|
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 05 2013 11:36 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 10:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 10:38 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 10:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 10:12 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun. zimmerman said the gun was revealed in the struggle, and trayvon saw it. its not like it was under his pants leg, it was strapped to his side and his sweater/jacket wasnt very long. and if you want to discuss impossibilities, the idea that zimmerman wanted to kill trayvon seems completely ridiculous to me. he called the cops for god's sake. something happened and things got out of hand. i would love to know what that is and who is at fault, but apparently the prosecutor has no clue and zimmerman isnt going to enlighten us more than the story he already gave us. I would never argue that Zimmerman had a motive to kill Trayvon. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Zimmerman's story doesn't hold water. except for minor discrepancies, his description of the events of that night have been pretty consistent with the witnesses and forensic evidence. there has been no smoking gun released so far. The lack of a struggle around the weapon when Zimmerman is prone and Trayvon reaches for the gun. im going to agree with the other guy. you sound like you dont know what you are talking about. John Good testified there was a struggle where trayvon was on top of zimmerman in a MMA ground and pound style (or something of that sort). the fact that trayvon's dna wasnt on the gun means jack shit in the grand scheme of things--especially considering the rain and the sanford police department's admitted inability to process a crime scene. I know it is not believable that Zimmerman could draw his weapon and shoot it without Trayvon trying to defend himself IF Trayvon was indeed reaching for the weapon from a mounted position. I don't claim that it means anything in the grand scheme of things. There will be no guilty verdict with enough doubt to create a rift in the fabric of the nation.
Stop trolling. I don't understand why you guys are responding to the crap he's been posting for the last few pages.
|
On July 05 2013 10:12 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 09:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 08:59 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:On July 05 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on Zimmerman's gun, DNA analyst testifies Slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin's DNA wasn't detected on George Zimmerman's gun, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA analyst testified Wednesday.
Anthony Gorgone also testified that George Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found under the teen's fingernails.
Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain charged in Martin's shooting death, claims he killed the teen in self-defense during an altercation last year in a Sanford, Fla. gated community. Zimmerman said Martin slammed his head into a sidewalk and reached for his gun before he fatally shot the teen. He is charged with second-degree murder.
In court Wednesday, attorneys displayed items of clothing Zimmerman and Martin were wearing the night of the fatal altercation that Gorgone tested for DNA, including Martin's hoodie and Zimmerman's red jacket.
Gorgone said he didn't detect any DNA that wasn't Martin's on the cuffs and sleeves of Martin's hoodie.
Responding to questions from defense attorney Don West on cross-examination, Gorgone said it was possible to touch something without leaving DNA evidence.
"Sometimes you can touch an item and there won't be any DNA," West said. "Sometimes there can also be blood, but it can be wiped off."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
On cross-examination, Gorgone told West that he detected an odor when he removed Martin's hoodie from the plastic bag it had been packaged in, likely because it had been packaged wet.
It was raining the evening of the fatal struggle. "It had a very pungent odor," Gorgone said.
Ideally, he said, clothing should be air-dried and packaged in paper bags, not in plastic as Martin's hoodie had been.
West asked whether the plastic packaging could place "biological evidence at risk of degradation."
"That's correct," Gorgone said.
