View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 22nd, 2014, 11:48 pm



Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
 Zimmerman 
Author Message
Lionbacker Rehab Guru
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2006, 9:08 pm
Posts: 1203
Post Re: Zimmerman
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Has anyone looked at the overall damage to the nation this has brought about?

I can't speak to the legal information, as I did not follow it, but I do work in an environment that is heavily African American, and I can tell you that many of them were watching with baited breath.

Now that this verdict is out, it is one more piece of straw to deepen the divide between the races. I don't wish for anything to happen to anyone, but as a nation that is coming apart at the seams, we didn't need this to happen.

I feel sorry for this deeply divided country that is on a downward spiral in more ways than one.

I disagree about the country heading downhill. I think we are evolving as a people, and for the better. Even today a lot of these types of crimes aren't even mentioned, but more are than ever before. 50 years ago it definitely wouldn't have been mentioned. People nowadays are bringing to light the crimes that are committed much more than they were years ago. The difference is that we now have so many different platforms by which to find out about things, so it seems like things are worse, when in reality there is less crime than there used to be.
I believe W4C is disheartened by the rampant racial divisiveness and hate mongering present in today's media. A disharmony not present 40-50 years ago. The media rejoice in death, anger, hate, and despair. It means ratings. The media has always seen the benefit of social unrest, but decades ago they seemed happy to merely report on it. Now they are cheerleaders.

_________________
Climate Change - happening every second, of every minute of every day ever since the world was created. Needless to say it's man's fault.


July 15th, 2013, 11:47 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2786
Post Re: Zimmerman
Quote:
Do you really think all 17 year old thug wannabes deserve death? Wow! You are an idiot.


It was sarcasm in response to your implication that Trayvon's death was justified by the fact that he was a wannabe thug.

Which he was. I don't think that can be disputed. But plenty of 17 year old males have issues with authority. It's pretty much par for the course. It didn't justify his death.

Quote:
How EXACTLY did George Zimmerman go picking a fight, Blue Skies? By following someone? That's not picking a fight. By disobeying a dispatcher's orders? He did NOT disobey an "order". He was simply told he didn't have to do it. He was not given an official police order to stop.


Read the transcript of the call:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... erman.html

Yes, the dispatchers aren't officers. But that isn't the point. They told him not to follow, they told him the police are on their way, but he goes to apprehend the guy because he thinks he's a bad***. Goes after him with a loaded handgun. Again, he was looking for trouble.

Given Trayvon's behavior, it was clear that he thought Zimmerman was up to no good. He gets scared and calls his friend, tells her a creepy cracker is following him, then runs away from Zimmerman out of fear.

Quote:
So, a wannabe thug attacks a wannabe cop, and somehow it's the guy's fault who gets attacked? Absolute BULLSH!T. Martin was the antagonist, the aggressor, the attacker. He had no provocation, none, to launch the attack he did. It was a almost a minute of being attacked before Zimmerman pulled his gun. Do you realize how long a minute seems like when you are being punched, pummelled and having your head slammed into concrete?


I wasn't there. I don't know what happened between the two. Frankly, no one really does.

But is it OK to take a loaded handgun, bait someone into attacking you, and then once they do, shoot them? I have a real problem with that line of reasoning.

When you get your CPL, they specifically tell you to avoid confrontation. You can say Trayvon was the aggressor because he threw the first punch (if that is, in fact, what happened -- who knows) but Zimmerman put himself in an unnecessary situation.

I'm not surprised he was found not guilty. I would've been shocked if he was convicted because the evidence of it was scant. But I think the prosecution should've kept it simple and just hit the following points:

1) Zim was a wannabe cop looking for confrontation
2) The dispatcher told him to wait for the police, he didn't
3) He went into the situation with a handgun ready to fire


July 16th, 2013, 12:30 am
Profile
Lionbacker Rehab Guru
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2006, 9:08 pm
Posts: 1203
Post Re: Zimmerman
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
Do you really think all 17 year old thug wannabes deserve death? Wow! You are an idiot.


It was sarcasm in response to your implication that Trayvon's death was justified by the fact that he was a wannabe thug.

Which he was. I don't think that can be disputed. But plenty of 17 year old males have issues with authority. It's pretty much par for the course. It didn't justify his death.

It was sarcasm? Why did you say that 17 year old thug wannabes deserve to die? I've never said that. No one I know has said that. That sentiment is all yours.

