Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman Discussion Thread...
Comments
-
I think the prosecution did a pretty good job in making all the doubt hinge on the word of Zimmerman who has been proven to be a habitual lire.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.
logically who is going to "start" an altercation? A boy that went to buy skittles and was talking to some ? the phone, or a wanna be cop who was strapped, and on "patrol"? The only doubt is because Zimmerman states otherwise.
There is no proof that Trayvon caused any life threatening injuries... The only doubt is Zimmerman's word.
All of the almost all evidence shows that Zimmerman stalked and initiated a conflict, and when he started loosing the upper hand,(rather fast) he took his gun out and shot him.
The only doubt is that Zimmerman said differently.
-
not really sure what you were going to say there, but i'll just answer the same way i probably would: "nope."the guns purpose proves...
you're thinking of the gun as if having it at all means he went out with ill intent. this, however, is not something established by merely caring a gun LEGALLY in a state that seriously recognizes your right to carry a gun and use it for self-defense. if he wasn't legally carrying the gun? i would see your point. but as it stands, no.
the only thing you're saying to me right now is that you, personally, have an issue/complex/whatever with guns, and it's coming out through your stubborn refusal to acknowledge ANY reason to have the gun other than murder murder murder.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?" please. the man carried a firearm in a state where he's allowed to do that on the grounds that You Never Know What Might Happen. again, this is the problem: instead of focusing on "why did he go looking for Trayvon," you're focusing on "? A GUN!"
fun fact: you can ? someone with a lot of items you're probably not identifying as "killing weapons." if he'd chased after Trayvon and wound up killing him with a flashlight, does he get a pass in your book because there was no GUN involved?
we've talked it out in this thread, but it seems like a teenager who thought someone was following him and a man who thought he was following a criminal (just to take him at his claim) could have BOTH started an altercation.logically who is going to "start" an altercation? A boy that went to buy skittles and was talking to some ? the phone, or a wanna be cop who was strapped, and on "patrol"? The only doubt is because Zimmerman states otherwise. -
the only thing you're saying to me right now is that you, personally, have an issue/complex/whatever with guns, and it's coming out through your stubborn refusal to acknowledge ANY reason to have the gun other than murder murder murder.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?" please. the man carried a firearm in a state where he's allowed to do that on the grounds that You Never Know What Might Happen. again, this is the problem: instead of focusing on "why did he go looking for Trayvon," you're focusing on "? A GUN!"
fun fact: you can ? someone with a lot of items you're probably not identifying as "killing weapons." if he'd chased after Trayvon and wound up killing him with a flashlight, does he get a pass in your book because there was no GUN involved?
[/quote]
If a flash light killed Trayvon it could be manslaughter, depending on how it was used.
YOU are missing the point...
If Trayvon is killed by things that normally don't ? people then it's manslaghter...
If Trayvon is killed by things that normally do ? people then it's murder 2...
-
you're still missing the point, because that's not the distinction between manslaughter and murder. if Zimmerman had picked up a kitchen knife, rushed out the door after Trayvon, and intentionally stabbed him to death, we wouldn't be saying, "no, no, that's for cutting food primarily. it's totally manslaughter."If a flash light killed Trayvon it could be manslaughter, depending on how it was used.
YOU are missing the point...
If Trayvon is killed by things that normally don't ? people then it's manslaghter...
If Trayvon is killed by things that normally do ? people then it's murder 2...
again, you've got a complex with firearms and that's why it matters more to you that A GUN was there than whether or not he went out with the intent to ? someone. -
you're still missing the point, because that's not the distinction between manslaughter and murder. if Zimmerman had picked up a kitchen knife, rushed out the door after Trayvon, and intentionally stabbed him to death, we wouldn't be saying, "no, no, that's for cutting food primarily. it's totally manslaughter."If a flash light killed Trayvon it could be manslaughter, depending on how it was used.
YOU are missing the point...
If Trayvon is killed by things that normally don't ? people then it's manslaghter...
If Trayvon is killed by things that normally do ? people then it's murder 2...
again, you've got a complex with firearms and that's why it matters more to you that A GUN was there than whether or not he went out with the intent to ? someone.
You are still missing the point, a gun proves intent, much like the law makes a distinction between having drugs for personal use vs selling, by how much you have.
Manslaughter is the killing of another by intentional act (not intentionally killing the other person, but intentionally committing the act which results in another’s death) or by culpable negligence.
