Prediction: Zimmy Verdict!

Zimmy: Guilty or Not Guilty

  • Total voters
    15
christiefan915 said:
All we have is GZ's word that that's what happened and he has a vested interest in saving his behind. Why did TM yell "get off, get off" if he was the aggressor? It should have been the other way around.

Justice means you have to consider every eventuality and not just automatically take the view that GZ was speaking the truth.
Click to expand...

you have a cite for the bolded part?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you have a cite for the bolded part?
Click to expand...

Rachel Jeantel's testimony.

Jeantel is considered one of the prosecution's most important witnesses because she was the last person to talk to Martin before his encounter with Zimmerman on Feb. 26, 2012.

She testified that Martin described the man following him as "a creepy-ass cracker" and he thought he had evaded him. But she said a short time later Martin let out a profanity.

Martin said Zimmerman was behind him and she heard Martin ask: "What are you following me for?"

She then heard what sounded like Martin's phone earpiece drop into the grass and she heard him say, "Get off! Get off!" The phone then went dead, she said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/trayvon-martin-friend-rachel-jeantel_n_3515166.html
 
christiefan915 said:
Rachel Jeantel's testimony.

Jeantel is considered one of the prosecution's most important witnesses because she was the last person to talk to Martin before his encounter with Zimmerman on Feb. 26, 2012.

She testified that Martin described the man following him as "a creepy-ass cracker" and he thought he had evaded him. But she said a short time later Martin let out a profanity.

Martin said Zimmerman was behind him and she heard Martin ask: "What are you following me for?"

She then heard what sounded like Martin's phone earpiece drop into the grass and she heard him say, "Get off! Get off!" The phone then went dead, she said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/trayvon-martin-friend-rachel-jeantel_n_3515166.html
Click to expand...

Holy shit....I haven't really been following the trial a whole lot...that's significant.
 
if you decide Zimmy is a lair ( plenty of evidence he was making things up) then his tell of what happens is unreliable.

You then just go by the other evidence which has more validity.


that all says Trayvon was trying to evade zimmy.


Zimmy then translated that to " the asshole is getting away just like all the other fucking punks"
 
christiefan915 said:
Rachel Jeantel's testimony.

Jeantel is considered one of the prosecution's most important witnesses because she was the last person to talk to Martin before his encounter with Zimmerman on Feb. 26, 2012.

She testified that Martin described the man following him as "a creepy-ass cracker" and he thought he had evaded him. But she said a short time later Martin let out a profanity.

Martin said Zimmerman was behind him and she heard Martin ask: "What are you following me for?"

She then heard what sounded like Martin's phone earpiece drop into the grass and she heard him say, "Get off! Get off!" The phone then went dead, she said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/trayvon-martin-friend-rachel-jeantel_n_3515166.html
Click to expand...
isn't that also the person that testified that martin was on top grounding and pounding?
 
What are you talking about ? Select what witness....

STY asked a question, I answered him....Rachel Jeantel wasn't there to witness anything or anyone, you idiot
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I'm guessing involuntary manslaughter. I don't think he murdered Trayvon with a depraved mind which is what the prosecution was arguing via Zimmermans profiling of Trayvon.

I don't think voluntary manslaughter (Manslaughter by Act in FL) quite fits the bill either though it does appear that Zimmerman actions were intentional to confront Trayvon but you could argue that they were excusable or justifiable.

Involuntary manslaughter (by culpable negligence in FL) seems to fit the bill. Zimmerman was engaged in negligent conduct that resulted in a death. The strongest piece of evidence was he disregarded police instructions to stay in his car, left his car and confronted Trayvon. It was this negligent confrontation which lead to Trayvon's death.

I say "quilty" to involuntary manslaughter
Click to expand...

