The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[JQPublic1]

And your spin is ridiculous in light of the evidence. The victim WAS engaged in criminal behavior (pummeling the defendant) at the time that GZ allegedly found it necessary to defend himself.

Since when did neutralizing a stalking, armed menace become a criminal act? Martin was defending HIMSELF but lost the battle to do so when Z shot him. undoubtedly, Z was acting irrationally or Martin would never have responded at all and there would have been no confrontation. If YOU were Martin what would you have done if a strange person rapidly walked up to you and chased you , probably with a gun in his hand. Granted, Z probably never had the intent to shoot Martin initially and the gun was likely supposed to be for intimidation. At some point M and Z got close enough that a confrontation ensued. We can't take Z's word for anything that happened so we don't know when he pulled the gun or whether he had it out the whole time.We don't know what happened except what the physical evidence shows and the testimony of one person reflects.. And the possibility that evidence and witness testimony
might be flawed or tainted is fairly high.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Trayvon was provoked...that much is obvious. He saw a gun during the struggle and continued the pounding...if he were here to defend himself in court, GZ would be going away for awhile. In fact, he might still, even with the lousy job the prosecution is doing...thats the way I see it. But then again, I hold no bias, therefore I can think clearly.

Wrong. It is not obvious; and there is no evidence that it is even likely.

We don't know that TM ever saw the gun, either.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Trayvon was provoked...that much is obvious. He saw a gun during the struggle and continued the pounding...if he were here to defend himself in court, GZ would be going away for awhile. In fact, he might still, even with the lousy job the prosecution is doing...thats the way I see it. But then again, I hold no bias, therefore I can think clearly.

Didn't you just deny saying trayvon saw the gun and that is why he attacked? Make up your mind, which is it? And why didn't the prosecution make that claim at ALL?

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

The overall impression, even by many anti-Zimmerman media outlets, is that the prosecution has failed miserably to prove elements of the M2 charge. Since their side has rested, and the motion for dismissal of the charge(s) was well-argued by M O'M, I am shocked at the total lack of consideration Judge Nelson paid to those arguments.

Usually motion to dismiss is a standard motion at the end of the P case and it is merely a formality done to preserve the defendant's rights in the event of an appeal. But in this case that motion deserved more thought and weight given the prosecution's failure to present evidence to support the M2
charge. Where is evidence or testimony to prove depravity or disregard for human life? Nothing shown to even remotely prove that. Could the speed in which the Judge ruled on this motion be a basis for appeal? Or no, because she had the arguments in writing for review prior to them being presented in court?

I have more than one thought on why the judge wouldn't grant the acquittal, but I'll only give one. The main reason, for me, is that she did not want to be the one to say Z acted in self-defense, since she is fully aware of what has happened in her community since the political BS started over a year ago from this lynching; she didn't want to bear the burden of telling people Z within his rights.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And your spin is ridiculous in light of the evidence. The victim WAS engaged in criminal behavior (pummeling the defendant) at the time that GZ allegedly found it necessary to defend himself.

Since when did neutralizing a stalking, armed menace become a criminal act? Martin was defending HIMSELF but lost the battle to do so when Z shot him. undoubtedly, Z was acting irrationally or Martin would never have responded at all and there would have been no confrontation. If YOU were Martin what would you have done if a strange person rapidly walked up to you and chased you , probably with a gun in his hand. Granted, Z probably never had the intent to shoot Martin initially and the gun was likely supposed to be for intimidation. At some point M and Z got close enough that a confrontation ensued. We can't take Z's word for anything that happened so we don't know when he pulled the gun or whether he had it out the whole time.We don't know what happened except what the physical evidence shows and the testimony of one person reflects.. And the possibility that evidence and witness testimony
might be flawed or tainted is fairly high.

Again, you shit bird: There was NO stalking. And there is also not a single shred of evidence that TM even knew that GZ HAD a gun.

Damn! You are one plodding fail in the lolberal propaganda department.

It appears that TM was NOT "defending" himself since there is no evidence that GZ had ever so much as touched TM. It appears instead from the EVIDENCE that TM was on the ATTACK.

You are a tool.

 

[jon_berzerk]

how about “the dead man cannot stand Fact ”

vital testimony

Dead men don't wear plaid.

"We measah with the lance because dead man cannot stand"

Well thank God for expert testimony to tell us the things we didn't know.

this has to be a first

the state ha so screwed up their case

between the two doctors of the dead

that a stipulation had to drawn up between the state the defense & zimmerman

that the body in the morgue was martin

--LOL

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

You know what is really amusing in all this? Seeing all you racist white people put in the position of defending a fat hispanic dude. lol

But I guess if you have to choose, you choose the lesser of the two evils, eh? The lighter skin?

 

[testarosa]

Dead men don't wear plaid.