While Zimmerman did show culpable negligence, it's not what killed Trayvon Martin...
Him deliberately using a killing machine proves that at one point he was not just trying to hurt Trayvon, question him, scare him, or even trying to ? him. He was intentionally trying to ? him.
To say other wise would mean that shooting someone at close range is not an attempt to ? someone...
the question is if Zimmerman was justified in trying to ? him -
also to drive my point home
from
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter
Examples: Eddy Hothead gets into a drunken argument in a saloon with his acquaintance Bob Bonehead, and Hothead hits Bonehead over the head with a beer bottle, causing internal bleeding and death. Brent Burgle sneaks into a warehouse intent on theft and is surprised by a security man, whom Burgle knocks down a flight of stairs, killing him. Both are voluntary manslaughter. However, if either man had used a gun, a murder charge is most likely since he brought a deadly weapon to use in the crime. -
You are still missing the point, a gun proves intent, much like the law makes a distinction between having drugs for personal use vs selling, by how much you have.
Manslaughter is the killing of another by intentional act (not intentionally killing the other person, but intentionally committing the act which results in another’s death) or by culpable negligence.
While Zimmerman did show culpable negligence, it's not what killed Trayvon Martin...
Him deliberately using a killing machine proves that at one point he was not just trying to hurt Trayvon, question him, scare him, or even trying to ? him. He was intentionally trying to ? him.
To say other wise would mean that shooting someone at close range is not an attempt to ? someone...
the question is if Zimmerman was justified in trying to ? him
I don’t know if it’s your apparent bias, your apparent oversimplification, or what, but I can’t agree with a lot of what you’ve been saying.
Firstly, referring to a gun as a “killing machine” and making a distinction between things that “normally” ? people as weapons of murder by legal definition and things that “normally” don’t ? people as weapons of manslaughter by legal definition is not entirely accurate. Also, guns do have other uses besides killing people, and guns can be used to shoot people but not ? them, even at close-range.
Yes, a gun did ? Zimmerman, but forgive me for my ignorance when I ask this, but has it already been established that anything other than a clear intent to ? was the motive behind Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin? Could fear have been the primary motive? And the verdict is still out on an (excessive) act of self-defense being a primary motive. And who’s to say that Zimmerman’s negligence/stupidity wasn’t a primary factor either? To say that Zimmerman was fully conscious (during a tense, physical altercation that still remains unclear to us or at least me) of taking out his (legal) firearm and shooting Martin with the sole purpose of ending Martin’s life seems a bit premature at this point in the trial, no?
-
also to drive my point home
from
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter
Examples: Eddy Hothead gets into a drunken argument in a saloon with his acquaintance Bob Bonehead, and Hothead hits Bonehead over the head with a beer bottle, causing internal bleeding and death. Brent Burgle sneaks into a warehouse intent on theft and is surprised by a security man, whom Burgle knocks down a flight of stairs, killing him. Both are voluntary manslaughter. However, if either man had used a gun, a murder charge is most likely since he brought a deadly weapon to use in the crime.
I can agree with this, but neither of those examples are comparable to Zimmerman and Martin's situation. -
You're confusing justification with intent.You are still missing the point, a gun proves intent, much like the law makes a distinction between having drugs for personal use vs selling, by how much you have.
Manslaughter is the killing of another by intentional act (not intentionally killing the other person, but intentionally committing the act which results in another’s death) or by culpable negligence.
While Zimmerman did show culpable negligence, it's not what killed Trayvon Martin...
Him deliberately using a killing machine proves that at one point he was not just trying to hurt Trayvon, question him, scare him, or even trying to ? him. He was intentionally trying to ? him.
To say other wise would mean that shooting someone at close range is not an attempt to ? someone...
the question is if Zimmerman was justified in trying to ? him
I don’t know if it’s your apparent bias, your apparent oversimplification, or what, but I can’t agree with a lot of what you’ve been saying.
Firstly, referring to a gun as a “killing machine” and making a distinction between things that “normally” ? people as weapons of murder by legal definition and things that “normally” don’t ? people as weapons of manslaughter by legal definition is not entirely accurate. Also, guns do have other uses besides killing people, and guns can be used to shoot people but not ? them, even at close-range.