You also keep repeating that Zimmerman was ordered by the police to stay in his car, and that Zimmerman specifically ignored this order. I still haven't found that in any of the testimony or transcripts.

You seem to have a habit of making stuff up so that you can make a point about being right.

_________________
Climate Change - happening every second, of every minute of every day ever since the world was created. Needless to say it's man's fault.


July 16th, 2013, 6:55 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2828
Post Re: Zimmerman
Blue, you need to listen to the 911 call, not just read the transcript. He had left his car long before he was told he didn't have to follow. AND the dispatcher kept asking him questions on which direction the suspected person went. The dispatcher even admitted that it could be confusing.


July 16th, 2013, 8:10 am
Profile
Heisman Winner
User avatar

Joined: July 14th, 2005, 11:58 am
Posts: 802
Post Re: Zimmerman
TruckinMack wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
Do you really think all 17 year old thug wannabes deserve death? Wow! You are an idiot.


It was sarcasm in response to your implication that Trayvon's death was justified by the fact that he was a wannabe thug.

Which he was. I don't think that can be disputed. But plenty of 17 year old males have issues with authority. It's pretty much par for the course. It didn't justify his death.

It was sarcasm? Why did you say that 17 year old thug wannabes deserve to die? I've never said that. No one I know has said that. That sentiment is all yours.

You also keep repeating that Zimmerman was ordered by the police to stay in his car, and that Zimmerman specifically ignored this order. I still haven't found that in any of the testimony or transcripts.

You seem to have a habit of making stuff up so that you can make a point about being right.


Yikes, maybe you need to reread things.


July 16th, 2013, 8:49 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12250
Post Re: Zimmerman
TruckinMack wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
TruckinMack wrote:
We need more dads willing to stand up for their neighborhoods like George Zimmerman was willing to do, and fewer kids acting like thug wannabe Trayvon Martin. Unfortunately we will probably get the opposite.
I forget, what exactly was Mr Martin doing that was 'wannabe thuggish'?

The night he attacked George Zimmerman? I dunno. Nothing much, aside from attacking George Zimmerman, punching him repeatedly and slamming his head into the concrete. (You might call this normal behavior, but I would call it thuggish.)

I, however, did not say poor little Trayvon was acting thuggish prior to his confrontation with George Zimmerman. I called him a thug wannabe because of his prior FB posts, pics and tweets, not to mention his run ins with the law and school administration.

Still Wags, as I assume you are up to speed on all of these issues, is it your contention that poor little Trayvon was not a thug wannabe? Perhaps you are just asking a question for the purpose of stimulating conversation?
First off, I try to stay away from any labels, like 'thug wannabe' or 'cop wannabe', as they tend to have a stigma associated with them and usually describe the person using them as opposed to who they're discussing. Now I will agree that Mr Martin was a young kid and at times likely acted as such. I believe you said you're a parent, so I'm sure you can understand what I'm referring to.

As I'm sure you'll agree, the only people that knew exactly what happened that night were Mr Zimmerman & Mr Martin. Being as Mr Martin is dead, the only account of that evening we have is Mr Zimmerman's; now, you can choose to believe his story verbatim if you want, but I will take his statements with a grain of salt. Don't get me wrong, were I in his shoes I would've likely made similar statements. Likewise, were I in Mr Martin's family's shoes, I would also likely have taken similar actions as they have. That said, how do you know that Mr Martin attacked Mr Zimmerman? As I don't believe there is any indisputable evidence proving this one way or the other, how are you so certain? Is it not possible that Mr Martin was fearing for his life? Perhaps he, himself, felt threatened? Point is, we don't, and won't ever, know.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


July 16th, 2013, 9:22 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12250
Post Re: Zimmerman
Blueskies wrote:
I think Zimmerman could've gotten manslaughter if the prosecution did a better job. Really, there was never any evidence to convict him of murder, but I think he was probably guilty of manslaughter.
Blueskies wrote:
I'm not surprised he was found not guilty. I would've been shocked if he was convicted because the evidence of it was scant. But I think the prosecution should've kept it simple and just hit the following points:

1) Zim was a wannabe cop looking for confrontation
2) The dispatcher told him to wait for the police, he didn't
3) He went into the situation with a handgun ready to fire
While I don't agree with #1 above, pretty much agree with everything else.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


July 16th, 2013, 9:31 am
Profile
ST Coordinator – John Bonamego
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3913
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Zimmerman
I prefer to stick with what I know:

I know that NEITHER one of them was in a place they should have been. Neither one acted resposibly when the confrontation happened. 2 people in a place they didn't belong, doing what looked like something they should not have been doing, both acted foolish in what apeared to be ego based activity, and one of them died for it. all in all both lives were destroyed, and to be completely honest it all could have been avoided had EITHER ONE acted like a responsible person.


