The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Quantum Windbag]

George Zimmerman Reenactment Of Trayvon Martin Shooting (Part 2) - YouTube

Nope.

Go to 4:21.

He distinctly shows that Martin grabbed him from both sides of his head.

Zimmerman's bald. So either he clawed him..or grabbed his ears.

Generally women have long nails, men don't. One of the primary ways for police to identify a rapist is through DNA under their nails or from sperm. Women usually try to scratch the assailant. It doesn't take nails to grab a person with both hands and bash their head into the ground.

It was drizzling that night. Couple that with sweat.

And you have a slippery surface that isn't easy to grab.

Additionally, Zimmerman's injuries don't jibe with his story.

Unless, of course, you are contending that Martin was a weakling.

Which of Zimmerman's injuries does not jibe with his story?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

[MENTION=44293]pioneerpete[/MENTION]: I have MarcATL on ignore for a reason. He is not interested in a debate, or the facts. His side is losing and he can't seem to wrap his infantile mind around it.

So who is getting more support ITT Trayvon or Zimmerman? I'd love to know and trying to figure that out might not be easy.

What is "ITT"?

In this thread.

I have found it an indispensable acronym. No one uses it here?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Well, Zimmerman's pistol was kept at the small of his back.

If Trayvon was sitting on his chest pounding on him, how would it be possible for him to know he had a gun, much less reach for it?

No one outside the movies carries their weapon in the small of their back if they use an inside the waistband holster. What makes you think Zimmerman did?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So who is getting more support ITT Trayvon or Zimmerman? I'd love to know and trying to figure that out might not be easy.

What is "ITT"?

In this thread.

I have found it an indispensable acronym.

I see. So to answer your question, the majority of "support" if you wish to call it that, in this thread is probably split even. But from personal observation, I believe Zimmerman is; IMHO.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Well, Zimmerman's pistol was kept at the small of his back.

If Trayvon was sitting on his chest pounding on him, how would it be possible for him to know he had a gun, much less reach for it?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/302000-the-other-shoe-zimmerman-s-holster.html

Yup.

I just learned today that the holster is worn "inside" the pants..not outside.

It was nearly impossible to see.

This has been common knowledge since Zimmeramn was first charged, and you didn't know it until today? No wonder you think the state is winning, you aren't paying attention.

 

[pioneerpete]

Right. You can expect them to do their worse which is a fearful nightmare for the wrongly accused. I'm not a fan of prosecutors to say the least, unless they turn attorney like O'Mara

btw I'm against Zimmerman, but that is the exception. I am usually on the side of the defendant unless he's obviously guilty, of course.

I was just trying to point out that just one or two rulings by the judge against the unfortunate one in the trial can often make all the difference with the jury and handcuff them in their deliberations.

We will have to agree to disagree on GZ. However, I have a great deal of contempt for a prosecutor who charges you with a crime for 5-10 times what he offers you in a plea. Any public defender in the world will tell his client to take that deal, and fear will make the accused take it.

You hit the nail on the head. When they over-charge, they have no respect for what a suspect is going through.

At the same time, I also believe Zimmerman was overcharged since I believe he's only guilty of manslaughter. It'd be nearly impossible to prove murder.

Agree on the over charge. However, I don't think the state has disproven self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. All the same, if they would have offered a plea for reckless discharge of a firearm, you know he would have snatched it up, for the very reasons we have stated.

 

[Wildman]

I'm against Zimmerman, but that is the exception. I am usually on the side of the defendant unless he's obviously guilty, of course.

"unless he's obviously guilty,"

you obviously are very wrong this time unless of course you have positive proof off Z's guilt

the only reason he is in that court room today is because of liberals of a certain skin color and their sympathizers wanted him there and the DA bent to their demands.

the verdict: NOT GUILTY !!

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

What is "ITT"?

In this thread.

I have found it an indispensable acronym.

I see. So to answer your question, the majority of "support" if you wish to call it that, in this thread is probably split even. But from personal observation, I believe Zimmerman is; IMHO.

Thanks.

 

[BreezeWood]

In any matter, I can go in to a street right now and call someone an "asshole" or "fucking punk" for literally anything, but that person doesn't have the right to assault me. When the assault occurs, that person has just escalated the situation by committing a crime. If I feel like I have no other option, and I am legally carrying a firearm I can shoot the person in self-defense. I may have been a jerk, and in the backyard the guy may have the right to punch me in the mouth, but legally he doesn't. I'm guilty of being a jerk. The other guy is guilty of assault with intent to do great bodily harm if the assault is persistent and with a foreign object aiding the assault.

"Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target.[1] Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage."

"The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

........................

An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:
1.a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2.is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3.is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

and 3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

George Zimmerman charged, hearing expected Thursday - CNN.com

According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman told authorities that after he briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him. After the two exchange words, Zimmerman said, he reached for his cell phone, and then Martin punched him in the nose. Zimmerman said Martin pinned him to the ground and began slamming his head into the sidewalk.

has Zimmerman explained exactly what was said that caused Martin to "punched him in the nose" ...


