RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option

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

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

Message

Arturas -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 9:11:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Marc look at all the if's in your statement above. Is it the right thing to do to convict someone on if's? People want to divide this tragedy into people against Zimmerman's actions or for them where it should be is there reasonable doubt. Personally I do blame Zimmerman for what happened but I cannot say beyond a shadow of doubt that his version is not the truth. Even if he is telling the truth it is still wrong what he did but not against the law at that time. As bad as I feel for the parents of that young man and their desire for justice I believe true justice will find Zimmerman not guilty by reasonable doubt. Butch I already stated that I don't think Zimmerman should be convicted of murder... but he created the situation and that, at least, should be considered manslaughter. No. Where do you get that? "Not one shred of evidence to support that, just conjecture and guessing". Looks like NOT. Looks at least as likely that Martin had three minutes to go home, get indoors and leave George walking alone in the dark, but instead circled back and assaulted George. The defense made a good case that Martin, if he had been shot in the leg and not died, would have been charged with assault, perhaps two counts at least. Nicely done by the Defense and I believe they have proven George's innocence, especially when we know Martin had three minutes to run home and he only needed one.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 9:18:27 AM)
That's got to be on of the saddest evasions I've seen quite a while. I said in the US military and law enforcement. The words you posted and put in quotes are a deliberate forgery and you know it. The question was what city and state level law enforcement agencies have 'US' (i.e. feds) in their official designation. Your answer that all of them are feds because they are 'in' the US pretty much says it all. Your work is done here. quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Yeah.. get back to me when you find any city or state law enforcement agency with 'US' meaning United States, in their official designation. quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 One more time, the question addressed to me on that specific topic, was what I weighed when I was Zimmerman's age. At that age ( 20s - 30s) I was in the US military and then the federal law enforcement that I had previously mentioned, and yes, we had H/W standards that were similar to each other. If I had meant local, I would have said local. I didn't say local, so pull your head out of your assumptions, while trying to tap dance your way out of being wrong. So you said "in the united states" when you meant "Federal". Again. Learn basic writing skills, and quit whining when you get called on the lack of the ability to communicate clearly. You said "IN THE UNITED STATES" Are you going to claim that local LEO is not "IN THE UNITED STATES"? I'm going to let you in on a deep dark seekrit. If you don't write clearly and fail to communicate as a result, don't blame those who don't get your poorly written message for the fact that they read and write English at above a 6th grade level and expect the same.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 9:25:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 That's got to be on of the saddest evasions I've seen quite a while. I said in the US military and law enforcement. The words you posted and put in quotes are a deliberate forgery and you know it. The question was what city and state level law enforcement agencies have 'US' (i.e. feds) in their official designation. Your answer that all of them are feds because they are 'in' the US pretty much says it all. Your work is done here. Your additional question/clarification is something called "Moving the goal posts". This is a written medium. Those who don't write clearly don't do particularly well. Remember the rule of P's which I would hope you were taught somewhere along the line.. Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. It's just as appropriate to writing a paragraph for publication as it is for running a business. ETA, as long as there are semi literate posters on this forum, My work is far from done here.[:D]

Arturas -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 9:32:47 AM)
FR "Really"? "Seriously"?

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 9:46:02 AM)
Back on topic, I see no problem with the jury getting an option for manslaughter. I would hate for them to use it to avoid making any difficult decisions, but it they truly believe that the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt, but didn't prove the elements of Murder2, it should be there. Whether the prosecution proved much of anything beyond a reasonable doubt, is of course, the bigger question. quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Marini quote: What I find lacking, again and again, among the "Zimmerman did nothing wrong" crowd, is any empathy whatsoever for the victim, and the circumstances he found himself in, prior to jumping the creepy ass cracker who was stalking him. There doesn't seem to be any comprehension that this young man had every right to wander around, and take his time getting back from the store, and that in a "stand your ground" culture he should not have been expected to just run home when some pervert kept staring at him. We will hear that Zimmerman was neighborhood watch, to justify the stalking, but few acknowledgements that neighborhood watch are not supposed to be armed in the first place. I don't think either of the players that night were perfect little angels, or despicable demons. Bad shit happened that night, and bad choices Zimmerman made led to it. Manslaughter/negligent homicide seems to me to most appropriate charge in the case, and I think that option should be there for the jury. Great post Rich. Funny how the Zimmerman "supporters" don't bother to chat about how confrontational Zimmerman was that evening. Would Zimmerman have been doing his "neighborhood watch" following and chasing people unarmed? If I decide to go out and follow random people, to "protect my neighborhood" and I have a weapon on me, it appears pre-meditated to me. Speaking only for myself, thats because the the topic of this thread is whether the jury should have the optiion of considering manslaughter. "should" is a question of logic or fact. Discussions of "do you feel sorry for travon" belong in a different thread. But even here, I have said that I am sorry that Travon died. I am sorry that he made poor choices. It would have been smarter for zimmerman to be deferntial. But thats not the question asked. Should the jury have the right to consider manslaughter? Then, it devolved into - is zimmerman innocent or guilty of the crime. Where do you attribute guilt? I don't find the case against Z overcomes the legal defense of self defense. Do I wish that T had grown up, had a productive life. Yes. Is it a shame - yes. Am I sorry for his mom - heartbroken. It is a tragedy. And I wish that on no one. But ask that question - and you'll get that answer = )

