The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[pioneerpete]

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.

To my knowledge neither the can of tea or skittles had been opened when they were found on the body.

 

[25Caliber]

What part of my statement about unwritten rules confused you?

I am not the one who is confused.

Let me get this straight. I make a statement about unwritten rules of honor between men. You call that "the dumbest statement" you "have ever read on a forum." Because, evidently you don't want to talk about honor. Then you call me "DUMBrown" again outside the flame zone. Then you "NEGG" me again for the "third time" on this one thread... I get the point that you have an emotional attachment to the killer cause he did away with one of the thugs you don't think have a right to live.. But really, you should come up with a better way to express yourself than calling people names and flaming out neggs. Tsk tsk tsk....

Let it go, RKM...be the bigger person...ignore it...who cares...waaa waaa...youre being a troll....you changed your avie to be more believable...ahole...you whiny bitch...F U...nobody wants to hear it....negged...mexican hater!....bully!! etc etc etc.

Wonder why I call you out and not the one who initiated it with a personal attack to an otherwise non personal opinion? Well its simple....youre new around here with little rep power....do you think Im crazy? Im not sticking up for the little fella being trolled.

You have a different opinion, rkm....shame on you! Damn you!!

How dare you defend yourself...At least you werent called a faggot.

 

[Sarah G]

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.

The jury knows he got an A and he lied when he said he knew nothing about stand your ground. He's pathological.

 

[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?

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.

Thanks.. I'm trying to put my feet in Trayvon's shoes for argument sake.

Let's say TM is armed. GZ follows him for 10min. GZ gets out of his car and follows TM on foot. TM asks GZ why GZ is following him. GZ reaches for his pocket. TM now fearing for his life from this guy who was following him in the dark pulls his gun and kills GZ. The defense will show that GZ did have a loaded gun. The defense will show that TM was indeed afraid for his life, that this guy who had followed him without announcing who he was or why he was following TM did in fact reach for his gun, and did in fact cause the defendant to have no choice but to fire in self defense.

 

[Meister]

You know what's weird about all of this?
If Trayvon was a white guy, we wouldn't be having any kind of discussion about it on this board.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am not the one who is confused.

Let me get this straight. I make a statement about unwritten rules of honor between men. You call that "the dumbest statement" you "have ever read on a forum." Because, evidently you don't want to talk about honor. Then you call me "DUMBrown" again outside the flame zone. Then you "NEGG" me again for the "third time" on this one thread... I get the point that you have an emotional attachment to the killer cause he did away with one of the thugs you don't think have a right to live.. But really, you should come up with a better way to express yourself than calling people names and flaming out neggs. Tsk tsk tsk....

Let it go, RKM...be the bigger person...ignore it...who cares...waaa waaa...youre being a troll....you changed your avie to be more believable...ahole...you whiny bitch...F U...nobody wants to hear it....negged...mexican hater!....bully!! etc etc etc.

Wonder why I call you out and not the one who initiated it with a personal attack to an otherwise non personal opinion? Well its simple....youre new around here with little rep power....do you think Im crazy? Im not sticking up for the little fella being trolled.

You have a different opinion, rkm....shame on you! Damn you!!

How dare you defend yourself...At least you werent called a faggot.

Good to see you've found the humor in it

 

[pioneerpete]

You know what's weird about all of this?
If Trayvon was a white guy, we wouldn't be having any kind of discussion about it on this board.

Same could be said if GZ was black or darker skinned Hispanic

 

[CrazedScotsman]

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.

Thanks.. I'm trying to put my feet in Trayvon's shoes for argument sake.

Let's say TM is armed. GZ follows him for 10min. GZ gets out of his car and follows TM on foot. TM asks GZ why GZ is following him. GZ reaches for his pocket. TM now fearing for his life from this guy who was following him in the dark pulls his gun and kills GZ. The defense will show that GZ did have a loaded gun. The defense will show that TM was indeed afraid for his life, that this guy who had followed him without announcing who he was or why he was following TM did in fact reach for his gun, and did in fact cause the defendant to have no choice but to fire in self defense.

I would buy that and sounds reasonable to me.

 

[SantaFeWay]

Moving on...

Does anyone know what the defense has on Crump?

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Ernie, I realize you all think you're lawyers but Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense. If that weren't the case, he could simply say that, not show up in court and let the prosecution hammer away at proving their case.

All he would have to do is call in at the end and find out what the verdict is. Please stop trying so hard, everyone here has been watching the case and we do know what is going on.

