The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[testarosa]

It looks terrible either way.

Why? I eat animals all the time.

Do you shoot them and then watch how long it takes them to die?

Sometimes. Depends on what kind of mood I'm in and if I'm super hungry or I just ate.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So, West just spanked Bernie. That asshole question about putting your hand over the mouth and expecting to see blood would only make sense IF there was testimony or evidence that TM had done that move to GZ after his nose started bleeding out under his nose.

West exposed Bernie's fallacy rather adroitly.

 

[MisterBeale]

It's about Trayvon Martin being Barack Obama's son.

 

[Sarah G]

LOL

Sarie just acknowledged reasonable doubt.

She just doesn't grasp that this means GZ should be acquitted.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self defense. Maybe I'm not saying it right but I don't claim to be a lawyer like some people who are on her everyday.

Stringing random words together (and not all that coherently) does not help your cause, Sarie.

You seem to be attempting to retract your prior statement that there is reasonable doubt.

I can certainly understand why you'd want to retract your concession.

But you can't have it both ways.

The STATE has to prove the man's guilt BEYOND a REASONABLE DOUBT. If you admit that there is reasonable doubt of his guilt, then you admit that the STATE fails. = Acquittal.

If you are acknowledging that there is some reasonable doubt remaining that GZ acted in self defense, then the STATE necessarily failed to rebut the justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That's THEIR burden. = Acquittal.

Or, since you are quite incoherent, maybe you aren't saying that, either.

But that only leaves the big question open. WTF ARE you hoping to be saying?

Congrats, you made a point, you don't always. You normally just come off sounding abusive.

So why are you here everyday if you're a real attorney? Retired?

 

[PredFan]

Yes it's definitely guns. To me this is an example how things can go really wrong if your carrying a gun. Clearly Martin wasn't doing anything wrong until he was confronted. After that I guess we don't know what happened. If they were fighting after Zimmerman confronted him it seems really wrong that Martin ends up dead. Seems like he was minding his own business and Zimmerman brought about the confrontation. If Martin did attack him I don't think he was going to kill him, should have just been a fight. But instead it's a death thanks to the gun. All that said Zimmerman probably had good intentions that went really bad. Again probably thanks to the gun. So yes the politics is because of the gun.

You're assuming Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. The Evidence doesn't support that.

It's not an assumption. Didn't Zimmerman call the police on Martin who was doing nothing wrong? And didn't he continue to follow him after he was told not to? This confrontation was his fault. Had he minded his own business this wouldn't have happened.

Clearly you have no idea about the facts in this case.

 

[testarosa]

Shipping just got laughed at for leaving the dead man cannot stand.

 

[dilloduck]

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self defense. Maybe I'm not saying it right but I don't claim to be a lawyer like some people who are on her everyday.

Stringing random words together (and not all that coherently) does not help your cause, Sarie.

You seem to be attempting to retract your prior statement that there is reasonable doubt.

I can certainly understand why you'd want to retract your concession.

But you can't have it both ways.

The STATE has to prove the man's guilt BEYOND a REASONABLE DOUBT. If you admit that there is reasonable doubt of his guilt, then you admit that the STATE fails. = Acquittal.

If you are acknowledging that there is some reasonable doubt remaining that GZ acted in self defense, then the STATE necessarily failed to rebut the justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That's THEIR burden. = Acquittal.

Or, since you are quite incoherent, maybe you aren't saying that, either.

But that only leaves the big question open. WTF ARE you hoping to be saying?

Congrats, you made a point, you don't always. You normally just come off sounding abusive.

So why are you here everyday if you're a real attorney? Retired?

If you need a break I can fill in for ya, Sarah.

 

[OKTexas]

Why is the Zimmerman case devided so sharply along partisan lines? With only a very few exceptions the lefties here believe GZ is guilty and the conservatives wait until the trial is over. I couldn't understand why, since GZ isn't white, the lefties were so ready to string him up.

Moments ago, it hit me.

It's only partially about race. True, if TM was white or hispanic, no one would care, but race isn't the real reason they want GZ to fry. It's guns.

GZ defended himself with a gun and a black man is dead. They cannot stand the thought that GZ might have legally used a gun to defend himself. It's about guns, and self-defense and even Stand-Your-Ground.

