100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Zimmerman Murder case | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Dodo_David
on
Sun 07/14/13 11:21 AM
|
|
Zimmerman's action did not fit the description of either 2nd-degree murder or manslaughter contained in Florida law. So, the jury ruled correctly in accordance with Florida law.
Thus, the flaw, if any, exists within Florida law, not with the jury's decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zimmerman's action did not fit the description of either 2nd-degree murder or manslaughter contained in Florida law. So, the jury ruled correctly in accordance with Florida law. Thus, the flaw, if any, exists within Florida law, not with the jury's decision. Right, so now the DOJ is searching for a law that they can charge him with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can say they erred the same way you can say they got it right in other words,, we are all human, we all have our own perception of things.. but jury duty isn't about one persons perception. sure each member of the jury has a perception, but they all have to come to the same conclusion. if one member doesn't see it like the rest of the members, it's a big deal there was no way to prove what happened in the moments leading to this fight, but absence of proof is not proof of absence,, there is also common sense that fills in the gaps,,,my common sense says zimmermans story is beyond reasonable or likely and therefore a lie your common sense is bias. six jurors found zimmerman's story believable. the night of the incident, the police found zimmerman's story believable my common sense sees the very logical theme of a man intent on playing police and making sure the 'bleep didn't get away to the point of following and putting his hands on him (As his past mo shows he has a habit of doing),, martin's past mo included drug use and street fighting. so can common sense tell us he would be high and itching to fight? we have no idea what was going through his mind even his 'mma style' witness testified to the initial 'vertical tussle',, as opposed to the blindsided sucker punch that liar described,... name calling, really? he didn't want this boy to 'get away',,,he went out of his way to continue following this boy even after being advised not to, he CHASED the boy while armed with a gun, he provoked the BOY into a place where he had every right to defend himself,,,,thats my common sense talking as someone who has been physically stalked and assaulted in daylight... now i see why you are so bias. how do you know zimmerman wanted martin to start something that zimmerman planned to end with a bullet. common sense says you don't bring a knife (or skittles and a tea) to a gun fight. if you say that martin had a right to fight zimmerman, how stupid is it to exercise that right to fight knowing that you are fighting bare knuckle against someone with a weapon. if zimmerman had drawn the weapon how smart is it to try to overpower him? wouldn't it be smarter to submit and try to talk your way out from the business end of a 9mm pistol? im sorry, but by the book, t couldn't have done anything different he did EVERYTHING you are told to do when being followed martin had a cellular telephone. he could have called for help. he could have yielded to zimmerman. he could have been passive and not fought no matter what zimmerman said or did. he could have out run zimmerman. he could have knocked on someone's door. there are plenty of could have's there changed direction , put distance between them , asked why he was being followed,,,it was Z whose actions are responsible for the outcome,, and Zs alone,,,,,his were the unreasonable and dangerous choices, his were the actions that lead to the REACTION/CONSEQUENCE..... girl you have the facts of the case and you still keep to your bias view. two people were involved, two people made choices, two people acted and reacted and as far as what the jury UNDERSTOOD, I wouldn't assume too much,, their choice to come back with a verdict doesn't mean they understood,,,in fact they asked about the manslaughter and were never given an answer,,,, the judicial system fails on a regular basis then. innocent until proven guilty is a fantasy. girl, when the police decided not to charge zimmerman, there was an outcry for a trial. the trial has come and gone. why do you feel the need to act like those people did (some still do) after obama was re-elected? you can make excuses until the cows come home and be like all the obamahaters. we all see where that has gotten them |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe it did fit manslaughter
but the six chosen did not agree,, or they didn't understand manslaughter (Which is very probable considering they asked for clarification about it) fl statute (1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. a human being was killed? yes was it by the act of another? yes ,,,grey area,,,,was it 'excusable homicide'? excusable homicide: Excusable homicide. —Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner was it an 'accident' to pull a gun and pull the trigger? no was it heat of passion? well considering a prolonged pursuit, my perspective would be ..no,, and again still not an accident to pull a gun and shoot was there a sudden and sufficient provocation,,,well, yes, by Zimmerman upon trayvn without any dangerous weapon? obviously not, the weapon was a gun not done in cruel or unusual manner? well, if its usual to shoot your way out of a fist fight