As for Sunshine explaining to eveyone the intricacies of the law...

I never claimed to possess a vast knowledge of the law, but the basics of our legal system should be covered in 4th grade civics. I do research statutes and study how they apply in specific cases.
What you said, actually is basically true. If the defense feels that the prosecution has not proven it's case, they could skip court and go out for a burger, BUT, we are talking about the next 40 years of a man's life. The defense will put on a case and if you think what you've heard so far was bad for the State, just wait until the defense is done.

Again, Sarah! get your emotions in check. Forget that the dead kid was black and he was shot by a white dude. Put aside your hatred of guns and the concept of self defense. Turn on your brain and look at the case objectively.

 

[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.

To my knowledge neither the can of tea or skittles had been opened when they were found on the body.

I just looked and all I could find is that he was holding the can and the skittles! That does make a difference!

 

[MeBelle]

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?


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

Hey Jackson!
Here's a thread that has documents/evidence posted in it.

I think it might help fill in a lot of your questions.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/299982-zimmerman-trial-docs-evidence.html

 

[ScienceRocks]

You know what's weird about all of this?
If Trayvon was a white guy, we wouldn't be having any kind of discussion about it on this board.

Same goes if ZIMMERMAN was black. The black community doesn't give two shits about the killing of their children...Hell, they don't say anything when blacks blow away other blacks on a daily occurrence throughout cities like Chicago, Detroit, New York or Atlanta.

This is all about black racism against whites. Zimmerman is a damn Hispanic to top the cake.

 

[testarosa]

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.

There is evidence of one of them being on something. Not evidence of another of them being on something.

The ME changed his opinion on the "something" today and the judge carefully ruled on the first instance of that something being admitted. When the ME changed his opinion on it and she ruled on the fly without careful consideration, that may lead to another trial, if need be.

Some very major mistakes were made today in a very questionable line of "mistakes".

Today took the cake of mistakes.

Anyhow. I have a date with Dexter. Blood spatter and psycho expertise is important in these matters.

 

[Snookie]

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.

In Z's statement he said TM saw his gun aqnd told him You are going to die expletive.

That's absurd. Z has the gun and the unarmed man told him he , Z, was going to die?

That's not very logical. I think it was the other way around. I think Z told TM that he, TM, was going to die and that's when TM started screaming for help.

 

[testarosa]

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.

There was no hiding here, sir, this was an incident that got out of control.

 

[MeBelle]

To my knowledge neither the can of tea or skittles had been opened when they were found on the body.

I just looked and all I could find is that he was holding the can and the skittles! That does make a difference!

pioneerpete is correct, the skittles and tea were in his pockets.

Read what the court allowed into evidence.

 

[pioneerpete]

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.

To my knowledge neither the can of tea or skittles had been opened when they were found on the body.

I just looked and all I could find is that he was holding the can and the skittles! That does make a difference!

No it doesn't because who can claim that GZ would have seen them. Again it was dark and raining. If it's not open he can still run just as fast as if he wasn't holding them. He did run at one point. That point is established on both sides of the argument. My question is could a HS athlete outrun a clinically obese man 12 years older than he was (with a head start of at least a football field)?

I'm not trying to sound shitty when I say this, but I can't believe that you would be okay with sending a man to jail for the rest of his life based on whether or not he was eating skittles and drinking tea. Tea was not open for sure.

 

[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?

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

Yeah sort of odd that it's ok to shoot someone in self defense but you can't hit them in self defense.

 

[Snookie]

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.

Ernie, I realize you all think you're lawyers but Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense. If that weren't the case, he could simply say that, not show up in court and let the prosecution hammer away at proving their case.

All he would have to do is call in at the end and find out what the verdict is. Please stop trying so hard, everyone here has been watching the case and we do know what is going on.

As for Sunshine explaining to eveyone the intricacies of the law...

I never claimed to possess a vast knowledge of the law, but the basics of our legal system should be covered in 4th grade civics. I do research statutes and study how they apply in specific cases.
What you said, actually is basically true. If the defense feels that the prosecution has not proven it's case, they could skip court and go out for a burger, BUT, we are talking about the next 40 years of a man's life. The defense will put on a case and if you think what you've heard so far was bad for the State, just wait until the defense is done.

Again, Sarah! get your emotions in check. Forget that the dead kid was black and he was shot by a white dude. Put aside your hatred of guns and the concept of self defense. Turn on your brain and look at the case objectively.

Can you make a post without insulting your opponents. I doubt it.