Total Posts:346|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

George Zimmerman Case

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 1:56:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
With the George Zimmerman case coming to a close, I thought it would be an interesting topic to ressurect.

As the Zimmerman case comes to a close, it is looking like he might very well get off, the prosecution has no conclusive evidence.
Fair or not?

I will start by saying that there were a lot of distortions on both sides, but I think that the media was more or less very biased against Zimmerman, I think that the media turned it in to a racial issue to cheapen the issue in to something that would sell in the papers.

Just a few things I found especially disgusting that the media stills lies about

- People still try to claim a picture of a 30 year old rapper (Game) is a picture of Trayvon Martin to distort his image

- People still try to claim Zimmerman shot without any probable cause, you could at cede that he was physically attacked. The media still tries to tell the uninformed that Zimmerman was an evil white that shot someone because they were black

- Zimmerman was fully white: Zimmerman was more hispanic than white, if the media would have now jumped to conclusions and waited for the profile, they would have known this, but being the media, they had to do what sold and lie about his race.

There are probably a dozen more I could think of, it just appalls me how the media is only investigative when it sells or suits their bias.

Opinions?

Debate on the case?

Debate on media bias?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 1:59:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sorry, to say what TV did do GZ, Trayvon slammed his head against the pavement.

You can look it up online, I really don't feel like finding the links again.

bleh
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 2:24:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Please tell me why I should give a single sh*t about this particular case. There are thousands of more important issues that need to be discussed in the general population, yet our media focuses on this derpy case from a year and a half ago. Why? Panem et circenses?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 2:29:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 2:24:47 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Please tell me why I should give a single sh*t about this particular case. There are thousands of more important issues that need to be discussed in the general population, yet our media focuses on this derpy case from a year and a half ago. Why? Panem et circenses?

same reason you seem to care whenever you see an instance of "police brutality".

Specific cases matter more than statistics and facts when trying to create a narrative.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 2:38:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is what I can make of the evidence:

Trayvon:
- was unarmed, had reason to be where he was
- has records of illegal activity, however there is no evidence he was committing any sort of crime prior to the altercation

Zimmerman:
- active neighborhood watchman
- no criminal record, though allegedly wanted to be a cop and was turned down

Witness accounts:
- Most eyewitness accounts have Trayvon on top of Zimmerman attacking him. Nobody saw what happened before this.
- A person was on the phone with Trayvon briefly before the altercation. According to her account, Trayvon ran because of Zimmerman following him. Zimmerman caught up to him during the call, and Trayvon asked "Why are you following me?" and received the reply "What are you doing here?". This is congruent with other witness accounts, but is inconsistent with Zimmerman's account. One of the two are lying.
- We don't know who attacked first. It is very possible that Zimmerman threatened Trayvon in some manner, in which case Trayvon would be protected under the "Stand Your Ground" law.
- And, of course, the obvious: If Zimmerman would have just listened to the dispatcher, nobody would have died. He is a neighborhood watchman, not a neighborhood vigilante.

That being said, it is not out of the question that a murder conviction could happen. If it doesn't, I wouldn't be surprised to see a manslaughter conviction.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 3:52:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 2:38:41 PM, drhead wrote:
This is what I can make of the evidence:

Trayvon:
- was unarmed, had reason to be where he was
- has records of illegal activity, however there is no evidence he was committing any sort of crime prior to the altercation

Zimmerman:
- active neighborhood watchman
- no criminal record, though allegedly wanted to be a cop and was turned down

Witness accounts:
- Most eyewitness accounts have Trayvon on top of Zimmerman attacking him. Nobody saw what happened before this.
- A person was on the phone with Trayvon briefly before the altercation. According to her account, Trayvon ran because of Zimmerman following him. Zimmerman caught up to him during the call, and Trayvon asked "Why are you following me?" and received the reply "What are you doing here?". This is congruent with other witness accounts, but is inconsistent with Zimmerman's account. One of the two are lying.
- We don't know who attacked first. It is very possible that Zimmerman threatened Trayvon in some manner, in which case Trayvon would be protected under the "Stand Your Ground" law.
- And, of course, the obvious: If Zimmerman would have just listened to the dispatcher, nobody would have died. He is a neighborhood watchman, not a neighborhood vigilante.

That being said, it is not out of the question that a murder conviction could happen. If it doesn't, I wouldn't be surprised to see a manslaughter conviction.

Manslaughter is more reasonable in my opinion. I honestly think this is being stalled because if Zimmerman is found not guilty, another Rodney King riot could occur.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 4:03:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the very fact that you have this topic under Politics sums up the issue surrounding this case very well. At this point in time, it seems that one's opinion on the case falls to political divisions.

