Zimmerman Trial About To Commence

[bawksy]

Ann Coulter has a history of being a cunt and of being very wrong in the past. While that certainly means you should give extra scrutiny to what she says, in this case, she's pretty close to being right on the money. The only difference I can see with the white victim / black shooter story she told is that there was actual proof that the white kids were being assholes prior to the shooting, whereas Trayvon was just eating Skittles. Much of the race-baiting outrage surrounding this case comes from the fact that there's no proof Trayvon was being anything but an angel before George started following him. These race baiters tend to forget that punching someone makes you lose angel status, but still, before George initiated the encounter, Trayvon wasn't doing anything. Whether or not the white kids' heckling was any more illegal than eating Skittles, I'm not sure (it could have been free speech), but it certainly could have influenced a jury.

In any case, these stories are all very good proof that racism goes both ways in the USA.

 

[Bocefish]

Zimmerman Final Jury Instructions...

Posted by William A. Jacobson Friday, July 12, 2013

The Court has released the final Jury Instructions that will be read to the jury this afternoon.

For background on the argument leading up to the instructions, see Zimmerman Trial: The Jury Instructions.

If Zimmerman wins, these sections of the Instructions likely will be decisive (full Instructions embedded at bottom of post):

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

The killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing.

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/159748267/Z ... structions

 

[Jupiter551]

It's hilarious that the Defense attorney would talk about how the Prosecution was talking about 'coulda beens', then they ask the jury to speculate what Trayvon Martin did during four minutes?! Then show an animated film showing an animated Trayvon beating up an animated Zimmy? hahha :lol:

'No no no, they don't get to ask you that, to ask you what you think. Now, what do you suppose Trayvon might have been doing during this four minutes of silence?'

 

[Bocefish]

It's hilarious that the Defense attorney would talk about how the Prosecution was talking about 'coulda beens', then they ask the jury to speculate what Trayvon Martin did during four minutes?! Then show an animated film showing an animated Trayvon beating up an animated Zimmy? hahha :lol:

'No no no, they don't get to ask you that, to ask you what you think. Now, what do you suppose Trayvon might have been doing during this four minutes of silence?'

Ya, I could totally hear the jury laughing. :roll:

 

[Jupiter551]

It's hilarious that the Defense attorney would talk about how the Prosecution was talking about 'coulda beens', then they ask the jury to speculate what Trayvon Martin did during four minutes?! Then show an animated film showing an animated Trayvon beating up an animated Zimmy? hahha :lol:

'No no no, they don't get to ask you that, to ask you what you think. Now, what do you suppose Trayvon might have been doing during this four minutes of silence?'

Ya, I could totally hear the jury laughing. :roll:

The Jury remember the first and the last thing they hear. That would be the prosecution and the prosecution.

 

[Bocefish]

It's hilarious that the Defense attorney would talk about how the Prosecution was talking about 'coulda beens', then they ask the jury to speculate what Trayvon Martin did during four minutes?! Then show an animated film showing an animated Trayvon beating up an animated Zimmy? hahha :lol:

'No no no, they don't get to ask you that, to ask you what you think. Now, what do you suppose Trayvon might have been doing during this four minutes of silence?'

Ya, I could totally hear the jury laughing. :roll:

The Jury remember the first and the last thing they hear. That would be the prosecution and the prosecution.

I have full faith the jury of 6 women, 5 of them mothers, can retain and remember testimony and evidence well beyond the last thing they heard. They also have all the evidence available to them in the deliberation room. They don't, however, have the innuendos and assumptions from the prosecution with them.

 

[Jupiter551]

It's hilarious that the Defense attorney would talk about how the Prosecution was talking about 'coulda beens', then they ask the jury to speculate what Trayvon Martin did during four minutes?! Then show an animated film showing an animated Trayvon beating up an animated Zimmy? hahha :lol:

'No no no, they don't get to ask you that, to ask you what you think. Now, what do you suppose Trayvon might have been doing during this four minutes of silence?'

Ya, I could totally hear the jury laughing. :roll:

The Jury remember the first and the last thing they hear. That would be the prosecution and the prosecution.

