Zimmerman trial verdict predictions

MadsL · 12-07-2013 07:11PM #1

So, closing arguments today.

Predictions on the verdict?

Frosty McSnowballs · 12-07-2013 07:12PM

1-0

MadsL · 12-07-2013 07:14PM

*Not

Could a mod edit if possible thanks.

Osborne · 12-07-2013 07:14PM

Guilty. But maybe that's just my opinion and not what I really think the outcome will be.

padd b1975 · 12-07-2013 07:15PM

Dylan rocks!!

:cool:

jugger0 · 12-07-2013 07:16PM

Not guilty for defending himself from a little toerag, i wonder will the riots happen or is it all spoof.

BattleCorp · 12-07-2013 07:22PM

The evidence doesn't seem very clear to me. One witness contradicting another. Conflicting evidence on who is screaming on the 911 tape.

In my opinion, no clear motive. You would hardly ring 911 and let them know you were tailing somebody if you had the intention of putting a cap in his ass.

Zimmerman had injuries. Surely he would have shot the guy instead of getting into a fight with him, if his intention was to kill him.

If the jurors don't buckle to all the race related crap, then I reckon he will be found not guilty.

theSHU · 12-07-2013 07:25PM

Not guilty, clear cut case if ever there was one.

Manic Moran · 12-07-2013 07:25PM

Not guilty on the murder charge.

Manslaughter is less definite, but I still suspect acquittal

BattleCorp · 12-07-2013 07:26PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not guilty on the murder charge.

Manslaughter is less definite, but I still suspect acquittal

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

Manach · 12-07-2013 07:26PM

He might have been a tad reckless in tackling the youth but he did not have the mental purpose formed to kill him,my offhand reading of the evidence, so not guilty.

MadsL · 12-07-2013 07:33PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

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

Yeah it's spilt white/brown/black

Mardy Bum · 12-07-2013 07:47PM

So if you follow someone around after being told to stop by police and then chase them and then shoot them you are not guilty?

The whole self defence argument was put to bed. No DNA was found.

BattleCorp · 12-07-2013 07:55PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

So if you follow someone around after being told to stop by police and then chase them and then shoot them you are not guilty?

The whole self defence argument was put to bed. No DNA was found.

Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to follow the advice of the police to stop following Trayvon Martin. Therefore, the fact that he was following him makes no difference. Legally, he wasn't doing anything wrong.

On the DNA reference, one witness claims that they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and another says that they saw it the other way around. Either way, one man was on top of the other, so therefore there was a struggle, regardless of whether there was DNA or not.

Whether the shooting was merited, I'm not sure as I wasn't there. But one thing I'm sure of is that I can't say with 100% confidence that the shooting wasn't self defence.

Guilt has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact that they were seen by witnesses to be struggling leads me to have a fair bit of doubt in my mind.

Clandestine · 12-07-2013 07:56PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

So if you follow someone around after being told to stop by police and then chase them and then shoot them you are not guilty?

The whole self defence argument was put to bed. No DNA was found.

The defence proved without much of a doubt he was acting in self-defence thanks to testimonies from the police, medical experts and evidence (such as head wounds)

12-07-2013 08:09PM

id say there'll be rioting.

Crowds already gathering.( small group of people )

Rumors that the New Black Panthers have bussed in supporters.

http://cbs12.com/news/features/live-events/index.shtml?app_data={%22pi%22:%2232063_1373658397_442144003%22,%22pt%22:%22twitter%22}

Clandestine · 12-07-2013 08:11PM

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

Mardy Bum · 12-07-2013 08:12PM

Clandestine wrote: »

The defence proved without much of a doubt he was acting in self-defence thanks to testimonies from the police, medical experts and evidence (such as head wounds)

Martin ran away from Zimmerman. Zimmerman chased him. Zimmerman's DNA was not found underneath Martins fingernails. Martin's DNA was not on the gun.

BattleCorp · 12-07-2013 08:15PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Martin ran away from Zimmerman. Zimmerman chased him. Zimmerman's DNA was not found underneath Martins fingernails. Martin's DNA was not on the gun.

Are you suggesting that because no DNA was found on either person that no struggle took place?

Because if you are, there are two eye witnesses who say otherwise.

The Aussie · 12-07-2013 08:19PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

No DNA was found.

Are we talking about the same case here...

Was there any penetration in the case you heard about? :pac:

Mardy Bum · 12-07-2013 08:19PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are you suggesting that because no DNA was found on either person that no struggle took place?

Because if you are, there are two eye witnesses who say otherwise.

There was no DNA found under TM fingernails. Zimmerman said he had banged his head repeatedly off the the ground therefore either something extraordinary occurred and the DNA disappeared or Zimmerman lied.

BattleCorp · 12-07-2013 08:25PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

There was no DNA found under TM fingernails. Zimmerman said he had banged his head repeatedly off the the ground therefore either something extraordinary occurred and the DNA disappeared or Zimmerman lied.

I'm not doubting when you say that there was no DNA. What I'm saying is what difference does it's absence make?

