The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

What are your Initial Thoughts on the Guilt or Innocence of George Zimmerman?


  • Total voters
    84
Status
Not open for further replies.
I apologize for my tardiness your honor. If Crump decides to lie it will be mighty interesting. We now have at least one liar and maybe two. ( ya ya--we can call them something else if you wish but someone is lying. ) That will serve to start a shit storm of racial hatred.

Okay, here's the rub. DD, et al been chatting it up on the thing called the Internet for several months.

Now take 2 add it to 2 and give me the answer:
___________________

I'm looking at perception. The perception of the general public. Whites and a Black with opposing testimony. The battle lines are drawn no matter what the truth is or what the jury decides.

Um. I'm not looking at it that way so I can't tell.

As close as I get to that part of it is trying to figure out how to speak Ebonics.

A sleezeball is a sleezeball is a sleezeball.
 
Well I didn't think there were any men in America that were this meek but it appears TM's final mistake was getting into a pistol fight a guy who on a scale of 1-10 in personal combat skills was a .5.

I know men that are in their 40's that are not in very good health that would not stand a chance in hell in a fist fight with a much younger, much stronger, much healthier male.

GZ committed no crime in following what he deemed a suspicious person. That's what a neighborhood watch does you moron!

TM started the fight, GZ ended it.

Now do yourself a favor and take off that hat you're wearing cause you're giving real cowboys a bad name.
 
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." :cuckoo:

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.

Ok, get Limbaugh's testicles out of your eyes so you can read this:

This case HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH STAND YOUR GROUND. That is exactly what Martin did. Zimmerman was the THREAT, not Martin! TM stood his ground to neutralize that threat. Sadly, the aggressor had a gun and used it, apparently when he was getting his ass whipped!

Now; after you have finished swallowing the juice you sucked out of Hannity's underpants,
this ought to go down real easy for ya:

In regard to STALKING:

After reviewing the Florida Statues I noticed that 784.048 (1) (b,) seems to define "repeatedly" as applicable to Florida state law:

“Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. "

Interpretation is crucial here. Perhaps the Florida Supreme Court would be the ultimate authority to decide if GZ's actions warrants the application of the above rule. The writers of this law included the phrase "however short" in the law and thereby invalidated any necessity to violate the statute by following or harassing someone for days or weeks.

I think it would be reasonable to say that the series of acts instigated by GZ on the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin would satisfy the legal definition of the word "repeatedly."

1. Spotting and trailing Martin in his vehicle.

2. Getting out of his vehicle to follow Martin further.

3. Chasing Martin.

4. Approaching Martin , engaging and shooting him.
*

Suffice it to say, JQPubic, that your ignorance knows no bounds.

The case has ZERO to do with "stand your ground."

You have lapped up the uninformed blather of the silly main stream lolberal media.

Stand your ground means you are not required to run away if you are able to do so in safety.

But when some guy is ON TOP of you, pounding you, the question of running away is utterly moot.

You remain entirely wrong.

Laughably so.
 
I apologize for my tardiness your honor. If Crump decides to lie it will be mighty interesting. We now have at least one liar and maybe two. ( ya ya--we can call them something else if you wish but someone is lying. ) That will serve to start a shit storm of racial hatred.

Okay, here's the rub. DD, et al been chatting it up on the thing called the Internet for several months.

Now take 2 add it to 2 and give me the answer:
___________________

I'm looking at perception. The perception of the general public. Whites and a Black with opposing testimony. The battle lines are drawn no matter what the truth is or what the jury decides.

You mean after verdict?

Well that was demonstrated last year at it's worst.

I have no idea how that will go or how stupid people will get, only that law enforcement is working hard to make that not happen.

It's a volatile situation.
 
Okay, here's the rub. DD, et al been chatting it up on the thing called the Internet for several months.

Now take 2 add it to 2 and give me the answer:
___________________

I'm looking at perception. The perception of the general public. Whites and a Black with opposing testimony. The battle lines are drawn no matter what the truth is or what the jury decides.

Um. I'm not looking at it that way so I can't tell.

As close as I get to that part of it is trying to figure out how to speak Ebonics.

A sleezeball is a sleezeball is a sleezeball.

I wouldn't even try. Hell I can't even understand texting
I just think the conflicting testimonies stand out as a lightening rod for hate.
 
It's over. Even the lesser of invol. manslaughter through negligence is out of the question now. How can you find someone guilty of negligence in this matter when the guy in question has been proven to be completely incapable of competence in the matter.
 
I'm looking at perception. The perception of the general public. Whites and a Black with opposing testimony. The battle lines are drawn no matter what the truth is or what the jury decides.

Um. I'm not looking at it that way so I can't tell.

As close as I get to that part of it is trying to figure out how to speak Ebonics.

A sleezeball is a sleezeball is a sleezeball.

I wouldn't even try. Hell I can't even understand texting
I just think the conflicting testimonies stand out as a lightening rod for hate.

Well there's that.

Don't know since that black/white thing WAS the heart of that cover, that was the catalyst for race.

I can't even think that far ahead.

I'm moving anyhow so who cares.
;-)
 
It's over. Even the lesser of invol. manslaughter through negligence is out of the question now. How can you find someone guilty of negligence in this matter when the guy in question has been proven to be completely incapable of competence in the matter.

He was competent enough to kill him. I think that's all it takes for that kind of charge.
 
At the Daubert type hearing, the issue appears to be whether or not the proponent of the evidence can demonstrate a sufficient degree of scientific reliability ABOUT the animation. (The usual standard involves a concensus of the scientific community as to the theory being addressed.)

Not clear to me what the folks there are talking about.

A video either is fair and accurate in depicting what it is claimed to show or it isn't. But, I guess we'll soon find out.
 
It's over. Even the lesser of invol. manslaughter through negligence is out of the question now. How can you find someone guilty of negligence in this matter when the guy in question has been proven to be completely incapable of competence in the matter.

He was competent enough to kill him. I think that's all it takes for that kind of charge.

But not competent enough to determine that TM was probably still lurking. And not competent enough to pull the gun before TM got too close. GZ is so hopeless he probably did think TM ran away.
 
Um. I'm not looking at it that way so I can't tell.

As close as I get to that part of it is trying to figure out how to speak Ebonics.

A sleezeball is a sleezeball is a sleezeball.

I wouldn't even try. Hell I can't even understand texting
I just think the conflicting testimonies stand out as a lightening rod for hate.

Well there's that.

Don't know since that black/white thing WAS the heart of that cover, that was the catalyst for race.

I can't even think that far ahead.

I'm moving anyhow so who cares.
;-)

started out with Al" the racist "Sharpton and now he has all he needs--two white cops lying about what poor Trayvon's Daddy said. Hide and watch----after you move that is.
 
Wow. Judge is going to allow the testimony about Trayvon's THC in the blood and the effects of that on a person?

Amazing.

Not sure how that helps the defense though... :dunno:

Remember when Zimmerman said "I think he's on drugs or something..." on the 911 call. Well, looks like he was, and goes to his credibility.

The guy will be on the stand testifying to a toxocology report that cannot specify how much of the drug was in his system at the time of the event and how it affected him.

Imo, slippery slope.
 
Hell GZ was probably just embarrassed that he failed to have an address and was out looking for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top