Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Well, I'd argue a 3rd world country would condemn him without a fair trial. Same conclusion though since that's what many Americans wanted anyways.

Most countries also have better gun laws so it wouldn't have even happened.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by T@T

No I'm not, IMO there shouldn't be a gun in their in the first place(another arguement),a guy carrying gun with a history of violence kills a teen in a alleged fight and gets nothing, one woman fears for her safety from a ###### husband(alleged),grabs a gun but doesn't hurt anyone gets 20 years in jail.

If you don't have a problem with that IMO you're totally F%^%ed in the head.

"Alleged fight." That's the issue, while I agree it's likely that Zimmerman was no angel and may have started the altercation, there's still a reasonable doubt that he walked away peacefully and was assaulted by the teen. That's what the trial hinged on and the prosecutor utterly failed to prove (without a reasonable doubt) that didn't happened.

That's the "problem" living in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Even if the system was corruption free (it obviously isn't) sometimes bad people don't get punished because there simply isn't the evidence. At worst that's what happened here. At best, an innocent man walked free. We don't know what happened, unless you have evidence that the jurors didn't, so we can't say for sure.

With the other incident, I'll concede that 20 years is too harsh but that was also the minimum time for a crime she obviously committed.

I don't know, if you think I'm ####ed in the head because I don't want to see possibly innocent people go to jail because of public outrage and not evidence, then that's fine.

[PIMking]

nm not worth it

[Drake]

NFL player want the jurors to kill themselves. That's harsh. Even more bizarre some juror tweeted at the NFL commissioner to look at the players tweet.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

What a 3rd world country, where a blatant murderer walks free.

Oh the irony- in a 3rd world country, Zimmerman would likely have gone to jail.

The legal system in the US gave him a fair trial. There wasn't enough evidence to point to murder or manslaughter.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Drake

NFL player want the jurors to kill themselves. That's harsh. Even more bizarre some juror tweeted at the NFL commissioner to look at the players tweet.

Idiot, maybe he should shut his mouth. The last thing anyone needs is for a pro athlete in a position of influence to be spouting crap like that. Hopefully the NFL guts the crap out of his pay check.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

'cept he got the facts wrong - oh this is micheal moore!

Michael Moore has never met a truth that he liked. The guy is a massive hypocrite and incredibly dishonest.

His movies are great pieces of fiction.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Most informal polls the last few days had the public thinking not guilty would be a likely verdict. The open, televised trial helped with that.

I doubt you will see any riots.

Those who need this to be about black versus white, like NAACP, will bluster and try to push it further into the future.

The USA Justice Department says it is reviewing all the evidence presented and looking for civil rights violations but there are none there so look for that avenue to die a natural death.

Mark O'Mara looked like he was looking forward to combatting a civil case. And this isn't the same as the obvious nature of the OJ Simpson civil case.

Cowperson

A civil case would be incredibly nasty, the defense would be allowed to bring Martin's personal life into the defense.

I doubt that even a civil trial with its looser requirements of guilt would find Zimmerman guilty.

And what are they suing him for, the guy is probably broke, this was if IIRC from the defense attorney's interview a million dollar defense.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

The legal system in the US gave him a fair trial. There wasn't enough evidence to point to murder or manslaughter.

I get murder, but manslaughter confuses me a little. 2nd degree murder has the following conditions:
1) Person A kills Person B
2) Person A's actions were out of spite and malice (that Person A wanted Person B dead despite being of no imminent threat or danger)
3) Person A's actions are not excusable as justified or excusable homicide.

That makes sense as being ruled out. There's a lot of innuendo, but no proof, that Zimmerman killed Martin out of spite, assuming that all else is true. They were in a fight and there is no proof that Martin was defenceless at any point (which, even then, draws into questions as to whether this would be manslaughter or murder). So this fails on condition 2. No need to look at 3 since it fails on the 2nd condition alone.

The conditions for manslaughter are:
1) Person A kills Person B
2) Person A's actions are not excusable as justified or excusable homicide.

1) seems true. This means it needs to not be defined as justified or excusable homicide.

Justified homicides were defined as:
1) Prevention of murder of oneself
2) Prevention of a felony being committed on oneself or on one's property

Excusable homicides were defined as:
1) Accidental homicide without unlawful intent
2) Accidental homicide due to heat of the moment actions/sudden provokation
3) Accidental homicide due to combat without dangerous weapons used in without cruel or unusual intent.

