|
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 April 12 2012 14:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 13:22 Voltaire wrote:
I think this case largely hinges on the audio evidence in the recording. Unless some new, major piece of evidence comes out (possible but unlikely), that will probably be the deciding factor. If the audio experts determine it's Trayvon yelling, Zimmerman gets charged, if it's Zimmerman screaming for help, he walks.
That's my prediction. you seriously think audio is the most important piece of evidence? what about the eye witness (John) that said Zimmerman was yelling for help while Trayvon was pummeling him? that would rank a little higher in my view than experts fighting over what the audio means (especially considering the best "expert" already said its 50-50 whether it was zimmerman).
pretty sure they already came to the conclusion that it was infact trayvon who was yelling help...
|
On April 12 2012 15:24 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 14:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2012 13:22 Voltaire wrote:
I think this case largely hinges on the audio evidence in the recording. Unless some new, major piece of evidence comes out (possible but unlikely), that will probably be the deciding factor. If the audio experts determine it's Trayvon yelling, Zimmerman gets charged, if it's Zimmerman screaming for help, he walks.
That's my prediction. you seriously think audio is the most important piece of evidence? what about the eye witness (John) that said Zimmerman was yelling for help while Trayvon was pummeling him? that would rank a little higher in my view than experts fighting over what the audio means (especially considering the best "expert" already said its 50-50 whether it was zimmerman). pretty sure they already came to the conclusion that it was infact trayvon who was yelling help...
edited.
|
On April 12 2012 15:24 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 14:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2012 13:22 Voltaire wrote:
I think this case largely hinges on the audio evidence in the recording. Unless some new, major piece of evidence comes out (possible but unlikely), that will probably be the deciding factor. If the audio experts determine it's Trayvon yelling, Zimmerman gets charged, if it's Zimmerman screaming for help, he walks.
That's my prediction. you seriously think audio is the most important piece of evidence? what about the eye witness (John) that said Zimmerman was yelling for help while Trayvon was pummeling him? that would rank a little higher in my view than experts fighting over what the audio means (especially considering the best "expert" already said its 50-50 whether it was zimmerman). pretty sure they already came to the conclusion that it was infact trayvon who was yelling help...
Nopes, still an eye witness who claims it was Zimmermann screaming vs a lady a block away who was on the phone and saw nothing who thinks it sounded like Trayvon. Oh and some paid "experts" on different new stations who have said that it could be either, then toss out random %s like it really means something.
|
On April 12 2012 15:28 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 15:24 Silidons wrote:On April 12 2012 14:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2012 13:22 Voltaire wrote:
I think this case largely hinges on the audio evidence in the recording. Unless some new, major piece of evidence comes out (possible but unlikely), that will probably be the deciding factor. If the audio experts determine it's Trayvon yelling, Zimmerman gets charged, if it's Zimmerman screaming for help, he walks.
That's my prediction. you seriously think audio is the most important piece of evidence? what about the eye witness (John) that said Zimmerman was yelling for help while Trayvon was pummeling him? that would rank a little higher in my view than experts fighting over what the audio means (especially considering the best "expert" already said its 50-50 whether it was zimmerman). pretty sure they already came to the conclusion that it was infact trayvon who was yelling help... "they" do schools not teach critical thinking anymore?
I read this in Sterling "Archer"'s voice. Yea, it was pretty funny.
But yea, @Silidons, "They" was one guy. And the media doesn't ask "experts" who say something lame, but says something out outrageous to get views. Other "experts" have said you would need a sting of words to do any realistic comparative. Being that no one knows what Martin or Zimmerman sounds like, that kinda seem more believable.
|
I think zimmermans story doesnt match up with evidence giving prosecutor probable cause to arrest him. This is why you never talk to cops, espcially in shock and definity not w/o attoney. Could be as simple as saying he was on top of me when I shot him and they later find no powder burns on TM body indicating not on top of you. Will be interesting to see all the evidence rather than heresay.
|
You guys have to keep in mind that the persecutors aren't idiots, nor is everything so crystal clear. Depending on how it is presented, or even possibly new clues/information/further and actual analysis on the audio, the conclusions could come out differently. It's always a possibility.
