Will George Zimmerman be innocent or guilty for the death of Treyvon Martin?

It might well be grounds for appeal. But then you invent all your own laws. Last thing you thought that gaining105 pounds was grounds to be found guilty of Murder.

 

Well O'Mara whiffed on the immunity hearing today which could mean only one thing--George is guilty as charged.

Of course if O'Mara had scheduled the immunity hearing then the defense would have had to present their case first and it would have required George to take the stand and as evidenced from the second bond hearing when O'Mara asked Judge Lester if George could take the witness stand without being cross-examined O'Mara doesn't believe that George can handle being confronted with his lies and inconsistancies.

Furthermore I believe that the State has some blockbuster evidence that they are keeping under wraps and it has to do with George's text messages from mid to late March 2012. There's a reason that both the State and the Defense have agreed to keep them from the public and I believe that George confessed because George's Rent-A-Black-Friend Joe Oliver stated on his short-lived media tour that they thought that 'everything had blown over' meaning that they thought that Georgie Porgie had gotten away with murdering Trayvon and I bet that loose lipped and loose fingertipped George started spouting off and texting things that he should not have.

But I can wait until June to see Porky sent up the river and see his racist supporters eat crow. Maybe they will shed a tear for their hero---the man who did what they have always dreampt of doing---killing a black person and (almost) getting away with it.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe it's 12 for capital cases, but six for all other cases.

 

LOL. You forget that perception is everything.

Remember last year when O'Mara had George lose all of that weight before the first bond hearing so he would look emanciated and frail and to make him seem even smaller they made him wear that suit jacket that was four sizes too big.

But now George's weight will work against him because the jurors are going to see a 300lb George and think ' so this guy couldn't have used physical force against a 5'11 158lb stringbean teenager instead of using his gun?

Of course George was 204lbs the night of the shooting but it doesn't matter since O'Mara has decided to thuggify Trayvon.

I guess it's karma or better yet 'it's all God's plan' *smiling*

Oh yeah I forgot that George is a former bouncer so he knows how to use various techniques to subdue bigger persons and Trayvon was definitely not a bigger person that night.

 

The judge sealed George's text messages as "incendiary"... I would guess racist?

- - - Updated - - -

If this doesn't go to trial until June.. George will weigh 400 pounds.

 

If that were the case then why has the FBI stated that they haven't found any evidence of racism in George's past?

I know that the FBI takes a long time to bring cases but why would they lie especially if there was electronic evidence from Porky?

And then we don't know who he called that night before he killed Trayvon.

One thing I find very odd is that he had someone else call Shellie.

1) Why didn't he call Shellie himself?
2) Why was he so anxious to call Shellie?

One thing that has always bothered me is although George and Shellie lived across the street how did she get to the scene to move his truck so quickly? I know that Osterman had already arrived at their house and he could have driven her over, but l still wonder if Shellie was in the truck with George that night and he called her in an effort for her to move it quickly before the police saw it and possibly impounded it.

I don't know what to think. These clowns make your head swim with all of their schemes and lies.

 

I have wondered about the same things.... and I wonder how Osterman got in since the gate closes at 7 PM. I have also wondered if George and Shellie had a fight that afternoon.. .."Tell my wife that I shot a guy" seems very curt to me.

 

That can't be true because O'Mara has been trying this case in the media while the Prosecution has been silent.

Add to that George's older brother has been all over the radio and tv promoting his brother's lies so no excessive media coverage won't be grounds for appeal since the defense has used that medium way too much.

 

Ah . we have a new 'convict without evidence' race baiter.

Welcome to the thread . I hope you bring something more original than.

1) Inventing laws that don't exist

2) Lying about events

3) Assuming that the defence must Prove their innocence.

4) using stupid names for Zimmerman

 

I think George Z. "should" be found not guilty (and you need to learn to spell innocent but defendants are never "found innocent"....they're already innocent until proven guilty). But these days only the black race is respected. Whites and Hispanics are looked down upon, which means George will probably get the axe because he's not black.

 

Poor George, I hope he can live through this. But I have a little suspicion that he'll be just another victim of racism.

 

I think he will be acquitted. I can't see all 6 (or possible 12 either is possible) people unanimously deciding to railroad him.

 

I sure hope you're right. It just may be very hard to convince ALL 12 that he's guilty. That means an uphill battle for the prosecution. Good.

 

I say Guilty, this is the kind of case that makes a prosecutor. The 911 tape about him staying in the car and he did not will be what sends him away. No rational person will buy into any story that tries to move or shift blame away from that.

 

So you have read all 13 of the evidence dumps??

- - - Updated - - -

All 6.. its not capital murder.

 

If Trayvon had been a true true thug he would have had a gun and George would have never known what hit him.

 

So, you think that he will be convicted of getting out of the car after being ordered not to? I don't think that would be a responsive verdict to murder.

 

It may not, but it is what he will be convicted for. IIRC, that nothing would have happened and Martin would not now be dead if Zimmerman had done as he was clearly advised to by a trained representative of legal authority is not even being disputed. Sometimes you have the right to do something but rather clearly and obviously should not do it anyway and if someone is damaged as a result of your doing so anyway, well, that is the definition of liability, is it not?

