The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[testarosa]

WDBO fyi is conservative talk radio.

 

[testarosa]

She listens to WDBO on the way to/from work and she hasn't heard anything good or bad about Zimmerman.

Freaking

These people are

 

[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.

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

Your issue is not with me. I didn't even address the so called "stand your ground law."

In my estimation, that "stand your ground" topic is just a lot of blather.

The law that matters is the law of "justification," meaning (to laymen) "self defense." That is not always stated very simply. But in essence it means that if you are under some kind of physical attack and if you reasonably believe that your life is in danger or that your physical safety is in peril, you have a right to defend yourself. ("Stand your ground" merely means that in Florida, there is no "duty to retreat" before you may use such force in self defense.) Also, if you INITIATED the physical altercation, as a general rule, you are not allowed the justification defense.

Here, there is a lot of evidence that will be at odds. Nevertheless, if it is true that Zimmerman did not initiate the physical altercation (and following Trayvon Martin around doesn't qualify as "initiating" it), and if it further true (that is, if the jury accepts it as a "fact") that Zimmerman was losing the physical "contest" and that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger (or his physical well being was seriously in jeopardy), then the jury might very well grant him the benefit of "justification."

But without the evidence coming in and getting tested by cross-examination, who can really say now how the case will turn out?

 

[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

Your issue is not with me. I didn't even address the so called "stand your ground law."

In my estimation, that "stand your ground" topic is just a lot of blather.

The law that matters is the law of "justification," meaning (to laymen) "self defense." That is not always stated very simply. But in essence it means that if you are under some kind of physical attack and if you reasonably believe that your life is in danger or that your physical safety is in peril, you have a right to defend yourself. ("Stand your ground" merely means that in Florida, there is no "duty to retreat" before you may use such force in self defense.) Also, if you INITIATED the physical altercation, as a general rule, you are not allowed the justification defense.

Here, there is a lot of evidence that will be at odds. Nevertheless, if it is true that Zimmerman did not initiate the physical altercation (and following Trayvon Martin around doesn't qualify as "initiating" it), and if it further true (that is, if the jury accepts it as a "fact") that Zimmerman was losing the physical "contest" and that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger (or his physical well being was seriously in jeopardy), then the jury might very well grant him the benefit of "justification."

But without the evidence coming in and getting tested by cross-examination, who can really say now how the case will turn out?

I know, I did the quotey thing bad.

And agree with your point.

 

[testarosa]

RECESS

Til tomorrow at 9. What'd they get 5 maybe's today?

Sheesh.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Your issue is not with me. I didn't even address the so called "stand your ground law."

In my estimation, that "stand your ground" topic is just a lot of blather.

The law that matters is the law of "justification," meaning (to laymen) "self defense." That is not always stated very simply. But in essence it means that if you are under some kind of physical attack and if you reasonably believe that your life is in danger or that your physical safety is in peril, you have a right to defend yourself. ("Stand your ground" merely means that in Florida, there is no "duty to retreat" before you may use such force in self defense.) Also, if you INITIATED the physical altercation, as a general rule, you are not allowed the justification defense.

Here, there is a lot of evidence that will be at odds. Nevertheless, if it is true that Zimmerman did not initiate the physical altercation (and following Trayvon Martin around doesn't qualify as "initiating" it), and if it further true (that is, if the jury accepts it as a "fact") that Zimmerman was losing the physical "contest" and that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger (or his physical well being was seriously in jeopardy), then the jury might very well grant him the benefit of "justification."

But without the evidence coming in and getting tested by cross-examination, who can really say now how the case will turn out?

Very good summary counselor, the one thing I would question is your use of "Zimmerman did not initiate the physical altercation" implying a standard. Florida Statute 776.041 (Use of Force by Aggressor) references "Initially provokes the use of force against himself", to me that doesn't mean that an individual must start a physical altercation before they lose self-defense. However, the statute makes clear, you can be the one who provokes a use of force (meaning not needing to be the one who uses initial physical force) and have a situation where the other person makes first physical contact and you (the provoker) would still be classified as the aggressor.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


>>>>

 

[Sunshine]

Getting the feeling these potential jurors, rather than lying to get onto the jury, are feeling as though they must demonstrate how unbiased they are in general. I think the politically correct thing to say regarding this case is that no one's made up their mind; no one thinks there's a racial component; no one wants to admit they've come to a conclusion based on all the coverage. It seems 99% of these people are completely benign, open-minded, and non-judgmental. Is this about Sanford or Stepford?

