detlef Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The most unfortunate aspect of this case from a legal perspective is that the NRA and it's allies have pushed and pushed to the point where it's now perfectly possible to kill someone in cold blood and claim self defense. This case is the tip of an iceberg - it has just had way more publicity than all the rest. My bet is that Zimmermann will be acquitted under the law as it stands. Silly man. Quit making this about gun control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/12/11154290-minneapolis-mom-drops-son-at-day-care-then-returns-to-find-triple-murder?lite The transcript provides a chilling account of how the mother became suspicious after seeing a man in a hooded sweatshirt and a glove on one hand on a bicycle outside Brown's home. She told police she called Brown to warn her but spoke to her only briefly before she heard the word "no" and the phone went dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The other point I get is that Deathpig and Moneymakers don't care much for the possibility that Zimmerman might have broken laws. I actually think he's guilty of manslaughter (defined in Florida law as "the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification"). I think he should have been picked up at the scene, and the police committed a gross dereliction of duty by not immediately putting cuffs on him. You can't allow someone that obviously committed a homicide (where the perpetrator is the only witness!) to walk away scott-free because he has a couple of bruises and therefore it was 'obviously self-defense'. Unfortunately, I don't see how you convict him of murder 2 unless you have an eye witness that testifies they saw Zimmerman leave the car with his weapon already drawn to confront Martin (or something akin to that). Follow the link I posted! Consider the burden of proof between murder 2 and manslaughter. They have him dead to rights on manslaughter and I feel like murder 2 is a stretch-- a BIG one-- unless (like I posted before) there's some smoking gun evidence that hasn't been revealed yet. I'll say it again-- Zimmerman should have never left the car. He was instructed to not leave the car. He absolutely escalated the situation-- but unless there is some magic evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he left the car with the intention to kill Martin, I don't see how you get murder 2. Is there some way in which I am being unreasonable here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 http://usnews.msnbc....ple-murder?lite Did you really mean to post this link (from inside that story)? http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/11/11144255-george-zimmerman-to-plead-not-guilty-to-second-degree-murder-in-trayvon-martin-case?lite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I actually think he's guilty of manslaughter (defined in Florida law as "the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification"). I think he should have been picked up at the scene, and the police committed a gross dereliction of duty by not immediately putting cuffs on him. You can't allow someone that obviously committed a homicide (where the perpetrator is the only witness!) to walk away scott-free because he has a couple of bruises and therefore it was 'obviously self-defense'. Unfortunately, I don't see how you convict him of murder 2 unless you have an eye witness that testifies they saw Zimmerman leave the car with his weapon already drawn to confront Martin (or something akin to that). Follow the link I posted! Consider the burden of proof between murder 2 and manslaughter. They have him dead to rights on manslaughter and I feel like murder 2 is a stretch-- a BIG one-- unless (like I posted before) there's some smoking gun evidence that hasn't been revealed yet. I'll say it again-- Zimmerman should have never left the car. He was instructed to not leave the car. He absolutely escalated the situation-- but unless there is some magic evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he left the car with the intention to kill Martin, I don't see how you get murder 2. Is there some way in which I am being unreasonable here? Maybe they charge murder 2 hoping to get him to plead guilty to a lesser charge (manslaughter). Or maybe they feel they have a strong enough case. You raise good points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted April 12, 2012 Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 I actually think he's guilty of manslaughter (defined in Florida law as "the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification"). I think he should have been picked up at the scene, and the police committed a gross dereliction of duty by not immediately putting cuffs on him. You can't allow someone that obviously committed a homicide (where the perpetrator is the only witness!) to walk away scott-free because he has a couple of bruises and therefore it was 'obviously self-defense'. Unfortunately, I don't see how you convict him of murder 2 unless you have an eye witness that testifies they saw Zimmerman leave the car with his weapon already drawn to confront Martin (or something akin to that). Follow the link I posted! Consider the burden of proof between murder 2 and manslaughter. They have him dead to rights on manslaughter and I feel like murder 2 is a stretch-- a BIG one-- unless (like I posted before) there's some smoking gun evidence that hasn't been revealed yet. I'll say it again-- Zimmerman should have never left the car. He was instructed to not leave the car. He absolutely escalated the situation-- but unless there is some magic evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he left the car with the intention to kill Martin, I don't see how you get murder 2. Is there some way in which I am being unreasonable here? Not in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Did you really mean to post this link (from inside that story)? http://usnews.msnbc....artin-case?lite No. What I found interesting is the now-symbolic "hoodie" in both instances - the first in FLA where a young black male was identified as a problem, and 3000 miles away in MN, another (non-color-identified) male "hoodie" walks down the street and the lady referenced in the story states she knew something was wrong. And, in reality, the second "hoodie" should have been stopped... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 No. What I found interesting is the now-symbolic "hoodie" in both instances - the first in FLA where a young black male was identified as a problem, and 3000 miles away in MN, another (non-color-identified) male "hoodie" walks down the street and the lady referenced in the story states she knew something was wrong. And, in reality, the second "hoodie" should have been stopped... Everybody wears them, it's when the perp actually puts the hood over his head that you know you should go ahead and open fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Silly man. Quit making this about gun control. I really don't subscribe to the "take away the guns and all will be well" school of thought. I believe every person has the right of self defense and I'm even cool (or ambivalent, anyway) about concealed carry. IMO, you'd better have an ironclad reason to take that weapon out of concealment, however. None of this is enough for the fanatics, who constantly have to justify their own existence and keep their idiot devotees in a state of ferment. "Stand Your Ground" laws (more accurately described as "Feel Free To Kill Whoever You (Don't) Like" laws) are the natural result of idiot politicians funded by fanatics. These laws were almost uniformly opposed by prosecutors and the police but got passed anyway. Previously, there was a reasonable requirement to avoid confrontation before deadly force could be used. Now, through some misplaced macho nonsense, there is no such requirement. Instead, everyone pretends to be all shocked at the Martin case when in fact this was utterly predictable and indeed WAS predicted by the law enforcement community. The NRA is a seething bag of nutjobs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I actually think he's guilty of manslaughter (defined in Florida law as "the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification"). I think he should have been picked up at the scene, and the police committed a gross dereliction of duty by not immediately putting cuffs on him. You can't allow someone that obviously committed a homicide (where the perpetrator is the only witness!) to walk away scott-free because he has a couple of bruises and therefore it was 'obviously self-defense'. Unfortunately, I don't see how you convict him of murder 2 unless you have an eye witness that testifies they saw Zimmerman leave the car with his weapon already drawn to confront Martin (or something akin to that). Follow the link I posted! Consider the burden of proof between murder 2 and manslaughter. They have him dead to rights on manslaughter and I feel like murder 2 is a stretch-- a BIG one-- unless (like I posted before) there's some smoking gun evidence that hasn't been revealed yet. I'll say it again-- Zimmerman should have never left the car. He was instructed to not leave the car. He absolutely escalated the situation-- but unless there is some magic evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he left the car with the intention to kill Martin, I don't see how you get murder 2. Is there some way in which I am being unreasonable here? Very good post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I actually think he's guilty of manslaughter (defined in Florida law as "the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification"). I think he should have been picked up at the scene, and the police committed a gross dereliction of duty by not immediately putting cuffs on him. You can't allow someone that obviously committed a homicide (where the perpetrator is the only witness!) to walk away scott-free because he has a couple of bruises and therefore it was 'obviously self-defense'. Unfortunately, I don't see how you convict him of murder 2 unless you have an eye witness that testifies they saw Zimmerman leave the car with his weapon already drawn to confront Martin (or something akin to that). Follow the link I posted! Consider the burden of proof between murder 2 and manslaughter. They have him dead to rights on manslaughter and I feel like murder 2 is a stretch-- a BIG one-- unless (like I posted before) there's some smoking gun evidence that hasn't been revealed yet. I'll say it again-- Zimmerman should have never left the car. He was instructed to not leave the car. He absolutely escalated the situation-- but unless there is some magic evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he left the car with the intention to kill Martin, I don't see how you get murder 2. Is there some way in which I am being unreasonable here? I don't buy your take on Florida law. For me he stalked, shot and killed an unarmed teenager. That's like at least 3rd degree murder based on my personal reading of Chapter 782 of the Florida Code. I'd argue 2nd degree: (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 or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any: (a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1), ( Arson, © Sexual battery, (d) Robbery, (e) Burglary, (f) Kidnapping, (g) Escape, (h) Aggravated child abuse, (i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult, (j) Aircraft piracy, (k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb, (l) Carjacking, (m) Home-invasion robbery, (n) Aggravated stalking, (o) Murder of another human being, (p) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or (q) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism, You aren't being unreasonable, I just disagree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I actually think he's guilty of manslaughter (defined in Florida law as "the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification"). I think he should have been picked up at the scene, and the police committed a gross dereliction of duty by not immediately putting cuffs on him. You can't allow someone that obviously committed a homicide (where the perpetrator is the only witness!) to walk away scott-free because he has a couple of bruises and therefore it was 'obviously self-defense'. Unfortunately, I don't see how you convict him of murder 2 unless you have an eye witness that testifies they saw Zimmerman leave the car with his weapon already drawn to confront Martin (or something akin to that). Follow the link I posted! Consider the burden of