If GZ is convicted, they can use this case to revive their efforts to take away our rights and that is THE issue.

The left never ever cares about right and wrong, they only care about winning.

The question is, do they believe Martin deserved to die because he was black? Because they certainly are convinced he deserved to die and they believed that waaaaaaaaay before the trial started.

How many times would you allow your head to be slammed into concrete before your feared for your life? Simple question, how about you answer it.

 

[Sarah G]

Why? I eat animals all the time.

Do you shoot them and then watch how long it takes them to die?

Sometimes. Depends on what kind of mood I'm in and if I'm super hungry or I just ate.

Well now I see why you're such a fan of Di Matio. Thanks for the heads up, I'll be sure and hide my dog if you ever come over.

 

[manifold]

For those with comprehension problems...

I never said the use of the word in that context was incorrect, just that I'd never heard it used in that context before. Prior to this thread, I'd only ever heard the word used in the grammatical context. When it comes to references to people, it's far more common to use the words parent, grandparents, great grandparents and/or ancestors.

Just an observation, mildly humorous to perhaps only me.

I didn't mean to kick sand in all your vaginas, that was just a bonus.

You didn't kick sand in anything; we're just trying to help you improve your vocabulary. It is, actually, quite common to use the term antecedents for ancestors. I am surprised you hadn't heard it in that context. You know, when this kind of thing happens to me, I wryly respond: 'You learn something knew everyday.' And you do. There's nothing wrong with not knowing something; it is a problem when you feel that people are giving you a hard time when they are just telling you about something you didn't know. I didn't attack you for not knowing: I just provided the definitions for the word. Why get your knickers in a twist over a definition?

Does the backpedaling help get the sand out?

 

[PredFan]

The question is, do they believe Martin deserved to die because he was black? Because they certainly are convinced he deserved to die and they believed that waaaaaaaaay before the trial started.

Thta's bull shit and you know it. Me and most of the conservatives here stated quite clearly that we don't know what happened, we weren't there. We only objected to the lefties who had him convicted without knowing the evidence, without even a trial.

You are lying out of your ass.

The bed wetters went so far as to doctor the 911 evidence, and manipulate the public by portraying TM as a puffy faced 12 year old, and GZ as a stereotypical white guy in a pickup truck.

We're dealing with some truly sick people here.

As I stated in the OP, the left doesn't give a shit about right or wrong, they only care about winning. It's their M.O. you see it in every elected democrat official, every democrat policy, and every political argument.

 

[Snookie]

Best part of the Dr's testimony was where he explained the stunning effects of the skull impacts by saying (paraphrased) "If you've every hit your head really hard, you know what that feels like".

Instead of trying to relate the injuries in words, he gave the jury a frame of reference, a first hand example.

I've rang my own bell just a few weeks ago, and the experience lept to my mind as soon as the Doctor made the statement.

I raised up too quickly and hit my head on an I beam...thought I had cracked my skull open...hurt like a sombitch...I had so sit down.

Who hasn't done similar?

And the jury now has that first hand head injury experience in their mind...

Excellent testimony.

Yep. I could so relate to his testimony.

I used to keep pictures on the tv, before flat screens, and dusting one day a glass frame fell on my head and I was out cold for a few seconds, maybe only 20. Scared my husband to death.

No cuts, no blood and definately no stitches but man-o-man it hurt.

(Lesson here...don't dust )

just curious. who was on top?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self defense. Maybe I'm not saying it right but I don't claim to be a lawyer like some people who are on her everyday.

Stringing random words together (and not all that coherently) does not help your cause, Sarie.

You seem to be attempting to retract your prior statement that there is reasonable doubt.

I can certainly understand why you'd want to retract your concession.

But you can't have it both ways.

The STATE has to prove the man's guilt BEYOND a REASONABLE DOUBT. If you admit that there is reasonable doubt of his guilt, then you admit that the STATE fails. = Acquittal.

If you are acknowledging that there is some reasonable doubt remaining that GZ acted in self defense, then the STATE necessarily failed to rebut the justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That's THEIR burden. = Acquittal.

Or, since you are quite incoherent, maybe you aren't saying that, either.

