Zimmerman will be acquitted

The Next Blow could of been deadly.. I will not wait for that..

I think the major factor is whether or not the jury believes GZ's claim that during the fight his shirt came up, Martin saw and started going for his gun and threatened to kill him. Everything else is pretty meaningless if you ask me.

I also believe that Murder 2 should have never been on the table, and the prosecution has done a pretty good job thus far at proving why. The major issue here though is the public outcry from the black community wouldn't have accepted a lesser charge of Manslaughter -- or at best imho Involuntary Manslaughter -- so they had to run with a charge they had no chance of convicting just so they could appease a bunch of dumb ass morons.

At the end of the day, I guess no justice is better than "less" justice. And of course, once GZ walks, those same morons will throw a hissy fit and start doing a bunch of dumb shit...

No acquittal - but little to no chance of a guilty verdict by the jury.

The day which was to be the prosecutions strongest day was weak as per usual.

No evidence of the prosecution contradicts the claims of the defense or shoots down any reasonable hypothesis of the defense. No proof Zimmerman engaged and or re-engaged Martin or was the initial aggressor. Nothing proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The closing arguments of the defense sums it all up quite well. No proven racial motive, iill will, spite or hatred etc. even the FBI concluded that in its investigation and that's a requirement for 2nd degree murder in fl.

Defense has a second chance to argue for acquittal later as well.

Yikes! The uncle. That's gonna sting the prosecution a bit

Wonder if they will find him Guilty, just to not have Riots?????

I seriously doubt that's a factor

I find that part very difficult to believe along with some other aspects of Zimmerman's story. But like I said I do believe he was probably acting in self defense or he thought he was. If I were on the jury I would give serious consideration to convicting him just because I believe he is lying. I know it's nto supposed to work that way but unfortunately I don't think they give many other options other than that and acquittal.

I'm not sure which is worse. Convicting the guy for something he didn't technically do or letting him off completely when he likely slandered a dead child just to save his own ass.

It would have been so much better if he would have cut the bullshit, told the full truth and basically admitted, "Yeah I messed up. I was too overzealous. I thought he was a criminal. But I really did shoot him in self defense. Put me in jail for a few years but don't put me on Death Row. I'm sorry this happened and I apologize to his family but he could have acted differently himself."

Toxicology report of Martin will not be admitted.

The medical examiner was definitely a weird part

That says a lot. If he had nothing in his system why not allow it.
ds

Mama Zimmerman lying to save her son. One liar protecting another.

I have said all along that the case really comes down to Zimmerman's story and how believable it it. I doubt he will take the stand so his attorneys must convince the jury that his account of what happened is accurate and credible. If they do that he could be in good shape. If the jury doesn't buy that he is in trouble.

I don't know that there is evidence to convict him of Murder 2, but the jury can opt to convict him of manslaughter which was likely the charge he should have been hit with to begin with.

Wow I did not know that was on the table and that a jury could do that. That's definitely what I would do - manslaughter and possibly false statements depending on whether I could justify it with the evidence. I always had thought it was entirely up to the DA as to what the charges would be and what they could be convicted of.

good he was not an adult. did you try a few drugs when you were a pup?

underage you cant understand that?

It does but it could also be that maybe there was evidence of pot or alcohol use from a couple days ago but nothing within the last 24 hours. So the judge might not see it as relevant enough to the case.

Looks like that is what it was.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/1...s-it-matter-2/

I was doing a little research about this and it appears that juries have the option of convicting defendants of a lesser charge, but not a greater charge. So in this case they can't convict him of Murder 1, but they do have the option of convicting him of manslaughter.

I don't the procedure on how that works, but it is an option for the jury.

somebody that know what they are talking about

What an asshole.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-zi...cology-ruling/

How about contempt of court?

how i read it too

High on grass is a reason to get killed?

Not me dammit. I didn't try a few drugs when I was a kid.

































I tried a whole lot of them

.

He did, but they said it did not influence his actions of that night so not relevant.