And even in the case in which it is not, there is more to a self defense case than how you guys perceive it. The night began sooner than Trayson's attack on Zimmerman. We've had this discussion early. On one side, Zimmerman had the right to "inspect" Trayson, especially as the neighborhood watch. This would mean that Trayson's aggression and paranoia led to him attacking Zimmerman. However, on the other side, why did Trayson feel so threatened? Was Zimmerman's approach too aggressive, that which is beyond the normal bounds of "inspecting" and thus becomes "stalking" or "harassing"? In this case, Zimmerman is in the wrong.
This part is why the phone call is important. There was no audio files logging when Zimmerman was attacked and it was "made clear" that Zimmerman was screaming for help. Sure there's the issue of hearsay, but this has no bearing on the audio files. The time during which the audio files (from both parties mind you) were captured occurred at a different time than the attack (EDIT: except for the start, which doesn't seem to reveal very much). EDIT: Also, even if Zimmerman provides a full account, it is likely to be bias and not necessarily because he is lying. He may believe he had the right, but if in actuality he did not, it would still not make him a liar. It would just make him misinformed or very unlucky.
From here, the trial would involve analyzing the level of threat made by Zimmerman vs the level of threat perceived by Trayson. This is really tricky and this is why there is such a huge dispute over this. @Daphreak, you cannot discard primary evidence and take secondary evidence in its place for two reasons, because for one, primary evidence is purer and always "more correct" than secondary evidence, which is represented here by the guy who heard Zimmerman scream help, and for two, primary evidence is not biased. It doesn't tell the story, but instead reimages (or in this case, reaudios) it over and over again without losing its integrity. The only thing that can change here is the interpretation and this is precisely why this is 100 times more valuable than the other source. The truth is that the uncertainty over who is right through the audio is cause for further investigation, rather than the information being considered rubbish for not coherently adhering to one side. It would be like Einstein rejecting theoretical physics because it did not adhere to the laws of conventional physics.
With this in mind, I still think that there is a case on hand (with my limited knowledge of law). Likewise, I do find that Zimmerman should be legally responsible for what happened, at least to the degree of manslaughter. EDIT My reason is because I believe that Zimmerman had put himself in a situation that resulted in someone's death. He for one followed a person and then did so with a gun. This is, in my opinion, very charged and extremely dangerous. People get charged with manslaughter for killing with automobiles. Automobiles are legal, most people have the privilege to drive them, but they are extremely dangerous and can lead to deaths during accidents. Accidentally/intentionally (as a result) killing someone because you had the right to follow him/her with a gun doesn't seem too far off from this.) He should've opted for a less lethal weapon.) Even if they don't want to claim "Stand your ground" as their defense, this is in essence the heart of argument (imo), and I think "Stand your ground" is pure poison in legal terms. If it didn't exist, or honestly if Zimmerman was more cautious about his weapon choice, Zimmerman might have opted to bring mace or a night stick to the fight rather than a hand gun. It encourages the wrong mind set, which is that the world is dog eat dog. More situations will end in death rather than injury as a result, as "stand your ground" does not have the same limitations and obvious boundaries as "Castle law" or whatever it's called. Lastly, there is an element of race in this fight. A disproportionate amount of black people are involved in crime related issues, and this often results in increased deaths for them. Obviously this is not a one sided case, as it is always possible that black people could be more statistically the cause of criminality (for what ever social reason you can think of or that it could be), but the existence of this problem and the poor way in which this case (and many others) have been handled by the press regarding race indicates that there is huge issues of race all around still.
|
You have no duty to retreat in FL so there is no "put himself in a situation that resulted in someone's death." That's the problem with this stupid law. It actually encourages confrontation and it's why justified hommicides have trippled. I don't know the evidence nor will I guess but jurors will decide what's beliveable, if Zimmerman is beliveable, if witnesses are etc and I think it's good he was charged so that determination can be made in court of law.
