The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by MrWendal


I'm with BH on this. So far I think you could argue for manslaughter. But Murder 2 just isn't there.
And I think that the prosecution did such a poor job (or did the best they could with no case) that
there is no way a jury could - or should - come any where close to a murder 2 conviction.

I'm just surprised that the prosecution is still thumping murder 2.

I have read that the judge can instruct for murder 2 ... or for manslaughter ... or for 'not guilty'

I guess we will see ....

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Okay. I'll take your word on it. Like I said .. I'm used to having people pay attention to 'ME' when I'm addressing them. Perhaps people in the court room do things differently. It just looked really out of place to me ...

You'll have to take my word for it or go spend time sitting in court rooms. Unfortunately I have been inside a court room more times than I care to recall.

It is a common practice though. Judges are not perfect and they do not remember everything in regards to laws and procedures. They have to review things in order to make rulings such as case law, the actual law, notes from the trial, etc etc. Judges often depend on the notes they have taken during the trial phase when it comes time for sentencing.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by WonderBoi
My questions aren't HALF AS STUPID as George's actions, that night. Why did he LEAVE HIS VEHICLE, if it were soooooooo dark, and he was sooooooooo scared of Trayvon? I'm asking questions, so i can lead you to another question because there are questions that HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED and haven't been answered.

FYI....i got PLENTY of facts. STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH. Give me something, other than the b.s., you're passing off, as facts.

George got of his vehicle, to get a street address, in an unlit location, knowing that a criminal thug, that he was afraid of, just went through there? Not only did he get out of his truck, but as he was walking through an unlit location, his flashlight didn't work, YET, continued; with a criminal at large? And, you say: my questions are stupid?

Not 1/2 as stupid, as some of the logic i've seen displayed, in this thread.

Want to know what is really amusing to me?

You have no idea that my position on this is Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

Yes, I think Zimmerman is guilty of a crime, but you wouldn't know that cause you have spent the last several days attacking every little thing you can find in an attempt to troll the thread.

Let me ask you, what bs am I passing off as facts? Please feel free to list them. Since I happen to believe Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, and you think he is guilty of murder, whatever "bs" you think I am passing off as facts just means that your passing off bs as well does it not?

You have no idea that my position on this is Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

I knew that waaaaaaay back, long ago, somewhere around page 100, you mentioned that.

Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, and you think he is guilty of murder

That's the BS, i'm referring to! He MURDERED someone and you call it "manslaughter". You call it "manslaughter" based on these so-called "facts". I call it murder because he killed someone. Get the difference? You justify his actions, legally. I condemn them, morally. That's the difference between your opinion and mine.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by WonderBoi
My questions aren't HALF AS STUPID as George's actions, that night. Why did he LEAVE HIS VEHICLE, if it were soooooooo dark, and he was sooooooooo scared of Trayvon? I'm asking questions, so i can lead you to another question because there are questions that HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED and haven't been answered.

FYI....i got PLENTY of facts. STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH. Give me something, other than the b.s., you're passing off, as facts.

George got of his vehicle, to get a street address, in an unlit location, knowing that a criminal thug, that he was afraid of, just went through there? Not only did he get out of his truck, but as he was walking through an unlit location, his flashlight didn't work, YET, continued; with a criminal at large? And, you say: my questions are stupid?

Not 1/2 as stupid, as some of the logic i've seen displayed, in this thread.

Want to know what is really amusing to me?

You have no idea that my position on this is Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

Yes, I think Zimmerman is guilty of a crime, but you wouldn't know that cause you have spent the last several days attacking every little thing you can find in an attempt to troll the thread.

Let me ask you, what bs am I passing off as facts? Please feel free to list them. Since I happen to believe Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, and you think he is guilty of murder, whatever "bs" you think I am passing off as facts just means that your passing off bs as well does it not?

It's not really a case of negligence or ignorance while engaging in some other activity. The intent was there which was to interfere with Martin... to stop him... to supersede his limits of control. Just because he did not want it to specifically result in a murder, an intent of malice was still there suggesting a workup of anger in his forward thinking. I feel certain that his concerns lead him to the conclusion that his life would be made better if Martin was not in it. His frustration for thinking he was obligated to deal with Martin does suggest a subconscious desire to erase this person from his life in some manner so that he is no longer menaced by his presence.

And since he pursued those feelings, he acted on that intent.

Up to the events that happened, there's no telling how many times he imagined how his confrontation with Martin would turn out... but it is clear that he planned to be the victor in this confrontation and that is clear by his actions and the fact that he prepared himself for such circumstances by arming himself and felt emboldened by it. Perhaps he did not foresee what he would have to be dealing with now but his pursuit and focus on Martin was clear that he was going to show him who's boss in that neighborhood.

That is intent that has lead to a death, not to mention the fact that he had time to reconsider which is premeditation of acting on his intentions of dominating Martin.

Originally posted by RickKilgannon

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Okay ... judge is watching closely.

Just gotta' make note of it ...