with someone smaller and younger than you,,,but to me that's not usual ,,,, so, there is no flaw in the law, but I believe the flaw was in the conclusion the jury drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still in shock over the verdict. I think he was guilty because: He disobeyed civil authorities who told him to stay in his car twice, and to not follow the suspect. If he would have obeyed, things would be different. So he caused it to me. Besides, I said so! i agree hippie. zimmerman created the situation. sad day. but i do believe, while the jury could not hand down a guilty verdict under the legal definition, this is not the same as finding him innocent. i imagine when the jurors finally speak, this will be a strong under tone. i hope zimmerman lives a long pitiful life being constantly reminded about what he did. karma. So we have to prove ourselves innocent? So everyone who is arrested is guilty until they prove themselves innocent? Isn't that what Racial Profiling is saying? You may be guilty your not innocent? Which is it? seriously,, where do people get these paraphrasing conclusions? I think what was stated was not proving someone GUILTY is not the same as proving they are innocent..... the law doesn't require proof of innocence, it requires to have NO QUESTION about guilt,,, this ^^ miles...no need to blow my comment out of proportion, this comment is on topic with the post. he is far from innocent in the matter. Wait a minute. This trial has been a lot about how Trayvon was Profiled. Is not Profiling the thought/action someone has or is going to do something wrong? Is not saying someone found not guilty does not mean they are innocent already profiling? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Dodo has it right. They will try to get Z on a civil rights charge. It's called the "race card".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Dodo has it right. They will try to get Z on a civil rights charge. It's called the "race card". Master Z is more minority than dead thug. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jury is about six people voting until they are all swayed to one side or another, its not required that it start that way, and its not hard for six tired people to influence each other to one side or another
the 'police' didn't find him credible, some of the police witness said they did, I remember very specifically at least ONE who thought he should be charged,,, treyvons mo involved using weed, which has nothing to do with looking for fights, quite the opposite in my experience,,lol that he lives in a rough area where he defends himself isn't proof of him instigating fights either common sense tells me someone 'itching to fight' would not be asking the person on the phone if he was missing the game and going out of their way to avoid a person following them its smart to fight for your life if someone is stalking and then attempts to accost you,, yes,, actually I can pull up any number of articles about what to do when being followed which would back that up,,,, its also smart, if you cant fight your way out of a paperbag, and wish to stalk someone, to have a gun on you in case things turn on you,,,, and seriously? martin had a cellular telephone. he could have called for help. he could have yielded to zimmerman. he could have been passive and not fought no matter what zimmerman said or did. he could have out run zimmerman. he could have knocked on someone's door. there are plenty of could have's there martin wasn't a police golden boy or a judges son,, what reasonable expectation would he have had that the EMERGENCY number would respond to you saying someone was following you? they haven't committed any 'crime' at that point.... why should anyone have to 'yield' to a stalker that they are going out of their way to avoid....how does that person know if their stalker might not be a robber/rapist/murderer? how can you be 'passive' with someone stalking you and trying to accost you? he did try to outrun Zimmerman,,lol and again, what is the likelihood a young black man would believe people would open their door to him if he came knocking,,, black men have been killed doing that very thing because of the residents 'fears' fact is, Martin had every right to fight or flight and stand his ground,, both RIGHTS in that state he first attempted more than once the 'flight' option but his stalker wouldn't give up,, and then his only option was the 'fight' when his stalker tried to detain him with no explanation and with potentially 'life threatening' gestures,,,, Im aware the trial is done, im not 'acting' any kind of way, IM stating my opinion about it in an opinion forum,, and yes, I agree ,the judicial system like ANYTHING that involves humans,, does have the capacity to and has in many instances FAILED. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still in shock over the verdict. I think he was guilty because: He disobeyed civil authorities who told him to stay in his car twice, and to not follow the suspect. If he would have obeyed, things would be different. So he caused it to me. Besides, I said so! i agree hippie. zimmerman created the situation. sad day. but i do believe, while the jury could not hand down a guilty verdict under the legal definition, this is not the same as finding him innocent. i imagine when the jurors finally speak, this will be a strong under tone. i hope zimmerman lives a long pitiful life being constantly reminded about what he did. karma. So we have to prove ourselves innocent? So everyone who is arrested is guilty until they prove themselves innocent? Isn't that what Racial Profiling is saying? You may be guilty your not innocent? Which is it? seriously,, where do people get these paraphrasing conclusions? I think what was stated was not proving someone GUILTY is not the same as proving they are innocent..... the law doesn't require proof of innocence, it requires to have NO QUESTION about guilt,,, this ^^ miles...no need to blow my comment out of proportion, this comment is on topic with the post. he is far from innocent in the matter. Wait a minute. This trial has been a lot about how Trayvon was Profiled. Is not Profiling the thought/action someone has or is going to do something wrong? Is not saying someone found not guilty does not mean they are innocent already profiling? ummm,, no profiling: the act of suspecting or targeting a person on the basis of observed characteristics or behavior < saying someone found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, involves no observation of anyones characteristics or behaviors its an accurate explanation of what 'legal' definitions are as they relate to whether a person has actually done or not done something,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Dodo has it right. They will try to get Z on a civil rights charge. It's called the "race card". no , its called seeking some legal culpability for a persons death just like the Browns did,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O.J. Simpson and George Zimmerman - now two peas in a pod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jury is about six people voting until they are all swayed to one side or another, its not required that it start that way, and its not hard for six tired people to influence each other to one side or another
so you believe that people would take that duty lightly enough to just agree with everyone else so they can all go home the 'police' didn't find him credible, some of the police witness said they did, I remember very specifically at least ONE who thought he should be charged,,, if the police didn't believe him, he would have been detained treyvons mo involved using weed, which has nothing to do with looking for fights, quite the opposite in my experience,,lol drug use alters the mind, no matter how much tolerance you may think you have that he lives in a rough area where he defends himself isn't proof of him instigating fights either the fact that he is willing to fight is proof. if you could have asked mother theresa if she would resort to fisticuffs in any situation... common sense tells me someone 'itching to fight' would not be asking the person on the phone if he was missing the game and going out of their way to avoid a person following them persons itching to fight don't take the time to target a specific person its smart to fight for your life if someone is stalking and then attempts to accost you,, yes,, actually I can pull up any number of articles about what to do when being followed which would back that up,,,, it's smarter to use your head instead of your fists its also smart, if you cant fight your way out of a paperbag, and wish to stalk someone, to have a gun on you in case things turn on you,,,, so zimmerman couldn't fight his way out of a paperbag, but he was a big enough threat to martin? and seriously? martin had a cellular telephone. he could have called for help. he could have yielded to zimmerman. he could have been passive and not fought no matter what zimmerman said or did. he could have out run zimmerman. he could have knocked on someone's door. there are plenty of could have's there martin wasn't a police golden boy or a judges son,, what reasonable expectation would he have had that the EMERGENCY number would respond to you saying someone was following you? they haven't committed any 'crime' at that point.... i'm sure operators can tell by your voice your social status and decide how much help you merit why should anyone have to 'yield' to a stalker that they are going out of their way to avoid....how does that person know if their stalker might not be a robber/rapist/murderer? exactly, you don't know what the other person is capable of or willing to do. you shouldn't have to yield to anyone as we are all equal, but sometimes discretion is the better part of valor how can you be 'passive' with someone stalking you and trying to accost you? by not punching them. by trying to reason with them. your tone of voice, choice of vocabulary, body language... he did try to outrun Zimmerman,,lol didn't he lose zimmerman at one point? and again, what is the likelihood a young black man would believe people would open their door to him if he came knocking,,, black men have been killed doing that very thing because of the residents 'fears' why the stereotype? why not put faith in people to do the right thing? i guess it's easier to assume you won't get help so fisticuffs it is fact is, Martin had every right to fight or flight and stand his ground,, both RIGHTS in that state again, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor he first attempted more than once the 'flight' option but his stalker wouldn't give up,, and then his only option was the 'fight' when his stalker tried to detain him with no explanation and with potentially 'life threatening' gestures,,,, girl, he had options. he chose to fight. why not just let zimmerman detain him until the police arrived? Im aware the trial is done, im not 'acting' any kind of way, IM stating my opinion about it in an opinion forum,, and yes, I agree ,the judicial system like ANYTHING that involves humans,, does have the capacity to and has in many instances FAILED. you are wishing bad karma on a total stranger. shouldn't we all be merciful even to those who may not deserve mercy? shouldn't we look for the good in everyone? has everyone used up their seventy times seven chances? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jury is about six people voting until they are all swayed to one side or another, its not required that it start that way, and its not hard for six tired people to influence each other to one side or another the 'police' didn't find him credible, some of the police witness said they did, I remember very specifically at least ONE who thought he should be charged,,, treyvons mo involved using weed, which has nothing to do with looking for fights, quite the opposite in my experience,,lol that he lives in a rough area where he defends himself isn't proof of him instigating fights either common sense tells me someone 'itching to fight' would not be asking the person on the phone if he was missing the game and going out of their way to avoid a person following them its smart to fight for your life if someone is stalking and then attempts to accost you,, yes,, actually I can pull up any number of articles about what to do when being followed which would back that up,,,, its also smart, if you cant fight your way out of a paperbag, and wish to stalk someone, to have a gun on you in case things turn on you,,,, and seriously? martin had a cellular telephone. he could have called for help. he could have yielded to zimmerman. he could have been passive and not fought no matter what zimmerman said or did. he could have out run zimmerman. he could have knocked on someone's door. there are plenty of could have's there martin wasn't a police golden boy or a judges son,, what reasonable expectation would he have had that the EMERGENCY number would respond to you saying someone was following you? they haven't committed any 'crime' at that point.... why should anyone have to 'yield' to a stalker that they are going out of their way to avoid....how does that person know if their stalker might not be a robber/rapist/murderer? how can you be 'passive' with someone stalking you and trying to accost you? he did try to outrun Zimmerman,,lol and again, what is the likelihood a young black man would believe people would open their door to him if he came knocking,,, black men have been killed doing that very thing because of the residents 'fears' fact is, Martin had every right to fight or flight and stand his ground,, both RIGHTS in that state he first attempted more than once the 'flight' option but his stalker wouldn't give up,, and then his only option was the 'fight' when his stalker tried to detain him with no explanation and with potentially 'life threatening' gestures,,,, Im aware the trial is done, im not 'acting' any kind of way, IM stating my opinion about it in an opinion forum,, and yes, I agree ,the judicial system like ANYTHING that involves humans,, does have the capacity to and has in many instances FAILED. I can tell you as a Male. That if I am being followed and was concerned for my safety. I would find a way to get away. I would make sure I went to where the area is lit. I would not turn around and say anything on the phone or to the person that might piss them off. Getting into a fight I would already have in my mind if I am going to do something I will strike 1st. Surprise is the name of the game when it comes to a street fight. Also I would plan on hurting the guy following me. Because I need to get the upper hand I have no idea what this person following me is capable of. Teenagers who are involved in sports are big I can compete with anyone. A 17 yo kid can be very strong and very fast. Both of them sounds to me had a chip on their shoulder. Zimmerman tired of living in a neighborhood where crimes were being committed by people coming into the neighborhood and wants justice. Yes he should of followed the police instructions. Neighborhood watches need new laws about this. Zimmerman was frustrated. we know that. that led to tragedy. Trayvon could of took off running. He knew he was being followed and talked about it on the phone. Called him a cracker whether to him or on the phone. either way could of been heard by Zimmerman. Then who got beat up? I do not believe Zimmerman hit himself in the nose. Yet if you decide u r not running u r going to stand and fight. You would try and hurt the person following you as hard as you could. and you would not stop. until he got stopped. Bad decisions on both sides. Bad decision. But who really caused physical harm 1st? Trayvon did not know Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman did not know whether Trayvon had a gun. All these people coming on TV and saying he killed an unarmed teenager likes to play on emotions.. when actually they are the ones causing divisions by saying such things. Niether one knew the other. Niether one new each others age. You think about it. If you seen someone on your property at night(u know what I mean) and u go say whatever to find out. Then the next thing you know is you have a busted nose and fighting for your life u will do whatever u can to make it stop. The country is being played. It is about causing more division not bringing everyone together. The jury found the Stanford Police Dept. and Prosecuter were right in their initial