I have full faith the jury of 6 women, 5 of them mothers, can retain and remember testimony and evidence well beyond the last thing they heard. They also have all the evidence available to them in the deliberation room. They don't, however, have the innuendos and assumptions from the prosecution with them.

Ditto for the innuendos of Fox News and the NRA :lol:

PS I just LOVE how some channels have 'panels' of 'experts' who are so biased that they apparently no longer even notice when they say 'we' when they refer to the defense team, despite having no association with them.

 

[Bocefish]

It's hilarious that the Defense attorney would talk about how the Prosecution was talking about 'coulda beens', then they ask the jury to speculate what Trayvon Martin did during four minutes?! Then show an animated film showing an animated Trayvon beating up an animated Zimmy? hahha :lol:

'No no no, they don't get to ask you that, to ask you what you think. Now, what do you suppose Trayvon might have been doing during this four minutes of silence?'

Ya, I could totally hear the jury laughing. :roll:

The Jury remember the first and the last thing they hear. That would be the prosecution and the prosecution.

I have full faith the jury of 6 women, 5 of them mothers, can retain and remember testimony and evidence well beyond the last thing they heard. They also have all the evidence available to them in the deliberation room. They don't, however, have the innuendos and assumptions from the prosecution with them.

Ditto for the innuendos of Fox News and the NRA :lol:

PS I just LOVE how some channels have 'panels' of 'experts' who are so biased that they apparently no longer even notice when they say 'we' when they refer to the defense team, despite having no association with them.

Hmmm... I don't recall Fox News or the NRA ever being in the court room.

 

[Bocefish]

Here is what is known about the six jurors, courtesy of WFTV and Andrew Branca of Legal Insurrection:

B29: Hispanic female with eight children who works at a nursing home, living in Chicago when the Trayvon Martin shooting occurred. She said that she worked nights with Alzheimer’s patients, moved to Seminole county four months prior to the start of the trial, and said, “I don’t like watchin the news period…I don’t read any newspapers, don’t watch the news.” She added she didn’t like crime shows on television. She said that she knew that with regard to the Trayvon Martin case, a “little boy had passed away,” who she thought was “a kid, 12 or 13,” and termed Martin a “child who died.” She had previously been arrested, and told the lawyers that she would have no problem voting “not guilty” if there was a reasonable doubt in her mind.

B76: White female of middle age who knew about case from the news, says she wants a “fair trial,” and said it was a “great opportunity” to serve on the jury. She said that she knew that someone had been shot and that Zimmerman was injured. She said she didn’t “believe what I hear on TV.” She has two children and has been married for 30 years, and said that she had used the Neighborhood Watch program in her neighborhood. She asked why “a kid was out at night getting candy” and said “If I saw someone beating a child I would definitely get involved, I’d push the person down if I needed to, to protect the child.”

B37: White woman in her 30s owns a variety of pets (3 dogs, 4 cats, parrot, crow with one wing, two lizards), rescues wildlife, works in a chiropractor’s office, and says she does not watch television. She told attorney’s that the burden of proof lay with the state, and thinks concealed and carry weapons training is inadequate, although she said she had once had a concealed firearm license. She has two children. She said that the best use for newspapers was lining her parrot’s cage, and said she did not trust the media. She called the Trayvon Martin protests “rioting” and said she remembered that Zimmerman had been in a fight late at night and a “boy of color” had been killed.

B51: White retired woman, unmarried, who admitted she had an opinion on the case, and admitted that she had heard Zimmerman had been told not to follow Zimmerman (false) but that he declined to do so. She also stated it was “good to know we can consider bias.” She said that Zimmerman’s participation in Neighborhood Watch was something “he was supposed to be doing.” She said that Zimmerman might have done something wrong in not waiting for police, stating, “No. Perhaps he did. Yes.” She said that she thought the Chief of Police of Sanford had lost his job thanks to not arresting Zimmerman quickly enough.

E6: White mid-30s female who worked in financial services; defense attempted to preemptory challenge her but the judge denied the challenge. She said she didn’t know enough facts to have an opinion on the case. She has two children and had been previously arrested on a domestic violence charge. She said she didn’t follow the case closely, and said, ‘I don’t put much stock to what’s in the news, it’s so speculative.” She said she’d seen a picture of Zimmerman’s face bloodied, and that she had guns in the home. She told her children when she heard about the shooting not to dress or act to give a “false impression” while out at night. She seemed quite familiar with the concept of reasonable doubt, and asked specific questions about it.