That would never fly. 99% of the prosecution's case is based on race. There has been nothing but race baiting since day 1.


SS

 

[Sunshine]

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

Your issue is not with me. I didn't even address the so called "stand your ground law."

In my estimation, that "stand your ground" topic is just a lot of blather.

The law that matters is the law of "justification," meaning (to laymen) "self defense." That is not always stated very simply. But in essence it means that if you are under some kind of physical attack and if you reasonably believe that your life is in danger or that your physical safety is in peril, you have a right to defend yourself. ("Stand your ground" merely means that in Florida, there is no "duty to retreat" before you may use such force in self defense.) Also, if you INITIATED the physical altercation, as a general rule, you are not allowed the justification defense.

Here, there is a lot of evidence that will be at odds. Nevertheless, if it is true that Zimmerman did not initiate the physical altercation (and following Trayvon Martin around doesn't qualify as "initiating" it), and if it further true (that is, if the jury accepts it as a "fact") that Zimmerman was losing the physical "contest" and that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger (or his physical well being was seriously in jeopardy), then the jury might very well grant him the benefit of "justification."

But without the evidence coming in and getting tested by cross-examination, who can really say now how the case will turn out?

Very good summary counselor, the one thing I would question is your use of "Zimmerman did not initiate the physical altercation" implying a standard. Florida Statute 776.041 (Use of Force by Aggressor) references "Initially provokes the use of force against himself", to me that doesn't mean that an individual must start a physical altercation before they lose self-defense. However, the statute makes clear, you can be the one who provokes a use of force (meaning not needing to be the one who uses initial physical force) and have a situation where the other person makes first physical contact and you (the provoker) would still be classified as the aggressor.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


>>>>

All you are doing is pulling random shit out of the statutes without having a clue what they mean. Without the preceding statute, this one has no meaning whatsoever.

From your link:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

You are clearly not qualified to interpret or apply the law.


SS

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your issue is not with me. I didn't even address the so called "stand your ground law."

In my estimation, that "stand your ground" topic is just a lot of blather.

The law that matters is the law of "justification," meaning (to laymen) "self defense." That is not always stated very simply. But in essence it means that if you are under some kind of physical attack and if you reasonably believe that your life is in danger or that your physical safety is in peril, you have a right to defend yourself. ("Stand your ground" merely means that in Florida, there is no "duty to retreat" before you may use such force in self defense.) Also, if you INITIATED the physical altercation, as a general rule, you are not allowed the justification defense.

Here, there is a lot of evidence that will be at odds. Nevertheless, if it is true that Zimmerman did not initiate the physical altercation (and following Trayvon Martin around doesn't qualify as "initiating" it), and if it further true (that is, if the jury accepts it as a "fact") that Zimmerman was losing the physical "contest" and that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger (or his physical well being was seriously in jeopardy), then the jury might very well grant him the benefit of "justification."

But without the evidence coming in and getting tested by cross-examination, who can really say now how the case will turn out?

Very good summary counselor, the one thing I would question is your use of "Zimmerman did not initiate the physical altercation" implying a standard. Florida Statute 776.041 (Use of Force by Aggressor) references "Initially provokes the use of force against himself", to me that doesn't mean that an individual must start a physical altercation before they lose self-defense. However, the statute makes clear, you can be the one who provokes a use of force (meaning not needing to be the one who uses initial physical force) and have a situation where the other person makes first physical contact and you (the provoker) would still be classified as the aggressor.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


>>>>

What does that mean in layman's terms?
I yell at you and call you names and grab your arm, you pound my head on the concrete, I grab for the rock/gun and smash your head in and kill you, I can still claim self defense even though I yelled at you and grabbed your arm initially?

No.

Grabbing someones arm with an intent to assault and restrain is a felony, which makes your actions a forcible felony.

In defense of myself we struggle and I attempt to render you unconscious. You grab a rock/gun and kill me. You were the initial aggressor, as such a "self-defense" claim is no longer available to you as a legal defense against killing me with a rock/gun. You are accountable for your actions leading up to my needing to defend myself.



>>>>

 

[Sunshine]

Very good summary counselor, the one thing I would question is your use of "Zimmerman did not initiate the physical altercation" implying a standard. Florida Statute 776.041 (Use of Force by Aggressor) references "Initially provokes the use of force against himself", to me that doesn't mean that an individual must start a physical altercation before they lose self-defense. However, the statute makes clear, you can be the one who provokes a use of force (meaning not needing to be the one who uses initial physical force) and have a situation where the other person makes first physical contact and you (the provoker) would still be classified as the aggressor.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


>>>>

What does that mean in layman's terms?
I yell at you and call you names and grab your arm, you pound my head on the concrete, I grab for the rock/gun and smash your head in and kill you, I can still claim self defense even though I yelled at you and grabbed your arm initially?

