|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 28 2013 05:06 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 05:05 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 05:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:56 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 04:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:50 Yorke wrote:On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote:
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux? they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman did not shoot trayvon in self defense. they do not have to show premeditation to do so. they do not have to show that zimmerman aggressed first necessarily, but its hard to make a case without that. Don't they need more than that for second degree murder? Couldn't it just be manslaugther even if it wasn't self defense? i was simplifying it. yes, they still need to show the elements of second degree murder, but by winning on self defense they basically establish those elements as the killing is not disputed, just the reason. 7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An ―act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death I just found it odd that it jumped so easily from self defense to "a depraved mind without regard for human life". But I guess with way the case is argued, if they don't buy the self defense argument, they will listen to the state's version of a racially motivated murder, where Zimmerman went after Martin specifically to kill him. There's no middle ground. there could be a middle ground. if they find that zimmerman acted in self defense subjectively, but it wasnt objectively reasonable then they could just say that it is criminal negligence (i.e., manslaughter). however, both sides appear to be going for an all or nothing approach.
Looking at the jury instructions, self-defense is an absolute defense to any kind of homicide charge (murder or manslaughter).
|
now, they are offering zimmerman's brother's racist tweets? wtf is this??
|
How exactly is this even relevant to this particular witness? It feels like they are using her testimony to bring up every piece of dirt they could find regarding Zimmermann, when she clearly knows nothing about it.
|
On June 28 2013 05:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 05:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 05:05 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 05:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:56 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 04:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:50 Yorke wrote:On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote:
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux? they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman did not shoot trayvon in self defense. they do not have to show premeditation to do so. they do not have to show that zimmerman aggressed first necessarily, but its hard to make a case without that. Don't they need more than that for second degree murder? Couldn't it just be manslaugther even if it wasn't self defense? i was simplifying it. yes, they still need to show the elements of second degree murder, but by winning on self defense they basically establish those elements as the killing is not disputed, just the reason. 7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An ―act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death I just found it odd that it jumped so easily from self defense to "a depraved mind without regard for human life". But I guess with way the case is argued, if they don't buy the self defense argument, they will listen to the state's version of a racially motivated murder, where Zimmerman went after Martin specifically to kill him. There's no middle ground. there could be a middle ground. if they find that zimmerman acted in self defense subjectively, but it wasnt objectively reasonable then they could just say that it is criminal negligence (i.e., manslaughter). however, both sides appear to be going for an all or nothing approach. Looking at the jury instructions, self-defense is an absolute defense to any kind of homicide charge (murder or manslaughter).
did you miss the part where i said that it wasnt objectively reasonable, and therefore, not self defense?
|
This witness responded to a question by saying she had never seen him angry, mad, upset, etc. Eventually, it was lead into restraining orders, etc, whether she was aware of such things while she testified.
|
Old ppl talking about twitter lol
|
Oh, they are trying to make her seem biased towards Zimmermann. This is so awkward.
|
On June 28 2013 05:11 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2013 05:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 05:05 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 05:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:56 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 04:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:50 Yorke wrote:On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote:
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux? they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman did not shoot trayvon in self defense. they do not have to show premeditation to do so. they do not have to show that zimmerman aggressed first necessarily, but its hard to make a case without that. Don't they need more than that for second degree murder? Couldn't it just be manslaugther even if it wasn't self defense? i was simplifying it. yes, they still need to show the elements of second degree murder, but by winning on self defense they basically establish those elements as the killing is not disputed, just the reason. 7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An ―act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death I just found it odd that it jumped so easily from self defense to "a depraved mind without regard for human life". But I guess with way the case is argued, if they don't buy the self defense argument, they will listen to the state's version of a racially motivated murder, where Zimmerman went after Martin specifically to kill him. There's no middle ground. there could be a middle ground. if they find that zimmerman acted in self defense subjectively, but it wasnt objectively reasonable then they could just say that it is criminal negligence (i.e., manslaughter). however, both sides appear to be going for an all or nothing approach. Looking at the jury instructions, self-defense is an absolute defense to any kind of homicide charge (murder or manslaughter). did you miss the part where i said that it wasnt objectively reasonable, and therefore, not self defense?
I see what you're getting at.
As to the original question about why no side is going for the middle ground, the Defense obviously can't do it because their client would end up in jail. The Prosecution doesn't have to do it (and shouldn't do it) because the greater offense (2nd Degree Murder) contains all of the elements of the lesser offense (manslaughter).
|
They need to bring in an expert to talk about how Twitter works. Maybe a 14 year old kid.
|
On June 28 2013 05:16 HotGlueGun wrote:
Old ppl talking about twitter lol
Yeah that's really painful. It's probably a joke account, and she's being followed by that account, not following that account. That was a little...lol...Little rough.
|
lol that´s justice? A complete morron talking about twitter, can not tell "Follow" from "Following" or "Follower"
trying to convince everyone the wittness is biased and talking to the accused´s brother via Twitter, making no tweets, but has him on the "suggested" list
Also the List of people suggested to you by the automatism of Twitter may include a person thats related to the case of murder you are a witness in and is worldwide broadcasted.
|
wait, was the jury outside the room during questioning?
|
On June 28 2013 05:19 dAPhREAk wrote:
wait, was the jury outside the room during questioning?
Yes.
|
well i tuned in at a wierd/bad time...
|
On June 28 2013 05:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 05:19 dAPhREAk wrote:
wait, was the jury outside the room during questioning? Yes.
ah, that makes sense, so the jury hasnt actually heard evidence on the prior criminal actions. whew, i thought the judge actually let it into evidence. prosecutor trying hard to get it in.
|
So they take the jury out to see if the testimony is admissable and will later on update them if that ends up being the case? Did they do that just before the talk of Zimmermann's past or for the whole thing?
|
I suspect those names were put there by Twitter because names associated with this case are probably followed by a shitload of people, so Twitter "suggests" these accounts follow each other.
|
On June 28 2013 05:21 SKC wrote:
So they take the jury out to see if the testimony is admissable and will later on update them if that ends up being the case? Did they do that just before the talk of Zimmermann's past or for the whole thing?
No, they would present it again in front of the jury.
|
Prosecution made to look incompetent yet again. O'Mara slam dunks.
|
On June 28 2013 05:22 Yorke wrote:
Prosecution made to look incompetent yet again. O'Mara slam dunks.
But the jury didn't see that last stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