"We measah with the lance because dead man cannot stand"

Well thank God for expert testimony to tell us the things we didn't know.

this has to be a first

the state ha so screwed up their case

between the two doctors of the dead

that a stipulation had to drawn up between the state the defense & zimmerman

that the body in the morgue was martin

--LOL

Okay, I am trying so hard not to LOL too much or call this to Rat's attention, the transcript is in Shipping Speak. That's way too much material for Rat to handle.

DE LA RIONDA: And what is done? Does the stick actually go underneath the fingernail all on like the right and then the left.

BAO: Every fingers.

DE LA RIONDA: OK.

Also, as part of the autopsy, is DNA or a blood card taken from Trayvon Martin's body, specifically state's exhibit 186?

BAO: Yes. DE LA RIONDA: OK.

And finally, sir, let me show you state's exhibit number 98. Is this what's called an identification photograph?

BAO: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: OK.

Your honor, at this time, I believe there is a stipulation, if the court could read that to the jury.

NELSON: Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the state of Florida, his defendant and his attorney hereby stipulate to the following -- the body examined on February 27, 2012, by Dr. Shiping Bao, bearing the medical examiner case number of 12-24-043 is that of Trayvon Benjamin Martin.

 

[SantaFeWay]

I have more than one thought on why the judge wouldn't grant the acquittal, but I'll only give one. The main reason, for me, is that she did not want to be the one to say Z acted in self-defense, since she is fully aware of what has happened in her community since the political BS started over a year ago from this lynching; she didn't want to bear the burden of telling people Z within his rights.

Aye agree. (LOL) But technically her ruling would have been based more on the fact that the prosecution hadn't presented enough evidence to warrant proceeding on M2 charges than on confirming the defense assertion of self-defense.

She's a 'fraidy cat, basically.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The overall impression, even by many anti-Zimmerman media outlets, is that the prosecution has failed miserably to prove elements of the M2 charge. Since their side has rested, and the motion for dismissal of the charge(s) was well-argued by M O'M, I am shocked at the total lack of consideration Judge Nelson paid to those arguments.

Usually motion to dismiss is a standard motion at the end of the P case and it is merely a formality done to preserve the defendant's rights in the event of an appeal. But in this case that motion deserved more thought and weight given the prosecution's failure to present evidence to support the M2
charge. Where is evidence or testimony to prove depravity or disregard for human life? Nothing shown to even remotely prove that. Could the speed in which the Judge ruled on this motion be a basis for appeal? Or no, because she had the arguments in writing for review prior to them being presented in court?

I have more than one thought on why the judge wouldn't grant the acquittal, but I'll only give one. The main reason, for me, is that she did not want to be the one to say Z acted in self-defense, since she is fully aware of what has happened in her community since the political BS started over a year ago from this lynching; she didn't want to bear the burden of telling people Z within his rights.

the judge moved into a new era of court

where the defense has to prove their innocence

 

[testarosa]

The overall impression, even by many anti-Zimmerman media outlets, is that the prosecution has failed miserably to prove elements of the M2 charge. Since their side has rested, and the motion for dismissal of the charge(s) was well-argued by M O'M, I am shocked at the total lack of consideration Judge Nelson paid to those arguments.

Usually motion to dismiss is a standard motion at the end of the P case and it is merely a formality done to preserve the defendant's rights in the event of an appeal. But in this case that motion deserved more thought and weight given the prosecution's failure to present evidence to support the M2
charge. Where is evidence or testimony to prove depravity or disregard for human life? Nothing shown to even remotely prove that. Could the speed in which the Judge ruled on this motion be a basis for appeal? Or no, because she had the arguments in writing for review prior to them being presented in court?

I have more than one thought on why the judge wouldn't grant the acquittal, but I'll only give one. The main reason, for me, is that she did not want to be the one to say Z acted in self-defense, since she is fully aware of what has happened in her community since the political BS started over a year ago from this lynching; she didn't want to bear the burden of telling people Z within his rights.

the judge moved into a new era of court

where the defense has to prove their innocence

Shhh! You'll get the "must prove self defense" group riled up again.

 

[Meathead]

The only thing left in this case is the intelligence of the jury.

 

[JQPublic1]

No. He didn't "start" or "cause" anything. He saw someone whom he found to be suspicious and as he was entirely permitted to do, he followed the young man.

That is not "starting" anything.

it was INDEED a matter of innocently being there. For GZ.

And no. Following is NOT stalking. That's just more baseless spin by those who seek to "get" GZ. What all of you leave out of your analyses is the fact that you have YET to show that GZ actually DID anything wrong.

You are one dumb racist BAHSTURD. Your right wing politician heroes promulgated the Stand Your Ground Laws supposedly so people who feel threatened can KILL on the slightest provocation without fear of prosecution. Following someone in a manner that causes them to be concerned for their safety is indeed such a provocation, shitbird! If Martin would have killed Zimmerman by any means necessary he would have been justified under SYG. Too bad he wasn't armed!