You can argue for either side that this person should have done this, or that. You can argue that Zimmerman being the adult should carry more weight, but I dont buy into that. At 17 you know the difference between acting right, and....well.... putting yourself in a postion that could get you killed. Im an accountability guy. Either one of these guys could have prevented this from happening by doing any number of things...simply walking away being the easiest solutuion....neither one did.

this is all very sad, both for the loss of life, and total lack of morals shown by the reporting of this incodent. From the day of the shooting Zimmerman has been painted as basically the devil, and Martin as a sqeeky clean church boy. It is the Media that stirred up the vast majority of the controversy in this case. it's the media turning into a racial issue (somehow this is a white/ black thing???? ....and yet no true caucations were involved???) It's the media who turned the court of public opinion into a guilty verdict before Zimmerman was even arrested. This whole thing was reported so irresponsibly that it turns my stomach! I mean really...the President commenting on this?? really? WTF?!?!?

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


July 16th, 2013, 10:43 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9992
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Zimmerman
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
How EXACTLY did George Zimmerman go picking a fight, Blue Skies? By following someone? That's not picking a fight. By disobeying a dispatcher's orders? He did NOT disobey an "order". He was simply told he didn't have to do it. He was not given an official police order to stop.


Read the transcript of the call:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... erman.html

Yes, the dispatchers aren't officers. But that isn't the point. They told him not to follow, they told him the police are on their way, but he goes to apprehend the guy because he thinks he's a bad***. Goes after him with a loaded handgun. Again, he was looking for trouble.


He didn't go to aprehend anyone, since he doesn't have that authority. Where do you come up with this garbage? Quit making stuff up in a vain effort to support your stance. He was carrying a gun. That doesn't mean he's going after someone with a loaded gun. BIG, BIG difference.

Blueskies wrote:
Given Trayvon's behavior, it was clear that he thought Zimmerman was up to no good. He gets scared and calls his friend, tells her a creepy cracker is following him, then runs away from Zimmerman out of fear.


If he ran away out of fear, then why did he attack him? Trayvon Martin was hiding, and George Zimmerman had lost sight of him. Martin attacked Zimmerman. That's not an act of fear Blue Skies. Not unless you are cornered and/or outnumbered. Trayvon Martin wasn't cornered, and he wasn't outnumbered. He attacked out of aggression. And that aggression got him killed.

Quote:
So, a wannabe thug attacks a wannabe cop, and somehow it's the guy's fault who gets attacked? Absolute BULLSH!T. Martin was the antagonist, the aggressor, the attacker. He had no provocation, none, to launch the attack he did. It was a almost a minute of being attacked before Zimmerman pulled his gun. Do you realize how long a minute seems like when you are being punched, pummelled and having your head slammed into concrete?


Blueskies wrote:
I wasn't there. I don't know what happened between the two. Frankly, no one really does.

But is it OK to take a loaded handgun, bait someone into attacking you, and then once they do, shoot them? I have a real problem with that line of reasoning.


How EXACTLY did George Zimmerman BAIT someone into attacking him?!?! By following him? Did he call him a dirty name? Sorry Blue Skies, but neither of those qualifies as sufficient enough to justify physically attacking someone. And Zimmerman shot after he had been attacked and punched for almost a full minute. Try having someone get in the mount position atop you and start throwing punches and pushing your head into concrete for that length of time. That minute will seem like days. And carrying a gun doesn't equate into going looking for trouble. Your reasoning is the one that is questionable here. Neighborhood Watch means just that. You look for suspicious activity and watch to see what transpires. He was licensed to carry a firearm, and a jury decided he acted solely in self defense. Could the situation have been avoided? Yes. But Trayvon Martin was FAR more responsible for his own death than George Zimmerman.

Blueskies wrote:
When you get your CPL, they specifically tell you to avoid confrontation. You can say Trayvon was the aggressor because he threw the first punch (if that is, in fact, what happened -- who knows) but Zimmerman put himself in an unnecessary situation.