As far as weapon. You stop deadly threats with deadly force. The only question is was it a deadly threat.
|
|
|
Few things. First, I read someone say Prosecutors aren't idiots. Wrong, they definitely can be, and frequently are.
Second. This whining about the "stand your ground" law is unfounded. It doesn't protect either of them in this case, this is old fashioned self-defense. Either Zimmerman was getting pummeled by Trayvon and therefore defended himself, or Trayvon was approached by a Zimmerman with his gun drawn.
Honestly, I think the people watching the case and commenting are missing the point. If anyone is protected by stand your ground at all, it's Trayvon in the case that Zimmerman approached him with a gun drawn. In this case, Trayvon would not be required to retreat before using deadly force.
At any rate. I think it's going to be a fairly quick total fuck up on the part of the prosecution. They don't have a case, unless there's some amazing evidence they're not giving out, and I don't know what that could be.
The likelyhood of it being a new witness is fairly slim. Any new witness would likely be in Zimmerman's favor and would not have come out publicly for fear of retaliation. Any new witness in Trayvon's favor would be unlikely because their testimony could have had him arrested much earlier.
I think it's more likely that the prosecution felt pressured into a trial by the public and has pieced together some evidence that, in a vacuum, looks good, but won't hold up to scrutiny or counter-evidence. Probably relying on the emotion of the case, painting Trayvon as a good kid with skittles, and the media attention it has gotten to carry them through. But it won't work, at least, I don't think it will.
Should play a drinking game for how often Skittles and Arizona are mentioned during the trial.
|
On April 12 2012 21:47 Felnarion wrote:
Few things. First, I read someone say Prosecutors aren't idiots. Wrong, they definitely can be, and frequently are.
Second. This whining about the "stand your ground" law is unfounded. It doesn't protect either of them in this case, this is old fashioned self-defense. Either Zimmerman was getting pummeled by Trayvon and therefore defended himself, or Trayvon was approached by a Zimmerman with his gun drawn.
Honestly, I think the people watching the case and commenting are missing the point. If anyone is protected by stand your ground at all, it's Trayvon in the case that Zimmerman approached him with a gun drawn. In this case, Trayvon would not be required to retreat before using deadly force.
At any rate. I think it's going to be a fairly quick total fuck up on the part of the prosecution. They don't have a case, unless there's some amazing evidence they're not giving out, and I don't know what that could be.
The likelyhood of it being a new witness is fairly slim. Any new witness would likely be in Zimmerman's favor and would not have come out publicly for fear of retaliation. Any new witness in Trayvon's favor would be unlikely because their testimony could have had him arrested much earlier.
I think it's more likely that the prosecution felt pressured into a trial by the public and has pieced together some evidence that, in a vacuum, looks good, but won't hold up to scrutiny or counter-evidence. Probably relying on the emotion of the case, painting Trayvon as a good kid with skittles, and the media attention it has gotten to carry them through. But it won't work, at least, I don't think it will.
Should play a drinking game for how often Skittles and Arizona are mentioned during the trial.
That's not the only scenarios. Trevon could have confronted Zimmerman for following him, maybe pushed him so he fell to the ground after which Zimmerman pulled the gun and shot him. I'm not saying that's what happened but there are a wide variety of scenarios that could have taken place, many being in the grey zone of being justified and illegal. They could have forensic evidence that goes against Zimmerman story, bullet trajectory and so on.
|
On April 12 2012 21:47 Felnarion wrote:
Few things. First, I read someone say Prosecutors aren't idiots. Wrong, they definitely can be, and frequently are.
Second. This whining about the "stand your ground" law is unfounded. It doesn't protect either of them in this case, this is old fashioned self-defense. Either Zimmerman was getting pummeled by Trayvon and therefore defended himself, or Trayvon was approached by a Zimmerman with his gun drawn.