Court will recess for the Fourth of July holiday Thursday and re-convene on Friday. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said in court Wednesday that the state will rest their case by "Friday morning at the latest." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592246-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martins-dna-not-on-zimmermans-gun-dna-analyst-testifies/ So even if everything had been stored properly, who cares? Zimmerman doesn't claim Martin grabbed the gun, he claims Martin tried to grab the gun. Yeah, pull that in court and see where it takes you in front of a jury that probably has negative disposition towards lawyers and towards dubious wordplay - or teenage children. Cross-examine Zimmerman on how he can judge that Martin "tried" to grab the gun if there is indication of it? And why would anyone draw their gun against someone who is actively trying to take your gun? I remind everyone that Martin is allegedly on-top of Zimmerman at this point. There is no evidence of struggle between Zimmerman and Martin around the gun. This indicates that Martin was shot by surprise. Martin was NOT reaching for Zimmerman's firearm! If I knew someone was drawing a weapon at me, I would do everything in my power to aim that gun away from me! thats a weird analysis. zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything; just put doubt in the jury's mind about trayvon reaching for the gun, which he has done. showing that trayvon's dna was not on the gun proves that trayvon's dna was not on the gun. it doesnt prove that trayvon was not "reaching" for the gun as alleged. (note, the friend who said zimmerman said he actually grabbed it though). also, its weird that you would say that zimmerman would not point the gun at trayvon. trayvon was on top and beating on him. allegedly he reached for the gun, zimmerman i would think would not try to get the gun away from trayvon, he would try to use it (i.e., point it at trayvon). Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?) Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun. zimmerman said the gun was revealed in the struggle, and trayvon saw it. its not like it was under his pants leg, it was strapped to his side and his sweater/jacket wasnt very long. and if you want to discuss impossibilities, the idea that zimmerman wanted to kill trayvon seems completely ridiculous to me. he called the cops for god's sake. something happened and things got out of hand. i would love to know what that is and who is at fault, but apparently the prosecutor has no clue and zimmerman isnt going to enlighten us more than the story he already gave us. I would never argue that Zimmerman had a motive to kill Trayvon. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Zimmerman's story doesn't hold water.
The 'problem' is no one can disprove his account of the events, and several elements of his account were confirmed by eye witnesses.
Unless someone can provide any solid proof of how the altercation started, there's no case.
|
On July 05 2013 11:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 10:51 zlefin wrote:
this prosecution is inept. They should have gone with a manslaughter charge, which is the correct charge and is much more likely to convict on. By trying to aim for 2nd degree murder, they have to dilute and weaken their case a lot, which pushes it toward an acquittal.
Also, what's with all the time wasting? It seems to me that this trial shouldn't have taken more than a couple days, I've watched a few days of it, and a lot of the stuff they bring up so far is just a complete wash; either not really proving ANYTHING at all, or with only bits of information that point both ways, with no net positive effect. They're wasting far too much time and money. The manslaughter charge really isn't materially better than the murder charge in this case. The problem for the prosecution is disproving self defense, which beats either charge. They just don't have any compelling evidence that conclusively rebuts Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.
I apologize for being dense, but ... really? You can use deadly force and kill someone as long as it's self-defense and not be convicted of manslaughter? Hypothetically, if your Zimmerman started the conflict, would that change things?
|
On July 05 2013 12:03 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 11:36 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 10:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 10:38 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 10:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 10:12 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:33 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 09:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 09:22 plogamer wrote:
[quote]
Someone is on top of you, beating you silly. Then, while he has the advantage in the fight, and has no motive to actually murder you, suddenly goes for the gun strapped in your belt. (This part is weird, why? Why risk a murder charge and go into prison when you're already taking care of the guy?)
