Prediction: Zimmy Verdict!

Zimmy: Guilty or Not Guilty

  • Total voters
    15
If Zimmy did fear for his life then that would be part of what has to go through someones mind in that incidence "I may spend my life in prison for this but Im not going to let myself be killed."


That is what has to run through your mind.


That is the choice if you shoot someone.


that is how it should be.

Completely LAST resort to stay alive.


Zimmy thoughts were much more likely " I will show this kid not to mess with me or mine and I can GET AWAY WITH because I can say I was standing my ground".



that's how the wrong people end up dead
 
I Love America said:
You made this all up. The police did not order him to get out of his truck. There is no law against him getting out of his truck with a gun. He had a CCW. You can't prove he confronted Taryvon and evidence suggests Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. The only thing you got right is that Zimmerman shot Martin

Why are lefties so intent on persecuting an Hispanic with a Jew sounding name?
Click to expand...
Yea....just pulled that all right out of my ass. God you're a moron.
 
Pete Campbell said:
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

Following has been, and will always continue to be, immaterial. It's not illegal. The jury instructions say very clearly if one was not engaged in an unlawful activity and is attacked he has a right to meet force with force.

The only thing that matters is his state of mind at the time of the shooting and that is it. Nothing else.

Argue, stamp your feet all you want, say that "all the actions lead to a certain action... it doesn't matter. read the jury instructions.

He either had a reasonable fear or he didn't. If he didn't, then it's probably manslaughter.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The condistions for a 2nd degree murder conviction don't exist. That is, reasonable doubt exist. Manslaughter is a completely different crime with a different set of conditions.
 
evince said:
all Im offering you is an insite to the idea you all on the right just keep refusing to grok.

That boy did nothing wrong but try to protect himself from some 28 year old man who had a gun and was chasing him in the dark.


who do you people blame for what happened?

they guy who knew there was nothing Trayvon could really do to harm him because he already had a handy equalizer
Click to expand...

this doesn't matter anymore in the context of this thread. Now we are on to the discussion of what the jury thinks.
 
evince said:
all Im offering you is an insite to the idea you all on the right just keep refusing to grok.

That boy did nothing wrong but try to protect himself from some 28 year old man who had a gun and was chasing him in the dark.


who do you people blame for what happened?

they guy who knew there was nothing Trayvon could really do to harm him because he already had a handy equalizer
Click to expand...

Turning around, tackling and beating someone that hasnt touched you is not PROTECTING YOURSELF. It's called ASSAULT.

Preemptive strikes are NOT considered defensive unless attack is imminent.

You still have not proven within the framework of the law that Zimmerman showed intent to shoot as you claimed earlier.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You can look through the statues. Justifiable use of deadly force is a defense of manslaughter and every other possible crime. If it defends him against murder 2 then it defends him against manslaughter.

Here is the only reference I can find to "involuntary manslaughter" in the statutes.


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...atutes&Search_String=involuntary+manslaughter


It is not relevant and it appears they mean "manslaughter or vehicular homicide" rather than "manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter."
Click to expand...
Sorry not true. In manslaughter the conditions must be "excusable" as I outlined in my previous post. If you provoke a fight and then shoot the person you provoked the fight with cause you're getting your ass kicked and fear for your life you would still meet the conditions to be considered guilty of manslaughter. Particularly when you use a deadly weapon.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I just found something out on CNN about the Jury instructions. The short version is that the Judge essentially took involuntary manslaughter off the table for consideration. It's either 2nd degree murder or voluntary manslaughter.

Now knowing that I'd have to change my vote and say Mr. Zimmerman will probably be aquited.
Click to expand...

There was never any table involving involuntary manslaughter. You can reference the statues, I posted a link, or the jury instructions, Grind posted a link. Justifiable use of deadly force and excusable homicide are a defense for manslaughter. Again, use the sources that have been provided to cite the source of your disagreement.
 
Jury when eating lunch were still evaluating the case.

(i.e. they didn't take a proper lunch break)

This suggests to me they feel they are either really close and are deciding small issues over sandwiches

- or -

They are so far apart they want to maximize as much time deliberating as they can.

I think if they were at a medium stage they would take a proper break.
 
Voted4Reagan said:
The whole case is an exercise in Yellow Journalism and Prosecutorial Misconduct.