E40: White middle-aged female who called herself a lawyer at heart, said she could help tell jurors to only consider evidence presented in court, and said that citizens have “responsibility if you bear arms.” She is a safety officer, and has one child. She said she heard about a teenager being killed and “didn’t have time” to follow the case.

 

[Jupiter551]

Good job 'profiling' the jury. I guess there's no chance you could just let them make their decision and accept it?

 

[Jupiter551]

Hmmm... I don't recall Fox News or the NRA ever being in the court room.

Funny, because for a large percentage of the American public Fox 'News' is about as close as they'll ever get to the courtroom, and the only people connected not at ALL affected by media propaganda about this case (hopefully) are those 6 women and ironically Trayvon Martin.

 

[Jupiter551]

Btw I found this interesting reading, it clarifies some peoples misconceptions I'm sure:
Judges instructions to the jury.
http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws...ts/44FR_Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

Also, I'm hearing the Zimmerman legal fund is now also accepting donations in the form of water-based lube and bulletproof vests.

 

[Bocefish]

Good job 'profiling' the jury. I guess there's no chance you could just let them make their decision and accept it?

WTF are you talking about?

How is that profiling the jury?

How would I NOT let them make their decision and accept it?

Also, I already posted the jury instructions link.

 

[Bocefish]

Hmmm... I don't recall Fox News or the NRA ever being in the court room.

Funny, because for a large percentage of the American public Fox 'News' is about as close as they'll ever get to the courtroom, and the only people connected not at ALL affected by media propaganda about this case (hopefully) are those 6 women and ironically Trayvon Martin.

WTF do you know about the majority of Americans ever being in a court room?

Here's what I think about your ASSumptions:

 

[CallMeWilliam]

Ann Coulter has a history of being a cunt and of being very wrong in the past. While that certainly means you should give extra scrutiny to what she says, in this case, she's pretty close to being right on the money. The only difference I can see with the white victim / black shooter story she told is that there was actual proof that the white kids were being assholes prior to the shooting, whereas Trayvon was just eating Skittles. Much of the race-baiting outrage surrounding this case comes from the fact that there's no proof Trayvon was being anything but an angel before George started following him. These race baiters tend to forget that punching someone makes you lose angel status, but still, before George initiated the encounter, Trayvon wasn't doing anything. Whether or not the white kids' heckling was any more illegal than eating Skittles, I'm not sure (it could have been free speech), but it certainly could have influenced a jury.

In any case, these stories are all very good proof that racism goes both ways in the USA.

Her article was followed up by this Fox news talk, most of what she says in the article is brought up in the video. I also loath her as well but in this case she does have a lot of strong points about the media's involvement in this case and how badly the case has been run from the start mostly due to the media IMO.

 

[Bocefish]

I didn't even notice this woman until a segment on CNN brought her to my attention last night...



She's got a bright future from what I saw.

Seeing as how the only reason this case was even brought to trial instead of a Grand Jury is because the liberal lame stream media relentlessly portrayed Z as a racist child murderer and manufactured/manipulated false evidence... I hope he sues CNN, MSNBC & NBC for millions.

 

[Bocefish]

Update: Jury asks for clarification of manslaughter charges.

It sounds like the jury wants to charge him for something, as would anyone with compassion. Unfortunately, IMO, the only thing Z is legally guilty of, is being a dumbass as far as the law is concerned.

ETA: Hindsight vision is always 20/20

 

[Bocefish]

What if, just for shits and grins... George was a woman or a TS in transition. Let's face it, he is/was kind of a wimp. Is there any evidence, whatsoever, he provoked getting the physical beatdown he received?

What options did he have and what would you do if you were armed and feared the guy was going for your weapon?

Is there still no reasonable doubt he/she acted in self-defense?

 

[Jupiter551]

Update: Jury asks for clarification of manslaughter charges.

It sounds like the jury wants to charge him for something, as would anyone with compassion. Unfortunately, IMO, the only thing Z is legally guilty of, is being a dumbass as far as the law is concerned.

