Zimmerman trial verdict predictions

BattleCorp · 12-07-2013 09:58PM

theSHU wrote: »

If there is 1 gun present in a scuffle between 2 people, both persons have access to the gun. GZ was on the ground been beaten up by TM, he feared for his life and he shot him in self-defence. Witnesses verified this. Case cased.

If there was a struggle, then the self defence claim is credible.

The fact that two witnesses saw a struggle, that leads me to believe that he can't be found guilty of murder or manslaughter.

However, the fact that this is such a high profile race case, then I'm not so confident that he will be found not guilty.

CormacPR8 · 12-07-2013 10:04PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

If there was a struggle, then the self defence claim is credible.

The fact that two witnesses saw a struggle, that leads me to believe that he can't be found guilty of murder or manslaughter.

However, the fact that this is such a high profile race case, then I'm not so confident that he will be found not guilty.

There does not need to be a struggle, or any injuries inflicted upon someone to use deadly force actually. A self-defense claim is credible even if there are no injuries whatsoever, or even physical contact. If he felt threatened by TM so much so that he thought TM was going to try to take his life or cause great bodily harm than he has the right to use deadly force. The injuries he sustained during the struggle just support his case though as a bonus. The burden is on the State to prove he did not fear for his life, which is impossible given the evidence. But yes, I agree that they may give him manslaughter out of sympathy. I say 5-10% chance of 2nd, and 50-60% chance of manslaughter.

Nodin · 12-07-2013 10:05PM

Clandestine wrote: »

Black Panthers are all talk. If it does come to a riot, the white people will fight back, just like the Koreans during 1992

...not that you're jumping up and down at the whole "Race War!!!!" scenario you're running in your head....

BattleCorp · 12-07-2013 10:07PM

CormacPR8 wrote: »

There does not need to be a struggle, or any injuries inflicted upon someone to use deadly force actually. A self-defense claim is credible even if there are no injuries whatsoever, or even physical contact. If he felt threatened by TM so much so that he thought TM was going to try to take his life or cause great bodily harm than he has the right to use deadly force. The injuries he sustained during the struggle just support his case though as a bonus. The burden is on the State to prove he did not fear for his life, which is impossible given the evidence. But yes, I agree that they may give him manslaughter out of sympathy. I say 5-10% chance of 2nd, and 50-60% chance of manslaughter.

Agreed, but the struggle definitely helps Zimmerman's case.

I'd say there's a smaller chance on the manslaughter charge than you are giving.

Either way, Zimmerman is pretty much a dead man walking.

CormacPR8 · 12-07-2013 10:10PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Agreed, but the struggle definitely helps Zimmerman's case.

I'd say there's a smaller chance on the manslaughter charge than you are giving.

Either way, Zimmerman is pretty much a dead man walking.

Yeah it may be lower, I only give it that high because 5 out of the 6 are mothers (women, especially mothers are extremely sympathetic as jurors). Plus, there is a lot of external pressure from the media and activist groups who have no idea what they are talking about. I hope I am wrong.

Manic Moran · 13-07-2013 12:11AM

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are over there in the States. Are the guilty/not guilty camps split down the race divide?

No, not at all. The divide seems to be more progressive/conservative, with the conservatives going after the concepts of personal responsibility and the letter of the law, with the progressives more thinking that Zimmerman shouldn't have had a gun in the first place and his responsibility to society terminated at "call police".

13-07-2013 12:19AM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Zimmerman tells police TM banged his head against the ground 25 times. Yet there is no DNA on TMs fingernails. You are telling me that if DNA is absent then it can still possible that TM banged Zimmermans head against the ground continuously?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C3RrvZMx-M

stretchdoe · 13-07-2013 12:45AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, not at all. The divide seems to be more progressive/conservative, with the conservatives going after the concepts of personal responsibility and the letter of the law, with the progressives more thinking that Zimmerman shouldn't have had a gun in the first place and his responsibility to society terminated at "call police".

Nice, biased framing of the argument there.
Good thing Zimmerman is such a conscientious citizen.
Otherwise a pack of skittles might've gotten eaten.

dfx- · 13-07-2013 01:04AM

I don't really see why self defence is shooting someone in the heart. But I think he'll get off.

