|
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 July 01 2013 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision.
i dont even think what you describe is negligence, let alone recklessness, which is a higher standard. just as an fyi, recklessness is something like shooting a gun into an occupied building and being drunk while speeding on the highway (both of which i have seen cases). you may think im wrong and thats fine, but i highly doubt a court of law would side with your ridiculousness notion of culpable negligence.
|
On July 01 2013 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision.
Exactly what evidence are you citing that leads you to the conclusion that Zimmerman "went to confront" Trayvon?
Besides, you are acting like Zimmerman specifically took the gun, instead of just had the gun on him. There is a difference between me happening to be carrying a pistol while following someone and specifically grabbing a pistol because I'm going to follow someone.
They said it was unnecessary to follow Trayvon. At no point did they say that it was inadvisable, or that he shouldn't. The 9-11 operator saying that means absolutely nothing legally. (Source: My father has been a DA for 30+ years).
|
jury instructions were updated last week in Florida. Culpable negligence:
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
|
On July 01 2013 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision.
It's obvious from your posting history that you want Zimmerman convicted of either count regardless of his guilt so that you can forward your political agenda. That you still cling onto the belief that what Zimmerman did was culpable negligence after having two lawyers and a law student explicitly tell you that it's not only adds to that fact.
|
On July 01 2013 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision.
Good lord. Your posts are so out of touch with the law that it's hilarious. Go read the jury instruction that daphreak posted.
|
On July 01 2013 07:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision. Exactly what evidence are you citing that leads you to the conclusion that Zimmerman "went to confront" Trayvon? Besides, you are acting like Zimmerman specifically took the gun, instead of just had the gun on him. There is a difference between me happening to be carrying a pistol while following someone and specifically grabbing a pistol because I'm going to follow someone. They said it was unnecessary to follow Trayvon. At no point did they say that it was inadvisable, or that he shouldn't. The 9-11 operator saying that means absolutely nothing legally. (Source: My father has been a DA for 30+ years).
When you take Zimmermans call, his description of events during the interrogation, his reenactment, and his Interview on Hannity it is clear he is inconsistent. Particularly after comparing the reenactment it is clear that the reenactment doesn't line up with the 911 call or the interrogation. Specifically surrounding when he leaves his vehicle and claims he was returning to it. Trayvons body was pretty far from where Zimmerman claims it took place. His explanation of why he went toward his street doesn't match up. Nor do his explanations match up regarding when and why he was returning to his truck. Based on those inconsistencies and the more likely and reasonable explanation is clearly that he was pursuing him. This becomes clear when you look at where Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon and where Trayvons body was found. It seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was altering this portion of the events to better suit his narrative.
|
On July 01 2013 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 07:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision. Exactly what evidence are you citing that leads you to the conclusion that Zimmerman "went to confront" Trayvon? Besides, you are acting like Zimmerman specifically took the gun, instead of just had the gun on him. There is a difference between me happening to be carrying a pistol while following someone and specifically grabbing a pistol because I'm going to follow someone. They said it was unnecessary to follow Trayvon. At no point did they say that it was inadvisable, or that he shouldn't. The 9-11 operator saying that means absolutely nothing legally. (Source: My father has been a DA for 30+ years). When you take Zimmermans call, his description of events during the interrogation, his reenactment, and his Interview on Hannity it is clear he is inconsistent. Particularly after comparing the reenactment it is clear that the reenactment doesn't line up with the 911 call or the interrogation. Specifically surrounding when he leaves his vehicle and claims he was returning to it. Trayvons body was pretty far from where Zimmerman claims it took place. His explanation of why he went toward his street doesn't match up. Nor do his explanations match up regarding when and why he was returning to his truck. Based on those inconsistencies and the more likely and reasonable explanation is clearly that he was pursuing him. This becomes clear when you look at where Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon and where Trayvons body was found. It seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was altering this portion of the events to better suit his narrative.
