Your Verdict in the Zimmerman Trial

This thread it to ask all of those on the ATS to render their judgment on George Zimmerman as to the first charge of first degree murder and the second charge of manslaughter. Please consider that if you find him innocent of the first charge the second is void. If however you cannot convict on the first you may either render a not guilty or guilt on the second charge of manslaughter.

COURT RULES:

1. Your decision must be based of the facts.

2. Use law when possible.


Use this thread to render your judgment of either Innocent or Guilty, and state the reason for that judgment.

My verdict is:

Not Guilty. The state has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt on the first, and has failed to prove that George Zimmerman could have fled to avoid having to defend himself, and that he could not have reasonably believed to be in danger of his life.

Guilty.

He killed an innocent young man. He was not a law officer. The kid was not doing anything wrong. He could have called the police on the kids if he was really worried. He suspiciously followed the kid leading into a confrontation. And then he killed him. If this event transpired the other way around, (the kid on neighborhood watch, and zimmerman 'a suspicious fellow' in the neighborhood, the kid would be guilty for his actions). Justice for the loss of this kids life must be served in some manner, as much of a bad situation and accident as this was, accidentally killing someone when the situation could have been prevented, still should have a punishment in some sense.

Ive heard talk of stand your own ground and self defense and people using these terms to claim zimmerman is innocent and should walk a free man. If that is the case, then those same people would have to agree that if the kid killed zimmerman, the kid would be innocent and a free man for standing his own ground and defending himself.

reply to post by Fromabove

Originally posted by Fromabove
This thread it to ask all of those on the ATS to render their judgment on George Zimmerman as to the first charge of first degree murder and the second charge of manslaughter.

It's Second Degree Murder he's being charged with. Manslaughter is the "lesser charge", which means the jury can find him guilty of Murder 2 OR manslaughter. These aren't two separate charges, as your post implies.

I personally think he is guilty of Murder 2, but should be found guilty of manslaughter. I don't think Murder 2 was proven in court. His various and conflicting stories about what happened that night lead me to believe that he's lying to cover his guilt.

1. There was no Zimmerman DNA (blood or sweat) found on Martins hands or fingernails, which Zimmerman claimed he used to punch him, hold his nose and mouth closed, and slam his head against the sidewalk.
2. There was no Martin DNA on the gun or holster, which Zimmerman said he had grabbed.
3. There was VERY slight damage to Martin's hand. In fact, it could have been from anything.
4. Zimmerman wanted desperately to be a cop and get the bad guys who "always get away"
5. Zimmerman followed Martin, carried a gun and didn't announce that he was Neighborhood Watch.
6. Zimmerman profiled Martin as a "suspect" and a criminal, and took the law into his own hands.
7. Zimmerman said he spread Martin's hands after he killed him, but Martin's hands were underneath him.
8. There was NO damage to Zimmerman's hands. Meaning, in all that time that Martin was supposedly smashing his head on the concrete, covering his mouth and nose, and hitting him time and time again, Zimmerman never once fought back.
9. Supposedly, Zimmerman shot Martin, and then re-holstered his weapon and jumped on top of Martin., because he wasn't dead...

Zimmerman has had many hours of criminal and police-type training, not to mention 8 months of MMA training 3 times a week... If he feared for his life, he would have fought back. If Martin was still alive, Zimmerman would have kept his gun pointed at the kid, not re-holstered it and jumped on Martin.

Zimmerman is a horrible liar, but he lied a LOT. He's lying for a reason.

I think it's possible the jury will find him guilty of Murder 2, but more likely, manslaughter.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

I'd go for Not Guilty based on self defense. May I comment on your reasoning?

1. There was no Zimmerman DNA (blood or sweat) found on Martins hands or fingernails, which Zimmerman claimed he used to punch him, hold his nose and mouth closed, and slam his head against the sidewalk.

Astonishingly, Martin's hands were washed before any DNA test was made.

4. Zimmerman wanted desperately to be a cop and get the bad guys who "always get away"
5. Zimmerman followed Martin, carried a gun and didn't announce that he was Neighborhood Watch.
6. Zimmerman profiled Martin as a "suspect" and a criminal, and took the law into his own hands.