I noticed that too, after you mentioned that she was looking down and writing during the defense talking. For the prosecution she has been intently listening and watching every time that they have showed her.

She was listening to the defense as well. The only time I saw her looking at papers is when the defense attorney directed her to the case law he provided to support his motion for dismissal. Which she is required to look over and review, and again, the defense provided this and directed her to look at it in support of their motion.

Right now.. she was looking down and taking notes while the prosecution is still talking. So as you can see, it works both ways. Taking notes is common. My guess here is she is taking notes about both arguments so she can make a educated ruling on the issue.

I gotta give you a for your thinking. Some people "get it", others.....well....hahahahahahah

I call it murder because he killed someone

In the eye of the legal system that may not true. Someone being killed is not necessarily murder.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
That's the BS, i'm referring to! He MURDERED someone and you call it "manslaughter". You call it "manslaughter" based on these so-called "facts". I call it murder because he killed someone. Get the difference? You justify his actions, legally. I condemn them, morally. That's the difference between your opinion and mine.

This is a trial. It is about the law and the legality of Zimmerman's actions. It is not moral court. It is criminal court. That is not "bs", that is a fact.

And again, how have I justified Zimmerman's actions? How I am justifying his actions if I find him guilty of a crime? Do you even know what manslaughter is by the legal definition?

I don't believe Zimmerman set out to kill Trayvon Martin. I do not believe he had it in his head when he got out of the vehicle to hunt him down and kill him. I do not believe that was his intent. That is the difference between Murder and Manslaughter.... INTENT! Are you actually suggesting that Zimmerman planned on killing Trayvon Martin?

Florida Statutes on 2nd Degree Murder and Manslaughter

Murder 2

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life …

Manslaughter

The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree ….

Murder 2 and Manslaughter are both felonies. Both get jail time.
If convicted of Manslaughter .. it isn't just getting a slap on the wrist.
It would be a very serious conviction.

IMHO ... the culpable negligence of Zimmerman is much easier to prove than premeditated murder.

Negligence in not identifying himself as Neighborhood Watch to Martin. Negligence in getting out of his car and following Martin when he had said he thought Martin circling his car earlier was frightening. None of that is illegal .. but it contributed to the situation. So I can see maybe arguing manslaughter but not murder 2.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by WonderBoi
That's the BS, i'm referring to! He MURDERED someone and you call it "manslaughter". You call it "manslaughter" based on these so-called "facts". I call it murder because he killed someone. Get the difference? You justify his actions, legally. I condemn them, morally. That's the difference between your opinion and mine.

This is a trial. It is about the law and the legality of Zimmerman's actions. It is the moral court. It is criminal court. That is not "bs", that is a fact.

And again, how have I justified Zimmerman's actions? How I am justifying his actions if I find him guilty of a crime? Do you even know what manslaughter is by the legal definition?

I don't believe Zimmerman set out to kill Trayvon Martin. I do not believe he had it in his head when he got out of the vehicle to hunt him down and kill him. I do not believe that was his intent. That is the difference between Murder and Manslaughter.... INTENT! Are you actually suggesting that Zimmerman planned on killing Trayvon Martin?

Can you say the thought didn't cross his mind???

reply to post by MrWendal


Hes just ignoring the legal system and whats goin on in the trial - he made his mind up before he started this thread, and posted videos he admits he didtn even watched himself.
And then the massive quotes - guess he is tryin to get as many pages on this debate as possible

the judge looks as if the prospector that up there now rebuttal is painful to listen to.
you know what, so do i most of what he is saying is a emotional play and not much legal content.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
Can you say the thought didn't cross his mind???

Yes, I can. How many people plan on Murdering another human being and call 911 themselves prior to doing so?

That would be one heck of a plan that would take some forethought well in advance which is very unlikely since he had no idea he would see Martin when he left to go to the store.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Murder 2

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life …

Sounds about right. Oh wait. Zimmerman was "defending" himself.; even though he wouldn't have had to "defend" himself, had he not taken matters into his own hands.

reply to post by Minus


YEP. The court can't convict someone of Murder 2 because it 'MIGHT have crossed their mind' to kill someone. The court has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman intended to murder Martin. The evidence does not support that.


Side note ... this prosecution fella isn't cutting it. He has given no evidence to support continuing the case. But the judge will not stop it I'm sure.

OOOOOOOH ... he just brought up MANSLAUGHTER! OOOOOOOOOOOH!

reply to post by WonderBoi


What evidence do you have, that was shown in trial thus far, that indicates Zimmerman's "depraved mind"?

I can't wait to hear this one since you have not even watched the trial or evidence that has been presented

From what O Mara has just said about that stabbing case he's babbling about, George should have had a knife, and he'd have saved himself a 30 second beating.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Yes I am aware of what Murder 2 is. So again.... can you give examples of Zimmerman's "depraved mind" as described by the law?

defense lawyer is bringing up some pretty good points about the case law the prosecution tried to use,im thinking the more i watch defense speak that we might see an aqquittal today

now talking about potental drug use can we even comment on that or do t and c apply to this?