If you don't frequent the "Barber Shop," stop in and vote in the Poll on what you think the Zimmerman jury will do.
Guilty of 2nd degree murder?
Guilty of manslaughter?
Not Guilty.
Hung jury.
http://www.kysportsreport.com/forums...-or-not-guilty
Printable View
If you don't frequent the "Barber Shop," stop in and vote in the Poll on what you think the Zimmerman jury will do.
Guilty of 2nd degree murder?
Guilty of manslaughter?
Not Guilty.
Hung jury.
http://www.kysportsreport.com/forums...-or-not-guilty
Former prosecutor (and public defender).
Hangs.
Ice cold for voluntary manslaughter (if properly tried), 2nd degree was always an overreach. The prosecutors did not impress me. It is my experience, however, that juries do try their best. So I hope I am wrong.
Afraid jury will be reluctant to acquit for fear of backlash best case for Zimmerman is hung jury.
In my opinion, Zimmerman is stone cold guilty of voluntary manslaughter and always was. So hung is indeed his best outcome, but a break for him.
Have to say I agree 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genuine Realist
In my opinion, Martin came at Zimmerman and was beating the snot out of him and likely would have killed him by banging his head into the concrete had the shot not been fired. It was justifiable self-defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genuine Realist
ditto........Quote:
Originally Posted by ajp40505
Cause and effect. Zimmerman's reckless conduct created the conditions in which a fight could occur. He does indeed have a right to self defense at that point, but he's guilty for bringing about the circumstances in which it did.
It is most likley self defense because of situation he created. That boy had committed no crime. Zimmerman way overstepped his reach as a neighborhood watch by stoppng the boy.
Had I been Trayvon I would have been angered that someone stopped me and alarmed if I was on foot and the person stopped me was in a car and certainly even more alarmed had I known that this man was armed.
That boy is a football player. Big, strong, aggressive and he has been threatened by this stranger stopping.
So this situation was started by Zimmerman. He brought a gun to a fist fight that didn't need to occur.
By the time that the fight was going on, both the boy and the man were justified in self defense. But Zimmerman created the situation so I can't say he is not guilty.
Horrible crime that was the definition of senseless.
...and that you believe the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt??Quote:
Originally Posted by Genuine Realist
Yes. I don't think the jury will convict, though. Noise level is too high.Quote:
Originally Posted by MickintheHam
Moving this thread to the barber shop since it has become discussion and not just a redirect.
Zimmerman did not stop Martin. He talked to the police and was headed back to his car when Martin suddenly appeared out of no where. At that point, clearly Martin was the aggressor. There is no way that should be anything other than self defense.
I'm curious how this would be voluntary manslaughter and not involuntary, esp. given your citation of his reckless behavior (getting out of vehicle, confronting Martin) which to me would seem to fit involuntary manslaughter better, a death caused by reckless behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genuine Realist
To me it seems to depend on whether someone thinks Zimmerman was within his rights to confront Martin or if that was recklessly precipitating a physical attack and eventual shooting. The problem with concluding the latter is that for it to have been reckless means a reasonable man would have stayed in the vehicle, but the only reason to do that is saying a reasonable man would assume Martin was a dangerous person likely to do physical harm.
So for Zimmerman to be guilty of reckless behavior we have to do exactly what many who have taken that view have said we shouldn't do -- assume Martin was a dangerous criminal doing wrong by his presence in that location. Isn't there a contradictory set of assumptions in there somewhere?
A few questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
How did Zimmerman overstep his reach to approach/confront otherwise engage someone in his neighborhood as neighborhood watch guy? Is being a neighborhood watch person limited to observation only, and you call the police and hope they get there before the kid marries and has kids?
Next, does your view change if Zimmerman was on his own property and Martin was on or immediately near it? Coming out of his house as opposed to getting out of a vehicle he's driving around his neighborhood?
Yes you would maybe have been angered being stopped, would you have physically struck someone? You say he was "threatened" by this stranger stopping him, does that warrant use of force? Why not walk away? Are we saying b/c he's big and strong and aggressive it was OK for him to respond with force to a non-physical situation at that point, or are you presuming (not necessarily incorrectly) that Zimmerman was more physically aggressive?
