George Zimmerman Trial

[AUGradinTX 0]

No one is ignoring it but the law states if the believes his life is in danger. The guy who testified to seeing TM didn't see when the gun was shoot and who was on top of who when the shot was fired.

First off, that's not what the law says. You don't have to fear for your life to use deadly force. Fear of great bodily harm is sufficient. Stop looking at one thing at a time and look at everything together, as the lead investigator said several times while on the stand. Are you suggesting that GZ may have overpowered TM and then shot him. Where is the evidence of this? This wasn't even suggested by the defense. The autopsy revealed ZERO evidence harm to TM. You're ignoring the evidence.

Not suggesting anything but what was presented in trial that didn't support his statements that he feared for his life. He said he was scared when TM was walking around his car. So why get out if he's so scared? You're ignoring the statements of GZ. I never ignored the evidence GZ got his azz kicked but it wasn't proven who actually started the fight. If GZ did he can't start a fight then b/c he is getting his azz beat then pull out a gun. You're assuming GZ's story is 100% right..i don't believe all of his story and nothing was shown that TM threw the first punch that would back his statement. TM could've easily been defending himself with a person with a gun. Wouldn't you fight? That's the problem...we don't know who started the fight. We do have statements from GZ as to if he felt he was in fear for his life or be seriously harmed. His statements don't support that he did; only his claim when he was faced with being charged.

GZ's word has been taken as 100% truth only because the prosecution didn't have another witness to say otherwise. The autopsy also showed no blood on his hands. How can you bash in someone's head and punch them in the nose with no blood on your hands what so ever? The rain crap is bogus b/c it wasn't raining that hard and the amount of blood GZ had there would've been some blood on TM's hands. You're the one ignoring evidence.

Ok. I'm not sure I want to get into this with you. You can't seriously be suggesting that TM wasn't the person beating on GZ! I don't care that there was no blood on TM's hands. There was an eye witness to the fight who corroborated GZ's statement that TM was on top of him beating him. Geez.. I mean, I guess it's possible that someone else was beating up GZ and then TM was brought in by a third party, shot and left there for the police to find without GZ knowing a switch had occurred even though he was there (pardon the extreme sarcasm)... Loss of words here...

2 minor cuts my young son gets from falling off the play ground don't constitute as someone's life being in danger. If he was getting beat up as he claimed he'd have more server injuries than he had. A bunch of blood with no serious injuries.

Professionals testified about this. Your experience on the playground takes a back seat.

Common sense should take a front seat. The physican assistant who testifited and another medical expert stated he had no serious injuries. Didn't even require stitches. It was a fight...no one was denying that fact. Once again just b/c he lost the fight didn't give him a reason to pull a gun.

A professional testified that head injuries such as the ones sustained by GZ require immediate medical attention and he should have been forced to go to the hospital because injuries similar to his have caused death in the hours following; resulting in lawsuits agains the police department in which the department has lost ALL of those cases. Furthermore, the PAC that examined GZ put in her report that he had a closed fracture of the nose.

And responding to your "common sense" comment, people go to school for a long time before they are licensed to deal with issues related to their field. Next time you have a medical issue, by all means, do what common sense tells you, the rest of us will seek the opinions of trained professionals.

Just b/c GZ was losing a fight that he primarily initiated doesn't mean he has the right to bring a gun to fist fight.

Once again, zero evidence suggesting GZ started the altercation. You are speculating on things that aren't supported by evidence. It's nonsensical.

My statement that he primarily initiated things meant that GZ is the one that set things in motion for this to occur. He had several choices that wouldn't have allowed this to happened but choose to ignore them. That is certainly fact. True we'll never know who started but it's my opinion that GZ should be held responsible to a certain degree for setting things in motion that resulted in shooting an unarmed person. Not murder 2 or maybe not even manslaughter but there needs to be some sort of accountability for people who want to shoot first and ask questions later when they created the situation; esp. when it involves an unarmed person.

They both could have made choices that would have led to a different outcome. That's irrelevant since we are talking about the law. GZ did nothing wrong getting out of his vehicle. GZ actually followed NBW protocol by attempting to keep someone he found acting suspicious in sight until police arrive.

The "shoot first and ask questions later" statement doesn't even deserve a response because of it's absurdity. Medical, physical and eyewitness evidence all point to TM assaulting GZ. That is a fact. Listen to the 911 call made by the lady where you can hear GZ screaming for help in the background. If that was you, you would have pulled that trigger in a heart beat. Go back and listen to the testimony of LE expert Dennis Root. He stated that the lenght of the fight was "an eternity" when you are being assaulted.

He had two flashlights with him...one small and one medium size...why not use that to hit TM if he was defending himself?

If you were paying attention to professional testimony, or have been in that situation, you would know that when you are in fear of your life you don't think the same as you normally would. I don't know why GZ didn't use the flashlights. Maye it was because TM was going for his firearm, as GZ stated, and his instinct was to get to it first.

You're the one speculating now! lol. How do you know GZ was truly in fear for his life. Where you in his head? Maybe = speculation so you're contradicting what you where telling me. Where's the proof that TM was going for his gun? If you watched the trial you would know that there was no DNA found on the gun. There was none. No doesn't mean TM didn't but there is nothing to support GZ's story either. Goes back to my point where the prosecution will continue to have a hard time with these type of cases if many just want to believe the defenses's story as the gospel b/c the other person is dead. Pretty easy to take one person's story when the other one is dead.

This is why I told you to look at ALL the evidence. You know, the same thing the LE experts kept having to tell the prosecution.. I don't know for sure. But a blind, deaf, and dumb monkey knows that is GZ's voice in the background of that 911 call screaming hautingly for help. You also know that GZ was the only one with injuries. You also know that someone saw TM on top of him beating him. Don't be naive. Use your abiltiy of deductive reasoning, you know, where you take little things you know as fact to make a logically certain conclusion.. The person screaming for his life on that audio clip sounded so terrified that the lady tells the dispatcher that she wasn't going outside to see what was going on and told the person in the background to get away from the windows. She was terrified just listening to GZ scream for help. So, what was GZ feeling at that time. You're right, I cannot be 100% certain. Maybe he was thinking about what to get his wife for her birthday... Use your head.