You should probably stop arguing law with people who are actual lawyers.
|
On July 01 2013 07:51 FireBearHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 07:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision. Exactly what evidence are you citing that leads you to the conclusion that Zimmerman "went to confront" Trayvon? Besides, you are acting like Zimmerman specifically took the gun, instead of just had the gun on him. There is a difference between me happening to be carrying a pistol while following someone and specifically grabbing a pistol because I'm going to follow someone. They said it was unnecessary to follow Trayvon. At no point did they say that it was inadvisable, or that he shouldn't. The 9-11 operator saying that means absolutely nothing legally. (Source: My father has been a DA for 30+ years). When you take Zimmermans call, his description of events during the interrogation, his reenactment, and his Interview on Hannity it is clear he is inconsistent. Particularly after comparing the reenactment it is clear that the reenactment doesn't line up with the 911 call or the interrogation. Specifically surrounding when he leaves his vehicle and claims he was returning to it. Trayvons body was pretty far from where Zimmerman claims it took place. His explanation of why he went toward his street doesn't match up. Nor do his explanations match up regarding when and why he was returning to his truck. Based on those inconsistencies and the more likely and reasonable explanation is clearly that he was pursuing him. This becomes clear when you look at where Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon and where Trayvons body was found. It seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was altering this portion of the events to better suit his narrative. You should probably stop arguing law with people who are actual lawyers.
his opinion on culpable negligence is ridiculous. he is correct that zimmerman has been less than consistent and will have his own credibility issues. i am curious to see how the prosecutor handles it since its going to show zimmerman to look like a liar maybe.
|
On July 01 2013 04:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 04:47 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 04:25 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 04:24 jeremycafe wrote:On July 01 2013 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 04:06 kmillz wrote:
Does anybody know if the prosecution has anything "big" or "game-changing" that hasn't been brought up yet? So far doesn't seem like they have much other than "possible scenarios" that seem impossible to prove given the evidence we've seen so far. parents - "that was my son crying for help" and lots of tears to make the jury feel empathy zimmerman - lies lies lies (he likely wont take the stand, but they will use his various statements against him) They don't need zimmerman to cry "lies lies lies" They have twice where the father publicly stated it was not his son crying for help. That is pretty damming to go against his new found claim of no doubt it is his son. i meant they are going to show all the lies that zimmerman said during the course of the investigation and on the news, not that zimmerman is going to say "lies lies lies." But if Zimmerman doesn't testify, which most experts agree that after Good's testimony that he won't, of what relevance is discrediting Zimmerman ? All evidence is presented by witnesses other than Zimmerman. Also, did the State consider Rachel Jeantel to be the star witness, or was it the sensationalist media ? he is claiming self defense; if they can show that he has previously lied about his claims of self defense then they can discredit his defense. he doesnt need to testify to do that. i dont think its a foregone conclusion that he wont testify; he may do it because he presents well. there is significant advantage to having the defendant take the stand as most people think it shows guilt if he doesnt take the stand. i imagine they will try for an early dismissal after prosecutor's case and then make a decision whether to put zimmerman on. i dont expect zimmerman's defense to take long. maybe his parents come and say it is their son's voice; maybe zimmerman takes the stand; and then they are done. a day or two at best. this trial will be done next week easily. i think the state considered her the star witness as well. she had the potential for being an amazing witness. it didnt go over so well, but hindsight is 20-20.
The popular wisdom around the criminal courts where I practice is that the jury expects to hear the defendant testify. I haven't really been following this case very closely, but t seems like it would be pretty risky for the defence not to put Zimmerman on the stand...