ETA: Hindsight vision is always 20/20

Wrong again.

The lack of physical evidence in the case suggests that either a) shit didn't happen like Zimmerman said or b) poor handling techniques contaminated the evidence. Now, despite the likely hood being far in favour of the former - we've quite rightly given him the benefit of the doubt.

The only thing suggesting Zimmerman was defending himself is his own assertion, and if he can't be trusted to be honest when making statements about that night he's done.

For over a year people tried to convince you that his credibility was key. You can make up all the stories you like, if they don't match up and your defendant is a known liar all the wishes in the world won't help.

If the Jury doesn't believe George Zimmerman told the truth, then he is responsible for causing Martin's death unlawfully and constructing a disjointed, illogical story that both covered the bare bones of a self-defense case as taught to him during his ongoing law studies, and yet managed to be riddled with inconsistencies in the way only a lie can be.

It's amazing how quickly you seem to forget that, despite the presumption of innocence, defendant's lie ALL THE TIME, and while you certainly wouldn't assume a defendant is lying, nor is it beyond the realm of likelihood.

What if, just for shits and grins... George was a woman or a TS in transition. Let's face it, he is/was kind of a wimp. Is there any evidence, whatsoever, he provoked getting the physical beatdown he received?

What options did he have and what would you do if you were armed and feared the guy was going for your weapon?

Is there still no reasonable doubt he/she acted in self-defense?

I'm not certain what you're asking here, are you suggesting that with either gender reassignment surgery or hormones George would be at greater risk from being punched (if we agree that occurred)?
Or are you suggesting that if George had been female, Trayvon would have automatically guilty? In either case, you're wierd.

 

[Bocefish]

The lack of physical evidence in the case suggests that either a) shit didn't happen like Zimmerman said or b) poor handling techniques contaminated the evidence. Now, despite the likely hood being far in favour of the former - we've quite rightly given him the benefit of the doubt.

The only thing suggesting Zimmerman was defending himself is his own assertion, and if he can't be trusted to be honest when making statements about that night he's done.

For over a year people tried to convince you that his credibility was key. You can make up all the stories you like, if they don't match up and your defendant is a known liar all the wishes in the world won't help.

If the Jury doesn't believe George Zimmerman told the truth, then he is responsible for causing Martin's death unlawfully and constructing a disjointed, illogical story that both covered the bare bones of a self-defense case as taught to him during his ongoing law studies, and yet managed to be riddled with inconsistencies in the way only a lie can be.

It's amazing how quickly you seem to forget that, despite the presumption of innocence, defendant's lie ALL THE TIME, and while you certainly wouldn't assume a defendant is lying, nor is it beyond the realm of likelihood.

He could have said he is from the planet OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb which distance is approximately 21,500 light years from earth. The only thing that matters, legally, is if he felt a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.

You still haven't answered what you would do if you were in his situation getting your head pounded and believed he was going for your firearm to end your life.

 

[Jupiter551]

He could have said he is from the planet OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb which distance is approximately 21,500 light years from earth. The only thing that matters, legally, is if he felt a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.

You still haven't answered what you would do if you were in his situation getting your head pounded and believed he was going for your firearm to end your life.

You're wrong, anytime someone is caught in possession of stolen goods they could - according to your theory - make up some possible, unlikely scenario and as long as no one can prove them wrong...no. Incorrect. All the prosecution must do is show the jury that the LIKELIHOOD, is that Zimmerman killed him, and that we must conclude that since he lied, what he lied about is central to the issue of justification.

What would I do? Anything aside from pulling a firearm that I would never have been carrying. Then again I never would have followed him.

 

[Bocefish]

He could have said he is from the planet OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb which distance is approximately 21,500 light years from earth. The only thing that matters, legally, is if he felt a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.

You still haven't answered what you would do if you were in his situation getting your head pounded and believed he was going for your firearm to end your life.

You're wrong, anytime someone is caught in possession of stolen goods they could - according to your theory - make up some possible, unlikely scenario and as long as no one can prove them wrong...no. Incorrect. All the prosecution must do is show the jury that the LIKELIHOOD, is that Zimmerman killed him, and that we must conclude that since he lied, what he lied about is central to the issue of justification.