WTF difference would that make? If he was high on PCP it would not have influenced his actions because he was under 18?

I am sorry, that is such an inane question all you have succeeded in doing is showing everyone that is watching/listening that you are not.

I don't believe that. I mean I think all parties have a natural tendency to want to believe its their boy doing the screaming. The alternative is pretty hard to accept. I don't think the mother of Martin is necessarily lying intentionally. Both mothers probably believe what they believe with absolute certainty.

I can't understand the leap of logic required to suggest the one with only offensive wounds, where eye witness testimony puts him on top, doing the beating is the one screaming for help for nearly a full minute and the one with only defensive wounds, where eye witness testimony puts him on the bottom is not the one screaming for help.

kinda like the suggestion of a kid being on PCP, isn't showing the underlying racism involved.

i thought PCP was a big drug focus for police in California?

The guy changed his testimony today to say it was enough in his system to negatively impact his behavior. I think that in spite of that, the judge said she wouldn't allow it into evidence - and there is the possibility that will probably be an issue later

I tuned in late today; forgot it was a weekday. But it was the prosecution's witness that said that?

Yeah, i was listening to it on XM while driving. I caught most of his testimony which was weird. He's basically a professional witness as part of his job, having been in over 20 trials he was acting quite odd and wouldn't directly answer anything, kept going off on tangents, was warned several times by the judge etc. I think it was at the beginning that the issue came up and the judge said she wouldn't allow it. I don't think it was in front of the jury and they didn't hear it. It was part of the process to determine whether or not the prosecutor had disclosed all evidence in his possession relating to the medical examiner.

Well, most experts called are whores . . . I mean professional witnesses.

Yes, that is correct - the next blow Martin gave him could have been life deadly. But the next punch Zimmerman gave could have been deadly too. But if you are going to be determining "life threatening" by "the next punch could have been deadly", you can argue that every fist fight "could be deadly" and thus "could be met with deadly force" even if there is no witness.

Zimmerman's wounds were not in any way, shape, or form "life threatening".

That happens when you get older, doesn't it?

If you had listened to testimony you would know that there was no indication that GZ was punching anything except the ground with his head.

I think working for myself is the true culprit. It was never an issue when I worked for the man.

No Gz dna on trayvon, was he wearing gloves while beating gz to death.

How about you go out on a limb and give a reasonable hypothesis as to what might have happened? What is the point of all the silly banter about things that have already been argued in court? Arguing here about guilt is dumb unless you've heard all the evidence - which none of us have.

I have yet to see where the Prosecutor has satisfied the requirements for 2nd degree murder. That is simply not going to happen. Granted, a jury could come back and say anything and its always a wild card - but it isn't found in evidence. Making all the assertions and arguments you are, are things that have been well addressed in testimony and cross examination.

Zimmermans wounds do not have to be life threatening. It's not a factor. It's a non argument that you keep making that has zero relevance. Even the investigating officer made it clear on the stand that its not a factor. What matters is a reasonable belief in what might happen next. Thats it. When you've been struck several times in a violent altercation, there is a reason to believe you are going to be struck several more times.

Anyone that knows anything about fighting knows that all it takes is one blow to rock you enough that you have zero control over what happens next. And its the "what is reasonable to believe might happen next" part that is in question. Not "what already happened".

And by the way, the act of a guy walking up to you and punching you in the face, breaking your nose and knocking you down is already enough as was made clear in testimony to pull out a gun and shoot the attacker under Florida law... . nevermind what happens next, what was said, what threats were made and how many times Martin hit Zimmerman etc.

It's unreal that you have to keep going back to that point.

All that matters is whether or not he felt a threat of grave bodily harm in the moment he pulled out his pistol and shot Martin.

You're downplaying of what happens ignores 100% what could have happened had the gun not came out and what might have happened with the very next blow.

You have no clue how it went down in those last few seconds - but a few facts are clear.