|
On July 01 2013 07:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 07:51 FireBearHero wrote:On July 01 2013 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 07:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision. Exactly what evidence are you citing that leads you to the conclusion that Zimmerman "went to confront" Trayvon? Besides, you are acting like Zimmerman specifically took the gun, instead of just had the gun on him. There is a difference between me happening to be carrying a pistol while following someone and specifically grabbing a pistol because I'm going to follow someone. They said it was unnecessary to follow Trayvon. At no point did they say that it was inadvisable, or that he shouldn't. The 9-11 operator saying that means absolutely nothing legally. (Source: My father has been a DA for 30+ years). When you take Zimmermans call, his description of events during the interrogation, his reenactment, and his Interview on Hannity it is clear he is inconsistent. Particularly after comparing the reenactment it is clear that the reenactment doesn't line up with the 911 call or the interrogation. Specifically surrounding when he leaves his vehicle and claims he was returning to it. Trayvons body was pretty far from where Zimmerman claims it took place. His explanation of why he went toward his street doesn't match up. Nor do his explanations match up regarding when and why he was returning to his truck. Based on those inconsistencies and the more likely and reasonable explanation is clearly that he was pursuing him. This becomes clear when you look at where Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon and where Trayvons body was found. It seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was altering this portion of the events to better suit his narrative. You should probably stop arguing law with people who are actual lawyers. his opinion on culpable negligence is ridiculous. he is correct that zimmerman has been less than consistent and will have his own credibility issues. i am curious to see how the prosecutor handles it since its going to show zimmerman to look like a liar maybe.
Unfortunately for the DA, the only thing that he'll be able to do in all likelihood is call the investigators/cops/other witnesses who took statements from Zimmerman and have them recount what was said. It won't have the same impact as grilling Zimmerman on the stand during a cross examination. There's just no way that Zimmerman will testify. Hell, there's no reason to at this point. Under the rule of completeness, the defense can get in whatever statements that they want when the DA tries to offer parts of them.
|
On July 01 2013 07:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 07:51 FireBearHero wrote:On July 01 2013 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 07:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision. Exactly what evidence are you citing that leads you to the conclusion that Zimmerman "went to confront" Trayvon? Besides, you are acting like Zimmerman specifically took the gun, instead of just had the gun on him. There is a difference between me happening to be carrying a pistol while following someone and specifically grabbing a pistol because I'm going to follow someone. They said it was unnecessary to follow Trayvon. At no point did they say that it was inadvisable, or that he shouldn't. The 9-11 operator saying that means absolutely nothing legally. (Source: My father has been a DA for 30+ years). When you take Zimmermans call, his description of events during the interrogation, his reenactment, and his Interview on Hannity it is clear he is inconsistent. Particularly after comparing the reenactment it is clear that the reenactment doesn't line up with the 911 call or the interrogation. Specifically surrounding when he leaves his vehicle and claims he was returning to it. Trayvons body was pretty far from where Zimmerman claims it took place. His explanation of why he went toward his street doesn't match up. Nor do his explanations match up regarding when and why he was returning to his truck. Based on those inconsistencies and the more likely and reasonable explanation is clearly that he was pursuing him. This becomes clear when you look at where Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon and where Trayvons body was found. It seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was altering this portion of the events to better suit his narrative. You should probably stop arguing law with people who are actual lawyers. his opinion on culpable negligence is ridiculous. he is correct that zimmerman has been less than consistent and will have his own credibility issues. i am curious to see how the prosecutor handles it since its going to show zimmerman to look like a liar maybe.
Yeah, I probably should have said more then that 1 liner lol. It is hard to be consistent when you talk as much as Zimmerman has, which is why I wouldn't expect him to take the stand unless the case ends up quite desperate. But yeah, nothing that has come up so far is close to that definition of culpable negligence.