mnottertail -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 9:54:41 AM)
What more can be said? The instructions are there. Everyone has pretty much said yes or no they should or shouldn't be there. Uh, what else is there to say that is not thread drift?

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 9:59:24 AM)
Back on topic, I see no problem with the jury getting an option for manslaughter. I would hate for them to use it to avoid making any difficult decisions, but it they truly believe that the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt, but didn't prove the elements of Murder2, it should be there. Whether the prosecution proved much of anything beyond a reasonable doubt, is of course, the bigger question. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail What more can be said? The instructions are there. Everyone has pretty much said yes or no they should or shouldn't be there. Uh, what else is there to say that is not thread drift?

mnottertail -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 10:07:18 AM)
I don't see how the avoidance of difficult decisions come into play. Both carry the same penalty, ultimately.If found guilty it will be a deciding which is more in line with how they viewed the evidence. Or they will find him not guilty and that will be that.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 10:33:18 AM)
Jurors aren't the rational peers we would like to think they are. William Kennedy Smith ring a bell? One of the jurors went on TV later and said that she voted to acquit because 'He was too good looking to have to rape girls'. Lovely clothes, jewelry, blue rinse and Hyannisport accent she had, too. Case in Memphis a while back where a man walked into an attorney's office and shot him dead in front of witnesses over anger at a divorce case, IIRC. Not guilty. First Menendez brother's trial.... With a freely given and stipulated to confession, and nothing even resembling a defense,.. hung jury. So the potential for jury nullification is always there. And offering a choice of verdicts just might tempt some folks to send a person to jail even though they think the prosecution failed to prove its case, as a 'compromise'. 'There is a victim, someone must pay' I believe it was put earlier... quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I don't see how the avoidance of difficult decisions come into play. Both carry the same penalty, ultimately.If found guilty it will be a deciding which is more in line with how they viewed the evidence. Or they will find him not guilty and that will be that.

mnottertail -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 10:36:47 AM)
Oh, yeah, yeah, no disagreement there, but it is hardly avoiding difficulties. It is how humans operate. Motivations are their own kettle of fish.

Phydeaux -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 11:14:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And we are unsure if he started a fistfight, there is no evidence for that. However, George has been given one life, and it is worth about as much as asswipe used on both sides, regardless of the verdict. That there is no evidence that George started a fistfight and, moreover, lots of evidence that George acted in self-defense, is why the Sheriff and local D.A. refused to file any charges against George -- for which they were both fired, a special prosecutor assigned, and charges filed due to pressure from race-baiting activists and political connections all the way up to Eric Holder and Barack Obama. Sorry Mnotter - simply not true. The expert testimony was that it was likely that travon initiated the arm's length contact AND initiated the first fight. Go watch the court testimony. Sorry Phydeaux - simply not true. paid expert testimony is just that, shitlicking for dollars. Expert testimony is as imaginative as inexpert testimony. It is reasonable and possible (not factual) hallucination. However, as much as you obviously don't like it, by the weight of law it is EVIDENCE. It says so right in the jury instructions for crying out loud.

mnottertail -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 11:20:16 AM)
yeah, and balanced against other evidence to the contrary. So?