proof between murder 2 and manslaughter. They have him dead to rights on manslaughter and I feel like murder 2 is a stretch-- a BIG one-- unless (like I posted before) there's some smoking gun evidence that hasn't been revealed yet. I'll say it again-- Zimmerman should have never left the car. He was instructed to not leave the car. He absolutely escalated the situation-- but unless there is some magic evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he left the car with the intention to kill Martin, I don't see how you get murder 2. Is there some way in which I am being unreasonable here? They may already have that. I don't believe that all of the evidence has been leaked to the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Only way this guy gets off is if Moneymakers is on the jury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfv87 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 They may already have that. I don't believe that all of the evidence has been leaked to the media. THere in lies the main issue with the whole case "information leaking", everybody is making claims of what happened based on partial facts; maybe taken in correct context and maybe not (thanks NBC). The whole issue lies in that unless we can get all the information I think people should reserve judgment until we actually have the information to base an opinion on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted April 12, 2012 Author Share Posted April 12, 2012 THere in lies the main issue with the whole case "information leaking", everybody is making claims of what happened based on partial facts; maybe taken in correct context and maybe not (thanks NBC). The whole issue lies in that unless we can get all the information I think people should reserve judgment until we actually have the information to base an opinion on. Unless you are on the jury, you will never have that abundance of information. But again, what is not in doubt is this... Zimmerman got out of his car and confronted the kid, he took his pistola with him, he shot the kid and the kid is dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The whole issue lies in that unless we can get all the information I think people should reserve judgment until we actually have the information to base an opinion on. What do folks put on french fries in your country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) The probable cause affidavit executed by two state investigators: http://i2.cdn.turner...t.pdf?hpt=hp_t1 Edited April 12, 2012 by Furd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 What do folks put on french fries in your country? Our FREEDOM fries have hand-made mayonnaise On-topic, Zimmerman is either spending some time in prison as a bitch, or a short amount of time on the street. No way he lives past 40. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Everybody wears them, it's when the perp actually puts the hood over his head that you know you should go ahead and open fire. Nice. That made me laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 THere in lies the main issue with the whole case "information leaking", everybody is making claims of what happened based on partial facts; maybe taken in correct context and maybe not (thanks NBC). The whole issue lies in that unless we can get all the information I think people should reserve judgment until we actually have the information to base an opinion on. In the affidavit filed by the prosecutor it says that Martin "tried to run home". This is something that I have not heard before. Maybe I just missed it. Or maybe the prosecution has a witness that saw Martin trying to run from Zimmerman that has not been reported on by the media. If an armed Zimmerman is chasing after an unarmed Martin that is trying to run away from the scene it could be a basis for the murder 2 charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 In the affidavit filed by the prosecutor it says that Martin "tried to run home". This is something that I have not heard before. Maybe I just missed it. Or maybe the prosecution has a witness that saw Martin trying to run from Zimmerman that has not been reported on by the media. If an armed Zimmerman is chasing after an unarmed Martin that is trying to run away from the scene it could be a basis for the murder 2 charge. Yep and no mention of Martin attacking Zimmerman in his car, dragging him out and beating him to justify the "self defense" line I've heard some people suggesting. I think it boils down this (best case for Zimmerman) Zimmeran confronts Martin, a fight ensues, Martin is kicking Zim's ass. Zim pulls out the gun and shoots him dead. Not really self defense when an armed man confronts an unarmed teen and starts a fight. A lot will depend on the other facts, and who is on the jury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Best case for Zimmerman He is told that he does not need to follow Martin. Zimmerman says okay and while walking back to his car. Martin appears and Confronts Zimmerman. 1.Zimmerman tells 911 that he doesnt see Martin anymore. 2.Martin tells Girlfriend that someone is following him. You got a problem? You do now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I haven't read much of the 10 pages of this topic so I don't know how many times this has been asked. But how did this become a political issue? Republicans say Zimmerman is innocent. Democrats say he's guilty. What a stupid arse mistake, criminal mistake Zimmerman made here. I hope my kids don't get chased down, against the advice the police in a 911 call and get gunned down because they want some skittles. A cluster f*** this is. An irriversible one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Best case for Zimmerman He is told that he does not need to follow Martin. Zimmerman says okay and while walking back to his car. Martin appears and Confronts Zimmerman. 1.Zimmerman tells 911 that he doesnt see Martin anymore. 2.Martin tells Girlfriend that someone is following him. You got a problem? You do now! You should be aware that a lot of the things you post are completely incoherent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 You should be aware that a lot of the things you post are completely incoherent. Please quit feeding the animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.