But that only leaves the big question open. WTF ARE you hoping to be saying?

Congrats, you made a point, you don't always. You normally just come off sounding abusive.

So why are you here everyday if you're a real attorney? Retired?

And you just ducked the question.

(a) I am NOT here every day. I have been able to enjoy this the last couple of days, however.

And (B) what difference would it make in your world to find out that I am a lawyer? You seem not to believe it. So what? I don't much care what you believe. But I do see through your transparent petty deflection effort.

Now, stop waffling. Have you at long last come to realize that there IS a reasonable doubt in this case? Are you capable of admitting as much, finally?

 

[deltex1]

Why is the Zimmerman case devided so sharply along partisan lines? With only a very few exceptions the lefties here believe GZ is guilty and the conservatives wait until the trial is over. I couldn't understand why, since GZ isn't white, the lefties were so ready to string him up.

Moments ago, it hit me.

It's only partially about race. True, if TM was white or hispanic, no one would care, but race isn't the real reason they want GZ to fry. It's guns.

GZ defended himself with a gun and a black man is dead. They cannot stand the thought that GZ might have legally used a gun to defend himself. It's about guns, and self-defense and even Stand-Your-Ground.

If GZ is convicted, they can use this case to revive their efforts to take away our rights and that is THE issue.

The left never ever cares about right and wrong, they only care about winning.[/QUOTE

I agree its about guns...and being man enough to use one to protect yourself. Men are supposed to be weak and afraid and equivocating these days...much like Obabble...GZ didn't fit that mould. I wish he had been more adept with his fists...I suppose TM would wish the same given a second chance.

 

[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.

If I hear one person say the state over charged I'm gonna barf. Self defense is an absolute defense. It wouldn't matter what they charged him with. If he claims he acted in self defense and can show that, he must be acquitted. There is no different burden of proof. He killed Martin. That's admitted. There is no issue there as to whether it was premeditated or whatever. His reason for doing so is SD. In order to counter that the state must show a reasonable person would not be in fear.

If you would read my follow up you would see that I completely agree with you. However, after he was ultimately charged, there was no way to prove murder 2, so that is an over charge.

Lets be clear though, neither Murder 2 or Manslaughter are plausible.

 

[Pete7469]

The question is, do they believe Martin deserved to die because he was black? Because they certainly are convinced he deserved to die and they believed that waaaaaaaaay before the trial started.

How many times would you allow your head to be slammed into concrete before your feared for your life? Simple question, how about you answer it.

Slamming Ravi's head into the ground wouldn't damage anything vital.

A swift kick in the ass could cause a brain hemorage though.

 

[Sarah G]

Stringing random words together (and not all that coherently) does not help your cause, Sarie.

You seem to be attempting to retract your prior statement that there is reasonable doubt.

I can certainly understand why you'd want to retract your concession.

But you can't have it both ways.

The STATE has to prove the man's guilt BEYOND a REASONABLE DOUBT. If you admit that there is reasonable doubt of his guilt, then you admit that the STATE fails. = Acquittal.

If you are acknowledging that there is some reasonable doubt remaining that GZ acted in self defense, then the STATE necessarily failed to rebut the justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That's THEIR burden. = Acquittal.

Or, since you are quite incoherent, maybe you aren't saying that, either.

But that only leaves the big question open. WTF ARE you hoping to be saying?

Congrats, you made a point, you don't always. You normally just come off sounding abusive.

So why are you here everyday if you're a real attorney? Retired?

If you need a break I can fill in for ya, Sarah.

Hey, Dillo. Just go a little easier on me today, I think I need a break.

 

[testarosa]

The prosecution needs to buy their experts from the expert store the defense gets theirs at.

 

[Sallow]

Straw man much?

heh, you should have asked the OP that question.

I could have, if i had no clue what a straw man is. But I do, so I didn't.

The trial is all about guns and whether we have a right to self defense.

Right to "self defense" as defined, where exactly?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

The Press are magicians! The press was able to turn a man of hispanic heritage into a white man and according to the pictures I saw, the press was able to turn a 17 year old kid into a 13 year old kid.
The press pulled a lot of magic tricks in this case which just adds to the confusion.