Then, rather than actively try to prevent the attacker from reaching the gun, you draw it from prone position and shoot the person? What is this, a Cowboy flick? "has no motive to actually murder you" - didnt know you can read minds through time. according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon said "you're going to die tonight." "why risk a murder charge" - according to zimmerman (if you believe him), trayvon attacked him. he has already committed a felony. i would agree that for reasonable people, nobody would risk it, but reasonable people also wouldnt attack a dude. a guy is kicking your ass and beating your head against the ground, and your argument is that they wouldnt use the only way out they have: the gun? sounds stupid, dont you think? Unless Trayvon did not see it coming, there is no way his DNA wouldn't be all over the gun. He would struggle before getting shot. I am simply trying to show how impossible it sounds when you consider the circumstances. /edit To reach for a gun, you have see a gun. zimmerman said the gun was revealed in the struggle, and trayvon saw it. its not like it was under his pants leg, it was strapped to his side and his sweater/jacket wasnt very long. and if you want to discuss impossibilities, the idea that zimmerman wanted to kill trayvon seems completely ridiculous to me. he called the cops for god's sake. something happened and things got out of hand. i would love to know what that is and who is at fault, but apparently the prosecutor has no clue and zimmerman isnt going to enlighten us more than the story he already gave us. I would never argue that Zimmerman had a motive to kill Trayvon. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Zimmerman's story doesn't hold water. except for minor discrepancies, his description of the events of that night have been pretty consistent with the witnesses and forensic evidence. there has been no smoking gun released so far. The lack of a struggle around the weapon when Zimmerman is prone and Trayvon reaches for the gun. im going to agree with the other guy. you sound like you dont know what you are talking about. John Good testified there was a struggle where trayvon was on top of zimmerman in a MMA ground and pound style (or something of that sort). the fact that trayvon's dna wasnt on the gun means jack shit in the grand scheme of things--especially considering the rain and the sanford police department's admitted inability to process a crime scene. I know it is not believable that Zimmerman could draw his weapon and shoot it without Trayvon trying to defend himself IF Trayvon was indeed reaching for the weapon from a mounted position. I don't claim that it means anything in the grand scheme of things. There will be no guilty verdict with enough doubt to create a rift in the fabric of the nation. Stop trolling. I don't understand why you guys are responding to the crap he's been posting for the last few pages.
I thought the topic he raised — that Martin's DNA wasn't on the gun — was fair.
And I thought it was interesting when Farvacola pointed out that, if there was DNA on the gun, it would have been a huge win for the defense.
And I thought daPhreak's counterpoint — that Martin's DNA not being on the gun doesn't have an impact on the veracity of Zimmerman's account — was a nice way to close the topic out.
Circle of life.
|
On July 05 2013 12:21 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 11:24 xDaunt wrote:On July 05 2013 10:51 zlefin wrote:
this prosecution is inept. They should have gone with a manslaughter charge, which is the correct charge and is much more likely to convict on. By trying to aim for 2nd degree murder, they have to dilute and weaken their case a lot, which pushes it toward an acquittal.
Also, what's with all the time wasting? It seems to me that this trial shouldn't have taken more than a couple days, I've watched a few days of it, and a lot of the stuff they bring up so far is just a complete wash; either not really proving ANYTHING at all, or with only bits of information that point both ways, with no net positive effect. They're wasting far too much time and money. The manslaughter charge really isn't materially better than the murder charge in this case. The problem for the prosecution is disproving self defense, which beats either charge. They just don't have any compelling evidence that conclusively rebuts Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. I apologize for being dense, but ... really? You can use deadly force and kill someone as long as it's self-defense and not be convicted of manslaughter? Hypothetically, if your Zimmerman started the conflict, would that change things?
According to Zimmerman's professor, the prosecution witness, which party is entitled to self-defense can change within the conflict, so under the law as he explained it, Zimmerman could have started the conflict and still availed himself of self-defense had Trayvon taken action beyond defending himself and thus becoming the aggressor himself. Having said that, the testimony isn't the "law" for the jury, because that will come from instructions from the Judge, but it didn't help the prosecution that it was their witness to have explained that.
|
Manslaughter, or perhaps even something lower than that, is quite a bit better than murder; as it requires no malice on Zimmerman's part. You can rely on his recklessness, stupidity, and negligence to craft the charge. It's clear he has those things, it's a lot harder to prove malice. I think getting around self defense would also be feasible, and is also likely far closer to the truth, with a more nuanced approach. I'd need to check Florida law and definitions, and review the case more to say exactly, but something in that ballpark should be doable.
And I still say prosecution is inept as they spend a lot of time on pointless testimony; I don't like people wasting the court's time.
|
On July 05 2013 12:21 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 11:24 xDaunt wrote:On July 05 2013 10:51 zlefin wrote:
this prosecution is inept. They should have gone with a manslaughter charge, which is the correct charge and is much more likely to convict on. By trying to aim for 2nd degree murder, they have to dilute and weaken their case a lot, which pushes it toward an acquittal.
