim using a rope a dope tactic.

For example, what if a hunter put a PS4 in his window in view of the street and then waited for some stupid teen to break in and try to steal it, then shoot the kid. We call that hunting under the feeder. It's a standard hunting technique. It's not crazy talk. It's not something I just invented.

 

[Jackson]

P: (prosecutorIf Z thought TM had been suspicious, he had to be watching for several minutes.

Z:Right.

P: The police found the open can of Arizona Tea and Skittles that he just bought. Did you know that?

Z: Yes.

P: Since you had been watching TM, you saw him eating and drinking?

Z: Yes or No...Don't know what the answer would be

P: Just how fast can you walk or run when you are eating even if it is raining?

Does that make "We can establish that he was walking in the grass near homes, at night, in the rain and at a pace that didn't seem to match that environment."

IOW, how fast can you run to your father's girlfriends home when you are eating and drinking?

See what I mean?

But then, he might have made some other suspicious moves that we are not privy about yet.

 

[Sarah G]

See...sometimes you seem so logical, then you come out with a ridiculous statement like this nonsense.

Do you honestly believe GZ is a dirtbag with no honor running around looking for people to kill? And that he goaded TM to hit him so he could claim self-defense even though his real intention was to find someone, anyone I suppose, to kill? Say you were just trying to be provocative, please.

That is just crazy talk! Completely unfounded, unproven, and unsuggested - even by the prosecution.

Yep

Sorry you guys missed my earlier post. My point here is not that GZ is a dirt bag.. My bad. My point raised earlier is that if GZ can do this why not anyone else? For that matter why not TM? As was pointed out earlier the only reason we have GZ on trial and not TM is cause TM did not shoot GZ in self defense. If TM had that gun he was talking about getting, he may have shot GZ in the chest. Then we'd be talking about whether or not TM did it in self defense. Same circumstances different players, same arguments? Or does the argument change when the guy who'd claim self defense is a person we assume is a good guy and the guy he killed is someone we assume is the bad guy. Or does the argument change when the guy who's claiming self defense is a person we assume is a bad guy and the guy he killed is someone we assume is the good guy?

Makes sense and it has been brought up but rejected. Perhaps it makes too much sense?