It depends on who you have teaching your CPL class. Putting yourself in an unnecessary situation is NOT against the law. Attacking someone unprovoked IS against the law. Being followed and having someone watch you is NOT enough to allow for a physical attack. And it certainly is NOT enough to justify a sustained attack on someone yelling for help.

Blueskies wrote:
I'm not surprised he was found not guilty. I would've been shocked if he was convicted because the evidence of it was scant. But I think the prosecution should've kept it simple and just hit the following points:

1) Zim was a wannabe cop looking for confrontation
2) The dispatcher told him to wait for the police, he didn't
3) He went into the situation with a handgun ready to fire



1. Not a prosecutable offense. If wanting to be a cop was a crime, than most elementary school boys should be locked up. If looking for a confrontation is a crime, then most teenage boys should be locked up.

2. Not listening to a dispatcher, or even a police officer, is NOT a crime unless your failure to listen results in preventing them from doing their job.

3. He went into the situation carrying a gun, which was allowable by law. It was not 'ready to fire', as you state, since Trayvon Martin probably didn't realize Zimmerman was armed, or he wouldn't have attacked. Ready to fire, if you have taken the CPL class, means that you have the weapon drawn, the bullet in the chamber, and your finger placed alongside the trigger. Your implication is that Zimmerman had already done all that. That's a garbage assessment, and a ridiculous assumption.

It comes down to the fact that whether or not Zimmerman acted wisely (he didn't) isn't the issue. All the things he did were allowable by law. Whether the prosecution wanted to charge him with open murder, murder two or manslaughter, they wouldn't have been able to prove their case. Simply put, Zimmerman broke no laws. He acted in self defense at the time of the shooting. He NEVER provoked the attack. When he shot Martin (by eye witness accounts), Zimmerman was in a dire position, getting punched and getting his head slammed into the ground. He was threatened with death ('you're gonna die tonight') by someone in a position and with the ability to follow through with that threat. If that's not sufficient for use of deadly force in self defense, I don't know what is.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


July 16th, 2013, 12:36 pm
Profile
Post Re: Zimmerman
What a load of horseshit...

1) No, there was no evidence to support a manslaughter conviction;

and 2) Blueskies, your "account" of the "facts" assumes intent on Zimmerman's part. Did he want a confrontation between he and Martin, or did Zimmerman want a confrontation between the COPS and Martin? If Zimmerman wanted the confrontation himself, he could have done so at any time, much much sooner than when it actually happened. What the facts show is that Zimmerman wanted Martin to be questioned by the police, hence his phone call to the cops.

I love how everyone glosses over the fact that Martin was trespassing in Zimmerman's neighborhood, looking in people's windows that he had no business looking into, and carrying a backpack that was found to have some BS jewlry and a screwdriver in it. Was he doing B&E's? Was he casing future targets? No one knows... What we do know is that when he was confronted by the knowledge that ZImmeran was on the phone with the cops and that the cops would likely be there soon, Martin blew up and beat the crap out of Zimmerman. That's not a normal response from a non-guilty party.

And Wags, to answer your question... What did Zimmerman do?
He had prior documented incidents of graffiti, and marijuna use. He posted thuggish pictures of himself in gang attire, with gang signs and drugs, and posted disparaging comments about women. Does that mean he deserves death? No... But the best part is NO ONE IS SAYING IT DOES. Where you get this crap is beyond me (and I realize that it was largely Bluekies saying that it, but you seem of the same camp). Why he deserved to die, and he did, was because HE CHOSE to attack someone and make them fear for his life. He broke someone's nose, beat them into the ground, and made that person feel like he was about to die. For that reason Zimmerman was justified in shooting this punk thug, and the world is probably a better place for that kid's passing.


