The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[testarosa]

O'Mara gets props for basically predicting this.

And his objection was damn timely and spot on, too.

Stamina gets props for basically predicting this.

There I fixed it.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Oh, the State is so desperate. What a shame on this process and a disgrace to everyone involved in pursuing this man. Never thought I would see such a thing broadcast live for all to see. WHAT A TRAVESTY!

Outrageous.

Why is the sidebar so long.

This is an easy one!

I would enjoy these long sidebars more if they put the camera on Evidence Cutie instead of George.

 

[Gracie]

Oh, the State is so desperate. What a shame on this process and a disgrace to everyone involved in pursuing this man. Never thought I would see such a thing broadcast live for all to see. WHAT A TRAVESTY!

Outrageous.

Affirmative action itself has been an affront to us all. Trials to appease a race are not just.

And that is EXACTLY what is going on here. Just shameful. I swear, I thought the OJ trial was a farce but omg...this one beats them all. Especially with the media being judge and jury and the judge HERSELF overstepping Z's lawyer and HIS rights.

I'm just gobsmacked.

 

[testarosa]

Is she actually thinking of giving them this or did the State not tell them in time to get case law to argue against it which means it was a blow below the belt?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

http://www.kogym.com/index.htm

look at the very bottom of the page. It says "Zimmerman."

Then it says at the hyperlink page: Zimmerman

407-260-XXXX [deleted]


390 Sansu Court,
Longwood, FL 32750

To receive information about the training George Zimmerman received at KOKOPELLI'S GYM, please email request by filling out the form provided below.

-- Zimmerman {I edited the telephone number for this post}

Should have been on cross

Not on rebutt it doesn't rebutt anything in evidence already.

I'm arguing with a lawyer <facepalm>

Arguing?

I agree with your point.

I only shared the website since it is the aparent focus and subject of the proposed "rebuttal" questioning.

If this is "arguing" with me, I suppose we must be in violent agreement.

 

[testarosa]

http://www.kogym.com/index.htm

look at the very bottom of the page. It says "Zimmerman."

Then it says at the hyperlink page: Zimmerman



-- Zimmerman {I edited the telephone number for this post}

Should have been on cross

Not on rebutt it doesn't rebutt anything in evidence already.

I'm arguing with a lawyer <facepalm>

Arguing?

I agree with your point.

I only shared the website since it is the aparent focus and subject of the proposed "rebuttal" questioning.

If this is "arguing" with me, I suppose we must be in violent agreement.

I was arguing WITH a lawyer <facepalm>

I'm sorta worked up. This is freaking ridiculous right up til the very bitter end of it.

 

[R.D.]

http://www.kogym.com/index.htm

look at the very bottom of the page. It says "Zimmerman."

Then it says at the hyperlink page: Zimmerman



-- Zimmerman {I edited the telephone number for this post}

Should have been on cross

Not on rebutt it doesn't rebutt anything in evidence already.

I'm arguing with a lawyer <facepalm>

Arguing?

I agree with your point.

I only shared the website since it is the aparent focus and subject of the proposed "rebuttal" questioning.

If this is "arguing" with me, I suppose we must be in violent agreement.

Agreement judo

 

[dilloduck]

O'Mara gets props for basically predicting this.

And his objection was damn timely and spot on, too.

Stamina gets props for basically predicting this.

There I fixed it.

*tequila effects becoming more pronounced*

 

[ScienceRocks]

It was the states job to prove without a doubt. They certainly didn't do that.

I expect a not guilty.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Should have been on cross

Not on rebutt it doesn't rebutt anything in evidence already.

I'm arguing with a lawyer <facepalm>

Arguing?

I agree with your point.

I only shared the website since it is the aparent focus and subject of the proposed "rebuttal" questioning.

If this is "arguing" with me, I suppose we must be in violent agreement.

I was arguing WITH a lawyer <facepalm>

I'm sorta worked up. This is freaking ridiculous right up til the very bitter end of it.

The emphasis on the preposition doesn't help.

We were not arguing.

 

[testarosa]

What pisses me off about the sleazeball state is they came in with this rebuttal witness and probably their case law and argument knowing this was improper and there would be a fight and trying to sneak it in and telling Stamina 2 seconds before so they are prepared to argue but defense isn't.

Sleazy fn crap from them this whole trial.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Should have been on cross

Not on rebutt it doesn't rebutt anything in evidence already.

I'm arguing with a lawyer <facepalm>

Arguing?

I agree with your point.

I only shared the website since it is the aparent focus and subject of the proposed "rebuttal" questioning.

If this is "arguing" with me, I suppose we must be in violent agreement.

Agreement judo

I deftly maneuvered her accurate assessment in agreement with me into a position where she was -- wait for it --

agreeing with me.

Or WITH me!

 

[testarosa]

Arguing?

I agree with your point.

I only shared the website since it is the aparent focus and subject of the proposed "rebuttal" questioning.

If this is "arguing" with me, I suppose we must be in violent agreement.

I was arguing WITH a lawyer <facepalm>

I'm sorta worked up. This is freaking ridiculous right up til the very bitter end of it.

The emphasis on the preposition doesn't help.

We were not arguing.

Arguing ALONGSIDE

Okay, now it's fixed.

 

[dilloduck]

What pisses me off about the sleazeball state is they came in with this rebuttal witness and probably their case law and argument knowing this was improper and there would be a fight and trying to sneak it in and telling Stamina 2 seconds before so they are prepared to argue but defense isn't.

Sleazy fn crap from them this whole trial.

jose cuervo time

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I was arguing WITH a lawyer <facepalm>

I'm sorta worked up. This is freaking ridiculous right up til the very bitter end of it.

The emphasis on the preposition doesn't help.

We were not arguing.

Arguing ALONGSIDE

Okay, now it's fixed.

AGREEING with.

NOW it's much better!

 

[testarosa]

Arguing?

I agree with your point.

I only shared the website since it is the aparent focus and subject of the proposed "rebuttal" questioning.

If this is "arguing" with me, I suppose we must be in violent agreement.

Agreement judo

I deftly maneuvered her accurate assessment in agreement with me into a position where she was -- wait for it --

agreeing with me.

Or WITH me!

Don't try to Sarah me.

 

[Jackson]

It was the states job to prove without a doubt. They certainly didn't do that.

I expect a not guilty.

I'm expecting a hung jury 5-1, or 4-2.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Agreement judo

I deftly maneuvered her accurate assessment in agreement with me into a position where she was -- wait for it --

agreeing with me.

Or WITH me!

Don't try to Sarah me.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Agreement judo

I deftly maneuvered her accurate assessment in agreement with me into a position where she was -- wait for it --

agreeing with me.

Or WITH me!

Don't try to Sarah me.

Now THAT's a low blow!

 

[Oldstyle]

I was giving my impressions. Unless you want to take a case-by-case analysis. His whole life looks sociopathic to me.

Of course it would.

Can you be more specific? Wouldn't you agree that GZ is at least a loser? You'd have to be to follow people around to try and feel self-important and spend half of your adult life calling the police on people for any reason.

In a time of apathy and selfishness, someone cares enough about the neighborhood that they live in to volunteer their time to try and keep that neighborhood safe by joining a Neighborhood Watch, but you call him a "loser"? What makes George Zimmerman a loser in your eyes? The fact that he cared? That's the OPPOSITE of a sociopath!