Reply With Quote
"my brother mike...ehh i mean, miguel"
The state FAILED to present evidence for 2nd degree murder. This judge is a COWARD who sentence this jury to a life of after they deliver a not guilty verdict.
"my brother mike...ehh i mean, miguel"
Doesn't matter. There was another case similar to this and they found the defendant guilty.
This is the point in the US justice system, not guilty does not mean innocent.
Remember OJ? He was not guilty. How many peeps actually think he was innocent?
The burden of proof is on the state in this one. And they have failed in a case that was going to be very difficult to win in the first place. The masses cried for a closer look and a trial. They got what they wanted.
The State has a very weak case. This should have never went to trial and honestly would not have had it not gained so much media attention. Is Zimmerman completely innocent? Maybe, or maybe not but the state just does not have enough to prove enough for a conviction.
After looking at the forensic evidence and compare and contrast with Zimmerman's accounts as well as Z's accounts in and of itself, I fail to see how this is a slam dunk for the defense.
I did some poking around and in FL the jury will be instructed on manslaughter as well as the murder charge. The jury can find him guilty of manslaughter even if they do not find him guilty of murder.
I don't see the state being able to demonstrate depraved indifference for the murder rap but Martin's death through Zimmerman's negligence (re:manslaughter) seems pretty obvious especially given how deceptive he has been.
It all comes down to the jury and what we think is really besides the point anyway.
I find myself hoping for a conviction if only for the meltdown from m>s, CC, and whoever elses trolls that are fawning over Zimmerman in here.
Manslaughter is a big possibility but definitely not murder. Unless the Jury just hates Zimmerman there just seems to be no proof beyond reasonable doubt ( at least as far as what the State has presented) of Ill intent.
Unbiased people here at Sopurstalk...
Are there any?
How can you not understand the cir stances, including Zimmerman's contact with the police before the shooting?
I finally listened to the 911 call with the screaming. Sounds like a man to me.
It COULD be Trayvon but why would someone who had no bruises on his body be screaming for help? It seems like he was kicking Zimmermans ass. Why would he need help?
I think Zimmerman went looking for trouble and he definitely should have just stayed in his car. He probably did profile Trayvon.
But it seems to me it was a fight started over two guys acting tough that got out of hand. Did Zimmerman have a right to shoot Trayvon? I have no idea.
Yes but the charge is 2nd degree murder. Under pressure, the prosecution bit off more than they can chew.
For those of you who think Zimmerman deserves some sort of punishment, you will have to wait for some sort of civil suit.
This is what happens when the public interacts too heavily with our justice system and fails to understand a case.
A lot of words to say nothing. If you are going to claim that others do not understand then at least explain what they should understand.
You first sentence clearly display you do not understand how the law operates in FL. --Note this is how you respond when you say someone does not understand something-- The jury at trial will get instructions on how to rule on the case. The judge will inform them that they have the option of finding Zimmerman not guilty of the murder charge but still find him guilty of manslaughter. IOW, even though he was indicted for murder, he still is liable for a manslaughter charge.
Now tell us, what does the public not understand that you do? I understand that the judge rejected the defense motion to dismiss the case because she felt there were still possible grounds for a conviction.
Yep you are correct.
And you clearly like to be. So I am glad I could supply the fodder.
So by what you have seen so far 2nd degree murder? Really?
Manslaughter should be the goal now, 2nd degree murder is long gone.
This is why we have trials. When this thing was first presented I was sure Zimmerman was a gun toting freak. He may still be, but there is no way this is 2nd degree murder. No way.
There's a case similar to this, don't know the name sorry, but one guy claimed he killed I'm self defense but because of his numerous inconsistencies like Zimmerman, the jury found him guilty of murder. They're wasn't a lot of hard evidence in that case a well.
When I first read about this I thought now we got another Florida stand your ground nut carrying a gun around. Then I saw pictures put out of a very young kid that was killed and then read he was a high schooler. Then the doubts started. From what I have seen there is no way you can charge him of 2nd degree murder as the inconsistencies are just not as pertinent as something like Zimmerman was actually on top beating the kid. There are bound to be recollections that are not exact and I just don't see them as pertinent enough.
The above stated I can see manslaughter clearly still on the table which probably implies a range of sentencing that could be severe. But from what has been shown so far, IMO this is not 2nd degree murder. One never knows what a jury does. When OJ was found not guilty nothing is out of the realm of possibility. The jury was totally mislead by a misunderstanding of DNA evidence that would have resulted in a conviction today.
Zimmerman is deceptive and was agitated and angry during his pursuit prior to the shooting. If the states account is true that Zimmerman was on top and Martin was screaming for help when Zimmerman shot him.
Those aren't grounds for murder 2? I am not saying that that is indeed what happened but given that scenario --shooting a helpless victim after demonstrating anger and then lying about it to cover it up-- but that all sounds like a heinous crime.
That's ridiculous. Zimmerman will be found not guilty.
And another so called 'conservative' who fails to demonstrate the ability to articulate a damn thing.
I don't think there has been any question that Zimmerman will lie to stay out of jail since the bail hearing. The forensic testimony compounds this. In short, Zimmerman cannot be trusted.
His call into 9-11 and subsequent actions of following Martin when it was suggested he not and then getting out of his car all could conceivably be seen as an angry and agitated state.
The main point of contention that I see is who was on top and who was screaming for help. If the jury believes the state's main witness and not the countering accounts then that is a basis for murder 2 . That is an 'if' that is probably insurmountable but much stranger things have happened.
Even if that is not the case. Manslaughter doesn't have such high standards to meet.
I don't know what the jurors are going to decide so I am not going to front like I do. You have fun with that though.
You're an idiot.
Why do you bother with Fussy? I just ignore the .
The testimony and evidence clesrly shows thst this is not what happened. Evidence that the prosecution saw before they charged second degree murder.
I am not a fan of lesser included offences. Not sure if that is how they bring in manslaughter charges, but it seems like two bites st the apple. They should charge manslaughter if they are going to ultimately try to show manslaughter.
Zimmerman has not given one line of testimony in this case so I am not sure how much his veracity matters. What this case should come down to is if the jury belives Martins friend, who repeatedly lied leading up to her tedtimony. I am not sure how credible she was before the jury.
Noone has been able go testify with certainty. To me, that does not meet the burden of proof for beyond reasonable doubt. I dont know how the jury will decide but I don't think the prosecution met its burden and I think the judge was wrong not to dismiss the 2nd degree charge.
The burden of proof is clearly not met.
The evidence shows nothing clearly. There are conflicting reports as a matter of fact thus reasonable doubt.
What they should or should not have to do is besides the point. The law is clear and the jury will have the option to convict on either grounds.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
