Support NeoGAF

[Angry Fork]

I think he's saying that there may still be the possibility that Martin was the one that started the fight with Zimmerman which could be considered a bad choice.

If Zimmerman had a gun and confronted Trayvon (which he did) then Trayvon 'started' the fight because he felt his life was threatened.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Not saying Zimmerman was or that Trayvon wasn't. I was arguing that it's still possible for Trayvon to make a poor decision.

Would I have made the right decision? I don't know. I'm just saying that it is possible that Trayvon could have done something "wrong" that led to him getting murdered but that doesn't mean he was entirely wrong.

I didn't mean to be a dick or anything, again I'm finding Zimmerman wrong here, but I think it's important to try and at least explore these scenarios in a rational manner until we have the actual facts. Because that's the best way to get justice for Trayvon if he needs it.

I know I was unclear, let me know if you want me to expand on my posts since.

I feel like that is laying some blame on the victim. The only poor decisions here were made by Zimmerman. That is like saying, well, if that woman had made a better decision with her wardrobe choices, she may not have been raped. Trayvon was not doing anything illegal, he was just a 17 year old who went to the store to buy a drink and some candy for his little brother.

 

[Jenov]

How would you call it a bad decision. Some random guy with a gun is stalking you, you dont think hey lets see how this plays out. Zimmerman is not a cop and has no right to do anything to Trayvon, so anything he did to Zimmerman is ok because Zimmerman initiated the entire conflict.

Just because someone is following you, doesn't really give you the right to attack them. I'm not saying that's what occurred, but it is what Zimmerman is using as his basis for self-defense.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Not saying Zimmerman was or that Trayvon wasn't. I was arguing that it's still possible for Trayvon to make a poor decision.

Would I have made the right decision? I don't know. I'm just saying that it is possible that Trayvon could have done something "wrong" that led to him getting murdered but that doesn't mean he was entirely wrong.

I didn't mean to be a dick or anything, again I'm finding Zimmerman wrong here, but I think it's important to try and at least explore these scenarios in a rational manner until we have the actual facts. Because that's the best way to get justice for Trayvon if he needs it.

I know I was unclear, let me know if you want me to expand on my posts since.

It's not rational to assume the kid without a gun could possibly be responsible for his own death by an overzealous wanna-be-cop with a gun whose only reason he found Trayvon suspicious was his skin color.

Doesn't matter what happened at that point. It's raining, you're being followed. You continue to walk to home and this stranger follows you... You ask him why he's following you and a scuffle ensues. Regardless of the scuffle, Trayvon had the right to defend himself. If Zimmerman was so concerned for his safety he could have stayed his ass in his car. Zimmerman wasn't a law enforcement official in ANY legal capacity. He had NO LEGAL RIGHT to detain Treyvon. Treyvon was under NO legal obligation to answer any questions, or be polite.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Just because someone is following you, doesn't really give you the right to attack them. I'm not saying that's what occurred, but it is what Zimmerman is using as his basis for self-defense.

Just because someone attacks you, doesn't give you the right to kill them.

Also, Zimmerman did not just follow Trayvon. He was basically stalking him for a little while, both in his car, and on foot. A foot chase occurred. It's in the 911 tapes. Zimmerman says that Trayvon is running, then you hear Zimmerman running, looking for him. He wasn't just following him, he was chasing him.

Think back to your high school days. How would you feel if you were walking in a neighborhood one night, and some strange guy starts following you in his car, gets out and chases you. Wouldn't you at the very least be a bit creeped out?

 

[Jenov]

Just because someone attacks you, doesn't give you the right to kill them.

Agreed. That's why the Florida stand your ground law is so iffy here.

Also, Zimmerman did not just follow Trayvon. He was basically stalking him for a little while, both in his car, and on foot. A foot chase occurred. It's in the 911 tapes. Zimmerman says that Trayvon is running, then you hear Zimmerman running, looking for him. He wasn't just following him, he was chasing him.

Yep, but I think the key point of evidence will be who initiated the first physical contact and how.

 

[Dash27]

How would you call it a bad decision. Some random guy with a gun is stalking you, you dont think hey lets see how this plays out. Zimmerman is not a cop and has no right to do anything to Trayvon, so anything he did to Zimmerman is ok because Zimmerman initiated the entire conflict.