Well, the "He took the law into his own hands." Is a conclusion, not evidence. I disagree with the conclusion. As for the rest of it, so what? Was any of that illegal or proof of illegality? No.

8. There was NO damage to Zimmerman's hands. Meaning, in all that time that Martin was supposedly smashing his head on the concrete, covering his mouth and nose, and hitting him time and time again, Zimmerman never once fought back.

First that doesn't mean he didn't fight back. If someone punches me in the stomach through my sweatshirt, they're not going to have damage to their hands either. Secondly, if he didn't fight back, so what?

7. Zimmerman said he spread Martin's hands after he killed him, but Martin's hands were underneath him.
9. Supposedly, Zimmerman shot Martin, and then re-holstered his weapon and jumped on top of Martin., because he wasn't dead...

The medical witnesses, called by the prosecution, said Martin probably lived for 10-15 seconds after being shot. Death wasn't instantaneous.

But my biggest problem with the argument for guilt is that the prosecution has to PROVE their story. What the evidence has shown is that Zimmerman was not a competent MMA fighter, the back of his head and nose were injured, the shot occured when Martin was leaning over Zimmerman, that Zimmerman was on his back stradled by Martin.

What story is there that explains the facts and makes Zimmerman guilty of murder? Remember also, that the prosecution has to PROVE that it wasn't self defense. How have they done that? They haven't.

What story can be made up, consistent with the facts, that would convict Zimmerman? That story not only has to be possible, but it has to be PROVEN that it happened that way.

This was an arrest and trial brought about by community and governmental pressure. If there is a conviction for anything at all, it will be a shame and embarassment, and will be thrown out on appeal. There have just been too many jaw-dropping aspects to this trial for it to be considered seriously.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by ImaFungi

Sorry I missed your post. May I respond as I did to Benevolent Heretic? (She is someone I very much admire, by the way, and I'm glad ATS has her.)

He killed an innocent young man. He was not a law officer. The kid was not doing anything wrong. He could have called the police on the kids if he was really worried.

Martin was not an innocent, doing nothing wrong. He was in the process of killing Zimmerman by smashing his head. Zimmerman didn't have to be a law officer to defend himself. And he did call the police, remember the taped 911 call?

He suspiciously followed the kid leading into a confrontation.

"Confrontation?" A confrontation is two people yelling at each other, not one guy punching another to the ground then bashing his head into a sidewalk without getting injured himself. (Leaving aside for the moment, that rather nasty hole.)

If this event transpired the other way around, (the kid on neighborhood watch, and zimmerman 'a suspicious fellow' in the neighborhood, the kid would be guilty for his actions).

What are you implying? Do you think this was race based? There's a ton of testimony from whites and blacks saying that's not the case.

Justice for the loss of this kids life must be served in some manner, as much of a bad situation and accident as this was, accidentally killing someone when the situation could have been prevented, still should have a punishment in some sense.

Are you calling it an accident? What part of this was an accident? Zimmerman was intending to shoot Martin, Martin was intent on bashing in Zimmerman's head. Only Zimmerman was ultimately successful.

Ive heard talk of stand your own ground and self defense and people using these terms to claim zimmerman is innocent and should walk a free man.

Yes, I think Zimmerman should walk based on self-defense, and "stand your ground" has never been a part of this case.

If that is the case, then those same people would have to agree that if the kid killed zimmerman, the kid would be innocent and a free man for standing his own ground and defending himself.

No. they wouldn't. There is no evidence that Martin was in fear of his life or serious bodily injury, and he could have gotten off Zimmerman and run away. He couldn't claim self-defense.

I really understand that there is a desire to punish someone who causes death, but that's not always the right or legal result.

Here's the Stand Your Ground Law. It might help in rendering a verdict.


Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

I've not heard a day of testimony. I've only seen the first few days of media interest and scrutinized the crime scene photos, police photos of Z, the 911 call, the "driving/following" and the confrontation as Z saw it.

The race card doesn't fly with me. I'm not sure of his local cultural behaviors that would incite either man to the point of a death.

Z's tale always sounded like complete bull. I have nothing to back that with other than the trauma on each man.