Secondly GZ claimed that he didn't know TM was dead until he got to the police station so if he thought TM was not dead why wasn't he still screaming after the gun shot? TM could've still been a threat to him even though he was shot....he claimed he thought he was still alive so why not keep screaming until someone came to his aid?

After the gun was fired, GZ wasn't even sure he had hit TM. GZ stated that TM raised up off of him and said something along the lines of, "you got it" or "you got me" and put his hands up. GZ stated he believed the this indicated that TM was giving up the fight because GZ reached the weapon first. At that point the altercation stopped. GZ wasn't being assaulted any longer. I don't see why he would continue screeming at this point.

So if he wasn't sure and his life was still in danger why isn't he still screaming for help? That's just common sense. Fine you want to fit GZ's story to make your arguement but it doesn't add up. I'm going to shoot at someone who i think is going to kill or do me major harm but yet i don't know if i have hit them with the bullet but do nothing? Yea right! You keep shooting until you do hit them or you hold them at bay with your gun and keep screaming for help. He's still a threat even if he was shot. The defense's expert even said that's why SWAT/police shoot people in the head b/c a person will be less of a threat. TM could've still been attacking GZ if he was shot in the leg or arm. As long as TM was a live he could've been a threat.

I told you why in my last response. Are you going to continually ask me the same questions over and over?

And no, it isn't common sense. If I am pummeling your head I would expect you to scream for help. If you, all of the sudden pulled a gun on me, why in the world would you be screaming for help at that point. It's more likely that I would be screaming. And according to me, the lead detective, several expert witnesses and a jury of GZ's peers, what i'm saying makes a lot more sense that what you are.

I do find it ammusing that you insist you know better than all of the people listed above as to what a total stranger would have done in such a fluid and high stress situation.

He claimed he was scared when TM supposedly circled his car....so why get out your car?

He didn't at that point. In the police dispatch call, GZ says that TM ran off. After that statment he gets out. Later he says he doesn't know where TM is.

Point is he stated he was scared. So the fact he didn't see TM within sight made him feel better? lol. How does that make sense? If i'm suspicious of someone and they scare me....i'm going to go out looking for them having no idea where they may be hiding or what they may have on them (example: a gun). Yea..that makes a lot of sense. The safest place was in his car with his gun.

Why doesn't it make sense. If he though TM had fled the scene, what would he be scared of? The neighbor's dog? Oh, wait, I know... Maybe what you're saying is that he should be scared of someone waiting in the shadows to jump him as he walks by. I like that. Makes sense.

BTW, show me where GZ stated he was scared before he exited his vehicle. If you cannot, your premise falls apart.

His nose wasn't proven to be broken; he declined to go to the ENT as stated by the physcian assistant so we don't know if it was broken or not. A broken nose can affect a person's sinuses....yet GZ is willing to pay for MMA classes for over 18 months out of his own pocket but not go to the ENT for a broken nose?

This medical report says he did have a broken nose. Are you suggesting this physician is lying? Or that GZ broke his own nose after the altercation? You are reaching if so. The pictures taken of GZ after the altercation show clear damage to his nose. http://media.miamihe...2uxIe.So.56.pdf

The assistant he saw testified to the fact that he refused to go to the ENT and that no x rays were done. He may have had them after the fact but that night he refused to go to the hospital. GZ later went to a family physican...go figure. I'm sure daddy Zimmerman helped out with getting that broken nose on his medical history. The fact he denied medical attention that night with paramedics and the physican who saw him (who was not his family physican) calls question to if his nose was really broke. Who waits to go in for an appointment for any type of broken bone and considering the situation that happened that night?

You continue to imply that GZ is lying because it isn't what you would have done. First of all, what you would have done is meaningless. You don't even know what you would have done in that situation. Second, a PAC wrote in a medical report that GZ had a closed fracture of his nose. Are you saying she lied? Have you seen the pictures of his nose?

How come I'm the only one citing real evidence? Stop telling me what makes sense to you and back it up with something? If you can't, find another topic to troll.

I get as the law states they had no choice to let him go free but doesn't mean it's right and just. He just gets off b/c there is a loophole in the law.

What is this loophole? The ones of you that are saying this would have done the same thing if you were GZ. You won't admit it here because you don't want to be hypocritial, but if you are in fear for your life you'd whistle a different tune real quick. You would instinctively do whatever you had to do to end that beating and save yourself. And you have the legal right to do so. That isn't a loophole.

And I know this will get the response, "I wouldn't have left the vehicle." Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. Either way, that doesn't give someone else a green light to beat you.

Maybe you would but he could've simply announced he was neighborhood watch from his car. Do you think a criminal is going to stick around after that? I don't expect most to understand TM's point b/c many have never walked in those shoes until it happens to their child or love one then they go yelling why this or why that. Point is this could've been anybody's child and GZ would've been playing wild wild west. Again...you're speculating b/c we don't know who started it so TM could've been defending himself.

That's what evidence and testimony is for. I'm tired of citing all the evidence that points to TM as being the one who started the fight. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT TM WAS STRUCK EVEN ONCE! The autopsy shows this. So what is it that suggests to you that TM was defending himself? Look at the freaking evidence! There isn't any that supports that. None.

GZ was clearly wrong and made changes to his story to fit self defense

I'm tired of reading this. "GZ told lies." "GZ changed his story." I've asked someone to post these lies and got only crickets. Now i'm asking you, specifically, to do the same. If you cannot, can it. If you can, as I may know what you are referring to, I'll show you the testimony stating that is completely normal in a case like this along with the testimony of the lead investigator who stated under oath that he believed GZ to be telling the truth. Once again, I can't understand why some of you ignore the evidence of this case when making your points and opinions.

Well it's the truth. Maybe not a truth you'd like to hear but it is.

