The Zimmerman Trial

Thanks all!!

Well, if she is at least a LITTLE smart, she should find that there was no intent to harm a child. He did not KNOW this was a child.

Intentional child abuse should involve an action toward a resaonably assumed child (age 12 and under) becasue of the physical appearance, I would think....

He was taller than him and had tattoos...walking from a store at night alone. How could he think that was a child???



Headache...I am really hoping that George walks...this is SOOOO unfair!!

So it is alright for a 17 year old to assault and batter an adult with impunity?

reply to post by jam321

I have seen it done before. But in most juries I was on the lesser charge was present from the word go.

That’s what I thought! I didn’t think they could just change it if they felt they didn’t meet the burden of proof in the original charge but apparently the judge has that power.

Double Jeopardy:

Try someone for murder – acquittal

Retry the same person for the same incident with a lesser manslaughter charge – guilty verdict

I don’t see much difference between double jeopardy and this garbage.

I really feel the prosecution is just trying to get anything to get Zimmerman behind bars.

Obviously…

GZ plead Not Guilty to Murder 2. What did he plea on the charge of manslaughter?? We don't know because he wasn't formally charged with manslaugter.

I hope he’s acquitted because I want to see the dummies hit the streets rioting. We need to get all of these thugs off the streets so hopefully they will present themselves for round up.

Are "public urination" charges still on the table?

GZ had to have peed himself a little at some point in the struggle, right?

reply to post by seabag


Agreed up until the last paragraph. I am hoping there is no violence as a result of this stupid case, reguardless of the outcome.

Originally posted by GoldenVoyager
So it is alright for a 17 year old to assault and batter an adult with impunity?

Did TM not have a right to "stand his ground"? It's quite the conundrum, huh? This article explains it nicely:

The question that has not surfaced in the courtroom -- the elephant in the room -- is this: Did Martin fear for his life after being followed and confronted by a stranger while going to the store to buy candy and a soft drink? Was he, Martin, justified in standing his ground and defending himself when this stranger, an apparent stalker, approached him in a threatening manner?

Zimmerman didn't identify himself and never said he was part of the neighborhood watch group.

Think about it: We're told over and over that if Zimmerman was afraid of Martin, according to Florida law, he had the right to put a bullet in the chamber of his concealed handgun, get out of his car after being told not to by the 911 dispatcher and follow and confront Martin and shoot him to death.

At the same time, we are told that Martin, who had far greater reason to fear Zimmerman, practically and for reasons of American history, did not have the right to confront his stalker, stand his ground and defend himself, including by using his fists. We are told that this was entirely unjustified and by doing so, Martin justified his own execution.

www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by ButterCookie
The FOX commentators have brought up a point that I was thinking...

the judge mentioned to West:

"If I have made a mistake, then you can SURELY appeal and get this overturned."

Hmmm...was this her plan all along? So that the riots are "not on her head"?

This has been my claim, yes. She has 2 reversible errors already, and made a huge one yesterday. She also just refused a motion in limine, which was legitimate. The request to keep prosecution from discussing following as if it were illegal.

Originally posted by seabag

I hope he’s acquitted because I want to see the dummies hit the streets rioting. We need to get all of these thugs off the streets so hopefully they will present themselves for round up.

C'mon SeaBag, let's be politically correct about things. The people will not be rioting, they will be untertaking urban renewal/renovation.

I still think that regaedless of the outcome we will still be seeing urban renewal/renovation projects going on in some neighborhoods.

Guilty verdict = small scale and localized

Not guilty = large scale and nationwide

reply to post by TKDRL

I am hoping there is no violence as a result of this stupid case,

If he walks, expect violence. Not because of the decision, but because some will see it as an opportunity to do some bad things.

Peace

I keep hoping that there is at least one gun owner in this jury so that they can cause a hung jury if the others buy into this "we will find something" joke of a court case.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


Obviously you have not been paying attention to the trial.

Martin was not standing his ground. SYG does not mean get on top of someone and pummel their head that is called assault or attempted murder so the answer is NO he was not standing his ground and there is 0 evidence to support him doing that.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Thanks all!!

Well, if she is at least a LITTLE smart, she should find that there was no intent to harm a child. He did not KNOW this was a child.

Intentional child abuse should involve an action toward a resaonably assumed child (age 12 and under) becasue of the physical appearance, I would think....

He was taller than him and had tattoos...walking from a store at night alone. How could he think that was a child???

Headache...I am really hoping that George walks...this is SOOOO unfair!!

edit on 11-7-2013 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)

Sadly, under Fla. Law, knowing the age of the child is not required. Just that it is a child under 18.

It's awful. So if a 17 year old that looks 22 comes up, card her!!

reply to post by LeatherNLace


Yes, Martin did have a right to "Stand his ground" He however did not have the right to undertake initial aggresive actions by assualting Zimmerman.

CNN is so clueless in this case as it has been brought up and rejected. But they're keeping it classy by stirring the pot because they know their ratings will go when the riots start.

reply to post by TDawgRex


According to twitter, they will be grabbing shopping carts and shopping. Some already named what brands they want, and from what stores. From shoes to televisions to ipads to phones. Some plan to keep, and some plan to sell.

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Thanks all!!

