Guilty
Not Guilty
you have nothing to lose by going inside and contacting LEO. Just because someone shows aggression and verbally threatens you doesnt mean shoot to kill.Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
In your scenario, I would not agree that your life was ever in danger, based upon the details you just gave. You were harassed lightly maybe, but never in danger. Ive had worse happen to me on a basketball court
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I'm speaking to the potential escalation of the event, not the event as it happened. I felt no danger based on what actually happened.... and did not reveal or draw a weapon. If they entered my yard, i would have spoke.... if they didnt respond to my speaking, i would have drawn a weapon, any approach by them after weapon was out would be viewed as a threat on my life.
Once they stepped on my lawn i probably would have said something along the lines of " you're on camera, i'm warning you to leave"
As for someone coming into your yard and shouting obscenities at you, that isn't grounds to draw a weapon and you can be charged if your life wasn't in immediate danger.
Bu, I don't recall him saying he pulled his firearm either so his "threshold" hasn't been shown.
Blockburger v. United States (1932) shares similar circumstances as Zimmermann v. United States in that double jeopardy is potentially present based on one charge not likely to stick so a new one was introduced to continue.
I say mistrial.
Sent from my Galaxy Note II
plus the door was locked behind me, im not turning my back and/or reaching into my pockets with 3 guys approaching me. The guy could shoot me, say i attempted to draw a gun... which i did have one on me. His 2 friends could say that i came out, shouting obscenities at them before attempting to draw a weapon and being shot.
Plus, i am not a prisoner in my own home... or lawn... or street...... i will walk outside whenever i please and jog laps up and down the public street.... if anyone attacks me, its on them.
The age of any individual in this case is irrevalent. Doesn't matter how old Trayvon was. The age isn't the crime. In the court of law, 17 is adult and a 17 year old cannot be tried as a juvenile.
Mike said it best. Zimmermann overstepped the boundary and proceeded to pursue Trayvon which ended in his death. The voice recordings clearly show he was told to stay put and wait for PD to arrive but he chose not to. Also, if that was dispatch telling him not to pursue then he has grounds to not listen to that. He could have stayed where he was and Trayvon could have taken his little ass home and wake another day to continue his life.
Sinfix also mentioned he shot in self defense. If he was overtaken by Trayvon, the shooting was justified.
I guess people don't lie under oath even though they aren't supposed to.
ahh so now you are claiming people are lieing under oath? You seem extremely biased and overly judgmental. If someone produced a video of Trayvon being 10000% guilty, you would say it was doctored, or justified im guessing.
You just made my future responses easier, because its clear no amount of thinking or reading will change your already made up mind.
Whats funny is how you have already tried , judged, and sentenced an event you dont even know the facts on.
Again, please dont ever be on a jury
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
i'm biased by stating that people do lie under oath...i'm not saying everyone was, but i'm saying people do. jeez smh
all i'm saying is Zimmerman deserves time in jail for killing this person, nothing more nothing less. just like anyone else that kills another person.
So, any cop shot at in the line of duty and defends himself deserves jail time now?
You realize how absolutely crazy you sound right?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
*sigh*
WHOA, What?!? Anyone who kills another person deserves jail time?
So if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and somehow makes it past my 2 dogs and I shoot them to protect my wife and myself I should go to jail?
If someone assaults me on the street and proceeds to beat me relentlessly and I manage to draw a weapon and shoot them I should go to jail?
What I find disturbing is they "can" charge him with manslaughter simply because he shot Trayvon but they will have to prove second-degree murder. The problem I see with this is the manslaughter charge isn't the initial charge and should not be introduced now. He is on trial for second-degree murder, which is completely different from manslaughter. If they proceed with the manslaughter charge, I call double jeopardy.
Mistrial.
/thread.
Drama has already began.
28 . female . I has VTEC . hondachik .
S.I.C. Chic (Split Image Customs II)
My understanding is in FL, manslaughter is part of the murder charge. IE they can always downgrade it if state doesnt meet burden of proof
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
The burden of proof in this particular case is proof that it wasnt self defense, if they cant meet that burden of proof in regards to 2nd degree, does that not trickle down to manslaughter also?
If someone dies it's manslaughter? should we start charging police and military with manslaughter? should Obama be charged with manslaughter for droning that family?? that's more murder than this is.
Vteck, I think you are being a little overly judgemental on Sammich too. He never said Zimmerman started the fight, he said we don't really know. Zimmerman could have swung and missed, then Trayvon proceeded to beat that ass. We will never know. You may feel it is much more likely that Trayvon started it but that doesn't make it necessarily so.
