Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman Discussion Thread...
Options
Comments
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »White people are still mad about O.J. and just can't wait to let George off so they can be even. If George ain't white.
Yeah I have this weird feeling White people are gona let him off, just to get payback for Obama, whose been a disappointing president. But then again, the prosecuter has a great track record so I'm confident she's gona prove Zimmerman guilty
You're reaching too much into it. Juror E-40 and the others aren't trippin off of President or O.J. If Zimmerman beats this case, it's going to be because he was overcharged, which will be very unfortunate because ? are going to do the typical the jury was racist or blame the defense, instead of placing the blame where it lies which is with the D.A.
-
Knock knock
Who's there?
-
I personally believe that Zimmerman was overcharged and he might be acquitted because he didn't commit the crime he was accused off in the indictment. This is Florida's Murder Statue:
The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another andevincing 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. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html
From what little I know of the law, it would seem to me that prosecutors have to prove to the jurors that Zimmerman "clearly had a depraved mind" during this encounter, but the question is exactly when did he develop the "evincing mind." My problem with is that D.A. capitulated to the demands of overly emotional negros and charged this dude with something that they knew damn well that they were going to have a hellva time trying to prove in open court. Does one else think that Zimmerman was overcharged. -
Aft operator told him not to follow and he did anyway he lost stand your ground defense, hes done convicted. Slams for years
-
Trayvons girlfriend is a ? idiot. why lie about not going to the funeral? ?
-
I heard he ask the lawyer, "do you not watch The First 48?"
Silly ? . You know that's TV, right? -
this is my two cents...
was trayvon a thug?? more than likely (irrelevant)
was trayvon getting in his ? in the fight?? more than likely
did zimmerman over step his boundaries?? yes
he should have never gotten out of that car to begin with... and since when does the stand you ground law mean " im gettin skull drug with this ? knuckles, so i pulled the heat and popped him"? thats BS
the best analogy i got for this whole sketchy situation (which is sad the young bull got killed) is basketball..
in basketball when you pump fake a shot and your defender jumps for the block, you can take your shot and let him foul you and draw the foul.. BUT if you INITIATE the original contact its an offensive foul.. zimmerman initiated the confrontation, not the fight. im pretty sure trayvon just stole off on his ass
bottom line is... dont start no ? wont be no ? ... and some young boy had to lose his life for whoopin some fat boy's (in possession of a gun) ass for ? with him.. -
i had a feeling he might get off too. then the defense opened with a knock knock joke...
-
Squidward Tentacles wrote: »i had a feeling he might get off too. then the defense opened with a knock knock joke...
That's what's gonna make the case the Black OJ Simpson trial. We been styling with "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" for like 20 years. When we look back on this trial, it's going to be, "Knock knock..."
Joke is already in that this is 2nd degree murder and not first.
-
2nd degree murder is a stretch. The prosecution basically has to prove that Zimmerman left his car with intention to harm Treyvon. It would have been much easier to present a case on the premise that Zimmerman was an negligent overzealous watch member who intentionally engaged in confrontation with Treyvon which resulted in his death.
-
Maximus Rex wrote: »I personally believe that Zimmerman was overcharged and he might be acquitted because he didn't commit the crime he was accused off in the indictment. This is Florida's Murder Statue:
The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another andevincing 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. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html
From what little I know of the law, it would seem to me that prosecutors have to prove to the jurors that Zimmerman "clearly had a depraved mind" during this encounter, but the question is exactly when did he develop the "evincing mind." My problem with is that D.A. capitulated to the demands of overly emotional negros and charged this dude with something that they knew damn well that they were going to have a hellva time trying to prove in open court. Does one else think that Zimmerman was overcharged.
No.
He should have been charged with murder.
There are plenty of examples of individuals facing charges that are inconsistent with what they've actually done.
In other words, Zimmerman should experience what thousands (of documented) black men faced when they received punishments not consistent with the crime they were charged with (even if/when some of them turned out to actually be innocent).
It's only fair, right? -
Not only did he call 911, in where they gave him the advice to stand down, but he leaves his car with a gun. The kid runs away, and he chases him. At the point where Zimmerman chases a person while armed could possibly be the moment he has a "deprived mind." Cause at that moment he "should have known" his actions could lead to a death.