Also, what's with all the time wasting? It seems to me that this trial shouldn't have taken more than a couple days, I've watched a few days of it, and a lot of the stuff they bring up so far is just a complete wash; either not really proving ANYTHING at all, or with only bits of information that point both ways, with no net positive effect. They're wasting far too much time and money. The manslaughter charge really isn't materially better than the murder charge in this case. The problem for the prosecution is disproving self defense, which beats either charge. They just don't have any compelling evidence that conclusively rebuts Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. I apologize for being dense, but ... really? You can use deadly force and kill someone as long as it's self-defense and not be convicted of manslaughter? Hypothetically, if your Zimmerman started the conflict, would that change things?
That's basically correct. Keep in mind that "self-defense" is a statutorily defined, legal term of art. Shooting someone and claiming that you did it in self-defense does not necessarily mean that it was done in self-defense legally such that it was a lawful killing.
|
On July 05 2013 12:44 zlefin wrote:
Manslaughter, or perhaps even something lower than that, is quite a bit better than murder; as it requires no malice on Zimmerman's part. You can rely on his recklessness, stupidity, and negligence to craft the charge. It's clear he has those things, it's a lot harder to prove malice. I think getting around self defense would also be feasible, and is also likely far closer to the truth, with a more nuanced approach. I'd need to check Florida law and definitions, and review the case more to say exactly, but something in that ballpark should be doable.
And I still say prosecution is inept as they spend a lot of time on pointless testimony; I don't like people wasting the court's time.
You are missing the point. Go read the jury instructions in the OP. Self-defense is a complete defense to both murder and manslaughter. In other words, manslaughter is just as vulnerable to being defeated by self-defense as murder is. In this case, there is very strong evidence that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Because of that, pursuing a manslaughter charge instead of murder won't help the prosecution.
|
Manslaughter may allow for a different theory of the crime though; and for murder you have to prove malice, which they really haven't. There's so much stuff on the first page I can't find the full story according to Zimmerman part; but the definition of self-defense there would allow for some workarounds.
The evidence for Zimmerman acting in self-defense isn't that strong actually; it can easily be tweaked into a situation that negates self-defense I think.
|
On July 05 2013 13:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 12:44 zlefin wrote:
Manslaughter, or perhaps even something lower than that, is quite a bit better than murder; as it requires no malice on Zimmerman's part. You can rely on his recklessness, stupidity, and negligence to craft the charge. It's clear he has those things, it's a lot harder to prove malice. I think getting around self defense would also be feasible, and is also likely far closer to the truth, with a more nuanced approach. I'd need to check Florida law and definitions, and review the case more to say exactly, but something in that ballpark should be doable.
And I still say prosecution is inept as they spend a lot of time on pointless testimony; I don't like people wasting the court's time. You are missing the point. Go read the jury instructions in the OP. Self-defense is a complete defense to both murder and manslaughter. In other words, manslaughter is just as vulnerable to being defeated by self-defense as murder is. In this case, there is very strong evidence that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Because of that, pursuing a manslaughter charge instead of murder won't help the prosecution.
There isn't enough evidence that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. It sounds semantic, but it's a big deal since the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But yeah, self-defense counters both murder and manslaughter.
I would rather get Zimmerman to perjure himself since he wants a very noble account of the incident; there is so much public attention. Zimmerman wants to win not only in legal courts, but also in the court of public opinion; making him more likely to fudge his story.
But maybe an actual lawyer like Daph can think of a better strategy for the prosecution.
|
On July 05 2013 13:09 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 13:01 xDaunt wrote:On July 05 2013 12:44 zlefin wrote:
Manslaughter, or perhaps even something lower than that, is quite a bit better than murder; as it requires no malice on Zimmerman's part. You can rely on his recklessness, stupidity, and negligence to craft the charge. It's clear he has those things, it's a lot harder to prove malice. I think getting around self defense would also be feasible, and is also likely far closer to the truth, with a more nuanced approach. I'd need to check Florida law and definitions, and review the case more to say exactly, but something in that ballpark should be doable.