Honestly, I think the people watching the case and commenting are missing the point. If anyone is protected by stand your ground at all, it's Trayvon in the case that Zimmerman approached him with a gun drawn. In this case, Trayvon would not be required to retreat before using deadly force.
At any rate. I think it's going to be a fairly quick total fuck up on the part of the prosecution. They don't have a case, unless there's some amazing evidence they're not giving out, and I don't know what that could be.
The likelyhood of it being a new witness is fairly slim. Any new witness would likely be in Zimmerman's favor and would not have come out publicly for fear of retaliation. Any new witness in Trayvon's favor would be unlikely because their testimony could have had him arrested much earlier.
I think it's more likely that the prosecution felt pressured into a trial by the public and has pieced together some evidence that, in a vacuum, looks good, but won't hold up to scrutiny or counter-evidence. Probably relying on the emotion of the case, painting Trayvon as a good kid with skittles, and the media attention it has gotten to carry them through. But it won't work, at least, I don't think it will.
Should play a drinking game for how often Skittles and Arizona are mentioned during the trial.
The first point I won't bother arguing. I was dumb enough to use that rhetoric, so I can't really make a counter argument to a similar statement.
The second point though I'mma hit up. I did a quick search on wiki. There's a new section recently added called "controversy" on the page for "Stand your ground". There are only 3 sources cited, all three of which were received after March 20th or so (after Trayson incidient) and state similar points, that the law causes complications, giving the shooter extreme leverage in the case that the victim is killed. Likewise, these three new sources claim that the law has been used to excuse barfights, road rage, etc. Prior to these three sources, there was only one in that section, which says this "In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed." This has been brought up as well, but I bring it up again to say that it was (probably) the biggest argument against Stand Your Ground prior to the Trayson incident.
Now lets do the double side of the coin thing again. On the Trayson side, one can argue that these studies were not conducted until Trayson had died, making him of sorts, a "justice martyr". On the flip side, people can easily argue that the media/single/w/e has skewed the argument towards a negative light and that the only reason more information/studies have popped up is because people have a disillusioned sense of why Stand Your Ground is wrong.
Now, because I don't have the time to research more on it, I'm just gonna give you my opinion down and dirty. I don't think you bothered reading my whole argument above. You read my first paragraph, made a counter argument against that as your first point, and then you read the next guys point (which was about how he was against Stand Your Ground) and you made a counter argument to that. The basis of half my post was on why I think there is a case, which revolves around the audio files, and how the disputes over them leave more room for interpretation and debate. More wiggle room = possible case. I also mentioned that Zimmerman and his lawyer were NOT considering Stand Your Ground and were instead considering pure old self-defense, kinda like how you said the same thing as the main basis of your second point. I said that the fact that it exists probably made Zimmerman feel more entitled to use a gun, as if the situation came to it, he could shoot to kill. In hindsight, had he had mace or an equivalent non-lethal, he likely would stopped the attack but not kill Trayson in the process. In further hindsight, if Stand Your Ground didn't exist or if there were enough measures to discourage killing over running/disarming, he probably would've opted for mace over a gun, since he wouldn't want to have to deal with the legal issues that comes with killing a person.
I personally hope to god that Zimmerman get prosecuted, because if he does, Stand Your Ground will (as it has been) get the proper attention it needs. A law like that is ambiguous and dangerous, just as you said, Trayson had just as much right to kill Zimmerman because he felt threatened. And other people have been saying that Zimmerman was not in the wrong for following and inspecting Trayson.
|
Reading FL Murder 2 definition (in the OP)
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Depravity... that is going to be tough to prove. I mean we're talking a window of seconds.. from the time GZ hangs up with 9-1-1 until the shooting. At 7:15PM GZ hangs up. At 7:16PM there is a new 9-1-1 call reporting a shooting.
So he became depraved in that short span? Yes it is possible. But is it beyond a reasonable doubt he became depraved after hanging up with 9-1-1? That's why I'm not liking the Murder 2 charge. And the prosecutor better have more that we currently know.