3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.


the case hinges on #3 as well as any other for which Zimmerman has displayed a distinct - indifference to human life - throughout the entire proceeding.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We will have to agree to disagree on GZ. However, I have a great deal of contempt for a prosecutor who charges you with a crime for 5-10 times what he offers you in a plea. Any public defender in the world will tell his client to take that deal, and fear will make the accused take it.

You hit the nail on the head. When they over-charge, they have no respect for what a suspect is going through.

At the same time, I also believe Zimmerman was overcharged since I believe he's only guilty of manslaughter. It'd be nearly impossible to prove murder.

Agree on the over charge. However, I don't think the state has disproven self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. All the same, if they would have offered a plea for reckless discharge of a firearm, you know he would have snatched it up, for the very reasons we have stated.

Overcharge? How about no charge at all? This wasn't even a case to begin with. There was not enough evidence to try him. "If you cannot convict, you must acquit!"

 

[MeBelle]

Zimmerman Trial | Live video | Defense Witnesses

Can't weed through 13 + pages of posts @ 40 posts each.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In any matter, I can go in to a street right now and call someone an "asshole" or "fucking punk" for literally anything, but that person doesn't have the right to assault me. When the assault occurs, that person has just escalated the situation by committing a crime. If I feel like I have no other option, and I am legally carrying a firearm I can shoot the person in self-defense. I may have been a jerk, and in the backyard the guy may have the right to punch me in the mouth, but legally he doesn't. I'm guilty of being a jerk. The other guy is guilty of assault with intent to do great bodily harm if the assault is persistent and with a foreign object aiding the assault.

"Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target.[1] Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage."

"The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

........................

An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:
1.a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2.is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3.is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

and 3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

George Zimmerman charged, hearing expected Thursday - CNN.com

According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman told authorities that after he briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him. After the two exchange words, Zimmerman said, he reached for his cell phone, and then Martin punched him in the nose. Zimmerman said Martin pinned him to the ground and began slamming his head into the sidewalk.

has Zimmerman explained exactly what was said that caused Martin to "punched him in the nose" ...


3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.


the case hinges on #3 as well as any other for which Zimmerman has displayed a distinct - indifference to human life - throughout the entire proceeding.

Still running that little gambit are we? It has been disproven many times over that Zimmerman acted with no indifference to human life. The rebuttal of the"racial profiling" and "wannabe cop" theories took the "depraved mind" argument with it.

Missing the forest for the trees, aren't we?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I'm against Zimmerman, but that is the exception. I am usually on the side of the defendant unless he's obviously guilty, of course.

"unless he's obviously guilty,"

you obviously are very wrong this time unless of course you have positive proof off Z's guilt

the only reason he is in that court room today is because of liberals of a certain skin color and their sympathizers wanted him there and the DA bent to their demands.

the verdict: NOT GUILTY !!

I was referring to defendants in general. I definitely don't believe Zim is obviously guilty. If I could come up with an argument that made him look like a slam-dunk, I could win a Pulitzer Prize. And a Nobel Peace Prize too. j/k

I think his prosecution is "compelling."

 

[The Professor]

THIS IS DEVASTATING TO THE DEFENSE!

Oh wait, it's just Swallow popping off nonsensically again. Never mind.

I'll cut the lady some slack.

From what I read on the Internet, many other people share her view. However, I believe these people were always convinced that Zimmerman was guilty and they cannot analyze the evidence in a manner which is inconsistent with their preformed opinions. If they were more open minded and objective they might find that Zimmerman may be telling the truth when he said Martin saw his gun.

While it is true that Zimmerman's holster (worn inside the pants) was normally worn near his back pocket, it is still possible - in fact likely - that Martin saw his weapon. There is no doubt that while Martin was on top of him Zimmerman tried to get out from underneath him. Zimmerman would natural try to roll which would expose the weapon. He would not have had to roll much to expose his gun; just a tad, which he could have easily done.

It is also possible that when Zimmerman was on the ground and maneuvering to escape, the holster shifted more towards his front bringing it into Martin's view. The holster is held in place by a clip which is not so tight that it could not have moved during the attack.

I believe this "devastating" prosecutorial argument will be easily handled by the defense.

NOTE: I have read other articles wherein some people (not Swallow) have suggested that the gun would not be visible because the holster was inside the pants. I don't know where people get this stuff, but what they say is obviously untrue. Although much of the weapon is below the belt line, the grip is always above the belt line and very visible.

Sheesh..at least KoshrSlut is a girl..and it would be sorta appropriate for her to ask a straight guy for a swallow of his jiz. I've read articles where man juice makes girls happy when ingested.

Are you a girl? ProfessorDickSuck? Or are you a faggot?

Not sure.

I don't care for faggots. So no. You can't swallow my man juice. If you are.