1.) He stated in one video TM came from behind the bushes; in another statement he said he attacked him from behind coming from the "T" area when he was going to his car.

Oh, that seems pressing. In the video guess what you can see at the T where he says he was attacked... You guessed it, BUSHES! Mystery solved.

2.) He stated he spread TM's arms out; his arms were found underneath him

Lead detective said minor inconsistancies are normal and that he believed GZ's story. Maybe the detective was in on it? Is that what you think?

3.) GZ claimed he got out to look for an address yet he clearly passed by a visible address on a home as illustrated by the police

You missed part of this. GZ didn't know the name of the street. The number off a residence is useless if you can't provide the name of the street. Next...

4.) GZ claimed in one statement his gun was positioned on his side then later changed it to being position behind his back

Link?

5.) GZ stated first that TM was running away from him. Later he states that TM was "skipping"..never seen a 17 year old skip.

Are you serious? What does this have to do with anything? How is this important? I am completely aware of these two statements and how they were made wasn't suspicious at all. And he didn't say TM was skipping like a 6 year old. He said it was kind of a skip and seemed he didn't know exactly how to describe it.

6.) GZ stated at bond hearing when he apologized to TM's family he didn't know TM was a teenager but in his 911 call he clearly stated he thought he guy was in his teens...late teens. Why important you ask b/c TM was considered a minor which would've meant more extra time if convicted.

The tone of his voice wasn't matter of fact. Either way, GZ had a right to defend himself. What's more, testimony showed that TM was more physically capable than GZ. He wasn't this little kid some portray him as.

7.) GZ was asked by Irvin on lie detector test: "Where you in fear for your life when you shot the guy?"

GZ answer: No That pretty much explains it; except thereafter he had time to go home...lawyer up and change the story to fit self defense. Fine if that's not what you believe but there is plenty that would've justified a guilty verdict. He got 6 women to believe otherwise but so did OJ and Casey Anthony doesn't mean they are innocent...just found not guilty.

You don't have to be in fear of losing your life to use deadly force in self defense. Do some research.

Point is..if his story is self defense why do certain small but key details change? The truth doesn't change...lies do. No one is ignoring the evidence just b/c they don't agree with how you view it. I've followed the trial from start to finish. If you don't agree then fine but i don't have to "can it" just b/c i don't agree with the majority. Don't like it...don't read it! Plain and simple.

If you followed the case from start to finish, I wouldn't have had to tell you what I did in the response to #7 above...

Fine...he goes free..now he'll get to feel what it's like to be a black man the rest of his life. Hope he enjoys it. Point is these dumb laws need to be changed b/c it's going to be more cases like this. Everyone taking the word of the killer b/c the person who's dead can't defend themselves in court so the defense gets the benefit of the doubt in court b/c it's hard to convict without having other reliable witness to the event so the benefit goes to the defense.

Wow... Depending on your response, I may be finished discussing this with you. There were witnesses. There was audio evidence. There was physical evidence. There was medical evidence. There was testimony from many professionals. Go out and look at it so you can form a more educated opinion.

You're basically ignoring all the important evidence and hanging on to minor details that the lead investigator himself said were normal. Not very well though out.

[AUGradinTX 0]

In your opinion it doesn't coincide. We just both see things from a different point of view that's all. Jury decided what they decided...very true...doesn't mean it was right. So do you believe Casey Anthony and O.J Simpson are not guilty? It's not like a jury has never made an incorrect verdict. It wasn't an accident that the jury inquired about manslaughter before the verdict was reached. Once again it is what it is but as someone said before people get away with crimes all the time. I see GZ as one those people.

Yes. In my opinion is doesn't conincide.

TM had zero injuries. Makes perfect sense that he was attacked by GZ... :-\

GZ was screaming for his life. Makes perfect sense that he was the aggressor... :-\

[cptau 169]

It makes me sick to see people suggest GZ is free because TM was black. Makes me even sicker to read 4 articles this morning in which locals (to whatever publication) are quoted refering to GZ as "a white man". The whole racist tone this has taken is beyond rediculous.

I felt GZ would be convicted on manslaughter and that the murder charge was only to please the real racists out there.

That's the fault of the media. I believe GZ is free b/c of daddy Zimmerman and police who choose not to grant a real investigation and chalked it up to TM just being another thug b/c of what he was wearing. I think if TM was white, black, hispanic etc...that GZ would've done the same thing. Anger should be shifted to the police who botched things from the start. It shouldn't have took marchers or protesters for a parent to get a fair investigation into their child's murder when he was unarmed. GZ was simply sent home with all believeing his story. Take the time to correctly gather evidence and witness testimony to either support or not support GZ's story. That wasn't done. Things were done after the fact and done half azzed at that. I'm sure any parent with want that whether their child was at fault or not. That's all TM's family asked for the media hores made it into something bigger beyond just getting equal treatment and justice.

I have never seen anything that indicated Zimmerman's father had any influence in this case. Zimmerman's father was a magistrate of the Virginia Court of Appeals from 2000 to 2006. Virginia does not consider that position to be a judge, they issue arrest warrants, summonses, search warrants, subpoenas, etc....

He retired and moved to Florida. His mother was a deputy court clerk, also in Virginia.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

Robert Zimmerman Sr. was a U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam in 1970, and was stationed at Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia, in 1975 with Gladys Mesa's brother George. Zimmerman Sr. also served two tours in Korea, and spent the final 10 years of his 22-year military career in the Pentagon, working for the Department of Defense, a family member said.

In his final years in Virginia before retiring to Florida, Robert Zimmerman served as a magistrate in Fairfax County's 19th Judicial District.

[AUGradinTX 0]

In a speech today, Eric Holder said that DOJ will continue their investigation of the GZ case. They may or may not. Holder has said lots of things he doesn't follow thru on. His main objective seems to be political and trying to respond to the black "community." But for sure he is fanning the racial fires. I am seeing and hearing among my colleagues more and more racial hostility. And to be honest, I am beginning to resent the black leadership and their cronies. I find myself getting angry every time I see a black person on TV spouting off about racism when they are as guilty and anyone. Why hasn't Holder followed up like he should on the border agent Brian Terry. His parents lost a son too, in the line of duty no less. But it seems TM is a more important son because he was black and Brian was just an ordinary white guy.