 

It is NOT the definition of liability.

Also since after the despatcher (not an authority in any way) said 'we don't need you to do that' Zimmerman said 'OK' And didn;t follow any further. I realise facts mean nothing to the race-baiters but Martin first attacked him at the T junction where Zimmerman was returning to his care. This is conformed by witnesses.

The whole 'if he hadn;t gotten out of his car' thing is outragous. Martin HAD NO RIGHT to double back and attack Zimmerman. You know he did that and lefty sergeant actually beleives he was justified to do that.

Martin is dead because he was incapable of controlling his actions.

 

Trayvon is dead because George's cop fantasy was/is more important than a human life.

George could have waited for the police.. He could have identified himself and diffused the situation.

George is simply a VERY stupid person. That's why he is a D student fantasizing that he will become a judge.

- - - Updated - - -

Trayvon is dead because George's cop fantasy was/is more important than a human life.

George could have waited for the police.. He could have identified himself and diffused the situation.

George is simply a VERY stupid person. That's why he is a D student fantasizing that he will become a judge.

 

he is dead because he couldn't control his fists

He did wait for the police

Pot...Kettle

 

I am not sure I understand what liability has to do with it. Actually, I'm not sure that i understand what any of that has to do with Zimmerman being convicted of anything. I suppose that the simplest way of framing the important question is this: If Zimmerman was where he had a right to be and Martin attacked him because he was angry at being profiled and was beating his head on the pavement to the point that Zimmerman felt he was about to suffer death or great bodily harm, then he was justified in shooting Martin. It does not matter whether he was doing a smart thing, or the right thing, or whether a police dispatcher told him not to do it. Constitutional rights do not depend upon the approval of police dispatchers.

Liability may be relevant if someone sues Zimmerman, but criminal responsibility is determined in different ways.

 

Of all the neighborhood watch and citizen patrol documents that I have looked at - not one has stated that NW has stop and question authority... 90 percent of them warn against such actions.

 

What is the definition of liability then?

I know no such thing and I don't think you do either. If you have clear and incontrovertible evidence that Martin did double back and attack Zimmerman for no cause and against all reason, then I suggest you contact the court in question. Otherwise I think they will probably continue to have the trial to determine, as best they can, what actually happened.

Criminal liability and criminal responsibility are identical, unless there, of course, you again have a different definition.

Zimmerman did not have a Constitutional right to approach another person in a manner which any reasonable and prudent individual could easily interpret as an attack. Conversely, Martin had no right to attack Zimmerman if he was not approached in such a manner. There is considerable doubt as to which actually happened, hence the trial.

It is not as simple as saying Zimmerman had a right to be there, to be armed and to get out of the truck. If you are celebrating New Year's in a rural area it is probably going to be okay if you shoot a powerful gun straight up in the air. It cannot hurt anyone by falling back down except under very special circumstances. (I saw that on Mythbusters so it MUST be true). If however, you shoot level at the party directly across the street....

Zimmerman was under the obligation we always are at all times if we wish to avoid liability, to act in a reasonable and prudent manner. So was Martin, and this basically is what the trial will be about. However, Zimmerman was advised on what the reasonable and prudent thing to do was by someone in a position to know and did not do it even though there is no evidence of a compelling reason not to.

In order to walk free he has to prove BOTH that Martin actually attacked him AND that Martin was NOT being reasonable and prudent in concluding he was being attacked himself. Short of incontrovertibly proving he could read Martin's mind or an actual and somehow unimpeachable by having waited this long witness coming forward, I see no way he can do that, can you?

My prediction at present? conviction with considerable leniency and bankruptcy or lifelong impoverishment in the wrongful death suit to follow. Possibly not even leniency, his actions have been egregious.

The thing that really baffles me is that if you are like the typical Zimmermann supporter I have talked to you are probably an advocate of gun ownership, and yet Zimmermann is the poster boy of the type of person who should not and never should be armed. He is the one thing (other than the Sandy Hook assassin) that might galvanise people in this country to actually demand actual reason be applied to gun control. A half drunk (*)(*)(*)(*)**** cop wannabe out blazing away at our children with no regard to common sense, human life or even human decency.

 

Excellent post....

Lots of posters writing about George's "rights"... but little attention is given to reasonable man standards or responsible gun ownership. If George couldn't see that the NW rules and protocols are reasonable and prudent... he is exactly the sort of person who should NEVER have a gun.

- - - Updated - - -

Excellent post....

Lots of posters writing about George's "rights"... but little attention is given to reasonable man standards or responsible gun ownership. If George couldn't see that the NW rules and protocols are reasonable and prudent... he is exactly the sort of person who should NEVER have a gun.

 

There is no law preventing you from approaching someone for any legal purpose. Following someone for the pruposes of giving information to the Police is perfectly lega

It is that simple- he had every right to be there

Please show your evidence that he did NOT stop following at that point.

No he doesn't the Onus is on the prosecution

Pathetic

I am actually against gun ownership