|
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 13 2013 00:42 zbedlam wrote:
Interesting, he said "following someone with the intention to report them to the police is legal." I am unclear if following someone without the intention of reporting their position to the police legal?
Yes, you can follow people legally. If they ask you to stop, then you should do so, but you are allowed to follow people. However, it is illegal to "scare" people by following them(assault). So if someone says "Stop following me, you are scaring me" and you continue to do so, you chould be charged.
The crime is less about the action itself and more about the effect of the action on the person that is being followed.
|
On July 13 2013 00:50 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
O'Mara just told the jury how they can go home this afternoon if they want. lol he's right XD All they have to do is sit and talk for 30 minutes or so if there is enough evidence to convict him and if not, well, they are done. There is absolutely no way they can say 100% he killed him out of malice for 2nd degree imo.
So if there is not a verdict before the weekend do people think that bodes well for the prosecution?
|
On July 13 2013 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 00:50 BigFan wrote:On July 13 2013 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
O'Mara just told the jury how they can go home this afternoon if they want. lol he's right XD All they have to do is sit and talk for 30 minutes or so if there is enough evidence to convict him and if not, well, they are done. There is absolutely no way they can say 100% he killed him out of malice for 2nd degree imo. So if there is not a verdict before the weekend do people think that bodes well for the prosecution?
it might.
if it takes them days to deliberate it can't be good because as it stands its patently obvious he's innocent.
|
MOM is an absolutely fantastic lawyer
|
On July 13 2013 00:51 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 00:50 BigFan wrote:On July 13 2013 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
O'Mara just told the jury how they can go home this afternoon if they want. lol he's right XD All they have to do is sit and talk for 30 minutes or so if there is enough evidence to convict him and if not, well, they are done. There is absolutely no way they can say 100% he killed him out of malice for 2nd degree imo. i thought they dropped the 2nd degree murder for manslaughter? Is that bad info?
They have both options available to them. If it is not enough for 2nd degree, they can still find him guilty of manslaughter unless they find him innocent due to reasonable doubt.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 13 2013 00:51 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 00:50 BigFan wrote:On July 13 2013 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
O'Mara just told the jury how they can go home this afternoon if they want. lol he's right XD All they have to do is sit and talk for 30 minutes or so if there is enough evidence to convict him and if not, well, they are done. There is absolutely no way they can say 100% he killed him out of malice for 2nd degree imo. i thought they dropped the 2nd degree murder for manslaughter? Is that bad info?
nope, they have both of them available.
On July 13 2013 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 00:50 BigFan wrote:On July 13 2013 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
O'Mara just told the jury how they can go home this afternoon if they want. lol he's right XD All they have to do is sit and talk for 30 minutes or so if there is enough evidence to convict him and if not, well, they are done. There is absolutely no way they can say 100% he killed him out of malice for 2nd degree imo. So if there is not a verdict before the weekend do people think that bodes well for the prosecution?
I would say so. If they can't decide on a verdict within the next day or so, then it could mean they are still debating whether Zimmerman is guilty or not which means that they don't feel the defenses evidence is solid.