I am, or rather was a professor who apologizes for spelling your name wrong. I will correct that shortly. A swallow is a small bird which is why I thought I spelled your name right. I did not intend to insult you, and my misspellings were innocent.

 

[pioneerpete]

You hit the nail on the head. When they over-charge, they have no respect for what a suspect is going through.

At the same time, I also believe Zimmerman was overcharged since I believe he's only guilty of manslaughter. It'd be nearly impossible to prove murder.

Agree on the over charge. However, I don't think the state has disproven self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. All the same, if they would have offered a plea for reckless discharge of a firearm, you know he would have snatched it up, for the very reasons we have stated.

Overcharge? How about no charge at all? This wasn't even a case to begin with. There was not enough evidence to try him. "If you cannot convict, you must acquit!"

I agree. That's why I don't think they will disprove self-defense. All evidence has pointed that way since day 1. But, when they did decide to charge him, for reasons I believe you and I agree on, Murder 2 was all, but impossible to get.

 

[pioneerpete]

"Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target.[1] Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage."

"The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

........................





and 3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

George Zimmerman charged, hearing expected Thursday - CNN.com

According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman told authorities that after he briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him. After the two exchange words, Zimmerman said, he reached for his cell phone, and then Martin punched him in the nose. Zimmerman said Martin pinned him to the ground and began slamming his head into the sidewalk.

has Zimmerman explained exactly what was said that caused Martin to "punched him in the nose" ...


3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.


the case hinges on #3 as well as any other for which Zimmerman has displayed a distinct - indifference to human life - throughout the entire proceeding.

Still running that little gambit are we? It has been disproven many times over that Zimmerman acted with no indifference to human life. The rebuttal of the"racial profiling" and "wannabe cop" theories took the "depraved mind" argument with it.

Missing the forest for the trees, aren't we?

Murder 2 is impossible for them to get at this point. Cuss words and Dee Dee/Diamond Eugene/Rachel Jeantel do not get you convicted of murder 2 in this country.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Agree on the over charge. However, I don't think the state has disproven self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. All the same, if they would have offered a plea for reckless discharge of a firearm, you know he would have snatched it up, for the very reasons we have stated.

Overcharge? How about no charge at all? This wasn't even a case to begin with. There was not enough evidence to try him. "If you cannot convict, you must acquit!"

I agree. That's why I don't think they will disprove self-defense. All evidence has pointed that way since day 1. But, when they did decide to charge him, for reasons I believe you and I agree on, Murder 2 was all, but impossible to get.

Here's the kicker, manslaughter won't work either. They must prove culpable negligence on Zimmerman's part.

 

[TemplarKormac]

........................





and 3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.





has Zimmerman explained exactly what was said that caused Martin to "punched him in the nose" ...


3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.


the case hinges on #3 as well as any other for which Zimmerman has displayed a distinct - indifference to human life - throughout the entire proceeding.

Still running that little gambit are we? It has been disproven many times over that Zimmerman acted with no indifference to human life. The rebuttal of the"racial profiling" and "wannabe cop" theories took the "depraved mind" argument with it.

Missing the forest for the trees, aren't we?

Murder 2 is impossible for them to get at this point. Cuss words and Dee Dee/Diamond Eugene/Rachel Jeantel do not get you convicted of murder 2 in this country.

Precisely!

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

We will have to agree to disagree on GZ. However, I have a great deal of contempt for a prosecutor who charges you with a crime for 5-10 times what he offers you in a plea. Any public defender in the world will tell his client to take that deal, and fear will make the accused take it.

You hit the nail on the head. When they over-charge, they have no respect for what a suspect is going through.

At the same time, I also believe Zimmerman was overcharged since I believe he's only guilty of manslaughter. It'd be nearly impossible to prove murder.

Agree on the over charge. However, I don't think the state has disproven self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. All the same, if they would have offered a plea for reckless discharge of a firearm, you know he would have snatched it up, for the very reasons we have stated.

I've only watched a few minutes of the trial and the same with the coverage. idk really. Or idk what will come.

Of course, some of us believe strongly that Trayvon did NOT attack Zimmerman and the few and light injuries and cuts GZ had were from desperate attempts by Trayvon to deescalate the whole thing, and Trayvon was never aggressive. Self-defense is a moot point when you were never attacked.

 

[pioneerpete]

Overcharge? How about no charge at all? This wasn't even a case to begin with. There was not enough evidence to try him. "If you cannot convict, you must acquit!"

I agree. That's why I don't think they will disprove self-defense. All evidence has pointed that way since day 1. But, when they did decide to charge him, for reasons I believe you and I agree on, Murder 2 was all, but impossible to get.

Here's the kicker, manslaughter won't work either. They must prove culpable negligence on Zimmerman's part.

This is the thing that really pisses me off. When I hear people say he will be found not guilty, or the jury will feel bad and convict of a lessor charge. People race-baiting this case don't take into account that a majority white jury would even consider this. I just can't see in reality where a majority black jury would give a black man a lessor charge to appease the grieving white family. See OJ.