|
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 13:39 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 12:55 docvoc wrote:
Back to the trial: What is the verdict going to look like? It seems like the defense is really strong right now. I'd be hard pressed to convict Zimmerman on most of the counts (I don't know all of them, unfortunately so I can't say he would be fully acquitted) especially the large ones. Recently I've been seeing a lot of "black-out" threat-esque twitter and facebook posts about how if Trayvonn doesn't get "justice," they will riot; any thoughts? There is only one charge, Murder 2. There is one additional instruction for manslaughter which they can find him guilty of if he's not guilty of murder 2. Other than that, it's not guilty. Verdict has to be unanimous either way, or it's a hung jury. Having said that, I'm trying to understand how we have two jurors, one of which is married to an attorney, the other is the mother of an attorney. How could these two have made it without knowing much about the case ? I can't imagine there can be a unanimous verdict of guilty on either. I would imagine these 2 jurors would be well aware of the manslaughter mandatory minimums from their family before entering sequester, whether they admit it or not.
my significant other knows jackshit about the law. sequestration and lesser included offenses isnt our standard pillowtalk.
|
On July 13 2013 13:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 13:39 Kaitlin wrote:On July 13 2013 12:55 docvoc wrote:
Back to the trial: What is the verdict going to look like? It seems like the defense is really strong right now. I'd be hard pressed to convict Zimmerman on most of the counts (I don't know all of them, unfortunately so I can't say he would be fully acquitted) especially the large ones. Recently I've been seeing a lot of "black-out" threat-esque twitter and facebook posts about how if Trayvonn doesn't get "justice," they will riot; any thoughts? There is only one charge, Murder 2. There is one additional instruction for manslaughter which they can find him guilty of if he's not guilty of murder 2. Other than that, it's not guilty. Verdict has to be unanimous either way, or it's a hung jury. Having said that, I'm trying to understand how we have two jurors, one of which is married to an attorney, the other is the mother of an attorney. How could these two have made it without knowing much about the case ? I can't imagine there can be a unanimous verdict of guilty on either. I would imagine these 2 jurors would be well aware of the manslaughter mandatory minimums from their family before entering sequester, whether they admit it or not. my significant other knows jackshit about the law. sequestration and lesser included offenses isnt our standard pillowtalk.
Have you lived near Sanford, FL over the past year ? Did you get a notice in the mail that your wife was called for jury duty leading up to jury selection for this very widely covered trial ?
|
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter.
|
We're well past the "charging" decision. Quite literally, the jury is out. He is charged with murder 2, failing that, they can convict on manslaughter. Self-defense protects against both.
|
On July 13 2013 13:43 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 13:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:39 Kaitlin wrote:On July 13 2013 12:55 docvoc wrote:
Back to the trial: What is the verdict going to look like? It seems like the defense is really strong right now. I'd be hard pressed to convict Zimmerman on most of the counts (I don't know all of them, unfortunately so I can't say he would be fully acquitted) especially the large ones. Recently I've been seeing a lot of "black-out" threat-esque twitter and facebook posts about how if Trayvonn doesn't get "justice," they will riot; any thoughts? There is only one charge, Murder 2. There is one additional instruction for manslaughter which they can find him guilty of if he's not guilty of murder 2. Other than that, it's not guilty. Verdict has to be unanimous either way, or it's a hung jury. Having said that, I'm trying to understand how we have two jurors, one of which is married to an attorney, the other is the mother of an attorney. How could these two have made it without knowing much about the case ? I can't imagine there can be a unanimous verdict of guilty on either. I would imagine these 2 jurors would be well aware of the manslaughter mandatory minimums from their family before entering sequester, whether they admit it or not. my significant other knows jackshit about the law. sequestration and lesser included offenses isnt our standard pillowtalk. Have you lived near Sanford, FL over the past year ? Did you get a notice in the mail that your wife was called for jury duty leading up to jury selection for this very widely covered trial ?
funny enough, they have lots of murder trials in oakland and richmond near my house, and we do get jury duty notices over here too. just because you're married to a lawyer doesnt mean you know anymore about the law than others. indeed, she doesnt even like it when i talk about the law. finds it boring.
|
On July 13 2013 13:45 Kaitlin wrote:
We're well past the "charging" decision. Quite literally, the jury is out. He is charged with murder 2, failing that, they can convict on manslaughter. Self-defense protects against both.
right i meant to say "convicted of" instead of "charged with"
|
On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter.
Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin?
|
On July 13 2013 13:07 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 12:55 docvoc wrote:
This whole, there is racism bubbling under the surface of Americans thing is such utter shit. God. It shows how much some people know about American society, when they claim to know a lot about it. Schemas and stereotypes aren't necessarily racist. The fact that some people in here think that raw statistics and number of people jailed equates to racism and not the issues in a particular socio-economic status is just oh-so, so ironic. Let's talk trial, not some ridiculous concept of racism that only exists in the U.S., no where else, and apparently is in every U.S. born person somehow.
Back to the trial: What is the verdict going to look like? It seems like the defense is really strong right now. I'd be hard pressed to convict Zimmerman on most of the counts (I don't know all of them, unfortunately so I can't say he would be fully acquitted) especially the large ones. Recently I've been seeing a lot of "black-out" threat-esque twitter and facebook posts about how if Trayvonn doesn't get "justice," they will riot; any thoughts? If the jury doesn't fall for the prosecution's appeal for "empathy" and "heart" then it should be a slam-dunk acquittal. The prosecution as MOM has stated quite nicely has not provided any sort of significant evidence that puts Zimmerman's story in doubt. As for the riots, they're a distinct possibility, and will be completely the fault of the sensationalist media.
idk about this whole slam dunk aquittal thing. zimmerman at the very least showed gross negligence which directly resulted in the death of a person. he willingly put himself in that situation after being told not to follow the suspect and while that in itself is not illegal, the fact that he introduced a firearm to the situation cannot be ignored. it was irresponsible and negligent, maybe he shouldnt be charged with murder 2, but manslaughter? hell yea.
|
On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter.