What would I do? Anything aside from pulling a firearm that I would never have been carrying. Then again I never would have followed him.

I have concluded that you are not only a moron, but an exceptional one.

 

[Jupiter551]

I have concluded that you are not only a moron, but an exceptional one.

Thanks, I'll take that for the dubious compliment that it is, coming from someone so quite unexceptional.
Don't think people don't notice that when you refuse to answer or address a point you simply insult the person whose question you can't answer. ;O)

 

[Bocefish]

I have concluded that you are not only a moron, but an exceptional one.

Thanks, I'll take that for the dubious compliment that it is, coming from someone so quite unexceptional.
Don't think people don't noticed that when you refuse to answer or address a point you simply insult the person whose question you can't answer. ;O)

What did I refuse to answer? My points have been clear and concise. By all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's your lame answer about what you would do...

Anything aside from pulling a firearm that I would never have been carrying. Then again I never would have followed him.

 

[Bocefish]

State Attorney Angela Corey fires information techonology director who raised concerns in Trayvon Martin case...

State Attorney Angela Corey fired her office’s information technology director Friday after he testified last month about being concerned prosecutors did not turn over information to George Zimmerman’s defense team in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013 ... z2YyhhZmep

 

[Jupiter551]

What did I refuse to answer? My points have been clear and concise. By all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's your lame answer about what you would do...

Anything aside from pulling a firearm that I would never have been carrying. Then again I never would have followed him.

You asked me a question, I answered it, and your apparent 'answer' (your word, I'd call it a response) was to call me a moron.

How is my answer lame? I answered as honestly as I could. I'm not going to imagine myself confronting some guy while I'm wearing a firearm - I cannot concieve of why I would act that way! The first thing that occurred to me was why the fuck didn't he yell out "hey! calm down! Neighbourhood watch, sorry, didn't mean to spook you. George Zimmerman, do you live around here? Just that I try to get to know everyone so that if I see any strangers and there's a break-in, well, I know who to tell the cops about."

So I guess that's what I would have done. Why would you ask me what I would do in an avoidable situation? It's like asking me what I'm going to do when a bullet is an inch from my chest and travelling and 300 mph. At least let me use my brain and normal, reasonable human intentions to avoid the situation peacefully. Like a normal person would.

Even IF George Zimmerman had called the police that night, followed Trayvon that night, ALL he would have had to do is call out that he was Neighbourhood Watch etc, and all could have been avoided. But no, because Zimmerman had decided Martin was a criminal, had probably already committed his crime, and would do who knew what to protect himself from jail.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Let the riots begin. NOT guilty.

 

[Bocefish]

Even IF George Zimmerman had called the police that night, followed Trayvon that night, ALL he would have had to do is call out that he was Neighbourhood Watch etc, and all could have been avoided. But no, because Zimmerman had decided Martin was a criminal, had probably already committed his crime, and would do who knew what to protect himself from jail.

I'm pretty buzzed right now but...

I totally agree that the tragic outcome could have been SO easily avoided by some simple mature communication like:

Z: I'm part of the neighborhood watch, what are you doing around here?

TM: I'm on my way home to my father's place.

WTF was so difficult about that?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Switch to Z wanting to do everything he can to catch the perp that has been evading police for so long...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Switch to Trayvon... full of teenage testosterone and not wanting to show any fear or retreat while on the phone with his GF. He may have envisioned calling her back later boasting that he kicked the "creepy ass cracker's" ass.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The ULTIMATE point is that we don't know, which is in and of itself is reasonable doubt.

 

[Bocefish]

Let the riots begin. NOT guilty.

Go figure... I was responding to Jup when the verdict came out.

 

[bawksy]

I am satisfied that true justice has prevailed in this case, but it does not make it a joyous occasion. There are no winners here. A boy is still dead and George Zimmerman's life is likely still ruined.

edit:
I also hold no ill will for Trayvon Martin's parents, despite for the fact that they played a large role in the travesty that were these judicial proceedings. A parent's love is a powerful thing. It is understandable that they just could not possibly believe that their son could be anything but an angel. I mean, look at the Tsarnaev boys' mother. Absolutely insistent that her perfect little boys were framed.