|
On July 13 2013 00:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 00:31 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 00:13 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 00:03 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 00:00 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 23:57 Sermokala wrote:On July 12 2013 23:50 ConGee wrote:On July 12 2013 23:48 aksfjh wrote:On July 12 2013 23:34 ZasZ. wrote:On July 12 2013 23:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
How many "normal kids" do you know that are suspiciously followed by an unannounced person who gets out of their car to chase them? It happened to me walking to school (7th-8th grade) once. Pretty sure it was a pedophile, but my walking route was a pretty public street so I just made sure to walk fast. There are many reasons that Trayvon could assume Zimmerman was following him for, and many people are right in that most of them are malicious in nature. But I don't buy the "he didn't want to lead him to his house" argument. For all intents and purposes, in these situations, you are safe once you reach your destination and get off the street. If Trayvon had just hurried home, he would have been fine. I have no doubt that it was the confrontational, alpha male personality that came to light through the data found on his phone that ultimately led to his death that night, so if people are going to try to hold Zimmerman accountable for shooting him, they need to understand that Trayvon was equally accountable for putting himself in a position where he needed to be shot. WTF man? So certain personality types just need a good shooting to set them straight, or what? Certainly you can't be serious. He proceeded to pound Zimmerman's face into the concrete for a least 40 seconds. If pounding someone's face into concrete for forty seconds isn't opening yourself up to the use of deadly force, I don't know what is. I would say He could use a good tazeing for what he did but theres no reason why anyone deserves to die for being a huge dick. I think all of us can agree it would have been a much different and better situation if any "neighborhood watch" people carry tazers instead of a potential murder weapon. This is what I was trying to say earlier in the thread but got laughed off for being a pansy/delusional. Carrying a gun as a neighborhood watch is kinda overkill. Especially since in a lot of countries the police themselves don't even carry guns. And in America, neighborhood watches certainly don't carry guns themselves. Or follow criminals on foot for that matter. But yeah smashing someone's head into the pavement is a bit more aggressive than simple dickishness. A much better alternative would be not allowing people incapable of defending themselves from an unarmed assailant to go around following potential criminals late at night. Actually better yet, civilians shouldn't be following people around late at night full stop, at least police are well marked AND trained to deal with these kind of encounters. How would you enforce this mythical laws you are talking about? What if I follow someone and prevent a crime without the use of violence? Should I be charged with a crime because I prevented one? This sort of mythical legal-crafting forgets you need to enforce the laws after you write them and make sure they don't do more harm than good. Stalking is considered harassment and intimidation, reporting someone for following you would warrant a response - odds are it would only be a warning if this was your first offense. So following people is already a crime? I don't follow you. All I'm trying to say is, if someone wants to play local police they should be trained to do so, that way they don't have to shoot the first person that fights them. If you follow someone and prevented a crime without the use of violence, odds are you would be considered a hero. However if you are going to go out and specifically look for potential criminals, you should be a cop or at least clearly marked so the person you are following doesn't view it as an act of aggression. Everything you said is reasonable, but there is no way to reasonablely enforce such laws. What GZ was doing in this case was not stalking and having poor judgment is not illegal(it is cause for a civil action, but not a criminal offense). I understand people's desire to try to stop the problem before it starts, but you can't make laws trying to stop poor judgment with stuff like this. The laws end up being overly broad and not specific enough for enforce or they end up prohibiting actions that would be helpful. Sometimes we need to accept that we can't fix everything. We can't make laws trying to stop people with poor judgment from attempt to prevent crimes from happening, because we will also stop people with good judgment from preventing crimes.
Even if Zimmerman is found innocent can the Martin family bring a civil suit against him? Or would the innocent verdict completely kill any momentum in a civil case?
|
On July 13 2013 00:54 Vin{MBL} wrote:
MOM is an absolutely fantastic lawyer
Im no expert, but he seems to have hit all the faults in the prosecutions case.
Anyone have any estimates of how long the jury deliberation will be? To me it seems like they could walking out of the courtroom, tick not guilt and walk straight back in, but i imagine theres a lot more to it than that.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 13 2013 01:00 Blacktion wrote:Im no expert, but he seems to have hit all the faults in the prosecutions case. Anyone have any estimates of how long the jury deliberation will be? To me it seems like they could walking out of the courtroom, tick not guilt and walk straight back in, but i imagine theres a lot more to it than that.
doubt they would do that because they know how big this case is so they'll like take some time before ticking off the not guilty if they go down that route. I don't think there is a specific time for them to deliberate but I'm not sure.
|
As far as what he could be guilty of I don't believe 2nd Degree Murder is even an option at this point. Manslaughter I think would be considered compromised because it was suggested by the prosecution.
|
Prosecutors rebuttal is about to begin.
