The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[IlarMeilyr]

It wasn't "his ground" however, in this case!

If GZ never got out of his truck, knowing the police are in route (as he was instructed and also per the regs of his "neighborhood watch" group) a senseless death would have been avoided.

Nonsense.

He was perfectly ALLOWED to get out of his truck. And doing so is nothing that justifies getting attacked (if that is what ensued).

He was NOT "instructed" any such thing, either. The casual misuse of words leads to pretty sloppy thinking and posting.

And the "regs" of neighborhood watch have nothing to do with anything. He wasn't performing any duties associated with the neighborhood watch at the time. Even if he had been, the neighborhood watch "regs" [sic] are not "law."

The fact therefore remains that unless Zimmerman did something else, what he did (so far as we have learned so far) was always lawful.

 

[testarosa]

Couple notes:
When trial starts Z will make a prima facia case showing self defense. That doesn't mean he will prove self defense, only assert it so that appears "on it's face" to be a claim of self defense, then the burden will shift to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense.

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION] may have some words of wisdom to add there.

Also, the verdict must be unanimous - all 6 - or it hangs and the state has the option to retry.

Oh thats right....burden is on prosecution...shoe is on other foot....lol. I wouldnt want the burden of trying to prove it wasnt in self defense.

But they'll assert that it was self defense and the prosecution must prove it wasn't.

 

[testarosa]

It wasn't "his ground" however, in this case!

If GZ never got out of his truck, knowing the police are in route (as he was instructed and also per the regs of his "neighborhood watch" group) a senseless death would have been avoided.

Nonsense.

He was perfectly ALLOWED to get out of his truck. And doing so is nothing that justifies getting attacked (if that is what ensued).

He was NOT "instructed" any such thing, either. The casual misuse of words leads to pretty sloppy thinking and posting.

And the "regs" of neighborhood watch have nothing to do with anything. He wasn't performing any duties associated with the neighborhood watch at the time. Even if he had been, the neighborhood watch "regs" [sic] are not "law."

The fact therefore remains that unless Zimmerman did something else, what he did (so far as we have learned so far) was always lawful.

Your avatar scares the crap out of me. Whenever I see you, I jump.

 

[testarosa]

please be seated!

 

[Sunshine]

These people are lying and saying/trying to say all the right things.

For some reason or another they're wanting to be on the jury.

I believe in Florida each side 3 'preemptory challenges.' What this means is that they can send the prospective juror packing for no reason and without questioning. After that, the rest have to be questioned, and the process is called voir dire, pronounced 'vwah deer.

 

[25Caliber]

It wasn't "his ground" however, in this case!

If GZ never got out of his truck, knowing the police are in route (as he was instructed and also per the regs of his "neighborhood watch" group) a senseless death would have been avoided.

Nonsense.

He was perfectly ALLOWED to get out of his truck. And doing so is nothing that justifies getting attacked (if that is what ensued).

He was NOT "instructed" any such thing, either. The casual misuse of words leads to pretty sloppy thinking and posting.

And the "regs" of neighborhood watch have nothing to do with anything. He wasn't performing any duties associated with the neighborhood watch at the time. Even if he had been, the neighborhood watch "regs" [sic] are not "law."

The fact therefore remains that unless Zimmerman did something else, what he did (so far as we have learned so far) was always lawful.

Wow....some common sense and logical thinking right here. I got to "spread" a rep around too.

 

[25Caliber]

These people are lying and saying/trying to say all the right things.

For some reason or another they're wanting to be on the jury.

I believe in Florida each side 3 'preemptory challenges.' What this means is that they can send the prospective juror packing for no reason and without questioning. After that, the rest have to be questioned, and the process is called voir dire, pronounced 'vwah deer.

Good morning, sunshine!!...just wanted to say that....

 

[testarosa]

These people are lying and saying/trying to say all the right things.

For some reason or another they're wanting to be on the jury.

I believe in Florida each side 3 'preemptory challenges.' What this means is that they can send the prospective juror packing for no reason and without questioning. After that, the rest have to be questioned, and the process is called voir dire, pronounced 'vwah deer.

They have 10 each.

Judge dumped #39 because 39 was a moron.

They're going with questions as long as they can to try to trip them up to not use their challenges up.

 

[testarosa]

It wasn't "his ground" however, in this case!

If GZ never got out of his truck, knowing the police are in route (as he was instructed and also per the regs of his "neighborhood watch" group) a senseless death would have been avoided.

Nonsense.

He was perfectly ALLOWED to get out of his truck. And doing so is nothing that justifies getting attacked (if that is what ensued).

He was NOT "instructed" any such thing, either. The casual misuse of words leads to pretty sloppy thinking and posting.

And the "regs" of neighborhood watch have nothing to do with anything. He wasn't performing any duties associated with the neighborhood watch at the time. Even if he had been, the neighborhood watch "regs" [sic] are not "law."

The fact therefore remains that unless Zimmerman did something else, what he did (so far as we have learned so far) was always lawful.

FYI "his ground" is not how that law "Stand Your Ground" reads, it's not about your ground or my ground or his ground or that ground over there. The law isn't about the ground. lol

 

[Sunshine]

These people are lying and saying/trying to say all the right things.

For some reason or another they're wanting to be on the jury.