If Casey Anthony can be not guilty, anyone can..

MadsL · 13-07-2013 01:24AM

dfx- wrote: »

I don't really see why self defence is shooting someone in the heart. But I think he'll get off.

If Casey Anthony can be not guilty, anyone can..

If I am shooting someone in self-defence it would be at least an attempt at two in the main body mass (heart) and one in the head. In all likehood however I'd panic and keep firing at the central mass until the gun went click and not bang. Why if you are defending yourself in fear of your life would you give someone a chance to return fire?

TheLastMohican · 13-07-2013 01:40AM

I think he'll get off. The texts on TM's phone will be TM's undoing. But if he gets off, he'd better head abroad.

biko · 13-07-2013 02:33AM

They will have to find him guilty, otherwise there'll be riots.

somefeen · 13-07-2013 02:51AM

I believe it was a lovers quarrell

Manic Moran · 13-07-2013 03:25AM

stretchdoe wrote: »

Nice, biased framing of the argument there.
Good thing Zimmerman is such a conscientious citizen.
Otherwise a pack of skittles might've gotten eaten.

Whether you like it or not, that's the primary dividing line here. Those who think that Zimmerman should be culpable because he irresponsibly got out of the car and followed Martin, and those who think that he was simply doing what a conscientious, law abiding citizen should be doing, and that difference tends to lie along progressive/conservative lines. It's an ideological difference, which mirrors the split in the political spectrum. I've seen as many white folk arguing that Zimmerman was wrong as I have arguing that he did nothing wrong, and those who are arguing that he was wrong are focusing on the idea of a wanna-be cop carrying a gun who should have let the matter drop. Even the fact that he was armed is part of that political divisor: Conservatives tend to believe that individuals have the personal responsibilities to the extent of being armed, whilst progressives are more likely to believe that the use of lethal weapons should be a communal responsibility exercised by government agencies.

Mardy Bum · 13-07-2013 03:46AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, that's the primary dividing line here. Those who think that Zimmerman should be culpable because he irresponsibly got out of the car and followed Martin, and those who think that he was simply doing what a conscientious, law abiding citizen should be doing, and that difference tends to lie along progressive/conservative lines. It's an ideological difference, which mirrors the split in the political spectrum. I've seen as many white folk arguing that Zimmerman was wrong as I have arguing that he did nothing wrong, and those who are arguing that he was wrong are focusing on the idea of a wanna-be cop carrying a gun who should have let the matter drop. Even the fact that he was armed is part of that political divisor: Conservatives tend to believe that individuals have the personal responsibilities to the extent of being armed, whilst progressives are more likely to believe that the use of lethal weapons should be a communal responsibility exercised by government agencies.

Whether or not there was a struggle, Zimmerman decided he was going to save the day with a gun and follow a child drinking ice tea. After this has all ended the only person who will or can feel any guilt for what happened will be Zimmerman. Did he need to follow an adolescent around? It is very unlikely anything would have happened.

CormacPR8 · 13-07-2013 05:20AM

I cannot let this go on without at least commenting facts. For the people saying that he used an excess of force because he had a gun, well it was a registered firearm that he was trained to use. Legally, there is absolutely no issue with that. Secondly, people are suggesting it was some sort of crime to follow TM, well it is not. In fact, in that neighborhood (which is a ghetto that he volunteered to be a crime watch person) it was encouraged because they have had a multitude of break-ins leading up to the incident. Thirdly, if TM was such an innocent child who just wanted to eat candy than when approached (which was never proved, and if anything the concrete (pun intended) evidence points in the opposite direction) he would have just told GZ he was walking home to watch a game. Someone approaching you because they are curious does not give you grounds to break their noise, mount them and pound the back of their head into concrete.

I find it comical how the people who would like to find GZ guilty only bring in to play the subjective points that have no legal standing whatsoever. You may have a problem with his gun, or the fact that he followed a 17 year-old young man but at the end of the day he did not commit a single unlawful act. And no there will not be riots because I think most black people realize what happened, but a select few are too rooted in their beliefs to ever change their mind. And where you shoot someone, makes absolutely no difference whatsoever as to what you are charged. Whether it was the head or his leg, it wouldn't matter.