1) Zimmerman has only defensive wounds
2) Martin has only offensive wounds
3) Someone was screaming and crying for help for 40+ seconds
4) Zimmerman shot Martin at very close range (while Martin was on top of him)

The state has brought no evidence forward to cast any reasonable doubt on Zimmermans account.

The state has brought forth no evidence to prove it happened another way. They have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. They haven't. They simply made a bunch of assertions and claims, did a little character assassination and did nothing to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmermans account is wrong.

Police did not doubt Zimmermans account.... hence they had no intention of filing charges.

Even the FBI through their own investigation found no malice, racial motive, hate, ill will etc present in Zimmerman which is REQUIRED to prove 2nd Degree Murder in Florida.

Zimmermans account is supported by facts.

Zimmermans account is supported by eyewitnesses.

The state has not demonstrated Depravity of Mind - meaning that Zimmerman had a racial motive, hatred, evil intent, etc etc. One guy following another guy and a fight resulting does not automatically mean Zimmerman was racist or had the intent to commit murder based on his hatred of blacks, hated Martin (whom he did not know) and so on. You can't prove he's racist when he's well known for volunteering to tutor black kids, had a black business partner and further, the FBI through their own investigation concluded race played no role. SO... if its not racial, they don't know each other (already hate/intensely disliked each other) and he's calming on the phone with 911, guiding police in to Martin... where is the part where he's crazy and is ready to commit murder based on hate, ill will or anything else? There is nothing found in evidence or testimony that PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that proves Zimmerman was of a depraved mind. Arguing that Zimmerman following him and CALMLY guiding police to Martin is about as far away from that as you can get.


Florida statutes... 782.04 (2)

"The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree "

Depravity of Mind:
"Under Florida law the mere fact that an armed man kills another who is unarmed does not prove a ?depraved mind? (Poole v. State, Bellamy v. State, and Light v. State). Typically, the prosecution proves ?ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent? through evidence of a long-standing grievance or some unusually wrongful or aggressive conduct on the part of the attacker."

That's not true. Both men have the other's DNA on their clothing.

And the only place that DNA would be on the hands of Trayvon Martin would be under his fingernails.
The prosecution is saying that because there was no DNA under Martin's fingernails then he wouldn't have been able to slam Zimmerman's head into the ground.

I'm thinking that "yes" I could very well have slammed his head into the ground by grabbing him by the top of his jacket (where Martin's DNA is found on Zimmerman's jacket)

Anyway...it's pretty interesting television if nothing else. And fun for all of us armchair legal eagles to pretend we know what we're talking about. lol

Since the police never thought Zimmerman was guilty of anything in the beginning...it sure does make the prosecution's case to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" much more difficult.

I don't think that they can. And if this was any other case, the judge would have probably already thrown this out.

But with the media spotlight on it...and CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and MSNBC already having convicted Zimmerman in a lame attempt to curry favor with black leaders...the trial continues.

Not sure what the outcome can possibly be but..GUILTY.

I think that the elephant in the room is that everybody knows that whether or not the state can prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt", the jury knows that a lot of violence is going to happen if they find him not guilty.

That has to weigh on them.

Do they destroy one man (Zimmerman) by finding him guilty even though the state hasn't made it's case beyond a reasonable doubt? Or do they potentially destroy many lives by finding him not guilty when blacks start rioting and killing afterwards?

If it were me, I'd be strongly tempted to just say "Fuck it" and find him guilty to avoid the aftershocks.

Keep on proving you have not been following the trial; it is unnecessary though, you have already shown us.

It is really easy to tell who is watching and who is merely reading the opinion of someone else.

Pretty sad.

just IMO but i dont think blacks will riot if zimmy walks. there will be some local cases of flash mobs, some peaceful protests from the usual crowd. But riots? crack & teen pregnancy is down from 1992. i think smartphones & mcdonalds have made people more docile. we live in new times, nobody does shit anymore. look at occupy wall street. all gone within 6 months & accomplished nothing.