-
He had a concealled carry license, it isn't strange that he left his car armed. When you punch someone, that could lead to death. Just about anything can lead to death.
-
Finally...somebody gets it.
It's NOT in a murder charge, cause honestly, this ? ain't murder. It never was. It's MANSLAUGHTER. I don't know how many times I've explained this, but the prosecutor's case to prove INTENT, which is the key component to prove murder, was shaky at best from the start. Adding a barely - and rather dissappointing - literate "witness" to help prove this backfired in their face, and the defense crushed her for it. Now, Zimmerman may beat everything now. And you nig-nogs are STILL blindly throwing support behind this incompetence.
I don't get it. I don't. I just think it's hard-wired in our DNA to hopefully follow ? even though you are dead in the wrong. Not me. This sucks if Zimmerman ? around and walks, but the "black mob" forefeited any chance of real justice for that young kid by not THINKING with our brains and only FEELING with our hearts. -
nope. if you want to fix the legal system (and i thought we all did), then we need to fix it, not just start saying we need payback.Zimmerman should experience what thousands (of documented) black men faced when they received punishments not consistent with the crime they were charged with (even if/when some of them turned out to actually be innocent).
It's only fair, right?
he has a carry permit, so this makes absolutely sense. Zimmerman certainly made some poor decisions, but it's not so much about "he had the gun he carries with him."Not only did he call 911, in where they gave him the advice to stand down, but he leaves his car with a gun.
-
he has a carry permit, so this makes absolutely sense. Zimmerman certainly made some poor decisions, but it's not so much about "he had the gun he carries with him."Not only did he call 911, in where they gave him the advice to stand down, but he leaves his car with a gun.
[/quote]
Just because you have the legal right to do something does not mean you aren't liable for any of the actions you take.
much like we have the "right to free speech" but we can't "shout fire in a crowded movie theater" It's not because we can't actually shout "fire" at random times but we should know the chaos/damage that could cause.
It could be argued that Zimmerman should have known that running after a person in the rain at night with a gun that had a bullet in the chamber could lead to a life or death situation.. Thus a depraved mind.
-
"The Trayvon Martin murder case has been anything but an open and shut case but might have just received its most definitive evidence yet. According to Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA expert Anthony Gorgone, Trayvon’s DNA was not found on the grip of the murder weapon nor was George Zimmerman’s DNA found under Martin’s fingernails.
As an attempt to counter, the defense attorney Don West questioned Gorgone on the packaging of the DNA samples, implying that improper packaging could lead to inaccurate results. Gorgone asserted that the evidence was packaged in plastic while wet and retained all necessary qualities.
In addition to this damning evidence, Florida Department of Law Enforcement analyst Amy Siewert testified that due to residual material and tearing on Martin’s clothes, it revealed that the gun was pressed against Trayvon when fired." -
i think you're missing the point entirely.Just because you have the legal right to do something does not mean you aren't liable for any of the actions you take.
if the man has a legal carry permit, it's logical that he's, you know, going to carry a gun. you're talking about him carrying as if THAT specifically proves he's got a depraved mind; yet you're talking about something that not only is he completely justified in doing under the law, but also, that thousands (if not millions) of people are doing without the need for all the related stuff. it's not, in and of itself, "proof of a depraved mind."
now, again, this is not to say Zimmerman didn't make mistakes or isn't liable for his actions. but saying the mere fact he had his gun with him is not some extra level of depravity if he's doing it legally. -
nope. if you want to fix the legal system (and i thought we all did), then we need to fix it, not just start saying we need payback.Zimmerman should experience what thousands (of documented) black men faced when they received punishments not consistent with the crime they were charged with (even if/when some of them turned out to actually be innocent).
It's only fair, right?
he has a carry permit, so this makes absolutely sense. Zimmerman certainly made some poor decisions, but it's not so much about "he had the gun he carries with him."Not only did he call 911, in where they gave him the advice to stand down, but he leaves his car with a gun.
There's hundreds of years of research that points out these problems, yet they still exist.