I believe in Florida each side 3 'preemptory challenges.' What this means is that they can send the prospective juror packing for no reason and without questioning. After that, the rest have to be questioned, and the process is called voir dire, pronounced 'vwah deer.

Good morning, sunshine!!...just wanted to say that....

LOL. Thanks, and to you as well.

 

[25Caliber]

It wasn't "his ground" however, in this case!

If GZ never got out of his truck, knowing the police are in route (as he was instructed and also per the regs of his "neighborhood watch" group) a senseless death would have been avoided.

Nonsense.

He was perfectly ALLOWED to get out of his truck. And doing so is nothing that justifies getting attacked (if that is what ensued).

He was NOT "instructed" any such thing, either. The casual misuse of words leads to pretty sloppy thinking and posting.

And the "regs" of neighborhood watch have nothing to do with anything. He wasn't performing any duties associated with the neighborhood watch at the time. Even if he had been, the neighborhood watch "regs" [sic] are not "law."

The fact therefore remains that unless Zimmerman did something else, what he did (so far as we have learned so far) was always lawful.

FYI "his ground" is not how that law "Stand Your Ground" reads, it's not about your ground or my ground or his ground or that ground over there. The law isn't about the ground. lol

I think thats a ground rule record....testa...she so funny!

 

[Sunshine]

It wasn't "his ground" however, in this case!

If GZ never got out of his truck, knowing the police are in route (as he was instructed and also per the regs of his "neighborhood watch" group) a senseless death would have been avoided.

You don't know that.

 

[testarosa]

It wasn't "his ground" however, in this case!

If GZ never got out of his truck, knowing the police are in route (as he was instructed and also per the regs of his "neighborhood watch" group) a senseless death would have been avoided.

You don't know that.

JECTION!:

Calls for speculation and a hell of a lot of imagination.

 

[testarosa]

Nonsense.

He was perfectly ALLOWED to get out of his truck. And doing so is nothing that justifies getting attacked (if that is what ensued).

He was NOT "instructed" any such thing, either. The casual misuse of words leads to pretty sloppy thinking and posting.

And the "regs" of neighborhood watch have nothing to do with anything. He wasn't performing any duties associated with the neighborhood watch at the time. Even if he had been, the neighborhood watch "regs" [sic] are not "law."

The fact therefore remains that unless Zimmerman did something else, what he did (so far as we have learned so far) was always lawful.

FYI "his ground" is not how that law "Stand Your Ground" reads, it's not about your ground or my ground or his ground or that ground over there. The law isn't about the ground. lol

I think thats a ground rule record....testa...she so funny!

I keep reading that "it wasn't his ground!" thing everywhere and it cracks me up. This ground, this 3 feet right here, that's my ground. That 3 feet over there, that's your ground, if you step on my ground I have the right to shoot you!

Yeah, that's not what stand your ground is.

 

[25Caliber]

It wasn't "his ground" however, in this case!

If GZ never got out of his truck, knowing the police are in route (as he was instructed and also per the regs of his "neighborhood watch" group) a senseless death would have been avoided.

You don't know that.

You know...vivs comment does kind of put it in perspective...this really was a senseless death that shouldnt have and didnt have to happened...very sad.

 

[Sunshine]

It wasn't "his ground" however, in this case!

If GZ never got out of his truck, knowing the police are in route (as he was instructed and also per the regs of his "neighborhood watch" group) a senseless death would have been avoided.

You don't know that.

OBJECTION!:

Calls for speculation and a hell of a lot of imagination.

Speculation is right. Li'l Trayvon, in addition to being on cannabis, was likely as crazy as a snake too. He could have drug Zimmerman out of the truck and beat the hell out of him. There a lot of 'couldas' and 'shouldas', but not many 'wouldas.'

 

[25Caliber]

Okay, I have a question for the forum:

In the interest of fairness...If you could ask Zimmerman one question about his actions on that day....what would it be?

 

[testarosa]

Juror selection:
>>>This individual voir dire will end when 30 suitable candidates survive. So far, perhaps 17 of the 20 who have been brought to the courtroom are still viable. (That's my best estimate because judge likes to do this in secret as much as possible.) if we get through perhaps about 13 more, we could begin the 30 in general voir dire, where they sit as a group and answer questions as if in a focus group. At this rate, maybe Monday. If we pick up pace, maybe Friday.

 

[Cuyo]

Couple notes:
When trial starts Z will make a prima facia case showing self defense. That doesn't mean he will prove self defense, only assert it so that appears "on it's face" to be a claim of self defense, then the burden will shift to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense.

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION] may have some words of wisdom to add there.

Also, the verdict must be unanimous - all 6 - or it hangs and the state has the option to retry.

Oh thats right....burden is on prosecution...shoe is on other foot....lol. I wouldnt want the burden of trying to prove it wasnt in self defense.

That's incorrect... Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Provided that the State can prove that GZ shot TM (a fact that I don't think is in question), the burden of proof is indeed on the accused to prove it was an act of self-defense.

True that following someone isn't a crime, neither is carrying a gun... But the two are axiomatic of someone who was looking for a confrontation. This is why I believe it will be so difficult for the defendant to sell self-defense to a jury.

Remember, it is not carrying a gun, disobeying police orders, nor following an individual that he's charged with, so it's probably not useful to point out that those acts are not illegal.

 

[testarosa]

M O'M: "I'm sorry - I'm married, I'm using to having to defend my position..."

lol