Did the State Prove 2nd degree Murder? Lets see:


The victim is dead; (Obviously)

The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant; (Not Proven above a reasonable Doubt)

There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
(If Zimmerman killed Martin while he was standing aand a distance away...THAT is depraved, But Zimmerman was in a Submissive position with Martin on top of him in fear for his life.... Sorry... NOT PROVEN)

Now...Lets look at Manslaughter:


Manslaughter by Act (Voluntary Manslaughter): Committing an intentional act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person. (NOT PROVEN)

Manslaughter by Procurement (Voluntary Manslaughter): Persuading, inducing, or encouraging another person to commit an act that resulted in the death of another person.(NOT PROVEN)

Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence (Involuntary Manslaughter): Engaging in “Culpably Negligent” conduct that resulted in the death of another person. (Not Proven)

So really...The State proved nothing.. except that they wasted time and money on a racial witch hunt.
Click to expand...
You're wrong on two parts here.

On manslaughter by act, when you pull a deadly weapon and use it to kill another person you have established intent to kill. This was not a killing by accident or misfortune. When Mr. Zimmerman pulled his gun he intended to kill Trayvon Martin. So that fact WAS established. What the jury needs to consider was that intentional act excusable?

Manslaughter by culpable negligence was removed by the Judge for consideration. So that's a moot point.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Sorry not true. In manslaughter the conditions must be "excusable" as I outlined in my previous post. If you provoke a fight and then shoot the person you provoked the fight with cause you're getting your ass kicked and fear for your life you would still meet the conditions to be considered guilty of manslaughter. Particularly when you use a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...

No, if it is excusable then it is excusable homicide. No crime. If it is justifiable it is justifiable use of deadly force. No crime. You have provided no support. Your reasons are just bald assertions. I am citing the law, as it exists, not as I think it should.
 
Last edited:
Zimmerman created the conditions which resulted in the death of Trayvon.


Trayvon did his best to get away from this creepy assed cracker.

Zimmerman sought Trayvon out.


now who was it who provoked fear in whom here?
 
I don't see why the state did not demand that the exception to justifiable use of deadly under "use of force by an aggressor" 776.041 be included in the jury instructions. They really dropped the ball there. Does anybody know whether the jury can consider the statutes without jury instruction?
 
Never never forget that Zimmy knew he had an equalizer.


Trayvon had skittles and a can of Iced tea to protect himself with
 
As a Canadian, I just don't know what to predict. If this happened in Canada Zimmerman would be found guilty of at least some charge and most likely at least manslaughter. Due to the politics of the situation and the obvious raicism involved it is just too hard to come to any sort of guess as to whether the conviction should exceed at least manslaughter.

No doubt though, America has a serious problem with racism and the use of guns to settle their problems. But obviously that is just too remote a problem to deal with directly at this time. When the police even refuse to lay charges in the shooting death of a teenager then that's an indication of the depth of the problem.

Regardless of the outcome there will be even more hate generated between the races in Florida and the Americans south. If Zimmerman walks then the black community will only see more futility in relying on the justice system. If Zimmerman is convicted then the racist hate among American whites in the south will only be amplified and most likely will result in even more such horrible gun death incidences.

On the brighter side, could this be the incident that forces America to come to it's senses and take measures to stop the insanity? If the school shooting of 20 children didn't do it then I don't think this can. America has not felt enough pain yet!
 
Pete Campbell said:
Jury when eating lunch were still evaluating the case.

(i.e. they didn't take a proper lunch break)

This suggests to me they feel they are either really close and are deciding small issues over sandwiches

- or -

They are so far apart they want to maximize as much time deliberating as they can.

I think if they were at a medium stage they would take a proper break.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't read to much into that. They may have just simply decided to work through lunch.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're wrong on two parts here.

On manslaughter by act, when you pull a deadly weapon and use it to kill another person you have established intent to kill. This was not a killing by accident or misfortune. When Mr. Zimmerman pulled his gun he intended to kill Trayvon Martin. So that fact WAS established. What the jury needs to consider was that intentional act excusable?

Manslaughter by culpable negligence was removed by the Judge for consideration. So that's a moot point.
Click to expand...

It was not. Culpable negligence in a killing IS manslaughter. Mere negligence would be excusable homicide if it did not involve a gun. The statues and jury instruction both support these points.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf
[URL]http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0782/0782ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2012&Title=-%3E2012-%3EChapter%20782[/URL]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top