Unfortunately, the privileged classes must experience these hardships in order for change to occur. Otherwise, lip-service will continue to be given to these issues. -
I agree with Maximus Rex. I think that it's unlikely that Zimmerman set out to intentionally "murder" Martin. Even if Zimmerman did, I would think that it would be very difficult to prove, and evidence doesn’t suggest that he did. I agree with a manslaughter conviction. It was his stupidity, poor judgment, negligence, and incompetence at fighting that led to the actual killing. Regardless, I think that he should be and would have been forced to answer to a manslaughter charge, but something tells me that that wouldn’t appease the lynch mob. Well, now it seems that he’ll surely get off with a slap on the wrist. We shouldn’t bite off more than we can chew?There's hundreds of years of research that points out these problems, yet they still exist.
Imo, some of these problems exist. There has been some progress, and we shouldn’t ignore that. If I’m not mistaken, charges for ? possession, which usually affects the lower classes since ? is cheap, is no longer more severe than ? possession, which usually affect the higher classes since ? is more expensive. There has been other progress too. It just takes time and effort, and that requires patience and activism. Unfortunately, not too many people (including me at times) are patient and active.Unfortunately, the privileged classes must experience these hardships in order for change to occur. Otherwise, lip-service will continue to be given to these issues.
Imo, the privileged classes are the upper classes and the elite. The upper classes and the elite don’t experience these hardships. They have the money, the attorneys, the power, the connections, etc. to get by most of the time. Change is not going to happen because of them. The status quo happens because of them.
I don’t think that Zimmerman is so privileged as to make even the slightest difference. People like him get the book thrown at them all the time. The case is only high-profile because of the drama. Zimmerman’s certainly no O.J. Simpson. Btw, I’m sure that you know that O.J Simpson is black, so I don’t necessarily agree that race has so much to do with this. People always see race, but if they step back, they’ll see that class is the bigger root of the problem. And I also don’t agree with the idea that black people suffer injustice, so “white” people should suffer injustice as well because it’s only right. I never understand how so many people believe that two wrongs make a right.
-
research is not us actually taking action to resolve these problems. and frankly, continued misapplication of the law doesn't cause appropriate change to occur, it causes the continued belief that the law should be abused as the abuser sees fit.There's hundreds of years of research that points out these problems, yet they still exist. -
I agree with Maximus Rex. I think that it's unlikely that Zimmerman set out to intentionally "murder" Martin. Even if Zimmerman did, I would think that it would be very difficult to prove, and evidence doesn’t suggest that he did. I agree with a manslaughter conviction. It was his stupidity, poor judgment, negligence, and incompetence at fighting that led to the actual killing. Regardless, I think that he should be and would have been forced to answer to a manslaughter charge, but something tells me that that wouldn’t appease the lynch mob. Well, now it seems that he’ll surely get off with a slap on the wrist. We shouldn’t bite off more than we can chew?
actually the difference between murder and manslaughter is huge.
Basically if you reasonably do not know your actions will lead to someone dying. I.e. if we get into a fight and I punch you, and your head bounces off a wall, and you die. That is manslaughter.
But if at any point I should expect there to be a death. I.e we get into fight, I pull a gun out and shoot you, and ? you, then it is 2nd degree murder.
was there at anytime between the time of GZ following trayvon, to the time of him shooting TM that he should reasonably believe that TM could have died? If so then it's 2nd degree murder. -
Diamond Dogs wrote: »This whole Trayvon Martin thing has eerie similarities to the Rodney King incident.
In both instances, the defendants were demonized by the media from the get-go.
Not all information was preIf sented by the media.
The coverage was way too biased.
The defendants were most likely justified.
Would the Rodney King incident have grown as big as it did if the public had known that Rodney King was going 120mph in a residential neighborhood, and then physically assaulted the officers who were trying to detain him? The beating was hardly unjustified.
Would the public have been as quick to judge George Zimmerman had they known that the Sanford Police had done all that they could've done to trip him up? Had they been outraged if they knew the lead investigator actually did want to charge him with manslaughter but was simply unable to due to lack of evidence? Would they have been quick to judge him had the media not erroneously said he was a 300 pound white male, and had the media not erroneously presented Trayvon as a tiny little pre-teen who did absolutely nothing to cause his own death?