In Kentucky law at least there isn't a situation where both parties to a fight are entitled to self defense. Only the party that didn't start the fight, the non-instigator, is entited to the defense. Otherwise you end up with a situation like the absurd case in Maryland where a house robber wants to plead self defense for shooting a man who attacked him for breaking into his house. Self defense can't be used if you are committing a crime, started the fight, etc.
In Ky as I understand it the question would hinge on who started the physical part of the confrontation, and there's no evidence it was Zimmerman. Since there's no evidence, we have reasonable doubt (more than reasonable) who threw the first punch, who took it from a confrontation to threat of great bodily harm, which means we can't convict him of voluntary manslaughter b/c if he didn't throw the first punch he was acting in self defense.
The only thing I can see to convict him of something is saying the act of confronting Martin at all is the pivotal legal act, and then maybe involuntary manslaughter fits, but that is rife with issues as well, see my other post for how that is a difficult fit as well.
Is there a way to merge threads, as there is good discussion in both, but starting to go in a circle with wanting (needing) to respond in both.
All I have to say is that I agree 100% with GR and UKHistory, and tried to write basically the same theme when I responded in the other thread.
Citizen - Florida law does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
I ask this question: if Zimmerman never shot, and Martin was prosecuted for assaulting Zimmerman, would you convict Martin of assault? If so, then IMHO Zimmerman is not guilty. If you would acquit Martin in this hypothetical, then Zimmerman is guilty. I think the rest is noise.
Very clear thinking sir. In that case you might have Zimmerman and Martin both claiming the other threw the first punch as well, would that impact anyone's decision with it being "he said she said"?Quote:
Originally Posted by kritikalcat
Re Florida law, I still wonder which it would be since I think GR is a Ky prosecutor and referenced one versus the other. Even if it doesn't impact this case in Florida I'm curious more broadly what he's guilty of, if anything. Was he just being reckless or was some other part of his mens rea the thing that created guilt?
George Zimmerman remains innocent of all charges.
I never saw enough evidence to convict.
I hope others read it, even if you disagree with the verdict. Or especially if you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
Not guilty, of course, isn't the same as innocent. Zimmerman was reckless, a fool, ignored authorities, and killed a man. The right verdict does not mean this man is innocent.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsky
Exactly. he's not guilty of manslaughter as defined and presented, but he made a dangerous if not legally reckless decision. Is it a crime? I don't know, but politically had they prosecuted for anything less than manslaughter they'd have been in big trouble, so they went for these charges that ultimately failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
Had they tried Zimmerman for something akin to reckless endangerment is he found guilty? I don't know, I don't know if he's guilty of anything at law, but just b/c it's not illegal doesn't mean it's right. he made mistakes, just not one that deserved 30 years in hell IMO.
In America, we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. George Zimmerman has not been proven guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
A until B.
No "B"
Therefore "A".
That is why a "not guilty" verdict leaves the defendant "innocent", because that is their natural state.
Our natural state is innocent of the charges being brought against us. I'm not sure our natural state is "innocent" in the broadest sense, just innocent as far as the State is concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsky
It's picking nits though. Zimmerman is a free man, and I thought he should be one based on the evidence presented.
Well now we are arguing theology...I'm gonna punt on "Original Sin".
Not at all IMO. I'm about as theological as you are, less so significantly in terms of knowledge. I just think Zimmerman made mistakes in his decision making that happen to either not be illegal or certainly not require a verdict of manslaughter. Like I said, just splitting a hair, but I dont consider what he did to be morally wrong based on any particular faith or faith based morality. I consider some of what he did to be logically unwise for his own safety if nothing else, which proved quite true.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsky
Risk your life if you see Martin assaulting someone, even breaking in a window, but risking it b/c he may be a bad guy? Not the wisest of decisions whether it led to a death or not. Dumb, but not manslaughter.
I knew that; probably should've winked.
lol. Sorry, I'm being dense of late.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsky
Martina's action was clearly an assault, not only was it an assault; but Martin's clear intent was to lure the "cracker" into a position in which he could attack Zimmerman.Quote:
Originally Posted by kritikalcat
The NAACP is calling on the corrupt Obama Justice Dept to file civil rights charges, but the individual that displayed racial prejudice was Martin.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...rage-Rap-Sheet
These are the bullies in this story.