July 16th, 2013, 7:19 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12250
Post Re: Zimmerman
wjb21ndtown wrote:
No, there was no evidence to support a manslaughter conviction;
Can you explain this further? Its my understanding that 'manslaughter' is defined as killing someone
Wiki wrote:
Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
While it may have been 'involuntary', it would still be manslaughter, no? Then again perhaps it depends on Florida's definition....
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I love how everyone glosses over the fact that Martin was trespassing in Zimmerman's neighborhood
How was Martin 'trespassing'? It is my understanding he was visiting his dad, who was living in the community at the time, and as such has a right to be where he was.
wjb21ndtown wrote:
And Wags, to answer your question... What did Zimmerman do?
He had prior documented incidents of graffiti, and marijuna use. He posted thuggish pictures of himself in gang attire, with gang signs and drugs, and posted disparaging comments about women. Does that mean he deserves death? No... But the best part is NO ONE IS SAYING IT DOES. Where you get this crap is beyond me (and I realize that it was largely Bluekies saying that it, but you seem of the same camp). Why he deserved to die, and he did, was because HE CHOSE to attack someone and make them fear for his life. He broke someone's nose, beat them into the ground, and made that person feel like he was about to die. For that reason Zimmerman was justified in shooting this punk thug, and the world is probably a better place for that kid's passing.
Not quite sure what question you're attempting to answer here...are you talking about Martin or Zimmerman... :confused:

That said, how do you know for a fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman? How do you know what Zimmerman actually said to Martin or vice versa when they finally met? Again, I say that neither you nor anyone else, aside from Zimmerman, know what actually happened that evening.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


July 17th, 2013, 9:54 am
Profile
Post Re: Zimmerman
Manslaughter in FL:
Quote:
Manslaughter by Act (Voluntary Manslaughter): Committing an intentional act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person.
Manslaughter by Procurement (Voluntary Manslaughter): Persuading, inducing, or encouraging another person to commit an act that resulted in the death of another person.
Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence (Involuntary Manslaughter): Engaging in “Culpably Negligent” conduct that resulted in the death of another person.


Generally manslaughter, specifically Manslaughter by Act, is reserved for crimes where the "act" was intentional (driving while intoxicated... the driver intended to get behind the wheel) the act resulted in a death, but the death itself wasn't intentional.

Here Zimmerman's actions of pulling a gun don't warrant a reduced charge, and there was nothing that the prosecution could have gained by reducing the charge. It was either self-defense, or it wasn't. It was either murder, or it wasn't. The act was either excusable or justified, or it wasn't. There wasn't an existence of any sort of reduced capacity, or intent here. Where the act is intentional, but perhaps the result was unintended are general areas where you see a charge of manslaughter. Again, none of that existed here.

Martin was walking through the yard of an unknown person when ZImmerman spotted him. He had a step-father, or uncle or some sort of relative that lived "in the area" but he wasn't caught walking through his relative's property. He was on the property of an unknown person, looking into windows. He had no "right" to be where he was when Zimmerman first noticed him.

Martin did those things I listed.

I can infer that Martin attacked Zimmerman, because I can infer that Zimmerman wouldn't have attacked Martin, and an attack happened. Apparently a jury of his peers felt the same way, and a judge felt the same way. A judge doesn't have to allow a jury's verdict to stand if that judge feels that the great weight of evidence goes against the jury verdict. The law doesn't work with absolutes. Circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as actual or tangible evidence.

You can hold onto some BS story and hide behind the "unknown absolute truth" if you'd like. But the evidence is and was there, and it has been ruled on.

That said, I find it funny that you have your own, what I would deem unreasonable inferences that you hold onto, but when someone else has them "no one knows exactly what happened..."


July 17th, 2013, 12:02 pm
Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2828
Post Re: Zimmerman
Wags, the reason it's easy to believe Martin was the aggressor is because there wasn't a single bruise on his body, except for a scratch on his left hand. Zimmerman had a broken nose, multiple lacerations and knots on his head. The 911 call that had the screams for help proved the beating lasted at least 40 seconds. The prosecution tried to paint zimmerman as WANTing to shoot because he never landed a punch. They made the argument for the defense. No one would plan to wait 40 seconds before pulling the trigger. Especially when injury isn't even required by law. Just the threat of it.

The one thing the MSM hasn't reported on was what was included from the phone that the prosecution tried to hide from the defense. The IT guy who obtained the information whistleblew on the prosecution (and was fired when the state rested in the trial) because he thought he would be held liable. It showed Martin had pictures of him holding and smoking weed, conversations of tens of thousands of dollars, discussions about buying a gun, as well as people asking him for codeine, weed and other drugs. There were also pictures of him with piles of jewelry. Does this prove he was a thug? No, but it sure shows something other than the innocent boy that was just walking home after buying skittles. Also doesn't explain why if he was walking home he took 45 minutes to go from the 7-11 to the time of his death.