If Zimmerman cornered Martin and/or started a physical fight then yeah there is no discussion, Martin can obviously try and defend himself and take away the gun and he made no bad decisions. But if someone follows you in a car, chases you and runs up to you and says "What are you doing here" are you justified in doing "anything"? I mean, define anything. Could he have killed Zimmerman because he was afraid for his life after seeing a gun? We dont know what Zimmerman or Martin did but the point is what are you justified in doing?

That's what I'd like to hear a trial on.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Just because someone is following you, doesn't really give you the right to attack them. I'm not saying that's what occurred, but it is what Zimmerman is using as his basis for self-defense.

When someone is following you for a hot minute, in the rain, then approaches you and attempts to interrogate you it's very reasonable to feel threatened and chose to defend yourself.

This notion that Martin should have been subservient and docile when an unknown person with no legal capacity to do what he's doing gets in his face is just bullshit.

 

[benjipwns]

I feel like that is laying some blame on the victim. The only poor decisions here were made by Zimmerman. That is like saying, well, if that woman had made a better decision with her wardrobe choices, she may not have been raped. Trayvon was not doing anything illegal, he was just a 17 year old who went to the store to buy a drink and some candy for his little brother.

It's not rational to assume the kid without a gun could possibly be responsible for his own death by an overzealous wanna-be-cop with a gun whose only reason he found Trayvon suspicious was his skin color.

Doesn't matter what happened at that point. It's raining, you're being followed. You continue to walk to home and this stranger follows you... You ask him why he's following you and a scuffle ensues. Regardless of the scuffle, Trayvon had the right to defend himself. If Zimmerman was so concerned for his safety he could have stayed his ass in his car. Zimmerman wasn't a law enforcement official in ANY legal capacity. He had NO LEGAL RIGHT to detain Treyvon. Treyvon was under NO legal obligation to answer any questions, or be polite.

How many times do I have to say I think Zimmerman was completely wrong and that he likely murdered or at least committed manslaughter against Trayvon Martin.

This does not. Does NOT mean Martin could not have done something wrong.

I mentioned that the most likely scenario to me was that Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, this is a felony and Martin is within his rights to escape.

I never said that Martin had no right to defend himself and indeed stated he should have done so. Especially if Zimmerman attempted to detain him illegally.

What did I say? That Martin may have made a poor decision.

This is and continues to be entirely possible.

Martin may have had the opportunity to explain his situation to Zimmerman, I don't know, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Yes, as I have many times before said I think Zimmerman attempted to detain him. Even if he didn't I don't care.

I'm fine with assuming Martin felt threatened and defended himself.

That doesn't mean I can't say he possibly made a poor decision. We don't know almost any information of the situation. Maybe Martin could have explained, we don't know.

I didn't say Martin made a poor decision, I suggested he possibly could have.

I said little about Zimmerman, because we know he made a poor decision. He shot someone. And killed them.

 

[BattleMonkey]

Just because someone attacks you, doesn't give you the right to kill them.

From Florida self defense laws, you techincally can if you believe your life is in danger. Proving that you felt your life was in danger is another matter.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

If Zimmerman cornered Martin and/or started a physical fight then yeah there is no discussion, Martin can obviously try and defend himself and take away the gun and he made no bad decisions. But if someone follows you in a car, chases you and runs up to you and says "What are you doing here" are you justified in doing "anything"? I mean, define anything. Could he have killed Zimmerman because he was afraid for his life after seeing a gun? We dont know what Zimmerman or Martin did but the point is what are you justified in doing?

That's what I'd like to hear a trial on.

You're justified in defending yourself if you believe to be in imminent danger, yes. I'd consider myself in imminent danger if I'm walking on the street, someone is following me in a fucking car...is bold enough to get the fuck OUT of the car and run up to me. It's enough to justify "Get the fuck away from me!" resist physically if need be.

 

[Jenov]

If Zimmerman cornered Martin and/or started a physical fight then yeah there is no discussion, Martin can obviously try and defend himself and take away the gun and he made no bad decisions. But if someone follows you in a car, chases you and runs up to you and says "What are you doing here" are you justified in doing "anything"? I mean, define anything. Could he have killed Zimmerman because he was afraid for his life after seeing a gun? We dont know what Zimmerman or Martin did but the point is what are you justified in doing?