Seriously?

Absloutely serious!!! What do you think Brian's Mom and Dad would say right now in comparing the DOJ's involvement in the two cases?

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

In your opinion it doesn't coincide. We just both see things from a different point of view that's all. Jury decided what they decided...very true...doesn't mean it was right. So do you believe Casey Anthony and O.J Simpson are not guilty? It's not like a jury has never made an incorrect verdict. It wasn't an accident that the jury inquired about manslaughter before the verdict was reached. Once again it is what it is but as someone said before people get away with crimes all the time. I see GZ as one those people.

Yes. In my opinion is doesn't conincide.

TM had zero injuries. Makes perfect sense that he was attacked by GZ... :-\

GZ was screaming for his life. Makes perfect sense that he was the aggressor... :-\

Just b/c GZ had the injuries doesn't mean he didn't started the fight. He just got his azz kicked. Happens all the time. People start fights and get their butts kicked. Where is the proof that GZ was screaming? and he was attacked? Neither or those were proven as to who was attacked who first or who was screaming. Just one person's word against a dead person. Not really much the dead person could've done.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

It makes me sick to see people suggest GZ is free because TM was black. Makes me even sicker to read 4 articles this morning in which locals (to whatever publication) are quoted refering to GZ as "a white man". The whole racist tone this has taken is beyond rediculous.

I felt GZ would be convicted on manslaughter and that the murder charge was only to please the real racists out there.

That's the fault of the media. I believe GZ is free b/c of daddy Zimmerman and police who choose not to grant a real investigation and chalked it up to TM just being another thug b/c of what he was wearing. I think if TM was white, black, hispanic etc...that GZ would've done the same thing. Anger should be shifted to the police who botched things from the start. It shouldn't have took marchers or protesters for a parent to get a fair investigation into their child's murder when he was unarmed. GZ was simply sent home with all believeing his story. Take the time to correctly gather evidence and witness testimony to either support or not support GZ's story. That wasn't done. Things were done after the fact and done half azzed at that. I'm sure any parent with want that whether their child was at fault or not. That's all TM's family asked for the media hores made it into something bigger beyond just getting equal treatment and justice.

I have never seen anything that indicated Zimmerman's father had any influence in this case. Zimmerman's father was a magistrate of the Virginia Court of Appeals from 2000 to 2006. Virginia does not consider that position to be a judge, they issue arrest warrants, summonses, search warrants, subpoenas, etc....

He retired and moved to Florida. His mother was a deputy court clerk, also in Virginia.

http://www.reuters.c...E83O18H20120425

Robert Zimmerman Sr. was a U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam in 1970, and was stationed at Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia, in 1975 with Gladys Mesa's brother George. Zimmerman Sr. also served two tours in Korea, and spent the final 10 years of his 22-year military career in the Pentagon, working for the Department of Defense, a family member said.

In his final years in Virginia before retiring to Florida, Robert Zimmerman served as a magistrate in Fairfax County's 19th Judicial District.

Daddy still has pull and influence. Getting a assualt charge dropped down to where GZ only had to go to alcohol rehab. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. Some people get out of tickets...GZ gets free get out of jail cards. More power to him. Same with his domestic charges.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

It makes me sick to see people suggest GZ is free because TM was black. Makes me even sicker to read 4 articles this morning in which locals (to whatever publication) are quoted refering to GZ as "a white man". The whole racist tone this has taken is beyond rediculous.

I felt GZ would be convicted on manslaughter and that the murder charge was only to please the real racists out there.

That's the fault of the media. I believe GZ is free b/c of daddy Zimmerman and police who choose not to grant a real investigation and chalked it up to TM just being another thug b/c of what he was wearing. I think if TM was white, black, hispanic etc...that GZ would've done the same thing. Anger should be shifted to the police who botched things from the start. It shouldn't have took marchers or protesters for a parent to get a fair investigation into their child's murder when he was unarmed. GZ was simply sent home with all believeing his story. Take the time to correctly gather evidence and witness testimony to either support or not support GZ's story. That wasn't done. Things were done after the fact and done half azzed at that. I'm sure any parent with want that whether their child was at fault or not. That's all TM's family asked for the media hores made it into something bigger beyond just getting equal treatment and justice.

I have never seen anything that indicated Zimmerman's father had any influence in this case. Zimmerman's father was a magistrate of the Virginia Court of Appeals from 2000 to 2006. Virginia does not consider that position to be a judge, they issue arrest warrants, summonses, search warrants, subpoenas, etc....

He retired and moved to Florida. His mother was a deputy court clerk, also in Virginia.

http://www.reuters.c...E83O18H20120425

Robert Zimmerman Sr. was a U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam in 1970, and was stationed at Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia, in 1975 with Gladys Mesa's brother George. Zimmerman Sr. also served two tours in Korea, and spent the final 10 years of his 22-year military career in the Pentagon, working for the Department of Defense, a family member said.

In his final years in Virginia before retiring to Florida, Robert Zimmerman served as a magistrate in Fairfax County's 19th Judicial District.

So since his family was military and in law enforcement GZ was a hero?

[AUGradinTX 0]

In your opinion it doesn't coincide. We just both see things from a different point of view that's all. Jury decided what they decided...very true...doesn't mean it was right. So do you believe Casey Anthony and O.J Simpson are not guilty? It's not like a jury has never made an incorrect verdict. It wasn't an accident that the jury inquired about manslaughter before the verdict was reached. Once again it is what it is but as someone said before people get away with crimes all the time. I see GZ as one those people.

Yes. In my opinion is doesn't conincide.

TM had zero injuries. Makes perfect sense that he was attacked by GZ... :-\

GZ was screaming for his life. Makes perfect sense that he was the aggressor... :-\

Just b/c GZ had the injuries doesn't mean he didn't start the fight. He just got his azz kicked. Happens all the time. Where is the proof that GZ was screaming? and he was attacked? Neither or those were proven as to who was attacked who first or who was screaming. Just one person's word against a dead person. Not really much the dead person could've done.

