On April 13 2012 06:41 meadbert wrote: Following someone is not confronting them. According to both Zimmerman and Martin's girlfriend it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman.
I understand what you guys are saying now and I apologize for any confusion. You're not denying that Zimmerman armed himself and followed Trayvon, you're merely denying that that constitutes a confrontation, saying that the ensuing confrontation may not have been Zimmerman's intent and arguing my points on that basis.
I should clarify. This is a reasonable point to make, but I disagree with it. First of all, in my opinion this is highly confrontational behavior. Yes, you're right to argue that following someone is not a crime, but it's contextual isn't it? I'll remind you that the definition of assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to apprehend violence. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know all ramifications and limitations of that definition though, but it's worth mention. Perhaps dAPhREAk can clarify.
You can say I wasn't there to witness what happened, but the fact is there is a record of Trayvon's phonecall with his girlfriend describing the situation, worried about being followed, and basically apprehending violence. Whatever Zimmerman was doing, it was making Trayvon afraid. In other words, it wasn't just simple "following." If your behavior is obviously causing someone distress and making them fearful for their safety, then you can't write this off as non aggressive or non confrontational behavior and that Zimmerman was merely "following" Treyvon and it was no problem. Treyvon turned and asked Zimmerman why he was following him moments before being shot.
If you're behaving in a way that is making someone afraid for their life, and likely to respond defensively then your behavior is inappropriate, particularly when that person hasn't been caught doing anything wrong. It is also not appropriate to subsequently blame the "confrontation" on the other person. Further, you can't play the deer in headlights when said behavior prompts the other person to defend themselves. Stupidity is not a defense. The fact that Zimmerman was armed and ready to shoot makes his behavior even more irresponsible.
Yeah, I think Zimmerman did shoot to defend himself. But only after provoking an altercation in the first place. I bet Trayvon felt threatened, I would be if this guy was following me. And if he pulled anything I sure as hell would be kicking and flailing away. I don't think murder conviction will happen, I don't it's even appropriate to label this murder anything. Likely manslaughter. I know in law, they don't allow using a person's character as "evidence", but Z keeps sounding scummier, anger prone, and power hungry the more I read things. And so what if T got suspended from school and possessed marijuana? Wow, just like most other boys in school. Big deal. It will be interesting to see how the actual trial goes, so we don't have to deal with all this media sensationalizing making people make up their minds before everything is accounted for.
On April 13 2012 06:41 meadbert wrote: Following someone is not confronting them. According to both Zimmerman and Martin's girlfriend it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman.
I understand what you guys are saying now and I apologize for any confusion. You're not denying that Zimmerman armed himself and followed Trayvon, you're merely denying that that constitutes a confrontation, saying that the ensuing confrontation may not have been Zimmerman's intent and arguing my points on that basis.
I should clarify. This is a reasonable point to make, but I disagree with it. First of all, in my opinion this is highly confrontational behavior. Yes, you're right to argue that following someone is not a crime, but it's contextual isn't it? I'll remind you that the definition of assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to apprehend violence. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know all ramifications and limitations of that definition though, but it's worth mention. Perhaps dAPhREAk can clarify.
You can say I wasn't there to witness what happened, but the fact is there is a record of Trayvon's phonecall with his girlfriend describing the situation, worried about being followed, and basically apprehending violence. Whatever Zimmerman was doing, it was making Trayvon afraid. In other words, it wasn't just simple "following." If your behavior is obviously causing someone distress and making them fearful for their safety, then you can't write this off as non aggressive or non confrontational behavior and that Zimmerman was merely "following" Treyvon and it was no problem. Treyvon turned and asked Zimmerman why he was following him moments before being shot.
If you're behaving in a way that is making someone afraid for their life, and likely to respond defensively then your behavior is inappropriate, particularly when that person hasn't been caught doing anything wrong. It is also not appropriate to subsequently blame the "confrontation" on the other person. Further, you can't play the deer in headlights when said behavior prompts the other person to defend themselves. Stupidity is not a defense. The fact that Zimmerman was armed and ready to shoot makes his behavior even more irresponsible.