That's what I'd like to hear a trial on.

That's what the special prosecutor is probably trying to figure out. It's an interesting case.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

How many times do I have to say I think Zimmerman was completely wrong and that he likely murdered or at least committed manslaughter against Trayvon Martin.

This does not. Does NOT mean Martin could not have done something wrong.

I mentioned that the most likely scenario to me was that Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, this is a felony and Martin is within his rights to escape.

I never said that Martin had no right to defend himself and indeed stated he should have done so. Especially if Zimmerman attempted to detain him illegally.

What did I say? That Martin may have made a poor decision.

This is and continues to be entirely possible.

Martin may have had the opportunity to explain his situation to Zimmerman, I don't know, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Yes, as I have many times before said I think Zimmerman attempted to detain him. Even if he didn't I don't care.

I'm fine with assuming Martin felt threatened and defended himself.

That doesn't mean I can't say he possibly made a poor decision. We don't know almost any information of the situation. Maybe Martin could have explained, we don't know.

I didn't say Martin made a poor decision, I suggested he possibly could have.

I said little about Zimmerman, because we know he made a poor decision. He shot someone. And killed them.

Ok, but without specifying WHAT MISTAKE Trayvon made directly really makes it look like you're grasping at straws despite the facts. That's all.

I don't know of any mistakes he made besides be black on a rainy night. Do you?

 

[BattleMonkey]

You're justified in defending yourself if you believe to be in imminent danger, yes. I'd consider myself in imminent danger if I'm walking on the street, someone is following me in a fucking car...is bold enough to get the fuck OUT of the car and run up to me. It's enough to justify "Get the fuck away from me!" resist physically if need be.

This again goes into the trickiness of the stand your ground law. If someone approaches you in such a manner your allowed to defend yourself but you have to stand your ground. If a person just comes up to you talking (even if hostile sounding) and you lash out at them, you did not stand your ground. If Zimmerman ran at the kid or appeared to get physical with him, then Trayvon in every right was allowed to defend himself. There was a case in Florida few years ago where an older gentleman had a larger fellow come at him angrily due to a road incident. The older person afraid of the big angry guy pulled out a gun and shot the guy in the head, claiming self defense for fear of his life from the approaching big dude. That old dude is now in jail as he could not prove his life was in danger.

But this case appears to go beyond standing ground rules as it seems a fight broke out and it wasn't simply either person standing their ground. Once an altercation happens the self defense laws always become messy. Getting into a fight is not justification for shooting even in Florida, hence the troubling part of a case like this where it has to be determined if someone has escalated the altercation into something beyond just a fight, and into a life threatning situation that would require someone to defend themselves, and whose fault it was. Without witnesses who saw the whole thing clearly, it becomes very tricky.

From what's been said this went beyond the stand your ground situation.

 

[benjipwns]

I don't know of any mistakes he made besides be black on a rainy night. Do you?

Well, we still don't know, do we?

My point was merely that it's possible he made mistakes that allowed Zimmerman to justify, in his mind, the manslaughter.

I think you guys seemed to think I was defending Zimmerman or who knows what, instead of supporting the completely logical concept that Martin may have made unfortunate mistakes. We know Zimmerman did, I have to assume Martin did. Why else would someone be dead? I wasn't there. Someone made a mistake. I'm going to assume everyone involved made some type of mistake since all I have is the opinion of the shooter and some shoddy witnesses.

If people think I'm grasping at straws to ignore facts when I've said days ago and continued to say I think Zimmerman was wrong, well, I can't help them.

 

[Shogmaster]

Well, we still don't know, do we?

My point was merely that it's possible he made mistakes that allowed Zimmerman to justify, in his mind, the manslaughter.

You're fucking kidding me, right? It's our mistake if we make a mentally unstable person harm us? Get the fuck out of my face with that BS.

 

[mckmas8808]

LOL he cited the fake Trayvon picture. What a fucking joke

Okay can someone explain which picture the lawyer cited and why? What was the context?

 

[benjipwns]

You're fucking kidding me, right? It's our mistake if we make a mentally unstable person harm us? Get the fuck out of my face with that BS.

Because willfully ignoring context is so much better than logically building a case against someone who committed manslaughter.

Go ahead. Rage against the people who want Zimmerman to go to trial. Great way to build a coalition for justice.