One with superficial cuts and scrapes consistant with any short clumsy fall, or a brief/forceful impact with with the ground. And a VERY dead young man. Presenting with trauma consistant with firearms at close range.

There no doubt that Z fired on M. That is established. The only other physical evidence is the scene, the trauma, & the 911 call.

Everything else is debatable from the human point of view.


Again, I am saying this from what I was able to view in the first few days.
Manslaughter. Proof of anything else seems easily refutable.

OK. I didn't see your thread and I am over posting in that other one.

I predict Manslaughter. The jury will be forced to give the handgun enhancement.

I say he gets 30 years.

On edit: This is from another thread I started before I saw yours. Sorry

The bottom line is that it has been proven that Zimmerman followed Trayvon. You can not couch that in terms of : "Oh he was just tracking him" "Oh, he was just seeing where he was going" "He was just looking for a street name or an address".

The evidence shows different. It was proven today in closing arguments when Zimmerman went through his walk through that he knew the name of the street. He stated it, it is on a recording. You cannot reconcile that with his previous nor his subsequent statements. He knew the name of the street and slipped and stated so.

On the bs excuse he was looking for an address: Seriously, you are going to ask 6 intelligent women to buy the story he was looking for an address, while he was directly in front of one.

Not. Gonna. Fly.

How did Trayvon reach for his gun when it has been clearly demonstrated that the gun was on his right backside?? Zimmerman comes up with this incredulous story that his shirt and jacket lifted up and Trayvon saw the weapon he was laying on?? How would you have even come to that conclusion in the heat of a battle?? So he observed Trayvon see his rebolver?? That was his story from the get.

His knees were under his armpits. Oh really?? How did Zimmerman reach for the gun?? That was demonstrated today.

It was a concocted story from the beginning.

It was re-emphasized today how Zimmerman slipped up and said, "When I went towards him..." then he switched up real quick when he caught himself.

Do NOT think that was lost on the jury. They get it!!

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Zimmerman followed and approached Trayvon. What happened after that will be a discussion for years to come. I don't know who hit who first but I would venture a guess that Trayvon felt threatened by Zimmerman and didn't know what his trip was.

Trayvon had a right to stand his ground. My kids have been taught to protect themselves.

Getting pummeled in a fist fight is no reason to pull a gun. NONE. It was proven by the defense's own witness that Zimmerman's head was not being slammed into the ground but more likely hit the ground as a result of punches to his melon.

Do NOT underestimate these women. They saw the performances by the defendant's close friends and family, they know what they have invested here. And don't think for one minute that they haven't asked themselves the same question, "Would I lie to help my son, nephew, best friend." Every mother will tell you that they would, especially in a case such as this.

On edit: Don't think the jury didn't witness again the bs story Zimmerman gave on the Hannity show about "skipping". They get it. They have his number.

I have said it. I go on record.

reply to post by SeenAlot

There no doubt that Z fired on M. That is established. The only other physical evidence is the scene, the trauma, & the 911 call.

(Well and the eye witness testimony.) And that's the prosecution's problem. There is evidence pointing towards a theory of self-defense, and the prosecution has to prove that it wasn't self-defense in order to convict him. Unfortunately, from their point of view, they can't prove it wasn't self-defense. so any conviction will be based on the jurors' sympathy or fear, and not the facts and the law.

reply to post by charles1952


I respectfully disagree. The one providing the story of self-defense is GZ and GZ ONLY. The jury will have to accept that he is telling the truth, or that he is lying. I think that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he has been less that truthful. There is plenty of evidence that he followed Trayvon and Trayvon ran. After that, we have only the words of GZ. I think that there is enough circumstantial evidence to make the assumption that Zimmerman was the aggressor, therefore it was actually Trayvon who defended himself.

reply to post by Fromabove


I just don't think that the jury is going to weigh the use of justifiable force. I could be wrong. But I think they are going to believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor. His injuries were totally minor and he was in no way in actual fear for his life. No way. Now if the back of his head had been split open consistent with having your head slammed into the concrete 50 times, maybe. The evidence does not show that to be the case.

reply to post by GrantedBail

Dear GrantedBail,

You may very well be right.