You're right. Despie all the evidence pointing to TM being the aggressor, we do not know 100% for sure. Even though we know TM was on top of GZ and beating him at the time of that 911 call, we can't be 100% sure it is GZ's voice (although when first asked, TM's father said it was not his son's voice). I guess it is possible that TM was screaming for help while beating GZ's face in. Doesn't makes sense, but you're right. It is possible. This is your argument...

Why don't we shift the conversation a little bit. I want to ask you a question. You ask for proof that GZ was the person screaming. Since GZ is the one on trial and the evidence STRONGLY suggests that it is him screaming (the lead investigator said he believed the voice to be GZ's as well). Where is the proof that it isn't him screaming? We know it is possible from my previous paragraph that it is TM's voice. I want to know what supports that claim other than "it's possible." After all, it's possible the one armed man was the person screaming.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

In your opinion it doesn't coincide. We just both see things from a different point of view that's all. Jury decided what they decided...very true...doesn't mean it was right. So do you believe Casey Anthony and O.J Simpson are not guilty? It's not like a jury has never made an incorrect verdict. It wasn't an accident that the jury inquired about manslaughter before the verdict was reached. Once again it is what it is but as someone said before people get away with crimes all the time. I see GZ as one those people.

Yes. In my opinion is doesn't conincide.

TM had zero injuries. Makes perfect sense that he was attacked by GZ... :-\

GZ was screaming for his life. Makes perfect sense that he was the aggressor... :-\

Just b/c GZ had the injuries doesn't mean he didn't start the fight. He just got his azz kicked. Happens all the time. Where is the proof that GZ was screaming? and he was attacked? Neither or those were proven as to who was attacked who first or who was screaming. Just one person's word against a dead person. Not really much the dead person could've done.

You're right. Despie all the evidence pointing to TM being the aggressor, we do not know 100% for sure. Even though we know TM was on top of GZ and beating him at the time of that 911 call, we can't be 100% sure it is GZ's voice (although when first asked, TM's father said it was not his son's voice). I guess it is possible that TM was screaming for help while beating GZ's face in. Doesn't makes sense, but you're right. It is possible. This is your argument...

Why don't we shift the conversation a little bit. I want to ask you a question. You ask for proof that GZ was the person screaming. Since GZ is the one on trial and the evidence STRONGLY suggests that it is him screaming (the lead investigator said he believed the voice to be GZ's as well). Where is the proof that it isn't him screaming? We know it is possible from my previous paragraph that it is TM's voice. I want to know what supports that claim other than "it's possible." After all, it's possible the one armed man was the person screaming.

You're arguement is laughable in that it's hard to believe GZ it was possible for GZ to have started it only to get his azz beat. In case you didn't know that can and does happen. People pick fights all the time they lose. In the end GZ won the fight b/c he had a gun and killed TM know matter who started it. You agree we don't know who started yet you still clearly place the blame on TM for starting the fight. lol. You still didn't say where the evidence came from that shows GZ was getting his head bashed in? Where's that evidence. 2 minor cuts from getting his head based in more than 10 times as he claimed. lol. Sure. I clearly said we don't know who started it or who was screaming. It could've been either. We will never know.

[cptau 169]

It makes me sick to see people suggest GZ is free because TM was black. Makes me even sicker to read 4 articles this morning in which locals (to whatever publication) are quoted refering to GZ as "a white man". The whole racist tone this has taken is beyond rediculous.

I felt GZ would be convicted on manslaughter and that the murder charge was only to please the real racists out there.

That's the fault of the media. I believe GZ is free b/c of daddy Zimmerman and police who choose not to grant a real investigation and chalked it up to TM just being another thug b/c of what he was wearing. I think if TM was white, black, hispanic etc...that GZ would've done the same thing. Anger should be shifted to the police who botched things from the start. It shouldn't have took marchers or protesters for a parent to get a fair investigation into their child's murder when he was unarmed. GZ was simply sent home with all believeing his story. Take the time to correctly gather evidence and witness testimony to either support or not support GZ's story. That wasn't done. Things were done after the fact and done half azzed at that. I'm sure any parent with want that whether their child was at fault or not. That's all TM's family asked for the media hores made it into something bigger beyond just getting equal treatment and justice.

I have never seen anything that indicated Zimmerman's father had any influence in this case. Zimmerman's father was a magistrate of the Virginia Court of Appeals from 2000 to 2006. Virginia does not consider that position to be a judge, they issue arrest warrants, summonses, search warrants, subpoenas, etc....

He retired and moved to Florida. His mother was a deputy court clerk, also in Virginia.

http://www.reuters.c...E83O18H20120425

Robert Zimmerman Sr. was a U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam in 1970, and was stationed at Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia, in 1975 with Gladys Mesa's brother George. Zimmerman Sr. also served two tours in Korea, and spent the final 10 years of his 22-year military career in the Pentagon, working for the Department of Defense, a family member said.

In his final years in Virginia before retiring to Florida, Robert Zimmerman served as a magistrate in Fairfax County's 19th Judicial District.

So since his family was military and in law enforcement GZ was a hero?

The father was in the military, but he served in the court system in Va, no info about serving in law enforcement. Hero status is not inherited anyway. Still there is zero evidence of the father enfluencing the local police or county attorney. If there was, the state special attorney would have been all over that.

This was a mess from the start and still is. If being stupid was a crime, GZ could easily be found guilty.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

Anderson Cooper had one of the jurors on his show tonight...some of her insights, paraphrased:

* All 6 jurors believed that it was Zimmerman's voice on the 911 call

* When they first started deliberating, it was 3 for not guilty, 2 for manslaughter and 1 for murder 2.

* The one for M2 was brought around to manslaughter after law was clarified to her.

* Race and "wannabe cop" accusations didn't have any effect on their decision.

* They were all of the mind that the right to defend himself (GZ) was definitely there.