Excusable homicides don't make sense. If Zimmerman did shoot Martin, there would have been intent to kill or at least harm. Shooting at the centre of mass would also indicate that it wasn't a poorly placed warning shot (and even if it was, I'm not sure any jury would ever believe it). Sudden provocation would have been more like Martin jumping Zimmerman as he was strolling along and Martin being shot before getting jumped.

This leaves justified homicide. And this is where I'm stuck. I'm not sure there's conclusive proof that Martin wanted Zimmerman dead and was trying to beat Zimmerman to death. We, honestly, don't know who provoked the fight nor who was on top (I do draw into question the credibility of a single eye witness).

But the burden of proof of it being Zimmerman was on the prosecutor's hands to prove it being 2nd degree murder. To invoke justified homicide, however, we need proof that Martin was the provoker and was committing felony or murder on Zimmerman. There's not enough proof to, in my mind, reasonably deduce that it was justified homicide.

And this is where I'm a bit stuck. I haven't followed this case in great detail, but I don't know if there's proof of either being true or who was winning when the shooting happened. Which leaves me stuck concluding manslaughter since I can't prove that the shooting falls under justified.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And what are they suing him for, the guy is probably broke, this was if IIRC from the defense attorney's interview a million dollar defense.

Well hopefully only until the NBC settlement.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Drake

NFL player want the jurors to kill themselves. That's harsh. Even more bizarre some juror tweeted at the NFL commissioner to look at the players tweet.

He hasn't deleted it, which is odd considering how terrible it is. In fact, he sent this subsequent one confirming it wasn't a "slip of the ole tweeting finger"

It's crazy how people on twitter want me to get in trouble for a tweet that they are retweeting because they want something to happen thanks

NFL gon slap his ass wit a $100k fine come Monday.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by kirant

I get murder, but manslaughter confuses me a little. 2nd degree murder has the following conditions:
1) Person A kills Person B
2) Person A's actions were out of spite and malice (that Person A wanted Person B dead despite being of no imminent threat or danger)
3) Person A's actions are not excusable as justified or excusable homicide.

That makes sense as being ruled out. There's a lot of innuendo, but no proof, that Zimmerman killed Martin out of spite, assuming that all else is true. They were in a fight and there is no proof that Martin was defenceless at any point (which, even then, draws into questions as to whether this would be manslaughter or murder). So this fails on condition 2. No need to look at 3 since it fails on the 2nd condition alone.

The conditions for manslaughter are:
1) Person A kills Person B
2) Person A's actions are not excusable as justified or excusable homicide.

1) seems true. This means it needs to not be defined as justified or excusable homicide.

Justified homicides were defined as:
1) Prevention of murder of oneself
2) Prevention of a felony being committed on oneself or on one's property

Excusable homicides were defined as:
1) Accidental homicide without unlawful intent
2) Accidental homicide due to heat of the moment actions/sudden provokation
3) Accidental homicide due to combat without dangerous weapons used in without cruel or unusual intent.

Excusable homicides don't make sense. If Zimmerman did shoot Martin, there would have been intent to kill or at least harm. Shooting at the centre of mass would also indicate that it wasn't a poorly placed warning shot (and even if it was, I'm not sure any jury would ever believe it). Sudden provocation would have been more like Martin jumping Zimmerman as he was strolling along and Martin being shot before getting jumped.

This leaves justified homicide. And this is where I'm stuck. I'm not sure there's conclusive proof that Martin wanted Zimmerman dead and was trying to beat Zimmerman to death. We, honestly, don't know who provoked the fight nor who was on top (I do draw into question the credibility of a single eye witness).

But the burden of proof of it being Zimmerman was on the prosecutor's hands to prove it being 2nd degree murder. To invoke justified homicide, however, we need proof that Martin was the provoker and was committing felony or murder on Zimmerman. There's not enough proof to, in my mind, reasonably deduce that it was justified homicide.

And this is where I'm a bit stuck. I haven't followed this case in great detail, but I don't know if there's proof of either being true or who was winning when the shooting happened. Which leaves me stuck concluding manslaughter since I can't prove that the shooting falls under justified.

I would imagine that once the jury heard the testimony that Zimmerman had given up the chase and was going back to his vehicle and Martin instead of clearing the scene and going home went back and pretty much attacked Zimmerman put him in a vulnerable position and began to basically pummel him that they couldn't prove anything other then fight for life.

That's my guess. I get where the jury is coming from. I think they made the right call in this place.

The prosecution was stupid in going after the second degree murder charge. They were inept in vetting their witnesses who did more to harm their case, Especially Martin's girl friend.