As for the case itself, I don't think Zimmerman is likely guilty of Murder 2. I could potentially see Manslaughter coming out of it, though.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 4:32:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Watch for the riots if be gets free.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 4:37:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
dude, your avatar keeps making me think you're YYW and your username keeps making me think you're conservativepolitico...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 4:43:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 4:32:12 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Watch for the riots if be gets free.

when**

He's going to be acquitted. The prosecution blew this case.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 4:47:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 4:37:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
dude, your avatar keeps making me think you're YYW and your username keeps making me think you're conservativepolitico...

Ike...you're avatar's change....you've MORPHED.

I don't know who you ARE, anymore.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 5:11:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 4:43:52 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:32:12 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Watch for the riots if be gets free.

when**

He's going to be acquitted. The prosecution blew this case.

no they didn't. He'll be convicted of manslaughter. The prosecution overcharged because of public pressure and frankly because that's a smart tactic since it leaves few options off the table. Despite all the major news networks critiquing the prosecutions case, there is enough basic evidence to put Zimmerman in jail for a few years.

You don't just get to follow someone who's unarmed and a minor, accidentally kill him, and claim that you were defending your life. This is all an unfortunate circumstance, but the man made a mistake and needs to face some consequences.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 5:13:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 4:47:00 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:37:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
dude, your avatar keeps making me think you're YYW and your username keeps making me think you're conservativepolitico...

Ike...you're avatar's change....you've MORPHED.

I don't know who you ARE, anymore.



lol yeah, the FDR thing was put up at a time when I was still concerned about liberalism and politics. I needed something to reflect what I care about now
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jzonda415
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 5:17:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 1:56:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Opinions?

To put it bluntly, Prosecution lost this case. They didn't prove much of anything.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 5:38:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 5:11:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:43:52 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:32:12 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Watch for the riots if be gets free.

when**

He's going to be acquitted. The prosecution blew this case.

no they didn't. He'll be convicted of manslaughter. The prosecution overcharged because of public pressure and frankly because that's a smart tactic since it leaves few options off the table. Despite all the major news networks critiquing the prosecutions case, there is enough basic evidence to put Zimmerman in jail for a few years.

: You don't just get to follow someone who's unarmed and a minor, accidentally kill him, and claim that you were defending your life. This is all an unfortunate circumstance, but the man made a mistake and needs to face some consequences.


Agreed, but if you look at the pics, TV was posing a threat, he smashed GZ's head against the sidewalk, I wouldn't say TV was a picture of innocence, and from a legal perspective I might even be willing to argue that via the current evidence, Zimmerman is guilty of virtually nothing under the Stand your Ground laws in Florida.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 5:43:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 5:38:47 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/6/2013 5:11:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:43:52 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:32:12 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Watch for the riots if be gets free.

when**

He's going to be acquitted. The prosecution blew this case.

no they didn't. He'll be convicted of manslaughter. The prosecution overcharged because of public pressure and frankly because that's a smart tactic since it leaves few options off the table. Despite all the major news networks critiquing the prosecutions case, there is enough basic evidence to put Zimmerman in jail for a few years.

: You don't just get to follow someone who's unarmed and a minor, accidentally kill him, and claim that you were defending your life. This is all an unfortunate circumstance, but the man made a mistake and needs to face some consequences.


Agreed, but if you look at the pics, TV was posing a threat, he smashed GZ's head against the sidewalk, I wouldn't say TV was a picture of innocence, and from a legal perspective I might even be willing to argue that via the current evidence, Zimmerman is guilty of virtually nothing under the Stand your Ground laws in Florida.

Smashed? I do believe that the medical experts testified that his injuries were extremely minor abrasions of the skin. There's evidence that Zimmerman was hurt, no evidence that his life was in danger. And I know that the jury is supposed to be unbias, but I just don't see a panel of MOTHERS letting someone that killed someone else's son walk free with no penalty. GZ will be convicted of something be it murder 2, or more likely manslaughter. There is no way he's walking off, and the prosecution has enough material to justify the latter conviction.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 5:45:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 5:43:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 5:38:47 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/6/2013 5:11:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:43:52 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:32:12 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Watch for the riots if be gets free.

when**

He's going to be acquitted. The prosecution blew this case.

no they didn't. He'll be convicted of manslaughter. The prosecution overcharged because of public pressure and frankly because that's a smart tactic since it leaves few options off the table. Despite all the major news networks critiquing the prosecutions case, there is enough basic evidence to put Zimmerman in jail for a few years.