* Two of them wanted to find him guilty of something, but the self-defense and the threat GZ faced ultimately swung the verdict to not guilty.

Sounds like they had some of the same questions some of us had and it would appear that they came to a very difficult but, from their view, correct legal conclusion.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Zimmerman's possible guilt was just overshadowed by the complete uncertainty of the situation. Either way he lucked out that there was little to no evidence that could be presented against him, and that's really all there is to this.

[AU7to88 0]

Zimmerman's possible guilt was just overshadowed by the complete uncertainty of the situation. Either way he lucked out that there was little to no evidence that could be presented against him, and that's really all there is to this.

Agreed. There was no evidence as to how the physical confrontation started. That was the weak link for the prosecution. Without proof that GZ was the initial physical aggressor, the state could not overcome the self-defense argument.

[MDM4AU 332]

Juror speaks...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-juror-book/index.html

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Juror speaks...

http://www.cnn.com/2...book/index.html

She stated some insightful things but at the same time often contradicted her statements. Plus, i found it interesting that she stated during her initial questioning during jury selection that she wasn't a fan of the media and stated how she didn't watch or read much news or t.v. at all because of the inaccuracy she felt they displayed but yet she's the first to speak and pursue a book deal within 48 hours. After her interview it seems many were angered to learn of her book deal and shut it down by contacting the company to boycott them.

[alexava 6,973]

I might wright a book about this too.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

She stated some insightful things but at the same time often contradicted her statements.

Examples?

Plus, i found it interesting that she stated during her initial questioning during jury selection that she wasn't a fan of the media and stated how she didn't watch or read much news or t.v. at all because of the inaccuracy she felt they displayed but yet she's the first to speak and pursue a book deal within 48 hours.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be pointing out. It's like complaining that someone said they weren't a big fan of football but were the first to accept two free tickets to a Braves game. When someone like this says "the media" they are generally talking about the press...newspapers, the cable news channels, the three major network news organizations, etc.. Book publishers offering a person the chance to tell their own story in detail is not really the same thing.

After her interview it seems many were angered to learn of her book deal and shut it down by contacting the company to boycott them.

I don't believe she had actually settled on a publisher. She just had representation lined up from a literary agent to do a book. But she has, at least for now, decided not to do a book.

[alexava 6,973]

The part of the closing i saw, don west did a really good job of pointing out to the jury that the state's closing was VERY passionate. He apologized if he dont come across as passionate but he wanted to focus on DETAILS and be sure the jury had the facts they neefed to make their decision.....This maybe where it was won, this jury was able to overlook the emotion, which is all the prosecution had to go on.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

She stated some insightful things but at the same time often contradicted her statements.

Examples?

Plus, i found it interesting that she stated during her initial questioning during jury selection that she wasn't a fan of the media and stated how she didn't watch or read much news or t.v. at all because of the inaccuracy she felt they displayed but yet she's the first to speak and pursue a book deal within 48 hours.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be pointing out. It's like complaining that someone said they weren't a big fan of football but were the first to accept two free tickets to a Braves game. When someone like this says "the media" they are generally talking about the press...newspapers, the cable news channels, the three major network news organizations, etc.. Book publishers offering a person the chance to tell their own story in detail is not really the same thing.

After her interview it seems many were angered to learn of her book deal and shut it down by contacting the company to boycott them.

I don't believe she had actually settled on a publisher. She just had representation lined up from a literary agent to do a book. But she has, at least for now, decided not to do a book.

Interesting how you feel the need to defend her from a simple observation. Quite "suspicious." She hates the media and even testified her newspaper is used for her bird's cage but yet is the fist wanting to capitalize from all of this via the media...yeah that's not contradictory at all.

A Cooper: It came down to the final seconds when George feared for his life?

Juror responded: Exactly.....

GZ defense never argued Stand your Ground, they argued a traditional self defense. There was a small mention of "stand your ground" in the jury instructions, but she based her decision on something the defense did not even argue.

She mixed up a couple witnesses and their testimonies.

She told Anderson Cooper that the reason she didn't believe Rachel Jeantel's testimony due to the timing of the phone calls was such that if what Rachel said was true, that is, that she heard Trayvon interacting with GZ ("Why you following me for?") that the police dispatch that GZ was on the phone with would have also heard that and he didn't.

But then the contradictory offering - she then goes on to elaborate (because Anderson asked her to clarify) that GZ had hung up 2 minutes before Trayvon and Rachel had ended their call, therefore the police dispatch should have heard the interaction between GZ and Trayvon. She wants two things that are mutually exclusive to be true, and because they aren't she doesn't believe Rachel's testimony. She thinks police dispatch should have heard the interaction. But, she admits that GZ hung up with dispatch 2 MINUTES before Trayvon and Rachel hung up.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

She stated some insightful things but at the same time often contradicted her statements.

Examples?

Plus, i found it interesting that she stated during her initial questioning during jury selection that she wasn't a fan of the media and stated how she didn't watch or read much news or t.v. at all because of the inaccuracy she felt they displayed but yet she's the first to speak and pursue a book deal within 48 hours.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be pointing out. It's like complaining that someone said they weren't a big fan of football but were the first to accept two free tickets to a Braves game. When someone like this says "the media" they are generally talking about the press...newspapers, the cable news channels, the three major network news organizations, etc.. Book publishers offering a person the chance to tell their own story in detail is not really the same thing.

That's not what she said in her jury selection. Might want to go back and watch video on that. People will find excuses for a juror contradicting herself on a couple key statements but will blame the dead kid. Interesting. Just said her interview was insightful and it certainly was.

After her interview it seems many were angered to learn of her book deal and shut it down by contacting the company to boycott them.

I don't believe she had actually settled on a publisher. She just had representation lined up from a literary agent to do a book. But she has, at least for now, decided not to do a book.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Interesting how you feel the need to defend her from a simple observation. Quite "suspicious."

You need to dial it back a notch. I'm not defending her, I'm merely pointing out the holes in one of your assertions and asking for specifics on the other. If asking you to explain your assertions is "suspicious" you have a very low bar for it.