Badrose, in regard to the link you posted. The main theme seems to be "Zimmerman isn't white, he's Hispanic" however Hispanic is an ethnicity not a race. Look at the Census or most government forms. Hispanic or Latino is often broken down into Hispanic - Caucasian and Non-Caucasian. Most Hispanics self-identify as "other" and are descended from a mix of Spanish, local natives, etc.
Making the issue about the "white" Zimmerman was wrong, but mostly because it was wrong to make it about race, not because of nitpicking over whether Zimmerman is "white." Would it have served any good purpose to focus on his Hispanic ethnicity? I can tell you there may be more black-Hispanic tension in a lot of communities than Black-(non-Hispanic white.) I've seen it with my own eyes, and from community leaders whom I've heard speak in the same kind of racist terms that white bigots used against blacks 40 years ago. Anyway, getting derailed here...
Now, I think for Zimmerman himself it was a disservice in that combined with his name it isolated him from the Hispanic community.
Outside of the specifics of the tragic incident, the main problem I have with what this case turned into is that it has created / propagated a myth that black youth are at high risk of violence from whites, as if the KKK/lynching era is still in full swing with white bigots enabled by concealed carry laws and protected by stand-your-ground statutes so they can kill young black people with impunity. I'm seeing well educated people buying into this, and it's a lie. Some of it is that their politics are such that any reason to invalidate liberal (in the classic sense) gun and self-defense laws is a good thing in their view; but I think a lot of them believe it fundamentally.
Black youth are at high risk of being victimized by violence.... from other black youth. Do other factors play into that - racism, availability of weapons, poverty, etc. - sure, but the white vigilante stalking and killing African American teens is a bogeyman created by the media and certain activists.
And for better or worse the tale of white vigilante stalking and killing African Americans has more evidence to that end.
That story has happened and talking with African Americans stories of similar occurrences are passed down like story of Santa Claus or the Flood and Adam and Eve.
There is a bit of tragic self fulfilling prophecy in all this. Zimmerman saw a hood who up to no good. Martin saw a "crazy ass cracker" who meant to do him harm.
Both got what they saw. The difference was that one was armed and neither it seemed was willing to back down.
IMO the biggest part of that link is how NBC and the New York Time intentionally modified the evidence to make Zimmerman out as racist. That part is a must read for anyone who still accepts what the media says as true and thinks anyone who doubts them is just a nut. I agree the author spends too much time on the "white Hispanic" thing but I do get his point that they just couldn't leave it at "Hispanic", as he identifies himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by kritikalcat
They did it that way b/c "Hispanic" wouldn't sell as well as "white" in the narrative. Even if there is racial tension there on a national news level they wanted to pitch white versus black.
But you're 100% right about the forms and I have seen just how right up close and personal. The GAO seems to have decided Hispanic isn't an ethnic group. in fact they just made ATF change their 4473 form to split the ethnicity question into two parts b/c they had Hispanic/Latino broken out from "White". Now part (a) is "Hispanic" or "Non-Hispanic" and in (b) on ethnicity there is no Latino/Hispanic option, but "White" and "Native American". I can see that being an issue though b/c as you said many Hispanics see themselves of mixed race between those two. But they made ATF change that form, which was a big deal to change, just to make Hispanic a non-ethnicity group in the records.
I'd say the author is half right. "white Hispanic" could theoretically be a group, Zimmerman could be considered "white", but in reality most Hispanics identify themselves as a separate ethnic group b/c most Hispanics genetically are a mix of White and Native American ethnic groups. I disagree with the feds on this one as I think most Hispanics do.
But folks should read the blatant editing done by NBC and the New York Times of the 911 call clearly done to make Zimmerman sound like he was profiling. he said "He is black" ONLY in response to a question by the 911 operator to identify his race and gave him the options of "white, Hispanic, black" in the question. They both cut out the question and his prior description of the person as acting like he's on drugs to make it sound like he came up with "black" as the reason he was suspicious of him when that was NOT what was said.
It was a blatant fabrication, beyond outrageous.
This. 1000 times this.Quote:
Originally Posted by kritikalcat
How "stand your ground" and concealed carry became a white on black violence issue, or a license to do it the way the NAACP is behaving, is beyond me and completely absurd.
I can't decide if guys like Sharpton are that stupid or that smart, but how otherwise intelligent people don't see the falsehood being perpetrated on them is beyond me. I can only assume they have no real experience outside their suburban lives and just have that little clue what life is like in the neighborhoods where they never go.