The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[The Rabbi]

Good...then quit following me around with all of your speculative translations...nobody else will talk to you so you talk to yourself. It makes you look beaten and a little

Virtually every poster here except the psychotic Swallow agrees with me. You make me laugh.

You made my point...thanks. Your problem comes out when someone disagrees with you. Social misfit?

My problem comes when people post stupid shit. You make that goal presently. Quit posting stupid shit and I wont call you on it all the time.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are very right. Profiling is not bad. But before you go after someone, you have to have a reason more than race, and I question GZ's suspicions. "He's up to something" doesn't define what made TM suspicious.

Was he looking in windows, was he using a flashlight looking in windows...just what was he doing that made him suspicious looking?

Zimmerman saw something. Something was out of place. Not just a black guy walking. There was more than that.
I come in contact with a lot of beat cops. I ask them about this kind of stuff and they just say, I've seen this kind of thing hundreds of times in my career. I know what it should look like but this time it didnt look like that so I knew something was wrong.
It is hard to verbalize but there.
It is also irrelevant to the case.

The cops have to verbalize what didn't look right. There's something, walking on the wrong side of street, with the wrong people, looking back, SOMETHING....and to teach others, they have to verbalize it. In court, they have to verbalize it.

And it could be very relevant to this case and others.

Doctors, teachers, psychologists, parents pick up clues from children and others to determine something is wrong. Nervousness, tapping of fingers, lashing out at others, increased tiredness, crying spells...what ever the cues the authority figure has to identify it and that means they have to verbalize it.

Not necessarily. Zimmerman doesnt have to verbalize it since he is not on trial for stalking.

 

[25Caliber]

Virtually every poster here except the psychotic Swallow agrees with me. You make me laugh.

You made my point...thanks. Your problem comes out when someone disagrees with you. Social misfit?

My problem comes when people post stupid shit. You make that goal presently. Quit posting stupid shit and I wont call you on it all the time.

Furthered making my point...get off the short yellow bus...check your anger at the door...do some research and catch up....open your mind.

Then come back and try it again...right now you look like this:

 

[Sallow]

Virtually every poster here except the psychotic Swallow agrees with me. You make me laugh.

Rabbi, it's sorta psychotic to ask a fella that doesn't like you much to swallow his jiz dude.

Even more psychotic to call yourself "Rabbi" when you aren't Jewish.

But we all know your a homo.

As I said, the psychotic Swallow.

As I said, non-Jewish fag, Rabbi.

 

[Jackson]

You DO have the right to shoot another person when that other person is beating you and pounding your head into the pavement if, under those circumstances, you reasonably feel that your life is in peril or your are facing the risk of serious physical injury because of the beat down.

It doesn't matter if the other guy is armed or not. Oh, and that kind of a beat down IS breaking the law.

Quite often, the one who resorts to self defense IS the only surviving witness.

The only problem with that..is that you have to establish that it was the type of beating that warranted the action.

You make thing a few boo boos are life threatening. I don't.

And given that it was Zimmerman that initiated the incident, I think that "self defense" here should require, at the very least, a reasonable fear that death was imminent.

GZ and his defense team DID establish that he got the kind of beating that warrants raising the claim of justification. NOW it is up to the STATE to DISPROVE it.

It is not the degree of injury suffered that justifies the action.

It is the kind of injury one reasonably feels, under the circumstances, that he is confronted with.

And no. I don't think a few boo boos are life threatening. But I DO think that if you have a guy on top of you pounding your noggin onto the pavement after you have had your nose broken by that guy, you MIGHT very well think that it is going to END badly for you. REAL badly. You might think you are about to have your skull busted or that you are about to die. (I also don't think a broken nose is anywhere near akin to a mere boo boo.)

YOU seem to think that such a thought process is unreasonable unless the injuries are already severe. I think you are simply and totally wrong on that point.

Who actually saw the "head bashing?" Anyone? We know the head hit the pavement because there is some blood. We also know Z was hit in the nose which would force the head back onto the cement which would result in one of those lumps and lacerations. Maybe hit twice in the nose and two lacerations and that's it. No DNA under his nails.

Then Z could have got his gun and shot M.

Would Z fear for his life after being hit in the nose? Maybe. Never experienced it. M was on top and didn't know what was next. Could Z could have announced, "Get up..I have a gun."
Maybe. M would be stupid to fight then, all Z would have to do is pull the trigger. Then he could say, M was warned.