She hates the media and even testified her newspaper is used for her bird's cage but yet is the fist wanting to capitalize from all of this via the media...yeah that's not contradictory at all.

As I said, writing a book is not a contradictory stance to disliking the media. You're stretching the definition of what most people refer to as "the media" to make this an issue.

A Cooper: It came down to the final seconds when George feared for his life?

Juror responded: Exactly.....

GZ defense never argued Stand your Ground, they argued a traditional self defense. There was a small mention of "stand your ground" in the jury instructions, but she based her decision on something the defense did not even argue.

If that was the critical moment for her, that actually fits self-defense and "Stand your Ground." It's not one or the other. I actually think the critical moment came before that...at the moment the situation became a physical confrontation. If Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, then he is responsible for having to use deadly force later and deserved to be convicted. If on the other hand you believe that Trayvon decided to jump him and threw the first punch then things change.

But regardless, I don't think "contradiction" is the word you're looking for here.

She mixed up a couple witnesses and their testimonies.

She told Anderson Cooper that the reason she didn't believe Rachel Jeantel's testimony due to the timing of the phone calls was such that if what Rachel said was true, that is, that she heard Trayvon interacting with GZ ("Why you following me for?") that the police dispatch that GZ was on the phone with would have also heard that and he didn't.

But then the contradictory offering - she then goes on to elaborate (because Anderson asked her to clarify) that GZ had hung up 2 minutes before Trayvon and Rachel had ended their call, therefore the police dispatch should have heard the interaction between GZ and Trayvon. She wants two things that are mutually exclusive to be true, and because they aren't she doesn't believe Rachel's testimony. She thinks police dispatch should have heard the interaction. But, she admits that GZ hung up with dispatch 2 MINUTES before Trayvon and Rachel hung up.

Could you point out the timestamp on the video so I can go back and watch that? I don't remember the specifics of this exchange.

That's not what she said in her jury selection. Might want to go back and watch video on that. People will find excuses for a juror contradicting herself on a couple key statements but will blame the dead kid. Interesting. Just said her interview was insightful and it certainly was.

You're the one making the assertion. If you have something to point out, do so. It's not my job to go hunting through jury selection video to bolster your contentions.

As I said, getting a book deal and hating the "media" are not contradictory.

Look, if there's any "defending" of her from my end it's simply that I feel like these jurors had a very difficult job with this case and it doesn't appear they took the job at all lightly. They wrestled with the evidence and the charges and the applicable law and did what they felt they had to do within those boundaries. I wouldn't have wanted to trade places with them for all the tea in China.

[AUGradinTX 0]

In your opinion it doesn't coincide. We just both see things from a different point of view that's all. Jury decided what they decided...very true...doesn't mean it was right. So do you believe Casey Anthony and O.J Simpson are not guilty? It's not like a jury has never made an incorrect verdict. It wasn't an accident that the jury inquired about manslaughter before the verdict was reached. Once again it is what it is but as someone said before people get away with crimes all the time. I see GZ as one those people.

Yes. In my opinion is doesn't conincide.

TM had zero injuries. Makes perfect sense that he was attacked by GZ... :-\

GZ was screaming for his life. Makes perfect sense that he was the aggressor... :-\

Just b/c GZ had the injuries doesn't mean he didn't start the fight. He just got his azz kicked. Happens all the time. Where is the proof that GZ was screaming? and he was attacked? Neither or those were proven as to who was attacked who first or who was screaming. Just one person's word against a dead person. Not really much the dead person could've done.

You're right. Despie all the evidence pointing to TM being the aggressor, we do not know 100% for sure. Even though we know TM was on top of GZ and beating him at the time of that 911 call, we can't be 100% sure it is GZ's voice (although when first asked, TM's father said it was not his son's voice). I guess it is possible that TM was screaming for help while beating GZ's face in. Doesn't makes sense, but you're right. It is possible. This is your argument...

Why don't we shift the conversation a little bit. I want to ask you a question. You ask for proof that GZ was the person screaming. Since GZ is the one on trial and the evidence STRONGLY suggests that it is him screaming (the lead investigator said he believed the voice to be GZ's as well). Where is the proof that it isn't him screaming? We know it is possible from my previous paragraph that it is TM's voice. I want to know what supports that claim other than "it's possible." After all, it's possible the one armed man was the person screaming.

You're arguement is laughable in that it's hard to believe GZ it was possible for GZ to have started it only to get his azz beat. In case you didn't know that can and does happen. People pick fights all the time they lose. In the end GZ won the fight b/c he had a gun and killed TM know matter who started it. You agree we don't know who started yet you still clearly place the blame on TM for starting the fight. lol. You still didn't say where the evidence came from that shows GZ was getting his head bashed in? Where's that evidence. 2 minor cuts from getting his head based in more than 10 times as he claimed. lol. Sure. I clearly said we don't know who started it or who was screaming. It could've been either. We will never know.

Your claiming to have watched the trial from start to finish is what is laughable. Every question you have asked was addressed during the trial. Luckily the jury was made up of better listeners than yourself. What's more, I have addressed every question you ask already. I'm not going to continue to answer your questions if you aren't going to read them.

We know who is more likely to have started the fight by the physical evidence. There is no doubt who is screaming in the background of that call. If you believe there is more than a 1% chance it is TM, you're a fool or just disingenuous

BTW, can we use proper English from here on out? I don't enjoy having to read your posts 2-3 times to figure out what you're trying to say. Thanks.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

In your opinion it doesn't coincide. We just both see things from a different point of view that's all. Jury decided what they decided...very true...doesn't mean it was right. So do you believe Casey Anthony and O.J Simpson are not guilty? It's not like a jury has never made an incorrect verdict. It wasn't an accident that the jury inquired about manslaughter before the verdict was reached. Once again it is what it is but as someone said before people get away with crimes all the time. I see GZ as one those people.

Yes. In my opinion is doesn't conincide.

