EPTShooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 280
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Microchaton
France342 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
EDIT: And here is why I think he made it up. He didn't cite any particular witness. He clearly would have done so were he able to. It's too important not to mention. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Manslaughter is more plausible because then they can argue that while Zimmerman as acting in his defense (undeniable that there was danger of bodily harm to some degree) that his belief that he was in danger of death or SERIOUS bodily harm was unreasonable aka imperfect self defense. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
wasnt it like a few seconds? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:17 cLutZ wrote: Its always been weird that they even tried to get murder at all. To convict on murder you need to demonstrate malice. Even assuming the prosecution's story is 100% correct...where is the malice. Manslaughter is more plausible because then they can argue that while Zimmerman as acting in his defense (undeniable that there was danger of bodily harm to some degree) that his belief that he was in danger of death or SERIOUS bodily harm was unreasonable aka imperfect self defense. he says that shooting someone is enough to show the requisite malice. his argument, like his hairline, is lacking. | ||
|
rasnj
United States1959 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:17 xDaunt wrote: I really, really hope that O'Mara gets up and blasts this guy for making shit up. That is just despicable. EDIT: And here is why I think he made it up. He didn't cite any particular witness. He clearly would have done so were he able to. It's too important not to mention. Why are the defense letting him get away with this? Are they not allowed to object in this part of the trial or is it a deliberate strategy to let him make a fool of himself in front of the judge who clearly knows what is supported by evidence? EDIT: Thank you xDaunt and daphreak. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:19 rasnj wrote: Why are the defense letting him get away with this? Are they not allowed to object in this part of the trial or is it a deliberate strategy to let him make a fool of himself in front of the judge who clearly knows what is supported by evidence? O'Mara will get a chance to reply. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:04 dAPhREAk wrote: "he didnt know trayvon martin like he thought he did." well, he thought trayvon was a burglar, and technically, trayvon previously was "suspended" for burglary. so, maybe, zimmerman did know trayvon. Ahhhhhhhh caaaaaaahhhhhm on. Zimmerman does not have spidey-sense. | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:01 dAPhREAk wrote: "pointing a gun at someone and shooting them is evidence of ill will." guess there is no such thing as manslaughter. what a stupid argument. Has the State's DA just argued that accidentally shooting yourself in the foot is actually attempted murder... of yourself? What a terrible argument. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:19 rasnj wrote: Why are the defense letting him get away with this? Are they not allowed to object in this part of the trial or is it a deliberate strategy to let him make a fool of himself in front of the judge who clearly knows what is supported by evidence? no jury. you usually dont object when a judge is listening since the judge already knows the law. only in very exceptional circumstances would you object. | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:17 cLutZ wrote: Its always been weird that they even tried to get murder at all. To convict on murder you need to demonstrate malice. Even assuming the prosecution's story is 100% correct...where is the malice. Manslaughter is more plausible because then they can argue that while Zimmerman as acting in his defense (undeniable that there was danger of bodily harm to some degree) that his belief that he was in danger of death or SERIOUS bodily harm was unreasonable aka imperfect self defense. If zimmerman is to be believed martin saying "You're gonna die tonight" would be enough to extrapolate danger of death or serious bodily harm. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:19 dAPhREAk wrote: he says that shooting someone is enough to show the requisite malice. his argument, like his hairline, is lacking. God, I can't believe I'm missing this. Is he at least well-spoken? If you were an average jury woman, can you get swayed by this kind of non-argument? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24367 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: If zimmerman is to be believed martin saying "You're gonna die tonight" would be enough to extrapolate danger of death or serious bodily harm. "If Zimmerman is to be believed" pretty tough to do at this point. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:22 Defacer wrote: God, I can't believe I'm missing this. Is he at least well-spoken? If you were an average jury woman, can you get swayed by this kind of non-argument? he is not arguing to the jury. he is arguing to the judge. he is not well spoken, and his suit is three sizes too large. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
| ||
|
AllHailTheDead
United States418 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:23 dAPhREAk wrote: he is not arguing to the jury. he is arguing to the judge. he is not well spoken, and his suit is three sizes too large. ahahahahah I've been wanting to say this......I mean jesus your a fricking DA get your damn suits tailored you got tiny baby arms | ||
|
Junichi
Germany1056 Posts
| ||
|
Sabu113
United States11108 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote: "Perhaps you are unfamiliar with non-white culture" presuming you understand what those words mean it is clear your first statement is woefully inaccurate. English, Spanish, and Creole actually, this statement demonstrates your bigotry. Plenty of people who deal with handwriting on a daily basis would tell you not being able to read cursive writing is incredibly common (one of the reasons you have to print on most important documents.) Again there are common operating understandings of racism in which the "cracker" comment can logically and reasonably be demonstrated to not be racist. Finally the eye witness has no relevant testimony regarding the initiation of combat. Is there proof of her competency? Cursive is a very basic literacy criteria. A lot of people have illegible cursive but if others could read that same writing then it points to her malice or illiteracy than anything else. She came off as a very slow girl. If Cracker can reasonable be demonstrated to not be racist than so can nigger (thinking Paula Deen). | ||
| ||