The defense attorney is going to pull every Murder 2 conviction in Florida in the last 20 years...and see how many of those convicted called 9-1-1 right before somebody got killed. I'd bet the answer is going to be zero.
Instead of the jury deciding 1 thing... was George Zimmerman standing his ground?... now they also have to decide if George Zimmerman was depraved. The jury will have to believe both.. that he was NOT standing his ground....AND he was depraved in order to get a conviction.
Manslaughter would be easier to prove.
|
On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
Reading FL Murder 2 definition (in the OP)
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Depravity... that is going to be tough to prove. I mean we're talking a window of seconds.. from the time GZ hangs up with 9-1-1 until the shooting. At 7:15PM GZ hangs up. At 7:16PM there is a new 9-1-1 call reporting a shooting.
So he became depraved in that short span? Yes it is possible. But is it beyond a reasonable doubt he became depraved after hanging up with 9-1-1? That's why I'm not liking the Murder 2 charge. And the prosecutor better have more that we currently know.
The defense attorney is going to pull every Murder 2 conviction in Florida in the last 20 years...and see how many of those convicted called 9-1-1 right before somebody got killed. I'd bet the answer is going to be zero.
Instead of the jury deciding 1 thing... was George Zimmerman standing his ground?... now they also have to decide if George Zimmerman was depraved. The jury will have to believe both.. that he was NOT standing his ground....AND he was depraved in order to get a conviction.
Manslaughter would be easier to prove.
I think the 2nd degree murder charge is standard operating procedure for US prosecutors who charge with the highest crimes possible and the most charges possible in order to compel a plea bargain on lesser charges. They want Zimmerman to take a plea for Manslaughter 1 or 2; the government does not want this case to go to trial, ever.
|
At this point I think Zimmerman could probably with good lawyers say he can't be given a fair trial. After what CNN did butchering the tape and then I think it was them again or MSNBC who kept playing a part back but it was changed to make him sound like he said "Damn Coon" when later they showed he just said "Damn cold" But they rolled with that for the longest fucking time. I don't know how you get a fair trial for him really.
|
And well now... Trayvon's mom just blew up the Depravity element.
"I believe it was an accident. I believe it just got out of control and he couldn't turn the clock back," Fulton said, revealing her opinion about what happened the night her 17-year-old son was shot to death. "I would ask him, did he know that that was a minor, that that was a teenager and that he did not have a weapon."
If it was "an accident" There was no depravity. And there is no ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent. (additional elements of Murder 2)
So if you believe Trayvon's mom's opinion... then it is not Murder 2.
|
Doesn't matter what her opinion is.
|
Doesn't matter what her opinion is.
Everything matters, potential jurors don't exist in a vacuum before they are summoned to duty. The prosecution is definitely not happy that she made this comment, you can afford to be dismissive of it but they can't.
|
On April 13 2012 02:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:Everything matters, potential jurors don't exist in a vacuum before they are summoned to duty. The prosecution is definitely not happy that she made this comment, you can afford to be dismissive of it but they can't.
Jury is never going to know about it.
|
On April 13 2012 02:25 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 02:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:Doesn't matter what her opinion is. Everything matters, potential jurors don't exist in a vacuum before they are summoned to duty. The prosecution is definitely not happy that she made this comment, you can afford to be dismissive of it but they can't. Jury is never going to know about it.
They going to do the Men in Black brain wipe right before the trial?
|
Jury is never going to know about it.
What a shiny, clean, brave new world you live in, where jurors are never exposed to information that they shouldn't be exposed to as jurors. Especially in high-profile, media-saturated cases.
As if jurors wouldn't have a good chance of knowing anyway, considering the intense media coverage.
But the chance of this case reaching a jury is probably so close to zero as to make no difference. They'll plea him out to less than a year in jail and 10 years probation or something, Zimmerman holds the advantage in that a jury trial is more risky for the prosecution than it is for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