Maybe there are cultural differences so some of you find him guilty because a gun was used, the age of TM, or the fact that he followed. Well legally, Florida law tells you that not one of those pieces of information matters. I feel as though this is comparable to a witch hunt, oh well we got to get our man so lets just not abide by the law because he is such a terrible person. If you watched everyday of the trials, like myself, I think you can see that every single witness said he was a nice guy whether close to him or not. It is illegal for the jury to incarcerate someone in fear of the consequences it may cause so if they do their job he will walk, but I do agree that external pressures may possibly play a role in their minds which is unfortunate to the defendant.

clairefontaine · 13-07-2013 05:32AM

Morally guilty, I have no idea.

Legally guilty. No way, not enough evidence. No ne actually knows what happens is the bottom line.

14-07-2013 03:32AM

And the verdict is in....Not Guilty

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon-martin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Xavi6 · 14-07-2013 03:32AM

Found not guilty :eek:

Absolute joke of a decision by the jury. Shit's gonna get real over this now.

CormacPR8 · 14-07-2013 03:35AM

Xavi6 wrote: »

Found not guilty :eek:

Absolute joke of a decision by the jury. Shit's gonna get real over this now.

You do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. Facts cannot be debated.

Xavi6 · 14-07-2013 03:39AM

CormacPR8 wrote: »

You do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. Facts cannot be debated.

He should have gotten manslaughter, complete acquittal is my issue.

Also, if the roles were reversed there would have only been one verdict imo.

CormacPR8 · 14-07-2013 03:43AM

Xavi6 wrote: »

He should have gotten manslaughter, complete acquittal is my issue.

Also, if the roles were reversed there would have only been one verdict imo.

Self defense does not change for manslaughter.

The roles do not matter in the courts. That is a good thing.

P.S. the choir boy TM was high on pot and suspended from school at the time of the incident. He had also stolen and was charged with graffti. This was a witch hunt because of people like you.

Xavi6 · 14-07-2013 03:45AM

CormacPR8 wrote: »

Self defense does not change for manslaughter.

The roles do not matter in the courts. That is a good thing.

P.S. the choir boy TM was high on pot and suspended from school at the time of the incident. He had also stolen and was charged with graffti. This was a witch hunt because of people like you.

I'm happy to bow to your obviously vastly superior legal knowledge, but won't make any apologies for the verdict not sitting well with me

colly_06 · 14-07-2013 03:46AM

Riots imminent?

CormacPR8 · 14-07-2013 03:48AM

Xavi6 wrote: »

I'm happy to bow to your obviously vastly superior legal knowledge, but won't make any apologies for the verdict not sitting well with me

Ignorance is bliss.

Xavi6 · 14-07-2013 03:50AM

CormacPR8 wrote: »

Ignorance is bliss.

And being condescending is a horrible trait.

jebus84 · 14-07-2013 03:58AM

CormacPR8 wrote: »

Self defense does not change for manslaughter.

The roles do not matter in the courts. That is a good thing.

P.S. the choir boy TM was high on pot and suspended from school at the time of the incident. He had also stolen and was charged with graffti. This was a witch hunt because of people like you.

If the guy who killed Trayvon Martin didn't really kill Trayvon Martin according to the law, who the **** did?

14-07-2013 04:03AM

jebus84 wrote: »

If the guy who killed Trayvon Martin didn't really kill Trayvon Martin according to the law, who the **** did?

He killed him in self defence, pretty simple.

The whole case revolved around 2 questions basically,
Did Trayvon hit George Zimmerman first and did George Zimmerman fear for his life.

CormacPR8 · 14-07-2013 04:06AM

jebus84 wrote: »

If the guy who killed Trayvon Martin didn't really kill Trayvon Martin according to the law, who the **** did?

Buddy where have you been? He did kill him, in fact he admitted that. The issue is that he was getting his head slammed against concrete when he pulled the trigger. Sanford is a rough area, when someone is slamming your head you don't wait for them to walk or run away. Because then you never wake up. I have scary personal stories even though I live in the north. I would like to see you as the armchair quarterback let him slam your head.

jebus84 · 14-07-2013 04:12AM

Trayvon Martin was defending himself from a man with a gun

Zimmerman trial verdict predictions

Comments