Im in for voluntary manslaughter as well. I doubt that Zimmerman had any intention for it to go the way it did. But he isnt the hard Cold baby killer the media and Black community makes him out to be.
|
On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin?
you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto.
|
On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto.
if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both.
|
On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both.
i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me.
|
On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me.
how do you address police claims of self defense then? or do different rules apply to them?
|
On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me.
Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent?
|
On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent?
lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed.
however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory.
edit: sry the bias in your comment is bothering me. no one was being ambushed, walking away is not ambushing someone. it can even be argued that trayvon was the one who was ambushed. if this is going to be discussed at least keep the discussion honest or its really just pointless. and also, what constitutes him being suspicious? him being black? his clothes? hmmm i think maybe that should've been left up to the cops to decide, not zimmerman.
|
On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. edit: sry the bias in your comment is bothering me. no one was being ambushed, walking away is not ambushing someone. it can even be argued that trayvon was the one who was ambushed. if this is going to be discussed at least keep the discussion honest or its really just pointless. and also, what constitutes him being suspicious? him being black? his clothes? hmmm i think maybe that should've been left up to the cops to decide, not zimmerman.
According to Zimmerman, he was ambushed. What I meant was "following someone who ends up ambushing you."
If Zimmerman did the same thing unarmed, would you still say he was criminally negligent? I don't see how the gun has anything to do with it. I see no reason to assume that he wanted to start a fight that would end in death.
|
On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. edit: sry the bias in your comment is bothering me. no one was being ambushed, walking away is not ambushing someone. it can even be argued that trayvon was the one who was ambushed. if this is going to be discussed at least keep the discussion honest or its really just pointless. and also, what constitutes him being suspicious? him being black? his clothes? hmmm i think maybe that should've been left up to the cops to decide, not zimmerman.
i just have one question.
if everything happened up until the point where there was a physical confrontation, but instead of a fight, both parties just walked away such that nobody got hurt and nobody was killed; in that scenario, what crime would you have charged zimmerman with?
i think the main dispute between the two sides is that people who think it was self defense dont think he did anything illegal up until that point, and thus, it does not matter. whereas people who think that it wasnt self defense tend to think he had already violated legal principles by causing the situation in teh first place. but if the situation he caused wasnt really wrongful, who cares since what happened afterwards is what was criminal or not.
|
On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory.
The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not.
|
On July 13 2013 14:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. edit: sry the bias in your comment is bothering me. no one was being ambushed, walking away is not ambushing someone. it can even be argued that trayvon was the one who was ambushed. if this is going to be discussed at least keep the discussion honest or its really just pointless. and also, what constitutes him being suspicious? him being black? his clothes? hmmm i think maybe that should've been left up to the cops to decide, not zimmerman. According to Zimmerman, he was ambushed. What I meant was "following someone who ends up ambushing you." If Zimmerman did the same thing unarmed, would you still say he was criminally negligent? I don't see how the gun has anything to do with it. I see no reason to assume that he wanted to start a fight that would end in death.
if zimmerman had been unarmed, i would say it was still negligent. the fact that he was armed makes it grossly negligent and perhaps criminally negligent. if zimmerman had not followed, would trayvon be alive today? i agree with you that he probably did not want to start a fight that would end in death, but it doesnt excuse him of being negligent. it was a stupid, irresponsible decision that lead to a death.
|
On July 13 2013 14:22 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 14:12 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 14:04 LegalLord wrote:On July 13 2013 14:03 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 13:55 HeavenS wrote:On July 13 2013 13:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 13 2013 13:43 HeavenS wrote:
I'm just curious here, i seem to be reading a lot of comments that are in favor of Zimmerman but I'm unsure if they are in favor of him being innocent or simply in favor of him not being charge with second degree murder but something less like voluntary/involuntary manslaughter. Someone please help me understand this, since I for one believe he should at least be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Why do you believe that he should be charged? Not to be hostile, I'm honestly curious. Based on the evidence we have, what do you think makes certain that he was acting illegally when he shot Trayvon Martin? you don't have to act illegally to display gross negligence, if that negligence leads to a death then the person should be held responsible. i appreciate the lack of hostility, ditto. if he didnt act in self defense (i.e., grossly negligent) then under the law he should be convicted of manslaughter. these are mutually exclusive. he either acted grossly negligent or under self defense. cant be both. i know lol....that is exactly what i am saying. im saying he was grossly negligent and therefore should be charged with manslaughter. i'd even go so far as to say that by placing himself in that situation, he shouldnt be able to claim self defense. i feel you cannot introduce yourself to a situation where you are the sole carrier of a firearm, be the person that escalates the situation, and then claim self defense, it just doesn't make sense to me. Keeping an eye on someone suspicious who ambushes you is grossly negligent? lol no...keeping an eye on someone is not grossly negligent, but im sure you already knew that judging by the rhetorical nature of the question you posed. however, actively pursuing someone after being told not to do so by police dispatcher after you have already requested help from the police, all while carrying a loaded weapon knowing full well what some of the possible outcomes could be is grossly negligent at best and criminal at worst. that to me is pretty self explanatory. The dispatcher's word was not law, and neither carrying a weapon nor following Martin were illegal either. Doesn't mean he made a good decision in doing so, but it's also not something he can be punished for in court. The trial is to determine whether the shooting itself was lawful or not.
doesnt matter if it isnt illegal, if negligence results in a death then it can and should be punished in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
