RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (Full Version)

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



Message

Marc2b -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 12:51:13 PM)

I don't know any of the principles involved, I was not present at the incident, I am not trained in Florida law and have not been present at the trial... so any answer I give is speculative. Bearing that in mind, based upon what I have heard:

Manslaughter would seem to me to be the appropriate charge for Zimmermin to be convicted of. Trayvon may well have attacked Zimmerman but he did so because Zimmerman created the situation. Trayvon found himself in a "fight or flight" moment and apparently chose fight... but he would not have had to make such a choice if Zimmerman hadn't been following him and putting him (Trayvon) in fear of his life.



tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 12:52:12 PM)

quote:

Everyone except me apparently. ;)


You were already caught... selectively listening [;)]



tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 12:53:50 PM)

quote:

Manslaughter would seem to me to be the appropriate charge for Zimmermin to be convicted of. Trayvon may well have attacked Zimmerman but he did so because Zimmerman created the situation. Trayvon found himself in a "fight or flight" moment and apparently chose fight... but he would not have had to make such a choice if Zimmerman hadn't been following him and putting him (Trayvon) in fear of his life.


[sm=agree.gif]



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 12:54:16 PM)

Florida law is such that if you were in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury, that lethal force is justified, and therefore are not guilty of manslaughter.



DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:02:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Florida law is such that if you were in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury, that lethal force is justified, and therefore are not guilty of manslaughter.

Not exactly. The standard is would a reasonable man fear imminent death or great bodily harm in that circumstance. You could be a coward or a hot head or any number of other things that made the action reasonable in your mind but it still would not be legal.

If Zimmerman is convicted it will be because the jurors find shooting someone because you lost a fistfight unreasonable.



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:05:47 PM)

Which is why I used the phrase "reasonable fear". You said the same thing but in different words.

The question will boil down to...would a man pinned to the ground taking multiple head injuries reasonably fear imminent death or great bodily injury.



tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:06:38 PM)

It hasnt been proven he took "multiple head injuries"



Marc2b -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:11:00 PM)

quote:

Florida law is such that if you were in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury, that lethal force is justified, and therefore are not guilty of manslaughter.


So... if I (were I living in Florida) wanted to get rid of someone (say a business or romantic rival) then all I have to do is provoke him into attacking me? Awesome!

Not really.

For me the bottom line remains: Zimmerman created the situation. Trayvon would not have felt a need to attack if Zimmerman had done what the police had told him and not followed him... or better yet, had not jumped to the racist conclusion that a young black man walking alone at night must be up to no good in the first place.



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:16:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Florida law is such that if you were in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury, that lethal force is justified, and therefore are not guilty of manslaughter.


So... if I (were I living in Florida) wanted to get rid of someone (say a business or romantic rival) then all I have to do is provoke him into attacking me? Awesome!

Not really.

For me the bottom line remains: Zimmerman created the situation. Trayvon would not have felt a need to attack if Zimmerman had done what the police had told him and not followed him... or better yet, had not jumped to the racist conclusion that a young black man walking alone at night must be up to no good in the first place.


No evidence has yet been presented that George continued to follow after he agreed to stop, or that George legally provoked the situation.

And it's already been testified to in court that George's call to NEN was reasonable.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:19:25 PM)

I wonder whose blood some of our RW folks would be calling for if martin had killed Zim.

Let's see. Armed man gets out of a vehicle and follows unarmed person down a dark alley and the unarmed person (fearing for his life because the guy has a gun) manages to kill him with his hands.

Wanna bet they'd be howling for Martin's blood?



tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:20:10 PM)

Good to know Im not the only one wondering that.



BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:21:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Only if it induced to her to make material changes to her testimony. Did that happen?
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

NOT A RESPONE TO ANYONE

Isn't taking the GF to the Martin home and interviewing her with Mrs. Martin and her lawyer there witness tampering.
I know the GF was pro Martin anyway but didn't that guarantee that she would say what they wanted her to?



Noone knows. Her testimony was totally incoherent.



True



Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:22:55 PM)

I'd argue that it would equally be a tragedy as this case is, and that he would have the same right to a trial as George does, with the same burden of proof on the State.

ETA: It's not a RW issue either. Some of the strongest arguments for George's innocence come from leftists.



BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:25:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

None has been provided to demonstrate that he didn't either. Certainly if there wasn't any fight, shooting the other bloke seems a little excessive, doesn't it?

Tazzy: every cunt else is selectively listening, why shouldn't I?

