RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 4:35:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So? The only detail that matters according to Florida law is did Zimmerman initiate the aggression. If so he has a much higher burden. If not he could have shot Martin as soon as he was in range as long as no one else saw it.

You persist in mischaracterising Florida Law. It does not seem to be what you want it to be. From my post #423 the only thing the jury must decide is how the menace appeared to Zimmerman at the instant he fired the shot, lying on his back being pummled. Otherwise you are just making shit up.

The standard is always the reasonable person standard. The Florida law on self defense says the aggressor has a more stringent requirement before it is legally self defense.

According to several quoted details of a Florida appellate ruling all Zimmerman has to do is claim self defense and unless some evidence contradicts his claim beyond a reasonable doubt he gets away with it.

So what am I mischaracterizing?



DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 4:39:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: LeesaLove

Oi. *facepalm*

I do not believe Zimmerman thought "I need to kill him." before shooting his weapon. I think he panicked and just wanted Martin to back off. That is why I think it should be involuntary manslaughter. Zimmerman, in my belief, did not have a malice thought. I also do not think he deserves 10+ years to life in prison. I do not think he is a menace to society. This is about justice, not revenge. People seem to mistake that, greatly, in our justice system.

The elements don't make for involuntary manslaughter.

Taking the prosecutions allegations as fact
1) Zimmerman was carrying a loaded weapon when he began pursuing Martin and continued to do so after the police operator told him not to
2) He then confronted Martin and a fight ensued
3) during the fight he pulled his firearm and shot Martin

1 and 2 make it reckless disregard
3 makes it homicide
together that makes it murder 2.

Involuntary would be something where you do something dangerous but not inherently lethal to someone and they die.


In Florida, you have to add 'Ill will, hatred, or spite' to that for it to be murder 2. What you describe is manslaughter.


No you don't
quote:

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

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 4:40:51 PM)

In Florida, a depraved mind = Ill will, hatred, or spite.



Owner59 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 5:09:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LeesaLove

Oi. *facepalm*

I do not believe Zimmerman thought "I need to kill him." before shooting his weapon. I think he panicked and just wanted Martin to back off. That is why I think it should be involuntary manslaughter. Zimmerman, in my belief, did not have a malice thought. I also do not think he deserves 10+ years to life in prison. I do not think he is a menace to society. This is about justice, not revenge. People seem to mistake that, greatly, in our justice system.


Very well said and how most reasonable feel.



Politesub53 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 5:23:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

In Florida, a depraved mind = Ill will, hatred, or spite.


Are you suggesting Zimmerman had no ill will ? If so, thats laughable.



DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 5:23:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

In Florida, a depraved mind = Ill will, hatred, or spite.

I cannot find such a definition In any Florida statute. If you don't have one I'll stick to the common law meaning which is substantially less specific.



tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 5:34:23 PM)

Murder with a Depraved Mind

Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.

The primary distinction between Premeditated First Degree Murder and Second Degree Murder with a Depraved Mind is that First Degree Murder requires a specific and premeditated intent to kill.

http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/homicide/second-degree-murder.html#Depraved-Mind



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 5:40:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

In Florida, a depraved mind = Ill will, hatred, or spite.

I cannot find such a definition In any Florida statute. If you don't have one I'll stick to the common law meaning which is substantially less specific.


It is defined in the jury instructions.

Here is also a Florida Supreme Court case about an overturned murder 2 conviction for failure to prove Ill will, hatred or spite.

www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/74532/op-74532.pdf



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 5:48:29 PM)

Or here:

www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter7/p2c7s7.4.rtf



tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 5:49:07 PM)

To prove second degree murder, a prosecutor must show that the defendant acted according to a "depraved mind" without regard for human life. Florida state laws permit the prosecution of second degree murder when the killing lacked premeditation or planning, but the defendant acted with enmity toward the victim or the two had an ongoing interaction or relationship. Unlike first degree murder, second degree murder does not necessarily require proof of the defendant's intent to kill.

State law specifically requires a charge of second degree murder if the victim dies during the commission of one of the felony crimes specified by statute. These felonies include burglary, home-invasion robbery, kidnapping, sexual battery, and a number of other offenses. To establish second degree murder, the prosecutor must show that the victim died as a result of an act committed by a non-participant in the felony. If the defendant or another criminal participant in the felony caused the unlawful killing, state law requires a charge of first degree murder rather than second degree murder. Florida uses this law to deter and punish unintended deaths as a result of felonious activities.

Defenses to Second Degree Murder Charges
Justifiable use of deadly force to defend against a felony committed against a person or property
Excusable homicide committed by accident
Spontaneous or negligent killing that might qualify as manslaughter instead of murder
Penalties and Sentences
A second degree murder prosecuted as a first degree felony may result in a sentence of imprisonment for a term lasting up to thirty years. Florida laws also permit the state to request a term of life imprisonment. If the defendant has a prior record of felony convictions or has committed other homicides, the state may request an increased sentence of imprisonment for life.

