The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Trajan]

The case is also not about Trayvon Martin's prior brushes with the law or with the school officials.

If (only if) Trayvon had a history of violence tht GZ KNEW about at the time of the confrontation would TM's ALLEGED "past" matter.

He was a kid. He is dead. It is nothing less than a damn tragedy. And given the fact that his minor past has nothing to do with the case, it is kind of churlish and unseemly to keep bringing it up.

The case is about really just one major thing: when GZ shot TM, did GZ reasonably believe in that moment that he (GZ) was in danger in danger of dying or that he was in danger of suffering serious physical injury.

it goes to character and behaviors...if zimmerman can be cast as a 'wanna be cop', well?

In actual fact, GZ might have wanted to be a cop.

Indeed, we also now see he wanted to be a prosecutor.

Can't wait for the prosecutor to piss on him for THAT.

But none of that makes TM's brushes with the law (or close brushes with entities akin to the law) relevant to the case. TM is not on trial, being dead.

Again, it would be relevant if he had some tendency towards violence AND IF GZ knew that trait at the time of their unfortunate contact with each other. Beyond that, it has nothing I can see that has anything to do with the trial.

read my post above....his being dead in this context does not matter, they are determining wether Zimmerman acted in compliance with self-defense/ stand your ground, unfortunately trayvon was shot and he died, if he had just been wounded?

a) we would not be having this conversation b) I would bet a great deal, that in any trial there after, based on this paradigm that past 'characters and behaviors' would have made it in....for both.

 

[Foxfyre]

No one has said gang ties, but it's apparent that he was cultivating a "gangsta" image. Or was the "Creepy white crackah" remark the way good kids refer to a white man?

Again it is all relevant only to the extent of whether Zimmerman's account of the encounter was plausible. The jewelry wasn't reported as stolen but what kid otherwise has 12 pieces of jewelry, including wedding bands and diamond earrings, in his back pack. There was insufficient marijuana in the packet or marijuana pipe to get him on a possession charge, but we all know what is highly probable in that case. Due to what is likely a zero tolerance policy at the schoool, it was enough to get him suspended.

But if Zimmerman's past is justification to convict him in the court of public opinion, then Martin's past should also be fair game.

Just some of Martin's past that the judge has not allowed to be admitted:

Florida Circuit Judge Debra Nelson has declared a number of items off-limits for now to jurors who will decide if Zimmerman, 29, is guilty of second-degree murder in shooting death of Martin, 17.

They include:

•A photo in which Martin shows his gold teeth to the camera while sticking up his middle fingers.
•Martin’s school records, which include a suspension from his Miami high school -- less than a month before his altercation with Zimmerman – for possessing a baggie with marijuana residue.
•Texts and photos from Martin’s cellphone that refer to or show firearms. "U gotta gun?" reads a text from Martin's phone, sent eight days before his death. The defense cited a photo of a hand holding a gun, taken with Martin’s phone, and another picture of a gun on a bed.
•Texts with marijuana references, and photos that show Martin blowing smoke and what appear to be marijuana plants.
•Texts and video that suggest that Martin was involved in organized fights.
Jury's look into Trayvon Martin's past has its limits - U.S. News

And of course on Zimmerman's side

•Zimmerman’s 2005 arrest for “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer” after a confrontation with an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program, according to court documents. (The 'violence' in this case was Zimmerman shoving the officer.)
•A 2005 civil motion filed by Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order, and both were granted. (There is no evidence of any assault or calls to the police or medical evidence of violence).

Ultimately it comes down to whether the jury feels the prosecution failed to make a case that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense.

 

[testarosa]

No one has said gang ties, but it's apparent that he was cultivating a "gangsta" image. Or was the "Creepy white crackah" remark the way good kids refer to a white man?

Well, apparently the dad had a crip tat. Also, he (and Crump) publicly denounced support of the New BP's 10k hit and then they were standing right by him at a rally in photos when they were in town.

I don't know jack about that stuff, so I'm just passing it along with no strings attached. It is irrelevant to this or that.

Unless stuff comes out when Crump takes the stand.

Then we'll have a "real" conversation.

 

[Vox]

Show me how and when they made up the term? And that they were the first to use the term.

I will be waiting.

playing dumb now, when cornered?

there is no such thing as white hispanic race invented by MSM mixing ethnicity and race into RACE.

Show me where they made up the term, like you claimed.
How am I cornered?
I stated they did not make up the term, you stated they did and lied. Back up your claim.
Playing dumb when cornered?

in the NYTimes in the link you've provided

there is no such thing as white hispanic race and NYT used it first.
Even the photo clearly shows Z is everything but white race

of course they made up the term, since there is no such thing as white hispanic - one can be white race hispanic ethnic origin, but not white hispanic race.
They lied twice - upon inventing the term for race by clumping together TWO distinct categories and then attributing it to Z.

p.s. stop playing dumb.you ARE cornered, but have courage to admit your mistake.