Even if there was a conviction it probably would have been turned on appeal and retried.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Acey

He hasn't deleted it, which is odd considering how terrible it is. In fact, he sent this subsequent one confirming it wasn't a "slip of the ole tweeting finger"



NFL gon slap his ass wit a $100k fine come Monday.

I would hope its more. considering he makes 5.5 million per year.

The guys a jacka$$.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would hope its more. considering he makes 5.5 million per year.

The guys a jacka$$.

NFL seems to not be anywhere near as aggressive with their social media fining as the NBA. I dunno if anyone in the NFL has been fined more than $25k for a tweet, so even $100k is probably wildly optimistic. But the NBA... JR Smith of the Knicks was fined $25k for tweeting a pic of a girl in a thong on his bed. (link to that NSFW tweet because I too was curious, not sure that's worth $25k...)

That said... this tweet is more serious than any I've seen an athlete fined for.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by kirant

The conditions for manslaughter are:
1) Person A kills Person B
2) Person A's actions are not excusable as justified or excusable homicide.

1) seems true. This means it needs to not be defined as justified or excusable homicide.

Justified homicides were defined as:
1) Prevention of murder of oneself
2) Prevention of a felony being committed on oneself or on one's property

Excusable homicides were defined as:
1) Accidental homicide without unlawful intent
2) Accidental homicide due to heat of the moment actions/sudden provokation
3) Accidental homicide due to combat without dangerous weapons used in without cruel or unusual intent.

Excusable homicides don't make sense. If Zimmerman did shoot Martin, there would have been intent to kill or at least harm. Shooting at the centre of mass would also indicate that it wasn't a poorly placed warning shot (and even if it was, I'm not sure any jury would ever believe it). Sudden provocation would have been more like Martin jumping Zimmerman as he was strolling along and Martin being shot before getting jumped.

According to testimony and evidence, this is literally what happened.

This leaves justified homicide. And this is where I'm stuck. I'm not sure there's conclusive proof that Martin wanted Zimmerman dead and was trying to beat Zimmerman to death. We, honestly, don't know who provoked the fight nor who was on top (I do draw into question the credibility of a single eye witness).

Are you questioning the broken nose, the lacerations ont he back of the head, the lack of injuries on Martin except for on his fists?

I understand you might not want to take a single eye witness as fact, but the eye witness corroborates more concrete physical evidence, which gives the witness more credibility on other statements. Note that this was from a 911 call, before the shooting occurred and anyone knew that there was going to be such a ridiculous amount of media coverage.

But the burden of proof of it being Zimmerman was on the prosecutor's hands to prove it being 2nd degree murder. To invoke justified homicide, however, we need proof that Martin was the provoker and was committing felony or murder on Zimmerman. There's not enough proof to, in my mind, reasonably deduce that it was justified homicide.

I think you're correct, but at the same time, there was enough evidence that you could not deduce that it was NOT justified homicide.

You have the following people and evidence backing up Zimmerman's story:
- The police and detectives that night
- The 911 dispatcher
- The man that called 911 due to a fight occurring
- The physical evidence of injuries
- The girlfriend of Trayvon basically confirming that he went BACK to the scene after he went home to find Zimmerman (and maybe give him a hug right?)

Literally the only thing that Trayvon supporters have that supports the prosecution's side is that Trayvon is dead. That by itself is not enough to say that it was unjustified homicide/manslaughter.

[missdpuck]

Have you guys ever heard of the Seth Adams case in Loxahatchee, Fl. ?

Probably not, as it was a white deputy shooting a white guy. Just sayin'.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Are you questioning the broken nose, the lacerations ont he back of the head, the lack of injuries on Martin except for on his fists?

I'm not sure those are conclusive proof. All I can derive from that is that Martin was winning a fight and that Zimmerman didn't land a hit. Maybe I'm too open to possibilities, but I can imagine scenarios where Zimmerman initiated, but wasn't able to get contact on Martin.

Some details are lost to me due to a lack of following the case. I'm not sure what was heard in the calls to police about the two fighting and what is contained in the call between Martin and his alleged girlfriend. It sounds like they back the "Zimmerman was ambushed" field though. I'll try to hunt some down.

Thanks for the response.

[missdpuck]

Yes, I'm a bit confused on the part where Martin supposedly went home and then came back to find Zimmerman.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

Yes, I'm a bit confused on the part where Martin supposedly went home and then came back to find Zimmerman.

That was established by one of the witnesses, I didn't hear that.

There was testimony from one of the officers that Zimmerman had broken off pursuit and was going back to his truck and Martin confronted him.

You'd have to go and look at his ex-girlfriends testimony, I think she indicated that Martin had left the scene.

[missdpuck]

Thanks, Cap.