: You don't just get to follow someone who's unarmed and a minor, accidentally kill him, and claim that you were defending your life. This is all an unfortunate circumstance, but the man made a mistake and needs to face some consequences.


Agreed, but if you look at the pics, TV was posing a threat, he smashed GZ's head against the sidewalk, I wouldn't say TV was a picture of innocence, and from a legal perspective I might even be willing to argue that via the current evidence, Zimmerman is guilty of virtually nothing under the Stand your Ground laws in Florida.

Smashed? I do believe that the medical experts testified that his injuries were extremely minor abrasions of the skin. There's evidence that Zimmerman was hurt, no evidence that his life was in danger. And I know that the jury is supposed to be unbias, but I just don't see a panel of MOTHERS letting someone that killed someone else's son walk free with no penalty. GZ will be convicted of something be it murder 2, or more likely manslaughter. There is no way he's walking off, and the prosecution has enough material to justify the latter conviction.

*unbiased
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 5:46:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 5:43:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 5:38:47 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/6/2013 5:11:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:43:52 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:32:12 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Watch for the riots if be gets free.

when**

He's going to be acquitted. The prosecution blew this case.

no they didn't. He'll be convicted of manslaughter. The prosecution overcharged because of public pressure and frankly because that's a smart tactic since it leaves few options off the table. Despite all the major news networks critiquing the prosecutions case, there is enough basic evidence to put Zimmerman in jail for a few years.

: You don't just get to follow someone who's unarmed and a minor, accidentally kill him, and claim that you were defending your life. This is all an unfortunate circumstance, but the man made a mistake and needs to face some consequences.


Agreed, but if you look at the pics, TV was posing a threat, he smashed GZ's head against the sidewalk, I wouldn't say TV was a picture of innocence, and from a legal perspective I might even be willing to argue that via the current evidence, Zimmerman is guilty of virtually nothing under the Stand your Ground laws in Florida.

Smashed? I do believe that the medical experts testified that his injuries were extremely minor abrasions of the skin. There's evidence that Zimmerman was hurt, no evidence that his life was in danger. And I know that the jury is supposed to be unbias, but I just don't see a panel of MOTHERS letting someone that killed someone else's son walk free with no penalty. GZ will be convicted of something be it murder 2, or more likely manslaughter. There is no way he's walking off, and the prosecution has enough material to justify the latter conviction.

You aren't acknowledging the fact that TV had a criminal record, and assaulted someone, and that in my opinion is a plausible threat. TV was a relatively strong adolescent, he could have seriously hurt GZ, so it could be justified that under Florida's current laws GZ was justified in shooting him, you think that if he didn't TV would have stopped? I doubt it.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 6:04:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 5:43:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 5:38:47 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/6/2013 5:11:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:43:52 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:32:12 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Watch for the riots if be gets free.

when**

He's going to be acquitted. The prosecution blew this case.

no they didn't. He'll be convicted of manslaughter. The prosecution overcharged because of public pressure and frankly because that's a smart tactic since it leaves few options off the table. Despite all the major news networks critiquing the prosecutions case, there is enough basic evidence to put Zimmerman in jail for a few years.

: You don't just get to follow someone who's unarmed and a minor, accidentally kill him, and claim that you were defending your life. This is all an unfortunate circumstance, but the man made a mistake and needs to face some consequences.


Agreed, but if you look at the pics, TV was posing a threat, he smashed GZ's head against the sidewalk, I wouldn't say TV was a picture of innocence, and from a legal perspective I might even be willing to argue that via the current evidence, Zimmerman is guilty of virtually nothing under the Stand your Ground laws in Florida.

Smashed? I do believe that the medical experts testified that his injuries were extremely minor abrasions of the skin. There's evidence that Zimmerman was hurt, no evidence that his life was in danger. And I know that the jury is supposed to be unbias, but I just don't see a panel of MOTHERS letting someone that killed someone else's son walk free with no penalty. GZ will be convicted of something be it murder 2, or more likely manslaughter. There is no way he's walking off, and the prosecution has enough material to justify the latter conviction.

I don't think there's enough evidence to hit him with murder at all. Manslaughter maybe but in Florida manslaughter in self defense carries no punishment. The prosecution didn't nail down enough concrete evidence to show that Zimmerman shot out of anything other than self defense.

The way the Florida law is written, I think he's going to walk.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 6:09:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 5:43:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 5:38:47 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/6/2013 5:11:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:43:52 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:32:12 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Watch for the riots if be gets free.

when**

He's going to be acquitted. The prosecution blew this case.

no they didn't. He'll be convicted of manslaughter. The prosecution overcharged because of public pressure and frankly because that's a smart tactic since it leaves few options off the table. Despite all the major news networks critiquing the prosecutions case, there is enough basic evidence to put Zimmerman in jail for a few years.

