The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Si modo]

This has turned into a flame thread. Shame.

You can take the credit.

Whiner.

 

[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".

What would you do if someone had broke your nose and then proceeded to beat your head against concrete?

That didn't happen.

 

[SantaFeWay]

No Snookie,

He didn't change anything. GZ always said he had lost TM, and that then TM reappeared and confronted him.

No change in his story to suit anything or make it convenient. Sorry but not so.

He lost TM? That means he was following him.

He did change his story.

Know what I'm saying?

.

He always said he was initially following him. It's memorialized on the non-emerg call. He also tells the dispatcher that he lost TM.

Still no change. Are you ?

 

[Sunshine]

This has turned into a flame thread. Shame.

You can take the credit.

Whiner.

Yes, and we have lost good long time posters over his whine. No one respects him and rightly so. Si, you are missed. Greatly.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ccPEsODiE]Sarah Vaughan *Bill Bailey, Won't You Please Come Home* Live 1964 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[legaleagle_45]

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.

They do have to introduce some evidence for self defense otherwise, the defense should just go home. We'll let them know how it works out.

The state has already conceded that there is a prima facie showing of self defense during the motion for acquittal.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

I've been saying for days that she doesn't want to face the angry mob alone.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hmmmm...i thought this was interesting...especially now that it appears GZ has been less than truthful about his knowledge of the "Stand Your Ground Law".

"Stand-your-ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[28] In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling.[28][29] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue that they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed."

~Wiki

Hmmm...think this might have a little to do with him wanting to deny knowledge of the law?...yep throw that in there, George.

Is the "he tried to grab my gun" and said I was "gonna die tonight" making more sense now? Many are supporting someone that might be lying right to their face about some things. I dont like liars...it makes me dig deeper than I really want to.

I know I know...ITS NOT ILLEGAL TO FORGET WHAT YOU LEARNED IN COLLEGE!!! Even if your college professor testifies in your trial that he taught it "extensively" in a class you aced. I know I know...more conjecture and speculation, right?

My argument would be that GZ was punched immediately when Trayvon perceived that the stranger (who never identified himself) relentlessly following him in the dark and rain went reaching for what he thought was a weapon...GZ was punched repeatedly after that because he went reaching for what Trayvon knew was a gun.

Why is GZ feeling the need for his gun? Because he was negligent in continuing up the dark path that the suspect ran away from him on after he was specifically told "we dont need you to do that".

Speculation? Conjecture? Nope its all on tape...I'll take my chances with the jury mulling that over. They can decide for themselves.

"But I swear I was reaching for my phone...honest I was"...was your phone there? Nope. Was your gun there? Yep. No further questions....for now.

Just something to think about. I know its hard...it was hard for me too.

Remind me again how you never said martin attacked him because he knew Zimmerman had a gun? Also you insisted you never said Zimmerman was reaching for his gun forcing martin to attack him. Care to try again?

This is the last time Im going to tell you this...read it again.

Trayvon punched because he thought GZ could be reaching for a weapon (not gun...he didnt know what he was reaching for)...later when on the ground the weapon was exposed because GZ says it was...so at that point we know that what at first could have been suspicion, at this point he KNEW it was a gun...this is in evidence and not it dispute outside of you trying to be right and twist my words.

Again, he didnt know what it was at first, but he wasnt going to wait to find out, so he hit him...later when scuffling on the ground he knew it was a gun, because GZ says so....its on tape...its in evidence. At some point in the struggle the gun was exposed and they were both going for it...THOSE ARE GZx WORDS!!

I have been entirely consistent on that and once again you prove you are unable to comprehend it.

Yet you insist, without a shred of evidence that martin attacked Zimmerman because he thought he had a weapon. Why if this were factual did the Prosecution fail to bring it up. Why didn't his girlfriend report him saying something about it?

You made it up.

 

[testarosa]

Jon may know the witness list. I stopped scroogling awhile ago

I posted it once on this thread.

Wullllll be a crusader and get it again? Pwetty pwease?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I wonder if Angie picked the Bernster, Mantei and Guy to prosecute this because they are the state's A-Team??

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IoFBSSARI8]The Three Stooges ARE The A-Team! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sunshine]

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

They do have to introduce some evidence for self defense otherwise, the defense should just go home. We'll let them know how it works out.

The state has already conceded that there is a prima facie showing of self defense during the motion for acquittal.

Haven't you noticed? She knows everything about the law, about the case, about what happened that night. Her real name is Clair Voyant........

 

[Intense]

[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?

If it's a popular thread, it shouldn't need to be stickied. I generally like to reserve stickies for Forum announcement threads.

 

[testarosa]

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

They do have to introduce some evidence for self defense otherwise, the defense should just go home. We'll let them know how it works out.

The state has already conceded that there is a prima facie showing of self defense during the motion for acquittal.

Ah ha! I heard that but didn't put together the relevance at the time. I tend to zone when A$$ talks for a long period of time.

 

[Sarah G]

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

They do have to introduce some evidence for self defense otherwise, the defense should just go home. We'll let them know how it works out.

The state has already conceded that there is a prima facie showing of self defense during the motion for acquittal.

Well, it's all over then, right? Close this thread, get the case off of HLN and we'll all just move along.

 

[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.

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.

Again scrotum face,There WAS stalking! Fire up that other brain cell and you might begin to see through your biased haze you cellulite infected creep!.
I guess anytime you see a minority defending himself he is "on the attack." Have you even considered that a defense can look like an attack? Lets get to the bottom of this NOW!

Why would Martin attack Z unless he had a reason? Can you answer that question intelligently and without profanity? BTW you don't have to touch someone to threaten them to the point of provocation or put them in fear of their own life. Often, delivering the first strike is the best defense against an aggressor like Zimmerman. TM just did not hit him hard enough! I just wish TM had been armed.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think my discussion of inner-city black on black violence is more deserving. Now that's reality.

 

[R.D.]

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".

What would you do if someone had broke your nose and then proceeded to beat your head against concrete?

That didn't happen.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

What would you do if someone had broke your nose and then proceeded to beat your head against concrete?

That didn't happen.

 

[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.

I've been saying for days that she doesn't want to face the angry mob alone.

Circuit judges have to run for re- election.

 

[SantaFeWay]

Actually, I was SHOCKED when ManAss, while arguing against the motion to dismiss (?) threw out that, IF the Judge did not feel the P had made a case for M2 then the motion should be denied because they still had manslaughter out there to be decided upon as a lesser included charge.

That admission, given their strong stance pre-trial, was astonishing to me. Covering their bases, yes, but also he knew it needed to be said. (Even though manslaughter does not apply either, IMO.)

 

[Sunshine]

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.

I've been saying for days that she doesn't want to face the angry mob alone.

Circuit judges have to run for re- election.

I wasn't referring to the ballot box.