No.

Grabbing someones arm with an intent to assault and restrain is a felony, which makes your actions a forcible felony.

In defense of myself we struggle and I attempt to render you unconscious. You grab a rock/gun and kill me. You were the initial aggressor, as such a "self-defense" claim is no longer available to you as a legal defense against killing me with a rock/gun. You are accountable for your actions leading up to my needing to defend myself.



>>>>

Where in any of this does it say Zimmerman grabbed anyone?

 

[testarosa]

Getting the feeling these potential jurors, rather than lying to get onto the jury, are feeling as though they must demonstrate how unbiased they are in general. I think the politically correct thing to say regarding this case is that no one's made up their mind; no one thinks there's a racial component; no one wants to admit they've come to a conclusion based on all the coverage. It seems 99% of these people are completely benign, open-minded, and non-judgmental. Is this about Sanford or Stepford?

That would never fly. 99% of the prosecution's case is based on race. There has been nothing but race baiting since day 1.


SS

She's referring to what the potential jurors have been spouting for the last few days. They're lying through their teeth and no one seems to know anything until they get tripped up by the questions and give themselves away or the judge shows them their opinion on the internet.

 

[Sunshine]

I think the lawyers for the defense have a slam dunk case based on self defense. People feel a lot of ways about guns and the stand your ground laws. Many states do not have such a law. But, even though the 'golden rule' strategy is not allowed, most WILL put themselves in the place of the person having to defend himself.


SS

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your issue is not with me. I didn't even address the so called "stand your ground law."

In my estimation, that "stand your ground" topic is just a lot of blather.

The law that matters is the law of "justification," meaning (to laymen) "self defense." That is not always stated very simply. But in essence it means that if you are under some kind of physical attack and if you reasonably believe that your life is in danger or that your physical safety is in peril, you have a right to defend yourself. ("Stand your ground" merely means that in Florida, there is no "duty to retreat" before you may use such force in self defense.) Also, if you INITIATED the physical altercation, as a general rule, you are not allowed the justification defense.

Here, there is a lot of evidence that will be at odds. Nevertheless, if it is true that Zimmerman did not initiate the physical altercation (and following Trayvon Martin around doesn't qualify as "initiating" it), and if it further true (that is, if the jury accepts it as a "fact") that Zimmerman was losing the physical "contest" and that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger (or his physical well being was seriously in jeopardy), then the jury might very well grant him the benefit of "justification."

But without the evidence coming in and getting tested by cross-examination, who can really say now how the case will turn out?

Very good summary counselor, the one thing I would question is your use of "Zimmerman did not initiate the physical altercation" implying a standard. Florida Statute 776.041 (Use of Force by Aggressor) references "Initially provokes the use of force against himself", to me that doesn't mean that an individual must start a physical altercation before they lose self-defense. However, the statute makes clear, you can be the one who provokes a use of force (meaning not needing to be the one who uses initial physical force) and have a situation where the other person makes first physical contact and you (the provoker) would still be classified as the aggressor.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


>>>>

All you are doing is pulling random shit out of the statutes without having a clue what they mean. Without the preceding statute, this one has no meaning whatsoever.

From your link:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

You are clearly not qualified to interpret or apply the law.


SS

#1 The preceding section cover Self Defense of yourself, Defense of Others, and SYG, 776.041 says if you are the aggressor you cannot claim the exemption from prosecution and conviction available under 776.012, 776.013, 776.031, and 776.032.


#2 What part of my interpretation was incorrect. Does the statute not specify that if you initially provoke the use of force against yourself you can loose a self defense claim ("can" because it is possible to retrain the claim even if you the initial aggressor under certain conditions).


So what part of that is incorrect?



>>>>

 

[SantaFeWay]

So confused about being able to claim self-defense. Is WW saying that in certain circumstances a non-physical provocation can be termed aggressive and therefore negate the provoker/aggressor's ability to assert self-defense?

 

[testarosa]

Very good summary counselor, the one thing I would question is your use of "Zimmerman did not initiate the physical altercation" implying a standard. Florida Statute 776.041 (Use of Force by Aggressor) references "Initially provokes the use of force against himself", to me that doesn't mean that an individual must start a physical altercation before they lose self-defense. However, the statute makes clear, you can be the one who provokes a use of force (meaning not needing to be the one who uses initial physical force) and have a situation where the other person makes first physical contact and you (the provoker) would still be classified as the aggressor.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


>>>>

What does that mean in layman's terms?
I yell at you and call you names and grab your arm, you pound my head on the concrete, I grab for the rock/gun and smash your head in and kill you, I can still claim self defense even though I yelled at you and grabbed your arm initially?