|
On July 13 2013 01:00 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 00:49 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 00:31 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 00:13 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 00:03 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 00:00 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 23:57 Sermokala wrote:On July 12 2013 23:50 ConGee wrote:On July 12 2013 23:48 aksfjh wrote:On July 12 2013 23:34 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
It happened to me walking to school (7th-8th grade) once. Pretty sure it was a pedophile, but my walking route was a pretty public street so I just made sure to walk fast. There are many reasons that Trayvon could assume Zimmerman was following him for, and many people are right in that most of them are malicious in nature. But I don't buy the "he didn't want to lead him to his house" argument. For all intents and purposes, in these situations, you are safe once you reach your destination and get off the street. If Trayvon had just hurried home, he would have been fine. I have no doubt that it was the confrontational, alpha male personality that came to light through the data found on his phone that ultimately led to his death that night, so if people are going to try to hold Zimmerman accountable for shooting him, they need to understand that Trayvon was equally accountable for putting himself in a position where he needed to be shot. WTF man? So certain personality types just need a good shooting to set them straight, or what? Certainly you can't be serious. He proceeded to pound Zimmerman's face into the concrete for a least 40 seconds. If pounding someone's face into concrete for forty seconds isn't opening yourself up to the use of deadly force, I don't know what is. I would say He could use a good tazeing for what he did but theres no reason why anyone deserves to die for being a huge dick. I think all of us can agree it would have been a much different and better situation if any "neighborhood watch" people carry tazers instead of a potential murder weapon. This is what I was trying to say earlier in the thread but got laughed off for being a pansy/delusional. Carrying a gun as a neighborhood watch is kinda overkill. Especially since in a lot of countries the police themselves don't even carry guns. And in America, neighborhood watches certainly don't carry guns themselves. Or follow criminals on foot for that matter. But yeah smashing someone's head into the pavement is a bit more aggressive than simple dickishness. A much better alternative would be not allowing people incapable of defending themselves from an unarmed assailant to go around following potential criminals late at night. Actually better yet, civilians shouldn't be following people around late at night full stop, at least police are well marked AND trained to deal with these kind of encounters. How would you enforce this mythical laws you are talking about? What if I follow someone and prevent a crime without the use of violence? Should I be charged with a crime because I prevented one? This sort of mythical legal-crafting forgets you need to enforce the laws after you write them and make sure they don't do more harm than good. Stalking is considered harassment and intimidation, reporting someone for following you would warrant a response - odds are it would only be a warning if this was your first offense. So following people is already a crime? I don't follow you. All I'm trying to say is, if someone wants to play local police they should be trained to do so, that way they don't have to shoot the first person that fights them. If you follow someone and prevented a crime without the use of violence, odds are you would be considered a hero. However if you are going to go out and specifically look for potential criminals, you should be a cop or at least clearly marked so the person you are following doesn't view it as an act of aggression. Everything you said is reasonable, but there is no way to reasonablely enforce such laws. What GZ was doing in this case was not stalking and having poor judgment is not illegal(it is cause for a civil action, but not a criminal offense). I understand people's desire to try to stop the problem before it starts, but you can't make laws trying to stop poor judgment with stuff like this. The laws end up being overly broad and not specific enough for enforce or they end up prohibiting actions that would be helpful. Sometimes we need to accept that we can't fix everything. We can't make laws trying to stop people with poor judgment from attempt to prevent crimes from happening, because we will also stop people with good judgment from preventing crimes. Even if Zimmerman is found innocent can the Martin family bring a civil suit against him? Or would the innocent verdict completely kill any momentum in a civil case?
I'm no lawyer, but yes I believe they could
|
On July 13 2013 01:02 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 01:00 Blacktion wrote:On July 13 2013 00:54 Vin{MBL} wrote:
MOM is an absolutely fantastic lawyer Im no expert, but he seems to have hit all the faults in the prosecutions case. Anyone have any estimates of how long the jury deliberation will be? To me it seems like they could walking out of the courtroom, tick not guilt and walk straight back in, but i imagine theres a lot more to it than that. doubt they would do that because they know how big this case is so they'll like take some time before ticking off the not guilty if they go down that route. I don't think there is a specific time for them to deliberate but I'm not sure.
Im just wondering if it will be finished today. Im out in a bit and want to see the verdict returned. Guess it will be all over youtube anyway
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Looking like they are going for the emotional route with this heart talk.
|
They still playing on Emotions. Martin = child
|
You know they have no facts when the rebuttal is an argument about "heart." And not in the physical or literal sense.
|
this makes me fucking sick to my stomach that the prosecution is talking about 'using your heart'. You fucking scumbags, the state should only be concerned with evidence. This sounds like a defense attorney who has no case, not the fucking state authority trying to PROSECUTE someone beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER.
makes me sick.
|
On July 13 2013 01:07 BigFan wrote:
Looking like they are going for the emotional route with this heart talk.