Yes, a gun did ? Zimmerman, but forgive me for my ignorance when I ask this, but has it already been established that anything other than a clear intent to ? was the motive behind Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin? Could fear have been the primary motive? And the verdict is still out on an (excessive) act of self-defense being a primary motive. And who’s to say that Zimmerman’s negligence/stupidity wasn’t a primary factor either? To say that Zimmerman was fully conscious (during a tense, physical altercation that still remains unclear to us or at least me) of taking out his (legal) firearm and shooting Martin with the sole purpose of ending Martin’s life seems a bit premature at this point in the trial, no?
I can intend on killing a person and be justified. If I try to ? someone trying to ? a family member, I am justified in the attempt to ? that person. Just because i am trying to stop the ? does not mean i wasn't trying to ? that person
Even in Zimmerman's recollection of the night he says that at one point he knew that "someone was going to die" that's an admission that he knew his actions would lead to Trayvon's death.
-
i am not missing the point, i am declaring your point invalid.You are still missing the point, a gun proves intent-
the distinction between drugs for personal use and drugs for distribution is NOT a valid comparison at all, and simply indicates your emotional problem with guns. take a look at your provided definition of manslaughter:
"Manslaughter is the killing of another by intentional act (not intentionally killing the other person, but intentionally committing the act which results in another’s death) or by culpable negligence."
using a firearm in self-defense can easily be called manslaughter. your entire argument is, "well, there was a gun, so it's worse somehow." Plutarch is absolutely right that you calling it "a killing machine" is an absolute give-away that you have less of an argument and more of an emotional problem with guns. the ACT that resulted in Trayvon's death is chasing him down.
note that you agree a man can carry something for the express purpose of using it as a weapon and yet, if it's not as emotionally scary as A GUN, it's immediately not as bad in your book. further, if he did not chase him down to shoot him, it DOESN'T MATTER if he was carrying a gun. you're still approaching this from the perspective that since he had a gun at all, there's literally no other intent in his mind than to hunt down Trayvon and shoot him. even if this WAS the case --? it, maybe it was-- that's not proven merely by the fact that he had a gun.
if a man lives in Florida, can legally carry a gun, hears a noise in his yard and goes outside, and as a result, he gets attacked by an intruder and shoots him in self-defense, is THAT murder rather than manslaughter because he picked up a gun instead of a baseball bat?
Zimmerman may be 100% guilty of causing Martin's death, but that's not something based around the fact that a gun was involved. again, if he'd been carrying, say, a pocket knife, and stabbed Martin to death after Martin attacked the mysterious man following him in the dark, is that not the same thing as what happened, simply minus the gun? don't start talking about "justification" and "intent" if you're so hung up on this gun thing because the gun itself does not prove intent. ask yourself how often Zimmerman carried that gun and DIDN'T shoot someone.
your second case is a TERRIBLE example because he was committing a premeditated crime and would then be using a gun in the commission of it. if you're citing THIS as proof, you need to rethink your argument.Examples: Eddy Hothead gets into a drunken argument in a saloon with his acquaintance Bob Bonehead, and Hothead hits Bonehead over the head with a beer bottle, causing internal bleeding and death. Brent Burgle sneaks into a warehouse intent on theft and is surprised by a security man, whom Burgle knocks down a flight of stairs, killing him. Both are voluntary manslaughter. However, if either man had used a gun, a murder charge is most likely since he brought a deadly weapon to use in the crime.
the first case, i'm going to be honest with you, i don't see anyone charging as manslaughter because the guy got into a drunken fight and killed someone. so it's not about the gun, it's about the intent: i MEAN to assault this man in a drunken rage.
also, let us not forget that some jurisdictions --your example provides none-- have specific offenses on the books meant to make their courts "tough on gun crime." there's no discussion if that factors in. -
It doesn't matter if killing Martin is the only thing on his mind, or the 100th thing on his mind. What matters is at one point between him following TM and deliberately pulling out his gun and shooting him he knew that actions could/should lead to his death. It doesn't really matter if he thought he was protecting the neighborhood, or at one point trying to question him. All that really matters in the charge is that at one point in the WHOLE CONFRONTATION Zimmerman knew that pointing and shooting a gun at Trayvon could ? him...you're still approaching this from the perspective that since he had a gun at all, there's literally no other intent in his mind than to hunt down Trayvon and shoot him. even if this WAS the case --? it, maybe it was-- that's not proven merely by the fact that he had a gun..