 

[Sarah G]

The case is also not about Trayvon Martin's prior brushes with the law or with the school officials.

If (only if) Trayvon had a history of violence tht GZ KNEW about at the time of the confrontation would TM's ALLEGED "past" matter.

He was a kid. He is dead. It is nothing less than a damn tragedy. And given the fact that his minor past has nothing to do with the case, it is kind of churlish and unseemly to keep bringing it up.

The case is about really just one major thing: when GZ shot TM, did GZ reasonably believe in that moment that he (GZ) was in danger in danger of dying or that he was in danger of suffering serious physical injury.

it goes to character and behaviors...if zimmerman can be cast as a 'wanna be cop', well?

In actual fact, GZ might have wanted to be a cop.

Indeed, we also now see he wanted to be a prosecutor.

Can't wait for the prosecutor to piss on him for THAT.

But none of that makes TM's brushes with the law (or close brushes with entities akin to the law) relevant to the case. TM is not on trial, being dead.

Again, it would be relevant if he had some tendency towards violence AND IF GZ knew that trait at the time of their unfortunate contact with each other. Beyond that, it has nothing I can see that has anything to do with the trial.

GZ was the one who had a tendency toward violence. He beat up his wife and had an altercation with a cop, molested his cousin when he was little. He beat all of the charges, hopefully he doesn't get away with this. How's that for past history?

I'm sure you'll have some witty retort.

 

[Amelia]

You claimed they made up the term, they did not.
And when filling out documents like census one lists themselves as either non white Hispanic/ Latino or white Hispanic/Latino. With a white father which box do you think he checks?

They did. It is NOT used in any official documents - like census forms

No they didn't, and already proved they didn't.
And yes it is.

However long the term has been around, Zimmerman is not "white". He has African and indigenous American ancestry. He is about as "white" as Obama.

 

[Vox]

Ruben Navarette is liberal himself, yet he honestly admits, that it was mainstream media, who invented the term:


Now, courtesy of the mainstream media, there is a new phrase to add to our national lexicon: "white Hispanic."

The term -- white Hispanic -- emerged from the controversy over the fatal February 26 shooting of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida. Because Martin was black, and because it was initially assumed that Zimmerman was white, critics immediately charged that the shooting was racially motivated.

Trayvon Martin killing raises loaded racial terms - CNN.com

Trayvon Martin killing raises loaded racial terms
By Ruben Navarrette Jr., CNN Contributor
updated 10:23 AM EDT, Thu March 29, 2012

 

[Sarah G]

Sarah, dear lass: you are not even remotely objective.

If you were, even you would have to see and admit how badly the prosecution fucked the State's alleged "case."

I've criticized the prosecution too. You're just so hard lined. Always right, that's you.

 

[Luissa]

You didn't read my post where I posted the link did you? I stated the New York Times used it first. And I have problems with reading? Lol
You two stated MSM made up the term. Wouldn't the Times using the term before them prove they did not make up the term?

I am not the one lying here. Lol

 

[25Caliber]

No one has said gang ties, but it's apparent that he was cultivating a "gangsta" image. Or was the "Creepy white crackah" remark the way good kids refer to a white man?

The creepy white cracka remark was racist. After all it was the intent of some (the media) to try and pin the "coon" remark on GZ or to find somewhere in his past where he used the "N" word to show that he was a racist with ulterior motives.

So if the "cracka" remark is the only thing proven, then it appears to me that in this moment, the one having racist thoughts was Trayvon. I do believe it is relevant because it goes to mindset at the very moment before the incident.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

it goes to character and behaviors...if zimmerman can be cast as a 'wanna be cop', well?

In actual fact, GZ might have wanted to be a cop.

Indeed, we also now see he wanted to be a prosecutor.

Can't wait for the prosecutor to piss on him for THAT.

But none of that makes TM's brushes with the law (or close brushes with entities akin to the law) relevant to the case. TM is not on trial, being dead.

Again, it would be relevant if he had some tendency towards violence AND IF GZ knew that trait at the time of their unfortunate contact with each other. Beyond that, it has nothing I can see that has anything to do with the trial.

GZ was the one who had a tendency toward violence. He beat up his wife and had an altercation with a cop, molested his cousin when he was little. He beat all of the charges, hopefully he doesn't get away with this. How's that for past history?

I'm sure you'll have some witty retort.

He beat up his wife? I'm sure you can support that claim.

And there WAS a CLAIM that when he was little he fiddled around with a young cousin, but I doubt you will support YOUR claim that it actually DID happen.

People "beat" charges when they aren't true. They certainly aren't proved which makes your assertions utterly baseless.

So, as far as past "histories" go, your empty claims are non starters.

When and if you can present an actual fact, that will be a refreshing first time for you in this discussion.

That's not a witticism. It's a sad truth.