With a jury full of women it may be the best option. Not trying to be sexist but most are mothers I believe.
|
On July 13 2013 01:00 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 00:49 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 00:31 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 00:13 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 00:03 zbedlam wrote:On July 13 2013 00:00 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 23:57 Sermokala wrote:On July 12 2013 23:50 ConGee wrote:On July 12 2013 23:48 aksfjh wrote:On July 12 2013 23:34 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
It happened to me walking to school (7th-8th grade) once. Pretty sure it was a pedophile, but my walking route was a pretty public street so I just made sure to walk fast. There are many reasons that Trayvon could assume Zimmerman was following him for, and many people are right in that most of them are malicious in nature. But I don't buy the "he didn't want to lead him to his house" argument. For all intents and purposes, in these situations, you are safe once you reach your destination and get off the street. If Trayvon had just hurried home, he would have been fine. I have no doubt that it was the confrontational, alpha male personality that came to light through the data found on his phone that ultimately led to his death that night, so if people are going to try to hold Zimmerman accountable for shooting him, they need to understand that Trayvon was equally accountable for putting himself in a position where he needed to be shot. WTF man? So certain personality types just need a good shooting to set them straight, or what? Certainly you can't be serious. He proceeded to pound Zimmerman's face into the concrete for a least 40 seconds. If pounding someone's face into concrete for forty seconds isn't opening yourself up to the use of deadly force, I don't know what is. I would say He could use a good tazeing for what he did but theres no reason why anyone deserves to die for being a huge dick. I think all of us can agree it would have been a much different and better situation if any "neighborhood watch" people carry tazers instead of a potential murder weapon. This is what I was trying to say earlier in the thread but got laughed off for being a pansy/delusional. Carrying a gun as a neighborhood watch is kinda overkill. Especially since in a lot of countries the police themselves don't even carry guns. And in America, neighborhood watches certainly don't carry guns themselves. Or follow criminals on foot for that matter. But yeah smashing someone's head into the pavement is a bit more aggressive than simple dickishness. A much better alternative would be not allowing people incapable of defending themselves from an unarmed assailant to go around following potential criminals late at night. Actually better yet, civilians shouldn't be following people around late at night full stop, at least police are well marked AND trained to deal with these kind of encounters. How would you enforce this mythical laws you are talking about? What if I follow someone and prevent a crime without the use of violence? Should I be charged with a crime because I prevented one? This sort of mythical legal-crafting forgets you need to enforce the laws after you write them and make sure they don't do more harm than good. Stalking is considered harassment and intimidation, reporting someone for following you would warrant a response - odds are it would only be a warning if this was your first offense. So following people is already a crime? I don't follow you. All I'm trying to say is, if someone wants to play local police they should be trained to do so, that way they don't have to shoot the first person that fights them. If you follow someone and prevented a crime without the use of violence, odds are you would be considered a hero. However if you are going to go out and specifically look for potential criminals, you should be a cop or at least clearly marked so the person you are following doesn't view it as an act of aggression. Everything you said is reasonable, but there is no way to reasonablely enforce such laws. What GZ was doing in this case was not stalking and having poor judgment is not illegal(it is cause for a civil action, but not a criminal offense). I understand people's desire to try to stop the problem before it starts, but you can't make laws trying to stop poor judgment with stuff like this. The laws end up being overly broad and not specific enough for enforce or they end up prohibiting actions that would be helpful. Sometimes we need to accept that we can't fix everything. We can't make laws trying to stop people with poor judgment from attempt to prevent crimes from happening, because we will also stop people with good judgment from preventing crimes. Even if Zimmerman is found innocent can the Martin family bring a civil suit against him? Or would the innocent verdict completely kill any momentum in a civil case?
There will not be an "innocent" verdict. That's not an option.
|
On July 13 2013 01:08 crms wrote:
this makes me fucking sick to my stomach that the prosecution is talking about 'using your heart'. You fucking scumbags, the state should only be concerned with evidence. This sounds like a defense attorney who has no case, not the fucking state authority trying to PROSECUTE someone beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER.
makes me sick.
If Zimmerman is convicted then, imo, the defense has a near lay-up on appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