That is what second degree murder is. -
second degree murder is about intent, not "oh, A GUN was involved." the exact same chain of actions could happen with a knife, or a bat, or anything else he picked up and took with him. he could have followed him and deliberately hit him with a bat knowing this could lead to Trayvon's death. which is why your earlier claim of "manslaughter is based on what the object is primarily used for" is something bogus that you mysteriously haven't gone back to elaborate on for either i or Plutarch.It doesn't matter if killing Martin is the only thing on his mind, or the 100th thing on his mind. What matters is at one point between him following TM and deliberately pulling out his gun and shooting him he knew that actions could/should lead to his death. It doesn't really matter if he thought he was protecting the neighborhood, or at one point trying to question him. All that really matters in the charge is that at one point in the WHOLE CONFRONTATION Zimmerman knew that pointing and shooting a gun at Trayvon could ? him...
That is what second degree murder is.
and you know, it really DOES matter exactly what happened with the confrontation when you're comparing murder versus manslaughter.
but that's all been covered, since what i am SPECIFICALLY talking about is why you have such an emotional problem with guns that you think they affect the law in ways they don't. really, dude, i am trying to lay out an argument here just to get a response of "but...but...but...A GUN was involved." if Zimmerman is not found guilty, are you going to declare it makes no sense because no matter what the jury believes, A GUN was involved? -
second degree murder is about intent, not "oh, A GUN was involved." the exact same chain of actions could happen with a knife, or a bat, or anything else he picked up and took with him. he could have followed him and deliberately hit him with a bat knowing this could lead to Trayvon's death.It doesn't matter if killing Martin is the only thing on his mind, or the 100th thing on his mind. What matters is at one point between him following TM and deliberately pulling out his gun and shooting him he knew that actions could/should lead to his death. It doesn't really matter if he thought he was protecting the neighborhood, or at one point trying to question him. All that really matters in the charge is that at one point in the WHOLE CONFRONTATION Zimmerman knew that pointing and shooting a gun at Trayvon could ? him...
That is what second degree murder is.
A bat could be murder but there is more space in proving that Zimmerman knew in swinging the bat that Trayvon was probably going to die. Maybe he was trying to hurt him. Maybe he was trying to scare him. How many times did he swing it? Did Trayvon react to any of the blows? How many times do normal people get hit with bats before dying? Chances are it would bring a manslaughter, just because it's harder to prove.
Since Zimmerman knows guns ? and he consciously shot a gun that he brought. Proves at one point he was trying to ? Trayvon.
the gun didn't go off on it's own. He wasn't trying to pistol whip him. He was deliberately shooting him.
If Zimmerman is proven not guilty, it's not because he didn't mean to shoot TM. It's because there is enough evidence that he shot him in self defense.
If it's not self defense it's murder plain and simple... -
you can say the exact same thing about carrying a gun. which is exactly the point: LEGALLY carrying a gun does not mean you have the intent to commit second degree murder.Maybe he was trying to hurt him. Maybe he was trying to scare him. How many times did he swing it?
"knows guns ? and he consciously shot a gun that he brought." dude, just admit you're afraid of GUNS and this is the basis for your argument. because it still comes down to you saying having a gun at all is WORSE than walking out the door with a bat for the express purpose of beating someone with it. let me say it again: you're saying it's worse to have a gun at all than to INTENTIONALLY chase down someone with a bat. might need to look up that "intent" thing again.
actually, it absolutely does not. you might ALSO need to want to look into the whole concept of concealed carry.Proves at one point he was trying to ? Trayvon.
"the bat didn't hit him on its own. he wasn't trying to keep him away with the bat. he was deliberately beating him with it." what's the difference?the gun didn't go off on it's own. He wasn't trying to pistol whip him. He was deliberately shooting him.
says the guy who has been arguing HAVING THE GUN AT ALL made it murder. which is it?If Zimmerman is proven not guilty, it's not because he didn't mean to shoot TM. It's because there is enough evidence that he shot him in self defense. If it's not self defense it's murder plain and simple...
-
"the bat didn't hit him on its own. he wasn't trying to keep him away with the bat. he was deliberately beating him with it." what's the difference?
Prove that he knew that when he hit him he was going to die vs just was trying to hurt him? It's easier to prove intent by the tools used.
A gun is a deadly weapon it can be proven he chose to ? him at one point, because he consciously chose to use it.
just like if you use a deep fryer on chicken, and you end up with fried chicken it's easier to prove you intended to make fried chicken, than if you used lets say a Gorge Forman Grill.]says the guy who has been arguing HAVING THE GUN AT ALL made it murder. which is it?