Suppose Zimmermann is the biggest racist in the world and that was his provocation for this incident. There were only two witnesses to that incident and a dead man tells no tales. You can't throw what ifs and could haves around trying to prove a point. Evidence at hands shows battle signs on Zimmermann's face and Trayvon's hands. That's plain and simple.
like i said before...catching what i was able to catch in this trial, defense has brought up enough reasonable doubt for the 2nd degree charge to be dismissed (regardless of Zimmerman following when he was instructed not to), but i see manslaughter sticking
Echo stop double posting!!! Lol. Hehe, Miami Heat. Hehe, good one. No lie I did just get a brief look at the defense's tactics. Niceeee, very nice.
28 . female . I has VTEC . hondachik .
S.I.C. Chic (Split Image Customs II)
As I mentioned earlier, Blockburger v. United States showed the defendant being charged with a second later on charge when the first one didn't contain what was needed for a full conviction of the first charge. Double jeopardy was ruled in that case and that is similar to this case.
The criteria for manslaughter is different from second degree murder. I'm not familiar enough to tell you exactly the distinction though.
Lol. You continue to respond to my "time wasted." Kay.
28 . female . I has VTEC . hondachik .
S.I.C. Chic (Split Image Customs II)
Lol, you amuse me.
Florida Statutes on Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter
This link gives definition of each in the state of Florida.
My FEELINGS are irrelevant. I dont care who started it. When you are charged with being a jury of a case you listen to the facts ONLY and make a determination based on those alone. You dont play WHAT IFs
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
What does the lack of damage on Trayvon have to do with anything?
Is it possible Zimmerman attacked first and couldn't connect?
It is possible.... it's possible that Zimmerman threw the first 15 punches and Trayvon dodged them all Ali style before deciding to drop that cracker.
This is why the justice system operates under the guidelines of "innocent until proven guilty".... What Zimmerman said happened is what happened, until you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it didnt.
That's the point I was making. The evidence shows Trayvon swung first. If you want to know any different? Go ask Trayvon. Oh wait....
No, the evidence shows Trayvon connected first, not swung first.
no its not possible, because you decide a case based upon FACTS, not what ifs.
The facts which are presented by Police, Forensics , EYE WITNESSES claim that Zimmerman was in fear of his life because Trayvon was attacking him and Zimmerman sustained damages that are consistent with this story.
The Prosecution has not offered any contrary evidence, just WHAT IFs. What if Trayvon said "IM GONNA KILL YOU CRAKCER'' or Zimmerman said "DIE *nword*". Its irrelevent because unless theres someone to BACK THOSE STATEMENTS UP, they are discounted and purely speculation.
The fact Zimmerman said that Trayvon said "youre gonna die tonight" is irrelevant , because it cant be proven. We dont know if he said that, likewise we dont know who threw the first punch. Who cares, the point is was Zimemrman justified in shooting Trayvon, according to the EVIDENCE, NOT EMOTION, that answer is YES.
IF TRAYVON WAS ALIVE , IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT.
WE DONT TRY PEOPLE ON WHAT IFs. If we did, Casey Anthony and OJ would be in jail for MURDER.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
no one will deny this
but you want to try Zimmerman on WHAT IFs.
We dont convict people on WHAT IFs, we try them based upon what EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED.
The evidence in this trial is clear, Trayvon was the attacker , based upon the eyewitness testimony, police statements, and Zimmerman acted in self defense.
The prosecution tried zimmerman with 2nd degree murder, that was a huge mistake.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Not Guilty
28 . female . I has VTEC . hondachik .
S.I.C. Chic (Split Image Customs II)
Exactly, there is a difference between legally accountable and morally accountable. I agree he should be found innocent in court but I reserve my moral judgement because I don't know the truth.
I agree that legally right isnt the same as morally right. I like this example for highlighting that...
Lets say you hear someone breaking in your home at night, you walk into your living room to find someone has crawled in your window and shoot them. Turns out your daughter invited that person over and left the window open. You didnt know that. The guy who came in the window didnt mean any harm and was invited by your daughter. Your perception of those events as they unfolded would lead to you being legally in the right, but morally there would be no denying that shooting your daughter's boyfriend was wrong.
The events that led up to Trayvon and Zimmerman crossing paths are open for moral scrutiny but the legality of their altercation and how it ended is pretty cut and dry self defense.
Exactly.
Who did Zimmermann say swung first?
Sent from my Galaxy Note II
Riots will begin and he will have to go into hiding. Kind of like Casey Anthony.
Last edited by hondachik; 07-13-2013 at 10:17 PM.
28 . female . I has VTEC . hondachik .
S.I.C. Chic (Split Image Customs II)
^^^^ His thinking is if you dont know, you ASSUME.
Its crazy he can say "WE DONT KNOW WE WERENT THERE" and then jump to the conclusion of CONVICTING someone when he admits HE DOESNT EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!
I mean its just SCARY.
I wonder if he knows innocent until proven guilty.
What he is describing is guilty by profiling. By what he THINKS should happen , not what the facts show.Ironic
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Posting Permissions