: You don't just get to follow someone who's unarmed and a minor, accidentally kill him, and claim that you were defending your life. This is all an unfortunate circumstance, but the man made a mistake and needs to face some consequences.


Agreed, but if you look at the pics, TV was posing a threat, he smashed GZ's head against the sidewalk, I wouldn't say TV was a picture of innocence, and from a legal perspective I might even be willing to argue that via the current evidence, Zimmerman is guilty of virtually nothing under the Stand your Ground laws in Florida.

Smashed? I do believe that the medical experts testified that his injuries were extremely minor abrasions of the skin. There's evidence that Zimmerman was hurt, no evidence that his life was in danger. And I know that the jury is supposed to be unbias, but I just don't see a panel of MOTHERS letting someone that killed someone else's son walk free with no penalty. GZ will be convicted of something be it murder 2, or more likely manslaughter. There is no way he's walking off, and the prosecution has enough material to justify the latter conviction.

Were they actually mothers? I didn't see anything to that effect. I know that 5 are white, the 6th is hispanic, 2 of them own guns, and that's about it.

Anyway, not to speak on one side or the other, but I will say two things. First, grievous bodily injury doesn't have to be shown at all. All that needs to be shown is the reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury. Second, I think it's still early to make the call that there is no evidence that his life was in danger--after all, the defense hasn't completely made their case. And third, again: there doesn't even have to be evidence that the person's life was in danger. There has to be evidence that a reasonable person would believe his/her life was in danger given the same situation.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 6:09:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 6:04:12 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

I don't think there's enough evidence to hit him with murder at all. Manslaughter maybe but in Florida manslaughter in self defense carries no punishment. The prosecution didn't nail down enough concrete evidence to show that Zimmerman shot out of anything other than self defense.

The way the Florida law is written, I think he's going to walk.

lol I'm not a lawyer yet, but something tells me that's not how it works. The prosecution can't possibly have to prove that the intent wasn't self-defense; the defense has to prove that it was - and with the evidence of very minor injuries that don't show anything life threatening, the absence of Zimmerman's DNA on Martin's hands, the testimony from some witnesses that Zimmerman was on top, and the sheer fact that Zimmerman was instructed not to pursue Trayvon Martin, there's no way that the defense can pull off self-defense from all of that,...especially not to a jury of mothers.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 6:10:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay, I lied. I said THREE things, not two.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 6:20:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 6:09:38 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Were they actually mothers? I didn't see anything to that effect. I know that 5 are white, the 6th is hispanic, 2 of them own guns, and that's about it.

Anyway, not to speak on one side or the other, but I will say two things. First, grievous bodily injury doesn't have to be shown at all. All that needs to be shown is the reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury. Second, I think it's still early to make the call that there is no evidence that his life was in danger--after all, the defense hasn't completely made their case. And third, again: there doesn't even have to be evidence that the person's life was in danger. There has to be evidence that a reasonable person would believe his/her life was in danger given the same situation.

You think it's too early to make the call that there is no evidence that his life was in danger, but not too early to make the call that his life was in danger...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 6:32:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My opinion is as follows:

The entire case is a clusterfuck, that was made so by race politics, media interference, prosecutorial incompetence, problematic witnesses (some of whom just directly lied), etc. All of this, however, is George Zimmerman's fault. If he has have followed very basic instructions, this would have never happened. He is an incorrigible fuckwit. I hope his life is ruined, and I could care less if he has an encounter with an actual gang. In reality, I think in some sense that would be poetic justice.
Tsar of DDO
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 6:37:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 6:09:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 6:04:12 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

I don't think there's enough evidence to hit him with murder at all. Manslaughter maybe but in Florida manslaughter in self defense carries no punishment. The prosecution didn't nail down enough concrete evidence to show that Zimmerman shot out of anything other than self defense.

The way the Florida law is written, I think he's going to walk.

lol I'm not a lawyer yet, but something tells me that's not how it works. The prosecution can't possibly have to prove that the intent wasn't self-defense; the defense has to prove that it was - and with the evidence of very minor injuries that don't show anything life threatening, the absence of Zimmerman's DNA on Martin's hands, the testimony from some witnesses that Zimmerman was on top, and the sheer fact that Zimmerman was instructed not to pursue Trayvon Martin, there's no way that the defense can pull off self-defense from all of that,...especially not to a jury of mothers.