 

[KittenMaster]

Even if somebody makes a mistake that makes their situation worse, doesn't mean you should capitalize on said mistakes.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Because willfully ignoring context is so much better than logically building a case against someone who committed manslaughter.

Go ahead. Rage against the people who want Zimmerman to go to trial. Great way to build a coalition for justice.

There's no logic in assuming a 17 year old kid might be responsible for his own murder when he's walking home not bothering anyone with skittles and iced tea.

 

[Allard]

Well, we still don't know, do we?

My point was merely that it's possible he made mistakes that allowed Zimmerman to justify, in his mind, the manslaughter.

I think you guys seemed to think I was defending Zimmerman or who knows what, instead of supporting the completely logical concept that Martin may have made unfortunate mistakes. We know Zimmerman did, I have to assume Martin did. Why else would someone be dead? I wasn't there. Someone made a mistake. I'm going to assume everyone involved made some type of mistake since all I have is the opinion of the shooter and some shoddy witnesses.

If people think I'm grasping at straws to ignore facts when I've said days ago and continued to say I think Zimmerman was wrong, well, I can't help them.

What is wrong is assuming both sides made a mistake. The reason people think your defending Zimmerman is you are trying to find a conclusion that some how Martin did something wrong to provoke a 'killing' response by Zimmerman (even if as you say you don't even personally believe it). You're right we don't know everything that happened that night but the fact is one side had a gun, one side clearly instigated the initial confrontation, and an unarmed person died during this confrontation. It doesn't matter in ANY form what Martin did with those facts in mind. What you are basically saying is "I'm not defending him! But I think there is a possible way to make Zimmerman not look quite as bad because 'maybe' Martin made a mistake to get himself killed!" That's what it sounds like whether that's your intention or not.

 

[Dude Abides]

Because willfully ignoring context is so much better than logically building a case against someone who committed manslaughter.

Go ahead. Rage against the people who want Zimmerman to go to trial. Great way to build a coalition for justice.

I'm curious as to why some folks keep tossing around manslaughter. What is it that we know, or think we know, about the shooting that would make it manslaughter rather than 1st or 2nd degree murder?

 

[Nobody Important]

You're conveniently leaving out the most important difference between the cases. There were multiple eyewitnesses to that shooting.

The single biggest problem with the Zimmerman/Martin case is the lack of eyewitnesses after the phone calls end.

I didn't conveniently leave out the eyewitnesses - they are irrelevant. The fact that Dooley was attacked, by the person he had confronted, while walking away and eventually pinned to the ground, is not being disputed. Whether he was being choked or not is the only issue. The fact that Zimmerman and Martin scuffled is not in dispute. The severity of the head bashing/beating and who is actually screaming are the only issues in question.

The man in Texas wasn't even being attacked by the men robing a neighbors house when he opened fire, yet he successfully argued that the stand your ground laws made it justified.

Dooley was attacked. There are eyewitnesses that confirm he was attacked. He's been charged with Manslaughter.

These two cases are as similar as you can get in the real world.

 

[benjipwns]

There's no logic in assuming a 17 year old kid might be responsible for his own murder when he's walking home not bothering anyone with skittles and iced tea.

Good thing nobody did.

What is wrong is assuming both sides made a mistake. The reason people think your defending Zimmerman is you are trying to find a conclusion that some how Martin did something wrong to provoke a 'killing' response by Zimmerman (even if as you say you don't even personally believe it). You're right we don't know everything that happened that night but the fact is one side had a gun, one side clearly instigated the initial confrontation, and an unarmed person died during this confrontation. It doesn't matter in ANY form what Martin did with those facts in mind. What you are basically saying is "I'm not defending him! But I think there is a possible way to make Zimmerman not look quite as bad because 'maybe' Martin made a mistake to get himself killed!" That's what it sounds like whether that's your intention or not.

Except Zimmerman getting out of his car provoked the entire incident.

Martin aggressively defending himself was right, but it could still have been a mistake and if it happened in retrospect was.

I'm curious as to why some folks keep tossing around manslaughter. What is it that we know, or think we know, about the shooting that would make it manslaughter rather than 1st or 2nd degree murder?

I'm just being fair to Zimmerman, worst I would say in any situation no matter what is attempted murder. It's not a situation specific thing here. (For me anyway.)