TM had zero injuries. Makes perfect sense that he was attacked by GZ... :-\

GZ was screaming for his life. Makes perfect sense that he was the aggressor... :-\

Just b/c GZ had the injuries doesn't mean he didn't start the fight. He just got his azz kicked. Happens all the time. Where is the proof that GZ was screaming? and he was attacked? Neither or those were proven as to who was attacked who first or who was screaming. Just one person's word against a dead person. Not really much the dead person could've done.

You're right. Despie all the evidence pointing to TM being the aggressor, we do not know 100% for sure. Even though we know TM was on top of GZ and beating him at the time of that 911 call, we can't be 100% sure it is GZ's voice (although when first asked, TM's father said it was not his son's voice). I guess it is possible that TM was screaming for help while beating GZ's face in. Doesn't makes sense, but you're right. It is possible. This is your argument...

Why don't we shift the conversation a little bit. I want to ask you a question. You ask for proof that GZ was the person screaming. Since GZ is the one on trial and the evidence STRONGLY suggests that it is him screaming (the lead investigator said he believed the voice to be GZ's as well). Where is the proof that it isn't him screaming? We know it is possible from my previous paragraph that it is TM's voice. I want to know what supports that claim other than "it's possible." After all, it's possible the one armed man was the person screaming.

You're arguement is laughable in that it's hard to believe GZ it was possible for GZ to have started it only to get his azz beat. In case you didn't know that can and does happen. People pick fights all the time they lose. In the end GZ won the fight b/c he had a gun and killed TM know matter who started it. You agree we don't know who started yet you still clearly place the blame on TM for starting the fight. lol. You still didn't say where the evidence came from that shows GZ was getting his head bashed in? Where's that evidence. 2 minor cuts from getting his head based in more than 10 times as he claimed. lol. Sure. I clearly said we don't know who started it or who was screaming. It could've been either. We will never know.

Your claiming to have watched the trial from start to finish is what is laughable. Every question you have asked was addressed during the trial. Luckily the jury was made up of better listeners than yourself. What's more, I have addressed every question you ask already. I'm not going to continue to answer your questions if you aren't going to read them.

We know who is more likely to have started the fight by the physical evidence. There is no doubt who is screaming in the background of that call. If you believe there is more than a 1% chance it is TM, you're a fool or just ingenuous

BTW, can we use proper English from here on out? I don't enjoy having to read your posts 2-3 times to figure out what you're trying to say. Thanks.

Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

In your opinion it doesn't coincide. We just both see things from a different point of view that's all. Jury decided what they decided...very true...doesn't mean it was right. So do you believe Casey Anthony and O.J Simpson are not guilty? It's not like a jury has never made an incorrect verdict. It wasn't an accident that the jury inquired about manslaughter before the verdict was reached. Once again it is what it is but as someone said before people get away with crimes all the time. I see GZ as one those people.

Yes. In my opinion is doesn't conincide.

TM had zero injuries. Makes perfect sense that he was attacked by GZ... :-\

GZ was screaming for his life. Makes perfect sense that he was the aggressor... :-\

Just b/c GZ had the injuries doesn't mean he didn't start the fight. He just got his azz kicked. Happens all the time. Where is the proof that GZ was screaming? and he was attacked? Neither or those were proven as to who was attacked who first or who was screaming. Just one person's word against a dead person. Not really much the dead person could've done.

You're right. Despie all the evidence pointing to TM being the aggressor, we do not know 100% for sure. Even though we know TM was on top of GZ and beating him at the time of that 911 call, we can't be 100% sure it is GZ's voice (although when first asked, TM's father said it was not his son's voice). I guess it is possible that TM was screaming for help while beating GZ's face in. Doesn't makes sense, but you're right. It is possible. This is your argument...

Why don't we shift the conversation a little bit. I want to ask you a question. You ask for proof that GZ was the person screaming. Since GZ is the one on trial and the evidence STRONGLY suggests that it is him screaming (the lead investigator said he believed the voice to be GZ's as well). Where is the proof that it isn't him screaming? We know it is possible from my previous paragraph that it is TM's voice. I want to know what supports that claim other than "it's possible." After all, it's possible the one armed man was the person screaming.

You're arguement is laughable in that it's hard to believe GZ it was possible for GZ to have started it only to get his azz beat. In case you didn't know that can and does happen. People pick fights all the time they lose. In the end GZ won the fight b/c he had a gun and killed TM know matter who started it. You agree we don't know who started yet you still clearly place the blame on TM for starting the fight. lol. You still didn't say where the evidence came from that shows GZ was getting his head bashed in? Where's that evidence. 2 minor cuts from getting his head based in more than 10 times as he claimed. lol. Sure. I clearly said we don't know who started it or who was screaming. It could've been either. We will never know.

Your claiming to have watched the trial from start to finish is what is laughable. Every question you have asked was addressed during the trial. Luckily the jury was made up of better listeners than yourself. What's more, I have addressed every question you ask already. I'm not going to continue to answer your questions if you aren't going to read them.

We know who is more likely to have started the fight by the physical evidence. There is no doubt who is screaming in the background of that call. If you believe there is more than a 1% chance it is TM, you're a fool or just disingenuous

BTW, can we use proper English from here on out? I don't enjoy having to read your posts 2-3 times to figure out what you're trying to say. Thanks.

Those questions were not addressed. The questions were answered with only theories and versions of events from GZ where he clearly changed his story at least on a couple occasions. Besides GZ....Who testified to seeing TM hit GZ first? Who testified to the fact that TM reached for the gun? I don't recall any witness doing that.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason.

This is the thing that your overemotionalism is causing you to not get. None of this makes me feel good. I didn't want any particular verdict because frankly I don't know for sure what happened. So I don't need to, nor have I, been "spinning" anything. Given the evidence at trial, this case was a hard one for the prosecution and it was a hard one for the jurors to parse through and figure out what to do. I think they did the best they could with what they were given and in a situation where the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense, this is a reasonable verdict.

It's not a satisfying one because I think most people feel it was avoidable and there's a 17-year old dead.