And I still say prosecution is inept as they spend a lot of time on pointless testimony; I don't like people wasting the court's time. You are missing the point. Go read the jury instructions in the OP. Self-defense is a complete defense to both murder and manslaughter. In other words, manslaughter is just as vulnerable to being defeated by self-defense as murder is. In this case, there is very strong evidence that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Because of that, pursuing a manslaughter charge instead of murder won't help the prosecution. There isn't enough evidence that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. It sounds semantic, but it's a big deal since the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But yeah, self-defense counters both murder and manslaughter. I would rather get Zimmerman to perjure himself since he wants a very noble account of the incident; there is so much public attention. Zimmerman wants to win not only in legal courts, but also in the court of public opinion; making him more likely to fudge his story. But maybe an actual lawyer like Daph can think of a better strategy for the prosecution.
The prosecution is down to one witness before it's the defense's turn in the driver seat, kinda too late to be re-thinking strategies.
|
On July 05 2013 13:07 zlefin wrote:
Manslaughter may allow for a different theory of the crime though; and for murder you have to prove malice, which they really haven't. There's so much stuff on the first page I can't find the full story according to Zimmerman part; but the definition of self-defense there would allow for some workarounds.
The evidence for Zimmerman acting in self-defense isn't that strong actually; it can easily be tweaked into a situation that negates self-defense I think.
Basically, you're just offering speculation without knowing any of the facts of the case.
|
On July 05 2013 13:14 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 13:09 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 13:01 xDaunt wrote:On July 05 2013 12:44 zlefin wrote:
Manslaughter, or perhaps even something lower than that, is quite a bit better than murder; as it requires no malice on Zimmerman's part. You can rely on his recklessness, stupidity, and negligence to craft the charge. It's clear he has those things, it's a lot harder to prove malice. I think getting around self defense would also be feasible, and is also likely far closer to the truth, with a more nuanced approach. I'd need to check Florida law and definitions, and review the case more to say exactly, but something in that ballpark should be doable.
And I still say prosecution is inept as they spend a lot of time on pointless testimony; I don't like people wasting the court's time. You are missing the point. Go read the jury instructions in the OP. Self-defense is a complete defense to both murder and manslaughter. In other words, manslaughter is just as vulnerable to being defeated by self-defense as murder is. In this case, there is very strong evidence that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Because of that, pursuing a manslaughter charge instead of murder won't help the prosecution. There isn't enough evidence that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. It sounds semantic, but it's a big deal since the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But yeah, self-defense counters both murder and manslaughter. I would rather get Zimmerman to perjure himself since he wants a very noble account of the incident; there is so much public attention. Zimmerman wants to win not only in legal courts, but also in the court of public opinion; making him more likely to fudge his story. But maybe an actual lawyer like Daph can think of a better strategy for the prosecution. The prosecution is down to one witness before it's the defense's turn in the driver seat, kinda too late to be re-thinking strategies.
Yeah, and that one witness is one that was hundreds of miles away at the time of the incident, his mother. Also very likely to "open the door" to lots of evidence against Trayvon's character. I could use clarification from an actual attorney on this, but I"m pretty sure something as small as "Trayvon was a good boy" and / or "He would never hurt anyone" and BAM the shit hits the prosecutorial fan.
|
On July 05 2013 13:07 zlefin wrote:
The evidence for Zimmerman acting in self-defense isn't that strong actually; it can easily be tweaked into a situation that negates self-defense I think.
John Good said Trayvon was on top beating on Zimmerman, which is credible and uncontested. No other witness saw them before the gunshot. Zimmerman has stated, in various interviews, his mindset when he shot Trayvon. Self-defense is as strong as it needs to be. It has to be proven to not be the case beyond any and all reasonable doubt.
|
That depends where the culpable act is. If the culpable act was in the reckless act to go out alone at night in the rain after a suspect, rather than staying in the car and waiting for backup; then you may be able to get past self-defense.