 

[Jenov]

I'm curious as to why some folks keep tossing around manslaughter. What is it that we know, or think we know, about the shooting that would make it manslaughter rather than 1st or 2nd degree murder?

To be murder you have to establish that Zimmerman had a premeditated intent to kill Martin. I don't think there's a good case for that. Manslaughter would be much more likely, unless the prosecutor decides that Zimmerman was justified in lethal force through the stand your ground law.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Good thing nobody did.

See Below.

Does NOT mean Martin could not have done something wrong.

Is this the part where you claim that's not what you meant? "Wrong" in the context you used (regardless of if it was your intention or not) heavily insinuates responsibility for the outcome of events that lead to Travon Martins death.

 

[Dude Abides]

To be murder you have to establish that Zimmerman had a premeditated intent to kill Martin. I don't think there's a good case for that. Manslaughter would be much more likely, unless the prosecutor decides that Zimmerman was justified in lethal force through the stand your ground law.

That's not what premeditated means. It doesn't mean a pre-existing intent, contrary to what one would think. It just means that he had enough time to pause and reconsider - it can be just a moment.

Just assuming manslaughter also ignores the possibility of murder in the second degree, which does not require premeditation but rather "a depraved mind regardless of human life." This used to be called "an abandoned and malignant heart."

 

[Jenov]

That's not what premeditated means. It doesn't mean a pre-existing intent, contrary to what one would think. It just means that he had enough time to pause and reconsider - it can be just a moment.

Just assuming manslaughter also ignores the possibility of murder in the second degree, which does not require premeditation but rather "a depraved mind regardless of human life." This used to be called "an abandoned and malignant heart."

I believe you still need to prove some sort of intent or state of mind to prove it. You would need to say that he specifically chose to confront Martin to kill him.

 

[Allard]

Good thing nobody did.

Except Zimmerman getting out of his car provoked the entire incident.

Martin aggressively defending himself was right, but it could still have been a mistake and in retrospect was.

This is where I have issue, it assumes that Martin physically confronted Zimmerman willingly in defense of himself. If Martin was the person screaming on the 911 tapes then he was actively trying to get help from anyone around the area, he was not in a position to walk away from the altercation. What your belief assumes is that pending the provocation from Zimmerman that Martin willing (mistakenly) fought against Zimmerman when he had the chance to escape or be submissive. Yes its 'possible' but given the evidence we have thus far and the out right lies perpetrated by Zimmerman himself, I find it highly unlikely. Furthermore whether its your intention or not you are trying to project fault/mistake on to someone that is now dead that has no right to be dead, its a very emotional string to pull and its deliberation best waited on during a trial, which is what we all want at this point.

 

[BattleMonkey]

I'm curious as to why some folks keep tossing around manslaughter. What is it that we know, or think we know, about the shooting that would make it manslaughter rather than 1st or 2nd degree murder?

Because it is the easiest thing they will be able to convict on. 2nd degree is possible as well.

1st degree will most likely never happen in this case. There is no evidence so far that seems to indicate that it could be 1st degree, and it also is the hardest to convict on. Most cases in which self defense was claimed but the shooter was convicted, it's for manslaughter or 2nd degree. State prosecutors wouldn't go for 1st degree conviction without them having solid case evidence to prove it.

 

[soundahfekz]

His lawyers have stopped representing him because he's been non-communicative and acting without them. That doesn't mean that he's disappeared or that law enforcement doesn't know where he is.

So then why would you make a definitive statement about his whereabouts when you have no idea on his location?

I called you out about this last time and you stammered about. you're clearly in defense of this man.

 

[benjipwns]

That's not what premeditated means. It doesn't mean a pre-existing intent, contrary to what one would think. It just means that he had enough time to pause and reconsider - it can be just a moment.

Just assuming manslaughter also ignores the possibility of murder in the second degree, which does not require premeditation but rather "a depraved mind regardless of human life." This used to be called "an abandoned and malignant heart."

I said manslaughter because I did not want to make a claim to Zimmerman's state of mind, I'm not on a jury so I will give a benefit of the doubt and assume he fucked up.

Is this the part where you claim that's not what you meant? "Wrong" in the context you used (regardless of if it was your intention or not) heavily insinuates responsibility for the outcome of events that lead to Travon Martins death.

Martin could have done something wrong and still not been at fault for his death.