Yeah, I think Zimmerman did shoot to defend himself. But only after provoking an altercation in the first place. I bet Trayvon felt threatened, I would be if this guy was following me. And if he pulled anything I sure as hell would be kicking and flailing away. I don't think murder conviction will happen, I don't it's even appropriate to label this murder anything. Likely manslaughter. I know in law, they don't allow using a person's character as "evidence", but Z keeps sounding scummier, anger prone, and power hungry the more I read things. And so what if T got suspended from school and possessed marijuana? Wow, just like most other boys in school. Big deal. It will be interesting to see how the actual trial goes, so we don't have to deal with all this media sensationalizing making people make up their minds before everything is accounted for.
Off topic, but I don't know what school you went to. Around here, "most" boys don't get suspended from school, nor possessing marijuana.
On topic: I think this case will be settled with manslaughter at best.
This is at least manslaughter in the first degree. He should be sentenced to > ten years. He followed someone, picked a fight and then shot them. It's pretty tough to buy self defense since he instigated the conflict and it's not reasonable to think his life was in danger.
Except they have actually done that. Historians pretty much all agree the Spanish-American War was started because the media claimed (falsely) that the Spanish sank an American ship in a Cuban port
That's not really true. The war was started because McKinley wanted to seize some Spanish assets. The sinking of the U.S.S. maine (which was probably an accident or the work of the Cuban rebels) might have provided a pretext for the war but like all conflicts it was agitated for by the war party which found a receptive ear in the white house.
Well, this prosecutor skipped the Grand Jury and pressed charges as I expected. The Grand Jury wasn't going to recommend a trial, and the only reason that the prosecutor would have needed it was to submit Murder1 charges. Which obviously wouldn't stick.
I'm still a little bit confused as to why Murder2 was chosen instead of some form of manslaughter. Not quite sure what tack they will take to argue this at trial.
On April 13 2012 09:19 dAPhREAk wrote: i cite this only to show how stupid media coverage of this event has become. this is front page news people, on yahoo.
George Zimmerman buys $79.84 worth of items from jail store
George Zimmerman is cooling his heals in jail, where he recently purchased a collection of items from the Seminole County jail store to help pass the time.
The Miami Herald recently tweeted a photo of a receipt from Zimmerman's $79.84 purchases that included playing cards, puzzle books, and Jolly Rancher candy.
Zimmerman also bought socks, a debit card for phone calls, Ivory soap, underwear, beef sticks, t-shirts, deodorant, chocolate cookies, and one orange. The purchase left $41.36 on Zimmerman's account.
Zimmerman, 28, has been charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
The article also mentioned that "The purchase left $41.36 on Zimmerman's account."
Is he low on money or is there a maximum credit you can have with you in jail?
Pretty sure there is a maximum amount per month or something, you just can't have chocolate cookies and jolly ranchers all day in jail. That would kinda defeat the purpose imo.
FBOP gives prisoners credit, they can convince people outside to give them money to credit to their account as well so they can spend more.
On April 13 2012 12:48 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: Anybody listen to the interview with the former federal judge on NPR?
He mentioned that most judges, himself included, would consider this as "a garden variety manslaughter case" given the evidence thus far.
I'm expecting them to have more evidence, possibly something telling about Trayvon's body or maybe a phone recording of Trayvon and his girlfriend.
lol May I ask why you would think this?
Because it doesn't make much sense to try it as a murder with the information released. Either they have some additional evidence that's not been released to the press or it doesn't seem they'll have much chance to get a conviction.
I'm still a little bit confused as to why Murder2 was chosen instead of some form of manslaughter. Not quite sure what tack they will take to argue this at trial.
Anyone saying this is merely manslaughter is completely ignorant of the law. Following and shooting someone is not manslaughter. And there is simple no evidence whatsoever that there was any sort of altercation other than the shooting itself. This could honestly end up being Murder 1, because it includes aggravating factors. As a law grad student, I've taken enough criminal law classes to understand this as well as anyone here, and I've also been following this case extensively, as I'm currently interning for and look at a prospective job as an attorney for the ACLU.