Or by using creative use of some other charges; i'm trying to find where knowingly and willfully are defined in florida law. You might be able to stretch a child abuse law to cover this situation, looking at the wording on the statute.
Also, the facts I initially asserted remain.
It's not hard to prove that had Zimmerman not acted recklessly and negligently (in the general, not legal, meanings of the words), that Trayvon would still be alive.
|
On July 05 2013 14:31 zlefin wrote:
That depends where the culpable act is. If the culpable act was in the reckless act to go out alone at night in the rain after a suspect, rather than staying in the car and waiting for backup; then you may be able to get past self-defense.
Or by using creative use of some other charges; i'm trying to find where knowingly and willfully are defined in florida law. You might be able to stretch a child abuse law to cover this situation, looking at the wording on the statute.
Also, the facts I initially asserted remain.
It's not hard to prove that had Zimmerman not acted recklessly and negligently (in the general, not legal, meanings of the words), that Trayvon would still be alive.
Go read the OP and the jury instructions before you post any more. None of this even comes remotely close to securing a homicide conviction.
Here's a hint: Zimmerman could have jumped Trayvon and started a fight, but still be found to be innocent on the grounds of self-defense under Florida law.
When you understand why this is the case, you'll figure out why your posts on this subject are so ridiculous.
|
On July 05 2013 13:09 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 13:01 xDaunt wrote:On July 05 2013 12:44 zlefin wrote:
Manslaughter, or perhaps even something lower than that, is quite a bit better than murder; as it requires no malice on Zimmerman's part. You can rely on his recklessness, stupidity, and negligence to craft the charge. It's clear he has those things, it's a lot harder to prove malice. I think getting around self defense would also be feasible, and is also likely far closer to the truth, with a more nuanced approach. I'd need to check Florida law and definitions, and review the case more to say exactly, but something in that ballpark should be doable.
And I still say prosecution is inept as they spend a lot of time on pointless testimony; I don't like people wasting the court's time. You are missing the point. Go read the jury instructions in the OP. Self-defense is a complete defense to both murder and manslaughter. In other words, manslaughter is just as vulnerable to being defeated by self-defense as murder is. In this case, there is very strong evidence that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Because of that, pursuing a manslaughter charge instead of murder won't help the prosecution. There isn't enough evidence that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. It sounds semantic, but it's a big deal since the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But yeah, self-defense counters both murder and manslaughter. I would rather get Zimmerman to perjure himself since he wants a very noble account of the incident; there is so much public attention. Zimmerman wants to win not only in legal courts, but also in the court of public opinion; making him more likely to fudge his story. But maybe an actual lawyer like Daph can think of a better strategy for the prosecution.
offer a plea bargain. something with minimum prison time (1-5 years) with possibility of early release based on good behavior. zimmerman would be an idiot to pass, and the prosecutor would be an idiot to let the jury decide this issue after this train wreck. prosecutor will take some heat on such a low charge given the murder 2 charge, but better that than acquittal.
|
On July 05 2013 15:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 13:09 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 13:01 xDaunt wrote:On July 05 2013 12:44 zlefin wrote:
Manslaughter, or perhaps even something lower than that, is quite a bit better than murder; as it requires no malice on Zimmerman's part. You can rely on his recklessness, stupidity, and negligence to craft the charge. It's clear he has those things, it's a lot harder to prove malice. I think getting around self defense would also be feasible, and is also likely far closer to the truth, with a more nuanced approach. I'd need to check Florida law and definitions, and review the case more to say exactly, but something in that ballpark should be doable.