As I noted Zimmerman could have attempted to detain him, Martin could have resisted, there are many ways this could have gone wrong, if we take the dubious claims of Zimmerman at face value then Martin was in the wrong, and yet Zimmerman was never justified in shooting Martin.

Being in the wrong and making incorrect decisions are two separate things.

Until I see more evidence, and in particular the autopsy, I will continue to assume that Zimmerman committed manslaughter. Possibly in self defense, but I'd like to see the evidence.

My notions of responsibility always fall on whoever took the life. If Martin did, as Zimmerman claims beat his skull into the ground and kill him, he's responsible. He didn't. We don't know when Martin died that I'm aware of.

This is where I have issue, it assumes that Martin physically confronted Zimmerman willingly in defense of himself. If Martin was the person screaming on the 911 tapes then he was actively trying to get help from anyone around the area, he was not in a position to walk away from the altercation. What your belief assumes is that pending the provocation from Zimmerman that Martin willing (mistakenly) fought against Zimmerman when he had the chance to escape or be submissive. Yes its 'possible' but given the evidence we have thus far and the out right lies perpetrated by Zimmerman himself, I find it highly unlikely. Furthermore whether its your intention or not you are trying to project fault/mistake on to someone that is now dead that has no right to be dead, its a very emotional string to pull and its deliberation best waited on during a trial, which is what we all want at this point.

If Martin confronted Zimmerman in defense, he's fine in my opinion (except for the fact he's dead) because Zimmerman had no right to detain him.

If Zimmerman never approached Martin, what reason would Martin have to approach Zimmerman AND assault him? It makes no sense UNLESS Zimmerman approached him first.

 

[soundahfekz]

I said manslaughter because I did not want to make a claim to Zimmerman's state of mind, I'm not on a jury so I will give a benefit of the doubt and assume he fucked up.

Martin could have done something wrong and still not been at fault for his death.

As I noted Zimmerman could have attempted to detain him, Martin could have resisted, there are many ways this could have gone wrong, if we take the dubious claims of Zimmerman at face value then Martin was in the wrong, and yet Zimmerman was never justified in shooting Martin.

Being in the wrong and making incorrect decisions are two separate things.

Until I see more evidence, and in particular the autopsy, I will continue to assume that Zimmerman committed manslaughter. Possibly in self defense, but I'd like to see the evidence.

My notions of responsibility always fall on whoever took the life. If Martin did, as Zimmerman claims beat his skull into the ground and kill him, he's responsible. He didn't. We don't know when Martin died that I'm aware of.

I think with the screaming and pleading for help Trayvon did, 2nd degree murder is more appropriate.

I would not be surprised by a manslaughter charge, but I don't think it would be accurate.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I said manslaughter because I did not want to make a claim to Zimmerman's state of mind, I'm not on a jury so I will give a benefit of the doubt and assume he fucked up.

Martin could have done something wrong and still not been at fault for his death.

As I noted Zimmerman could have attempted to detain him, Martin could have resisted, there are many ways this could have gone wrong, if we take the dubious claims of Zimmerman at face value then Martin was in the wrong, and yet Zimmerman was never justified in shooting Martin.

Being in the wrong and making incorrect decisions are two separate things.

Until I see more evidence, and in particular the autopsy, I will continue to assume that Zimmerman committed manslaughter. Possibly in self defense, but I'd like to see the evidence.

My notions of responsibility always fall on whoever took the life. If Martin did, as Zimmerman claims beat his skull into the ground and kill him, he's responsible. He didn't. We don't know when Martin died that I'm aware of.

So then can you clarify the word "wrong" as you're using it, please? Because the insinuation seems to be pretty obvious.

How *could* have Martin been in the wrong? Examples? The "oh but we just don't know" despite what we *DO* know is wearing thin.

 

[Dash27]

I'm curious as to why some folks keep tossing around manslaughter. What is it that we know, or think we know, about the shooting that would make it manslaughter rather than 1st or 2nd degree murder?

If the prosecutor feels she can get murder 2 then by all means. I would hate to see her over-reach and end up letting him off because of it. He did call the cops and knew they were coming, I would think first degree murder would be a very tough case to make. They'd have to show any wounds on Zimmerman were self inflicted I would think, or do you disagree.

