EPTShooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 409
| 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. | ||
|
woody60707
United States1863 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote: Oh yeah they will come in droves...don't forget those jurors who don't understand the law and must 'be high'.... I stand by my comment. A guilty conviction can only be reached if the jurors disregard the law with regards to the burdens of proof. That is undeniable. This case is swimming in doubt. It takes complete intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:05 Gorsameth wrote: Probably why most of the world stopped using them ^^ You can choose not to have a trial by jury as the defense. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23939 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:08 DwD wrote: Mr West looked very concerned to me as he walked out of the courtroom >< Yeah he hesitated to shake GZ's hand he was so focused on what was coming. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23939 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:08 xDaunt wrote: I stand by my comment. A guilty conviction can only be reached if the jurors disregard the law with regards to the burdens of proof. That is undeniable. This case is swimming in doubt. It takes complete intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise. So presumably it would easily be reversed on an appeal then? | ||
|
DrSeRRoD
United States490 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:09 Kaitlin wrote: So, the attorneys are going to put together their recommended responses to the question during the recess. The judge reads the questions in front of the attorneys and gives her response to ensure that each side has a say in the matter to ensure fair wording. | ||
|
remedium
United States939 Posts
On July 14 2013 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote: oh shit, they want clarifications on the instructions regarding manslaughter. zimmerman is fucked. I'm not familiar with the exact charges or previous instructions given, but: I was just looking over the various FL statutes and such, and they seem...messy... From the below, the jury may be poised to say that ZImmerman used unreasonable force, which would force a conviction on manslaughter. + Show Spoiler + 782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.— (1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. 782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be. 782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Battery is not a felony in Florida... | ||
|
SjPhotoGrapher
181 Posts
The court system needs to be revamped in my opinion. I would HATE to have a group of random people judge my fate.....I'd take letting an experienced judge that does not bring their emotions or baggage to the courtroom as my judge any day over the week of even the "best" of jurors. The man defended himself and it was obvious in the voice recording that it was him yelling, when you're getting beat to death your yells sound like that if someone has a gun pointed at you most try to speak quietly and reason with the person......I feel bad for Zimmerman for having his fate decided by a group of inexperienced people, and for the fact that he will be thrown away in a corrupt prison system that in actuality does not serve to rehabilitate anyone. It's funny how bad these jurors are. They let Casey Anthony get away yet the Judge said himself that he would of sent her to prison, they let OJ get away, yet this man that defended himself from getting killed will more than likely get thrown away in prison. I would have done the same thing if I was in his shoes. Bottomline: having jurors decide someones fate is retarded and the law system needs a re haul a long with the prison system (just read up on how bad solitary confinement is and how they do nothing to fix someones mental health that is thrown in person if you don't believe that the system needs a re haul). Best of wishes to all families involved. | ||
|
Kris312
United States70 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:09 LegalLord wrote: You can choose not to have a trial by jury as the defense. Not to a murder charge. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
So their question isn't even specific. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote: So presumably it would easily be reversed on an appeal then? if he is convicted this will go up on appeal easily. florida is conservative and the judges (like the legislators) wont want to overturn such a conviction though. i would be surprised to see it overturned. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote: So presumably it would easily be reversed on an appeal then? I don't know if I can say "easily," but it certainly should be. The judge should void the verdict and enter an acquittal to prevent the whole appeal anyway. She won't, though, because she is scared shitless of what would happen if she did. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Vin{MBL}
5185 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:08 xDaunt wrote: I stand by my comment. A guilty conviction can only be reached if the jurors disregard the law with regards to the burdens of proof. That is undeniable. This case is swimming in doubt. It takes complete intellectual dishonesty to pretend otherwise. So disregarding the law is legal if a jury does it? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
No, I think you have it backwards. A defendant can ALWAYS have a trial by Judge, at their choosing. A defendant may not have a right to trial by jury in all cases, but in capital cases, they always have a right to trial by jury. Right to trial by jury of your peers is a right and all rights can be waived. | ||
|
Ubiquitousdichotomy
247 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:14 Vin{MBL} wrote: So disregarding the law is legal if a jury does it? Yep, same if a Judge ignores it and you can't win the appeal. Law is not math, people still make the final call. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:16 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: This jury is about to go full Casey Anthony In reverse. I am trying to understand why they need clarification of manslaughter unless they don't believe it was self-defense. It is clearly either one or the other. It's straight up manslaughter if the self-defense fails. | ||
| ||
