The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[TemplarKormac]

Nobody's perfect, and people make mistakes. That shows I'm human unlike how you come off in your personal attack.

How does one mistake all of a sudden make my comments contradict? That doesn't even make sense.

No, your mistake was posting here at all.

Eliminate dissension altogether? Like how the Nazis operated?

Here, we eliminate stupidity. Big difference.

 

[Ernie S.]

Crazy Scot -

The lawyers have all gone to bed so I'll attempt a quick 'spanation of what I think happens next.

The State thinks it may want to call one rebuttal witness. It's an ATF agent who arrested GZ 8 years ago on assault charges. But the charges were reduced, GZ completed some anger management classes, and the charges were dropped. If they call him, then the defense can question him. They will probably not call him and will not present a rebuttal case. If no rebuttal by State, then no surrebuttal by defense. Done with testimony.

The lawyers are set to convene at 9AM tomorrow to discuss jury instructions. At 1PM the State will present their closing argument by Bernie. Friday morning the defense will present their closing by Mark O'Mara followed by a final rebuttal argument by John Guy for the State. Then the jury gets to deliberate.

Hope that helped answer your questions. Which, I'm sorry, I have now forgotten. Too long a day.......

Is Guy going to mount his inflatable again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was watching that whole thing and thinking to myself, "What would I say if I were in his shoes because just opening my mouth could sway the jury." Eventually I realized he could have said, "Your honor, I defer to my attorneys to speak for me." However, I know I could never have thought on my feet in the face of such behavior from the very person who quite possibly holds the rest of my life in her hands. I really hope his attorneys bring action against the judge for that maneuver when all this is done.

What was she doing? She wanted the jury to hear his voice for themselves in hopes that they would determine that he couldn't "scream in a girlie voice".

Did she do that in front of the jury? They should have demanded a mistrial right there and then if she did, and then appealed the denial.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans. Only upset that someone disrespected a guy who killed a black child. How dare they.

I would feel the same way if the violent teenager was white and the guy who shot him was black.

Then again, I am not a Republican, even by your standards.

 

[pioneerpete]

No, your mistake was posting here at all.

Eliminate dissension altogether? Like how the Nazis operated?

Here, we eliminate stupidity. Big difference.

I like it that when he makes a mistake in his recollection, and someone calls him on it he calls them Nazis. However, when GZ makes a mistake on some unimportant detail he calls him a murderer, sociopath, loser.

Worst part is, he will never see that comparison as valid, and have some smart ass retort that makes no sense and less factual evidence.

 

[Avatar4321]

Nobody's perfect, and people make mistakes. That shows I'm human unlike how you come off in your personal attack.

How does one mistake all of a sudden make my comments contradict? That doesn't even make sense.

No, your mistake was posting here at all.

Eliminate dissension altogether? Like how the Nazis operated?

No like progressives do. Where do you think the Nazi's learned it? Woodrow Wilson and Company.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

And the simple fact is that Zimmerman was stalking Martin. That doesn't look too good to most people, ESPECIALLY women (all the jurers are women) who tend to have a lot more experience with stalkers than men do.

Right.

I do it too. Often we forget, when we remind that he was stalking, that he was doing this with a loaded gun.

 

[dilloduck]

No--it was NOT done in front of the jury.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Can you be a citizen and not understand that, even in court, you do not have to answer any questions you chose not to?

It was a matter of procedure and process. A Judge is allowed to inquire on those matters

Not true. Once the lawyer said that the client was not going to testify the case was closed and the judge was obligated to move on. There is no way any court will ever reverse a case because the defendant later argues that he wanted to testify.

Yea but it was her court. It sucks sometimes but Judges have a lot of leeway with regards to how they manage their courtroom. She was requesting verification for the record that the defendant did not want to testify from his own mouth. His attorneys were present. She didn't violate his rights.

Was she unprofessional? I don't know every major trial in my lifetime has seemed like a circus and the judges have played a big role in them all. Maybe all Judges act this way. Or maybe it's because of the pressure they're under.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Eliminate dissension altogether? Like how the Nazis operated?

Here, we eliminate stupidity. Big difference.

I like it that when he makes a mistake in his recollection, and someone calls him on it he calls them Nazis. However, when GZ makes a mistake on some unimportant detail he calls him a murderer, sociopath, loser.

Worst part is, he will never see that comparison as valid, and have some smart ass retort that makes no sense and less factual evidence.

When an argument fails or is failing, the only thing the person has left is minutial details to prop his failure up.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

No, your mistake was posting here at all.

Eliminate dissension altogether? Like how the Nazis operated?

Here, we eliminate stupidity. Big difference.

That was REAL witty. You must be a genius. Did you miss me while I was on your IL?

 

[Avatar4321]

And the simple fact is that Zimmerman was stalking Martin. That doesn't look too good to most people, ESPECIALLY women (all the jurers are women) who tend to have a lot more experience with stalkers than men do.

Right.

I do it too. Often we forget, when we remind that he was stalking, that he was doing this with a loaded gun.

Except he wasnt stalking Trayvon. There is a reason stalking wasn't charged. There is absolutely zero evidence to support a stalking charge.

This is the problem with you people who want to send Zimmerman away, you want to pretend the evidence shows things it doesn't show because you're not looking at the evidence. You're making a determination and they trying to force the facts to fit your mindset. Reality doesn't work that way. You just end up lying to yourself.

 

[MarcATL]

Defense has officially rested.

State has called Adam Pollack as rebuttal witness.

and who the heck is Adam Pollack and what does he have to add to this?

Adam Pollack is Zimmerman's fight trainer. Supposedly was trying to teach Zimmerman how to box... was the guy who said Zimmerman didn't know how to punch and was morbidly obese when he met him. Somehow, the state thinks that he is using this whole thing to promote his gym.

