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
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%.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.
ditto........
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??
Yes. I don't think the jury will convict, though. Noise level is too high.
Moving this thread to the barber shop since it has become discussion and not just a redirect.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
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.
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?
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
A few questions:
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.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
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"?
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?
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
George Zimmerman remains innocent of all charges.
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
I never saw enough evidence to convict.
I hope others read it, even if you disagree with the verdict. Or especially if you do.
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.
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.
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.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
In America, we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. George Zimmerman has not been proven guilty.
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.
It's picking nits though. Zimmerman is a free man, and I thought he should be one based on the evidence presented.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Well now we are arguing theology...I'm gonna punt on "Original Sin".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks