The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[RKMBrown]

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.

Agreed.

 

[SantaFeWay]

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.

In that case, I would definitely give credence to TM's claim (of self-defense). That isn't what happened here because I believe TM had made himself safe from whatever threat he may have perceived from GZ and left that safety and went back to confront him. Then he punched him, for whatever reason, and the facts are what they are.

But YES, I think it may have been reasonable for TM to have felt great fear from GZ and, if he had killed him, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and hear the evidence with an open mind. And finding a loaded gun in a dead GZ's pocket would have held great weight for me and had me lean towards believing TM's claim of self-defense.

Again, that is not what happened here. But it was an interesting twist to think about.

 

[Snookie]

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.

Dead men tell no tales.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

The law says "reasonable fear". Get it?

 

[asaratis]

...is such a presumptive ass!

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Yup he got an "A" in self defense. Trayvon got an "F" in assault.

 

[Snookie]

Since laws are made in the so called, public interest, would not it be a good idea to think about the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law?

 

[Snookie]

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.

The law says "reasonable fear". Get it?

It does? Are you sure? Link?

 

[pioneerpete]

...is such a presumptive ass!

Nancy Grace lost all credibility when she demanded DNA tests from Duke Lacrosse players, then said the results did mean anything once she saw they didn't support the crime. Then when the charges were dropped she decided to take the night off. Nancy Grace is almost as assured of every defendant's guilt, as MarcATL is assured of GZ's guilt. Same credibility level.

 

[Snookie]

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.

Yup he got an "A" in self defense. Trayvon got an "F" in assault.

tHE WORLD, ACCORDING TO eRNIE.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

In that case, I would definitely give credence to TM's claim (of self-defense). That isn't what happened here because I believe TM had made himself safe from whatever threat he may have perceived from GZ and left that safety and went back to confront him. Then he punched him, for whatever reason, and the facts are what they are.

But YES, I think it may have been reasonable for TM to have felt great fear from GZ and, if he had killed him, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and hear the evidence with an open mind. And finding a loaded gun in a dead GZ's pocket would have held great weight for me and had me lean towards believing TM's claim of self-defense.

Again, that is not what happened here. But it was an interesting twist to think about.

Yes and similarly GZ left the safety of his truck and went to confront TM in spite of knowing the police were on the way. Had TM pulled GZ out of his truck or followed GZ to GZ's home that would have great weight for me. In a classic sense they met at the T, TM likely thought it was for a fist fight instigated by GZ. GZ likely thought TM wanted to kill him. Both were just being stupid. I've been there. The only reason I'm alive to pose the twist is the mere luck that the folks I fought as a stupid young man were not armed with a gun during the fight.

That said, one time this guy with a knife... nah that's another story

 

[MeBelle]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c]Raw Video: George Zimmerman reenacts incident for Sanford Police - YouTube[/ame]

 

[pioneerpete]

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.

Jackson, does this alleviate your concerns?

 

[SantaFeWay]

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

The law says "reasonable fear". Get it?

It does? Are you sure? Link?

Thanks for the LOL!

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

speaking of the ME how did that handful of notes

turning into new discovery turn out

 

[Snookie]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c]Raw Video: George Zimmerman reenacts incident for Sanford Police - YouTube[/ame]

He said that in one of his statements. Maybe not on this tape if that's what you are implying. Are you saying that because he did not say it on this tape that he did not say it?

 

[SantaFeWay]

Then we mostly agree, RKM. Glad you got the better of the knifer!

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Yes.

I do quite often. Can you make a post without sounding like an idiot?

 

[25Caliber]

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

I actually find it sad...especially watching those who put up with it and enable it.

If I see someone being bullied, lied about, cursed at, trolled...I say something...I do it here and i do it in "real life" and I always will.

 

[Snookie]

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.

Yes.

I do quite often. Can you make a post without sounding like an idiot?

Ernie, internet tough guy who love to antagonize people.

Thinks he's a bad ass biker.
Truth is, he's an alcoholic lard ass who rides a moped, 50cc.