|
On July 01 2013 07:58 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 04:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 04:47 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 04:25 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 04:24 jeremycafe wrote:On July 01 2013 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 04:06 kmillz wrote:
Does anybody know if the prosecution has anything "big" or "game-changing" that hasn't been brought up yet? So far doesn't seem like they have much other than "possible scenarios" that seem impossible to prove given the evidence we've seen so far. parents - "that was my son crying for help" and lots of tears to make the jury feel empathy zimmerman - lies lies lies (he likely wont take the stand, but they will use his various statements against him) They don't need zimmerman to cry "lies lies lies" They have twice where the father publicly stated it was not his son crying for help. That is pretty damming to go against his new found claim of no doubt it is his son. i meant they are going to show all the lies that zimmerman said during the course of the investigation and on the news, not that zimmerman is going to say "lies lies lies." But if Zimmerman doesn't testify, which most experts agree that after Good's testimony that he won't, of what relevance is discrediting Zimmerman ? All evidence is presented by witnesses other than Zimmerman. Also, did the State consider Rachel Jeantel to be the star witness, or was it the sensationalist media ? he is claiming self defense; if they can show that he has previously lied about his claims of self defense then they can discredit his defense. he doesnt need to testify to do that. i dont think its a foregone conclusion that he wont testify; he may do it because he presents well. there is significant advantage to having the defendant take the stand as most people think it shows guilt if he doesnt take the stand. i imagine they will try for an early dismissal after prosecutor's case and then make a decision whether to put zimmerman on. i dont expect zimmerman's defense to take long. maybe his parents come and say it is their son's voice; maybe zimmerman takes the stand; and then they are done. a day or two at best. this trial will be done next week easily. i think the state considered her the star witness as well. she had the potential for being an amazing witness. it didnt go over so well, but hindsight is 20-20. The popular wisdom around the criminal courts where I practice is that the jury expects to hear the defendant testify. I haven't really been following this case very closely, but t seems like it would be pretty risky for the defence not to put Zimmerman on the stand...
they even have a jury instruction on it. =)
3.9(d) DEFENDANT NOT TESTIFYING
Give either paragraph, or both, if defendant requests.
The constitution requires the State to prove its accusations against the defendant. It is not necessary for the defendant to disprove anything. Nor is the defendant required to prove [his] [her] innocence. It is up to the State to prove the defendant's guilt by evidence.
The defendant exercised a fundamental right by choosing not to be a witness in this case. You must not view this as an admission of guilt or be influenced in any way by [his] [her] decision. No juror should ever be concerned that the defendant did or did not take the witness stand to give testimony in the case.
|
On July 01 2013 08:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 07:58 ziggurat wrote:On July 01 2013 04:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 04:47 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 04:25 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 04:24 jeremycafe wrote:On July 01 2013 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 04:06 kmillz wrote:
Does anybody know if the prosecution has anything "big" or "game-changing" that hasn't been brought up yet? So far doesn't seem like they have much other than "possible scenarios" that seem impossible to prove given the evidence we've seen so far. parents - "that was my son crying for help" and lots of tears to make the jury feel empathy zimmerman - lies lies lies (he likely wont take the stand, but they will use his various statements against him) They don't need zimmerman to cry "lies lies lies" They have twice where the father publicly stated it was not his son crying for help. That is pretty damming to go against his new found claim of no doubt it is his son. i meant they are going to show all the lies that zimmerman said during the course of the investigation and on the news, not that zimmerman is going to say "lies lies lies." But if Zimmerman doesn't testify, which most experts agree that after Good's testimony that he won't, of what relevance is discrediting Zimmerman ? All evidence is presented by witnesses other than Zimmerman. Also, did the State consider Rachel Jeantel to be the star witness, or was it the sensationalist media ? he is claiming self defense; if they can show that he has previously lied about his claims of self defense then they can discredit his defense. he doesnt need to testify to do that. i dont think its a foregone conclusion that he wont testify; he may do it because he presents well. there is significant advantage to having the defendant take the stand as most people think it shows guilt if he doesnt take the stand. i imagine they will try for an early dismissal after prosecutor's case and then make a decision whether to put zimmerman on. i dont expect zimmerman's defense to take long. maybe his parents come and say it is their son's voice; maybe zimmerman takes the stand; and then they are done. a day or two at best. this trial will be done next week easily. i think the state considered her the star witness as well. she had the potential for being an amazing witness. it didnt go over so well, but hindsight is 20-20. The popular wisdom around the criminal courts where I practice is that the jury expects to hear the defendant testify. I haven't really been following this case very closely, but t seems like it would be pretty risky for the defence not to put Zimmerman on the stand... they even have a jury instruction on it. =) Show nested quote +3.9(d) DEFENDANT NOT TESTIFYING
Give either paragraph, or both, if defendant requests.
The constitution requires the State to prove its accusations against the defendant. It is not necessary for the defendant to disprove anything. Nor is the defendant required to prove [his] [her] innocence. It is up to the State to prove the defendant's guilt by evidence.