In both instances, the media completely demolished the defendant's credibility before they even had a chance to tell their sides. Completely shameful, and now its all coming out. Zimmerman was most likely innocent, the evidence proves it and there is no evidence to suggest that he had a depraved mind or malice or that he wasn't acting in self defense. Manslaughter is a stretch as well.
We all know Zimmerman should've been acquitted yesterday, unfortunately its also obvious that because of the media's instigation, he would not have been acquitted. The evidence was there for an acquittal, but I doubt any judge would've wanted to be responsible for the ensuing riots.
Lol
He killed a 17 yr man he was stalking, at night....the man should have to defend his actions before a jury especially considering none of the physical evidence suggest gz was on the losing end of this vicious assault
-
i think you're missing the point entirely.Just because you have the legal right to do something does not mean you aren't liable for any of the actions you take.
if the man has a legal carry permit, it's logical that he's, you know, going to carry a gun. you're talking about him carrying as if THAT specifically proves he's got a depraved mind; yet you're talking about something that not only is he completely justified in doing under the law, but also, that thousands (if not millions) of people are doing without the need for all the related stuff. it's not, in and of itself, "proof of a depraved mind."
now, again, this is not to say Zimmerman didn't make mistakes or isn't liable for his actions. but saying the mere fact he had his gun with him is not some extra level of depravity if he's doing it legally.
the guns purpose proves a
The issue is not with if he had the legal right to carry a gun, but with the fact he acted with a gun.
i think you're missing the point entirely.Just because you have the legal right to do something does not mean you aren't liable for any of the actions you take.
if the man has a legal carry permit, it's logical that he's, you know, going to carry a gun. you're talking about him carrying as if THAT specifically proves he's got a depraved mind; yet you're talking about something that not only is he completely justified in doing under the law, but also, that thousands (if not millions) of people are doing without the need for all the related stuff. it's not, in and of itself, "proof of a depraved mind."
now, again, this is not to say Zimmerman didn't make mistakes or isn't liable for his actions. but saying the mere fact he had his gun with him is not some extra level of depravity if he's doing it legally.
Guns are killing weapons. Since he decided to act with with a killing weapon it can be determined that he was at one time consciously trying to ? Trayvon. The real question is if it was self defense. If not then it's murder, not manslaughter. -
I agree with Maximus Rex. I think that it's unlikely that Zimmerman set out to intentionally "murder" Martin. Even if Zimmerman did, I would think that it would be very difficult to prove, and evidence doesn’t suggest that he did. I agree with a manslaughter conviction. It was his stupidity, poor judgment, negligence, and incompetence at fighting that led to the actual killing. Regardless, I think that he should be and would have been forced to answer to a manslaughter charge, but something tells me that that wouldn’t appease the lynch mob. Well, now it seems that he’ll surely get off with a slap on the wrist. We shouldn’t bite off more than we can chew?
actually the difference between murder and manslaughter is huge.
Basically if you reasonably do not know your actions will lead to someone dying. I.e. if we get into a fight and I punch you, and your head bounces off a wall, and you die. That is manslaughter.
But if at any point I should expect there to be a death. I.e we get into fight, I pull a gun out and shoot you, and ? you, then it is 2nd degree murder.
was there at anytime between the time of GZ following trayvon, to the time of him shooting TM that he should reasonably believe that TM could have died? If so then it's 2nd degree murder.
I looked some of that up, and you certainly seem to bring up a good point. I could see a second degree murder charge being justified. Though that brings up other questions like the big one you already pointed out - did Zimmerman think that his life was in danger and that he had to defend himself (although in a rather excessive way)? Was self-defense justifiable here? Was the killing a crime of passion and thus not premeditated even though there was intent to ? or defend?
Regardless, I still find it unlikely that Zimmerman intended to ? Martin after he left his car. If he intended to ? Martin at all, then I would think that it was during the physical altercation, and that might be what the prosecution ultimately needs to prove in order to successfully convict him. And I still think that that's an uphill battle. I might respect the prosecution for sticking with what they believe Zimmerman should be charged with and not settling for a lesser charge, but exactly what, if any, definitive evidence do they have to see justice get served? The case has to be proven without a reasonable doubt. And it's a damn tough case.
This discussion has been closed.