 

[SantaFeWay]

Well, which is it? Obviously the pros has the burden to prove M2. But...

As to self-defense, does the defense have the burden to prove that? Or does the prosecution have the burden to disprove it?

If self-defense is an affirmative defense, similar to a not guilty by reason of insanity plea, isn't the burden somewhat shifted onto the defense to prove that affirmative justification? Am I wrong on that?

Sorry if I'm opening up a sore subject. If so then....never mind. LOL

 

[25Caliber]

Trayvon was provoked...that much is obvious. He saw a gun during the struggle and continued the pounding...if he were here to defend himself in court, GZ would be going away for awhile. In fact, he might still, even with the lousy job the prosecution is doing...thats the way I see it. But then again, I hold no bias, therefore I can think clearly.

Wrong. It is not obvious; and there is no evidence that it is even likely.

We don't know that TM ever saw the gun, either.

If you believe GZs words, then you have to believe that the gun was exposed after they were on the ground. GZ said so... and that they were both going for it. If he were here to defend himself, that would be his reasoning to continue the punching. If you were defending him...wouldnt that be your approach?

Its obvious that Trayvon was provoked, imo, because he was followed in the dark and rain first in a truck and then on foot. Trayvon didnt follow him...he followed trayvon.

I would love to discuss this with you IM, because I think you have the smarts to hold a decent conversation even if we disagree...unfortunately, its almost impossible to do so in between the other Bs of a certain few with a lot of hate for some reason.

 

[testarosa]

The only thing left in this case is the intelligence of the jury.

The intelligence of the jury, the fear factor of the jury.. . And the jokes. ;-)

 

[The Rabbi]

Trayvon was provoked...that much is obvious. He saw a gun during the struggle and continued the pounding...if he were here to defend himself in court, GZ would be going away for awhile. In fact, he might still, even with the lousy job the prosecution is doing...thats the way I see it. But then again, I hold no bias, therefore I can think clearly.

Didn't you just deny saying trayvon saw the gun and that is why he attacked? Make up your mind, which is it? And why didn't the prosecution make that claim at ALL?

Small caliber is so open minded he can entertain truth,falsehood, fantasy and fiction all at the same time and be unable to tell the difference!

 

[testarosa]

Well, which is it? Obviously the pros has the burden to prove M2. But...

As to self-defense, does the defense have the burden to prove that? Or does the prosecution have the burden to disprove it?

If self-defense is an affirmative defense, similar to a not guilty by reason of insanity plea, isn't the burden somewhat shifted onto the defense to prove that affirmative justification? Am I wrong on that?

Sorry if I'm opening up a sore subject. If so then....never mind. LOL

Oh sorry. That was sarcasm.

They don't have the burden. The state has the burden to prove it was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt it also has the burden to prove depraved mind and no regard for human life for M2.

There's a lot of people that think that's t he defense's burden.

And the judge it making it seem so.

 

[asaratis]

Per Wiki, Zimmerman said:
"This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about" and "looking at all the houses".

This is in the context of a string of break-ins in his neighborhood. Zimmerman had reason to be on alert.



And as we know, though the judge didn't let it be entered into evidence, Martin did have drugs in his system, at a level which could have had an influence on his behavior according to the medical examiner. The judge's refusal to let the ME tell that is what could help Zimmerman win on appeal if he is not acquitted outright.

under florida rules

the defense can not bring up those things about the victim

unless he/she knew the victim

they can however bring them up if a door to it was opened

The prosecution's witness sure opened that door. But the judge slammed it shut.

Do you mean Dr. Rao...the most inept and discreditable witness in the history of this trial?..the one who changes his opinion by the hour?

 

[25Caliber]

Trayvon was provoked...that much is obvious. He saw a gun during the struggle and continued the pounding...if he were here to defend himself in court, GZ would be going away for awhile. In fact, he might still, even with the lousy job the prosecution is doing...thats the way I see it. But then again, I hold no bias, therefore I can think clearly.

Didn't you just deny saying trayvon saw the gun and that is why he attacked? Make up your mind, which is it? And why didn't the prosecution make that claim at ALL?

I have said repeatedly that Trayvon did not know what GZ was reaching for at the point of attack and that he didnt wait to find out. The gun was seen later by trayvon when they were on the ground...those are GZs own words. Im really tired of giving you the respect of answering your confusion...only to have you turn around and ask the same damn question.

You are so confused...I am tired of explaining myself to you. I have shown you are a marine with no honor. You made false allegations...you were shown with the chance to acknowledge it and apologize...you refused. So now you come back with the same confused allegation with the same question. Lata!!!