The future George Zimmerman Acquittal Trial Megathread!

[Siege]

What?

[derspiess]

Your bolding was maybe a little sloppy. 

[Berkut]

That is some pretty damn compelling testimony.

[Kleves]

Yeah, I don't see how they're going to convict Zimmerman.

[CountDeMoney]

Hence the name of the thread.  The right to shoot black kids in Florida will remain inviolate. 

[11B4V]

Hence the name of the thread.  The right to shoot black kids in Florida will remain inviolate.

and so we riot loot in the name of ....

bets on how many other minorities will get beat up instead of us crackers.

[Caliga]

Hence the name of the thread.  The right to shoot black kids in Florida will remain inviolate.

Dude, remember how they weren't originally even going to press charges against Zimmy until The Reverend Al showed up and bitched and moaned and screamed about it?

[Berkut]

Hence the name of the thread.  The right to shoot black kids in Florida will remain inviolate. 

Given that testimony, the right to shoot people who are beating the shit out of you remains inviolate.

Do you think he should be convicted if what this guy is testifying is accurate?

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah, it does seem that the right to shoot black kids in Florida is not unlimited.

[frunk]

Look at how many civil court shows, police/court procedurals there are on tv.  It shouldn't be that surprising.

Thing is, I would have thought generally trials are dead boring ordeals, unless you are yourself a lawyer.

The ones they show on TV usually just have the exciting bits (highly fictionalized).

People's Court and similar shows aren't that heavily edited, have the actual litigants (no actors or scripts) and show some of the boring bits as well.  Technically it isn't a real court of law, but it is reasonably close to actual small claims.

[CountDeMoney]

Given that testimony, the right to shoot people who are beating the shit out of you remains inviolate.

I had no idea that conventional thinking regarding the law stipulates that if you are attacked, you're supposed to lose.  Funny, I don't remember that from either defensive tactics or 6th grade.

But be sure to teach your kid if he's in a scrap started by somebody else to just go ahead, suck it up and get his fucking face crushed in by said assailant.  Don't try to defend yourself or get the upper hand against some unidentified stranger in street clothes that gets out of a car, follows you through a neighborhood and initiates a confrontation.

Do you think he should be convicted if what this guy is testifying is accurate?

It will rest on whether or not the jury believes that Zimmerman, a private citizen playing wannabe cop, started the confrontation against both instructions from the "citizen's watch" bullshit he got involved in and the advice of 911 at the time.
It's too goddamned bad he found his chunky ass on the short end of the scrap that made him feel he needed to use his gun, but if he had done what he was supposed to do, it never would've happened.
But the defense made a good effort in branding "MMA style ground n' pound" into the jury's collective memory.

[CountDeMoney]

Hence the name of the thread.  The right to shoot black kids in Florida will remain inviolate.

Dude, remember how they weren't originally even going to press charges against Zimmy until The Reverend Al showed up and bitched and moaned and screamed about it?

Don't be putting this all on The Most Reverend Al because Sanford PD and the SA's Office were cowardly weasels that didn't want to do their jobs.

[Kleves]

I had no idea that conventional thinking regarding the law stipulates that if you are attacked, you're supposed to lose.  Funny, I don't remember that from either defensive tactics or 6th grade.

WTF are you talking about? I thought Trayvon had essentially no injuries other than the gunshot. That doesn't really demonstrate an "attack." Or are you saying that you think Zimmerman foolishly focused his assault on Trayvon's pinky, which allowed Trayvon to quickly get the upper had in their fight?

Look, as you well know, there's no right to pound someone's head into the ground because you think they're following you, or because they "confront" you with words. At this point, the state will probably have to show that Zimmerman drew his gun on Trayvon before the altercation started - even showing that Zimmerman threw the first punch might not be enough, as the defense could argue that Trayvon escalated a minor fight that Zimmerman started into one involving deadly force (which pounding someone's head into the ground probably qualifies as), which would give Zimmerman the right to use deadly force in self-defense, even as the initial aggressor.

[CountDeMoney]

It's "Stand Your Ground", not "Walk Over To That Guy's Ground Over There, Start A Fight, Start Losing and Then Blow The Nigger Away On His Ground".

[Berkut]

It's "Stand Your Ground", not "Walk Over To That Guy's Ground Over There, Start A Fight, Start Losing and Then Blow The Nigger Away On His Ground".

I don't disagree with anything you are saying, except that this version of events requires the state to prove a LOT more in order to get a conviction.

And without any evidence to counter Zimmermans version of events, I don't see how they can do that.