No.

Grabbing someones arm with an intent to assault and restrain is a felony, which makes your actions a forcible felony.

In defense of myself we struggle and I attempt to render you unconscious. You grab a rock/gun and kill me. You were the initial aggressor, as such a "self-defense" claim is no longer available to you as a legal defense against killing me with a rock/gun. You are accountable for your actions leading up to my needing to defend myself.



>>>>

Ahh. Got it. Thanks.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What does that mean in layman's terms?
I yell at you and call you names and grab your arm, you pound my head on the concrete, I grab for the rock/gun and smash your head in and kill you, I can still claim self defense even though I yelled at you and grabbed your arm initially?

No.

Grabbing someones arm with an intent to assault and restrain is a felony, which makes your actions a forcible felony.

In defense of myself we struggle and I attempt to render you unconscious. You grab a rock/gun and kill me. You were the initial aggressor, as such a "self-defense" claim is no longer available to you as a legal defense against killing me with a rock/gun. You are accountable for your actions leading up to my needing to defend myself.



>>>>

Where in any of this does it say Zimmerman grabbed anyone?

It didn't, it said: "I yell at you and call you names and grab your arm, you pound my head on the concrete, I grab for the rock/gun and smash your head in and kill you, I can still claim self defense even though I yelled at you and grabbed your arm initially?"


Did you not read what I'd read the post to which I'd responded to understand context?

Let me explain it for you. He said "I yell at you and call you names and grab your arm..." I'm assuming he's not Zimmerman and I know I'm not Zimmerman, so I assume Zimmerman is not in the context of the hypothetical testarosa posited.



>>>>

 

[Sunshine]

Getting the feeling these potential jurors, rather than lying to get onto the jury, are feeling as though they must demonstrate how unbiased they are in general. I think the politically correct thing to say regarding this case is that no one's made up their mind; no one thinks there's a racial component; no one wants to admit they've come to a conclusion based on all the coverage. It seems 99% of these people are completely benign, open-minded, and non-judgmental. Is this about Sanford or Stepford?

That would never fly. 99% of the prosecution's case is based on race. There has been nothing but race baiting since day 1.


SS

She's referring to what the potential jurors have been spouting for the last few days. They're lying through their teeth and no one seems to know anything until they get tripped up by the questions and give themselves away or the judge shows them their opinion on the internet.

Some may be. Others are not. I recall the high profile Nashville case I mentioned in an earlier post. I was a single mother, two kids to support, working god awful hours. I had no inclination to speculate or care whether Perry March killed his wife. Some people, due to their life obligations ARE oblivious even in the midst of it.

 

[testarosa]

I think the lawyers for the defense have a slam dunk case based on self defense. People feel a lot of ways about guns and the stand your ground laws. Many states do not have such a law. But, even though the 'golden rule' strategy is not allowed, most WILL put themselves in the place of the person having to defend himself.


SS

But they aren't going with Stand Your Ground, it's going to be self defense. They waived the hearing. Hence, the links above on FL self defense laws and how that's going to play out.

 

[Sunshine]

If it is clear the jury is a runaway jury and the evidence was ignored the guilty verdict can be overturned on appeal.

 

[testarosa]

No.

Grabbing someones arm with an intent to assault and restrain is a felony, which makes your actions a forcible felony.

In defense of myself we struggle and I attempt to render you unconscious. You grab a rock/gun and kill me. You were the initial aggressor, as such a "self-defense" claim is no longer available to you as a legal defense against killing me with a rock/gun. You are accountable for your actions leading up to my needing to defend myself.



>>>>

Where in any of this does it say Zimmerman grabbed anyone?

It didn't, it said: "I yell at you and call you names and grab your arm, you pound my head on the concrete, I grab for the rock/gun and smash your head in and kill you, I can still claim self defense even though I yelled at you and grabbed your arm initially?"


Did you not read what I'd read the post to which I'd responded to understand context?

Let me explain it for you. He said "I yell at you and call you names and grab your arm..." I'm assuming he's not Zimmerman and I know I'm not Zimmerman, so I assume Zimmerman is not in the context of the hypothetical testarosa posited.



>>>>

We were having a hypothetical so I could understand the law without the legaleze.