I thought the testimony of his neighbor, Mr. Good (sp?) was pretty convincing. He saw Zimmerman on the ground with Martin straddling and throwing punches at Zimmerman. The Medical expert said the police made a mistake in not getting Zimmerman to a hospital right away, and Martin had no struggle wounds whatever. Certainly if Zimmerman was the aggressor, Martin could have stood up at that point and walked away.

Assume for a minute that everything Zimmerman said was a lie, and we only use the physical evidence and the other witnesses, how does the prosecution prove their case and prove it wasn't self defense?

They can't show that Zimmerman wasn't in fear of grave bodily harm, they can't show that he could have escaped. Legally (forget morally or any other way) I just don't see how the prosecution can prove those things.

Even assuming that Zimmerman was foolish, or his presence was threatening, that's not enough to send a guy away for 30.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Hi Charles



Well first off: I don't take issue with who was on top. I truly believe in my heart of hearts that Trayvon was on top. So I am not debating that point at all. However, I do believe he ended up on top because Mr. .05 initiated a confrontation and bit off a little more than he could chew.

Look. Zimmerman's injuries were negligible. My kids have gotten worse falling off a freakin skateboard. They are certainly not indicative of someone having their head slammed into the concrete 50 times or whatever bullhooey story he has. You wanna know what it looks like: It looks like he got his noodle punched. And perhaps he hit his head on that water meter thingy that we saw today. No friggin way that man was getting his head slammed into the concrete. He is a liar. He took a direct hit to the nose. I will give you that. He had it coming. That is no reason to pull a gun and kill someone. Mr. Zimmerman had an extra pair of balls that day because he was packin' a firearm.

And all this talk about "soft" and going from a .05 to a 1.0, oh horse manure. Did you see him in the video of the police walk through. He doesn't look like the Pillsbury Doughboy he looks like today. He looks plenty capable of handling himself. And furthermore since when do you have to have some kind of fight training to participate in a fist fight with another man. That is just silly. I am a 5' 4" woman of about 110 pounds. Have had zero fight training in my life, but I will tell you what: I ain't going down without a fight. And on that subject: You tell me the men that you have met in your life that had to have some kind of fight training to participate in a street brawl. It is just ridiculous on it's face.

reply to post by GrantedBail

Dear GrantedBail,

Thanks for your patience. I think I finally understand you. I'm really slow tonight. It seems you're saying that Zimmerman was not in fear of serious bodily injury, so self-defense doesn't apply. OK, I understand now. Thanks.

With respect,
Charles1952

not guilty on both charges.

now let me ask a question to those that say he is lying.

do you believe he is lying on the nen 911 call.

i ask this because of two things. well maybe three or four.

when GZ says TThug is running, and you hear the door alarm go off. do you hear him huffing and puffing breathing hard or anything like he is running. i think the answer is no. all you hear is the wind blowing and faint back ground sounds.

now if any of you have seen the map of the neighborhood, and think back to where GZ says he went to towards the back entrance. now this is important, GZ had no way of knowing that TM was staying in his daddy's girl friend's house. and her house was on the corner of the the side walk that runs between the back of the houses that the fight was on,and runs into the T, it is 70 yards from the T according to one of the lawyers.also the sidewalk GZ was on, ends on the street that goes down and ends just before the back entrance.

TThug had to go past the house he was staying in either way he went, if he turned and went up the sidewalk that the back of house faces he was staying in was right there, it looks to be the second town house. and if he went to the next street and turned up it he was at the front door. unless he doubled back the way he came from.

now for all of you out there that say you teach your kids to, kick, bite, scratch and claw, to get away from strangers, don't you teach them to run to safety first? don't you teach them to call 911 if they see stranger danger? do you teach them to go back to where they last saw the "creepy a@@ cracker" that scared them?

rachel jeantel said that TThug told her he was by his is daddy's house. now my question is if he was scared of the "creepy a@@ cracker", why go past the house where he would have been safe and call 911 himself. then turn off all the lights hide wait for the police. wouldn't that be the correct thing to do. why go back to the place that you just ran from. did he drop something if so what? (just a side note, it was said by one of the cops that a slim jim was found behind the one asians witnesses house in the bushes a couple weeks later. and didn't GM say that TThug came from the bushes. it could have been dropped by some one after the fact later on, or it could be that the cops did a sorry job in securing the scene. it was said that the cops and the crime scene people did a pretty crappy job). or was he looking for GZ,? if so why?

