RunninInGA
New member
fify
G. Zimmerman
- Thread starter Ol'Blue
- Start date
fify
Ol'Blue
New member
your comment is bigotous (if that is a word, which i don't think it is) because you are making fun of him, or describing him, due to his physical appearance, or in this case, weight. just like it would be racist to describe, or make fun of someone, due to their skin color.
and yes, I agree it is fun jerking people's chains in a forum like this. debating is fun.
and yes, I agree it is fun jerking people's chains in a forum like this. debating is fun.
huntsonora
Member
So you haven't seen anything that leads you to believe he's guilty and you are just pushing buttons?
ndcent
New member
Guilty of what?
I hope no one is debating "if" he shot and killed an unarmed minor, because he's certainly guilty of that. I guess the question remains was it "self defense" or criminal.
I'm entitled to the opinion it was criminal based on how he was a self appointed neighborhood watch captain of one, his history of failure with law enforcement, his repeated 911 calls, his stalking someone in a gated community after police told him not to, etc etc.
I just am hesitant to believe a small framed unarmed teenager punching you in the face should be responded to with a gun and the precedent that would set for self defense moving forward.
Dude is a wackjob pansy and he's very much guilty of manslaughter at the very least whether or not it was racially motivated.
My opinion is no more valid than yours or anyone else, so yeah. I mean I understand people want to legitimize their inner fantasy of killing someone in "self defense" from their keyboard castle but I don't share it.
ndcent
New member
The word you were looking for is "bigoted" - which is still incorrect in application.
I'll cop to being a hypocrite for my remarks however, which I'm fine with in this case, because he totally looks like a fat chipmunk.
Last edited:
BrianSD_42
New member
Based on what i have read so far, reasonable doubt seems to have been well well established. Btw, it isn't manslaughter IF he feared for his life when defending himself. In a manslaughter case in state of FL the burden is on the prosecution to PROVE Z did not act in self-defense. ---> The defense does not have to prove anything in a manslaughter case. The fact that Z shot and killed T does not mean manslaughter.
Has anyone on this thread seen the movie 12 Angry Men (1957) ?
Simply the best film about a jury decision I have ever seen. Beyond all reasonable doubt is a hard requirement in a court case like this.
Has anyone on this thread seen the movie 12 Angry Men (1957) ?
Simply the best film about a jury decision I have ever seen. Beyond all reasonable doubt is a hard requirement in a court case like this.
Attachments
Last edited:
WillK
New member
I don't have a dog in the fight. But from what I've seen//read, Not guilty on 2nd degree murder, guilty on manslaughter charge.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't know how the court (judge) can tell the jury to consider the lesser charge as well. I haven't followed the trial, but I would have thought that would have to been discussed up front, but again, I'm not a lawyer. But by telling the jury to consider the charge as well tells me that the judge feels the state didn't have a strong case on Murder 2, much less Murder 1.
As for Manslaughter, the court only has to show negligence, not intent, which is what happened here.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't know how the court (judge) can tell the jury to consider the lesser charge as well. I haven't followed the trial, but I would have thought that would have to been discussed up front, but again, I'm not a lawyer. But by telling the jury to consider the charge as well tells me that the judge feels the state didn't have a strong case on Murder 2, much less Murder 1.
As for Manslaughter, the court only has to show negligence, not intent, which is what happened here.
BrianSD_42
New member
No. In a manslaughter case in state of FL the burden is on the prosecution to PROVE Z did NOT act in self-defense. That is a difficult burden of proof.
Last edited:
zopperman
Moderator
regardless of the outcome, I think this trial will lead to a much needed revamping of the archaic "stand your ground law" where I can shoot you in the face for giving me a mean look.
As for the outcome, i think the jury definitely feels pressured to find him guilty of something to combat the ensuing public outcry against racism and race violence and blah blah blah. It's nearly impossible to get an impartial jury here. I wish they could have showed the voir dire on TV.
As for the outcome, i think the jury definitely feels pressured to find him guilty of something to combat the ensuing public outcry against racism and race violence and blah blah blah. It's nearly impossible to get an impartial jury here. I wish they could have showed the voir dire on TV.
Last edited:
RunninInGA
New member
You should lurk more and post less.
This isn't a stand your ground law issue. And what evidence do you have oh wise one that allows you to understand how the jury feels?
Zimmerman to argue self-defense, won't seek stand-your-ground hearing - CNN.com
Ol'Blue
New member
Agreed with Brian. After reading about manslaughter in FL it is going to be hard for that to stick also. It has been made clear on both side that self-defense is the big hurdle here. No matter how you feel about it, the evidence says other wise at this point. I still think he is a Dip shit in the first place (Z) for following this teen around in the first place but it doesn't make him a murderer. An dick for following a person around yes, a bigger dip shit for getting into a fight when you have a gun on you in the first place,yes. I think he had this thought that "Oh, shit this was the idea I had in mind now I have a gun on me, he is beating my A#$, and he might use it on me because he now knows it is there"
We will see what happens. I'm still flabbergasted that the state tried to pull the 3rd degree murder at the last second. That was some BS! It is a sing of sheer desperation on there part to find something to make stick because the elements of the crime of murder 2 are not going to fly and either is manslaughter because of the elements needed to convict. We will see....
Blue
zopperman
Moderator
No need to get aggressive, we're allowed to have different opinions.
Your link didn't work.
edit, switched browsers and now it works
I think that this was a stand your ground issue and will continue to be one after this trial, regardless of his defense theory. The initial buzz about SYG laws has faded, but I think that it will re emerge after the trial.
As for the jury selection, 2 years of working at the public defender, countless cases, knowledge of the legal system, etc.
BrianSD_42
New member
Actually in this court case FL's Stand-your-ground law (as it is known) DOES NOT APPLY.
Stand your ground laws do not apply when you are defending yourself and have no where to escape to. This this case the defendant Z claims he was on the ground with the shooting victim T on top of him, hitting him and slamming his head into the ground. Z then pulled is gun and shot T.
No part of this has anything to do with stand your ground because those laws are based on the idea that instead of retreating you can defend yourself. Z could not retreat, he was cornered.
The media really screwed up explaining this case to the public. I have slowly learned more as the trial occurred
Last edited:
zopperman
Moderator
Yeah, I know, that's why I said regardless of the outcome. I think that the media buzz from the initial SYG debacle is going to lead to that. Just my opinion, thanks for explaining it instead of attacking me
WillK
New member
True, one very important key I overlooked. Like I said, I haven't watched//followed the case at all. And you're right, the state has to be able to disprove (?) self-defense, which will be hard since dead men tell no tales.
But my point was, in manslaughter the state only has to show negligence or the lack of regard for another's safety which results in death (or something like that). It's been nearly 20 years since I was a cop in Florida and I'm sure the laws have evolved some.
And in this case, that won't be hard IF they overcome the self-defense portion of the defense.
As I said though, I don't have a dog in the fight. I really don't care either way. Tomorrow I'll get up and go to work, come home, have dinner, take the dog for the walk, think of ways to spend money on my Runner, and try to enjoy my weekend...:boink:
SeattleCyclist
New member
Was it self-defense?
If GZ felt threatened, why did he step out of the car? The police are on the way, why make himself exposed to the "threat"? Common sense will tell me, drive away or at least stay inside your car, lock the doors, motor running and ready to leave if the situation gets worse.
If GZ felt threatened, why did he step out of the car? The police are on the way, why make himself exposed to the "threat"? Common sense will tell me, drive away or at least stay inside your car, lock the doors, motor running and ready to leave if the situation gets worse.
RunninInGA
New member
No need to get aggressive, we're allowed to have different opinions.
Just my opinion, thanks for explaining it instead of attacking me
Seriously? Are you THAT sensitive? :cheer2::hurt::Cry:
You're allowed to have your own opinion as long as more intelligent people agree with you. That wasn't the case there however.