Well, if she is at least a LITTLE smart, she should find that there was no intent to harm a child. He did not KNOW this was a child.

Intentional child abuse should involve an action toward a resaonably assumed child (age 12 and under) becasue of the physical appearance, I would think....

He was taller than him and had tattoos...walking from a store at night alone. How could he think that was a child???

Headache...I am really hoping that George walks...this is SOOOO unfair!!

edit on 11-7-2013 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)

Sadly, under Fla. Law, knowing the age of the child is not required. Just that it is a child under 18.

It's awful. So if a 17 year old that looks 22 comes up, card her!!

Insane!!

I'm a mother and that's why I am hoping that the mothers on the jury reason with themselves and recognize that this child abuse did not take place! As I said before, mothers know the seriousness claim of child abuse should never be played with.

Maybe at that point of jury discussion, they realize that the state simply lost their case and is now being downright unfair and disrespectful and aquit him of ALL charges.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by GoldenVoyager
So it is alright for a 17 year old to assault and batter an adult with impunity?

Did TM not have a right to "stand his ground"? It's quite the conundrum, huh? This article explains it nicely:

The question that has not surfaced in the courtroom -- the elephant in the room -- is this: Did Martin fear for his life after being followed and confronted by a stranger while going to the store to buy candy and a soft drink? Was he, Martin, justified in standing his ground and defending himself when this stranger, an apparent stalker, approached him in a threatening manner?

Zimmerman didn't identify himself and never said he was part of the neighborhood watch group.

Think about it: We're told over and over that if Zimmerman was afraid of Martin, according to Florida law, he had the right to put a bullet in the chamber of his concealed handgun, get out of his car after being told not to by the 911 dispatcher and follow and confront Martin and shoot him to death.

At the same time, we are told that Martin, who had far greater reason to fear Zimmerman, practically and for reasons of American history, did not have the right to confront his stalker, stand his ground and defend himself, including by using his fists. We are told that this was entirely unjustified and by doing so, Martin justified his own execution.

www.cnn.com...

Standing your ground implies that you do not provoke a situation as well. It stops being stand your ground for TM once he approached zimmerman. Stand your ground means a lack of motion not a propensity of motion. It means that you do not have to flee when a situation becomes an act of crime towards one's self. It does not mean that you can become an aggresor when no one has been aggresive towards you.

Originally posted by jam321
If he walks, expect violence. Not because of the decision, but because some will see it as an opportunity to do some bad things.

Peace

One thing that's been bothering me. I've been following a twitter search on the word "zimmerman". Over the past few days I've seen many a tweet about "my riot wish-list". Pretty much, let's riot cause I want a 50" tv. I've seen several tweets that some plan to do something either way it goes.

Then today, many tweets on how even talking about the possibility of riots means you're a racist. And that people are just talking "big" and anyone taking them serious is a bigot.

reply to post by OneisOne


That is highly disturbing........

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

From the outset, Zimmerman has been responsible for providing an affirmative defence of his actions. He decided to let lawyers do it for him and now he is being tried by a jury. All the state was required to do was poke enough holes in Zimmerman's story as related by lawyers and those with a vested interest in it, then leave the rest to the jury. The state doesn't have to prove where and how Zimmerman said it happened is a definite lie, just that when taking all other facts into account it is likely to be one.

edit on 11-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

Again, you with the attitude that Z is guilty until proven innocent. This is not the United Soviet States of America.
The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Why is that so hard to understand?

The state has to prove it's case (murder 2) which they have failed miserably to do. They have then to hope they proved manslaughter, and word is, they have failed to do that as well. The beyond a reasonable doubt clause should result in a clear verdict of not guilty.

Heck, in my opinion, the state hasn't even reached the bar proving why this case should have made it to court in the first place. It is obvious from the prosecution's approach, the last few days. that they know they have loss in progress and are just behaving as though frustrated and flailing around grasping at straws. Even with the biased support of the judge they have nothing.

They have failed to present a scenario which proves murder 2, and in doing so, their case has been so weak that they have failed to prove manslaughter. They did more to help the defense than convict.

Sorry, bud, but it appears that you are horribly invested in this outcome which is not going your way.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Does firing one shot in the heart, rolling the body off you, getting up and holstering your firearm, and then steadily straddling the dying kid beneath you, sound like the actions of a person on the brink of consciousness and fighting for his life?

Wouldn't you expect a person who was really in such a stressful situation to shoot and then not stop pulling the trigger until the threat was over, once they were forced to reach for their gun?

Everywhere I've been on the web that discusses gun use sensibly says that if you have to pull out your firearm, 2 shots minimum centre mass is the way to go, and if you think they might still be able to reach a firearm they have concealed, and their hands move at all, a stressed-out person could be forgiven for emptying his gun into his attacker.

Not Cool Hand George tho'.

edit on 11-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

Your reasoning is only semi-sound at best. When you pull the trigger in anger, do you not think, provided you are a normal, decent type person, that the loud crack of the discharge might just provide you with a reality check?
You keep providing scenarios based on situations you have zero experience with, this is obvious. There is no way you can even say how you would react in the same situation unless you have been there before, and even then your claim would only be iffy.

You want, you need GZ to be guilty, for some reason. You are heavily invested in that outcome, obviously.