And I still say prosecution is inept as they spend a lot of time on pointless testimony; I don't like people wasting the court's time. You are missing the point. Go read the jury instructions in the OP. Self-defense is a complete defense to both murder and manslaughter. In other words, manslaughter is just as vulnerable to being defeated by self-defense as murder is. In this case, there is very strong evidence that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Because of that, pursuing a manslaughter charge instead of murder won't help the prosecution. There isn't enough evidence that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. It sounds semantic, but it's a big deal since the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But yeah, self-defense counters both murder and manslaughter. I would rather get Zimmerman to perjure himself since he wants a very noble account of the incident; there is so much public attention. Zimmerman wants to win not only in legal courts, but also in the court of public opinion; making him more likely to fudge his story. But maybe an actual lawyer like Daph can think of a better strategy for the prosecution. offer a plea bargain. something with minimum prison time (1-5 years) with possibility of early release based on good behavior. zimmerman would be an idiot to pass, and the prosecutor would be an idiot to let the jury decide this issue after this train wreck. prosecutor will take some heat on such a low charge given the murder 2 charge, but better that than acquittal.
Why would Zimmerman be an idiot to pass on a plea when it seems so likely he won't be convicted?
|
On July 05 2013 14:31 zlefin wrote:
That depends where the culpable act is. If the culpable act was in the reckless act to go out alone at night in the rain after a suspect, rather than staying in the car and waiting for backup; then you may be able to get past self-defense.
Or by using creative use of some other charges; i'm trying to find where knowingly and willfully are defined in florida law. You might be able to stretch a child abuse law to cover this situation, looking at the wording on the statute.
Also, the facts I initially asserted remain.
It's not hard to prove that had Zimmerman not acted recklessly and negligently (in the general, not legal, meanings of the words), that Trayvon would still be alive.
actual and proximate causation. the so-called "culpable act" has to actually cause the death. going out alone at night in the rain after a suspect didnt cause the death. thus, that act couldnt be the basis for a murder conviction. not sure why knowingly and willfully are of curiosity to you. pretty sure trayvon is not considered a child under child abuse laws since he was 17.
zimmerman acting recklessly and negligently outside of the legal definitions of those terms may be something of interest to the media, but he wont serve jail time for it.
|
On July 05 2013 15:04 casuistry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 15:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 13:09 plogamer wrote:On July 05 2013 13:01 xDaunt wrote:On July 05 2013 12:44 zlefin wrote:
Manslaughter, or perhaps even something lower than that, is quite a bit better than murder; as it requires no malice on Zimmerman's part. You can rely on his recklessness, stupidity, and negligence to craft the charge. It's clear he has those things, it's a lot harder to prove malice. I think getting around self defense would also be feasible, and is also likely far closer to the truth, with a more nuanced approach. I'd need to check Florida law and definitions, and review the case more to say exactly, but something in that ballpark should be doable.
And I still say prosecution is inept as they spend a lot of time on pointless testimony; I don't like people wasting the court's time. You are missing the point. Go read the jury instructions in the OP. Self-defense is a complete defense to both murder and manslaughter. In other words, manslaughter is just as vulnerable to being defeated by self-defense as murder is. In this case, there is very strong evidence that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Because of that, pursuing a manslaughter charge instead of murder won't help the prosecution. There isn't enough evidence that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. It sounds semantic, but it's a big deal since the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But yeah, self-defense counters both murder and manslaughter. I would rather get Zimmerman to perjure himself since he wants a very noble account of the incident; there is so much public attention. Zimmerman wants to win not only in legal courts, but also in the court of public opinion; making him more likely to fudge his story. But maybe an actual lawyer like Daph can think of a better strategy for the prosecution. offer a plea bargain. something with minimum prison time (1-5 years) with possibility of early release based on good behavior. zimmerman would be an idiot to pass, and the prosecutor would be an idiot to let the jury decide this issue after this train wreck. prosecutor will take some heat on such a low charge given the murder 2 charge, but better that than acquittal. Why would Zimmerman be an idiot to pass on a plea when it seems so likely he won't be convicted?
juries are fickle creatures. who knows what could cause them to convict. maybe West's knock knock joke upset them; maybe zimmerman wasnt emotional enough during trial; and maybe they just think zimmerman is a liar. i have seen slam dunk, even a 2 year old couldnt lose motions lose because a judge said "fuck it." similar issue with jurors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