If there was no DNA present and no witnesses, then I'd be suspect of Zimmerman's version of what happened.

The fact that two witnesses saw a struggle take place, then this has to give some credibility to his claim of self defence. Witnesses saw a struggle and this is possibly where Zimmerman's injuries happened.

Another point on no DNA under Trayvon Martin's nails. No DNA doesn't mean that they didn't struggle. If one person punched another person with a closed fist, then there would be no DNA underneath the fingernails.

It's not the lack of DNA here that is important as the two witnesses negate the need for DNA evidence to give credibility to Zimmerman's version of events.

CormacPR8 · 12-07-2013 08:28PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

There was no DNA found under TM fingernails. Zimmerman said he had banged his head repeatedly off the the ground therefore either something extraordinary occurred and the DNA disappeared or Zimmerman lied.

I do not think you have a clear understanding of this case. The absence of DNA does not mean anything, but the existence does- DNA is a forensic tool but not even close to a science. Secondly, it is not unlawful to follow someone, even if the dispatcher (which isn't a police officer by the way so you are wrong about that) advises not to. Clearly self-defense, as there is not enough direct evidence to support otherwise.

Mardy Bum · 12-07-2013 08:31PM

CormacPR8 wrote: »

I do not think you have a clear understanding of this case. The absence of DNA does not mean anything, but the existence does- DNA is a forensic tool but not even close to a science. Secondly, it is not unlawful to follow someone, even if the dispatcher (which isn't a police officer by the way so you are wrong about that) advises not to. Clearly self-defense, as there is not enough direct evidence to support otherwise.

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?

BattleCorp · 12-07-2013 08:34PM

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?

Anything is physically possible. I'm sure that there are rape cases where no DNA evidence was recovered.

Zimmerman doesn't have to prove that TM banged his head 25 times against the ground. He only has to prove that a struggle happened. And I go back to my original point, two witnesses saw a struggle take place.

MadsL · 12-07-2013 08:35PM

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?

You doubt the possibility of not getting DNA under your nails in a struggle?

This isn't CSI:Florida where there is always DNA

CormacPR8 · 12-07-2013 08:37PM

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?

Yes, yes I am. And I think most sane people would agree. First off, the cutting of the fingers was done incorrectly as stated by Mr. Bao when asked by Don West under oath. Secondly, DNA is an extraordinary evasive "substance" that can easily be deteriorated. If you have studied law anywhere you would know that the absence of DNA doesn't mean anything substantial. The Golden Rule about DNA is that the existence is telling, but the absence is up for speculation and does not prove against anyone or for anyone. I cannot believe you actually arguing that point. Out of all of the circumstantial evidence brought forth after over a year, there are some better points to argue even I would assert.

theSHU · 12-07-2013 08:46PM

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?

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.

Mardy Bum · 12-07-2013 08:47PM

CormacPR8 wrote: »

Yes, yes I am. And I think most sane people would agree. First off, the cutting of the fingers was done incorrectly as stated by Mr. Bao when asked by Don West under oath. Secondly, DNA is an extraordinary evasive "substance" that can easily be deteriorated. If you have studied law anywhere you would know that the absence of DNA doesn't mean anything substantial. The Golden Rule about DNA is that the existence is telling, but the absence is up for speculation and does not prove against anyone or for anyone. I cannot believe you actually arguing that point. Out of all of the circumstantial evidence brought forth after over a year, there are some better points to argue even I would assert.

I'm no legal eagle so I'll leave that to you so. Thanks for that.

12-07-2013 08:47PM

Chris Farley.. I mean the Judge, just called another damn recess. Jury question order of evidence, or sumtin like that...

CormacPR8 · 12-07-2013 08:53PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I'm no legal eagle so I'll leave that to you so. Thanks for that.

No worries. This case is frustrating though because he is a clearly innocent man and I truly feel bad for the guy. As his attorney stated, his life is ruined either way. He might as well move to another country or to some remote rural area in the states, especially because the people that want him dead have nothing to lose. The State tried to paint him as a cop wanna-be, but disallowed Trayvon's texts and social media where he boasted about drugs, guns, and fighting. If anything, I would consider TM a wanna-be thug. Plus, there was a minor amount of marijuana in his system, can you imagine if George had that in his?

BattleCorp · 12-07-2013 08:58PM

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 09:04PM

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 09:05PM

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 09:07PM

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 09:10PM

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 · 12-07-2013 11:11PM

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".

12-07-2013 11:19PM

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 · 12-07-2013 11:45PM

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 12:04AM

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 12:24AM

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 12:40AM

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 01:33AM

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

somefeen · 13-07-2013 01:51AM

I believe it was a lovers quarrell

Manic Moran · 13-07-2013 02:25AM

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 02:46AM

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 04:20AM

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 04:32AM

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 02:32AM

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 02:32AM

Found not guilty :eek:

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

CormacPR8 · 14-07-2013 02:35AM

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.

Zimmerman trial verdict predictions

Zimmerman Verdict? 206 votes

Comments