But in a way they do need to do just that. As of right now the evidence and the testimony say it was self defense. It's up to the prosecution to convince the jury that that isn't the case.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 6:39:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 6:20:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 6:09:38 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Were they actually mothers? I didn't see anything to that effect. I know that 5 are white, the 6th is hispanic, 2 of them own guns, and that's about it.

Anyway, not to speak on one side or the other, but I will say two things. First, grievous bodily injury doesn't have to be shown at all. All that needs to be shown is the reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury. Second, I think it's still early to make the call that there is no evidence that his life was in danger--after all, the defense hasn't completely made their case. And third, again: there doesn't even have to be evidence that the person's life was in danger. There has to be evidence that a reasonable person would believe his/her life was in danger given the same situation.

You think it's too early to make the call that there is no evidence that his life was in danger, but not too early to make the call that his life was in danger...

When did I ever say that? Seriously. I never did, nor DO I say it was.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 6:44:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 6:37:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/6/2013 6:09:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 6:04:12 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

I don't think there's enough evidence to hit him with murder at all. Manslaughter maybe but in Florida manslaughter in self defense carries no punishment. The prosecution didn't nail down enough concrete evidence to show that Zimmerman shot out of anything other than self defense.

The way the Florida law is written, I think he's going to walk.

lol I'm not a lawyer yet, but something tells me that's not how it works. The prosecution can't possibly have to prove that the intent wasn't self-defense;

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and reasonable doubt could be found in the alternative explanation of self defense. It is the prosecutions responsibility to rule out that possibility, and based on the parts of the trial that I have seen and the court transcripts I've read I don't think they have done a sufficient job of that. I am about 75% sure he'll walk as well.

the defense has to prove that it was

Actually, the defense doesn't have any burden of proof. The defense has only to prove that the prosecution's case doesn't add up in some way -that could mean establishing reasonable doubt by tearing apart the logic of the prosecution's case or it could mean going a step further in proving it was self defense. Recognize only, though, that because Zimmerman is presumed innocent until proven guilty that it is the sole responsibility of the prosecution to argue the contrary.

- and with the evidence of very minor injuries that don't show anything life threatening, the absence of Zimmerman's DNA on Martin's hands, the testimony from some witnesses that Zimmerman was on top, and the sheer fact that Zimmerman was instructed not to pursue Trayvon Martin, there's no way that the defense can pull off self-defense from all of that,...especially not to a jury of mothers.

I would like to think so, but I just don't know. I think the self-defense argument is bullsh!t, but juries are fairly unpredictable. Only time will tell what arguments they found most compelling.

But in a way they do need to do just that. As of right now the evidence and the testimony say it was self defense. It's up to the prosecution to convince the jury that that isn't the case.

That is correct.
Tsar of DDO
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 6:45:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 6:09:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 6:04:12 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

I don't think there's enough evidence to hit him with murder at all. Manslaughter maybe but in Florida manslaughter in self defense carries no punishment. The prosecution didn't nail down enough concrete evidence to show that Zimmerman shot out of anything other than self defense.

The way the Florida law is written, I think he's going to walk.

lol I'm not a lawyer yet, but something tells me that's not how it works. The prosecution can't possibly have to prove that the intent wasn't self-defense; the defense has to prove that it was - and with the evidence of very minor injuries that don't show anything life threatening, the absence of Zimmerman's DNA on Martin's hands, the testimony from some witnesses that Zimmerman was on top, and the sheer fact that Zimmerman was instructed not to pursue Trayvon Martin, there's no way that the defense can pull off self-defense from all of that,...especially not to a jury of mothers.

Not saying you're wrong, but

If one is to be prosecuted, the burden of proof for the crime is on the prosecution. If I accused you of lying, you shouldn't have to defend yourself until I first explain why I think you were lying, same thing with a crime.
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 6:47:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 6:45:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/6/2013 6:09:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/6/2013 6:04:12 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

I don't think there's enough evidence to hit him with murder at all. Manslaughter maybe but in Florida manslaughter in self defense carries no punishment. The prosecution didn't nail down enough concrete evidence to show that Zimmerman shot out of anything other than self defense.

The way the Florida law is written, I think he's going to walk.

lol I'm not a lawyer yet, but something tells me that's not how it works. The prosecution can't possibly have to prove that the intent wasn't self-defense; the defense has to prove that it was - and with the evidence of very minor injuries that don't show anything life threatening, the absence of Zimmerman's DNA on Martin's hands, the testimony from some witnesses that Zimmerman was on top, and the sheer fact that Zimmerman was instructed not to pursue Trayvon Martin, there's no way that the defense can pull off self-defense from all of that,...especially not to a jury of mothers.

Not saying you're wrong, but

Well, he is.
Tsar of DDO