findings. No reason for a charge. The Govt. runs all over them. The Mayor goes against police procedures of evidence. Who really is behind this Division of We The People? This was no doubt a POLITICAL Camp. to cause division. Why? I have lost respect for Jesse Jackson. for one. He is part of the problem |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still in shock over the verdict. I think he was guilty because: He disobeyed civil authorities who told him to stay in his car twice, and to not follow the suspect. If he would have obeyed, things would be different. So he caused it to me. Besides, I said so! i agree hippie. zimmerman created the situation. sad day. but i do believe, while the jury could not hand down a guilty verdict under the legal definition, this is not the same as finding him innocent. i imagine when the jurors finally speak, this will be a strong under tone. i hope zimmerman lives a long pitiful life being constantly reminded about what he did. karma. So we have to prove ourselves innocent? So everyone who is arrested is guilty until they prove themselves innocent? Isn't that what Racial Profiling is saying? You may be guilty your not innocent? Which is it? seriously,, where do people get these paraphrasing conclusions? I think what was stated was not proving someone GUILTY is not the same as proving they are innocent..... the law doesn't require proof of innocence, it requires to have NO QUESTION about guilt,,, this ^^ miles...no need to blow my comment out of proportion, this comment is on topic with the post. he is far from innocent in the matter. Wait a minute. This trial has been a lot about how Trayvon was Profiled. Is not Profiling the thought/action someone has or is going to do something wrong? Is not saying someone found not guilty does not mean they are innocent already profiling? ummm,, no profiling: the act of suspecting or targeting a person on the basis of observed characteristics or behavior < saying someone found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, involves no observation of anyones characteristics or behaviors its an accurate explanation of what 'legal' definitions are as they relate to whether a person has actually done or not done something,,,, So Innocent until proven guilty means nothing? wow You love to spin things.. this is why we have so many problems. I will say 1 thing Black people when it comes to the race card they stick together no matter what. If whites did that. what would happen? So we are innocent until proven guilty. But when found not guilty well u r not really innocent. I want what I want when I want it!! So seeing a Black person in my white neighborhood they are guilty of something or they would not be here. Right. That's my white Neighborhood right. I mean he is not really innocent. Because I said SOOOOOOO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel for Trayvon's parents, but it has come to light that they let him run around like an animal and this is the outcome of it. Tonight, Obama weeps. haaa,, and what did zimmermans parents 'let' him do? molest a relative, assault a cop, assault a girlfriend, assault a store patron,,,lol and what were ts parents 'letting' him do the night he got killed, go buy skittles and spend time with his little brother yeah, so right, this was the outcome of the parents negligence in raising this boy,,,, ,,,,give me a break,,, The jurors heard all of the evidence presented in the case not you. The jurors had to make a decision based on the evidence presented in this case not you. The burden of proof was on the prosecution and they couldn't prove their case so based on this I feel the jury made the correct decision. In regards to them understanding or not understanding the manslaughter charge, it is highly possible they were asking for verification of the law to make sure this case didn't require a manslaughter verdict. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I said before, regardless of the jury's decision, George Zimmerman has been punished for his action, and he will continue to experience some kind of punishment, even if he doesn't experience any more negative legal consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O.J. Simpson and George Zimmerman - now two peas in a pod. Except, OJ wasn't attacked by Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. Zimmerman was attacked by Martin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teenage dead thug couldn't outrun a fat, short Puertorican?
He wanted a fight. Not guilty. Show is over. Tell Shabitch and Sharple to quit dey agitating. Now Shabitch needs to Shet-da-fck up or, be the example and go out and waste him some white folk. Show folk he more than just lip and hot air. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What actually happened. Clear and concise. The media would never show this.
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEpCnpnHODI Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxmO9hXHC_o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still in shock over the verdict. I think he was guilty because: He disobeyed civil authorities who told him to stay in his car twice, and to not follow the suspect. If he would have obeyed, things would be different. So he caused it to me. Besides, I said so! lol yeah, but what we say don't matter if we aren't the jurors but, there is still a civil case to be filed, ,, karma works things out,,,,one way or another, he isn't going to escape accountability for that boys death True..... 
|
|
|
|
|
