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.
I don't think Zimmerman is going to be convicted on anything, or at least he shouldn't be convicted, but you never know. With what I've seen and heard in this trial, there's no way I would convict, no way at all, but I'm not on the jury.

This is a travesty, I just don't see how this has come to this. If this judge allows "Child Abuse", I don't think Zimmerman received a fair trial.

Second Degree Murder wasn't proven and neither was Manslaughter. George Zimmerman should be free and clear, I just don't know if he will be because the jury may feel sorry for Martins mother or they are afraid for their own Saftey or they don't want riots.

oh--I think there will be a conviction. Then and only then can the media be happy.

thinking of all that they will have to say--how can they live with themselves.

sigh--I suppose in a decade or so appeals could go all the way to the Supreme Court--that is not what is needed--miscarriage of justice. So many stories.

George Zimmerman will not survive for a year in prison, I can almost gaurentee you that. They may put Zimmerman into protective custody or whatever, so he may survive for a while while the appeals process moves forward though, who knows.

The defense should add that to their closing argument. They should say something like, "No matter what you, the jury, does, George Zimmerman has been convicted and sentenced to death. It is up to you whether or not George Zimmerman dies in prison or as a free man".

I have worked in prisons. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the power the Hispanic gangs wield there. GZ will have a bitch his first day there and he will be given a nice cushy job cleaning the prison clinic where he can dawdle all day long. I once saw a convict cleaning our clinic clean a 10 x 10 foot square of floor for 8 solid hours. One of them also thought it would be funny to put floor stripper in the staff soap dispensers. But that's for another day.
 
No one was stalking. Zimmerman wasn't stalking.

He was stealthfully following the victim. The victim noticed and felt threatened.

Ergo, Zimmerman was stalking.

The definition of stalking requires repeated behavior not stealthy behavior. Had Zimmerman been following Martin on several prior occasions he would be stalking.

So if a girl leaves a bar and I follow her around just the one time thats ok?
 
He was stealthfully following the victim. The victim noticed and felt threatened.

Ergo, Zimmerman was stalking.

You can repeat that all you want. It wont ever make it true.

But you can't be honest about it. You need to claim stalking because you are trying to pretend he is a criminal. You can't rely on the actual evidence to make a determination.

Jesus christ, even Z's own description of his action indicates that he stalked the victim. The transcripts of the 911 call confirms it. What more do you fucking need?

This is why the right wing looks so stupid to everyone. They will defend their own, despite guilt or ignorance.
Its pretty clear you believe this for no reason other than you want to, as the evidence says othwerwise.
As such, there's no reason for anyone to take you or your opinion seriuosly.
 
You know what is ironic, if a white man (or really any race) were to walk through south central it is almost a guarantee that he is going to be killed for doing nothing. It is unlikely that anyone will be caught either. There are neighborhoods that the police won’t even enter; it is simply too damn dangerous for them. You don’t hear jack shit about that though.


When I was younger, I put up hand railing in a park off of Florence and Hoover. No one killed me.

I've walked through Compton after dark. I work in fucking Santa Fe Springs, and survive it.

yea but you are from the OC....no one fucks with us....:eusa_shhh:
 
If you're wannabe cop, carrying a concealed weapon and start a confrontation with an unarmed minor and he punches you a few times, you don't get to shoot him dead.

Except:

1) It's perfectly legal to be a wannabe police officer (Despite the evidence showing that's not the case for Zimmerman)
2) It's perfectly legal to carry a concealed weapon.
3) There is ZERO evidence that he started a confrontation. No evidence has been presented on who started the confrontation. Hence, reasonable doubt
4) He had no way of knowing whether Trayvon was armed or not.
5) Punching someone can be lethal.
6) If someone is punching you and you have reasonable fear for your life, you can shot them. If they die from that shooting, it's not murder since you were acting in Self defense.
7) Until you prove otherwise, he has a presumption of innocent. The evidence doesn't prove otherwise. so there is reasonable doubt.

You don't get to tell someone they can't defend themself just because you disagree with the results of what happened. The right to self defense is absolute. If someone puts you in in reasonable fear, you can defend yourself.
The only reason anyone cares is that Martin was black.
:dunno:
 
He was stealthfully following the victim. The victim noticed and felt threatened.

Ergo, Zimmerman was stalking.

The definition of stalking requires repeated behavior not stealthy behavior. Had Zimmerman been following Martin on several prior occasions he would be stalking.

So if a girl leaves a bar and I follow her around just the one time thats ok?

not if you follow her to her house and knock on the door....
 
Is it the bias I have developed watching this trial or is the Prosecution really being unlovable and unattractive in this closing argument? I am being strongly unconvinced by his argument and somewhat put off by his demeanor.

Lawyering is not about love. It is about money. As long as they get the money, you can love them or hate them. They blather on and on about how much the defense experts got paid. Well, the prosecution experts got paid too and it comes out of the taxpayers' pockets.
 
One juror, according to people in the court room, refuses to make eye contact with the prosecutor. Two current or former CCW holders. Another who is a stay at home mom whose family are gun owners. Just don't see them convicting on murder 2. Don't think they convict on manslaughter either, because the focus was Murder 2 in the closing. That's what was pushed on them.
 
Notice how the prosecutor never mentioned stalking.

The prosecution's theory is that Zimmerman decided to kill Martin. He followed him intending to shoot him. So why call the police at all? Martin intended to beat the crap out of the creepy ass cracker and never called the police.
 
Prosecutor's voice has more rage and spite in his voice than any call, interrogation, or interview that GZ has given. Probably not a good strategy when you are trying to convince someone of a man's evil intentions. Compare and contrast is instinctive deductive tool.

Prosecutors are a strange lot.
 
However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

Moving the goalposts again?

Since Zimmerman was walking away from Martin he was, obviously, not in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.
I didn't move the goalposts, I answered your question. There is no evidence Zimmerman was walking away from Martin.

If you are claiming that Martin was standing his ground you have to start by proving that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Can you do that?
 
And Bernies final score is...

Assholes =16 (11 verbal, 3 screen, 2 tape)
Fucking punks = 13 (10 verbal, 2 screen, 1 tape)
Motherfucker = 2 (1 verbal, 1 tape)


Let's see if John Guy can top that tomorrow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top