|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
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?
If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want.
Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action.
|
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.
Or he was misremembering an event that occurred months before...
|
On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action.
Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise".
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 01 2013 08:46 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts.
[quote] 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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action. Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise".
Silence isn't the wisest course of action during a court proceeding when your opponent is making a plausible accusation against you.
|
On July 01 2013 08:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 08:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action. Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise". Silence isn't the wisest course of action during a court proceeding when your opponent is making a plausible accusation against you.
Silence is not evidence of guilt, which is the whole point of pleading the 5th.
|
On July 01 2013 08:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 08:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action. Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise". Silence isn't the wisest course of action during a court proceeding when your opponent is making a plausible accusation against you.
You're gonna need to meet a much higher standard than plausible...
|
On July 01 2013 08:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 08:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action. Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise". Silence isn't the wisest course of action during a court proceeding when your opponent is making a plausible accusation against you.
That's why the defense is shredding all the prosecution's witnesses.
|
On July 01 2013 08:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 08:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action. Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise". Silence isn't the wisest course of action during a court proceeding when your opponent is making a plausible accusation against you.
Plausible? So that means he has reasonable doubt, why would it be unwise to not testify if it's merely plausible?
|
It is very common for criminal defendants to not testify, and it is often the best course of action. Defense attorneys prep jurors all of the time for the possibility of their clients not testifying, beginning during voire dire and continuing all the way through closing argument.
|
Beyond the inconsistencies in his accounts of the events that night is there anything else specifically GZ would/could say on the stand that would negatively impact his case? If so what are the thoughts of what it would be?
|
Anything can happen in hours upon hours of cross-examination under the microscope of a nationwide audience.
edit: It's just a very high risk, very low reward proposition.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 01 2013 09:03 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 08:53 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action. Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise". Silence isn't the wisest course of action during a court proceeding when your opponent is making a plausible accusation against you. Plausible? So that means he has reasonable doubt, why would it be unwise to not testify if it's merely plausible?
Silence against a credible accusation can support that accusation.
A "jury of your peers" could decide to convict on less than "beyond reasonable doubt" because they're not legal experts.
That being said: there is a time and a place for not being a witness against yourself, and an experienced defense attorney probably knows best.
|
On July 01 2013 11:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 09:03 kmillz wrote:On July 01 2013 08:53 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action. Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise". Silence isn't the wisest course of action during a court proceeding when your opponent is making a plausible accusation against you. Plausible? So that means he has reasonable doubt, why would it be unwise to not testify if it's merely plausible? Silence against a credible accusation can support that accusation. A "jury of your peers" could decide to convict on less than "beyond reasonable doubt" because they're not legal experts.
I really don't think that is going to be an issue in this case.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 01 2013 11:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:17 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 09:03 kmillz wrote:On July 01 2013 08:53 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote:On July 01 2013 07:59 FireBearHero wrote:On July 01 2013 07:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 07:51 FireBearHero wrote:
[quote]
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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action. Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise". Silence isn't the wisest course of action during a court proceeding when your opponent is making a plausible accusation against you. Plausible? So that means he has reasonable doubt, why would it be unwise to not testify if it's merely plausible? Silence against a credible accusation can support that accusation. A "jury of your peers" could decide to convict on less than "beyond reasonable doubt" because they're not legal experts. I really don't think that is going to be an issue in this case.
Yeah, doesn't seem like this case is ever going in that direction.
|
On July 01 2013 11:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 09:03 kmillz wrote:On July 01 2013 08:53 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action. Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise". Silence isn't the wisest course of action during a court proceeding when your opponent is making a plausible accusation against you. Plausible? So that means he has reasonable doubt, why would it be unwise to not testify if it's merely plausible? Silence against a credible accusation can support that accusation. A "jury of your peers" could decide to convict on less than "beyond reasonable doubt" because they're not legal experts.