 

[Sallow]

You DO have the right to shoot another person when that other person is beating you and pounding your head into the pavement if, under those circumstances, you reasonably feel that your life is in peril or your are facing the risk of serious physical injury because of the beat down.

It doesn't matter if the other guy is armed or not. Oh, and that kind of a beat down IS breaking the law.

Quite often, the one who resorts to self defense IS the only surviving witness.

The only problem with that..is that you have to establish that it was the type of beating that warranted the action.

You make thing a few boo boos are life threatening. I don't.

And given that it was Zimmerman that initiated the incident, I think that "self defense" here should require, at the very least, a reasonable fear that death was imminent.

Yup, Zimmerman had no business asking a black man what he was doing wandering out in some strange neighborhood.

What he really had no business doing, was killing the minor son, of his neighbor.

That's what he and no business doing.

 

[Sallow]

You DO have the right to shoot another person when that other person is beating you and pounding your head into the pavement if, under those circumstances, you reasonably feel that your life is in peril or your are facing the risk of serious physical injury because of the beat down.

It doesn't matter if the other guy is armed or not. Oh, and that kind of a beat down IS breaking the law.

Quite often, the one who resorts to self defense IS the only surviving witness.

The only problem with that..is that you have to establish that it was the type of beating that warranted the action.

You make thing a few boo boos are life threatening. I don't.

And given that it was Zimmerman that initiated the incident, I think that "self defense" here should require, at the very least, a reasonable fear that death was imminent.

The law does not require you to wait until someone actually kills you until you defend yourself.

The law doesn't allow you to shoot kids you start fights with either over boo boos.

 

[Jackson]

Zimmerman saw something. Something was out of place. Not just a black guy walking. There was more than that.
I come in contact with a lot of beat cops. I ask them about this kind of stuff and they just say, I've seen this kind of thing hundreds of times in my career. I know what it should look like but this time it didnt look like that so I knew something was wrong.
It is hard to verbalize but there.
It is also irrelevant to the case.

The cops have to verbalize what didn't look right. There's something, walking on the wrong side of street, with the wrong people, looking back, SOMETHING....and to teach others, they have to verbalize it. In court, they have to verbalize it.

And it could be very relevant to this case and others.

Doctors, teachers, psychologists, parents pick up clues from children and others to determine something is wrong. Nervousness, tapping of fingers, lashing out at others, increased tiredness, crying spells...what ever the cues the authority figure has to identify it and that means they have to verbalize it.

Not necessarily. Zimmerman doesnt have to verbalize it since he is not on trial for stalking.

He doesn't have to verbalize it because he's not going to take the stand.

 

[Sallow]

I guess the eye-witness must have seen another Trayvan Martin beating the crap out of a completely different George Zimmerman.

BTW, how does one get DNA under one's fingernails other than scratching someone, not bashing someone's head in?

Which eye witness what that?

And how exact, does one grab a hairless scalp and bash it into the pavement without transference of DNA. Especially given all that rain.

You can palm a basketball without digging your nails into it, can't you?

The first person to call 911 Jonathan Good. He saw Trayvan on top of Zimmerman

Here's what he didn't see.

Martin slamming Zimmerman's head into the concrete.

 

[Sallow]

Judge Rules Trayvon Martin’s Drug Use and History of Violence Not Currently Admissible in Court

May 28 2013

George Zimmerman’s defense team last week publicly released the contents of Trayvon Martin’s cell phone. On the phone they found text messages and images relating to street fighting, drug use, illegal gun ownership and problems at school/home.

In a recent ruling the judge for the case, Debra Nelson, said that evidence will not be initially admissible. Zimmerman’s defense team hopes to introduce the evidence to show that Martin had a predisposition to engage in fighting and violent behavior and possibly show him as the aggressor.

According to CBS News,

Nelson ruled Tuesday that George Zimmerman’s defense may not bring up Trayvon Martin’s past marijuana use, school suspensions or fighting at trial without another ruling granting them permission

This likely means that Nelson would only allow information about Martin’s past if the prosecution brings up Zimmerman’s past first.

Also recently released were higher resolution, color photos of George Zimmerman’s injuries, showing more physical damage than initial black and white photos initially released.​

Judge Rules Trayvon Martin?s Drug Use and History of Violence Not Currently Admissible in Court

--------------------------------

Text messages about Martin's smoking marijuana and trouble at school were released by Zimmerman's defense attorneys last week. The photos released by the defense team also show Martin blowing smoke and making an obscene gesture toward the camera.

Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, told the judge that Martin's marijuana use and past fighting was central to the argument that Zimmerman used self-defense when he confronted Martin last year at a gated community in Sanford, Fla. Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder. He has pleaded not guilty.

"We have a lot of evidence that marijuana use had something to do with the event," O'Mara said. "It could have affected his behavior."

Also on Tuesday, Nelson ruled that a toxicology test showing that Martin had marijuana in his system at the time of his death could not be discussed during opening statements.

The judge ruled against a defense request that the pool of jury candidates be sequestered during jury selection. Nelson denied a prosecution request for a gag order that would prohibit attorneys from talking about the case.​

Trayvon Martin Update: Judge denies delay of George Zimmerman's June 10 murder trial - Crimesider - CBS News


So Trayvan's history of violence and drug use isn't admissible. Strange that is the thing that led to this incident in the first place. The judge is desperately trying to make a conviction easy yet the prosecution still is having problems proving their case.

Zimmerman's real live criminal record isn't admissible either. Neither is the fact he takes Temazepam which really does make one aggressive.

 

[westwall]

That's almost the shootin' match.


There's little evidence now that Martin "grabbed" Zimmerman head and slammed it into the concrete.

Hence the dispelling of one of the major Zimmerman's lies.

That's funny. A stupid assertion for sure, but also funny. Amazingly enough one doesn't need to scratch someone to slam their head into the sidewalk. Or to pound them with their fist etc.

Frankly had the DA gone with criminally negligent homicide I think they would have won their case hands down. But charging murder 2 and then with their presentation of the case being such a joke....I think they are in serious trouble.

But, as always, the jury will decide and they can be fickle things.

 

[asaratis]

The cops have to verbalize what didn't look right. There's something, walking on the wrong side of street, with the wrong people, looking back, SOMETHING....and to teach others, they have to verbalize it. In court, they have to verbalize it.

And it could be very relevant to this case and others.

Doctors, teachers, psychologists, parents pick up clues from children and others to determine something is wrong. Nervousness, tapping of fingers, lashing out at others, increased tiredness, crying spells...what ever the cues the authority figure has to identify it and that means they have to verbalize it.

Not necessarily. Zimmerman doesnt have to verbalize it since he is not on trial for stalking.

He doesn't have to verbalize it because he's not going to take the stand.

I think he did verbalize it in one of the tapes...said that TM was walking between the houses. If for any reason, he should take the stand just to show that he is not afraid of the prosecutors.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only problem with that..is that you have to establish that it was the type of beating that warranted the action.

You make thing a few boo boos are life threatening. I don't.

And given that it was Zimmerman that initiated the incident, I think that "self defense" here should require, at the very least, a reasonable fear that death was imminent.

The law does not require you to wait until someone actually kills you until you defend yourself.

The law doesn't allow you to shoot kids you start fights with either over boo boos.

Now all you have to do is prove that Zimmerman did that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Judge Rules Trayvon Martin’s Drug Use and History of Violence Not Currently Admissible in Court

May 28 2013

George Zimmerman’s defense team last week publicly released the contents of Trayvon Martin’s cell phone. On the phone they found text messages and images relating to street fighting, drug use, illegal gun ownership and problems at school/home.

In a recent ruling the judge for the case, Debra Nelson, said that evidence will not be initially admissible. Zimmerman’s defense team hopes to introduce the evidence to show that Martin had a predisposition to engage in fighting and violent behavior and possibly show him as the aggressor.

According to CBS News,

Nelson ruled Tuesday that George Zimmerman’s defense may not bring up Trayvon Martin’s past marijuana use, school suspensions or fighting at trial without another ruling granting them permission

This likely means that Nelson would only allow information about Martin’s past if the prosecution brings up Zimmerman’s past first.

Also recently released were higher resolution, color photos of George Zimmerman’s injuries, showing more physical damage than initial black and white photos initially released.​

Judge Rules Trayvon Martin?s Drug Use and History of Violence Not Currently Admissible in Court

--------------------------------

Text messages about Martin's smoking marijuana and trouble at school were released by Zimmerman's defense attorneys last week. The photos released by the defense team also show Martin blowing smoke and making an obscene gesture toward the camera.

Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, told the judge that Martin's marijuana use and past fighting was central to the argument that Zimmerman used self-defense when he confronted Martin last year at a gated community in Sanford, Fla. Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder. He has pleaded not guilty.

"We have a lot of evidence that marijuana use had something to do with the event," O'Mara said. "It could have affected his behavior."

Also on Tuesday, Nelson ruled that a toxicology test showing that Martin had marijuana in his system at the time of his death could not be discussed during opening statements.

The judge ruled against a defense request that the pool of jury candidates be sequestered during jury selection. Nelson denied a prosecution request for a gag order that would prohibit attorneys from talking about the case.​

Trayvon Martin Update: Judge denies delay of George Zimmerman's June 10 murder trial - Crimesider - CBS News


So Trayvan's history of violence and drug use isn't admissible. Strange that is the thing that led to this incident in the first place. The judge is desperately trying to make a conviction easy yet the prosecution still is having problems proving their case.

Zimmerman's real live criminal record isn't admissible either. Neither is the fact he takes Temazepam which really does make one aggressive.

Actually, Zimmerman's record is admissible.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Not necessarily. Zimmerman doesnt have to verbalize it since he is not on trial for stalking.

He doesn't have to verbalize it because he's not going to take the stand.

I think he did verbalize it in one of the tapes...said that TM was walking between the houses. If for any reason, he should take the stand just to show that he is not afraid of the prosecutors.

there is no reason for zimmerman to take the stand

the state did not prove its case

 

[JQPublic1]

llol...

it will suck to be you when he is acquitted.

No, it won't... I have come to expect the worst and most unjust of outcomes when it comes to justice for Black people in this country. I just hope the prosecutors reach down and dig into Zimmerman's mind. did he have his gun drawn as would be expected when chasing a dangerous suspect through darkened areas? Why hasn't that question been brought up?

yes, it will suck to be you.

In that case, if GZ is acquitted it will suck to be any unarmed person who ventures into the night. It won't suck to be me because I am armed!

BTW, you did not answer my question... Why would a coward like GZ chase a "dangerous suspect" without having his gun out and ready when and if he caught up to him? Ignoring that question won't make it go away!

 

[ABikerSailor]

That's almost the shootin' match.


There's little evidence now that Martin "grabbed" Zimmerman head and slammed it into the concrete.

Hence the dispelling of one of the major Zimmerman's lies.

That's funny. A stupid assertion for sure, but also funny. Amazingly enough one doesn't need to scratch someone to slam their head into the sidewalk. Or to pound them with their fist etc.

Frankly had the DA gone with criminally negligent homicide I think they would have won their case hands down. But charging murder 2 and then with their presentation of the case being such a joke....I think they are in serious trouble.

But, as always, the jury will decide and they can be fickle things.

Actually, they kinda do............................

Especially if the person they are slamming has a broken nose and is spewing blood all over the place (as GZ claimed).

Ever had a broken nose? 95 percent of the time, you spew like a geyser.

The other 5 percent of the time, at least you have a runner (which is a slight nosebleed).

I've never had a broken nose (and I've had at least 3) without some blood coming through.

Why was there none of GZ's DNA on Trayvon?

 

[JQPublic1]

Which part of Zimmerman's BS is it you think I cannot see through? Why do you think it takes a clairvoyant to see that you are full of shit?

His whole story reeks of bovine excrement. Technically, Bullshit is opaque so you can't see through it at all so stop lying by saying YOU have some special power to do so!
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have proven that time and time again!

You must be clairvoyant because you see apparitions of BS everywhere that no one can see but you!

 

[JQPublic1]

grab your wrist.

The pads of your fingers make contact.... The fingernails dont have to make contact or pick up cells when "grabbing". Zimmermans head and face did not show signs of fingernails scratching him.

Did you see the alleged pictures of GZ's injuries? Surely, if Martin was banging GZ's head against the ground there would have been blood on Martin's hands. Perhaps there was none of GZ's blood under the fingernails or anywhere else on Martin because he never grabbed GZ's head at all!

Why would blood from the back of Zimmerman's head be on Martin's hands?

GZ was not only bleeding from lacerations on the back of his head, his nose was broken and bleeding too. If you had to ask that question, you are more obtuse than I originally thought!

 

[MeBelle]

Why was there none of GZ's DNA on Trayvon?

They also said Zimmerman's DNA was not found under Trayvon's fingernails but it was found on a shirt Trayvon wore under his hoodie.

Prosecution rests case in Zimmerman trial