The Zimmerman Trial

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

Answer ... there is none. The prosecution totally failed to show 'depraved mind'. Not even close. Even the lead investigator said that when Zimmerman used the couple of cuss words it was no big deal. It was just a description, not hate. Epic fail as far as Murder 2 goes ....

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
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

I don't think we will see and acquittal today but I do think we may see the charges dropped to Manslaughter from Murder 2. The prosecution even asked the judge to consider manslaughter instead of murder 2 instead of acquittal. To me that means the prosecution itself doesn't think that they can get a Murder 2 conviction now.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Oh I agree 100%.

However our little "friend" has just committed himself to Murder 2 so I would like to hear his examples of Zimmerman's "depraved mind" that was shown in court.

We have watched this trial since day one.... we know it;s not there. He has not watched anything, so I'd love to see how he supports his argument.... even though at first he said it was "murder" which implies intent. Now that you posted the definition of Murder 2, he has apparently swayed to that direction instead.

Originally posted by MrWendal
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

Depravity of Mind

Depravity of mind refers to the state of mind which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality.

Is that a good enough explanation.

if zimmerman gets convicted of manslaughter he will be facing 30 or so years because trayvon was a minor.

reply to post by RickKilgannon

Yep ... prosecution gave 99% of his plea for Murder 2. (poorly). And then at the very end he tacked on ... maybe Manslaughter. That was a signal to the court, IMHO, that even they no longer believe they have a Murder 2 case. And now we can expect the judge to give instructions at the end that include manslaughter. Betchya ......

reply to post by RickKilgannon


ah thank you,how time scales work in trials is something im not wise on(meaning i dont know how long these things usually take. thanks for the update as i had been walking my dog during the end of the defense talk so i must have missed that thanks for teaching me something

Originally posted by MrWendal
Oh I agree 100%

I know you do. I was posting for the benefit of others ...

Now that you posted the definition of Murder 2,

I thought having those definitions up would be important. SOME think that manslaughter is a light weight verdict. It's not. It's major. So I posted it for their benefit to educate them on just how major manslaughter is and how it better fits this case than Murder 2.

Heck ... even the prosecution is now sneaking in 'manslaughter' into the discussion.

Originally posted by RickKilgannon

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
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

I don't think we will see and acquittal today but I do think we may see the charges dropped to Manslaughter from Murder 2. The prosecution even asked the judge to consider manslaughter instead of murder 2 instead of acquittal. To me that means the prosecution itself doesn't think that they can get a Murder 2 conviction now.

I have to agree with you on this. Considering what time it is, I doubt we will see her render her decision on this issue today.

I have always said Manslaughter was the more appropriate charge. After hearing the testimony, I don't think manslaughter is as slam dunk as I originally thought it was, but it is still the appropriate charge in this case and is more easily proven by focusing on the actions of Zimmerman himself. Such as why did Zimmerman continue walking in the direction of a person he was no longer following?

Originally posted by WonderBoi

Originally posted by MrWendal
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

Depravity of Mind

Depravity of mind refers to the state of mind which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality.

Is that a good enough explanation.

No it is not.

I did not ask you to define "depraved mind". I asked you to provide examples and evidence of Zimmerman's depraved mind based on the testimony we have seen thus far in court. It is a rather simple request and should be rather easy since your mind is so made up about this case. You have been very clear that Zimmerman is a murder... so it should be very easy for you to prove it and tell us all what evidence you have that supports your conclusions.

Why are you having such trouble with such an easy question? I can only assume you're having such trouble cause you really have no idea what you are talking about, as many of us suspected a long time ago in this thread.

Answer ... there is none. The prosecution totally failed to show 'depraved mind'. Not even close.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Was George trying to get closer to Trayvon after he got out of his vehicle, or further away? Was his intention of getting closer based on thinking that Trayvon was a criminal, or because he wanted to invite him to one of his mentoring classes? George's minimum ill-will is shown by him at least wanting a person he thought was suspicious to be questioned by the police and have his evening ruined by George's paranoia.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
if zimmerman gets convicted of manslaughter he will be facing 30 or so years because trayvon was a minor.

Yes, even Manslaughter is no little slap on the wrist charge. If convicted, he can spend a very long time in prison.

aqquittal denied its going to the jury

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Answer ... there is none. The prosecution totally failed to show 'depraved mind'. Not even close.

reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Was George trying to get closer to Trayvon after he got out of his vehicle, or further away? Was his intention of getting closer based on thinking that Trayvon was a criminal, or because he wanted to invite him to one of his mentoring classes? George's minimum ill-will is shown by him at least wanting a person he thought was suspicious to be questioned by the police and have his evening ruined by George's paranoia.

From what we can gather from the testimony he was not trying to get closer or father. He was attempting to maintain a visual on his "suspect" so he could point him out to Police.

The fact that he called police to report on a subject that only "looked suspicious" rather than actually seeing him doing anything while that person is running totally backs up the idea that Zimmerman was pretty much stalking him and using the legal loopholes to subvert allegations of guilt.

It shows that he intended to fix this situation and turn it in his own favor by using the guise of law to cover him... when he could have just left it to the police and went home.

It's not impossible that he would use the law as a coverup and and planned on that "to show him"

I think Zimmerman is much more manipulative than people are wanting to believe.
In this world of deceit people are always looking for tactics to get away with things... and what Zimmerman has done shows cunning... and determination to use the law by force to achieve his own wishes.

He should have went home.

Perhaps he was so desperate for an authoritative position in law enforcement that he felt the need to prove he could stand up to a threat and used his knowledge of the law to back up his circumstances.

Why else would he not have just gone home?

That's motive right there.

seems like states last witness and then they are going to rest (in regards to testimony not tiredness) props to the jury for sticking around btw

i seem to have been wrong as it seems like the defense is questioning the witness first not the prosecutor

Originally posted by MrWendal

From what we can gather from the testimony he was not trying to get closer or father. He was attempting to maintain a visual on his "suspect" so he could point him out to Police.

Of course he was. That was why he didn't even glance down the T when he headed back towards his truck. For someone who wanted to point out Trayvon's last known and possible current position, he wasn't paying much attention to his surroundings.

He used the life and degraded the presumed innocence of a young man to attempt to prove he was a worthy police officer.

That's his motive for causing the death of this person.

He not only pointed a false finger at Martin, but he wouldn't let it go so the cops could handle it... The phone call was just to support his "due process of the law". After making that call, he should have let it go... but he had a extended agenda involving his ego and need to affirm a position for himself as protector of the law.

That is direct abuse of the law.

now prosecutor is cross examining this should be interesting to see how they do against Zimmerman's mother

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by MrWendal

From what we can gather from the testimony he was not trying to get closer or father. He was attempting to maintain a visual on his "suspect" so he could point him out to Police.

Of course he was. That was why he didn't even glance down the T when he headed back towards his truck. For someone who wanted to point out Trayvon's last known and possible current position, he wasn't paying much attention to his surroundings.

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just reciting the testimony.

I personally don't buy that line for a second.