Yeah, I know right? Those two little cuts were gushes. How many stitches did he get?

But isn't he claiming self defense?

So any time any one punches anyone, we can now respond with deadly force because it's safe to assume that one blow will be followed by another, and every punch is potentially life threatening. Got it.

Right. So every time someone throws by a punch, it should be met with deadly force, and they should be shot to death. Kill him before he kills you. Got it.

Every time someone flexes their muscles and gives me a dirty look, I can now meet them with deadly force because that first strike might kill me, so I need to kill him first.

So at any time no matter what when someone feels the threat of grave bodily harm, they must shoot and kill them. So if someone rear ends me, causing the threat of bodily harm, I can now shoot them dead.

I'm not downplaying anything. What would have happened had the gun not come out? Pretty much the same thing that happens after every fist fight ever - Some got the best of someone else.

Zimmerman got punched - THAT'S IT. I swear to fucking god I've hurt myself much worse playing hide and seek with my daughter (that ended up with me being rushed to the ER).

This fucking Jackass was playing cop, mishandled everything, got punched, and then shot and killed a seventeen year old kid.

You keep on implying that you are the only one qualified to discuss the trial because you are watching the trial on TV. With all of your age and wisdom, or lack of wisdom, you must know that all you are watching is a circus where two sides are trying to distort the truth about what they THINK MIGHT have happened.

What was on today? Martin's mother said it was her son screaming for help, and Zimmeran's mother said it was her son screaming for help? At the end of the day does it really fucking matter? Maybe it was Martin yelling for help while beating Zimmerman because Zimmerman attacked him. Maybe it was Zimmerman yelling for help after he first attacked Martin, and started screaming for help after Martin got the upper hand?

I have been watching the trial - I have more monitors than god on my desk here - and it's exactly what you expect... two sides spinning their bullshit while a man's life hangs in the balance.

If you had watched earlier you would know what difference it makes; I am sorry you do not approve of the process, but a trial with a jury of one's peers is something that has been guaranteed in the Constitution.

In the United States, a civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels that their own life, the lives of their family, or those around them are in legitimate and imminent danger. However, self-defense resulting in usage of deadly force by a civilian or civilians against an individual or individuals is often subject to examination by a court if it is unclear whether it was necessary at the point of the offense, and whether any further action on the part of the law needs to be taken..


imminent danger
imminent danger

Now, Yes I did Quote the Entire thing, as to if it turned offensive...
Problem is, so far there are only 2 people that know.....

I sure wish there was a security Camera.......

he was punched in the face by a seventeen year old. Horrible justifiable.

Yeah, wow, your a fucking expert because both mothers said the direct opposite thing.

I do not understand why you insist on having the attitude. You just started watching (your own admission) so you apparently do not understand why either mother got up to say "that was my son." That is your problem, not mine.

As far as your comment that "all you are watching is a circus where two sides are trying to distort the truth about what they THINK MIGHT have happened" in this country, whose principles you defended when you were in the USMC, one is INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law. Not what Rochard thinks happened.

Your opinion in the justification of Zimmerman's actions is totally irrelevant. Know why? Because you are not on the jury, you were not there and you know less about what happened than anyone that has watched the trial more than the 2-3 days you may have watched it.

The stupidity of some is simply amazing - "No I did not watch the trial because I know everything I need to know"

You are wasting your time with this guy.

If it came out day 1 when the story broke that Zimmerman is 1/2 Latino & that Martin wasn't that innocent boy anymore with that hollister shirt on at age 12 as portrayed by the news, but "no limit nigga," with gold teefs, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The news took the race card & revved it up & the country made up their minds once they juxtaposed Zimmerman, in orange, pale, & Martin, 12, with the hollister shirt on.
That's that really.
Ds

You think you know everything because you watch the trial and imply that everyone else is stupid, even though we are posting up links to police reports, timelines, photos and videos. All you seem to know is what is on TV, which is two different sides of different stories.