I said that since he used a gun he should be CHARGED with murder 2. Not that he is guilty of murder.... -
amazingly enough, proving intent involves the forensics, eyewitness testimony, etc. you know, the same stuff that's coming up in the actual trial we're talking about?Prove that he knew that when he hit him he was going to die vs just was trying to hurt him? It's easier to prove intent by the tools used.
there's a reason we're talking about things like "why did Zimmerman choose to follow Trayvon." because intent is more complicated than "oh no, someone carried a gun." at some point it's time for you to familiarize yourself with the actual concept of concealed carry or at least start admitting that you're so afraid of guns you cannot discuss them rationally.
no, he carried it with him, in compliance with the law. at some point, it was used. THESE are actual statements that shouldn't be disputed. what exactly happened and why is a matter of some contention, which is why your "? A GUN" notion is so flawed.A gun is a deadly weapon it can be proven he chose to ? him at one point, because he consciously chose to use it.
just like if you use a deep fryer on chicken, and you end up with fried chicken it's easier to prove you intended to make fried chicken, than if you used lets say a Gorge Forman Grill.
false. let me quote you:I said that since he used a gun he should be CHARGED with murder 2. Not that he is guilty of murder....
"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.""
your argument was Zimmerman having the gun at all proven some level of depravity that makes it murder. let's not lose track of your own ridiculous notions.
and he WAS charged with murder, that's not really being disputed. but charging and proving are different things. and charging him with murder is about a little more than "well, he had a gun."
-
Which is all the more reason this should be 1st degree MANSLAUGHTER, not 2nd (or even 3rd) degree MURDER.
Even Criminally Negligent Homicide could be used here, but that'd be a slap on the wrist for him and only like 2 years, tops. -
Notice how I said "could possibly be." As in "there's a chance." Having/using the gun in that situation COULD prove something. A "chance" does not prove innocence or guilt...
false. let me quote you:I said that since he used a gun he should be CHARGED with murder 2. Not that he is guilty of murder....
"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.""
your argument was Zimmerman having the gun at all proven some level of depravity that makes it murder. let's not lose track of your own ridiculous notions.
It was part of the prosecution's line of argument in the case... The prosecution talked about how "they thought he chased him," and how his gun was loaded and "had one in the chamber."
That's important because if they can prove he followed Trayvon illegally/negligently and he knowingly chose to use deadly force in the situation, he should be found guilty of 2nd degree murder, not manslaughter...
A depraved mind does not mean you necessarily "hate" someone or you are out to get them. It means that you know at some time your actions will ? someone, and you do it anyway. -
so looks like he was found not guilty.
-
? them all. Even Janklow.
-
And on this day zero ? were given. Two weeks from now, like Oscar Grant, Sean Bell, and a slew of other murdered blacks, Trayvon Martin will be a distant memory for all but his friends and family. Somewhere an ignorant section of blacks will continue to think race relations in this country are fine, and all the outraged pseudo-Black Panthers who made Facebook posts, memes, and statuses will go back to instagram'ing pictures of dinner, stalking exes, and roasting LeBron's hairline.
This is America. We're black. Animal welfare ranks higher than we do. It's not fair, right, or just. It's just the truth. -
So I guess you can ? unarmed black males and get acquitted. This is ? sad. But, even being acquitted, dude has it coming to him. Peace ya'll.
-
so now we're backtracking on this?Notice how I said "could possibly be." As in "there's a chance." Having/using the gun in that situation COULD prove something. A "chance" does not prove innocence or guilt...
if the prosecution's whole argument was "he was legally carrying a gun with a round in the chamber" (which, oddly enough, is how many, many people legally carry), then their argument sucked. i know it wasn't the sum total of their case, though.
the real thing is, if he followed Trayvon negligently (not really sure how he'd follow him illegally), THAT shows more than the fact that he had the gun. THAT is my point. i think from the jump my explanation was Zimmerman's not blameless in this situation.
which is why i said if you think legally carrying a gun at all constitutes a depraved mind, you should look into the concept of concealed carry.A depraved mind does not mean you necessarily "hate" someone or you are out to get them. It means that you know at some time your actions will ? someone, and you do it anyway.
well, that seems unjustified. even though i think this is absolutely the reverse of the "black people too happy, white people too mad" bit.Swiffness! wrote: »? them all. Even Janklow.
anyway, we should probably break out a new topic since the verdict has happened.
This discussion has been closed.