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 11:25:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: It negates everything you have said. No it does not. If Trayvon attacked first (a very big if) it is because Zimmerman's following him made him afraid. Everything starts with Zimmerman seeing a black kid walk down the street and thinking, "uh oh." Martin attacking first makes it self defense, no matter what delusion was going on in his mind.

mnottertail -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 11:27:05 AM)
Martin attacking first makes it self defense, no matter what delusion was going on in his mind. ................................ Uh, no.

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 11:27:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: No for thinking he can beat them up for being a cracker There is no evidence that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman for being a "cracker" (Trayvon was the one walking home, remember). Circumstances suggest that if Trayvon attacked first (another mighty big if), it is because he was afraid. There was this guy following him, you see. As I already explained to someone else I was merely highlighting the absurdity of your position.

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 11:29:42 AM)
On what basis do you presume that whites are any more or less peaceful that any other so called racial group? Again you miss the point I said that it was as reasonable as your conclusion, in other words not.

Phydeaux -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 11:32:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Well no, it's you who says that your argument isn't absurd. People have different perceptions, and to some it looks not only absurd but completely out of touch with reality. Granted you may hold a similar view of their position, but that does not empower you to declare yours correct by fiat. And for you to think otherwise contradicts your claim to having the correct perception of reality. People have different perceptions but that doesn't mean their perceptions are accurate or hold equal weight with others. You'd understand that if you perceived things correctly. [:)] Seriously, race has no bearing on whether Trayvon would have been more likely or less likely to attack a creepy guy following him. Opinion stated with no facts in evidence. I dispute very much that that is true. If T had been white or Z black I doubt very much that this occurs. quote: People often attack perceived threats. That is a normal human reaction. On the other hand, race my well have played a role in Zimmerman's decision to follow Trayvon. Or Travon's decision to attack Zimmerman quote: I have repeatedly stated that there is no way for me to know this as a fact and that it is a supposition. Correct. Which is why an indication of not quilty is required. quote: But it is a sound supposition based upon human nature and history, particularly American history. It is my opinion and I am sticking with it. And that, for some reason, upsets people because Trayvon did poorly in school and didn't get along with his mother and had the audacity to not be polite to the stranger who was following him and therefore clearly got what was coming for him. But not because he was black. Oh no, never because he was black. Methinks they do protest to much. But that, again, is just my opinion. You twist my words unethically. I acknowledge that racial bias in the court system occurs. And I hate it. But I also know that any time there are two different cultures or races there is the potential for friction. I don't say that our court system is perfect. Its merely the best we know how to do. I am saying clearly and for the record that I would apply the same standard to anyone, of any color that engaged in such poor life choices and how DARE you accuse me of racism. You whip that card out far too easily. quote: Nothing however changes the fact that, whatever his motivations, it was Zimmerman who set in motion the chain of events that led to Trayvon's death. Nor does it change the fact that none of those actions were illegal, and there is therefor no basis to try zimmerman. And the one alleged illegal activity is murder, which has a defense of self-defense. There isn't sufficient evidence to overcome a presumption of innocence; the state didn't prove that a reasonable person in the same circumstance wouldn't have taken the same action. Did the prosecution throw a whole bunch of innuendo and supposition trying to prove z acted with malice. Yes. Might there have been - sure. But did they prove it? Hell no. Thats the burden of proof for the state

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 11:33:14 AM)
I'm not on the jury so I'm not convicting on anything. As for "white guilt," that is nothing more than recognizing reality for what it is. I personally don't feel any guilt for any of the injustices of the past... hell, I wasn't there. I simply recognize that they happened, why they happened, and as a result, society will look upon me, and treat me, more favorably. You want Zimmerman to pay for injustices of the past, and you don't realize it but you are a classic case of white guilt. You don't personally feel guilty but you are basically saying that Martins bad choice in attacking Zimmerman it the fault of white people.

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 11:33:40 AM)
quote: No, but I belive the prosecutor did, so try to stay on topic and not get the thread locked. Like I'm not supposed to pounce on that?

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/12/2013 11:58:11 AM)
As the question in the OP, "Should the jury have a manslaughter option" has been thoroughly answered and is anyways moot, go ahead and start a new thread on a different Zimmerman angle while you are waiting for this one to be cleaned and unlocked. Edited to add - stay tuned for Alpha's new Zimmerman thread. ETA - please take it here: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN

Page: << < prev 37 38 39 40 [41]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02