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.
Woohoo 10,000th post!!!! :woohoo:

You win the crown!!

Crown_of_George_XII_of_Georgia.jpeg


You get to wear it until the 20,000 post.
 
It's really funny (well...not really funny) that blacks can kill other blacks every day of the week and no other blacks complain about that. But a white (or hispanic) kills a black, and that person is guilty of murder no matter what the circumstances were that made it happen. They can hear all the evidence, they can know that the black person that was killed most likely deserved it, but they'll never admit it. I'm not saying ALL blacks are this way, but you hardly hear about them. The ones that are threatening to riot are just looking for a reason, right or wrong.
 
Was Martin not temporarily staying in this gated community with an extended family member?

Anyway, the simple question of this all is whether Zimmerman was a coward who shot Martin as he was "getting away" or if he was legitimately "wailed on" before shooting Martin in self defense.

The stand-your-ground law should not be the issue at hand. The issue should be which version is correct.

Would you mind reading about some FACTS which have been proven as EVIDENCE in this case before resorting to your fantasy land?
 
The jury has got to be sitting there thinking "THIS is what we left early for yesterday?".

If you're ever called to be a juror, note that those large periods where you're sitting in the jury room is when you're missing all the good stuff.

I am not going to say a word about what happens at sidebar, much less what we do in chambers... I would get disbarred if I told.

I will tell one in-chambers story, just for some levity.

One particular judge I dealt with often was a chain-smoker. I mean, really, one after another. He would smoke in chambers constantly, and continued to do so even after it became the norm to not smoke in public places. Every time I went to see him, I felt like I had to wear a gas mask and bring a knife to cut the smoke from the room. But he was a great guy, and I always felt at ease when dealing with him. I miss dealing with him now that he has retired.

Nothing worthy of being disbarred, just fond memories.
 
If you're ever called to be a juror, note that those large periods where you're sitting in the jury room is when you're missing all the good stuff.

I am not going to say a word about what happens at sidebar, much less what we do in chambers... I would get disbarred if I told.

I will tell one in-chambers story, just for some levity.

One particular judge I dealt with often was a chain-smoker. I mean, really, one after another. He would smoke in chambers constantly, and continued to do so even after it became the norm to not smoke in public places. Every time I went to see him, I felt like I had to wear a gas mask and bring a knife to cut the smoke from the room. But he was a great guy, and I always felt at ease when dealing with him. I miss dealing with him now that he has retired.

Nothing worthy of being disbarred, just fond memories.

There are a lot of really good judges.

And then there's not.
 
I don't get the judge's ruling about excluding the animation at all.

Why would any judge build in such a solid appeals argument (in the unlikely event of a conviction)?

I am less concerned with the exclusion of texts showing that TM may have been fond of fighting. Again, I doubt GZ was AWARE of TM's proclivities, so it may very well be a whole lot on the irrelevant side.

But the animation ruling is absurd.

I really don't either. Either completely exclude it or include it. The way she ruled actually leads to even more possible confusion, which is precisely what she seemed to be worried about.

It is probably moot as far as the outcome of this trial, but the entire issue surrounding the animation was dealt with strangely.
 
Defense is really hammering home (no pun intent) the deliberation/deliberateness of Zimmerman's act. In no way do they want the jury to use the fallback of negligence or involuntary anything.

IMO.

But I'm no lawyer.

Isn't that the point of some of this guy's testimony also? The stress on the pounds of force necessary to pull the trigger. Yes?
 
I am not going to say a word about what happens at sidebar, much less what we do in chambers... I would get disbarred if I told.

I will tell one in-chambers story, just for some levity.

One particular judge I dealt with often was a chain-smoker. I mean, really, one after another. He would smoke in chambers constantly, and continued to do so even after it became the norm to not smoke in public places. Every time I went to see him, I felt like I had to wear a gas mask and bring a knife to cut the smoke from the room. But he was a great guy, and I always felt at ease when dealing with him. I miss dealing with him now that he has retired.

Nothing worthy of being disbarred, just fond memories.

There are a lot of really good judges.

And then there's not.

There are a lot of really good judges.

And then there's Dopey Debbie.

Beez fixin dat fo ya.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top