The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Ah, but there's the rub, 25! George Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin from a distance. Let's face it, George ISN'T a confrontational person. He's just not. He's rather meek actually. It's the way that he was described by witness after witness. George Zimmerman is not a tough guy...he's Barney Fife...not Charles Bronson.

The person who chose to force a confrontation was in fact Trayvon Martin. He was the one who made the decision to leave the safety of the condo where he was staying and walk BACK to brace the stranger who had been following him. He was the one who chose to come out of the darkness with the words "You got a problem?"...and he was the one who chose to punch George Zimmerman in the face. He was the one who chose to follow up that punch that knocked Zimmerman down by climbing on top of Zimmerman and raining blows down upon him. I find it hard to accept that someone "following" you from a distance should be such a "provocation" that it would excuse Martin's actions.

I agree with you...hes not a very intimidating character.

But once again, I think I have shown that we do not know for sure at all that he was back in the safety of his condo...I dont see any evidence that supports that. Certainly not DD...she said that she thought he was a couple of houses down.

I do think he went back to see if he was still being followed, but I dont think he came all the way back from his condo. If he did, then maybe the defense will call someone that was in the house that night to confim it...thus far there is no evidence to support it.

And torii hunter just hit a 3 run homer to tie in the 8th for my Tigers...yes!!!

His girlfriend stated he was at the House. So much for objectivity and the facts.

 

[Oldstyle]

And if Rachel Jenteal REALLY thought he was "a couple houses away" then why did she testify that she wasn't worried about Trayvon getting in a fight because he was close enough that his Dad would come help him?

Jeantels testimony does not put him back in the safety of his condo. I have stated before that jeantel contradicts her own statement by saying she heard things in the background and then in her next sentence says she doesnt think he was home but a couple of doors down...or that she thought he was near his home...near does not mean IN.

So what were these voices in the background? People standing outside in the rain talking a couple of doors down.

I believe that Rachel is trying to deflect her not taking the "fight" serious enough that eventually killed her friend. She passed the buck to a father and noises in the background.

She says father because she knew that Tray was close to home, which I agree, compared to being all the way back at the store...he was! I think he was a building down. Officer

So Jenteal tried to mitigate the damage to the Defense's case by saying that she meant that he was close by not that he was at the condo. But here's the problem, 25! If Martin is even half way home...sixty yards away from the condo...that puts him sixty yards away from George Zimmerman's path as he returns to his SUV...which means the only way a confrontation takes place is if Martin MAKES it happen by walking back to brace Zimmerman.

That means the notion that Zimmerman "stalked" Martin goes right out the window. This wasn't a case of a over zealous vigilante stalking a defenseless teen...it was the teen deciding that he WANTED a confrontation with the man from the SUV.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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!

I'm not the racist, you scum sucking asshole. You are.

And you are so massively stupid that you STILL think this case has anything to do with "stand your ground."

It does not.

Meanwhile, you shit stain cock sucker, it is STILL true that following somebody is NOT starting anything in the way of a physical altercation.

If A follows B causing B to be concerned, B may inquire of A. But B is NOT allowed to assault A over the mere "provocation" of having been followed or being "offended" by being followed.

You are a racist shit heel motherfucking, cock-sucking, asshole-licking moron.

 

[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.

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.

GZ did not say nor did he imply that the gun was exposed.

 

[25Caliber]

Trayvon was followed by GZ .... Eventually Trayvon responded .... GZ should go away for awhile. Anyone see the irony?

 

[Oldstyle]

There is a notion that you can't use the victim's history against them...that the "victim" shouldn't be on trial. I understand that concept but my question would be...is Zimmerman not a "victim" of assault and battery by Trayvon Martin? Yes, I know Zimmerman shot Martin but that happened because (from my take on the evidence) Martin forced a confrontation that need not have happened.

Which brings us back to the idea that Zimmerman is wholly to blame because he got out of his SUV to follow Martin. It's my contention that following at a distance (which anyone who REALLY examines George Zimmerman's make-up would be inclined to believe that is ALL he would do...since he's rather meek and not a physical guy) is not even close to enough of a provocation to allow for Trayvon Martin's escalation of violence.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Trayvon was followed by GZ .... Eventually Trayvon responded .... GZ should go away for awhile.

GZ did follow TM.

TM responded criminally with violence (or so GZ says and the evidence seems to support).