 

[depotoo]

someone seems confused

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Sarah, dear lass: you are not even remotely objective.

If you were, even you would have to see and admit how badly the prosecution fucked the State's alleged "case."

I've criticized the prosecution too. You're just so hard lined. Always right, that's you.

Good for you. But you ALSO make flatly absurd statements of alleged "fact" which are generally devoid of "fact."

Criticisizing the prosecution from time to time is also NOT an admission that they did a TERRIBLE job of presenting the laughable "case." Be objective, Sarah.

The prosecution's lawyers were awful.

It's ok to admit it.

 

[Luissa]

They did. It is NOT used in any official documents - like census forms

No they didn't, and already proved they didn't.
And yes it is.

However long the term has been around, Zimmerman is not "white". He has African and indigenous American ancestry. He is about as "white" as Obama.

Yep, half white, more than he does African.
One does not know what race he listed as his race. I am guessing he marked white or other.

 

[Sarah G]

In actual fact, GZ might have wanted to be a cop.

Indeed, we also now see he wanted to be a prosecutor.

Can't wait for the prosecutor to piss on him for THAT.

But none of that makes TM's brushes with the law (or close brushes with entities akin to the law) relevant to the case. TM is not on trial, being dead.

Again, it would be relevant if he had some tendency towards violence AND IF GZ knew that trait at the time of their unfortunate contact with each other. Beyond that, it has nothing I can see that has anything to do with the trial.

GZ was the one who had a tendency toward violence. He beat up his wife and had an altercation with a cop, molested his cousin when he was little. He beat all of the charges, hopefully he doesn't get away with this. How's that for past history?

I'm sure you'll have some witty retort.

He beat up his wife? I'm sure you can support that claim.

And there WAS a CLAIM that when he was little he fiddled around with a young cousin, but I doubt you will support YOUR claim that it actually DID happen.

People "beat" charges when they aren't true. They certainly aren't proved which makes your assertions utterly baseless.

So, as far as past "histories" go, your empty claims are non starters.

When and if you can present an actual fact, that will be a refreshing first time for you in this discussion.

That's not a witticism. It's a sad truth.

I wonder if that cousin was Jorge's daughter.

 

[Vox]

You didn't read my post where I posted the link did you? I stated the New York Times used it first. And I have problems with reading? Lol
You two stated MSM made up the term. Wouldn't the Times using the term before them prove they did not make up the term?

I am not the one lying here. Lol

yes you are lying. All the time.

1.you stated that MSM did not invent the term - and that is a LIE - they did - and youi LIED
2.you stated there is such term on US government forms - and there is NOT - it's a LIE - you lied.

those are at least TWO lies which you've been cornered on.
but you still keep lying

 

[IlarMeilyr]

GZ was the one who had a tendency toward violence. He beat up his wife and had an altercation with a cop, molested his cousin when he was little. He beat all of the charges, hopefully he doesn't get away with this. How's that for past history?

I'm sure you'll have some witty retort.

He beat up his wife? I'm sure you can support that claim.

And there WAS a CLAIM that when he was little he fiddled around with a young cousin, but I doubt you will support YOUR claim that it actually DID happen.

People "beat" charges when they aren't true. They certainly aren't proved which makes your assertions utterly baseless.

So, as far as past "histories" go, your empty claims are non starters.

When and if you can present an actual fact, that will be a refreshing first time for you in this discussion.

That's not a witticism. It's a sad truth.

I wonder if that cousin was Jorge's daughter.

I wonder if there ever was any truth in the claim.

Either way, it's entirely irrelevant.

I see why you are so bent on clinging to it.

 

[Amelia]

The MSM ran with Zimmerman being white and Martin being the cherub shown in the outdated picture taken many years before he died.

They gave Zimmerman bad edits and demonized him.


Having done that, they passed a line they can't return from. Fortunately for them, plenty of liberals are more than willing to say in Dan-Rather-esque fashion that even though the media fabrications weren't true, they were still truth.

 

[Vox]

someone seems confused

someone is cornered on her lies but does not have the courage to admit it.



MSM in Ruben Navarette's own words invented the term - but Luissa will still deny the fact SHE lied they did not.

Then she lied about the term being on the official government documents.

 

[Luissa]

You didn't read my post where I posted the link did you? I stated the New York Times used it first. And I have problems with reading? Lol
You two stated MSM made up the term. Wouldn't the Times using the term before them prove they did not make up the term?

I am not the one lying here. Lol

yes you are lying. All the time.

1.you stated that MSM did not invent the term - and that is a LIE - they did - and youi LIED
2.you stated there is such term on US government forms - and there is NOT - it's a LIE - you lied.

those are at least TWO lies which you've been cornered on.
but you still keep lying

If the Times used the term before MSM how did they make up the term?
You also never proved they made up the term.
And if you check white as race and hispanic as ethnicity on the census. What would that make you?