On April 13 2012 15:42 TracedInAir wrote: Anyone saying this is merely manslaughter is completely ignorant of the law. Following and shooting someone is not manslaughter. And there is simple no evidence whatsoever that there was any sort of altercation other than the shooting itself. This could honestly end up being Murder 1, because it includes aggravating factors. As a law grad student, I've taken enough criminal law classes to understand this as well as anyone here, and I've also been following this case extensively, as I'm currently interning for and look at a prospective job as an attorney for the ACLU.
yeah, you are going to fail criminal law if that is your take on this case. im a lawyer for seven years and legitimizing your opinion by saying you are a "law grad student" is just silly. nobody goes for a LLM or LLPhD, which would be a "grad student" for law.
On April 13 2012 15:42 TracedInAir wrote: Anyone saying this is merely manslaughter is completely ignorant of the law. Following and shooting someone is not manslaughter. And there is simple no evidence whatsoever that there was any sort of altercation other than the shooting itself. This could honestly end up being Murder 1, because it includes aggravating factors. As a law grad student, I've taken enough criminal law classes to understand this as well as anyone here, and I've also been following this case extensively, as I'm currently interning for and look at a prospective job as an attorney for the ACLU.
yeah, you are going to fail criminal law if that is your take on this case. im a lawyer for seven years and legitimizing your opinion by saying you are a "law grad student" is just silly. nobody goes for a LLM or LLPhD, which would be a "grad student" for law.
On April 13 2012 15:42 TracedInAir wrote: Anyone saying this is merely manslaughter is completely ignorant of the law. Following and shooting someone is not manslaughter. And there is simple no evidence whatsoever that there was any sort of altercation other than the shooting itself. This could honestly end up being Murder 1, because it includes aggravating factors. As a law grad student, I've taken enough criminal law classes to understand this as well as anyone here, and I've also been following this case extensively, as I'm currently interning for and look at a prospective job as an attorney for the ACLU.
yeah, you are going to fail criminal law if that is your take on this case. im a lawyer for seven years and legitimizing your opinion by saying you are a "law grad student" is just silly. nobody goes for a LLM or LLPhD, which would be a "grad student" for law.
Isn't the LLM pretty common among law professors?
i have never met anyone who has a LLM (lawyer or professor). the only LLMs that are common are tax and int'l law. they are very specialized, and very rare.
edit: actually, i recall meeting a chinese law student who came to the US to get her LLM and then return to china.
On April 13 2012 15:42 TracedInAir wrote: Anyone saying this is merely manslaughter is completely ignorant of the law. Following and shooting someone is not manslaughter. And there is simple no evidence whatsoever that there was any sort of altercation other than the shooting itself. This could honestly end up being Murder 1, because it includes aggravating factors. As a law grad student, I've taken enough criminal law classes to understand this as well as anyone here, and I've also been following this case extensively, as I'm currently interning for and look at a prospective job as an attorney for the ACLU.
-.- Real?
No evidence of altercation? ALL evidence says there was an altercation. Girlfriend on phone says it sounds like there was a scuffle before it cut off, neighbors heard repeated screaming for help, injuries on Zman......
What, you think Zman stalked a poor little cute boy with his gun drawn and let him scream for help a bunch before shooting him and then throwing himself around to injure himself so the police would believe him? Sorry man, Zman's story makes a lot more sense and is a lot more plausible then what you are implying happened.
I'm still a little bit confused as to why Murder2 was chosen instead of some form of manslaughter. Not quite sure what tack they will take to argue this at trial.
"Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won't make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge," Dershowitz said. "There's simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder."
This affidavit dosen't even make it to probable cause
And on Manslaughter. I don't think he can plea to it.
Because of the additional gun charge that I think is mandatory in Florida.
Say he pleads to 6 months on manslaughter.
He still is on the hook for an automatic 25 years on the gun charge.
So in GZ's eyes.. there really is no difference between Manslaughter and Murder 2. Odds are decent he would die in prision either way.
Now if there is a way he can plead without the gun charge...then that is an option. But what I read says the FL 10/20/Life law makes it mandatory. Felony conviction with a gun = 25 years. No option.
The law's name comes from three main mandatory sentences: producing a firearm during the commission of certain felonies mandates at least a 10-year prison sentence, firing one mandates at least a 20-year prison sentence and shooting someone mandates a minimum sentence of 25 years regardless of whether a victim is killed or simply injured.
EPT
