Is Zimmerman Guilty?

This is your problem, all of this stuff has no bearing, nobody saw anything. There is so much smoke on both sides it will still boil down to what can be proved.
This is a MURDER case,,second degree but still murder. They want FACTS,,,,they want to know there is no question. The jury ''most'' will never put up with assumptions of character, not on this.
They will want to know,,,WAS HE ATTACKED?..., WHO ATTACKED HIM?

This thing is a deadlock,,,that's real clear.

 

I thought M took a detour from the guy AND illustrated fear about the situation, AND with his gf decided he should just go home as quick as possible. Z was aggressive, guns loaded, I don't think a jury will assume your scenario. At best they will say they don't know...

- - - Updated - - -

Good points. HOWEVER there have been cases based on less information to go a certain way and I think it's feasible here as well. BTW, I'm the person who voted "I dont know"...

 

No.. its NOT my problem.. The verdict does not impact me at all.. Its George's problem because he couldn't shut up until July 20th..

The jury doesn't have to make any assumptions about character.

 

No, my opinion is he ''should walk'' period. This thing will be a deadlock, and possibly tried again, then he will walk....


The problem is that the case and charge is to BIG to figure out his head. You do not find a guilty verdict on a murder charge on guesses, would you? I would never vote guilty of second hand murder playing psychiatrist....I want facts. I believe you would too.

I had a case once, some young girl [Nurse] wanted her gynecologist tied up, drugged up, and left on a table so she could rape him,,,no kidding. Get this, the guy was 86...WOE! Now who the hell would believe that?
Well, as it turned out the guys she hired turned her in and were wired, we heard the entire thing on tape. She was going to pay them off with drugs.

If we did not have that tape she would have walked......

 

Not your personal problem,,the prosecutors. The things that have been said do not have any bearing, the prosecutors tried having this judged in the papers and internet, they cant.
No,,they do not,,,both sides. JUST the facts.....and the facts are not on Travons side.

 

Yes,,there has been less I would agree,,however this case is about one thing....self defense,,that's it! All the BS,,all the garbage,,,it still comes down to who was attacked.

Now,,,,IF,,,George can not convince that jury he was attacked, then YUP!,,you got a very good case. However I doubt that, I do not even think there will be much question. Giving a reason as to why he was attacked will not hold water in my opinion, it always falls to WHO struck first...especially self defense. Other than a witness he could not have a much stronger case.

Some people here are trying to get away with...''Oh it was not that bad'',,forget that, that will never fly.

 

Guilty of "the charges against him"? No. They are inflated to try and get a lesser charge.

 

Facts are that OMara hired 6 interns to surf the net .. They seem to be operating under the advice of the treenutters.

The facts are on TM's side since he was not obsessed with catching anyone, calling NEN ... nor did he have any history of violence and sudden rages.

Is this story about race for you..Why would you fail to value an innocent teen of any color?

 

Great points. I think that he was wrong in his actions but under the law, the facts are apparently not there to convict.

 

Good point. BTW, I just read about 6+ cases just like his, and they walked.

 

In addition to what Flounder said, the only difference between him and an officer starting a confrontation is the clothing.

I'd have done the same thing if this scab was prowling about my neighborhood. At this point I'd dig him him up and kill him again for making my life such a catastrophe.

 

Well this is more or less correct to my limited knowledge. But there also exists jury nullification as well. If I recall correctly the jury is there to decide both the facts and the law. Something commonly overlooked by most courts and juries in the states.

 

We sent out many times for the rule of law, the judge loved out little notes,,,,,LOL

 

I go by the facts that's all. All this stuff about race, color, what George was about,,all BS. Just give me the facts...Who attacked, who defended.

 

George could be a real scum sucker for all I know, but if that jury is convinced he was attacked,,,it's over. There will be a couple of hold outs,,deadlock!

 

Exactly.

 

* Note partly because the FBI interviews did not deem the need to raise hate crime charges

 

I think his actions fall somewhere in between second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

 

What facts bring you to that conclusion?

 

Yes I think that was important, although to some it will not matter and unfortunately race is what is driving this thing..

 

Not enough information to tell if he planned it to some degree when he saw Trayvon, or if it was a heated reaction to his being punched in the face. I do not, however, believe that his life was in danger.

 

Listen to George's interview at SPD..

He begins by talking about OTHER events.

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmermans-statements-sanford-pd-audio/

 

They need to prove it, so if they cant then it is not fact and can not be used against him. If you charge somebody with something it is up to you [them] to show the facts.
This is what makes it a fairly easy case, no facts but a lot of emotion. Now, you say his life was not in danger, how could you prove this? Who decides that? The man was attacked and nobody can say what went through his mind, and if you know anything about our court system they weigh heavily, and take very seriously physical attacks.

What that jury will go back to Chambers with is, [I believe], ''This man [zimmerman] was brutally attacked by Mr Martin who had no injuries at all, Mr Zimmerman felt his life was in danger and responded by shooting his attacker.'' Mr Martin suffered a broken nose, head injuries, bruising along with swelling of the face''

Now, if this had been your loved one would you say their life was not in danger? Would you agree he had the right to defend himself? Of course you would, and would you consider it self defense?

The thing is these things are not debatable, what you said is entirely debatable, no facts. The Travon people will never walk in with that defense, never. If they do, they lose. They will go with profiling, it's their only chance.

 

Trayvon was shot in the back I think that's enough to charge him with voluntary manslaughter at the least. I didn't say that Zimmerman didn't have the right to defend himself, but given what is known I believe it was overkill and I believe he knew that and shot Trayvon anyway because he was angry that he got punched in the face.

 

No ..Trayvon was shot in the chest.. No exit wound.. George used hollow points.

But, someone was pulling on Trayvon's hoodie when the shot was fired.

Listen to interviews at SPD.

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmermans-statements-sanford-pd-audio/