I look forward to hearing Mark O'Mara point out the lies and distortions in the prosecution's closing speech. It will be a slam dunk case of self defense for Zimmerman if there is any justice in the justice system.

Sorry to inform you but the details of the self defense defense are DIFFERENT for the murder charge vs. the manslaughter charge. This will be clear in the jury instructions. It will be very easy for them to CONVICT on manslaughter and sleep very well.

Self defense rules out murder or manslaughter and self defense is obvious here.

I am interested in seeing the animated video the defense will show the jury. The fact that there had been a series of crimes cited in the area combined with the fact that Martin looked like a guy up to no good will go a long way with this all white jury and it does help that zimmermans parents are credible witnesses regarding to the yells for help on the 911 tape

The truth is that one of Trayvon's parents and his half-brother should be charged with perjury for insisting the screams were Trayvon even though two of them had admitted it wasn't - until they found out that they would have no case without claiming that it was Trayvon. However, they have been through enough, so hopefully the law will show mercy considering their state of mind.

I am interested in seeing the animated video the defense will show the jury. The fact that there had been a series of crimes cited in the area combined with the fact that Martin looked like a guy up to no good will go a long way with this all white jury and it does help that zimmermans parents are credible witnesses regarding to the yells for help on the 911 tape

It is too bad that the evidence showing that Trayvon possessed burglar tools, did drugs, was familiar with guns and liked to fight were excluded.

More mainstream media finally admitting the truth.

While the jury for George Zimmerman’s trial could decide on a manslaughter charge, it wouldn’t be surprising if Zimmerman walks away a free man. The prosecution simply hasn’t been able to disprove his claim that he killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense, and Zimmerman has looked ever more the overzealous bungler than the bigoted murderer.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/12/viewpoint-just-because-zimmerman-started-it-doesnt-mean-hes-guilty/#ixzz2YppG77b1

Right. That's why the conviction will be for manslaughter. A much different standard.

Self defense rules out manslaughter. Period.

Mark O'Mara is so good - rational and honest beats the phoney anger and dishonest rhetoric of the prosecution every time.

To bad for the Zimmerman apologists that there was an inconvenient corpse of an unarmed boy and the killer shot him with a gun with no home invasion scenario. That's usually more than enough to get a manslaughter conviction on any day of the week.

Not when the state has to prove beyong a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not in fear of his life. The whole burden of proof is on the prosecution. Mark O'Mara is totally destroying the state's case. That is because they don't have anything but distortion and smears.

Not when the state has to prove beyong a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not in fear of his life. The whole burden of proof is on the prosecution. Mark O'Mara is totally destroying the state's case. That is because they don't have anything but distortion and smears.

I hear you but I think you don't realize the specific instructions for the manslaughter charge are different.

What don't you understand about self-defence rules out manslaughter?

What don't you understand about self-defence rules out manslaughter?

The actual text of the instructions are very different for the different charges. The jury will be free to convict on manslaughter.

Not if there is even the slightest doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self defence. THAT is the law.

Mark O'Mara just decimated the prosecution.

He bored them to death. Prepare to be surprised!

If Zimmerman is set free what are the odds that the potus will chime in with a comment? I say 90% and they won't be words that defuse the hostility just like certain liberals here who support street riots if Zimmerman is not found guilty.

If Zimmerman is set free what are the odds that the potus will chime in with a comment? I say 90% and they won't be words that defuse the hostility just like certain liberals here who support street riots if Zimmerman is not found guilty.

I don't anticipate riots.

I do wonder if the jury hangs whether they'll do a new trial. They can if they want. I would hope that they would and focus fully on the manslaughter.

Every lawyer that I have heard said the same thing, the state has not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is is revealing that the left-wing types want to convict him anyway, despite the preponderance of evidence being in his favor.

"We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read."

-Mark Twain

Jurors are human. They don't listen to instructions. The prosecution closing argument was MUCH stronger. Deny the truth if you want. High chance of either a compromise manslaughter conviction or hung.

A very politicized case indeed:

I know your mind is made up: White people generally think Zimmerman is innocent, except for liberals who are sure he is guilty; black people probably to the 99^th percentile are sure Zimmerman’s a murderer.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/04/michael-savage-on-george-zimmerman-you-have-to-find-this-man-guilty-audio/#ixzz2Yu4Xyyfe

Jurors are human. They don't listen to instructions.

In other words, you are hoping that they will ignore the actual law. That is what the prosecutor was asking them to do. Mark O'Mara pointed out very clearly why the state's argument does not meet the burden of proof.

In your words.

Jurors want to do the right thing.

They aren't lawyers.

If they think the right thing is not letting the killer walk which is what I think they'll think, he won't walk.

The manslaughter option gave them the chance to do the right thing.

Not the right wing thing.

A great article on the Zimmerman trial.

Even on the irrelevant question of whether or not Zimmerman “profiled” Martin, the prosecution has struggled, despite enjoying the advantage of getting to leave jurors in the dark about most of Martin’s past. Zimmerman’s monstrous hate crime, it turns out, was that he profiled a juvenile delinquent as a juvenile delinquent. He said that Martin looked like he was on drugs. He was. He said that he was behaving suspiciously. He was. Jurors may hear about the marijuana in his system (the judge has now said that the defense can use a toxicology report), but they won’t hear about his suspension from school at the time, his school’s discovery of stolen goods and a burglary tool in his backpack, and his past fights.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/10/the-bonfire-of-the-prosecution

What did you expect that far right wing rag to say?

The murdered boy was a typical teen from a good family.

You can see from his older brother that he was headed towards a productive life.

Zimmerman profiled him, stalked him, and murdered him. If he walks, that is an outrage.

BTW, am I right UG that you've never sat on a jury?

Will the verdict come today?

As usual you ignore the facts and stoop to foolish generalizations. There are plenty of liberal publications that have said that there is no real evidence against Zimmerman and I have posted several links. Unfortunately, too much of the left is out to crucify him no matter what the law says.
That was his half brother and they were raised separately. Trayvon was nothing like him.

The evidence was thin because it was dark and no cameras.

One of the main potential witnesses was conveniently murdered by the other one.

Convictions happen everyday on much less evidence. Murders are convicted even without a body or murder weapon.

Bottom line, based on the evidence, I don't think the murderer NEEDED to kill the boy. But he did. So he must pay if there is any justice.

If some gangster that you did not know was on crouched top of you in the dark of night, breaking your nose and smashing your head against the cement, I have no doubt that you would see it a little differently.

If some gangster that you did not know was on crouched top of you in the dark of night, breaking your nose and smashing your head against the cement, I have no doubt that you would see it a little differently.

He was not a gangster.

He was walking home with Skittles.

It's easy to diss the dead, isn't it.

I wouldn't have profiled him, stalked him, ignored the 911 suggestion to back off, got out of my car, not waited for the police, been carrying a gun, etc.

The apologists have this fantasy that the killer's life was really in danger. It wasn't and any trouble he got himself into he PROVOKED.

That is the COMMON SENSE driven home by the prosecution.

You take a report AT ONE POINT IN TIME in a conflict that lasted much longer.

You ignore that the killer was clearly harassing his victim before that.

Nobody except the killer really knows exactly what happened.

But a boy is dead, and bottom line the jury decides whether the boy needed to be dead or not REGARDLESS of the technical instructions.

I think they will see it as I do, he did not need to be dead.

A hung jury is of course a real possibility, but I see a not guilty as very remote.