GZ should be acquitted.

 

[Oldstyle]

So if Zimmerman was Martin's victim fully as much as Martin was Zimmerman's...then why is Martin's past history of violence been ruled off limits?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So if Zimmerman was Martin's victim fully as much as Martin was Zimmerman's...then why is Martin's past history of violence been ruled off limits?

If GZ did not know of TM's alleged history of violence at the time of their interaction, then TM's alleged history is irrelevant.

 

[Oldstyle]

I mean basically this trial comes down to trying to decide which man it was that "started" the actual fight. One man is subjected to an examination of his past and his motives...while the other one is not. How is that fair?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I mean basically this trial comes down to trying to decide which man it was that "started" the actual fight. One man is subjected to an examination of his past and his motives...while the other one is not. How is that fair?

Not exactly.

There is no evidence that GZ "started" anything.

There IS evidence that TM did.

But even if GZ had supposedly (somehow) started it, and then was walking away from an encounter but TM decided to continue it with violence, then GZ is justified in defending himself -- including with deadly force if reasonably necessary to prevent his own death or serious injury at TM's hands.

 

[Oldstyle]

So if Zimmerman was Martin's victim fully as much as Martin was Zimmerman's...then why is Martin's past history of violence been ruled off limits?

If GZ did not know of TM's alleged history of violence at the time of their interaction, then TM's alleged history is irrelevant.

The Prosecution is allowed to bring in things from GM's past to try and establish a pattern of violence or racial conflict. Why is it relevant to bring THAT forward...yet irrelevant to bring forward the violence or racial conflict from TM's past?

Much was made of Zimmerman's referring to "punks" in his call to the Police as if THAT was a racial epitaph yet Martin uses a REAL racial epitaph DIRECTLY BEFORE THE FIGHT STARTS when he calls Zimmerman a "Cracker".

 

[Oldstyle]

I mean basically this trial comes down to trying to decide which man it was that "started" the actual fight. One man is subjected to an examination of his past and his motives...while the other one is not. How is that fair?

Not exactly.

There is no evidence that GZ "started" anything.

There IS evidence that TM did.

But even if GZ had supposedly (somehow) started it, and then was walking away from an encounter but TM decided to continue it with violence, then GZ is justified in defending himself -- including with deadly force if reasonably necessary to prevent his own death or serious injury at TM's hands.

My point, Ilar...is that it's very possible that this confrontation happened not because of George Zimmerman's racist attitude but because of Trayvon Martin's racist attitude.

 

[Snookie]

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

The defense doesn't really have the burden to do much beyond insert reasonable doubt into the jury's minds. The prosecution must prove the charges it has brought against the defendant.

It's easy to get away with murder in florida.

 

[depotoo]

I wonder why this was unstickied.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

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

The defense doesn't really have the burden to do much beyond insert reasonable doubt into the jury's minds. The prosecution must prove the charges it has brought against the defendant.

It's easy to get away with murder in florida.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

Bao. Whether he should be discredited or should be believed, he adds to the reasonable doubt which is key for Zimmerman's case.

"You can't have my notes!"

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=11865]Luissa[/MENTION]: [MENTION=20285]Intense[/MENTION]: [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION]: how come this thread was unstickied? Perhaps it can be redone in the Law and Justice Forum?

 

[Sarah G]

Only one person who responded with criminal violence. He's the one who got back up after killing a kid and he only required a bandaid for his "injuries".

 

[Missourian]

Trayvon was followed by GZ .... Eventually Trayvon responded .... GZ should go away for awhile.

GZ did follow TM.

TM responded criminally with violence (or so GZ says and the evidence seems to support).

GZ should be acquitted.

Events as we know them.

Zimmerman started to follow.

Dispatch said no.

Zim stopped following and went a different direction than Martin.

Martin had a phone...did not call police that he suspected he was in danger.

Martin had a clear path home, either didn't go, or went and returned.

Two full minutes transpire.

Martin confronted Zim at the T within sight of Zim's truck.

Martin attack Zim.

Zim did not fight back.

Martin did not halt the attack after Zimmerman yelled for help.

Martin did not relent after witnesses arrived.

Martin did not relent after onlookers announced they were calling the police.

Anyone who tries to make the argument that Martin was using force to protect himself either not acquainted with the reality of the facts, or is so biased their judgement is suspect...IMHO.