Florida Second Degree Murder Statute
Florida Statutes Sections 782.02-782.36

- See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-second-degree-murder-laws.html#sthash.t9SePXh6.dpuf



Owner59 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 5:50:15 PM)

There is also a pernicious myth being repeated by the zim-fan-bubble(mostly due to lack of oxygen and logic) that beyond a reasonable doubt means beyond any doubt at all.


The boy is dead and George is the killer. Zero doubt there.


To claim that George prowling in Martin`s backyard armed, was attacked without provocation, after committing several provocative acts and with a history of looking for trouble(the prior calls to police by George that are now in evidence against him) is just not reasonable......


Reasonable people aren`t going to believe that is was proper for George to be in Martin`s back yard with a gun.Kust as they wouldn`t want a stranger in their backyards at night.


It`s very reasonable to believe Martin thought he was protecting himself and his family from some creep following him in his own back yard......his "ground" as some have put it.


It`s very reasonable to believe George got his ass kicked trying to detain the boy, I know I would break the break the elbow of anyone trying to detain me who wasn`t an LEO . One or both of us is going to the ER.


It`s also very reasonable to think George would make up a story/lie that helped his case. He has changed his story so many time already.


If he admitted to trying to do good but fucked up, that would be believable and reasonable.


But killing the boy and then trying to put the responsibility on Martin,for killing him in his own back yard is not reasonable.



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 5:53:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

There is also a pernitious myth being repeated by the zim-fan-bubble(mostly due to lack of oxygen and logic) that beyond a reasonable doubt means beyond any doubt at all.


The boy is dead and George is the killer. Zero doubt there.

.....


Reasonable people aren`t going to believe that is was proper for George to be in Martin`s back yard with a gun.



But killing the boy and then trying to put the responsibility on Martin,for killing him in his own back yard is not reasonable.


They were about 125 yard from Trayvon's back yard.



Politesub53 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 5:57:52 PM)

I wonder what the "beyond reasonable doubt" crowd would be saying if Martin, being where he legally had a right to be, had shot Zimmerman and claimed the same defence.



Owner59 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 5:58:02 PM)

Get out of the bubble



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 5:59:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I wonder what the "beyond reasonable doubt" crowd would be saying if Martin, being where he legally had a right to be, had shot Zimmerman and claimed the same defence.


Given the same evidence but in Martin's favor, it would be a clear cut acquittal as well.



Politesub53 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 6:01:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I wonder what the "beyond reasonable doubt" crowd would be saying if Martin, being where he legally had a right to be, had shot Zimmerman and claimed the same defence.


Given the same evidence but in Martin's favor, it would be a clear cut acquittal as well.


You are now getting it, Martin had every right to defend himself from an unknown stranger.



Owner59 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 6:04:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I wonder what the "beyond reasonable doubt" crowd would be saying if Martin, being where he legally had a right to be, had shot Zimmerman and claimed the same defence.


Given the same evidence but in Martin's favor, it would be a clear cut acquittal as well.


You are now getting it, Martin had every right to defend himself from an unknown stranger.





[sm=anger.gif]



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 6:06:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I wonder what the "beyond reasonable doubt" crowd would be saying if Martin, being where he legally had a right to be, had shot Zimmerman and claimed the same defence.


Given the same evidence but in Martin's favor, it would be a clear cut acquittal as well.


You are now getting it, Martin had every right to defend himself from an unknown stranger.



George is the one on trial. What is relevant is if George was right to defend himself from someone causing multiple head injuries against the pavement.

The law and evidence overwhelmingly point to 'yes'.



jlf1961 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 6:06:41 PM)

First of all, Trayvon confronted Zimmerman, at least by the account of the one surviving witness who was there when it happened. Unfortunately, there is no way to ask the other witness of the incident with first hand knowledge, since of course, he is deceased.

Then there was the girl who was talking to Trayvon on the phone during the fight when the shot was fired. I think someone should introduce the cell phone records for Trayvon's phone, because the only way he could have been talking on the phone while doing the ground and pound thing would have been if he had a blue tooth or some other hands free device, other wise he only had one hand free.

Anyone else catch this?

Someone is not being entirely truthful.

If he did not have a blue tooth or hands free, then how in the hell did he get zimmerman down on the ground in the first place? What did he do, put the phone on speaker and set it on the ground before starting the fight?

I want to see someone demonstrate how he got zimmerman down on the ground with one hand and successfully pound him one handed without zimmerman being able to kick or hit him hard enough to knock him off.



Politesub53 -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/29/2013 6:07:44 PM)

Yes but the poor lad had no trial............



Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625