i think it's plain to see that TThug went back looking for GZ.
if he was so scared why did he go back to where he last saw GZ, that's just stupid, and you can't fix that.

now back to rachel jeantel, this woman is not the poor uneducated little girl people want to make her out to be.
she may not have a lot of book learning but she has street smarts, and knows how to play authority figures.
she wasn't telling the truth to all the questions asked her. you can see it in her eyes and in her body language.
anyone who has or had kids has to be able to see that. i said it before in one thread, and i'll say here, i think TThug told her what he was going to do, and she was doing her best not to say it. but she let just enough out to show she knows and heard more than shes saying.

there also some questions about her that's makes one wonder just who she is and i'm not going to bring all that up here.

now these are just a few things. i could go on about the fight it's self, but all the TThug camp would just go on crying about this that or the other.

TThug could have went home and been warm and dry in bed laughing, while GZ was out walking around in the cold rain wondering where the hell the punk went. but he choose to go back to where he last saw GZ.
he chose poorly.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Your whole argument is based after the fact that Zimmerman judged that this random kid was potentially threatening to the peace of the neighborhood (what irony) and so he started following the kid. Now you fail to put yourself in the kids shoes. He notices a suspicious person following him now. You claim it would be best if he went home and called 9-11 that probably would have been best yes, but him not taking this course of action does not warrant him being killed. Which is what you are arguing. You can say its a tough guy thing, or something racist, but some people are brought up to protect and defend themselves and handle situations on their own. Violent conflict could have been prevented in this situation let alone a death. It was a misunderstanding, but I dont believe you can argue that the kid deserves to die, which is what you are doing. If your child was in the same situation would you believe he deserved to die,shrug your shoulders and let the killer walk completely innocent? Im not asking you to change things around like "I would never let my son wear a hoodie, or he wouldnt be in that situation to begin with". Im asking exact same situation, how would you feel, and what would you do, shrug your shoulders, or see the need for justice?

Not guilty on all counts

the state has not proved guilt Beyond reasonable doubt

reply to post by ImaFungi

I don't understand the confusion here, will you, or somebody explain it to me.

If Zimmerman shot in self defense, he can't (properly) be convicted of anything. There are two questions to be answered.

1.) Could he retreat? No. Zimmerman was pinned on the ground unable to escape.

2.) Was he in fear of serious bodily injury? Yes. He called for help for forty seconds, took a blow to the front of his head and several from the sidewalk impact. There was no indication Martin was going to stop.

So, it's self-defense and he walks. The rest is just emotionalism, not legal thinking. The state has no "legal" case, but they may try for sympathy for "poor ittle-poo baby Trayvon."

The best argument the prosecution has to the jury is "The mob will find out where you live."

reply to post by charles1952


Yes but he is guilty of approaching and causing the confrontation, Zimmerman is the initial reason the kid is dead, and he is the direct reason he is dead.

With your logic literally every murder can be called self defense. If I go out walking around my block tonight and I have a concealed weapon, I can follow someone to the point of them becoming suspicious and an alteration occurring, kill them and then claim self defense.

Is there any evidence that the kid was doing something illegal, which having a man sneakily follow him around would have prevented? Zimmerman (although believing he was doing what was right and in ..peoples best interests) made the wrong decisions. It was an accident, though he is still guilty over what occurred.

If there is a vicious dog very close to your baby and its about to attack, and I have a gun and take a shot at the dog, but hit and kill your baby, I had your best interests in mind, it was just an accident. Am I still guilty of killing your baby?

I just realize how bad that analogy is. On one dimension it is a good analogy, but when I think of it what occurred with Zimmerman is worse then the situation given in the scenario, because there was no real threat to the neighborhoods peace. So allow me to adjust the analogy, and say that it is not a vicious dog about to attack your baby, it is just a dog. But I think it mat be viscous. But its not.