And once again a good debate is ruined, by the inclusion of a lie.
Zimmerman was NEVER TOLD TO STAY IN HIS CAR and I would think that after all these weeks of the information being out there, that people would stop trying to be dishonest in what they're presenting. :palm:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You've neglected in your analysis that the jury can consider lesser manslaughter charges. I agree that the prosecution did a poor job of making a case for 2nd degree murder. Involuntary manslaughter there is a very strong case.

Point #1. Zimmerman was intructed to say in his car by police.
Point #2. Zimmerman disregarded instructions and left the car.
Point #3. Zimmerman left his car with a loaded gun.
Point #4. Zimmerman confronted Trayvon.
Point #5. Zimmerman shot Trayvon after confronting him.

To be not quilty of manslaughter Zimmermans actions must have been excusable. There are only three excuses that Zimmerman can use. Self defense not being one of them.

#1. Was the killing committed by accident or misfortune? No it wasn't. Zimmerman intentionally killed Trayvon and used a deadly weapon to do so
#2. Did the killing occurr by accident or misfortune in the heat of passion? Had not Zimmerman used a fire arm there would be an excellent argument for this excuse. He did used a fire arm so that excuse may not work.
#3. Was the killing committed by misfortune or accident if a deadly weapon is not used and the killing isn't done in a cruel and unuasuall manner? That excuse does not work as Zimmerman did kill Trayvon with a deadly weapon.

The case here is very strong for manslaughter. Since Mr. Zimmerman provoked the controntation he cannot claim self defense as an excuse for manslaughter (though for certain he can and did for murder).

The next question if Mr. Zimmermans actions were not excusable for Florida defintion is were is actions intentional or negligent?

If the jury determines that his actions were not excusable and were intentional than he's quilty of voluntary manslaughter.
If the jury determines that his actions were not excusable and were not intentional but were negligent than he's guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
If they jury determines that is actons were excusable as defined by Florida law, then he's not guilty of manslaughter.
If the jury determines that his actions are not excusalbe but were not intentional or negligent, than he's not guilty of manslaughter.

If his is found guilty of manslaughter and because of the fact that a firearm was used, those are aggravating conditions which raise the conviction from a level 2 felony to a level 1 felony in Florida and Zimmerman would face a stiffer sentence than had a gun not been used.

So then if Mr. Zimmermans actions were not excusable by these definitions of Florida Law he could be convicted b
Click to expand...

Because of your continued use of lies (#1 and #2) I didn't even bother reading the rest of your barrel; because of the two rotten apples.
 
when you are reporting something and the 911 operator tells you we don't need you to do that it means don't.

BTW this guy KNEW that they instruct neighbor hood watch people to NEVER confront people.

Just observe and report
 
evince said:
I hope you would feel the same when your 13 year old who daughter is walking home from her friends house and takes a short cut through the back alley.
Click to expand...

So now you wish harm or worse upon someone's 13 year old daughter (are you possibly refering to rape) and HagathaChristie thanks you for making such a comment.

You certainly know about psychopaths; because you meet the criteria of being designated as such.

I'm sure Tekky will be along shortly, to condemn you for your comment and chastize everyone who didn't speak out against you.
OH-WAIT, no she won't; because she's now part of the Kennel Klub Kabal and walking in lockstep is the first order of business.
 
Last edited:
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...

You may want to educate yourself on what the legal definition of "provoke" is and how it pertains to self-defense.
 
evince said:
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?
Click to expand...

Then why did Trayvon confront Zimmerman, if was so afraaaaid?
Is that what resonable people do?
Are those the actions of someone who's afraaaaid?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You may want to educate yourself on what the legal definition of "provoke" is and how it pertains to self-defense.
Click to expand...

I did that already....either in this thread or another. Provocation does not apply here. Zimmerman was safely.in his car, and.according to his own words....Martin was circling his car. That was Zimmerman's cue.to.get.the fuck out of Dodge....turn.the key, and drive off. In order to use provocation as self defense, you can't have theopportunity to retreat...if you have that opportunity....you MUST use it, or else.self defense goes out the window.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top