The defendant exercised a fundamental right by choosing not to be a witness in this case. You must not view this as an admission of guilt or be influenced in any way by [his] [her] decision. No juror should ever be concerned that the defendant did or did not take the witness stand to give testimony in the case.
Of course. I think most lawyers that I know don't really trust juries to follow this type of instruction.
Still, I can see that if Zimmerman made lots of inconsistent statements then he could get killed on the stand.
|
On July 01 2013 07:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 07:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 07:51 FireBearHero wrote:On July 01 2013 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 07:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision. Exactly what evidence are you citing that leads you to the conclusion that Zimmerman "went to confront" Trayvon? Besides, you are acting like Zimmerman specifically took the gun, instead of just had the gun on him. There is a difference between me happening to be carrying a pistol while following someone and specifically grabbing a pistol because I'm going to follow someone. They said it was unnecessary to follow Trayvon. At no point did they say that it was inadvisable, or that he shouldn't. The 9-11 operator saying that means absolutely nothing legally. (Source: My father has been a DA for 30+ years). When you take Zimmermans call, his description of events during the interrogation, his reenactment, and his Interview on Hannity it is clear he is inconsistent. Particularly after comparing the reenactment it is clear that the reenactment doesn't line up with the 911 call or the interrogation. Specifically surrounding when he leaves his vehicle and claims he was returning to it. Trayvons body was pretty far from where Zimmerman claims it took place. His explanation of why he went toward his street doesn't match up. Nor do his explanations match up regarding when and why he was returning to his truck. Based on those inconsistencies and the more likely and reasonable explanation is clearly that he was pursuing him. This becomes clear when you look at where Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon and where Trayvons body was found. It seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was altering this portion of the events to better suit his narrative. You should probably stop arguing law with people who are actual lawyers. his opinion on culpable negligence is ridiculous. he is correct that zimmerman has been less than consistent and will have his own credibility issues. i am curious to see how the prosecutor handles it since its going to show zimmerman to look like a liar maybe. Unfortunately for the DA, the only thing that he'll be able to do in all likelihood is call the investigators/cops/other witnesses who took statements from Zimmerman and have them recount what was said. It won't have the same impact as grilling Zimmerman on the stand during a cross examination. There's just no way that Zimmerman will testify. Hell, there's no reason to at this point. Under the rule of completeness, the defense can get in whatever statements that they want when the DA tries to offer parts of them.
i am not sure that the rule of completeness is going to allow them to put in the whole statement; its only the relevant parts. rule of completeness doesnt allow the defense to go around the hearsay rule just because the prosecutor puts one or two statements from an interview in as evidence. florida law may be funky on this account, but i doubt its that funky.
so far, this is what i recall will be used:
1. interviews with the police.
2. interview on television (i think he did two or more).
3. reenactment on television (i recall he did this against his attorneys' wishes, idiot).
4. statements made to other individuals (but they have already gotten most of this in through the witnesses).
|
So how long is this trial supposed to last?
