|
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 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.
I don't think that the state should be trying to convict innocent people like that.
|
On July 05 2013 15:17 LegalLord 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. I don't think that the state should be trying to convict innocent people like that.
you must be new to the judicial system. ;-)
i forgot to mention, they should throw in a lesser charge for his wife. since she was a dumbass and perjured herself.
|
On July 05 2013 15:37 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 15:17 LegalLord wrote: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. I don't think that the state should be trying to convict innocent people like that. you must be new to the judicial system. ;-)
Just because they do it doesn't mean they should.
But what with bypassing the grand jury, this has been a general judicial lynching.
|
On July 05 2013 15:37 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 15:17 LegalLord wrote: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. I don't think that the state should be trying to convict innocent people like that. you must be new to the judicial system. ;-) i forgot to mention, they should throw in a lesser charge for his wife. since she was a dumbass and perjured herself.
What happened to his wife? What did I missed?
|
On July 05 2013 15:41 Kakaru2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 15:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 05 2013 15:17 LegalLord wrote: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. I don't think that the state should be trying to convict innocent people like that. you must be new to the judicial system. ;-) i forgot to mention, they should throw in a lesser charge for his wife. since she was a dumbass and perjured herself. What happened to his wife? What did I missed?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/justice/florida-zimmerman-wife
|
On July 05 2013 12:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 12:21 Defacer wrote: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.
Thanks (to everyone) for clarifying this for me.
|
On July 05 2013 15:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 15:04 casuistry wrote: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.
That last sentence just made my heart sink a little bit. 
|
On July 05 2013 12:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 12:21 Defacer wrote: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.
The real issue here is that under Florida law, asserting self-defense puts a burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. There are plenty of states where affirmative defenses do not place such a burden. There are arguments for and against this, but I'm against the way Florida handles it because there are conceivable scenarios where you can murder someone, claim it's self-defense, and get away with it because the only witness to contradict you is dead. Even in this case, nobody but Zimmerman is ever going to know what really happened.
|
On July 05 2013 20:37 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 12:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 05 2013 12:21 Defacer wrote: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. The real issue here is that under Florida law, asserting self-defense puts a burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. There are plenty of states where affirmative defenses do not place such a burden. There are arguments for and against this, but I'm against the way Florida handles it because there are conceivable scenarios where you can murder someone, claim it's self-defense, and get away with it because the only witness to contradict you is dead. Even in this case, nobody but Zimmerman is ever going to know what really happened.
"Even in this case, nobody but Zimmerman is ever going to know what really happened"
Getting tired of hearing that line. Yes, he is the only one who knows the entire story. But there are eye witnesses showing the fight. One even showing that Zimmerman was being "ground and pounded". Sorry, but that doesn't come remotely close to your scenario of no one knowing and getting away with murder. There is no question that he was getting his ass kicked.
|
On July 05 2013 22:00 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 20:37 HunterX11 wrote:On July 05 2013 12:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 05 2013 12:21 Defacer wrote: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. The real issue here is that under Florida law, asserting self-defense puts a burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. There are plenty of states where affirmative defenses do not place such a burden. There are arguments for and against this, but I'm against the way Florida handles it because there are conceivable scenarios where you can murder someone, claim it's self-defense, and get away with it because the only witness to contradict you is dead. Even in this case, nobody but Zimmerman is ever going to know what really happened. "Even in this case, nobody but Zimmerman is ever going to know what really happened" Getting tired of hearing that line. Yes, he is the only one who knows the entire story. But there are eye witnesses showing the fight. One even showing that Zimmerman was being "ground and pounded". Sorry, but that doesn't come remotely close to your scenario of no one knowing and getting away with murder. There is no question that he was getting his ass kicked.
Witnesses suck ass at providing reliable accounts of events even during the best of circumstances.
This is not the best of circumstances.
|
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.
I really disagree with that. Plea deals (for the prosecution) are for when you actually have a strong chance of winning the trial. Accepting a plea deal when you have almost no chance of losing the trial (for the defense) would be pretty stupid imo.
|
Anyone else watching right now? The judge is making this questioning so much harder than it needs to be, just let the defense ask their questions for crying out loud.
|
Damn I thought the judge was somewhat less biased than in the beginning and now she basically takes a stand for Trayvon Martin. O'Mara not at his best as well.
|
On July 05 2013 22:38 Microchaton wrote:
Damn I thought the judge was somewhat less biased than in the beginning and now she basically takes a stand for Trayvon Martin. O'Mara not at his best as well.
Can you summarize what she said, I missed it.
|
Just out of curiosity, is there some kind of "witness-protection-program" for ppl like GZ? I mean, i think he will not get a sentece or something, that doesn't mean though that everyone will agree with it. That also means there are people that would try to take the "law" in their hands. What exactly is/can be done to protect him from the inevitable?
|
who's that guy? paramedic?
|
I missed it, did they let him go on with the speculation about Trayvon being in pain and suffering?
|
On July 05 2013 23:27 mishimaBeef wrote:
who's that guy? paramedic?
The guy who made the autopsy.
|
i'm not big on law but what is the point of this discussion about the details of the body in the autopsy?
|
On July 05 2013 23:34 Felnarion wrote:
I missed it, did they let him go on with the speculation about Trayvon being in pain and suffering?
i believe no, the judge said the objection was sustained, after about 1-2 minutes discussion at the judge's bench
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
