Zimmerman trial - Prosecution finished

Now my two cents on this subject. First question, the prosecution did not explain the injury to the back of Zimmermans head. Why not? But more importantly they continue to try to hang their hat on who's voice is on the 911 call? Why is this even in doubt, don't they check phone records in Sanford? Was the 911 operator talking to Zimmerman or Martin, Their individual phone records should indicate who made the call. The 911 center should also have a record as to the orgin of the call. Also, how did Martincall 911 when he was allegedly on the phone with the girl?

Rich

 

I don't see any way that they convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder. The prosecution has not met the burden of proof, specifically regarding the "depraved mind" requirement.

However, there is still a solid chance of Zimmerman being convicted of manslaughter by act (A.K.A voluntary manslaughter) or (more likely) manslaughter by culpable negligence (AKA involuntary manslaughter). Involuntary manslaughter carries a fairly heavy sentence in Florida (9 1/4 years minimum).

But at the end of the day, I didn't know Trayvon Martin and I don't know George Zimmerman, so I don't really care what the verdict is. It won't change my life and I have no control over it even if it did.

 

If you are not watching the trial (as in paying attention to testimony, evidence, etc)you need to STFU. Right. Now.

This has been a farce from the get go. That people are still swilling the same old shit on this board is absolutely ridiculous.

 

You should care. If this poor bastard is convicted for defending himself in a state that has a stand your ground law in a trial that only proceeded this far because of a liberal media that loves inciting racial tension for ratings what's to say it won't someday happen to someone you do know and care about?

 

Absolutely nothing. But here is the difference. I ALREADY knew that could happen. I was taught at a VERY early age by my parents that could happen. I was taught that I had to be EXTRA CAREFUL and EXTRA CLEAN because if the police and/or prosecutor wanted to go after me they would. I was taught that I WOULD NOT be given the benefit of the doubt. I was taught not to put myself in situations where it would be my word against someone else's, because there was a strong chance that the other person would be believed and not me, regardless of whether I was right. It is as if folks on the right and in the gun community are waking up to a world that I have lived in my whole life.

I am in Illinois. We should have our concealed carry bill passed tomorrow (after our legislature overrides the governor's veto). I WILL get my CCW permit as soon as legally possible (looks to be April 2014 at the latest if the State Police drag their feet), and will be carrying everyday afterwards, whenever it is legal to do so.

All of the useful information that I learned from this case I got before the trial even started. It reinforced my existing opinion of doing everything possible avoid putting myself in bad situations (including backing down and looking like a punk). It also reinforced the idea that in a self defense situation, you will not only be judged by what you did at that moment, but by EVERYTHING you did leading up to the event and much of what you did afterwards.

Rightly or wrongly, once a person starts carrying a firearm, they are going to be held to a higher standard and must be extra cautious about avoiding conflict. Sure, you cannot guarantee that you'll be able to avoid all conflict. However, what will be important in a trial is if you can demonstrate that you did try to avoid all conflict.

It has also inspired me to pick up the NRA's self defense insurance, to help cover legal fees. This is something I have control over. If you think cases like these are rare, you are in for a surprise. The only difference is that this case has national attention and a racial component. I could name 5 more self defense cases off the top of my head where the person had an even stronger self defense claim than Zimmerman, but they still went to trial. Hell, there are two cases in Florida where people are sitting in prison RIGHT NOW over something that is obviously self defense.

 

So what…

Irrefutably such DOES NOT remotely implicate guilt by Zimmerman. Consider this as another classic media crafted spectacle (i.e., agenda being: 1) racial incitement and 2) increasing ratings).

 

Ah, yes. It was "affirmative action." Well, here are some actions that have been affirmed (and are not in dispute):

1. The victim was unarmed.
2. The victim was doing nothing suspicious.
3. The victim was a minor.
4. The accused tracked him.
5. The accused called it in and called it "suspicious."
6. The accused was told not to continue following.
7. The accused did anyway.
8. The accused closed the gap between them.
9. The accused shot the victim and killed him.

Of course, that's not the whole story. There are many other accusations on each side and much is in dispute. But with all that is NOT in dispute, it seems reasonable to consider putting this guy on trial. Oh, and the police CANNOT "clear" him. He was indicted by a court.

There are lots of other things to consider, too. Primarily, Florida's crazy "stand your ground" law. It may free the accused; who knows? But I'm glad they didn't just let him walk because some yokel with a badge said so.

 

Interesting take. I guess the "liberal media" got to the FBI, the Justice Department, and the court that indicted Zimmerman, too.

If the "liberal media" were really that powerful, they wouldn't be wasting it on this clown.

Except all the direct evidence, like the 911 call, the phone recording of the incident, the gun, the bullet, etc. Oh, yeah, and the dead kid.

 

Because this isn't a case of Martin v. Zimmerman. It IS a case of Zimmerman being accused of murder.

 

See, that makes him very unreliable as a witness! Case closed!

 

Of course, the outcome could be that he stalked and murdered a child. You know, at that trial thingy. Could happen.

 

This never should have gone to trial. Zimmerman was within his legal rights. I'll leave it at that.

 

This is the problem with muddled thinking. Confusion is rife.

This ignores the very strong possibility that this SHOULD have gone to trial AND that Zimmerman was within his rights.

We have trials and a legal system in order to deal with these complexities. But simplistic thinking leaves no room for that.

 

It's clear he's innocent. He didn't break the law. Tax payer money is being wasted on a trial to appease a subset of people that cried racism. It's not simplistic thinking, it's straight forward. There is a big difference.

 

Perhaps he shall be acquitted. Even that result will not indicate the trial was a mistake.

 

Actually, any result is irrelevant as it was a mistake to ever go to trial. The man broke no laws.

 

This young unarmed kid was killed by a total stranger. The killer exited his vehicle armed with a gun to intercept a person who did not provoked him. Autiger, if this dead kid was your child then your opinion I am sure would be different. This is any parent worse nightmare, having your kid minding his own business and being killed basically by a stranger. Zimmerman may win the self-defence argument but he would have been in exactly the same position against anyone of us. None of us will have tolerated the situation that he did to this kid.

 

Another one not watching the trial eh? You are wrong on the entire account of what happened. Way to go, you're like a baby bird eating the regurgitated worms that the media is feeding you.

 

This makes no sense. If the result is irrelevant, why are you posting about it?

It matters to Zimmerman.