The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[QuickHitCurepon]

I'm lying about whether liberals were the one to put GZ on trial? That's absurd.

Certainly PC leftists forced this stupid trial!

My guess is that it was pressure from the public that finally bought the charges. In other words, PC leftists or rightists. But now that I think about it, my opinion is that it was the public and PC crowd that forced it.

 

[MeBelle]

Did I miss anything? ​

 

[asaratis]

I think we are going to see the animation soon.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

There is no need for this law at all.

Bullshit.

The law should actually have protected GZ from prosecution, but because of the threats of race riots officials decided to ignore the law and allow GZ to be PERSECUTED in court.

I hope that after GZ walks the law is given the teeth that it should have, and that no more people are victimized by "professional victims" and their threats to create chaos or over zealous prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves.

TM was a thug, and he ended up where he was likely to end up at the hands of a fellow thug, if he didn't end up in prison first.

if the law was so wonderful then why did GZ not use it? He stated Or the lawyers did that they might use Stand your ground if they needed to. If it is so strong why not lead with it?

This is not now and never was a "stand your ground" case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm lying about whether liberals were the one to put GZ on trial? That's absurd.

You're lying because you think they haven't. Have you not gone through this thread? Did you not see Sarah G, Mertex and MarcATL all say that Zimmerman should be guilty? They're liberals, Quick. Now listen to Obama, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson all chime in on the issue, next you have the Liberal Congressional Black caucus go all up in arms about it.

Meanwhile, conservatives just want justice to be done.

I was obviously just raising a question. I didn't state either way how I felt about it. If you asked me now how I felt, I would have trouble giving you an answer.

You have made your support for Martin clear, despite all the facts and evidence set before you. I don't like people who are purposefully disingenuous. You have demonstrated a willingness to ignore the reality of this case, and make up your own unsubstantiated claims. I gave you a link to a live stream of this trial, but as I can see you weren't bothered to take any amount of time to watch it.

I admit it takes dedication to stick with a trial of this magnitude, but I will not allow people to purposefully delude themselves in the process.

Take these links and use them. Make a coherent argument, substantiate yourself.

Zimmerman Trial LIVE: Trayvon Martin Murder Case Live-stream

Doctor details how Martin bled to death | HLNtv.com

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Sigh, don't speculate. When you have a guy on top of you beating your face in, the danger is to Zimmerman, not Martin, when Zimmerman chose to defend himself, it was to mitigate the danger; not to be the cause of it.

If you were beating someone's face in, why on earth would you be screaming like that? You wouldn't, simple and plain.

<snipped>

Which reinforces the defense's case.

Martin was beating on Zimmerman so why would Martin have been the one screaming?

I think you misunderstood my question.

 

[Sunshine]

Did I miss anything? ​

Me too. I was gone all afternoon.

 

[Gracie]

I'd love to smack that prosecutors smug face.

 

[Missourian]

I'm guessing, based on cross examination, that the animation is out.

I can only assume that the prosecution thinks that it is so inaccurate that it will be prejudicial.

Right...that's exactly what I am getting too.

That if it is possible that the visual representation can give the jury a false impression about details that could sway the jury in their deliberations, it should not be used.

Hard to argue with that assessment.

 

[pioneerpete]

Sigh, don't speculate. When you have a guy on top of you beating your face in, the danger is to Zimmerman, not Martin, when Zimmerman chose to defend himself, it was to mitigate the danger; not to be the cause of it.

If you were beating someone's face in, why on earth would you be screaming like that? You wouldn't, simple and plain.

<snipped>

Which reinforces the defense's case.

Martin was beating on Zimmerman so why would Martin have been the one screaming?

Like Amelia is pointing out, this is another issue you raise that goes to reasonable doubt. If the jury is asked in deliberations if they can't agree over this point, it goes to the reasonable doubt pile of evidence. They have the defense's account of what happened. Now they don't have a real clear picture of what the state is trying to prove happened. I've heard they were standing, TM hit GZ against a tree, and they were rolling around. The only eye witness contradicts these narratives. Where would the jury go with this?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I'd love to smack that prosecutors smug face.

Seconded!!!!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

At least this part of the prosecutor's cross exam (for this "hearing") (thanks in part to the judge's request to finally put up the animation) makes SOME sense.

If the animation went into with the caveat to the jury that "the placement of the two combatants is not necessarily precise" how would the STATE be prejudiced?

They can STILL attack any part or parts of the animation as unreliable to whatever extent they have evidence to justify such a contention.

I am not seeing why this hearing even has to be held.

The STATE could do this exact thing on cross examination IN FRONT of the jury.

 

[MeBelle]

Is the jury in the courtroom?

The audience looks pretty thin.

Is it because this is soooooooooooooooo boring??

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Is the jury in the courtroom?

No, they left about an hour ago.

 

[Amelia]

If you were beating someone's face in, why on earth would you be screaming like that? You wouldn't, simple and plain.

<snipped>

Which reinforces the defense's case.

Martin was beating on Zimmerman so why would Martin have been the one screaming?

I think you misunderstood my question.

I think you asked the right question and may not yet understand the ramifications of what you actually said.

Zimmerman was the one with injuries. Martin was wailing on him. Zimmerman was at a severe disadvantage with regard to both fighting skills and body position. Why would the person winning the fight be yelling for help? It makes much more sense for the one getting his head bashed against the concrete to be the one yelling for help.

 

[testarosa]

Daggonit

The locals cut into the trial to talk about a teen bit in the head by an alligator.

PRIORITIES people!

 

[SantaFeWay]

He doesn't look like Liam Neesen (sp?) to me. He looks like that guy who played Jesus...Jim Caviezel. Yes? Sort of?

 

[dilloduck]

Is the jury in the courtroom?

how did you sneak in here ?

 

[testarosa]

I'd love to smack that prosecutors smug face.

Seconded!!!!

I called it first!

 

[Interpol]

Gotta love the defence's paid medical examiner Vincent Di Maio.

He was the same witness who had to try to make it seem like Phil Spector had absolutely nothing to do with the woman he took home getting shot in the mouth.

Didn't work out so well for Spector now, did it?