|
On July 01 2013 08:06 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 07:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 01 2013 07:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 07:51 FireBearHero wrote:On July 01 2013 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 07:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote:
[quote]
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision. Exactly what evidence are you citing that leads you to the conclusion that Zimmerman "went to confront" Trayvon? Besides, you are acting like Zimmerman specifically took the gun, instead of just had the gun on him. There is a difference between me happening to be carrying a pistol while following someone and specifically grabbing a pistol because I'm going to follow someone. They said it was unnecessary to follow Trayvon. At no point did they say that it was inadvisable, or that he shouldn't. The 9-11 operator saying that means absolutely nothing legally. (Source: My father has been a DA for 30+ years). When you take Zimmermans call, his description of events during the interrogation, his reenactment, and his Interview on Hannity it is clear he is inconsistent. Particularly after comparing the reenactment it is clear that the reenactment doesn't line up with the 911 call or the interrogation. Specifically surrounding when he leaves his vehicle and claims he was returning to it. Trayvons body was pretty far from where Zimmerman claims it took place. His explanation of why he went toward his street doesn't match up. Nor do his explanations match up regarding when and why he was returning to his truck. Based on those inconsistencies and the more likely and reasonable explanation is clearly that he was pursuing him. This becomes clear when you look at where Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon and where Trayvons body was found. It seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was altering this portion of the events to better suit his narrative. You should probably stop arguing law with people who are actual lawyers. his opinion on culpable negligence is ridiculous. he is correct that zimmerman has been less than consistent and will have his own credibility issues. i am curious to see how the prosecutor handles it since its going to show zimmerman to look like a liar maybe. Unfortunately for the DA, the only thing that he'll be able to do in all likelihood is call the investigators/cops/other witnesses who took statements from Zimmerman and have them recount what was said. It won't have the same impact as grilling Zimmerman on the stand during a cross examination. There's just no way that Zimmerman will testify. Hell, there's no reason to at this point. Under the rule of completeness, the defense can get in whatever statements that they want when the DA tries to offer parts of them. i am not sure that the rule of completeness is going to allow them to put in the whole statement; its only the relevant parts. rule of completeness doesnt allow the defense to go around the hearsay rule just because the prosecutor puts one or two statements from an interview in as evidence. florida law may be funky on this account, but i doubt its that funky. so far, this is what i recall will be used: 1. interviews with the police. 2. interview on television (i think he did two or more). 3. reenactment on television (i recall he did this against his attorneys' wishes, idiot). 4. statements made to other individuals (but they have already gotten most of this in through the witnesses).
The statements that the defense will care about most will be those concerning what actually happened before, during, and immediately after the altercation. Those will definitely come in under the rule of completeness when the State starts offering statements on those points.
|
On July 01 2013 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So how long is this trial supposed to last?
it will be done next week.
|
http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-8-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/
Titled: Florida State Attorney’s Office – April 2, 2012 Track 2 (~23 min)
The second audio recording on that page (easier to download it and play locally) is the recorded interview between Rachel and the "bald dude". This is actually the recording I have been looking for when she uses the phrase "he got off" as something Trayvon said in reference to Zimmerman. I originally thought it was a slang for getting off his trail, but it may have been getting off the phone. In other case, dumbass misheard her and thought she said "got out", so the conversation got away and wasn't clarified. However, just after this moment (15:40 or so), starting at about 15:55, she is asked if Trayvon ever said he hit Zimmerman, or if he said he was going to hit Zimmerman. To both questions, she immediately responded that he had not. The next question was whether Trayvon ever said Zimmerman was coming at him and was going to hit him, after which there is a pause. In the background you can hear a female voice (not Rachel's), and then Rachel responds 'yeah', in a softer tone than she had been using to answer previous questions. Very much appears to me that she was "providing" testimony that was not based on the truth but what they wanted her to say. As part of this exchange, the investigator repeatedly explained he wanted truth, and only say it if it's true, blah blah blah, but she had already responded and continued along that line. Totally fucking disgusting. I hope something is done about this. I don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread as of yet.
|
On July 01 2013 07:59 FireBearHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 07:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 07:51 FireBearHero wrote:On July 01 2013 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 07:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote: .
"There is no culpable negligence from aproaching someone and asking him "what are you doing?", whether you carry a gun or not. Do you believe that should be a crime?" ---SKC
Being armed with deadly force while pursuing someone after contacting the authorities and them instructing you not to follow, is not the same as asking someone "what are you doing?".
Also whether you carry a gun does make a difference. If trayvon was the criminal Zimmerman thought he was, what was he going to do if Trayvon drew on him or just decided to fight and started to win... It should have been clear to Zimmerman that a shooting of himself or Trayvon would be a reasonably likely result of ignoring the instruction he was given not to pursue.
If he or anyone is too ignorant to understand that taking a gun to confront someone you suspect to be a potential criminal after already calling 911 and being told not realize a shooting as a potentially likely outcome, than that's on them.
That is what I believe is trying to be gotten at about "stupidity" not being an excuse to avoid the consequences of ones actions.