 

[benjipwns]

So then can you clarify the word "wrong" as you're using it, please? Because the insinuation seems to be pretty obvious.

How *could* have Martin been in the wrong? Examples? The "oh but we just don't know" despite what we *DO* know is wearing thin.

jesus christ.

If you come up to me and say "I'm going to shoot you if you don't put on this Lollipop Chainsaw outfit for PAX" and you shoot me when I don't.

People can say I made the wrong decision.

That doesn't mean you have the right or justification or protection to kill me.

I can't tell you if Trayvon would be alive today if he explained things to Zimmerman, I'm not going to ever claim he would be. I'm saying it's more sensible option.

What's the worst that happens if he explains himself to Zimmerman, he gets shot and dies?

That's where he's at now.

Now please, join up and let everyone take this out of context despite the fact I want Zimmerman to go to trial.

I think with the screaming and pleading for help Trayvon did, 2nd degree murder is more appropriate.

I would not be surprised by a manslaughter charge, but I don't think it would be accurate.

Wasn't really lawyering. I'd rather it go to court whatever the charges.

I get your dissent though.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

If the prosecutor feels she can get murder 2 then by all means. I would hate to see her over-reach and end up letting him off because of it.

+1

 

[JCreasy]

BREAKING!!!!!!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5oAT_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, law enforcement official says

Wednesday, April 11, 10:56 AM

Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey plans to announce as early as this afternoon that she is charging neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, according to a law enforcement official close to the investigation.

YES!!

 

[Dreams-Visions]

BREAKING!!!!!!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5oAT_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost




YES!!

 

[BattleMonkey]

Announcements of announcements. It's like gamegaf.

 

[Loudninja]

Very nice.

 

[Baby Milo]

good

I guess all the news that came out forced her to push her decision up

 

[The Lamonster]

Finally, jesus

 

[Dude Abides]

I believe you still need to prove some sort of intent or state of mind to prove it. You would need to say that he specifically chose to confront Martin to kill him.

No. While murder is a specific intent crime, you are using the term too narrowly. All they have to prove is that he killed him, intended to do so before doing so, and had enough time to decide to do so (again, can be a split second), and the killing was not justified.

Because it is the easiest thing they will be able to convict on. 2nd degree is possible as well.

1st degree will most likely never happen in this case. There is no evidence so far that seems to indicate that it could be 1st degree, and it also is the hardest to convict on. Most cases in which self defense was claimed but the shooter was convicted, it's for manslaughter or 2nd degree. State prosecutors wouldn't go for 1st degree conviction without them having solid case evidence to prove it.

There is plenty of evidence. You have a dead kid and a person who admitted to shooting him.

I said manslaughter because I did not want to make a claim to Zimmerman's state of mind, I'm not on a jury so I will give a benefit of the doubt and assume he fucked up.

By saying manslaughter you already are making a claim about his state of mind.

If the prosecutor feels she can get murder 2 then by all means. I would hate to see her over-reach and end up letting him off because of it. He did call the cops and knew they were coming, I would think first degree murder would be a very tough case to make. They'd have to show any wounds on Zimmerman were self inflicted I would think, or do you disagree.

There is no reason I'm aware of that they could not charge murder 2 and murder 1 in the same proceeding.

 

[JCreasy]

BEST GIF EVER

 

[Flash]

new thread or a title? I'm sure a ton of ppl would want to learn about the latest but are reluctant in coming into this thread because well....yeah. lol.

 

[JCreasy]

new thread or a title? I'm sure a ton of ppl would want to learn about the latest but are reluctant in coming into this thread because well....yeah. lol.

ON IT

 

[BattleMonkey]

good

I guess all the news that came out forced her to push her decision up

Her skipping the grand jury earlier this week, it's been in the works probably for a while now.

 

[Allard]

BREAKING!!!!!!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5oAT_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost




YES!!

Now we just need to wait for what all the charges will be but I'm happy that finally it will go to court. The only problem with this case now that have reached this stage is that it has gotten so much national attention that no matter the outcome of the case whether right or wrong there will be some very emotional triggers waiting to explode at the end of it (Since a tenable group of politicians and media groups have stoked various 'wings' of their parties for one side over the other). We all thought the media circus was bad before the trial, its going to get Casey Anthony level bad during it more then likely.

 

[Kinitari]

New title or new thread?