Your name belies your statements. Terminology, such as "beyond a reasonable doubt" are defined for the jury. They are also instructed that silence cannot be used to support an accusation, however, obviously, juries decide and generally don't have to explain their decisions.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 01 2013 11:40 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:17 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 09:03 kmillz wrote:On July 01 2013 08:53 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote:On July 01 2013 07:59 FireBearHero wrote:On July 01 2013 07:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 07:51 FireBearHero wrote:
[quote]
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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action. Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise". Silence isn't the wisest course of action during a court proceeding when your opponent is making a plausible accusation against you. Plausible? So that means he has reasonable doubt, why would it be unwise to not testify if it's merely plausible? Silence against a credible accusation can support that accusation. A "jury of your peers" could decide to convict on less than "beyond reasonable doubt" because they're not legal experts. Your name belies your statements. Terminology, such as "beyond a reasonable doubt" are defined for the jury. They are also instructed that silence cannot be used to support an accusation, however, obviously, juries decide and generally don't have to explain their decisions.
Of course they are instructed, and they will do their best assuming they are responsible adults who try to do their best, which most juries are.
Doesn't mean that juries can't falter. They're only human. For example, juries can eat up an emotional testimony that is light on fact but high on emotion. Hence the fact that there is so much focus on finding an unbiased jury, a process which is obviously not perfect.
|
On July 01 2013 11:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 09:03 kmillz wrote:On July 01 2013 08:53 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action. Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise". Silence isn't the wisest course of action during a court proceeding when your opponent is making a plausible accusation against you. Plausible? So that means he has reasonable doubt, why would it be unwise to not testify if it's merely plausible? Silence against a credible accusation can support that accusation. A "jury of your peers" could decide to convict on less than "beyond reasonable doubt" because they're not legal experts. That being said: there is a time and a place for not being a witness against yourself, and an experienced defense attorney probably knows best.
I would not call an accusation without any evidence to support it very "credible".
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 01 2013 11:47 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:17 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 09:03 kmillz wrote:On July 01 2013 08:53 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote:On July 01 2013 07:59 FireBearHero wrote:On July 01 2013 07:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 01 2013 07:51 FireBearHero wrote:
[quote]
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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action. Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise". Silence isn't the wisest course of action during a court proceeding when your opponent is making a plausible accusation against you. Plausible? So that means he has reasonable doubt, why would it be unwise to not testify if it's merely plausible? Silence against a credible accusation can support that accusation. A "jury of your peers" could decide to convict on less than "beyond reasonable doubt" because they're not legal experts. That being said: there is a time and a place for not being a witness against yourself, and an experienced defense attorney probably knows best. I would not call an accusation without any evidence to support it very "credible".
I'm not talking about this case specifically, if that's what you mean. But you're right.
|
On July 01 2013 11:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:47 kmillz wrote:On July 01 2013 11:17 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 09:03 kmillz wrote:On July 01 2013 08:53 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 01 2013 08:32 LegalLord wrote:On July 01 2013 08:30 Millitron wrote:On July 01 2013 07:59 FireBearHero wrote:On July 01 2013 07:56 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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? If the Miranda Warning is any indication, you can exercise the right whenever you want. Not that silence is always the least suspicious course of action. Well, not really. If you "waive" it, such as testifying in your own defense, you can't then claim it so as to not be subject to cross-examination. Silence shouldn't be suspicious, it should be considered "wise". Silence isn't the wisest course of action during a court proceeding when your opponent is making a plausible accusation against you. Plausible? So that means he has reasonable doubt, why would it be unwise to not testify if it's merely plausible? Silence against a credible accusation can support that accusation. A "jury of your peers" could decide to convict on less than "beyond reasonable doubt" because they're not legal experts. That being said: there is a time and a place for not being a witness against yourself, and an experienced defense attorney probably knows best. I would not call an accusation without any evidence to support it very "credible". I'm not talking about this case specifically, if that's what you mean. But you're right.
Ah ok you meant generally speaking. Np
|
I just dove into this thread for the first time and dAPhREAk has put in some work. Well done sir, there is a ton of info in there and that takes a lot of work to gather.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
