George Zimmerman Verdict: NOT GUILTY

[DallasApple]

[QUOTE It was a real window into our court system, something that many people never see.][/QUOTE]

I've seen it by the way.Court T.V has been around for years.I watched most of the O.J trial and other high profile trials.And yes most of it is extremely boring.Lots of huddling around ."Short recesses" .Objection overruled ,objection sustained.Your honor please instruct the witness to answer my question with a yes or no.Your honor I request that to be stricken from the record.Please read back the question to the witness.Expert opinions yada yada. An hours worth of actual testimony can take 3 hours to get with all the interuptions.

In the end usually it boils to certain key testimony and evidence.Just because someone doesn't watch the "entire trial" doesn't mean they haven't heard /seen enough to form a reasonable opinion about it one way or the other.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've seen it by the way.Court T.V has been around for years.I watched most of the O.J trial and other high profile trials.And yes most of it is extremely boring.Lots of huddling around ."Short recesses" .Objection overruled ,objection sustained.Your honor please instruct the witness to answer my question with a yes or no.Your honor I request that to be stricken from the record.Please read back the question to the witness.Expert opinions yada yada. An hours worth of actual testimony can take 3 hours to get with all the interuptions.

In the end usually it boils to certain key testimony and evidence.Just because someone doesn't watch the "entire trial" doesn't mean they haven't heard /seen enough to form a reasonable opinion about it one way or the other.

True all dat.
No wonder you seem more aware than most.
(I'm not hitting on you, btw.)

 

[Revoltingest]

What could be better than arguing for money?

But there's copious research to do.
I imagine many sedentary hours hunkered down tediously pouring over books & evidence.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

But there's copious research to do.
I imagine many sedentary hours hunkered down tediously pouring over books & evidence.

It's a lot easier now that there are computers and Lexxus-Nexxus. Plus you also have your paralegal minions to do most of the grunt work.

 

[Revoltingest]

Minions.....how insufferable life would be without them.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I know it's months later, but I never responded to this post. I think I missed it as a result of the seven page long Great DVR Debate.

I perceived his decision to disobey police orders to be stupid, however.

That's an unsubstantiated claim I hear being made a lot. Let me address that.

1. They weren't police orders. It was a suggestion, after Zimmerman started to follow, that he didn't need to do that. The dispatcher is not a police officer, and he doesn't have the authority to give orders.

2. After Zimmerman was told he didn't need to follow, he said "ok". There is no evidence that he continued to follow Martin after he said "ok". Some may assume and insist based on what must make sense according to their predetermined conclusion, despite the fact that there's no evidence, no witness testimony, or anything aside from an active imagination to suggest that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after he was told he didn't need to.

I respect your opinion, which is what this is, based upon what you've seen, read or heard in regards to this trial.

Thank you.

And like you, I agree with the verdict.

Glad to hear it.

I simply question WHY this man didn't heed the advisement of law enforcement.

You don't know that he didn't. You assume he didn't. You can't ask "why" before you have a steady grasp on "what" happened.

It's like asking "why do you beat your wife?" It's a loaded question that assumes a fact not found in evidence.

May not have had to defend himself if he had not been pursuing the young man.

Again with the loaded language. "pursuing" You don't know that. We know he followed from a distance at least until he was told not to. Any belief that he was following after that is pure conjecture.

I have not claimed to be a subject matter expert on the Zimmerman trial. I have formed my opinions based upon what I've seen from the trial on the television, primarily, which is a media source. Prosecution offered little in evidence to convict Zimmerman, in my opinion. As such, I was not surprised by, nor was I necessarily dissapointed by the verdict.

When I talk about info you get from "the media", I'm talking about second-hand sources.. i.e. not actual trial footage, but articles/commentaries/news segments about the trial.

I'm not asking you to be a subject matter expert on the Zimmerman trial. But it would be nice to offer opinions that come from a position of being informed by the actual evidence and actual testimony and actual arguments of the lawyers on both sides, rather than repeating the opinions of tv/radio/newspaper personalities who most likely pick up sound bytes and run with them, rather than put them into context.