We have the right to self defense in this country. If some punkazz biatch who looks for trouble comes and starts it, he just may end up dead. Guess what?! Leave people the fuck alone.. think you can simply hit and attack someone simply because you don't like them or you're pissed about something? WRONG ANSWER.

That's the advice your boy zimmemrn should have followed, instead he chose to follow and harass that kid. zimmerman was the adult with the firearm, he should have definitely kept his distance as Martin wasn't committing any crime.

He's not my boy and he had every right to defend himself. Go try that shit again with someone.. You'll find the same results. Like I said , no one is going to roll over and let you fuckers simply beat them up.. Mind your own fucking biznez then you won't have to worry about being 6ft under.. otherwise roll the fucking dice and choose your victim carefully.

WTF are you babbling on about you dumb, RW, broad.

Trayvon WAS minding his own business.

He didn't "choose" any "victim," he was victimized by the bigotted killer, George Zimmerman, who took one glance at him walking down the street on his way home from the store with Skittles and iced tea and pegged him as "suspicious." Persued him from there and ultimately killed him with a single shot to the arm.

You deserve a batch slap for that shat...seriously.

 

[wavingrl]

It was a matter of procedure and process. A Judge is allowed to inquire on those matters

Not true. Once the lawyer said that the client was not going to testify the case was closed and the judge was obligated to move on. There is no way any court will ever reverse a case because the defendant later argues that he wanted to testify.

Yea but it was her court. It sucks sometimes but Judges have a lot of leeway with regards to how they manage their courtroom. She was requesting verification for the record that the defendant did not want to testify from his own mouth. His attorneys were present. She didn't violate his rights.

Was she unprofessional? I don't know every major trial in my lifetime has seemed like a circus and the judges have played a big role in them all. Maybe all Judges act this way. Or maybe it's because of the pressure they're under.

Somewhere, someone theorized that there is an adversarial relationship between the court and the attorneys. All parties understand this and so on.

This trial has been moving at a fast pace and everyone is/should be tired--frayed nerves.

West objected once and that was on the record. He really didn't need to object a 2nd time--according to someone who should know. I forget.

 

[Avatar4321]

People minding their own business dont end up on top of people beating them agianst the ground.

 

[dilloduck]

It was a matter of procedure and process. A Judge is allowed to inquire on those matters

Not true. Once the lawyer said that the client was not going to testify the case was closed and the judge was obligated to move on. There is no way any court will ever reverse a case because the defendant later argues that he wanted to testify.

Yea but it was her court. It sucks sometimes but Judges have a lot of leeway with regards to how they manage their courtroom. She was requesting verification for the record that the defendant did not want to testify from his own mouth. His attorneys were present. She didn't violate his rights.

Was she unprofessional? I don't know every major trial in my lifetime has seemed like a circus and the judges have played a big role in them all. Maybe all Judges act this way. Or maybe it's because of the pressure they're under.

My guess is that in attempt to be fair she was going to give George a heads up about the decision to testify or not. She was already pissed at the lawyers from the night before so when they questioned the timing she went ballistic. I think she was in over her head and under enormous pressure. I don't think of a single person who really wanted to be there.
Thank you Obama and Holder.

 

[OriginalShroom]

A jury charge for lesser included offenses is not unusual, she could allow them to consider manslaughter but also varying degrees of assault. She also will instruct that these charges can only be considered if the jury fails to believe the claim of self defense.

Since when do Judges set charges? That is the job of the Prosecution.

The lesser charges where not there at the beginning of the trial. If they had been it may have changed the way the Defense Lawyer handled the case.

It seems very wrong to me that a Prosecutor can add charges at the end of the trial, expecting to a conviction on them when those charges were never defended against during the trial itself.

 

[Londoner]

"This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something,"

"These assholes, they always get away."

"Shit, he's running,"

"Are you following him?" the dispatcher asked.

"Yep."

 

[MarcATL]

Nobody knows if TM was truly acting suspicious or not. Nobody knows if GZ started the fight. With these aspects agreed upon, you have evidence to look at. The evidence, testimony and physical evidence, supports GZ's account. The fact that the prosecution continues to give different scenarios about the incident promotes reasonable doubt.

What evidence and testimony supports zimmerman's account?

The prosecution on top of the dummy today supports his account that Martin was on top, same as the eye witness.
The forensic evidence offered by the defense's medical examiner.
Your team's medical examiner was a joke and if you do not know and admit that you are no so bright.
That confirmed all of what Zimmerman stated to police and all of that was gone over how many times in this trial?
32 or 33?

That's the advice your boy zimmemrn should have followed, instead he chose to follow and harass that kid. zimmerman was the adult with the firearm, he should have definitely kept his distance as Martin wasn't committing any crime.

He's not my boy and he had every right to defend himself. Go try that shit again with someone.. You'll find the same results. Like I said , no one is going to roll over and let you fuckers simply beat them up.. Mind your own fucking biznez then you won't have to worry about being 6ft under.. otherwise roll the fucking dice and choose your victim carefully.

Who in the hell are you talking to? Try what "shit" again? Who are "you fuckers"? Is that "biznez" a typo or is it something else? Where do you people come up with that insane shit?
It's pretty comical though thanks for the laugh! "Ladygunslinger".............

It's all in their head...all of it. They are projecting all their fear, hatred and bigotry unto Trayvon Martin.

What that dumb broad just vomitted out of her mouth was nothing but racist rage and venom that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Trayvon/Zimmerman case.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's all in their head...all of it. They are projecting all their fear, hatred and bigotry unto Trayvon Martin.

What that dumb broad just vomitted out of her mouth was nothing but racist rage and venom that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Trayvon/Zimmerman case.

I'll bite. What fear, hatred or bigotry has been projected onto Trayvon?