The primary reason this case was called not guilty was because the prosecution blew it. They're likely going to face sanctions and some could even be disbarred. They broke the laws in discovery and they tried to call for sympathy from the jury, which is unethical. Murder, manslaughter would never have stuck with how many questions they showed during the trial. Could haves and maybes are the exact definition of reasonable doubt.


July 17th, 2013, 12:25 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Zimmerman
Question in regards to TruckinMacks comment about myself:

How far back do we need to go to remember the United in United States? It never ceases to amaze me that evil continues to be called good, and we're credited with what TDJ called, "evolution." Again, this boils down to a World View, and some see it from one side, and others see it from another. The thing that is tragic is that instead of meeting in the middle and discussing our differences, we arm ourselves with "facts" and trade barbs back and forth. Who really ever wins? Is your mind changed? Is mine?

I've served this country, and I've watched how we've literally split along many different lines. Racially, ethically, by sexual orientation, and political party, quite frankly, if there's a way to divide, we'll surely find it. We are quickly becoming a country divided against itself, and as we continue to chip away at the once solid foundation that led this magnificent country for over 200 years (i.e. the Constitution), we will become like all those once proud people who fell under the weight of their own selfishness, greed and so on.

I know many of you will not agree with me, and I understand that, but thank you for allowing me to voice my side of the story.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


July 17th, 2013, 1:12 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12250
Post Re: Zimmerman
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Manslaughter in FL:
Quote:
Manslaughter by Act (Voluntary Manslaughter): Committing an intentional act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person.
Manslaughter by Procurement (Voluntary Manslaughter): Persuading, inducing, or encouraging another person to commit an act that resulted in the death of another person.
Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence (Involuntary Manslaughter): Engaging in “Culpably Negligent” conduct that resulted in the death of another person.
Generally manslaughter, specifically Manslaughter by Act, is reserved for crimes where the "act" was intentional (driving while intoxicated... the driver intended to get behind the wheel) the act resulted in a death, but the death itself wasn't intentional.

Here Zimmerman's actions of pulling a gun don't warrant a reduced charge, and there was nothing that the prosecution could have gained by reducing the charge. It was either self-defense, or it wasn't. It was either murder, or it wasn't. The act was either excusable or justified, or it wasn't. There wasn't an existence of any sort of reduced capacity, or intent here. Where the act is intentional, but perhaps the result was unintended are general areas where you see a charge of manslaughter. Again, none of that existed here
Thanks for clarifying Florida law.

Question on the bolded part: This may again depend on Florida law, but what constitutes the 'Act'? What I mean is, Zimmerman intended to confront Martin, would that be considered the 'Act'? If not, why not? If so, then per your explanation, couldn't he have been tried for manslaughter as Martin's death was an unintended result of the 'act'?

(Yes, I know they added the reduced charge prior to jury deliberations, I'm referring to manslaughter being the main / only charge.)

wjb21ndtown wrote:
Martin was walking through the yard of an unknown person when ZImmerman spotted him. He had a step-father, or uncle or some sort of relative that lived "in the area" but he wasn't caught walking through his relative's property. He was on the property of an unknown person, looking into windows. He had no "right" to be where he was when Zimmerman first noticed him.

Martin did those things I listed.
Why did Martin have 'no right' to be where he was? What is the legal reason?

wjb21ndtown wrote:
I can infer that Martin attacked Zimmerman, because I can infer that Zimmerman wouldn't have attacked Martin, and an attack happened. Apparently a jury of his peers felt the same way, and a judge felt the same way. A judge doesn't have to allow a jury's verdict to stand if that judge feels that the great weight of evidence goes against the jury verdict. The law doesn't work with absolutes. Circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as actual or tangible evidence.
This may be a dumb question, but what constitutes an 'attack'? In other words, if someone makes an aggressive move (throw punch, lunge, etc) towards another, could that be considered an attack even if no physical contact takes place?

wjb21ndtown wrote:
You can hold onto some BS story and hide behind the "unknown absolute truth" if you'd like. But the evidence is and was there, and it has been ruled on.
Agreed. I'm trying to run through some hypotheticals on what may have occurred; sort of a critical thinking exercise if you will.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
That said, I find it funny that you have your own, what I would deem unreasonable inferences that you hold onto, but when someone else has them "no one knows exactly what happened..."
Care to explain what you're referring to here?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


July 17th, 2013, 1:55 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.