The state needs proof that he started it and as you say that proof doesn't exist.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:29:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

None has been provided to demonstrate that he didn't either. Certainly if there wasn't any fight, shooting the other bloke seems a little excessive, doesn't it?

Tazzy: every cunt else is selectively listening, why shouldn't I?

The state needs proof that he started it and as you say that proof doesn't exist.

That's why the smart money says he walks.



BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:31:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I wonder whose blood some of our RW folks would be calling for if martin had killed Zim.

Let's see. Armed man gets out of a vehicle and follows unarmed person down a dark alley and the unarmed person (fearing for his life because the guy has a gun) manages to kill him with his hands.

Wanna bet they'd be howling for Martin's blood?

I have repeatedly stated that I believe it is entirely possible that both thought they were defending themselves and that had the police arrived in time to arrest Martin for assault (or if Zimmerman's head had hit harder) I would be calling for Martins innocence.



RacerJim -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:46:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

I don't know any of the principles involved, I was not present at the incident, I am not trained in Florida law and have not been present at the trial... so any answer I give is speculative. Bearing that in mind, based upon what I have heard:

Manslaughter would seem to me to be the appropriate charge for Zimmermin to be convicted of. Trayvon may well have attacked Zimmerman but he did so because Zimmerman created the situation. Trayvon found himself in a "fight or flight" moment and apparently chose fight... but he would not have had to make such a choice if Zimmerman hadn't been following him and putting him (Trayvon) in fear of his life.

Your answer is based upon your speculative and, moreover, false premise that Zimmerman created the situation...that he put Martin in a "fight or flight" moment and chose to fight. The fact of the matter is that according to Zimmerman's call to 911 AND Martin's call to his 'girlfriend', Zimmerman lost sight of Martin when Martin turned right (near the "T") and ran South towards his father's girlfriend's townhouse where he was staying. Having lost sight of Martin, Zimmerman continued walking straight (East) until he came to the end of the walkway, at which point he called police and told them he was walking back to his truck. At about the same time, Martin was telling his 'girlfriend' that he was almost home -- 400 feet South of the "T". When Zimmerman was walking back towards his truck (to meet the police) and got to the "T" Martin appeared out of nowhere where he confronted Zimmerman with "Why are you following me?". However, the fact of the matter is that after Martin had "lost" Zimmerman he ran/walked almost 400 feet South of the "T" to where he was staying but rather than go inside, shut and lock the door, and call the police he chose to back-track almost 400 feet to the "T" where he then confronted Zimmerman, sucker punched him knocking him to the ground, straddled him, pummeled his face, slammed his head against the concrete walkway and put Zimmerman in fear of serious bodily injury or death.



RacerJim -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:53:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Manslaughter would seem to me to be the appropriate charge for Zimmermin to be convicted of. Trayvon may well have attacked Zimmerman but he did so because Zimmerman created the situation. Trayvon found himself in a "fight or flight" moment and apparently chose fight... but he would not have had to make such a choice if Zimmerman hadn't been following him and putting him (Trayvon) in fear of his life.


[sm=agree.gif]

I disagree.



Marc2b -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 1:57:43 PM)

quote:

No evidence has yet been presented that George continued to follow after he agreed to stop, or that George legally provoked the situation.


Listen to the 911 call Zimmerman made to the police. At one point he says that Trayvon is looking at him and is "coming to check me out." This is not surprising, most people would be curious about someone following them. Zimmerman later says, "shit, he's running" (so, apparently, Trayvon's first choice was flight) just before he admits to following Trayvon and the police tell him not to follow.

Zimmerman then talks to the police about where he will meet them. Since Zimmerman DID NOT say "he's running toward me" (he certainly gave no indication that he felt threatened at that point) then Trayvon was apparently running away.

So, did Trayvon come back? Possible, but that would seem unlikely.

Bottom line remains: Zimmerman created the situation.



RacerJim -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/8/2013 2:01:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Florida law is such that if you were in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury, that lethal force is justified, and therefore are not guilty of manslaughter.

Not exactly. The standard is would a reasonable man fear imminent death or great bodily harm in that circumstance. You could be a coward or a hot head or any number of other things that made the action reasonable in your mind but it still would not be legal.

If Zimmerman is convicted it will be because the jurors find shooting someone because you lost a fistfight unreasonable.

Not exactly? Well then, suppose you tell us exactly when, i.e. after suffering what types and how many bodily injuries, would a reasonable man/woman be entitled to fear imminent great bodily harm or death. Even reasonable men/women have different opinions about that, so it boils down to the specific reasonable man/woman in that circumstance.

If Zimmerman is convicted it will be because the jurors are afraid of causing race riots.



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0703125