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision. Exactly what evidence are you citing that leads you to the conclusion that Zimmerman "went to confront" Trayvon? Besides, you are acting like Zimmerman specifically took the gun, instead of just had the gun on him. There is a difference between me happening to be carrying a pistol while following someone and specifically grabbing a pistol because I'm going to follow someone. They said it was unnecessary to follow Trayvon. At no point did they say that it was inadvisable, or that he shouldn't. The 9-11 operator saying that means absolutely nothing legally. (Source: My father has been a DA for 30+ years). When you take Zimmermans call, his description of events during the interrogation, his reenactment, and his Interview on Hannity it is clear he is inconsistent. Particularly after comparing the reenactment it is clear that the reenactment doesn't line up with the 911 call or the interrogation. Specifically surrounding when he leaves his vehicle and claims he was returning to it. Trayvons body was pretty far from where Zimmerman claims it took place. His explanation of why he went toward his street doesn't match up. Nor do his explanations match up regarding when and why he was returning to his truck. Based on those inconsistencies and the more likely and reasonable explanation is clearly that he was pursuing him. This becomes clear when you look at where Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon and where Trayvons body was found. It seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was altering this portion of the events to better suit his narrative. You should probably stop arguing law with people who are actual lawyers. his opinion on culpable negligence is ridiculous. he is correct that zimmerman has been less than consistent and will have his own credibility issues. i am curious to see how the prosecutor handles it since its going to show zimmerman to look like a liar maybe. Yeah, I probably should have said more then that 1 liner lol. It is hard to be consistent when you talk as much as Zimmerman has, which is why I wouldn't expect him to take the stand unless the case ends up quite desperate. But yeah, nothing that has come up so far is close to that definition of culpable negligence.
He can't be forced to take the stand can he? You don't have to testify against yourself after all, 5th amendment and all correct? Or did he waive that at some point?
|
On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 07:59 FireBearHero wrote:On July 01 2013 07:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 07:51 FireBearHero wrote:On July 01 2013 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 07:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2013 16:14 ConGee wrote:
[quote]
Do you actually know what the legal definition of what culpable negligence is? None of your assertions even come close to what would be considered culpable negligence. Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision. Exactly what evidence are you citing that leads you to the conclusion that Zimmerman "went to confront" Trayvon? Besides, you are acting like Zimmerman specifically took the gun, instead of just had the gun on him. There is a difference between me happening to be carrying a pistol while following someone and specifically grabbing a pistol because I'm going to follow someone. They said it was unnecessary to follow Trayvon. At no point did they say that it was inadvisable, or that he shouldn't. The 9-11 operator saying that means absolutely nothing legally. (Source: My father has been a DA for 30+ years). When you take Zimmermans call, his description of events during the interrogation, his reenactment, and his Interview on Hannity it is clear he is inconsistent. Particularly after comparing the reenactment it is clear that the reenactment doesn't line up with the 911 call or the interrogation. Specifically surrounding when he leaves his vehicle and claims he was returning to it. Trayvons body was pretty far from where Zimmerman claims it took place. His explanation of why he went toward his street doesn't match up. Nor do his explanations match up regarding when and why he was returning to his truck. Based on those inconsistencies and the more likely and reasonable explanation is clearly that he was pursuing him. This becomes clear when you look at where Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon and where Trayvons body was found. It seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was altering this portion of the events to better suit his narrative. You should probably stop arguing law with people who are actual lawyers. his opinion on culpable negligence is ridiculous. he is correct that zimmerman has been less than consistent and will have his own credibility issues. i am curious to see how the prosecutor handles it since its going to show zimmerman to look like a liar maybe. Yeah, I probably should have said more then that 1 liner lol. It is hard to be consistent when you talk as much as Zimmerman has, which is why I wouldn't expect him to take the stand unless the case ends up quite desperate. But yeah, nothing that has come up so far is close to that definition of culpable negligence. He can't be forced to take the stand can he? You don't have to testify against yourself after all, 5th amendment and all correct? Or did he waive that at some point?
It's up to the defense whether he will testify or not. If there is a civil case to follow, he could be compelled to testify.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
